Learning While Socializing
Lynn Pregitzer
Pepperdine University
EDOL 755
16 November 2010
Abstract
Finding ways to pass on knowledge is important as organizations feel pressure to raise their level of performance during difficult times. The theory discussed in this paper gives an alternative view to the traditional method education and training. In Etienne Wenger’s view, people learn while they associate with each other. (Wenger, 2006) Using this as a foundation, he develops systems to give groups of people with mutual interests a place to meet and share solutions and learning through conversations.
Learning While Socializing
Organizations face the challenge of effectively managing knowledge to stay competitive. Businesses are faced with staying ahead due to globalization along with technological advances. To optimize efficiency, management must capitalize on its existing knowledge base. This need is amplified in today’s economic depression. Hansen (1999) categorized knowledge mainly as hard and soft. He describes hard knowledge as words and numbers stored in databases and soft knowledge as intuition and wisdom. (Hansen, 1999)
Etienne Wenger (n.d.) describes himself as an expert in social learning. (n.p.) In their book, Lave and Wenger (1991) analyze learning that takes place while people keep company with others. They specifically speak to the apprentice model (as cited in Koliba & Gajda, 2009). Examples include junior carpenters train with master journeymen and midwives that train with a veteran in the field. A very common example of this practice is seen when teenage girls begin learning the art of makeup. They establish relationships with peers that have mastered the skill. Due to the amount of time spent with these “masters” they become adept at it. The learning in this case is incidental and happens at a subconscious level. Dr. Wenger called acquiring new skills in this manner as “Communities of Practice” (COP). (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
Etienne Wenger is the author of several books on COP and speaks on the topic at forums around the world. (Wenger, n.d.) In addition, he is a consultant to major corporations such as Hewlett-Packard, DaimlerChrysler and P&G. Wenger also regards himself as a researcher and is currently leading a new research the project that expands on COP and analyzes the dynamics of learning that spans across schools and universities, corporations, governments and churches. (Wenger, n.d.)
The Theory
Learning in a societal context existed long before Wenger identified it as COP. (Wenger, 2006) In Japan, for example, life-long learning for adults is called shakai kyoiku or social education. (Gordon, 1998) Adult education classes, similar to the non-credit education courses in the United States, are offered to promote learning for life. (Gordon, 1998) Courses are held locally in a casual setting, frequently lead by an expert in the village. Furthering the knowledge base of the people in this manner is important because people rarely pursue a higher level of education in the formalized system once they graduate from high school or college. (Gordon, 1998) The Japanese Ministry of Education supports these activities through formalized laws and policies. (Gordon, 1998) Although learning has occurred in this manner for centuries, through his research, Wenger (2006) illustrated it as a practical model applicable to organizations.
The three elements of COPs are a realm of interest and commitment by the members, a space where the members can congregate and a collection of shared solutions, experiences and stories. (Wenger, 2006)
In the first key element, Wenger uses the term “domain” to describe the common goals the groups subscribes to. (Wenger, 2006) There is an underlying commitment to the purpose of the group because of the mutual benefit. As I see it, this is innate to how teenage girls form cliques. Their mutual interests bring them together and through storytelling they learn new skills such as how to apply makeup. In a business example, a Canadian insurance company with 3,000 geographically distributed independent sales agents used the COP to discuss new products, best practices and resolve issues. (Wenger, 2002)
The second required element is space. (Wenger, 2006) This is where the conversations happen and activities are held to build relationships. (Wenger, 2006) These spaces can be impromptu like a gathering in the bathroom at school, or preplanned lie a meeting in conference room. COPs can be held on online environments as well. (Wenger, 2001) This implies that transference of knowledge can occur without boundaries. An perfect example of this the use of social mediums like facebook and twitter. Teenagers are now able to codify the acquired knowledge on these websites.
The third characteristic is the element of practice. (Wenger, 2006) This is explained as the solutions that are arrived at collaboratively, joint use of resources or the experiences shared in the group. (Wenger, 2006) The value of the informal structure is that it facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge from one to another. (Wenger, 2006) A long standing tradition in high schools are sororities. Something that started as informal gathering in hallways and bathrooms, became a supported institution that lived on long after the girls graduated. The tales and best practices are left behind in manuals, videos and online media to build on the past.
Practical Applications
COPs are not effective in all situations. (Wenger, 2010) Wheatley (2000) says people are likely to help each other when they feel their contribution will be valued, when the organization encourages them to learn and when the colleague is important to them. Wenger confirms Wheatley’s assertion. (Wenger, 2010) Organizations must support and endorse learning for this to work. For instance, an organization that designs its rewards system at the individual level will discourage group participation. (Wenger, 2010) Employees have to feel their contributions as valued by management. (Wenger, 2010)
COPs have demonstrated core benefits to organizations by realizing savings in time and money. (Wenger, 2010) This is realized by quick access to people and artifacts. (Wenger, 2006). Some groups even saved money by sending representatives instead of paying for the whole group to attend conferences to enhance the knowledge base of the entire group. (Wenger, 2010) In addition to the aforementioned tangible outcomes, inspiration and trust are intangible benefits realized by thriving practices. (Wenger, 2010)
In conclusion, the practice is effective only in specific situations where a free exchange of information through conversation of experts will realize a solution to a complex problem. (Wenger, n.d.) In hallways of every high school, new knowledge is being absorbed by teenagers engaging with each other. This type of learning cannot occur within the formal walls of the classroom. Learning how to apply makeup is efficiently occurring without any formal cost or venue in cliques. Conversely, there are examples where COPs are inefficient. Take for example, learning about school policies. Generally speaking, such explicit information is best given out on a manual. Similarly, in the business world, I think executives have difficulty connecting this theory to a real return on investment. Intuitively, I agree that there is a real benefit to connecting with peers, but the concept seems too fluid without a formalized structure. Using the example of the teenagers, I think the knowledge will disappear as the students graduate and move on. Interestingly enough, the creating a sorority leaves a legacy behind which the group can keep learning from. The structure of COP is used by companies, but are not referred to in these specific terms. To be able to deploy this as a product, it is necessary to show a real return on investment of developing the COP technology. Koliba and Gajda (2009) confirms in their writing that future research is needed to prove the efficacy of communities of practice in organizations.
References
Christopher Koliba, R. G. (2009). "Communities of Practice" as an Analytical Construct: Implications for Theory and Practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 98-135.
Gordon, B. (1998, March). Lifelong Learning in Japan. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Lifelong Learning in Japan: http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/lifelrn.htm
Hansen, M. N. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, 106-116.
Koliba, C., & Gajda, R. (2009). "Communities of Practice" as an Analytical Construct: Implications for Theory and Practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 97-135.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2001, March). Supporting Communities of practice; A Survey of Community-oriented technologies. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger: http://www.ewenger.com/tech/index.htm
Wenger, E. (2002, September). Clarica's Agent Network. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger.
Wenger, E. (2006, June). Communities of Practice. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/
Wenger, E. (2010, May). Vimeo.Com. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/11712562
Wenger, E. (n.d.). Etienne C. Wenger My Bibliographical Information. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Etienne Wenger: http://www.ewenger.com/bio/index.htm
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide of Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Wheatley, M. (2000). Can knowledge management succeed where other efforts have failed? . Knowledge management: Classic and contemporary works, 3-8.
No comments:
Post a Comment