Knowledge Ecology vs. CoP

This post will endeavor to compare and contrast knowledge ecologies and communities of practice (CoPs) as discussed by Etienne Wenger in his book "Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity".

Knowledge Ecology

A knowledge ecology is based on the concept of personal knowledge networks (PKNs), loosely joined, and can be understood as a complex, knowledge intensive landscape that emerges from the bottom-up connection of PKNs.

Communities of Practice (CoPs)

Wenger (1998) discusses three dimensions of a CoP (p. 73):

1. How it functions (community): A mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity.

2. What it is about (domain): A joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members.

3. What capability it has produced (practice): The shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time.

Knowledge Ecologies vs. CoPs

A knowledge ecology differs from a CoP on all the three dimensions mentioned above.

According to Wenger, "the first characteristic of practice as the source of coherence of a community is the mutual engagement of participants" (p. 73). It is mutual engagement that binds members of a CoP together as a social entity and enables them to define themselves as members of the CoP. Unlike a CoP, a knowledge ecology is a social entity which has no clear boundaries and membership criteria. It involves an emergent network of people not so tightly bound as a CoP. A knowledge ecology is driven by independence and autonomy rather than membership, mutual engagement, and belonging to a community. Rather than being forced to interact intensely with other members of a CoP, within a knowledge ecology, everyone can rely on her PKN. Often, people turn to their personal relations in order to learn and get their work done, rather than trying to get access to a well established community of mutual engagement. Wenger further stresses that the kind of coherence that transforms mutual engagement into a CoP requires work and asserts that "the work of "community maintenance" is thus an intrinsic part of any practice" (p. 74). In a knowledge ecology, however, people focus on forming and maintaining their PKNs and sustaining dense relations with nodes in their PKNs rather than maintaining the CoP to which they belong.

Wenger states that "the second characteristic of practice as a source of community coherence is the negotiation of a joint enterprise" (p. 77). According to Wenger, a CoP involves organizing around some particular area of knowledge (i.e. a shared domain of interest) that gives members a sense of joint enterprise and shared identity. Membership in a CoP implies a commitment to the domain and a continuous negotiation of a joint enterprise. A CoP is thus a homogeneous social entity consisting of members with a joint enterprise and a shared domain of interest. Unlike CoPs, knowledge ecologies are not bound by a shared practice, a joint enterprise, or an overarching domain. They are open, flexible, heterogeneous, and multi- disciplinary social entities. In a knowledge ecology, people continuously create their PKNs which shape their identity and knowledge home, rather than create a shared identity through engaging in and contributing to the practices of a CoP. Wenger further notes that "communities of practice are not self-contained entities. They develop in larger contexts - historical, social, cultural, and institutional - with specific resources and constraints" (p. 79). Consequently, the practice of a community is profoundly shaped by conditions outside the control of its members due to external efforts to maintain influence and control over the practice. In contrast to CoPs, knowledge ecologies are not positioned within a broader system and are not bound to the control of any external force. They emerge naturally without strong predetermined rules or external authority. Knowledge ecologies are thus self-controlled and self-contained entities.

Wenger notes that "the third characteristic of practice as a source of community coherence is the development of a shared repertoire ... The repertoire of a community of practice includes routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts that the community has produced or adopted in the course of its existence, and which have become part of its practice. The repertoire combines both reificative and participative aspects" (pp. 82-83). In contrast to CoPs, knowledge ecologies lack a shared repertoire and are thus open and distributed knowledge domains. The knowledge resources are distributed over different PKNs within a knowledge ecology. Unlike participation in a CoP, where the result is the development of a community’s set of shared resources and practices, the result of participation in a knowledge ecology is a restructuring of one’s PKN, that is, a reframing of one’s theories-in-use (conceptual/internal level) and an extension of one’s external network with new knowledge nodes (external level).

References:

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

New Skills for Learning Professionals

The Big Question in the Learning Circuits Blog this month is: New skills and knowledge for learning professionals?

In my opinion, within an increasingly complex and fast changing environment, a learning professional should have the skills to continuously keep her Personal Knowledge Network (PKN) up-to-date. As I wrote in an earlier post, a PKN is a unique adaptive repertoire of:

- Tacit and explicit knowledge nodes (i.e. people and information) (external level)

- One's theories-in-use. This includes norms for individual performance, strategies for achieving values, and assumptions that bind strategies and values together (conceptual/internal level)

Consequently, a learning professional has to be:

1. A good knowledge networker (external level), that is one who has the ability to:

- Create, harness, nurture, maintain, and widen her external network to embrace new tacit/explicit knowledge nodes.

- Help others build and extend their networks.

- Identify connections, recognize patterns, and make sense between different knowledge nodes.

- Locate the knowledge node that can help help achieving better results, in a specific learning context.

- Cross boundaries, connect, and coopeate.

- Navigate and learn across multiple knowledge ecologies.

2. A good double-loop learner (conceptual/internal level), that is one who has the ability to:

- construct and adjust her own representation (private image) of the theories-in-use of the whole.

- reflect

- self-criticize and be open for others' criticism.

- detect/correct errors with norms and values specified by a new knowledge setting.

- inquire

- Test, challenge and eventually change her theories-in-use according to the new setting.

How do ants know what to do?

A very interesting video of Deborah Golden talking about how ants learn and work...

In my opinion the behavior of ant colonies can serve as inspiration to help us change the way we learn/work within an increasingly complex and fast changing environment. There are many lessons that we can get from ant colony behavior:

- In ant colonies there is no central control and no ants directs the behavior of others; our learning/work is controlled/directed by the teacher/institution.

-  In ant colonies ants switch tasks, our learning is driven by one task, namely be a passive recipient of information.

- In ant colonies ants adjust to the environment (double-loop learning), we only act according to norms specified by an outside force (single-loop learning).

- Ant colonies are driven by emergence and self-organization, our learning/work is driven by command and control.

Double-Loop Learning

The concept of double-loop learning was introduced by Argyris and Schön in 1978. Argyris (1991) argues that most people define learning too narrowly as mere “problem solving”, so they focus on identifying and correcting errors in the external environment. This is what Argyris calls single-loop learning. But, in the words of Argyris: "If learning is to persist, managers and employees must also look inward. They need to reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organization’s problems, and then change how they act". This deeper form of learning is what Argyris terms “double-loop learning”. Argyris and Schön (1996, p20) define single-loop learning as "learning that changes strategies of actions or assumptions underlying strategies in ways that leave the values of a theory of action unchanged", and douple-loop learning as "learning that results in a change in the values of theory-in-use, as well as in its strategies and assumptions". In other words, Argyris and Schön differentiate between learning that does not change the underlying mental models of the learner but merely revises their application scenarios (single-loop), and learning which does affect such changes (double-loop). Double-loop learning starts from a learner's mental model defined by base norms, values, assumptions, and theories-in-use, and suggests critical reflection to challenge, invalidate, or confirm the used values and theories-of-use. The result of this reflection would be a reframing of one's norms and values, and a restructuring of one's theories-in-use, according to the new settings. Double-loop learning requires self-criticism, i.e. the capacity for questioning ones norms and theories-in-use and encourages inquiry into and testing of one's actions.

In my opinion, the ideas behind douple-loop learning hold several important implications for practice and research around learning and knowledge management.

First, double-loop learning explains the need for self-organized learning and personal knowledge management.

 Second, if the concepts behind double-loop learning are applied properly, the line between learning and KM disappears. Learning and KM become then a matter of creating a freeform environment conducive to inquiry and trial-and-error; that is, an environment in which we can make connections, see patterns, reflect, self-criticize, detect/correct errors, inquire, test, challenge and eventually change our theories-in-use.

Third, learning/KM cannot be achieved by a pre-determined process, such as teacher-driven learning design or linear SECI process. Pre-defined processes cannot work within increasingly complex and fast-changing environments. In complex environments, we're confronted with emerging opportunities and challenges that call for a rethinking of the theory or process-in-use in order to match the needs of the new setting.  

References:

Argyris, C., Schön, D. A. (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1996.

 Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching Smart People How to Learn.

The paradox of choice

In this video, Psychologist Barry explains how "choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied".

Map of Complexity Science

Via George Siemens.

An interesting interactive map of complexity science by Brian Castellani.