Community of practice as a tool for reflexivity: creating space for novice nursing researchers to flourish

This article reports on the mentoring of novice researchers, in particular of women and black academics, at a South African higher education institution. The model used for mentoring was informed by a “communities of practice” perspective which used situated and constructivist learning theories as a conceptual framework. One mentor and eleven protégés were involved. The protégés were divided into three groups of two, four and five participants each. Each group functioned as a community of practice (CoP) and embarked on a research project of its own choice. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the mentoring model, and therefore it explains the participants’ views of their learning and development from a CoP per-spective. Data were collected by means of interviews and observation. The findings indicate how the development of the protégés from legitimate peripheral to more central participation was influenced by the university context, activities and rela-tionships in each CoP, and participants’ individual dispositions. Recommendations to improve the model and for further study are made.

Communities of practice are, and must be, fundamentally voluntary membership groups since they are about sharing of knowledge and expertise, something which cannot be effectively forced. Accordingly, no single person has positional leadership in a community of practice, as there is no formal structure in place to create such hierarchy. However, wherever groups of people exist with any kind of shared task, there is leadership present, and leadership issues are repeatedly emerging aspects of the informal dynamics of that group or community of practice. It has often been noted that there actually is no such thing as a leaderless group. Informal leadership behaviours will come to the fore at certain points in any group’s life, whether consciously evoked or not (Tyson, 1998). Given this scenario, leadership exists in a community of practice (CoP) by informal agreement and negotiation. CoPs usually find it necessary to designate a leader for purposes of coordination and clarification, and possibly for direction of communications and to help structure the group interactions. Leaders are therefore created by the ‘followers’, and have only as much authority as the CoP group is willing to invest in the leadership role. Much research has been done into the psycho-dynamics of group relations, and it is often said that we place a little too much emphasis in our investigations and our speech on the phenomenon of leadership, when we also know that leaders, especially of voluntary groups, cannot function without followers who ‘permit’ the leader to act on their behalf. Leadership and ‘followership’ are thus flipsides of the same coin, and one cannot be understood without the other. Perhaps we should therefore focus on the needs of the followers to see what kind of leader will help the CoP serve its purposes (Long, 1992; Hirschhorn, 1991, 1997). In the CoP, leaders will aid the workings of the community and therefore be granted limited authority by the group on the basis of: • charismatic personality, • superior expert knowledge, • outstanding breadth of knowledge (not necessarily a specialist or expert, but holding some knowledge of a wide domain of interest to the CoP), • high professional standing and reputation, • high capacity to organise and mobilise the CoP (i.e., facilitation skills), or • some combination of some or all of these aspects. (Tyson, 1998) As with all voluntary groups, leaders with limited authority rely heavily on their capacity for positively influencing the work of the CoP and the interactions of its members. This influence takes the form of a number of leadership behaviours that are most likely to sustain the followers and keep the issue of leadership as a constructively assigned informal role. It is worth noting that leadership in this sense is a series of functions, and can be shared by more than one person. However, in order to avoid confused communications and expectations, a designated leader is normally more able to productively assign and direct other contributions of a leadership nature, setting in place a negotiated sharing of the role and functions. The leadership functions of highest value to the CoP will be: • balancing of members’ interests and articulation of agenda items for the CoP, including identifying priority rankings on certain issues; • attending to inclusiveness of the CoP, actively working at drawing in contributions from all members; • facilitating interactions of the CoP, chairing, clarifying, encouraging, summarising, challenging at times, and articulating the issues the CoP may be struggling to articulate; • especially encouraging a culture of egalitarianism and respect for ‘junior partners’, so that neither experience nor strong personality dominates the CoP. These leadership behaviours relate to both the task elements of the CoP and the relationship elements (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2000), as they are described in the Situational Leadership literature. Task elements are more to do with getting the work of the CoP underway and done, and often require a degree of control and directiveness. Relationship elements are more to do with drawing the group together and maintaining its working relationships and sense of connectedness (to each other and to the CoP’s tasks). Noticeably, the actions for leaders of CoPs are more to do with the relationship axis, except where some particular crisis might arise which demands urgent action and interaction from the community, in which rare case a more directive leadership style will work best for a short time. Overall, leaders of communities of practice need to be prepared to renegotiate their leadership status frequently (“If you would prefer that I not operate as leader, that’s OK with me, and we should decide to choose someone else now”), always recognising that they have no power other than that which the CoP members voluntarily surrender upwards to them. This kind of power base does not suit individuals who like clear positional authority, but favours those with high tolerance for ambiguity and strong ‘people’ skills. These are most likely to be able to draw a CoP together and hold it so for a sufficient period of time for it to operate as a sharing community.

This paper presents an extract from a systematic international literature review research work funded by Laureate Online Education and aimed at detecting best practice in online doctoral students’ supervision. It was carried between March and July 2013 out by the authors of the paper, who have been working as online tutor and thesis supervisors at the University of Liverpool in the Online Professional Doctorate of Education (EdD). Prof. Morag Gray is also the Thesis Supervisor Manager in the EdD and she has been working recently for the implementation of the Thesis stage of this same programme. The authors initially illustrated the meaning of supervision as mentoring since while doctoral advising is related to accomplishing doctoral requirements, mentoring refers to both career and psychosocial support to students (Lunsford, 2012). The paper focuses on the idea that student-supervisor relationship is pivotal in student’s success and progress in research and on the idea that the use of a community of practice among supervisors and students may help in sustaining doctoral distance students on their journey and to overcome their sense of loneliness while working online. Some information on the way how the systematic literature review has been carried out is given in the paper namely: the research main aims and objectives, the literature search strategy, the search term used in the work and so on. This work makes an attempt to create connections with the online environment and on how it might be possible to sustain and to enhance the supervisor-student relationship via the internet when doctoral students and supervisors coming from different parts of the world, and who have never met in person. Particularly Andrew (2012) proposed the use of an online community of practice and of regular e-meetings for supporting online students’ work and relationship, also among doctoral students themselves, whilst Rosset & Marino (2005) shared experience on e-coaching providing some interesting insights on the possible use of technology for distance communication purposes and related effects on the individual’s relationship. Hence this paper provides some linkages between the Networked Learning practice and the use of the community of practice metaphor for connecting doctoral students and supervisors

While previous studies in the literature may have used the concept of a community of practice (CoP) to investigate its role for teachers’ professional development, this study identifies the role of a teachers’ CoP in navigating the challenges in online/remote teaching faced by six teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in a university in Thailand during the COVID19 pandemic. This study employed a purposive-convenience sampling method with an individual online interview to gather qualitative data. Findings revealed that although teacher-participants pointed out the lack of students’ interaction, lack of time to do assessment and feedback, and the lack of students’ concentration in online teaching, they greatly acknowledged the role of the teachers’ CoP in navigating the demands and challenges of online teaching during the pandemic. Some of the ascribed roles of the teachers’ CoP in online teaching include; a support group, a source of solutions to online teaching issues, and a learning community. Implications are discussed and suggestions for future studies are offered.

The Nursing and Allied Health Professions (AHP) Departments of one of the largest providers of health and social care education in the UK, have implemented simulated practice-based learning placements across a range of their pre-registration healthcare courses. These simulated placements aim to improve students’ preparedness to practice, enhance the student experience and increase placement capacity. The simulation leads from each department identified that there was no cross-department collaboration around these new innovations. They developed and introduced a Simulation Community of Practice (CoP) across the three nursing fields and eight AHP professions. The aims were to share knowledge and best practice, enhance skills, creation of new knowledge and improve practice. A CoP is defined as a ‘group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ [1]. The development of the CoP was led by the nursing and AHP simulation leads and was based on Wenger’s (2002) CoP framework [1]. Support was gained from senior management to ensure commitment and resources. Terms of reference for the group were developed with clear aims and objectives. Relevant staff across all professions were identified and invited to join. Meetings occur every two months for a duration of two hours, initially online and more recently face to face or hybrid format. Agenda items include sharing and reflections of practice, challenges and solutions; demonstrations of simulated scenarios, online learning packages and virtual reality. Guest speakers are invited to share simulation expertise and research. A Teams site is used to house information, share new developments and opportunities and to allow staff to ask questions and maintain communication between meetings. Staff have gained valuable professional development by learning from others, sharing designs and experiences of simulated placements and learning about best practice. They have enjoyed networking and connecting with others from different professions. They have valued seeing examples of simulated scenarios and innovations and having dedicated time to reflect and discuss innovations and research opportunities. They have found it a supportive environment and a creative space. 100% of staff involved would recommend the CoP to others. The successful introduction of a multidisciplinary Simulation CoP has enabled collaboration and development of knowledge and skills around simulated practice-based learning, including the underpinning pedagogies of simulation design and debriefing. Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Sharing practice: problems and possibilities

In this case study, two high school teachers, a university researcher, and 10 high school students (ages 16–19 years) were part of an action research group that addressed an issue – smoking on school grounds − identified by a high school population as being problematic. The research was guided by the following research questions: ‘Within a community of practice, what processes and practices will support mutual engagement in learning?’ ‘What type of partnership will emerge between youth and adults in this community of practice?’ and ‘What are group members’ perceptions of the value of cultivating a community of practice?’ Data methods and sources included field notes, student and teacher interviews, and document analysis. Using the lenses of communities of practice and youth–adult partnership, outcomes report on how mutual engagement and youth–adult partnership emerged.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to identify the most important approaches to gaining research knowledge employed by full‐time doctoral students in a Chinese university.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis is based on a case study of Tongji University using two sets of convenient samples and interviewing 51 students.FindingsResults show that “academic databases” have outperformed the traditional supervisors' roles in their importance to PhD students' research activities. Also, an approach called “big and small group discussions” by local computer science students is identified to be important. In‐depth analysis of this special practice suggests this learning experience echoes the importance of Wenger's theory of “community of practice” in the research activities of doctoral students.Originality/valueThis paper presents an analysis of doctoral students' research knowledge at a Chinese university. Its findings give critical suggestions for doctoral students' education and also have key theoretical implications, and suggest that future researchers in this area should have a deep understanding of the special form of “community of practice,” both in academic PhD and firm‐level research activities.

Doctoral students and apprentices are much alike. Doctoral students are treated as junior academic scholars. They must follow and learn different knowledge and research skills from their senior academic scholars, mainly supervisors and other congenial faculty members within the department. During the process, reflectivity is one of their vital self-fulfilment tools to elucidate, contemplate, ruminate, and then internalize all the given prescriptions. By adopting communities of practice as a theoretical framework, this article has employed an auto-ethnographical approach aimed at reflecting the author’s lived research experiences as a doctoral student in Hong Kong. By revealing the journeys of accommodating reflexivity, this article argues that, apart from senior members within the communities of practice, cultivations of reflexivity are also feasible from beyond the communities. This article will contribute to levels like doctoral supervision and the fulfilment of doctoral students.

Being (im)polite in New Zealand workplaces: Māori and Pākehā leaders

To facilitate the development of leadership competencies in a multidisciplinary group of 18 emerging bone experts from 6 European Countries and Brazil, to face future scenarios in the evolving field of fragility fractures, and to support secondary fracture prevention and improve patient outcomes. Changes brought by the COVID-19 pandemic have further highlighted this need. A 2.5-year community of practice (CoP) programme was established with two senior bone experts acting as mentors. The content was adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The education impact of the programme was assessed using an ethics-approved mixed-method design consisting of multiple sources of qualitative and quantitative data collected longitudinally. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data underwent a thematic analysis. After participating in the programme, participants reported increased interprofessional collaboration and communication skills, better understanding of health economics and negotiation, application of adult learning principles to their work setting, development of competencies to critically appraise guidelines, enhanced abilities to facilitate behaviour change in others, and improved confidence leading their team through crisis situations. Although time was required for some physicians to get accustomed to the CoP concept and develop trust with other members, it was described as a beneficial real-world learning experience. An educational real-world CoP programme was effective in enhancing leadership competencies among future leaders in the bone field to improve care of fragility fracture patients. The results presented could guide the development of other CoPs in fragility fracture care as leadership competencies are increasingly required in that field.

In this paper, we reflect on and explore what remains to be done to make the concept of supportive environments--one of the Ottawa Charter's five core action areas--a reality in the context of growing uncertainty about the future and accelerated pace of change. We pay particular attention to the physical environment, while underscoring the inextricable links between physical and social environments, and particularly the need to link social and environmental justice. The paper begins with a brief orientation to three emerging threats to health equity, namely ecological degradation, climate change, and peak oil, and their connection to economic instability, food security, energy security and other key determinants of health. We then present three contrasting perspectives on the nature of social change and how change is catalyzed, arguing for an examination of the conditions under which cultural change on the scale required to realize the vision of 'supportive environments for all' might be catalyzed, and the contribution that health promotion as a field could play in this process. Drawing on sociological theory, and specifically practice theory and the work of Pierre Bourdieu, we advocate rethinking education for social change by attending more adequately to the social conditions of transformative learning and cultural change. We conclude with an explication of three key implications for health promotion practice: a more explicit alignment with those seeking to curtail environmental destruction and promote environmental justice, strengthening engagement with local or settings-focused 'communities of practice' (such as the Transition Town movement), and finding new ways to creatively 'engage emergence', a significant departure from the current dominant focus on 'risk management'.

Nowadays, there is a growing trend in the constitution of community of practice (COP) through cell phone communication software. So, studies about COP and its functions seem necessary. In this research, the positive functions of COP have been identified through theme analysis, and then the identified functions have been categorized using exploratory factor analysis. This research has been done in two phases using mixed-method approach. In the qualitative phase, library resources and in the quantitative phase, researcher-made questionnaire were used. In addition, in the qualitative phase, the functions were identified through literature review. The statistical population of the quantitative phase includes employees of public organizations and private firms who are a member of any groups, consisting of their colleagues, on their cell phones using social communication software such as: Telegram, WhatsApp, and Viber. Purposive sampling was used to select the groups and the individuals. 446 individuals, within 19 groups, filled out the questionnaire. 38 main themes have been identified and divided into 6 categories of innovation and problem solving, information and knowledge exchange, collective identity, knowledge ability, continual development, gain and create value.

As regular attendees at the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) Conference, we enjoyed interacting with the highly relevant study by Diane Chapman and her colleagues (Chapman, Wiessner, Morton, Fire, Jones, & Majekodunmi, 2009). In the study, they use several theoretical tools to understand the learning experiences of doctoral students at a professional conference. In our view, the concept of the learning organization serves as a foundation for the creation of new knowledge at conferences. Communities of practice and the idea of legitimate peripheral participation represent the process that occurs at conferences. Knowledge creation is the outcome of these events. We concluded that an additional tool, social network analysis, could help to expand these ideas further. In this reaction article, we explain how the tools of social network analysis might be used to enhance our understanding of doctoral student participation in scholarly conferences.

If communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) are best understood as fluid social relations, enacted among a self-selected group of participants, then are they best left alone, free from “interference” by organizational managers and policymakers? Or are there ways in which organizations can provide helpful support to such communities, without constraining the delicate dynamic by which they are sustained? This paper supports the latter position, arguing that organizations should sponsor the creation of certain loose organizational structures, around which it is hoped that communities of practice may then interact. However, some recent empirical research is presented suggesting that attempts to control group interaction by introducing too much structure are likely to result in the demise of the community itself. It is therefore proposed that there are lower and upper parameters for structural intervention in communities of practice. It is suggested that such communities also have epistemic parameters, where participants’ willingness to express their ideas as conceptual boundary objects around which others may engage and develop ideas is a minimum requirement, but where too much inward communicative focus is likely to result in gradual loss of meaning, with a negative effect on the community. In developing this position, this paper attempts to deepen our theoretical understanding of the interrelationship between organizational structure and the epistemic activity of members of communities of practice. Several practical implications of these insights are discussed for organizations wishing to cultivate and maintain communities of practice within their own working environments.