Dear All,
This conversation is particularly important and interesting to me, as I have
been wondering about communities of practice(s) in my own research, and
attempting to, in a methodological sense, articulate them. What I've been
observing in this conversational thread is blowing me away, because the
discussion has provided insight into this issue of mapping and territory, and
rules, norms, shared and divergent beliefs, etc. Perhaps a COP is negotiated,
a process rather than a thing? Made especially visible when, at certain
junctures there is more than the average disagreement, conflict, difference? I
mean, this conversation is certainly more self-conscious than the everyday
setting of say, the corner barbershop, I don't believe barbers don't stand
around and talk about communities of practice (at least, my father-in-law
certainly doesn't, but maybe there are conversations that barbers have that I
haven't been privy to -- oh no, another study!). But I can imagine that
barbers do talk about customers, what makes a good barber or haircut, fees,
and a bunch of other topics related to their practice. As for my own feelings
about participation/nonparticipation, I have to overcome a lot to get myself
to participate in xmca-- terror of putting my ideas out there for scrutiny,
dislike for such a creepily disembodied mode of expression, and strong desire
to communicate and learn from and with people who are interested/passionate
about mutual subjects. I don't know what the "object" of the xmca listserve
is and I don't recall seeing a mission statement or the equivalent, but I'm
pretty clear what my object(s) are, and they're pretty wide ranging and
complex.
>===== Original Message From xmca@weber.ucsd.edu =====
>Dear xmca-ers,
>
>This morning i realised that every day - let us say - 300 xmca-ers (is that
>appr. the number of inactive members, Eva?) are deleting their messages
>without responding, including 99,99% of the occasions me. Does this idea
>bother me?
>No, it does not in the case i can follow the ungoing discussion, unless
>information is being exchanged about books, conferencemeetings, work and
>researchsituations, meetings with colleagues aboard etc. Like in a (real)
>group discussion the 'silent' members can be satisfied, active listeners,
>and so am i when i am involved (and sometimes even respond).
>But when i can not follow the discussion i get uninterested, thinking 'well
>let us hope for better times, just delete'.
>When does this happen? When there is too much unnecessary jargon in too
>long messages, too little context, too little connection with relevant
>'personal stories' , too little variety in the discussion.
>I am very willing to consider the fact of my getting uninvolved as a
>personal matter, due to restricted interests, difficulty with english
>terminology as a dutch native speaker and my reservedness to active
>participation. And i must say that in general i find this list very
>valuable and informative.
>But now the question is being raised of the limited participation i thought
>that maybe these considerations are not altogether 'personal'.
>I agree with Mary (if i understood you right) that it is worthwile to think
>about conditions in which people do _not_ participate. I just wanted to let
>you know under what conditions i 'drop out'.
>
>Anna
>
>
>
>Mary Bryson wrote
>>when folks hear "communities of practice" and "conditions for
>participation" they
>>seem to forget about conditions for non-participation, the DE-legitimated
>>peripheral practioners.
>
>=================================================================
>Anna Strumphler, e-mail: W.deVries@net.HCC.nl
>Amsteldijk 28 tel.: (31)20-6719906
>1074 HT Amsterdam
>The Netherlands
Vanderbilt University &
Partnership for After School Education
New York, N.Y.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:03 PST