I used to see it exactly this way, but Wengers last book changed
this perception of the concept of CoP for me.
His view of individuals working across boundaries between CoPs (and hence
introducing dissonances) opens
up a degree of expansion akin to (maybe parallel to and influenced
by) YE's interacting Activity Systems.
The main difference still is that YE suggests the principal
contradictions spring from within ASs, whereas I read Wenger as
implying that these come from outside.
Julian
> From: "Geoff
Hayward" <geoff.hayward@educational-studies.oxford.ac.uk>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: community & community of practice
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:51:49 +0100
> Reply-to: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Is there a sense, however, in which YE's idea learning by exapnsion within a
> community is fundamentally different from the idea of learners as legitimate
> peripheral participants in Lave and Wenger's idea of a community of
> practice? I have always worried that the L&W model implies a conservative
> and reactive approach to learning whilst Engestrom seems to be arguing
> against such a reactive view of learning.
>
> Dr Geoff Hayward
> SKOPE Theme 3
> Department of Educational Studies
> University of Oxford
> 15 Norham Gardens
> Oxford
> OX2 6PY
> UK
>
> Phone: 01865 274007
> Fax: 01865 274027
> e-mail: geoff.hayward@edstud.ox.ac.uk
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:25 AM
> Subject: Re: community & community of practice
>
>
> > Perhaps we are jumping ahead since the expanded activity system model that
> > includes community is presented in chapter 2 but one thing that needs to
> be
> > pointed out, since we are jumping ahead, is that the discussion of
> community
> > without discussing "rules" and "division of labor" as well as the
> > fundamental realtions of production, distribution, exchange, and
> comsumption
> > that YE employs within the expanded triangle, is a notable weakness of
> > everything i've ever seen about the meaning of community in CHAT. But I
> > wonder if it wouldn't be better to wait until chapter 2 before entering
> into
> > these issues.
> >
> > Paul H. Dillon
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Charles Nelson <c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>
> > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: community & community of practice
> >
> >
> > > David, I don't know of any good discussions on the differences, but
> > > AT's community of practice might actually be narrower. That is, the
> > > community in an activity are those subjects motivated towards the
> > > same object, whereas in other perspectives, it's often the people
> > > engaged in the same actions, whether or not they are working towards
> > > the same object.
> > >
> > > Charles Nelson
> > >
> > > >I am perhaps jumping ahead in our discussion of LBE (or back to our
> > > >discussion of community in March 2000), but I am trying to
> > > >understand how "community" in Yrjo's understanding of an activity
> > > >system differs, if at all, from the concept of "community of
> > > >practice" in related theorizing, such Wenger and J. Seeley Brown.
> > > >
> > > >This is a particular problem of terminology and theory for me
> > > >because so many people in business, distance education, etc. are
> > > >using the term "community or practice," with a variety of meanings.
> > > >And when I have tried to explain to others using "community of
> > > >practice" that Engestrom's concept is broader I have run into
> > > >confusions, my own and others'. (see, e.g.,
> > > >http://www.newgrange.org/dfoffice/files/community_of_practice_files_dr
> > > >aw.htm
> > > >
> > > >Can anyone point me to a good discussion of the differences?
> > > >
> > > >David
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:39 PDT