I agree with you, Julie. My reading of Wenger's 1998 book, _COP_, was that
his idea of communities of practice, well defined in that book, seems quite
parallel to the idea of activity systems. (I did not understand COP this
way until this book, however. _LPP_ did not explain the concept of COPs
very clearly, in my view.) I realize that this seems contradictory, since
one part of the AT triangle is communities of practice. But I see Wenger's
COP as parallel to an activity system in some ways (if we have to make a
parallel), rather than to the community of practice piece of the AT
triangle. It seems that Wenger's community of practice is another way of
looking at the same thing that the activity system looks at. Charles Nelson
wrote, "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." I would argue that's true. So isn't this a question about
unit of analysis? And couldn't you conduct an AT analysis of a COP, in
Wenger's sense of the term? For example, to examine whether or not people
engaged in the same activity are or are not working toward the same object?
If we find that they are working toward the same object, perhaps we are
seeing a clear activity system. If we find they are not working toward the
same object, perhaps we have something else, like Wenger's "boundary
practice" or members of different activity systems who just happen to be in
close physical proximity. Am I dreadfully confused?
Elizabeth
At 11:21 AM 4/3/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>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 - 01:01:40 PDT