Partnerships and communities of practice: a social learning perspective on community safety

1. Partnerships and communities of practice: a social learning perspective on community safety SCCJR Seminar Series Glasgow 21 October 2009 Alistair Henry (University of Edinburgh)

2. Overview of presentation • Wenger’s ‘communities of practice’ • From apprenticeship to ‘communities of practice’ • Dimensions of ‘communities of practice’ (domain, community, practice) • Familiarity of ‘communities of practice’ (even reflexive actors stand on the shoulders of giants; ubiquitous, organic and part of our ‘becoming’) • Communities of practice in organisations (the designed and the emergent, identification and negotiability; interstitial CoP; brokering and boundaries) • Communities of practice in CS partnerships (a shared interest; a valued enterprise; a capacity to do things; the right community; sustainability and memory)

3. Wenger’s ‘communities of practice’ • From apprenticeship to ‘communities of practice’ • Wenger’s theory evolved from an attempt to ‘rescue’ the idea of apprenticeship (Lave and Wenger, 1991) • Different social and cultural forms of apprenticeship (Yucatec Mayan midwives, Liberian Tailors, naval quartermasters, supermarket butchers, non-drinking alcoholics) • Lessons to be drawn: learning occurred through everyday collective practices, opportunities for learning opened up by legitimate membership, learning was about ‘changing identities’

4. “(A) theory of social practice emphasizes the relational interdependency of agent and world, activity, meaning, cognition, learning and knowing. It emphasizes the inherently socially negotiated character of meaning and the interested, concerned character of the thought and action of persons-in-activity. This view also claims that learning, thinking and knowing are relations among people in activity in, with, and arising from the socially and culturally structured world.” (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 50-51)

5. “A community of practice is a set of relations among persons, activity, and world over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice. A community of practice is an intrinsic condition for the existence of knowledge, not least because it provides the interpretive support necessary for making sense of its heritage. Thus, participation in the cultural practice in which any knowledge exists is an epistemological principle of learning.” (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98)

6. Dimensions of ‘communities of practice’ Three overlapping and inter-related dimensions of CoP • ‘Domain’ – the shared project or interest that gives a community its purpose and its focus – marks out what is valued by the community and what ‘counts’ as relevant to it. • ‘Community’ – those engaged in common pursuit of the domain – the ‘social fabric’ of learning • ‘Practice’ – a set of ‘frameworks, ideas, tools, information, styles, language, stories’ – the knowledge and competencies of members, as well as what they do See: Wenger et al. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press.

7. Familiarity of ‘communities of practice’ Even reflexive actors ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ – creativity of actors within structural constraints (explicit influence of Giddens, Bandura, Becker, Fish, Goodman, Kuhn etc. on Wenger’s CoP) • CoP are inevitable and everywhere • We are all members of a ‘constellation’ of CoP • We are more immersed in some CoP than others • Membership of CoP changes over time • CoP provide the ‘interpretive support’ for social interactions • CoP arise informally (but can also exist in formal contexts)

8. Communities of practice in organisations • Designed and emergent structures • Designed structures of organisations (physical buildings, departmental structures, job descriptions and hierarchies, strategic documents and business plans) • Emergent structures evolve within CoP in response to institutional designs of the organisation • Possible for emergent structures to be closely orientated around designed structures but they would not be identical

9. Interstitial communities of practice • Unintended CoP that emerge in response to design problems – or where emergent practices fall out of alignment with institutional designs • Identification and negotiability • Identification – investment of self in particular roles and identities (valued roles create identification) • Negotiability – degree of capacity one has to mould what it is to be the bearer of a given identity

10. Boundaries and brokering • As CoP develop they develop shared meanings, symbols, practices for those enmeshed within them -they ‘deepen’ – creating boundaries between those who have a sense of this history of practice and those who do not • Brokering – crucial role through which CoP in organisations are joined up – brokers tend to be peripheral members of many different CoP in the organisation See: Wenger (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press.

11. Communities of practice in community safety partnerships Recommendations to promote the development of community safety and productive communities of practice under its auspices. Five interlinked themes emerged: • A shared interest • A valued enterprise • A capacity to do things • The right community • Sustainability and memory

12. A shared interest • Communities of practice evolve around shared interests (domains) that people have in common • ‘Community safety’ is open-textured and ambiguous – positive in that it gets members around the table (“we all have an interest in that”) – negative in that it does not imply a clear set of practices. • Specific initiatives (ASB, wardens’ schemes, business crime initiatives) may provide clearer domains that support different CoP within Community Safety Partnerships • Brokering role of the Designated Officers

13. A valued enterprise Commitment to (and identification with) an activity is likely to be limited if it is not recognised as a valued activity (although there are different audiences who might value it) • Valued enterprise to partner agencies – promotion prospects and marginalisation; symbolic and real commitment through seniority of secondments; consistency of secondments • Auditing and performance regimes – gives recognition to an activity – but creates a danger of interstitial CoP around auditing process

14. A capacity to do things Partnerships as “talking shops”? – a lack of capacity to have an effect on the world (negotiability) likely to be corrosive of members’ interest in the shared project (domain) • Funding of community safety – annual to three year funding cycles – an uncertain future? • Running agendas through community safety – gives CS specific domains of practice but there was resistance to some of the ‘narrower’ agendas • Getting parent agencies to act – seniority, status and ‘having the ear’ of the necessary people

15. The right community • Democracy and community safety – the problem of “community consultation”; elected representatives, Community Councils and the development of evidence-based priorities • Trust amongst members – shared commitment to the partnership and its value – formal protocols, recognition of occupational differences, and mutuality. • Sustainability and memory • Mentoring of new members • Co-location of Designated Officers – symbolic messages about value, status and shared domain • Occupational identities around ‘community safety’ – “radical cadres of transformative power” (Hughes, 2002)

16. Key references • Lave and Wenger (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Wenger (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press.