CoPexamples

1. Case Study: online community of critical care and advanced practice nurses Summary: 2.
 * Focusing on nurses part of an online community, study wanted to know what constitutes a CoP, and what are the success factors that keep it going?
 * Nurse practitioners listserv, largest nurses online group in US; study involved 14 nurse-members with data collection methods of online observations of activities on listserv for one month over four years and phone interviews. In their data analysis, researchers used content analysis approach to code online communication messages.
 * They used Wenger's characteristics of a CoP to analyze whether the online community was a CoP
 * Nurses found listserv was a way to reduce isolation due to job function and geographical location; this is common in teaching too
 * It was also a valuable learning resource for nurses who did not contribute/interact online; they were engaged in "vicarious interaction": defined by Sutton as "what takes place when a student (participant) actively processes both sides of a direct interaction between two other students (Participants)." (p. 4, 2000).
 * Study also found the listserv fostered online interaction because it was safe and non-competitive - users could be open about sharing what they do and do not know (or are expected to know) since members were from different organizations; in a competitive workplace environment that rewards individual performance and knowledge, sharing knowledge may not be commonplace; this allowed users to build up their own knowledge and share it
 * One reason why the listserv drew people in is because of the quality and diversity of its members; several were top nurses in the nation
 * Researchers found evidence of a CoP among nurses and identified the following success factors from their data: 1) self selection membership, 2) a need to ask questions and validate one's practice with others in shared practice, 3) a need to keep up with current knowledge and best practices in the field, 4) noncompetitive environment, 5) convenience of the medium, 6) role of listserv moderator

3. Tapped In Koch and Fusco
 * CoPs can't be artificially "designed" in real or virtual world, but they can designed //for//: "They can be recognized, supported, encouraged, and nurtured, but they are not reified, designable units." (Wenger, 1998, p. 229)
 * CoPs can support PD via informal collegial interactions and benefit most from __phased assistance__ provided by community developers to the CoP leaders, participants, and early adopters of the system
 * Phased approach - articulate CoP vision and scaffold early online activities with gradual release of responsibility as organization grows (end goal, sustain and scale of CoP)
 * Three phase appraoch: Getting Started, Modeling and Scaffolding, and Maturing
 * Schalger & Fusco, 2003 definition of CoP: "Self-reproducing, emergent, and evolving entities that frequently extend beyond formal organizational structures"
 * Its members focus on practice-based learning to improve own and shared practice of the CoP (collective mission)
 * Schwen and Hara (2004) found functional CoPs had emerged naturally over time, several years
 * Social aspects of CoP are the artifacts of individuals and the dynamics among them. This includes the CoP mission, their structured activities, reesources, and interactions.
 * Online, technological aspacts are online tools that support the artifacts and communications, such as discussion boards.
 * The social aspects influence the technological aspects, which in tunr influece the virtual CoP; ongoing exchange called "Duality of technology" Orlikowski (1992)
 * Building trust is essential to success of CoPs
 * Tapped In**
 * Before you choose tech. tools you want to use in an online community, it's important to first focus on the needs, practices, and social dymanics of the users
 * phased-in approach focuses on building org. capacity -
 * In my project, I'm going to assess whether we meet definition of CoP first -- then work on moving this CoP online
 * 1) Getting Started: **define** **goals** and vision for both the organization(s) and the CoP, noting the differnces between the two, do the same for online and off-line; identify members' **needs**; learn to use online features (training), try moving a face-to-face activity to online, build successful first experience
 * important to demonstrate the value of online activity immediately -- find one that is of value to/meets needs of both the org. and the CoP in which **community developer/manager models facilitation strategies**
 * distinction: an online CoP is a way to support the work of an existing CoP, not to create one!
 * **identify online** **leaders and initiators** - they **organize training**, w/ community manager, first face-to-face then online and **introduce** the orgs. to the online space
 * **trust building** among the community leader, initators, org. leaders can begin in person then move online
 * 1) Modelling and Scaffolding: i**dentify community leaders** - recruit and train them; **try a range of activities** - what works for them?; assess progress - what's happening? who's participating?; consult with community developer and gain confidence working online; plan for growth and sustainability -
 * moves from modeling community mngt behaviors to scaffold them, making actions explicit for CoP leaders and introducing resources
 * org. defines roles and responsibilities of CoP staff; community manager is key - keeps people engaged, manages activities, etc.
 * the community developer should transition to nonparticipation, a "peripheral participant" - new leaders can become full participants and take on more responsibilty
 * 1) Maturing: bring in new members and manage CoP - assess CoP; connect with related CoP, foster smaller ones
 * Tapped In - 60k members,