The problem and the solution. Multiple sources describe how communities of practice (CoPs) work and what their constituent elements may be. These contributions offer valuable insights into learning, meaning, identity, and practice. However,they do not explicitly take recognized theory-building steps (R. Dubin, 1978; R. J.Torraco, 2005) to develop an applied theory of CoPs that researchers can test, apply, and adapt. One solution is to submit CoPs to an applied theory-building research critique. This article reviews the analytical components of E. Wenger's (1998) abstract theory with the intent to specify each component and move the components down the ladder of abstraction.The intent of this critique is to move Wenger's (1998) theory toward an operationalized format for confirmation, application, and continual refinement.After the theory-building research analysis, it was found that the 13 analytical elements of Wenger's CoP contribution did not withstand the theory-building research critique in level of analysis or definitional clarity. Recommendations for future CoP applied theory-building research are provided.
Aalsburg Wiessner, C., Hatcher, T., Storberg-Walker, J., & Chapman, D. (2006). How a professional conference creates new learning: Preliminary findings of a case study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(4), 256-271.
2.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
3.
Chapman, D., Wiessner, C., Storberg-Walker, J., & Hatcher, T. (2007). New learning: A different way of approaching conference evaluation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(4) 261-270.
4.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Chermack, T.J. (2004). A theoretical model of scenario planning. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 301-325.
6.
Christensen, C.M., & Raynor, M.E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66-75.
7.
Contu, A., & Wilmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 1645-1662.
8.
Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science , 31(6), 527-540.
9.
Cross, R., Laseter, T., Parker, A., & Velasquez, G. (2006). Using social network analysis to improve communities of practice. California Management Review, 49(1), 32-60.
10.
Danielson, M.M. (2004). A theory of continuous socialization for organizational renewal Human ResourceDevelopment Review, 3(4), 354-384.
11.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: Free Press.
12.
Duguid, P. (2005). "The art of knowing": Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. The Information Society, 21, 109-118.
13.
Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 853-867.
14.
Garavan, T.N., Carbery, R., & Murphy, E. (2007). Managing intentionally created communities of practice for knowledge sourcing across organizational boundaries: Insights on the role of the CoP manager. The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational Learning Management , 14(1), 34-49.
15.
Garavan, T.N., McGuire, D., & O'Donnell, D. (2004). Exploring human resource development: A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 417-441.
16.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies43(3), 641-653.
17.
Huzzard, T. (2004). Communities of domination? Reconceptualising organizational learning and power. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 350-361.
18.
Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R.J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195-229.
19.
Klein, K. J., & Kozloswki, S. W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Lynham, S. (2002a). The general method of applied theory building research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241.
22.
Lynham, S. (2002b). Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin's method. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 242-276.
23.
O'Donnell, D., Porter, G., McGuire, D., Garavan, T.N., Heffernan, M., & Cleary, P. (2003). Creating intellectual capital: A Habermasian community of practice (CoP) introduction. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27, 80-87.
24.
Pastoors, K. (2007). Consultants: Love-hate relationships with communities of practice. The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational Learning Management, 14(1), 21-33.
25.
Peltonen, T., & Lamsa, T. (2004). "Communities of practice" and the social process of knowledge creation: Towards a new vocabulary for making sense of organizational learning. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 4, 249-262.
26.
Pemberton, J., Mavin, S., & Stalker, B. (2007). Scratching beneath the surface of communities of (mal)practice. The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational Learning Management, 14(1), 62-73.
27.
Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.
28.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639.
29.
Storberg-Walker, J. (2007a). Borrowing from others: Appropriating social capital theories for "doing" HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources , 9(3), 291-311.
30.
Storberg-Walker, J. (2007b). The five components of conceptual development for theory building research in applied disciplines. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1), 63-90.
31.
Storberg-Walker, J., & Chermak, T. (2007). Four methods for completing the conceptual development phase of theory building research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 499-524.
32.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III. (Eds.). (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
33.
Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151-164.
34.
Torraco, R.J. (2002). Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: A comparative analysis. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 355-376.
35.
Torraco, R.J. (2005). Theory development research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 351-374). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
36.
Van de Ven, A.H. (in press). Professional science for a professional school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Accessed April 8, 2004 from http://legacy.csom.umn.edu/WWW.Pages/Faculty/VanDeVen/mgt8101/mgt8101.htm
37.
Verberg, R.M., & Andriessen, J.H.E. (2006). The assessment of communities of practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(1), 13-25.
38.
Weick, K.E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination . Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531.
39.
Weick, K.E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385-390.
40.
Wenger, E. (1996, July/August). Communities of practice: The social fabric of a learning organization. Healthcare Forum Journal , pp. 20-26.
41.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
43.
Whetten, D.A. (2002). Modeling-as-theorizing: A methodology for theory development. In D. Partington (Ed.), Essential skills for management research (pp. 45-71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
