Relations between generations, though important for ensuring the continuation and transformation of practices are not exclusively harmonious. The interrelations that are formed through engagement in practice can be supportive and constructive, but they can also be fraught with tension and conflict. The relationships formed through mutual engagement reflect the complexities of doing things together. They are:
“complex mixtures of power and dependence, pleasure and pain, expertise and helplessness, success and failure, amassment and deprivation, alliance and competition, ease and struggle, authority and collegiality, resistance and compliance, anger and tenderness, attraction and repugnance, fun and boredom, trust and suspicion, friendship and hatred” (Wenger, 1998, p77).
Though Wenger recognised the potential for tension and conflict to occur in the course of mutual engagement, a common criticism of Lave and Wenger’s situated learning theory and their subsequent work on Communities of Practice is that they fail to fully explore the significance of unequal power relations in the operation of communities of practice (Fuller et al, 2005). Wenger (2010) himself accepts that the term community risks unintentionally connoting harmony and homogeneity, and that the self-generating character of CoPs may appear to obscure the degree to which they are influenced and shaped by their wider institutional, political and cultural context. Wenger-Trayner (2016) argues however that Communities of Practice Theory is a profoundly political theory of learning. He argues that when the definition of competence is a social process within a community of practice, power relations are inherent (Farnsworth, Kleanthous & Wenger-Trayner, 2016).
A community of practice is a social history of learning. Over the course of time that a community develops, they define and create a regime of competence. That is, the community come to define what determines successful and valued practice and how that practice should be performed within that community. This creates a boundary between those with experience of that history and those without (Farnsworth, Kleanthous & Wenger-Trayner, 2016). For those who have experience of the
51
community, who have the legitimacy to enforce the regime of competence or successfully challenge it, it offers a form of power, but for those without experience, boundaries can hinder participation by limiting access to practice and learning resources. Not all participation is considered legitimate, nor has the power to change the criteria for competence. For those who identify with a community and hold themselves accountable to its regime of competence therefore, every learning move made is a claim to competence which may or may not be successful (Farnsworth, Kleanthous & Wenger-Trayner, 2016). Identification and accountability to a community therefore makes members vulnerable to its power plays (Wenger, 2010).
During the course of their participation in a CoP, members will obtain positions of varying standing based upon a number of factors including for example their experience, age, expertise and authority. Those who’s higher standing allows for more centripetal participation, attain a greater role within the community, and therefore wield greater power in defining competence and negotiating meaning (Roberts, 2006). But the ability to both adopt and produce meaning within a community of practice is an important facet of learning for all members. In the pursuit of a joint enterprise, members must draw upon their own experience as a resource or adopt the proposals of others. It is in the adoption and production of practice that newcomers are able to appropriate the meanings of their community and progress in their trajectory of participation. A member’s contributions in turn are only effective where they are adopted by the community. Where members’ contributions are never adopted therefore, they are increasingly likely to develop an identity of non-participation that marginalises them.
In CoPs there is a higher propensity for some members to mostly produce meaning, while others merely adopt (Wenger, 1998). This tends to be most often the case in communities with a hierarchal structure where negotiation is limited to key figures of authority, limiting the power of other community members (Roberts, 2006). Where the ownership of meaning is unequally distributed in this way, marginality and an inability to learn can result (Wenger, 1998). Klein, Connell and Meyer (2005) refers to communities such as this as stratified. They describe stratified communities as those that explicitly acknowledge the differential experience of members and treat different grades differently i.e. forming strong distinctions between novices, masters and intermediaries in terms of the activities the members are permitted to perform. Knowledge here flows down the hierarchy of grades meaning progression and promotion within the community is largely dependent on the successful assimilation of the knowledge of ‘old-timers’. Klein et al contrast this structure with that of the egalitarian community in which differences between grades are minimised, affording members relatively equal treatment.
52
Typically, the experience of old-timers means it is often them who have more power than newcomers to assess claims of competence. Where they use this power to prevent newcomers sharing their own perspective it has the potential to prevent learning both for the newcomer, and the community at large, who are denied the opportunity to gain the fresh perspective of an outsider (Wenger-Trayner, 2016). These constraints, whereby more powerful practitioners deny novices access to full participation are not solely a consequence of the broad structure of the community at large i.e. egalitarian vs. stratified but are also affected by the agendas of individual community members. Carlile (2004) for instance, argues that these constraints are most likely to occur where newcomers threaten to transform the existing practices of the community, risking the stake full participants have invested in its practice. But newcomers also pose a threat in the sense that they might ultimately out-perform or even replace old-timers. Lave and Wenger (1991, p116) argued of the relationship between new and established members that ‘each threatens the fulfilment of the other’s destiny, just as it is essential to it”.
Warhurst (2008) for example, found established lecturers prevented newcomers from contributing to practice by engaging in behaviours such as denying them access to assessment design meetings. Warhurst postulates that this resulted from the newcomers’ experience of a teaching development programme, which may have caused their established colleagues to feel threatened by their up-to- date pedagogic understanding, which they countered by marginalising and thus disempowering the new lecturers. Similarly, Johnston (2016) evidenced where student teachers struggled to gain validation for their contributions to classroom practice as a result of conflicting pedagogic values between newcomers and old-timers. While student teachers hoped to try new ideas with their pupils, applying learning promoted in their university classes, host teachers would deny them the opportunity, blaming the potential for the new methods to negatively impact the class. Rather than gaining the opportunity to develop their own pedagogic style in a context with a shared sense of purpose, support and trust, the students were pressured to merely adopt the existing approach. This was experienced as an emotionally draining experience in which the students felt controlled and disempowered. Where an individual’s claims to competence are consistently rejected in this manner, they will feel more inclined to dis-identify with a trajectory toward full-participation in that community (Farnsworth, Kleanthous & Wenger-Trayner, 2016).
However, though the production of meaning within a community is an important aspect of belonging, adopting meaning is in itself an essential element of practice. In order to adopt meaning and thus learn from the community, members require authentic access to engagement in participative and reificative aspects of practice (Wenger, 1998). This requires opportunities to interact with others in the course of their own engagement and to gain access to the full reificative paraphernalia of the
53
community in the course of its use i.e. tools, language, documents etc. A lack of access to either Wenger (1998) argues, results in an inability to learn. It has however been argued that Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theorising fails to offer substantiating, empirical evidence particularly of how power operates in the social relations between newcomers and ‘old timers’ (Johnston, 2016).
Johnston (2016) was able to demonstrate numerous ways in which the power differential in a community of teachers had the capacity to limit participation and hinder learning. Established teachers were demonstrated to show a lack of commitment to supporting student teachers due to competing time commitments. Students consequently felt that their presence in the community was merely something for host teachers to endure. A reluctance for host teachers to help, left students choosing to manage problems alone, denying themselves access to potential resources for support. The emotional toll of feeling like a burden made many re-evaluate their trajectory and one left teaching entirely. Students felt there were instances where trust and respect between themselves and their host teacher was compromised leaving them to feel powerless, such as when their host teacher would undermine their practice in front of pupils - challenging their authority and credibility, contributing to feelings of peripherality. Many host teachers showed reluctance to let student teachers lead classes in the run up to exams insinuating to students they had a lack of trust and confidence in their skills. The resultant lack of contact time with pupils left student teachers unable to develop a strong repertoire of teaching approaches. Roberts (2000) agues perceptions of power, and its use, impacts the degree of trust that exists among those engaged in practice, but argues that trust, familiarity and mutual understanding facilitate openness and are thus prerequisites for the successful sharing of tacit knowledge. Relatedly, in the latter half of this chapter, when the ideas of Vygotsky are introduced it will be argued that interpersonal relationships lay the foundations for effective learning relationships (Tobbell and O’Donnell, 2013b). In this instance, student teachers were not only denied necessary teaching experience, but the lack of mutual trust and respect meant ownership was removed from them causing them to feel powerless within the community, limiting their confidence to ask questions, take risks and become the kind of teacher they hoped to be (Johnston, 2016). Evidently, though mutual engagement in the pursuit of a joint endeavour is a necessity to ensure the longevity of a community of practice, relations between members are not exclusively benevolent. What is best for the community, is not always seen as being best for oneself, and where this is the case, implicit practices that risk marginalising newcomers may perpetuate the community.
Johnston (2016) citing Baumeister and Leary (1995) argues that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation and that denials of this need lead to significant anxiety, stress and diminished performance. In the example for student teachers for instance, being made to feel like an unwanted guest inhibited students from developing the confident, reflective teacher identity that would enable
54
them to make the most of their placement opportunity. Wenger-Trayner (2016) does however recognise the impact of belongingness on identity, but also highlights the empowering nature of identification, arguing that where a community member feels a strong sense of identification with the competence of a community, then rejection such as that outlined thus far will be a painful experience, but where an individual does not identify with their community they can maintain a sense of agency (Farnsworth, Kleanthous & Wenger-Trayner, 2016). The extent to which something has power over a person, Wenger-Trayner argues therefore, depends on how much that person identifies with it. Wenger-Trayner theorised that identity, in addition requires the negotiation of identification across multiple CoPs (Farnsworth, Kleanthous & Wenger-Trayner, 2016). Handley, Sturdy, Fincham and Clark (2006) suggest that the capacity of individuals to compartmentalise their identity and behaviours according to the community they’re currently ‘in’ whilst trying to maintain a coherent sense of self is however a difficult task to achieve. They propose that individuals maintain a sense of agency through adopting different forms of participation and identity within different communities which can generate tensions within the individual and can result in instabilities within the communities in which they participate. The dynamics between identity development and forms of participation are therefore a key influence to the way in which a person will internalise, challenge or reject the existing practices of their community. Where a newcomer is expected to adopt a certain role, which conflicts with their sense of self, they may elect to accept a marginal form of participation in order to avoid compromising their sense of self and to maintain a sense of agency (Handley et al, 2006). Alternatively, they may adapt their practice just enough to notionally fit in with community norms “exemplifying a contingent form of participation”, or indeed they may even choose not to join the community of practice at all (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham and Clark, 2006).