Communities  of  practice     1   A  brief  introduction  –  V  April  15,  2015   Communities  of  practice   a  brief  introduction     Etienne  and  Beverly  Wenger-­‐Trayner     A  group  of  internal  auditors  in  the  public  sector  from  different  countries  in  Eastern   Europe  and  Central  Asia  were  having  their  34th  official  meeting.  For  seven  years  now   they  had  been  coming  together  to  hear  how  others  in  the  region  were  engaged  in   internal  audit  and  to  create  manuals  and  other  publications  that  they  felt  were  missing   from  their  profession.    Only  a  few  of  the  original  members  were  still  part  of  the  group,   but  the  shared  work,  stories,  and  artifacts  created  over  time  gave  their  meetings  a  sense   of  continuity  and  purpose.  If  you  were  a  fly-­‐on-­‐the  wall  at  one  of  their  events  you  would   notice  how  new  members  were  warmly  welcomed  into  “the  family”,  how  many  people   stepped  up  to  take  initiative  or  share  their  war  stories,  and  how  ambitious  core  members   were  to  advance  the  practice  of  internal  audit  in  the  public  sector  in  the  region.  Evening   events,  organized  by  the  host  country,  were  always  lively  -­‐  with  singing,  dancing  and  the   singing  of  a  hymn  composed  and  sung  by  members.   -­‐ The  PEMPAL  Internal  Auditors  Community  of  Practice   -­‐   The  term  "community  of  practice"  is  of  relatively  recent  coinage,  even  though  the   phenomenon  it  refers  to  is  age-­‐old.  The  concept  has  turned  out  to  provide  a  useful   perspective  on  knowing  and  learning.  A  growing  number  of  people  and  organizations  in   various  sectors  are  now  focusing  on  communities  of  practice  as  a  key  to  improving  their   performance.     This  brief  and  general  introduction  examines  what  communities  of  practice  are  and  why   researchers  and  practitioners  in  so  many  different  contexts  find  them  useful  as  an   approach  to  knowing  and  learning.   What  are  communities  of  practice?   Communities  of  practice  are  formed  by  people  who  engage  in  a  process  of  collective   learning  in  a  shared  domain  of  human  endeavor:  a  tribe  learning  to  survive, .

1. Communities
of
practice
1
A
brief
introduction
–
V
April
15,
2015
Communities
of
practice
a
brief
introduction
Etienne
and
Beverly
Wenger-­‐Trayner

2. A
group
of
internal
auditors
in
the
public
sector
from
different
countries
in
Eastern
Europe
and
Central
Asia
were
having
their
34th
official
meeting.
For
seven
years
now
they
had

3. been
coming
together
to
hear
how
others
in
the
region
were
engaged
in
internal
audit
and
to
create
manuals
and
other
publications
that
they
felt
were
missing
from
their
profession.
Only
a
few

4. of
the
original
members
were
still
part
of
the
group,
but
the
shared
work,
stories,
and
artifacts
created
over
time
gave
their
meetings
a
sense
of
continuity
and
purpose.
If
you
were
a
fly-­‐on-­‐the

5. wall
at
one
of
their
events
you
would
notice
how
new
members
were
warmly
welcomed
into
“the
family”,
how
many
people
stepped
up
to
take
initiative
or
share
their
war
stories,
and
how
ambitious

6. core
members
were
to
advance
the
practice
of
internal
audit
in
the
public
sector
in
the
region.
Evening
events,
organized
by
the
host
country,
were
always
lively
-­‐
with
singing,
dancing
and
the

7. singing
of
a
hymn
composed
and
sung
by
members.
-­‐ The
PEMPAL
Internal
Auditors
Community
of
Practice
-­‐
The
term
"community
of
practice"
is
of
relatively
recent
coinage,
even
though
the

8. phenomenon
it
refers
to
is
age-­‐old.
The
concept
has
turned
out
to
provide
a
useful
perspective
on
knowing
and
learning.
A
growing
number
of
people
and
organizations
in
various
sectors
are
now
focusing

9. on
communities
of
practice
as
a
key
to
improving
their
performance.
This
brief
and
general
introduction
examines
what
communities
of
practice
are
and
why
researchers
and
practitioners
in
so
many

10. different
contexts
find
them
useful
as
an
approach
to
knowing
and
learning.
What
are
communities
of
practice?
Communities
of
practice
are
formed
by
people
who
engage
in
a
process
of
collective

11. learning
in
a
shared
domain
of
human
endeavor:
a
tribe
learning
to
survive,
a
band
of
artists
seeking
new
forms
of
expression,
a
group
of
engineers
working
on
similar
problems,
a
clique
of
pupils

12. defining
their
identity
in
the
school,
a
network
of
surgeons
exploring
novel
techniques,
a
gathering
of
first-­‐time
managers
helping
each
other
cope.
In
a
nutshell:
Communities
of
practice
are
groups
of
people

13. who
share
a
concern
or
a
passion
for
something
they
do
and
learn
how
to
do
it
better
as
they
interact
regularly.
Communities
of
practice
2

14. A
brief
introduction
–
V
April
15,
2015
Note
that
this
definition
allows
for,
but
does
not
assume,
intentionality:
learning
can
be
the
reason
the
community
comes
together
or
an
incidental
outcome
of

15. member's
interactions.
Not
everything
called
a
community
is
a
community
of
practice.
A
neighborhood
for
instance,
is
often
called
a
community,
but
is
usually
not
a
community
of
practice.
Three
characteristics
are
crucial:

16. 1. The
domain:
A
community
of
practice
is
not
merely
a
club
of
friends
or
a
network
of
connections
between
people.
It
has
an
identity
defined
by
a
shared
domain
of

17. interest.
Membership
therefore
implies
a
commitment
to
the
domain,
and
therefore
a
shared
competence
that
distinguishes
members
from
other
people.
(You
could
belong
to
the
same
network
as
someone
and
never
know
it.)

18. The
domain
is
not
necessarily
something
recognized
as
“expertise”
outside
the
community.
A
youth
gang
may
have
developed
all
sorts
of
ways
of
dealing
with
their
domain:
surviving
on
the
street
and
maintaining

19. some
kind
of
identity
they
can
live
with.
They
value
their
collective
competence
and
learn
from
each
other,
even
though
few
people
outside
the
group
may
value
or
even
recognize
their
expertise.

20. 2. The
community:
In
pursuing
their
interest
in
their
domain,
members
engage
in
joint
activities
and
discussions,
help
each
other,
and
share
information.
They
build
relationships
that
enable
them
to
learn
from

21. each
other;
they
care
about
their
standing
with
each
other.
A
website
in
itself
is
not
a
community
of
practice.
Having
the
same
job
or
the
same
title
does
not
make
for

22. a
community
of
practice
unless
members
interact
and
learn
together.
The
claims
processors
in
a
large
insurance
company
or
students
in
American
high
schools
may
have
much
in
common,
yet
unless
they
interact

23. and
learn
together,
they
do
not
form
a
community
of
practice.
But
members
of
a
community
of
practice
do
not
necessarily
work
together
on
a
daily
basis.
The
Impressionists,
for
instance,
used
to
meet

24. in
cafes
and
studios
to
discuss
the
style
of
painting
they
were
inventing
together.
These
interactions
were
essential
to
making
them
a
community
of
practice
even
though
they
often
painted
alone.

25. 3. The
practice:
A
community
of
practice
is
not
merely
a
community
of
interest-­‐-­‐
people
who
like
certain
kinds
of
movies,
for
instance.
Members
of
a
community
of
practice
are
practitioners.
They
develop

26. a
shared
repertoire
of
resources:
experiences,
stories,
tools,
ways
of
addressing
recurring
problems—in
short
a
shared
practice.
This
takes
time
and
sustained
interaction.
A
good
conversation
with
a
stranger
on
an
airplane
may

27. give
you
all
sorts
of
interesting
insights,
but
it
does
not
in
itself
make
for
a
community
of
practice.
The
development
of
a
shared
practice
may
be
more
or
less
self-­‐conscious.
The
“windshield
wipers”

28. engineers
at
an
auto
manufacturer
make
a
concerted
effort
to
collect
and
document
the
tricks
and
lessons
they
have
learned
into
a
knowledge
base.
By
contrast,
nurses
who
meet
regularly
for
lunch
in

29. a
hospital
cafeteria
may
not
realize
that
their
lunch
discussions
are
one
of
their
main
sources
of
knowledge
about
how
to
care
for
patients.
Still,
in
the
course
of
all
these
conversations,
they
have

30. developed
a
set
of
stories
and
cases
that
have
become
a
shared
repertoire
for
their
practice.
It
is
the
combination
of
these
three
elements
that
constitutes
a
community
of
practice.

31. And
it
is
by
developing
these
three
elements
in
parallel
that
one
cultivates
such
a
community.
Communities
of
practice
3
A
brief
introduction
–
V
April
15,
2015

32. What
do
communities
of
practice
look
like?
Communities
develop
their
practice
through
a
variety
of
activities.
The
following
table
provides
a
few
typical
examples:
Problem
solving
“Can
we
work
on
this

33. design
and
brainstorm
some
ideas;
I’m
stuck.”
Requests
for
information
“Where
can
I
find
the
code
to
connect
to
the
server?”
Seeking
experience
“Has
anyone
dealt
with
a
customer
in
this
situation?”

34. Reusing
assets
“I
have
a
proposal
for
a
local
area
network
I
wrote
for
a
client
last
year.
I
can
send
it
to
you
and
you
can
easily
tweak
it
for
this

35. new
client.”
Coordination
and
synergy
“Can
we
combine
our
purchases
of
solvent
to
achieve
bulk
discounts?”
Building
an
argument
“How
do
people
in
other
countries
do
this?
Armed

36. with
this
information
it
will
be
easier
to
convince
my
Ministry
to
make
some
changes.”
Growing
confidence
“Before
I
do
it,
I’ll
run
it
through
my
community
first
to
see
what

37. they
think.”
Discussing
developments
“What
do
you
think
of
the
new
CAD
system?
Does
it
really
help?”
Documenting
projects
“We
have
faced
this
problem
five
times
now.
Let
us
write
it

38. down
once
and
for
all.”
Visits
“Can
we
come
and
see
your
after-­‐school
program?
We
need
to
establish
one
in
our
city.”
Mapping
knowledge
and
identifying
gaps

39. “Who
knows
what,
and
what
are
we
missing?
What
other
groups
should
we
connect
with?”
Communities
of
practice
are
not
called
that
in
all
organizations.
They
are
known
under
various

40. names,
such
as
learning
networks,
thematic
groups,
or
tech
clubs.
While
they
all
have
the
three
elements
of
a
domain,
a
community,
and
a
practice,
they
come
in
a
variety
of

41. forms.
Some
are
quite
small;
some
are
very
large,
often
with
a
core
group
and
many
peripheral
members.
Some
are
local
and
some
cover
the
globe.
Some
meet
mainly
face-­‐to-­‐face,
some
mostly
online.
Some

42. are
within
an
organization
and
some
include
members
from
various
organizations.
Some
are
formally
recognized,
often
supported
with
a
budget;
and
some
are
completely
informal
and
even
invisible.
Communities
of
practice

43. have
been
around
for
as
long
as
human
beings
have
learned
together.
At
home,
at
work,
at
school,
in
our
hobbies,
we
all
belong
to
communities
of
practice,
a
number
of
them
usually.
In

44. some
we
are
core
members.
In
many
we
are
merely
peripheral.
And
we
travel
through
numerous
communities
over
the
course
of
our
lives.
In
fact,
communities
of
practice
are
everywhere.

45. They
are
a
familiar
experience,
so
familiar
perhaps
that
it
often
escapes
our
attention.
Yet
when
it
is
given
a
name
and
brought
into
focus,
it
becomes
a
perspective
that
can
help
us
understand

46. our
world
better.
In
particular,
it
allows
us
to
see
past
more
obvious
formal
structures
such
as
organizations,
classrooms,
or
nations,
and
perceive
the
structures
defined
by
engagement
in
practice
and
the
informal

47. learning
that
comes
with
it.
Communities
of
practice
4
A
brief
introduction
–
V
April
15,
2015
Where
does
the
concept
come
from?
Social
scientists
have
used

48. versions
of
the
concept
of
community
of
practice
for
a
variety
of
analytical
purposes,
but
the
origin
and
primary
use
of
the
concept
has
been
in
learning
theory.
Anthropologist
Jean
Lave
and
Etienne
Wenger

49. coined
the
term
while
studying
apprenticeship
as
a
learning
model.
People
usually
think
of
apprenticeship
as
a
relationship
between
a
student
and
a
master,
but
studies
of
apprenticeship
reveal
a
more
complex
set

50. of
social
relationships
through
which
learning
takes
place
mostly
with
journeymen
and
more
advanced
apprentices.
The
term
community
of
practice
was
coined
to
refer
to
the
community
that
acts
as
a
living
curriculum
for

51. the
apprentice.
Once
the
concept
was
articulated,
we
started
to
see
these
communities
everywhere,
even
when
no
formal
apprenticeship
system
existed.
And
of
course,
learning
in
a
community
of
practice
is
not
limited

52. to
novices.
The
practice
of
a
community
is
dynamic
and
involves
learning
on
the
part
of
everyone.
Where
is
the
concept
being
applied?
The
concept
of
community
of
practice
has
found
a

53. number
of
practical
applications
in
business,
organizational
design,
government,
education,
professional
associations,
development
projects,
and
civic
life.
Organizations.
The
concept
has
been
adopted
most
readily
by
people
in
business

54. because
of
the
recognition
that
knowledge
is
a
critical
asset
that
needs
to
be
managed
strategically.
Initial
efforts
at
managing
knowledge
had
focused
on
information
systems
with
disappointing
results.
Communities
of
practice
provided
a

55. new
approach,
which
focused
on
people
and
on
the
social
structures
that
enable
them
to
learn
with
and
from
each
other.
Today,
there
is
hardly
any
organization
of
a
reasonable
size
that
does
not

56. have
some
form
communities-­‐of-­‐practice
initiative.
A
number
of
characteristics
explain
this
rush
of
interest
in
communities
of
practice
as
a
vehicle
for
developing
strategic
capabilities
in
organizations:
of
practice
enable
practitioners

57. to
take
collective
responsibility
for
managing
the
knowledge
they
need,
recognizing
that,
given
the
proper
structure,
they
are
in
the
best
position
to
do
this.
among
practitioners
create
a
direct

58. link
between
learning
and
performance,
because
the
same
people
participate
in
communities
of
practice
and
in
teams
and
business
units.
can
address
the
tacit
and
dynamic
aspects
of
knowledge
creation
and

59. sharing,
as
well
as
the
more
explicit
aspects.
are
not
limited
by
formal
structures:
they
create
connections
among
people
across
organizational
and
geographic
boundaries.
From
this
perspective,
the
knowledge

60. of
an
organization
lives
in
a
constellation
of
communities
of
practice
each
taking
care
of
a
specific
aspect
of
the
competence
that
the
organization
needs.
However,
the
very
characteristics
that
make
communities
of

61. practice
a
good
fit
for
stewarding
knowledge—autonomy,
practitioner-­‐orientation,
informality,
crossing
boundaries—are
also
characteristics
that
make
them
a
challenge
for
traditional
hierarchical
organizations.
How
this
challenge
is
going
to
affect
these
organizations
remains
to

62. be
seen.
Government.
Like
businesses,
government
organizations
face
knowledge
challenges
of
increasing
complexity
and
scale.
They
have
adopted
communities
of
practice
for
much
the
same
reasons,
though
the
formality
of

63. the
bureaucracy
can
come
in
the
way
of
open
knowledge
sharing.
Beyond
internal
communities,
there
are
typical
government
Communities
of
practice
5
A
brief
introduction
–
V
April
15,

64. 2015
problems
such
as
education,
health,
and
security
that
require
coordination
and
knowledge
sharing
across
levels
of
government.
There
also,
communities
of
practice
hold
the
promise
of
enabling
connections
among
people
across

65. formal
structures.
And
there
also,
…
Term2
Question 3: Technology
Evaluate some of the ways in which robots could improve the
quality of life for
people with disabilities or health issues.
In today's society, it has become more and more important to
pay attention to the physical and mental health of the disabled.
As development of technology, people had already start trying
getting the robot involved treatment which since the middle of
the 20th century already has some significant effect.(C. Ray, F.
Mondada and R. siegwar 2008) This essay will talk about
classification of persons with disabilities, development of
robots and how robots improve life quality of disabled such as
creating job opportunities, participate in project construction.
Firstly, it will talk about the daily life of physical disabled,
second section is daily life of mental disabled and the last
section will talk about advantages and disadvantages of
different disabled people assisted by different types of robots
According to Won Hyuk Chang, Yun-Hee Kim. (2013), which
includes therapeutic and as- sistive robots.. This essay will
argue that the governments and people should take a positive
attitude towards the combination of medical treatment and
science and technology which may bring brand new topic for
both medical and scientific community.
One of the common types of disabled people is physical
disabled persons and physical disabilities can affect a person’s
ability to move about, to use arms and legs effectively, to

66. swallow food, and to breathe unaided (Black and Pretes, 2007;
Hardman et al., 1999). Some of them can recover slowly
through treatment, but the recovery process is extraordinary
long and boring and depends on the help of doctors and nurses.
Some of them will choose to go to the rehabilitation center for
collective treatment. The center has a special car to pick up and
send students to the center for health training every day. In
addition to the morning exercise and free activity time every
day, the center will also guide students to carry out skill
training, improve their hands-on ability and care for their
physical and mental health. which may cost a lot of energy, time
and money for a whole family when science and technology
were underdeveloped. At present, With the rapid development
of science and technology, A new type of robot called
Rehabilitation robots which can be divided into therapeutic and
as- sistive robots is gradually popularized in the treatment of
disabled people.
According to Journal of Stroke (2013), the treatment process of
the physical disabled needs high-intensity and constant
repetition of the same actions to achieve the treatment purpose,
and In recent years, robot technology has developed
significantly, with faster and more powerful computers, new
computing methods and more complex electromechanical
components. Advances in this technology have made robotics
available for rehabilitation interventions. Robot is defined as a
kind of reprogrammable multi-functional manipulator, which is
designed to accomplish tasks by moving materials, parts or
special equipment through variable programming. The most
important advantage of using robot technology in rehabilitation
intervention is that it can provide high-dose and high-intensity
training. This feature makes robot therapy a promising new
technology for rehabilitation of patients with motor disorders
caused by stroke or spinal cord disease. In the past two decades,
the research of rehabilitation robots has developed rapidly, and
the number of therapeutic rehabilitation robots has increased

67. dramatically. Take an example of stroke patients, Neural
plasticity is the basic mechanism of functional improvement
after stroke. Therefore, an important goal of rehabilitation for
stroke patients is to effectively utilize neural plasticity for
functional recovery. Other principles of stroke rehabilitation
include goal setting, high-intensity training, multidisciplinary
team nursing and task-specific training. Therefore, high-dose
intensive training and repetitive training of specific functional
tasks are very important for rehabilitation after stroke. These
requirements make stroke rehabilitation a labor-intensive
process which just in line with the characteristics of robot
therapy.
Another kind of special is mental disabled persons and a mental
health condition is considered a disability if it has a long-term
effect on people’s normal day-to-day activity. This is defined
under the Equality Act 2010. One kind of the most common
mental disability is depression which seems a uniquely human
way of suffering and according to BBC news, Worldwide, over
350 million people have depression, and rates are climbing
which is obvious that the governments and people must pay
much attention on it. If there is no underlying medical cause for
your symptoms of depression, talk therapy can be an extremely
effective treatment and learn to communicate with others.
Depression can also be improved by communicating with others.
Because in the process of communication, it can release
pressure and pour out personal emotions, which is helpful for
the elimination of depression. In general, in the process of
communicating with others, problems can be solved, so as to
prevent the long-term falling into bad mood from threatening
health. However, in some special cases, patients may refuse to
communicate with others, which is a kind of protection for
them.
According to Piesing, M. (2014), Therapeutic robot is one of the
earliest chat robots in the world. In real life, most people with

68. mental illness are reluctant to see a psychiatrist. Some of the
reasons are that they don't admit that they suffer from mental
illness, or they lack trust in the effect of psychotherapy, and
most of them worry that their personal privacy can't be
guaranteed. Now, with the advent of robotic psychiatrists, that's
starting to change. According to Alice Cai (2016) In 1964,
Jerome Weizenbaum, a researcher at Massachusetts Institute of
technology, established a treatment robot project called Eliza,
which aims to imitate the method of Rogerian psychotherapy,
that is, therapists encourage patients to examine their own
thoughts and feelings. The program also introduces other
psychotherapy and electronic means so that robots can get
information about patients and put answers into images. It is
because of the use of these knowledge and means that the
"spiritual tutor" does not simply search the database for every
question asked by each patient. Instead, it strives to find the
best solution through special psychological steps: it can even
put forward complex problems to patients that they are not
aware of, and analyze their feelings and ideas. For example, it
will show patients some images to help them find the deep
causes of their own problems, and point out the right direction
for them. The work is usually done in an hour. However, many
people who talk to Eliza can't tell if she is a machine program
or a human psychotherapist, and are increasingly dependent on
her.Although many psychologists have doubts that an
interactive dialogue with robot psychologists can really solve a
patient's physical and mental problems? But the answer given
by the designer is yes. They say that just one therapeutic
conversation produces a 47% satisfaction rate that no
psychologist can achieve. The reason why the satisfaction rate
is so high is that the "spiritual tutor" does not answer questions
by searching the "answer list", but gradually guides patients to
find their own answers. Psychological research has proved that
the solutions you find are more effective than others'
suggestions. Therefore, it is the most effective way to help
patients find solutions. According to reports, "spiritual tutor"

69. can successfully solve psychological problems such as
emotional tension, family conflicts, loss of motivation, doubt of
life, insomnia, and disharmony with others. However, there is
no way to deal with serious mental diseases such as
schizophrenia, manic depression and drug addiction, which need
to be further explored.
One of the main arguments used to support that people disagree
with robot participation in disability treatment is that robots do
not have own mind which may due to they lose control during
treat process and disabled people can not mobility difficulties
or other difficulties. However, while this may be true in a
minority, it is clear that people can act as supervisors which
also saves human resources and energy and as the development
of technology, the chance of this happening is basically
negligible.
In conclusion, There is no doubt that the scientific community
and the medical community have a great common innovation
and challenges interest in involving robots in the treatment of
disabled people. If this technology is popularized in the daily
medical treatment, it will have a great impact on the disabled
and their families, and most of them will have a positive impact.
It may also enable the disabled to regain their enthusiasm for
life and their expectations for the future，this is a great progress
for society and human rights.
Reference
Won Hyuk Chang, Yun-Hee Kim. (2013). Robot-assisted
Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation. Journal of Stroke. 7 (3),
p174-181.
Alice Cai. (2016). Relations between Humans and Robots.
Available:
https://confluence.gallatin.nyu.edu/sections/research/eliza-re-
examined. Last accessed 29th Feb 2020.
Piesing, M. (2014) Medical robotics: Would you trust a robot

70. with a scalpel?
Guardian [Online] Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/10/medical-
robots-surgery-trustfuture
Carnevale, A. (2015) ‘Robots, Disability, and good human life’
Disability Studies
Quarterly Vol 35, No 1[Online] Available at:
Carnevalehttp://dsqsds.org/article/view/4604/3826