ABSTRACT
This paper examines the attempt, by Sunderland Community Development
Network, to build a dynamic model of community knowledge sharing to assist
its strategic work in the cultural renaissance of the City of Sunderland. It
explores the network’s use of community space, personalised networks and
knowledge-sharing spaces and analyses the success, to date, in utilising the
power of meta-networks.
INTRODUCTION
Many case studies have been undertaken of how informal, sponsored and supported
communities of practice operate within private and public sector organisations. To date,
however, no examination has been made of how informal communities of practice operate
within the third sector, the sector of community and voluntary organisations. The third sector
has a long history of using community space, in various forms, either physical or notional, to
engage individuals in discourse and informal learning. The rise of the network society has
added value to this process by allowing active individuals to personalise networks through the
use of technologies which enhance communication. The third sector is now demonstrating that
individuals and groups are seeking to create open access knowledge-sharing spaces which
attempt to combine face-to-face networks with computer-mediated communications to support
informal learning between community development practitioners.
This paper examines the role of Sunderland Community Development Network in the creation
of informal communities of practice. It pays particular attention to three key areas:
1. Community space: How core, active, peripheral and transactional community spaces
within third sector partnerships create an ebb and flow of informal communities of
practice.

2. Personalised networking: How issue-based activity, inside and outside communities,
can lead to the rapid appearance and disappearance of informal communities of
practice.
3. Knowledge-sharing space: How core members of a third sector organisation can create
a dynamic model of roles within informal communities of practice capable of
impacting upon processes of governance beyond the organisation.
SUNDERLAND AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NETWORK
Sunderland is a new city in the North East of England with a population of 300,000. Towards
the end of the last century, it suffered adversely from the post-industrialisation process. Both
shipbuilding (ships had been built on the River Wear for over 1500 years) and coal mining
(Monkwearmouth Colliery was one of the largest deep mines in Europe) went into terminal
decline. The dawn of the new millennium, however, has witnessed an economic, social and
cultural renaissance in the City. Sunderland’s Nissan car plant is now the largest in the UK
with 12,000 employees. Sunderland University has a new riverside campus adjacent to a
thriving marina and an emerging shellfish industry. Sunderland Football Club has a new arena
(built on the former site of Monkwearmouth Colliery), boldly entitled “The Stadium of Light”
and there is an award-winning museum and winter gardens in the heart of the city centre.
Sunderland Community Development Network (SCDN) forms the neighbourhood-based
component of the City’s renaissance and is open to community groups, community networks,
voluntary sector organisations, volunteers and residents who are, or want to be, active in their
communities.
The aims of SCDN are to link together neighbourhood renewal (Social Exclusion Unit 2000)
areas of the City in communities of practice, maximise the power of communities to shape the
future of the City, provide a decision-making and discussion forum for communities, provide
effective, meaningful and co-ordinated representation at all levels of the City Council’s Local
Strategic Partnership (LSP) and provide a structure of accountability for community

representation and the communication of information. The concept of partnership working in
this manner was first suggested in a document produced by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
(2001). In summary, SCDN aims to capture, store and transfer the wide range of knowledge
contained within Sunderland’s community-based organisations and make this knowledge
accessible to other sectors.
SCDN has been emerging as a meta-network since September 2001 under the innovatory
leadership of VOICES. VOICES was originally established as Sunderland Voluntary Sector
Partnership (VSP) in 1994 and since September 1994 has played an active role on the City of
Sunderland Partnership (CoSP). Three community development workers were appointed in
May 1998 to develop networks in areas where there was no existing infrastructure and to build
the community and voluntary sector in the City. In 2000, the VSP gained charitable company
status in the name of Sunderland Voluntary and Community Sector Partnership. The official
launch of the new company was held in October 2000 to coincide with the signing of the local
Compact between the CoSP and the voluntary and community sector. The name VOICES was
adopted to reflect the role of the VSP in ensuring local people’s needs, views and opinions are
integral to the decision-making processes of policy makers at local, regional and national
level.
The core group of VOICES has many years of experience of community development activity
stretching back to the 1970s, long before the introduction of the Internet and other network
technologies. Some members of the core group have taken readily to email and other network
technologies while others struggle with it. All, however, are very skilled face-to-face
networkers and demonstrate a high level of trust in the communities they support.
The meta-network provides a range of knowledge-sharing platforms through which
dialogue can flow, both formally and informally. These platforms include formal strategy
meetings, informal lunches, events and residential conferences and seminars as well as sharing
documents and discussion via email and the Internet. Key informants constantly refer to the
informal dialogue, which takes place before, after and around meetings. The informal sharing
of knowledge is seen to lie at the hub of the collective learning and knowledge-sharing

process, which takes place within the meta-network. Access to knowledge is sought in a
seamless way by combining face-to-face informality with document sharing and the use of
email firmly grounded in the needs of communities. Knowledge is also accessed via the
mobile telephone and text messaging which adds value to the use of other technologies. A
high level of trust is placed upon individuals with key skills and competencies, within the
network, as containers and carriers of knowledge on community development.
SCDN has been debating, for more than two years, the importance of legitimising peripheral
participation (Lave & Wenger 1997) within the network and the LSP. Legitimate peripheral
participation provides a way to speak about the relations between ‘newbies’, ‘veterans’,
activities, identities (Wenger 1998), communities of knowledge (Brown & Duguid 1991) and
practice. It is concerned with the process by which newcomers become part of a community of
practice (Wenger et al. 2002). As a result of this debate, a model has been devised which aims
to provide a means of legitimising peripheral participation within it.
In this model, members of the network are divided into a tripartite framework of community
development responsibilities within each of the twelve themed and six area-based
neighbourhood renewal groups of the LSP, as follows:
1. Capacity-builder: With previous partnership-working experience, well-developed
informal and formal meeting skills and knowledge of decision-making structures.
2. Mentor: With experience of representation or other partnership working.
3. Learner: With experience of meetings at a neighbourhood level but no previous
representation experience.
Clearly, individuals tend to exhibit all of these roles to a greater or lesser degree. In terms of
the meta-network, however, these three roles form a dynamic learning framework for the
community participants within the eighteen working groups of the LSP. It is clear that this
tripartite framework creates a dynamic model for developing informal communities of practice
as the three roles constantly combine and disperse leaving critical masses of knowledge which
can be accessed in a number of ways through:

1. The manipulation of the spaces where communities are formed.
2. The establishment of personalised networks.
3. The creation of knowledge sharing spaces.
COMMUNITY SPACE
The traditional gathering place of community activists for centuries has been the village hall,
community centre or their physical equivalent; the place of democratic engagement and
dialogue on issues affecting the community. Community activists often put forward the view
that it is possible to create an equitable ‘community’ space, both mental and physical, where
the views of individuals and groups can be freely exchanged in a form of ‘true’ participatory
democracy. Such a belief can be seen as an extension of the concept of agora where the
creation of a ‘level playing field’, by definition, leads to engagement in the free expression of
ideas, opinions and innovation.
Does such a shared mental and physical community space exist, however, when the barriers to
effective use of place, space and cyberspace are manifold?
Several commentators have grappled with the concept of community space. They have
revealed a complexity, which goes far beyond that manifest in village halls and community
centres. In order to understand this complexity, the following concepts are examined in turn,
community space, ‘liminal’ space, reproduction of space, defensible space, ‘the space of
flows’ and the semiotics of global space.
Wenger (1998) talks of ‘community space’ in which groups operate. The facilitators,
innovators and leaders occupy the core space. Active, interested individuals inhabit the active
space. Interested individuals, who are not necessarily active, occupy peripheral space and the
transactional space is where partnerships are forged. This paradigm suggests the existence of
four distinct community spaces. It does not, however, explain how groups apparently move,
with ease, from one space to another or alternatively occupy several spaces simultaneously.

For example, individuals may well occupy core space in one group, active space in another
and so on. SCDN’s tripartite framework means that the dynamic roles cut across the
boundaries of community space.
By introducing the concept of ‘liminal’ space, we can envisage how individuals and groups
journey between the spaces outlined above. Liminal space, an anthropological term, refers to
the ‘limbo’ which an individual inhabits while performing a rite of passage between one space
and another. A physical example of this space is the Aboriginal ‘Walkabout’ where teenage
aborigines must spend time alone surviving in the outback prior to acceptance as an adult
member of the group. A comparison can be made here with the concept of a ‘lurker’ in an
electronic environment or a ‘learner’ within SCDN. ‘Lurking’ in an electronic environment
would be considered a form of situated learning by Lave and Wenger (1997), and, as such a
legitimate form of peripheral participation. Adding the concept of liminal space to the
paradigm creates a new dynamic, which does, at least, appear to go some way towards
illustrating how individuals and groups occupy several spaces simultaneously.
Puttnam (2000) refers to the bridging and bonding of social capital within communities. Social
capital is created either by forming bridges between communities or bonding communities
where they share common characteristics. It is, therefore, legitimate to suggest that social
capital is formed in liminal space.
Lefebvre’s (1991) discourse on the relationship between mental and physical space highlights
not only the production of community space but also the reproduction of this space:
‘The problematic of space, which subsumes the problems of
the urban sphere…and of everyday life, has displaced the
problematic of industrialisation. It has not, however, destroyed
that earlier set of problems: the social relationships that obtained
previously still obtain; the new problem is, precisely, the problem
of their reproduction.’
Lefebvre (1991): 89

In physical terms, former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill went some way to
expressing the relationship when he said:
‘There is no doubt whatever about the influence of architecture and
structure upon human character. We shape our buildings and afterwards
our buildings shape us.’
SCDN, like many other networks, has experimented extensively with
variations in physical space in order to facilitate knowledge-sharing. However,
are there human and psychological constructs which influence individual and
group behaviour in community spaces?
Building upon the idea of human structures, Goffman (1959) derived the concept of
‘defensible space’, the cognitive space between individuals where they form opinions and
assumptions of others. In physical space we can visibly assess people’s changing opinions
through human interaction, which is supported by body language. In cyberspace, however,
where body language can play a different part, defensible space becomes the space of
legitimate peripheral participation. Discourse and dialogue in cyberspace can often viewed as
significantly more reflective than that which takes place in physical space. The roles of
capacity-builder, mentor and learner assist discourse and dialogue through enabling
conversations on who is learning what, from whom and the impact of this upon the network.
Castells (1989) argues that access to flows of information and resources is the key to
participation in the networked society. He refers to a subtle interaction between physically co-
located resources and virtual information-based resources. He calls this space ‘the space of
flows’. He suggests a further dimension to community space. The space of flows being the
personal space, which individuals manipulate, in and around the groups they populate. They
create this space by constructing complex problem-solving personal social networks. These
networks manipulate information and resources on a personal level through a complex web of
digital technologies and face-to-face interaction.

Due to the constant and rapid evolution of community space within networked society, SCDN
has attempted to create dynamic issue and area-based thematic communities of practice which
accommodate the informality of the relationships created. Each member of an issue or area-
based group has to relate to other members of the groups in terms of their ability to act as
capacity-builder, mentor and learner. This interaction leads to semiotic relationships between
communities of practice with high levels of synergy capable of rapid transformation and
dissolution around a particular theme or issue. Such interaction also relies on high levels of
personal interaction within networks and meta-networks.
PERSONALISED NETWORKING
Human networks are hugely complex phenomena. We are only just beginning to understand
the implications of understanding networks:
‘Today we increasingly recognize that nothing happens in isolation.
Most events and phenomena are connected, caused by, and
interacting with a huge number of other pieces of a complex
universal puzzle. We have come to see that we live in a small world,
where everything is linked to everything else. We are witnessing a
revolution in the making as scientists from all different disciplines
discover that complexity has a strict architecture. We have come to
grasp the importance of networks.’
Barabasi (2003): 7
In this ‘small world’, individuals and groups are as likely to reach out around the globe for
knowledge as they are to visit their next door neighbour in search of information (Watts 2003).
Given this complexity, how do we provide a platform for a networked community?

While face-to-face contact is paramount within SCDN and often cannot be replicated in
electronic systems, the constraint of time and space on active individuals has led to the
network accepting that the ‘community’ is not necessarily located in a fixed space. The idea of
community being with you wherever you are is a welcome and re-assuring idea associated
with the trust, strengths and connections needed for effective networking. As a result, SCDN
has begun to use ICT to add value to human systems in a personalised manner often referred
to as personalised networking.
Research into personalised networking (Wellman 2001a; 2001b) has shown that knowledge
transfer and the idea of communities of practice (groups of people that create, share and
exchange knowledge) is relative to situated learning (how useful the knowledge is within a
particular situation or towards a particular end). This requires multi-faceted means of creating
‘dialogue’ where meaning flows through individuals and groups. Initially, however, the
quality of the dialogue may not be as important as the process of democratic engagement it as
it is often about allowing people to explore new ideas and discarding those that are not ‘fit for
purpose’. Evidence also suggests that network identity can also emerge through consensual
agreement on what is community-based knowledge in the emerging dialogue.
The division of responsibility into capacity-builder, mentor and learner creates dynamic spaces
within personalised networks where knowledge can be shared informally.
Personalised networks appear to vary not only with regard to the skills and experience of
capacity-builders, mentors and learners but also in relation to where the networker is located
within community space. It would be relatively easy to map personalized networks if
community spaces were mutually exclusive and static. However, such spaces are mutually
reliant and dynamic, as such, they are capable of potentially highly complex topologies of
personalised networks.
Social network analysis tools prove difficult to deploy in such a complex context. A high
reliance on subjective and qualitative analysis is needed to understand the complexity of
personalised networks within meta-networks. SCDN has attempted to create matrices of cross-
cutting usage of technologies such as email, web and text-messaging within the tripartite

framework. This has proved difficult to progress in a collaborative computer-mediated
environment and progress has been limited to face-to-face workshops.
KNOWLEDGE-SHARING SPACE
In partnership with Sunderland City Council’s E-government Unit, SCDN is developing an
appropriate architecture for a community technology into which its collective knowledge can
be filtered and codified (http://www.sunderlandcommunitynetwork.org.uk). Data, information
and knowledge is being drawn from a wide range of cross-cutting sources emanating from
core groups, activists, peripheral groups and transactional partners at varying levels.
Taxonomies and topologies are being created which are dynamic and organic, developed
through user-defined language in detailed consultations with network members. For example,
knowledge is coded as ‘theme-based’, ‘issue related' or ‘network representation related' and, in
turn, validated through dynamic use by members. All types of knowledge are upheld as
equally valid as more and more people search and use the network’s knowledge the more
common definition naturally surfaces according to the emerging dialogue. The key is to build
intelligence into analysis of the use of language in the dialogue that emerges.
From the outset of the project, it was clear that a cultural shift was required to get beyond data
and information and move toward knowledge sharing amongst network members. Such
cultural problems are widely recognised by academics and practitioners as most individuals
and groups within organisations are comfortable dealing with hard facts and figures rather
than soft outcomes as a starting point. This marks the first phase of development of cultural
shift and is only useful in the network’s thinking if it is accompanied by a roadmap towards
appropriate and effective management of knowledge in the long term.
SCDN’s first stage of developing a knowledge base consists of ‘compiling‘ information on the
actors within the network. This is the point at which the architecture of shared learning space
is structured through recognising the interaction of actors with the emerging architecture. Such
‘structuration’ (the structuring of social relations across time and space), however, must
contain the flux, which allows actors within the network to customise their own personalised

networking structures. Understanding the degree of flexibility that actors need to interpret
their personalised networks is paramount.
The second stage is referred to as ‘profiling’ the key skills and experiences which members
bring to the network. Profiling is a mix of knowledge supplied by professional community
development workers and network members themselves about the network itself. This extends
to a need to determine performance according to both external and internal transactional
criteria with other partners. The profiling stage begins the process of monitoring and
evaluating the level of participation and reification within the dialogue that populates the
shared learning space.
The final stage is ‘tooling’ of network members to meet the increasing demands of
personalised networking. This is the stage at which members’ skill gaps are identified and
filled. As noted previously, SCDN has divided participants in the shared learning space into
three key roles, capacity builders, mentors and learners. Each actor-role compliments the other
around a particular theme, such as, health, diversity and community safety.
Although paper-based forms of communication, and telephone calls, may not be easily
codified, the idea of a meta-network means that these conversations are likely to become
embedded within an online application provided that the dialogue is on-going, regular and
frequent. This is dependent on the overall utility of the knowledge base that can only be
determined through the level of usage. Part of the work of Sunderland City Council’s E-
government Unit is to allow 60 members of the network access to a portable computer, and to
the Sunderland E-government website. In the short term, these people will be able to use the
community-based web portal to see what they might expect in an online environment run by,
and for, themselves. If this enthusiasm is cascaded throughout the network and access is
widespread most members could be accessing their knowledge base most days to add value to
their personalised networking.

CONCLUSION
This paper has examined SCDN’s role in the creation of informal communities of practice, in
particular, it has analysed the part played by the tripartite framework of capacity-builder,
learner and mentor in progressing flexible and dynamic communities of practitioners. The
tripartite framework has been examined within the context of community space, personalised
networking and knowledge sharing spaces.
Outcomes to date, as to the robustness of this dynamic model of community knowledge-
sharing, are positive, however, the model has not yet reached a significant level of maturity
and the possibility of long-term success remains uncertain.
A number of positive outcomes have been achieved. The first of these is the degree of
progress achieved by SCDN in comparison to other networks. Several factors account for this,
not least of which are that some networks are considerably less well developed than SCDN
and some advantage is gained by the existence of VOICES, a geographically-defined
organisation for strategic development of the third sector. The second is the creation of a body
of good practice which is being shared through national umbrella organisations. Finally, the
search for a dynamic model of community knowledge sharing has led to a greater integration
of SCDN with the LSP allowing it to play a successful part in the cultural renaissance of the
City of Sunderland.
In terms of community space, SCDN has begun to demonstrate a greater understanding of the
relationship between mental and physical space. However, there is a continuing need to
facilitate wider understanding of this relationship both internally and externally.
The emergence of patterns of personalised networking is symptomatic of ability of members
of the network to see the power of meta-networks. Moving in a complexity of meta-networks
also enhances the comfort factor of operating within personalised networks where meta-
networks are used as a means of changing organisational culture.

While the paper offers a positive and transferable model of the creation of informal
communities of practice and community knowledge sharing, the development of the model
has been subject to a number of barriers:
1. The time spent gaining agreement on the model (almost eighteen months) in the
meta-network. For people who are unfamiliar with informal, dynamic and flexible
working relationships the model appears simultaneously complex and radical.
2. Agreeing knowledge-sharing protocols with transactional partners where the shared
vision did not appear to be as advanced as that of SCDN. The LSP has a wide range
of partners all from different sectors of the economy and all appear to be at different
levels of skills and experience in partnership working.
3. The protracted discussions on the creation of a ‘critical mass’, for the development of
the model, within the meta-network, was hampered by turnover in key personnel. It
was recognised, from the outset, that champions of the model would play a key role
in the creation of this critical mass. The skills acquired by the champions, in the
dynamic working environment led to their rapid progression to roles within other
networks and organisations with a loss of skills and experience to SCDN.
4. The lack of an education programme on the tripartite framework for ‘newbies’ which
makes significant connections with ‘veterans’. This has developed on an ad hoc
basis. There is now a recognition of the need for a strategy which connects skills and
knowledge which is evident in the work with Sunderland City Council’s E-
government Unit.
REFERENCES
Barabasi, A. L. (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Publishing
Brown, J. S. & Duguid P. (1991) Organisational Learning and Communities of Practice:

Towards a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation Organization Science, 2 pp.
40-57
Castells, M. (1989) The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring
and the Urban-regional Process Oxford: Blackwell
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life London: Penguin
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1997) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space Oxford: Blackwell
Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (2001) Local Strategic Partnership Guidance London: HMSO
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
New York: Simon & Schuster
Social Exclusion Unit (2000) A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal London:
HMSO
Watts, D.J. (2003) Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age London: Norton
Wellman, B. (2001a) Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalised Networking
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25.
Wellman, B. (2001b) Computer Networks as Social Networks Science Vol. 293 pp. 2031-
2034
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice Cambridge: University Press
Wenger, E. et Al. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice Boston, Mass.: Harvard
Business School Press

Case Study: Sunderland Community Development Network