The Role of Networks of Practice and Webs of Influencers on Farmers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 404e417 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations Sue Oreszczyn*, Andy Lane 1, Susan Carr Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials, Faculty of Maths Computing and Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK abstract Keywords: Drawing on the UK research project, ‘Farmers’ understandings of GM crops within local communities’, Communities of practice this paper considers the application of the concepts of communities of practice and networks of practice Networks of practice in the agricultural context. A brief review of theories about communities of practice and networks of Genetically modified crops practice is given and some of our findings are discussed in the context of those theories. Agriculture Knowledge management Farmers were found to be a particular type of network of practice, characterised by a weak organ- Social learning isational framework but with a relatively stable network of other communities of practice (or networks of practice) they interact with, which we have called a ‘web of influencers on practice’. Together, farmers’ network of practice and their web of influencers on practice represent the whole environment in which learning may occur, and so provide insights into their social learning system. Most farmers have to work at the boundary of their network of practice and their web of influencers, which creates a significant load on their knowledge management. This is in contrast to other networks of practice where only some members take on this boundary brokering role. The paper concludes that these theories (on networks and communities of practice) provide a useful lens through which to view farmers and their practice, highlighting important points for policy. However, in such contexts these theories need to be extended to include the role of a broader ‘web of influencers on practice’. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction originated in the work of Brown and Duguid (2001) who applied the term to the relations among groups of people with looser In recent years there has been a growing interest in communi- connections than expected in a CoP. Amin and Roberts (2008) note ties of practice (CoPs) and networks of practice (NoPs) in connec- that since the original work by Lave and Wenger, interest in tion with informal knowledge gathering, notably in the fields of communities of practice has risen exponentially, as evidenced by education and both knowledge management and innovation within no publications on the subject in 1990 to over 543 publications in organisations, but also in fields such as healthcare and computer the year 2007 alone. science. They have been used both as an analytical framework and Although Wenger (1998) developed a theoretical basis for as a tool to intervene in organisational management (see, for thinking of CoPs, and Brown and Duguid for NoPs, part of the appeal example, Koliba and Gajda, 2009). Thinking about the processes of of these concepts is that they may also be viewed from a very learning and knowledge generation in practice originated in the practical viewpoint. These concepts are currently being used to work of social anthropologists at the University of California, think about learning, knowledge generation and situated practice particularly the work of Jean Lave and her work on apprenticeships. across a variety of settings, attracting the interest and enthusiasm Although the idea of communities of practice has been around for of many professions and practitioners (see Hildreth and Kimble, many years it was first made explicit by Lave and Wenger in their 2004; Wenger et al., 2002). The interest in these concepts as work on apprenticeship and situated learning (Lave and Wenger, a practical approach to thinking about ‘real world’ situations, rather 1991). Around the same time the notion of networks of practice than simply being seen as academic devices, is demonstrated by the way that publications on these ideas include not just academic papers, books and monographs but also trade and magazine articles. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1908 653433; fax: þ44 1908 654825. Yet Koliba and Gajda (2009) note that more remains to be E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Oreszczyn), [email protected] (A. Lane), [email protected] (S. Carr). learned about the way CoPs function and the same may also be said 1 Tel.: þ44 1908 332233. of NoPs. This paper considers the application of theories about 0743-0167/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.03.003 S. Oreszczyn et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 404e417 405 communities of practice and particularly networks of practice, to an Mutual engagement: members come together because they are agricultural setting. Focusing on our research findings on farmers’ engaged in actions whose meaning they negotiate with one influencers and understandings about new technologies, it another. They develop shared practices and are linked through attempts to reveal ways in which these theories may be useful in their mutual engagement in such activities. thinking about farming practice and ‘real world’ situations that Joint enterprise: members work together, explicitly or implic- farmers face when implementing new technologies. The paper first itly, to achieve a negotiated common goal, which may or may discusses some of the literature relating to theories about CoPs and not be officially defined. NoPs. Key concepts from these theories that we used to inform our Shared repertoire: a common history and culture is generated work are then discussed in light of our findings from our research over time by shared practices, stories, tools, concepts and project ‘Farmers’ understandings of GM crops within local repeated interactions. Writing, routines, rituals, ways of doing communities’. This research used three progressively more inter- things and so on become a common repository. active phases to explore farmers’ network of practice, their social learning systems and wider influences on practice, particularly in the context of the introduction of GM crops and new agricultural 2.2. Networks of practice and wider influences technologies2. From our findings we conclude that not enough consideration is given to the impact of the wider context in which There has been a growing academic interest in what happens CoPs and NoPs are operating. beyond communities of practice, in the networks within which a community of practice may sit. Podolny and Page (1998) define networks as “any collection of actors that pursue repeated enduring 2. Development of the ideas focusing on communities of exchange relations with one another and, at the same time, lack practice and networks of practice a legitimate organisational authority to arbitrate and resolve disputes that may arise during the exchange” (p. 59). Social 2.1. Communities of practice network theory views relationships in terms of nodes (individual actors) and ties (the relationships between actors). The power of Lave and Wenger (1991) define a community of practice as “aset social network theory is the way that the attributes of the indi- of relations among persons, activity and world, over time and in vidual actors are viewed as less important than their relationships relation with other tangential communities of practice” (p. 98). In (or ties) with other actors (Whelan, 2007). This is distinct from simple terms, communities of practice are groups of people who theories about communities of practice, which focus on an indi- share a common pursuit, activity or concern. Members do not vidual’s competences and practices. Many networks are viewed as necessarily work together, but form a common identity and under- having a structure whereby at the core are those members who are standing through their common interests and interactions. Many closely tied to each other and at the periphery are members who different communities of practice exist and we may all be members of have more ties to core members than to each other. several, for example, through our work or hobbies. They are informal In relation to innovation, Deroian (2002), drawing on the work and self-managed. For some communities of practice we may be of others, argues that individuals are embedded in a relational a core member, whereas for others we may sit on the periphery. network and the opinion of potential innovation adopters is thus Lave and Wenger’s work formed part of a wider move in the subjected to social influence. Through interactions with other literature on learning, away from theories of the individual as potential adopters, opinions on new technologies are formed and a learner who internalises knowledge ‘transmitted’ or discovered shaped. Therefore, much more is involved than simple information through interactions with others, to learning as participation in the transmission in the adoption of an innovation; it involves revisions social world. That is, away from theories involving cognitive of judgements, discussions in a wider practice related or socio- processes to those involving social practice. Thus, theories about economic system, and an individual’s receptivity to influence. CoPs are useful for understanding the social processes of learning In the context of communities of practice, theories about social and identity formation, local practice, tacit learning, sense making networks have been developed by Brown and Duguid (2001) to and indigenous knowledge (John, 2005). As Wenger notes, “Practice include networks of practice. The concept of networks of practice is does not exist in the abstract. It exists because people are engaged distinctive in that it recognises that there may be people beyond an in actions whose meanings they negotiate with each other” organisation within which an individual is situated, who share their (Wenger, 1998, pp.