The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work?
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we develop the founding elements of the concept of Communities of Practice by elaborating on the learning processes happening at the heart of such communities. In particular, we provide a consistent perspective on the notions of knowledge, knowing and knowledge sharing that is compatible with the essence of this concept – that learning entails an investment of identity and a social formation of a person. We do so by drawing richly from the work of Michael Polanyi and his conception of personal knowledge, and thereby we clarify the scope of Communities of Practice and offer a number of new insights into how to make such social structures perform well in professional settings. The conceptual discussion is substantiated by findings of a qualitative empirical study in the UK National Health Service. As a result, the process of ‘thinking together’ is conceptualized as a key part of meaningful Communities of Practice where people mutually guide each other through their understandings of the same problems in their area of mutual interest, and this way indirectly share tacit knowledge. The collaborative learning process of ‘thinking together’, we argue, is what essentially brings Communities of Practice to life and not the other way round.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
WITHDRAWN - Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With Examples
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/2345678906292430 · Cited by 2,250
RetractedSituated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
(1999) · Cited by 28,356
Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity
Wenger, E. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803932 · Cited by 23,500
POLANYI, M. (1997) · Knowledge in Organisations · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9718-7.50010-x · Cited by 12,408
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 · Cited by 8,390
Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/004912418101000205 · Cited by 5,464
Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116 · Cited by 3,407
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001 · Cited by 2,953
Cited by
Faregh, N., Lencucha, R., Ventevogel, P., Dubale, B. W., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2019) · International Journal of Mental Health Systems · doi:10.1186/s13033-019-0312-9 · Cited by 120
(2012) · Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology · doi:10.1177/1756283x10363751 · Cited by 36
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., & Eden, C.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-09-26
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 389-409
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2497919442
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 112.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0018726716661040
- The paper
- Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2017). Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work? Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716661040
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.