The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works
Abstract
This paper is a comparative review of four seminal works on communities of practice. It is argued that the ambiguities of the terms community and practice are a source of the concept's reusability allowing it to be reappropriated for different purposes, academic and practical. However, it is potentially confusing that the works differ so markedly in their conceptualizations of community, learning, power and change, diversity and informality. The three earlier works are underpinned by a common epistemological view, but Lave and Wenger's 1991 short monograph is often read as primarily about the socialization of newcomers into knowledge by a form of apprenticeship, while the focus in Brown and Duguid's article of the same year is, in contrast, on improvising new knowledge in an interstitial group that forms in resistance to management. Wenger's 1998 book treats communities of practice as the informal relations and understandings that develop in mutual engagement on an appropriated joint enterprise, but his focus is the impact on individual identity. The applicability of the concept to the heavily individualized and tightly managed work of the twenty-first century is questionable. The most recent work by Wenger – this time with McDermott and Snyder as coauthors – marks a distinct shift towards a managerialist stance. The proposition that managers should foster informal horizontal groups across organizational boundaries is in fact a fundamental redefinition of the concept. However it does identify a plausible, if limited, knowledge management (KM) tool. This paper discusses different interpretations of the idea of 'co-ordinating' communities of practice as a management ideology of empowerment.
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
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M., Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,454
Situated 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
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 · Cited by 8,390
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
Cultivating communities of practice
Orders, A. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Health and Safety · doi:10.1016/j.jchas.2013.03.426 · Cited by 2,701
The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism
(1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-5366 · Cited by 2,539
The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism
Leana, C. R., & Sennett, R. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259274 · Cited by 2,351
Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job
Wellman, D., & Orr, J. E. (1997) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2655659 · Cited by 2,005
Cited by
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412 · Cited by 1,939
Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior
(2016) · Studies in Information · doi:10.1108/s2055-53772016 · Cited by 1,540
Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-11 · Cited by 648
Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-27 · Cited by 377
“be noted that a few critiques published after 2005 challenged the completeness and usefulness of the CoP for conceptualizing social learning and knowledge management [40-42].”
Understanding Sustained Participation in Open Source Software Projects
Fang, Y., & Neufeld, D. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222250401 · Cited by 388
Metadata
- Authors
- Cox, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Information Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 527-540
- ISSN
- 0165-5515 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-6485
- OpenAlex
- W2103531847
- Cited by
- 697
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 34.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0165551505057016
- The paper
- Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551505057016
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.