Stuckey THESIS

Growing online community: Core conditions to support
successful development of community in

Internet-mediated communities of practice.
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
BRONWYN E. STUCKEY
MEd (IT)
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
2007
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
Bronwyn Stuckey
Declaration
I, Bronwyn Evelyn Stuckey, certify that the material within this thesis, submitted in
fulfillment if the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of
Education University of Wollongong is wholly my own original work unless otherwise
referenced or acknowledged. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of
qualifications as any other institution.
Bronwyn E. Stuckey
August 6th 2007
2
Bronwyn Stuckey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. The concept of community of practice........................................................................................ 1
1.2. The problem ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Revisiting professional development .......................................................................................... 6
1.4. Refocusing on community........................................................................................................... 7
1.5. The study...................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 13
2.1. Contributing Areas of Research ................................................................................................ 13

2.1.1. The flow and relationship of the contributing bodies of knowledge .............................. 14
2.1.2. Key terms ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.2. Teacher Professional Development........................................................................................... 20

2.2.1. The climate of educational reform................................................................................... 20
2.2.2. Teaching as professional practice.................................................................................... 23
2.2.3. Traditional teacher professional development ................................................................ 25
2.2.4. Effective teacher professional development.................................................................... 27
2.2.4.1. Reflective ............................................................................................................... 30
2.2.4.2. Collegial ................................................................................................................. 31
2.2.4.3. Situated................................................................................................................... 32
2.2.4.4. Ongoing and sustained........................................................................................... 33
2.2.4.5. Extend beyond the school ...................................................................................... 35
2.2.5. The Pressure to take teacher professional development online ...................................... 36
2.3. Social Learning Theory and Online Affordances ..................................................................... 38

2.3.1. Internet affordances for social learning ........................................................................... 38
2.3.1.1. Reflective practice ................................................................................................. 41
2.3.1.2. Collegiality............................................................................................................. 43
2.3.1.3. Situativity ............................................................................................................... 45
2.3.1.4. Ongoing and sustained activity.............................................................................. 46
2.3.1.5. Extending beyond the school................................................................................. 46
2.4. Community ................................................................................................................................ 49

2.4.1. The difficulty in defining community ............................................................................. 49
2.4.1.1. Recognizing community ........................................................................................ 51
2.4.2. Teacher communities and networks ................................................................................ 55
2.4.3. Community management................................................................................................. 57
2.4.4. Online or virtual community............................................................................................ 58
2.4.4.1. Online architectures and the communications they support ................................. 60
2.4.4.2. Connectivity for Internet-mediated community.................................................... 62
2.4.4.3. Intentionally developed Internet-mediated communities...................................... 64
2.5. Community of practice .............................................................................................................. 69
2.6. Internet-mediated Community of Practice ................................................................................ 73

2.6.1. Existing guidelines in related fields to IMCoP development ......................................... 73
2.6.1.1. Nine timeless design strategies (Kim, 2000)......................................................... 74
2.6.1.2. Twelve fundamental lessons (Williams & Cothrel, 2000).................................... 75
2.6.1.3. Four dimensions (Hung & Chen, 2001) ................................................................ 77
2.6.1.4. Ten critical success factors (McDermott, 2001) ................................................... 78
2.6.1.5. Ten tricks (Le Moult, 2001)................................................................................... 80
i
Bronwyn Stuckey
2.6.1.6. Seven design principles (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002) ......................... 81
2.6.2. Relating existing theories and guidelines ........................................................................ 82
2.6.2.1. Designing a framework for synthesis of guidelines and principles ...................... 82
2.7. Research imperatives ................................................................................................................. 85

2.7.1. The research questions ..................................................................................................... 87
3. Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 89
3.1. The Research Process ................................................................................................................ 89

3.1.1. Rationale for the research design..................................................................................... 89
3.1.2. Unit of analysis ................................................................................................................ 90
3.1.3. Data Gathering Techniques and Sources......................................................................... 92
3.1.4. Validity and reliability ..................................................................................................... 93
3.1.5. Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 94
3.1.6. Key research design features ........................................................................................... 95
3.2. The Research Plan ..................................................................................................................... 99

3.2.1. Stages in the research process.......................................................................................... 99
3.2.1.1. Stage 1: Identification and Collection of IMCoP cases ...................................... 100
3.2.1.2. Stage 2: Selection of exemplar cases and data collection................................... 101
3.2.1.3. Stage 3: Selection and in-depth study of heuristic .............................................. 103
3.2.1.4. Stage 4: Case and cross case analysis of heuristic case data .............................. 104
3.2.1.5. Stage 5: Evaluation of plausibility of the conditions in evidence....................... 106
3.2.1.6. Stage 6: Conclusions and recommendations for further research...................... 106
4. Case Findings ................................................................................................................................... 109
4.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................. 109
4.2. Exemplar Cases........................................................................................................................ 110

4.2.1. Communities in the Educational Sector ........................................................................ 110
4.2.1.1. Australian Flexible Learning Community........................................................... 110
4.2.1.2. The MirandaNet Fellowship ................................................................................ 111
4.2.1.3. Talking Heads ...................................................................................................... 113
4.2.1.4. Webheads in Action............................................................................................. 114
4.2.1.5. Tapped In ............................................................................................................. 116
4.2.1.6. Inquiry Learning Forum....................................................................................... 117
4.2.2. Cases in Non-Education Sectors.................................................................................... 119
4.2.2.1. CompanyCommand.com ..................................................................................... 119
4.2.2.2. Government Online International Network......................................................... 120
4.2.2.3. Knowledge Management for International Development Organizations........... 122
4.2.2.4. Online Facilitation ............................................................................................... 123
4.2.2.5. PRGA Working Group on Participatory Natural Resource Management.......... 125
4.2.2.6. actKM................................................................................................................... 127
4.2.3. Summarizing the diversity ................................................................................... 129
4.3. Heuristic Cases......................................................................................................................... 131

4.3.1. Heuristic Case 1: The Australian Flexible Learning Community ................................ 132
4.3.1.1. The Australian Flexible Learning Community case narrative............................ 132
4.3.1.2. The Australian Flexible Learning Community case statistical summary........... 144
4.3.2. Heuristic Case 2: US Army CompanyCommand.com.................................................. 150
4.3.2.1. The Company Command case narrative ............................................................. 150
4.3.2.2. The CompanyCommand case statistical summary ............................................. 161
4.3.3. Heuristic Case 3: MirandaNet Fellowship .................................................................... 167
4.3.3.1. The MirandaNet case narrative............................................................................ 167
4.3.3.2. The MirandaNet case statistical summary........................................................... 177
4.3.4. Heuristic Case 4: Government Online International Network...................................... 183
ii
Bronwyn Stuckey
4.3.4.1. The GOL-IN case narrative ................................................................................. 183

4.3.4.2. The GOL-IN case statistical summary ................................................................ 192
4.4. The value of the conceptual framework .................................................................................. 197
5. Cross case findings .......................................................................................................................... 199

5.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................. 199
5.2. Core conditions ........................................................................................................................ 200

5.2.1. Core conditions for PEOPLE......................................................................................... 203
5.2.1.1. Roles..................................................................................................................... 204
5.2.1.2. Profiles ................................................................................................................. 206
5.2.1.3. Leadership ............................................................................................................ 209
5.2.1.4. Sponsorship.......................................................................................................... 211
5.2.1.5. Time ..................................................................................................................... 212
5.2.2. Core conditions for COMMON TIES ........................................................................... 214
5.2.2.1. Situatedness.......................................................................................................... 215
5.2.2.2. Value .................................................................................................................... 217
5.2.2.3. Relating to the larger community ........................................................................ 220
5.2.2.4. Values................................................................................................................... 222
5.2.2.5. Accreditation and recognition ............................................................................. 224
5.2.2.6. Cutting edge ......................................................................................................... 226
5.2.2.7. Focus .................................................................................................................... 227
5.2.3. Core conditions for SOCIAL INTERACTION............................................................. 229
5.2.3.1. Functionality ........................................................................................................ 230
5.2.3.2. Modality ............................................................................................................... 232
5.2.3.3. Levels ................................................................................................................... 236
5.2.3.4. Rhythm................................................................................................................. 239
5.2.3.5. Generate content .................................................................................................. 241
5.2.4. Core conditions for PLACE........................................................................................... 242
5.2.4.1. Tools..................................................................................................................... 243
5.2.4.2. Reliability............................................................................................................. 244
5.2.4.3. Resourcing............................................................................................................ 247
5.2.4.4. Evolution .............................................................................................................. 249
5.2.4.5. Resources ............................................................................................................. 250
5.2.4.6. Public and private ................................................................................................ 252
5.2.4.7. Ownership ............................................................................................................ 254
5.2.4.8. Status .................................................................................................................... 255
5.3. Comparison education and non-education sector communities....................................... 256
6. Discussion and conclusions............................................................................................................. 263
6.1. Discussion of IMCoP components, conditions and attributes .......................................... 265

6.1.1. People ............................................................................................................................. 266
6.1.2. Common ties .................................................................................................................. 274
6.1.3. Social interaction............................................................................................................ 278
6.1.4. Place ............................................................................................................................... 284
6.2. Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 291

6.2.1. Research Question 1: ..................................................................................................... 291
6.2.2. Research question 2: ...................................................................................................... 293
6.2.5. The value and generalizability of the conclusions ........................................................ 301
References .................................................................................................................................................. 305
iii
Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 329

Appendix A: The StageStruck Online Community Design.............................................................. 329
Appendix B: Pedagogical issues and activities for StageStruck Community.................................. 330
Appendix C: The Community architecture....................................................................................... 331
Appendix D: Log of StageStruck site activity 2000-2001................................................................ 332
Appendix E: Principles of High Quality Professional Development ............................................... 333
Appendix F: Deconstruction of 25 recent definitions of community............................................... 334
Appendix G: Selection of guidelines, strategies and principles from the relevant literature .......... 337
Appendix H: Criteria for IMCoP case selection............................................................................... 338
Appendix I: Research Human Subjects Ethics Approval................................................................ 339
Appendix J: Information provided to case informants .................................................................... 341
Appendix K: Consent forms for case informants ............................................................................. 342
Appendix L: Case Community Convener Informant List ................................................................ 343
Appendix M: Case Community Convener Interview Protocol ........................................................ 344
Appendix N: Descriptive Comparison of the 12 Exemplar Cases of IMCoPs (2003/4) ................. 345
Appendix O: Key evidence types collected for each case................................................................ 347
Appendix P: Key Evidence sources made available for heuristic cases .......................................... 348
Appendix Q: Key Evidence sources made available for exemplar cases ........................................ 353
Appendix R: Excerpt from coding, NVivo node listing May 02 2006 ............................................ 354
Appendix S: Comparison of percentages of coded items for conditions ......................................... 361
iv
Bronwyn Stuckey
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Flow and narrowing if focus for teacher professional development 14
Table 2.2 Summary of principles for high quality professional development 28
Table 2.3 Association for recent definitional components to Hillery’s four themes 53
Table 2.4 The span of web architectures labeled as ‘communities’ on the web 61
Table 2.5 Summary of McDermott’s guidelines and success factors 79
Table 2.6 Summary of Le Moult’s tips and pitfalls for community development 81
Table 2.7 Synthesis of the six relevant guidelines for development of community in IMCoPs 84
Table 3.1 The purposive sample of exemplar cases for educational and non-educational 91
sectors
Table 3.2 Techniques, sources and collection methods 92
Table 3.3 The framework of issues identified in the literature used as parent nodes for 98
coding
Table 3.4 Key stages if the research process and multiple case design 99
Table 3.5 Four cases selected to serve a heuristic role 104
Table 4.1 Exemplar IMCoPs offered in the overview 109
Table 4.2 Comparison of exemplar IMCoP communities 129
Table 4.3 Factors affecting the community development 134
Table 4.4 Opportunities for engagement in the Australian Flexible Learning Community 143
Table 4.5 Frequency of occurrence in the AFLC coded items for each of the four 145
components
Table 4.6 Conditions ranked highest for data across all components for the AFLC 149
Table 4.7 Opportunities for engagement in the CompanyCommand.com community 159
Table 4.8 Frequency of occurrence in CC coded items for each of the four components 161
Table 4.9 Conditions ranked highest for data across all components in CC 166
Table 4.10 The progression and change in status in the MirandaNet Fellowship 169
Table 4.11 Opportunities for engagement in the MirandaNet Fellowship community 176
Table 4.12 Frequency of occurrence in MN coded items for each of the four components 177
Table 4.13 Conditions ranked highest for data across all components in MN 182
Table 4.14 Opportunities for engagement in the GOL-IN community 191
Table 4.15 Frequency of occurrence in GOL-IN coded items for each of the four components 192
Table 4.16 Conditions ranked highest for data across all components in GOL-IN 196
Table 5.1 Statistical comparison of component ranking in heuristic IMCoPs 200
Table 5.2 Relative ranking of conditions when percentages were averaged across IMCoPs 201
Table 5.3 People: Core conditions and related key attributes presented in rank order 203
Table 5.4 Common ties: Core conditions and related attributes presented in rank order. 214
Table 5.5 Social interaction: Core conditions and related attributes presented in rank order. 230
Table 5.6 Place: Core conditions and related attributes presented in rank order. 243
Table 5.7 Variations observed for importance of conditions for IMCoPs in the education 261
sector
Table 6.1 Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of PEOPLE to the 266
principles encountered in the literature
Table 6.2 Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of COMMON TIES 274
v
Bronwyn Stuckey
to the principles encountered in the literature

Table 6.3 Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of SOCIAL 280
INTERACTION to the principles encountered in the literature
Table 6.4 Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of PLACE to the 285
Table 6.5 An evidence-based conceptual framework: Core conditions for cultivation of 293
IMCoPs
Table 6.6 Advice for management in cultivation of the PEOPLE component of community 296
Table 6.7 Advice for management in cultivation of the COMMON TIES component of 297
community
Table 6.8 Advice for management in cultivation of the SOCIAL INTERACTION 298
component of community
Table 6.9 Advice for management in cultivation of the PLACE component of community 299
vi
Bronwyn Stuckey
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Degrees of community participation 58

Figure 2.2 Intranet networking 63
Figure 2.3 Extranet networking 63
Figure 2.4 Internet networking 63
Figure 2.5 Cothrel’s Five P’s – ingredients for a successful online community 77
Figure 3.1 Community as the embedded unit of analysis in the IMCoP 91
Figure 4.1 The Australian Flexible Learning Community web site 110
Figure 4.2 The MirandaNet web site 111
Figure 4.3 The Talking Heads web site 113
Figure 4.4 The Webheads in Action web site 114
Figure 4.5 The Tapped In web site 116
Figure 4.6 The Inquiry Learning Forum web site 117
Figure 4.7 The CompanyCommand web site 119
Figure 4.8 The Government Online International Network web site 120
Figure 4.9 The Knowledge Management for Development web site 122
Figure 4.10 The Online Facilitation web site 123
Figure 4.11 The Participatory Natural Resource Management web site 125
Figure 4.12 The actKM web site 127
Figure 4.13 The percentage of nodes in the AFLC rich text coding attributed to each of the four 145
community components
Figure 4.14 Plot of conditions rated within SOCIAL INTERACTION for the AFLC 146
Figure 4.15 Plot of conditions rated within PLACE for the AFLC 147
Figure 4.16 Plot of conditions rated within PEOPLE for the AFLC 148
Figure 4.17 Plot of conditions rated within COMMON TIES for the AFLC 148
Figure 4.18 The percentage of nodes in CC rich text coding attributed to each of the four 161
Figure 4.19 Plot of conditions rated within SOCIAL INTERACTION in CC 162
Figure 4.20 Plot of conditions rated within PLACE in CC 163
Figure 4.21 Plot of conditions rated within PEOPLE in CC 164
Figure 4.22 Plot of conditions rated within COMMON TIES in CC 165
Figure 4.23 The percentage of nodes in MN rich text coding attributed to each of the four 178
Figure 4.24 Plot of conditions rated within SOCIAL INTERACTION in MN 179
Figure 4.25 Plot of conditions rated within PLACE in MN 179
Figure 4.26 Plot of conditions rated within PEOPLE in MN 180
Figure 4.27 Plot of conditions rated within COMMON TIES in MN 181
Figure 4.28 The percentage of nodes in GOL-IN rich text coding attributed to each of the four 193
Figure 4.29 Plot of conditions rated within SOCIAL INTERACTION in GOL-IN 193
Figure 4.30 Plot of conditions rated within PLACE in GOL-IN 194
Figure 4.31 Plot of conditions rated within PEOPLE in GOL-IN 195
vii
Bronwyn Stuckey
Figure 4.32 Plot of conditions rated within COMMON TIES in GOL-IN 195
Figure 5.1 Comparison of component ranking in heuristic IMCoPs 200
Figure 5.2 Comparison of relative importance across heuristic cases for conditions within the 203
people component of community.
Figure 5.3 Comparison of relative difference across heuristic cases for conditions within the 214
common ties component of community.
social interaction component of community.
place component of community.
Figure 5.6 Comparison of percentages for each community component across the four 256
heuristic communities
Figure 5.7 Comparison of community sectors and components of community 257
Figure 5.8 Comparative importances of averages for education and non-education sectors in 257
the conditions for the people component of community.
Figure 5.9 Comparative importances of averages for educational and non-educational sectors 258
in the conditions for the Common ties component of community
Figure 5.10 comparative importances of averages for educational and non-educational sectors in 259
the conditions for the Social interaction component of community
Figure 5.11 Comparative importances of averages for educational and non-educational sectors 260
in the conditions for the Place component of community
Figure 6.1 Comparison of percentages for community components across the four heuristic 291
communities
viii
Bronwyn Stuckey
List of Appendices
Appendix A: The StageStruck Online Community Design 329

Appendix B: Pedagogical issues and activities for StageStruck Community 330
Appendix C: The Community architecture 331
Appendix D: Log of StageStruck site hits 2000-2001 332
Synthesis of Community Essentials, Planned Internet Activities and Features
Appendix E: Principles of High Quality Professional Development 333
Appendix F: Deconstruction of 25 recent definitions of community 334
Appendix G: Selection of guidelines, strategies and principles from the relevant current 337
literature
Appendix H: Criteria for IMCoP case selection 338
Appendix I: Research Human Subjects Ethics Approval 339
Appendix J: Information provided to case informants 341
Appendix K: Consent forms for case informants 342
Appendix L: Case Community Convener Informant List 343
Appendix M: Case Community Convener Interview Protocol 344
Appendix N: Descriptive Comparison of the 12 Exemplar Cases of IMCoPs (2003/4) 345
Appendix O: Key evidence types collected for each case 347
Appendix P: Key Evidence sources made available for heuristic cases 348
Appendix Q: Key Evidence sources made available for exemplar cases 353
Appendix R: Excerpt from coding, NVivo node listing May 02 2006 354
Appendix S: Comparison of percentages of coded items for conditions 361
ix
Bronwyn Stuckey
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to recognize the invaluable contribution and tireless support given to
me by my supervisors, Lori Lockyer and Tony Herrington during the conduct of this
research and in the writing and editing of this thesis.
I would like to acknowledge the communities and the conveners whose work is
discussed in this research. The community conveners were an invaluable source of
information, insight and inspiration.
I would also like to thank members of CPsquare (my community of practice),

who joined me in discourse about issues of community, especially John D. Smith for his
ongoing support and in helping me see that value of talking with community conveners
and developing a case study approach.
Mention needs to be made of John Hedberg the professor and colleague who
initially led me to understand the value and love of research.
Finally I would like thank my family for their tolerance and support over the years
of this research process.
Bronwyn E. Stuckey
6th August, 2007
x
Bronwyn Stuckey
Abstract
Today many groups seek to foster communities of practice in order to serve the
needs of professional development, change management, quality or other professional
goals. While educational agendas may be served by all communities of practice, it is not
just in education that we see communities of practice (CoPs). Many long established
communities can be found in sectors such as the military, government, healthcare, non
profit and information technology domains.
For the most part communities of practice are considered emergent entities that
are often neither planned for nor orchestrated. Yet today organizations, having seen the
knowledge sharing potential of CoPs, are working to purposely instigate them.
Questions remain as to how an entity such as a CoP, widely recognized as organic, can
be planned or designed.
Many such organizations, grappling with community development, are also
dealing with connecting highly distributed groups of people, not already connected by
an existing shared technological infrastructure such as an intranet. With Internet
technology so readily part of the work and home life, much of this recent community
development also entails cultivating aspects of that community over the World Wide
Web.
This research set out to explore the conditions that contributed to successful
community development in Internet-mediated communities of practice (IMCoPs) and
how the managers or conveners of such communities might contribute to these
conditions when intentionally cultivating community. A further goal was to determine
whether conditions vary between IMCoPs in education and other sectors. In other
words, if there were idiosyncrasies in education sector communities that should be taken
into account when intentionally developing educational IMCoPs.
The research was instigated by an unsuccessful attempt to foster teacher
professional development by creating community in an online community space. The
strengths of developing a web site to bring teachers together to engage and exchange
ideas may have been understood at the outset of that task. But in hindsight, little was
known about how to support this engagement and indeed the social dynamics required
to sustain community over online communication.
xi
Bronwyn Stuckey
A return to the literature describing effective teacher professional development

in the contemporary educational climate led to the notion of communities of practice.
While understanding CoPs and their dynamics is vital, knowing how to cultivate them,
for highly distributed groups of people, over Internet technologies is an essential
extension for IMCoPs. To date there is sufficient literature to support the notion that
community can be developed online and there is a growing body of research that
suggests how to develop face-to-face CoPs. Both bodies of literature are relevant to the
development of IMCoPS but neither specifically focuses on the intentional development
of IMCoPs. Filling that gap became the goal of this research. This researcher chose not
to focus on all aspects of the CoP rather on what is arguably the most difficult part of
the IMCoP to develop online, and the nub of the earlier failure - community.
There are examples of intentionally implemented IMCoPs that have been active
for a number of years. Studying these would shed light on what it took to develop
community in the past and whether there was a set of conditions, which when
cultivated, might positively support community building.
A multiple-case case study method was employed to reveal the conditions
present within the early years of development of 12 successful Internet-mediated
communities of practice. Data was collected from multiple sources for 12 communities
and four were selected to be the heuristic communities. These communities were
studied in detail in order to produce a working hypothesis or heuristic set of conditions.
The cases were analyzed individually and cross-case to determine the shared conditions
and their priority. The resultant set of conditions and issues was reviewed for
plausibility against data collected for the remaining eight communities.
The research found that there were common conditions in successful IMCoPs
and presents a set of 24 categorized and prioritized conditions demonstrating various
issues related to instantiations of each and the role of management in their development.
The findings of this research could be used to guide redevelopment efforts for
the original community and offer advice to others working to intentionally develop
IMCoPs. The components do not represent a prescription for community development
nor are they as the data proved uniformly relevant for IMCoPs in all sectors and
circumstances. They are conditions and issues to be considered, cultivated variously
and reviewed over the life of the community.
xii
Bronwyn Stuckey
1. Introduction
1.1. The concept of community of practice
This research has its origins in the development of an online environment for
teacher professional development (TPD). At the heart of the environment’s design was a
structured opportunity for teacher interaction and exchange. The aim was that, over
time, the teacher interaction within this environment would result in the diffusion of
new classroom practices. Problems encountered in developing a significant level of
teacher engagement in this environment led the researcher to investigate the notion of
online community and more particularly community of practice (CoP), and its evolution
in educational domains. The research grew into a multi-case study project to develop
understandings of what it means to cultivate community in an Internet-mediated
community of practice (IMCoP).
Community of practice has become a very attractive construct, perhaps even a buzz
word for learning design in recent years. While the social behavior seen in a
community of practice is recognized as age-old (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002,
p. 5), explicit use of the term community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and its
operationalization in workplace learning is a much more recent occurrence (Allee, 2000;
Brown & Duguid, 1991; Brown & Solomon Gray, 1995; McDermott, 1999; Rush,
2002; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder,
2002).
The rise in profile of communities of practice (CoPs) in many fields has coincided
with opportunities to rethink the nature of learning. The social theory of learning
underpinning the CoP draws together aspects of theories of situated learning (Brown,
Collins, & Duguid, 1989), reflective practice (Schön, 1983, 1988), social constructivism
(Vygotsky, 1978) and social constructionism (Papert, 1990). In communities of
practice knowledge is socially constructed and reified in and through the interaction of a
membership engaged in a shared practice. Put very simply a community of practice is a
group of people who share work practices and collaborate to further those practices.
McDermott clearly states:
A community of practice specifically centers its interest on the practices of the
workplace. But communities of practice are not just celebrations of common
interests. They focus on practical aspects of a practice, everyday problems, new
Literature Review 1 27/06/2008
Bronwyn Stuckey
tools, developments in the field, things that work and don't. (McDermott, 1999,
p. 2)
CoPs are much more than loosely connected interest groups or web site
repositories of professional tips. Communities of practice serve not just to connect
members of a profession but to support them to gain knowledge of and innovate in their
practices. When members of a community of practice share war stories they do much
more than exchange chunks of information. They work to refine existing and establish
new knowledge and practices in the domain. Engagement in the activities of a CoP
make it possible to surface the tacit knowledge and improvisational practices of
individuals, make them explicit and to have life, as a shared good in the community
(Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
Communities of practice have developed significant acceptance in learning
agendas across a broad spectrum of domains from health care (Parboosingh, 2003),
government (Snyder, 2003; Verma & Lonti, 2001), education (Barab & Duffy, 2000;
Riel & Polin, 2004), enterprise (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Wenger & Snyder, 2000),
and military (Dixon, Allen, Burgess, Kilner, & Schweitzer, 2005) to name but a few.
The cultivation of CoPs has gained interest in sectors where people seek to
introduce new practices, structures or reforms in fields as wide ranging as science,
scouting, law enforcement and arts centre management. CoPs serve biologists in
developing participatory research strategies with farmers in developing nations; support
school principals building leadership and cultural reform in schools and doctors, nurses;
and, paramedics coming together to co-ordinate evidence-based approaches to
emergency health care.
The literature reveals a wealth of recent discussion of the value of communities
within disciplines or fields of endeavor, and in cross-discipline practices. For instance
CoPs have current significance in organizational learning (Brown & Duguid, 1991;
Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001; Lesser & Storck, 2001; Orr, 1990; Piele & Briner,
2001; Sharp, 1997), change management (Allee, 2000; Hargreaves, 1997a; Hargreaves
& Fullan, 1998), knowledge management (Brown & Solomon Gray, 1995; Kimble,
Hildreth, & Wright, 2001; Mueller-Prothmann & Siedentopf, 2003), professional
development or service learning (Printy, 2002; Schlager & Fusco, 2004; Shumar &
Renninger, 2002; Wesley & Buysse, 2001), workplace learning (Davis & Sumara,

Bronwyn Stuckey
2001; Stamps, 1997) and reflective practice (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003;
Schön, 1988).
Education has most recently come to embrace CoPs. Education groups and
systems have focused their community building efforts on the areas of leadership,
teacher education, mathematics and sciences teaching (Lieberman & Miller, 1990;
Printy, 2002; Riel & Polin, 2004; Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman, Myhre, & Woolworth,
1998; Wesley & Buysse, 2001). The community of practice seems to be a concept truly
part of the current zeitgeist. But if developing a CoP was the answer then what was the
question?
1.2. The problem
Australia on CD was a Creative Nation Federally-funded cultural arts program

initiated in 1995. Over six million dollars was committed to produce ten exemplar
multimedia products designed to bring Australian culture to the public. While this
program was essentially a national cultural promotion the resultant CD-ROM titles were
all intended for dissemination and educational use in schools. A number of the products
were unlike any other CD-ROM resources previously experienced by teachers. They
were highly innovative in both their design and the pedagogical approaches each
proposed for classroom implementation. However, teacher professional development
had never been factored into the dissemination or promotion for any of these products
and the products arrive largely unannounced in schools.
StageStruck (1998), produced by the University of Wollongong and National
Institute for Dramatic Art (NIDA), was one of those ten CD-ROMs. StageStruck was
recognized as an innovation in the performing arts and for multimedia design by
winning a string of prestigious international awards, such as The Association of Moving
Image Archivists, 1999; British Academy of Film and Television Arts, & Ethnic
Multicultural Media Awards 1998. StageStruck was designed as a multimedia
knowledge construction tool (Harper & Hedberg, 1997) with strong constructivist
underpinnings and design realizations. It was formally launched on 29th January 1999
and copies were distributed to every school in the Australia in the first semester of that
year. Anecdotal evidence in 2000 suggested the program was largely unused in most
schools; indeed most teachers were unaware of its existence. StageStruck’s lack of

Bronwyn Stuckey
profile called for a dual purpose strategy that would both promote awareness of the
product amongst teachers and allow them to share ideas for its use.
Teachers wanting to employ StageStruck were spread across the country and
school sectors (primary and secondary). Traditional face-to-face professional
development to reach teachers in all appeared prohibitive both logistically and
financially. Additionally it was considered important that, while skill development was
important, effective professional development would offer access to stories of
StageStuck’s practical application in schools as feedback for the designers and as
authentic examples of practice for teachers. With online technology rapidly increasing
in availability in schools and homes, an online offering appeared an attractive solution
to the need for many-to-many communication. Preliminary research in the design of
online professional development led to an exploration of online community. Literature
and available cases revealed the online community as a nexus between best practice in
professional development, innovation and pedagogical use of online technologies. The
design of a web space for this community took place over 2000 and involved creating
spaces for members to promote, upload and share resources and ideas. The resultant
StageStruck Learning Community (http://www.StageStruck.uow.edu.au) was built on
the best practice guidelines distilled from an exploration of the literature of that time
and a needs analysis of teachers of performing arts in the K-12 school environment in
Australia. It was considered that the design might allow teachers to share ideas and
practices as well as artifacts related to use of the program. The StageStruck Learning
Community Internet site was launched in December of 2000. Appendices A to C offer
an overview of the design principles, pedagogies and technical affordances that were
considered in the sites design. The full background to the selection of online community
for delivery of professional development in this study is detailed in Stuckey and
Hedberg (2000) and Stuckey, Hedberg and Lockyer (2001).
An informal review held in the second year of development suggested that the
design and infrastructure had largely underestimated the more human and ongoing
social aspects inherent in professional community building including the role of the
community manager in facilitation of this process. It became evident that there was
much more to understand, from a social rather than technical perspective, in actualizing
an Internet-mediated community site. Certainly it was much more complex than
provision of a web site designed to invite and enable member contribution, sharing and

Bronwyn Stuckey
discussion (Preece, 2000; Schlager & Fusco, 2004). The failure of this community
building effort was the critical incident that instigated this current research.
In 2002, the site hosted a 150+ membership and one third of these members
responded to a brief e-mail survey, which asked participants to self-rate as either
beginners or explorers in use of StageStruck. It had been expected that over time those
identified as more experienced practitioners would contribute experiences and ideas.
Facilitation of the membership was initially only light-handed in that members were
acknowledged and e-mailed individually to ask about their use of the program and to be
advised of various site features. Server logs indicated that members were joining,
browsing the areas of the site and downloading tutorial resources (Appendix D: Log of
StageStruck site activity 2000-2001 offers site statistics for visits and memberships over
2000 and 2001). They were not using the tools provided to contribute ideas or artifacts
nor seeking support to do so. In the first year the only resources added were those
collected and promoted by the researcher in efforts to trigger member contributions. The
space lacked emergence of the social interaction, discussion, roles and the contributions
suggested as indicators of community (Hillery, 1955; Stuckey, Hedberg, & Lockyer,
2001). At that stage, with the existing strategies and design, there was no reason to
believe that the disconnected membership would evolve into a community. Informal
feedback from participants suggested that a level of professional development value was
being achieved through use of the software tutorials placed as a resource by the
designers. Teachers were individually gaining technical knowledge about use of the
program but were not exploring the more tacit knowledge of pedagogical practices that
might be shared through discourse with peers.
The educational and architectural design premises for the space had originally
seemed well researched; however, it was a matter of record that community did not
develop. Questions arose regarding whether the lack of engagement could be attributed
to, individually or in combination, the choices made about technology, design,
management and support. The design may have fallen into the trap of confusing
community as an online architecture (Baym, 1998) and community the socially
negotiated entity (Figallo, 1998; Rheingold, 1993). These confusions and errors can
result in resource allocation, human and financial, being overly directed to enabling the
online environment rather than the social engagement (Barab, Makinster, Moore, &
Cunningham, 2001; Saint-Onge, 2003; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Schwen & Hara,
2004).
Bronwyn Stuckey
Questions also arose as to whether the lack of engagement may have been
peculiar to teachers and cultural and experiential issues in their profession. There was
clearly more to know about teachers as a group, their levels of collegiality, experiences
online and what made for effective professional development.
1.3. Revisiting professional development
Teacher professional development has been reviewed widely by governments and

educational systems as part of plans for educational reform (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998;
Harris, 2001; Little, 1994) over the past decade. At the same time communication and
multimedia technologies have been proffered as cost effective and efficient modes for
delivery of training and development solutions (Collis, 1994; Harasim, 1993; Marx,
Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1998).
The literature on best practice TPD advocates development of reflective
practitioners in a peer-supported community (Boud & Walker, 1998; Ferraro, 2000;
Harris, 1998; Schön, 1988). As TPD looks to explore a community-based perspective
the affordances of the technology become increasingly able to support the
communication and interaction needs of a community. For online learning, that
community might be recognized as the learning community (Kowch & Schwier, 1997)
where for professionals engaged in a specific set of practices within a domain, it might
be a community of practice (Barab & Duffy, 2000).
The concept of the Internet-mediated community, for educational domains, has
come into the limelight within the past five to eight years. Leading this development
have been groups like the University of Massachusetts (EdNet@UMass), SRI
International (Tapped In) Drexel University (Mathlab), Indiana University (Inquiry
Learning Forum) and Ultralab (Talking Heads), all adding depth to the literature in this
area. On closer examination it can be seen that the communities themselves are as
diverse in structure as the research results made available about them. No substantive
studies have been carried out to look across these communities to explore what they
might have in common. Each has largely told its own story. It must be seen from the
recency of these community building efforts and the research that this still is a
developing body of literature. It has become important to clearly recognize community
and understand what could be learned from diverse community stories.

Bronwyn Stuckey
1.4. Refocusing on community
It has become clear that not all groups meeting online are communities and that
the term virtual community is a misnomer. If community is said to exist in any group,
whether meeting in a hall or over Internet-mediated technologies, its value is very real
for the members. True communities are much more than just web sites, communication
tools or gatherings of people (Preece, 2000; Riel & Polin, 2004; Schwier, 2002;
Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Communities require member participation and
contribution, ownership, quality support and facilitation, shared direction, goals and
projects (Kim, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Wellman & Gulia, 1997). They are an
investment in time and nurturing. That old adage of ‘if you build it they will come’
certainly does not apply in the same way to Internet-mediated community. Yes, they
will come - as the StageStruck experience proved - but they will not necessarily stay,
interact nor contribute. The literature suggests that members create the community - not
the web site developers or managers (Barab, Makinster, Moore, & Cunningham, 2001;
Kim, 2000; Schlager & Fusco, 2004; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). If value is
developed by the social interactions of members how then can designers and developers
ever act to intentionally cultivate community? The designers and facilitators must aim to
provide the greatest opportunity for that interaction technologically and socially.
Continued literature searches in this study over 2002 and 2003 lead to
identification of published literature on online communities of practice and further
opened up the issues of the human and social aspects of communities as learning
environments. Questions raised in the review of StageStruck surrounded the social
phenomena of community in an Internet-mediated community of practice for teachers.
Wenger (2002) described community as one of the three main components in a CoP, and
that community should display properties of joint enterprise, mutual engagement and
shared repertoire. These were exactly the properties found wanting in the StageStruck
environment.
Much of the substantive research and literature focuses on the CoP in an
enterprise or organizational setting (Allee, 2000; Davenport & Hall, 2002; Lesser &
Storck, 2001; McDermott, 2000; Senge, 1990; Wenger, 1998). Indeed, several
corporations have been directly or indirectly responsible for much of the leading
literature and research over the past ten years (Xerox, IBM, Chevron Texaco, Clarica,
and Chrysler).
Bronwyn Stuckey
Recent research has also been grounded in collocated and/or organizational

communities of practice (co-workers or work team-related) or the ubiquitous online
community (commercial sites and portals). While this literature did provide some high-
level principles for community development, when aggregated it was ambiguous and
sometimes seemingly contrary in its advice. From which of the sets of guidelines should
we draw advice? Will the research for cultivating communities of practice, online
learning or online community building hold true for IMCoPs? How idiosyncratic are
IMCoPs in their development? It became vital to understand, through empirical
research, what happens in these specific communities and how much of the current
literature was relevant to them. The chosen approach would need to develop guidelines
specifically for Internet-mediated communities of practice rather than continue to
project ‘best fit’ from existing guidelines onto this specific type of community.
The empirical literature related to the online version of these communities is
sparse. Literature that does focus on IMCoP development stems from ethnographic
methodologies carried out in individual community case studies (Barab, Makinster,
Moore, & Cunningham, 2001; Ramondt L., Chapman, & Powell, 2002; Shumar &
Renninger, 2002). And, as has been suggested earlier in this chapter, these communities
and their contexts are too diverse to generalize from any one single case and collectively
the data from these cases is difficult to synthesize. To date, few truly generalizable
findings are offered specifically for the cultivation of IMCoPs in cross or non-
institutional contexts.
1.5. The study
This study was intended to address a gap in the research and to empirically
investigate the best of current theory against successful community examples. The
purpose of the study was to explore the conditions that contribute to development of
community in successful IMCoPs, how and in what ways management can contribute to
development of those conditions and if and how conditions vary in educational
communities. Many empirical studies and theoretical works appear to hold pieces to this
puzzle. This research sought to concretize theory with a practical set of conditions,
empirically investigated in successful communities. Coincidentally, a vision of these
conditions and advice on how to attain them was exactly what was required for
redevelopment of the StageStruck Learning Community.
Bronwyn Stuckey
An aggregation of the definitions of community in the literature over the last

sixty years only serves to confound rather than clarify an understanding of what
community comprises. Hillery (1955) sought to determine the common definitional
components of community. His research determined that four common components
occurred in 69 of the 94 definitions of community; people, common ties, social
interaction and place. This simple set of components still held true when reviewed by
subsequent researchers and commentators (Hamman, 2000; Poplin, 1979) many years
later. The validity of these definitional comments was further confirmed in this current
research by examining a pool of twenty five definitions collected from recent
community, online community and CoP literature. Issues not considered by Hillery
were able to be subsumed as attributes of the main four components. New definitional
attributes related to temporal and developmental issues of community. Hillery’s set of
four high level definitional components became a lens through which advice from
disparate domains, research works and methodologies could be viewed. They became
the nub of a conceptual framework used to categorize the guidelines, principles, and
components proposed by six of the leading theorists and researchers (Hung & Chen,
2001; Kim, 2000; Le Moult, 2001; McDermott, 2000; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder,
2002; Williams & Cothrel, 2000). This current research was in effect an opportunity to
reflect on, substantiate or not through empirical research, and develop the sub-strategies
to support those high-level design goals identified in the literature. The framework also
served to bring new meaning and clarity to the theory, rules and principles as they relate
specifically to IMCoPs.
This research set out to answer the following four questions:
1. To what extent can a framework based on Hillery’s four definitional components
of community be useful for describing and categorizing community in IMCoPs?
2. What are the core conditions for development of community in successful
IMCoPs?
3. In what ways can community management cultivate the core conditions for
successful IMCoP development?
4. How and in what ways do the conditions for development of successful IMCoPs
differ in education sector communities?
Answering the research questions required a research strategy that would not
deny the complexity of communities as social systems but yield practical and
Bronwyn Stuckey
generalizable insights into the contexts, issues and conditions and the ways in which
they were played out. As, Orum, Feagin and Sjoberg (1991, p. 9) see such systems as
“the complex web of social interaction”, and in this research it was exactly that complex
web that needed to be understood. It was not technological understanding that was
required but knowledge and understanding of the social development of community
when mediated over online technology.
The very tacit nature of the knowledge being sought further directed the research
to a naturalistic paradigm. The focus needed to be on understanding, explaining and
clarifying the conditions under which Internet-mediated communities of practice
flourish as opposed to determining any direct sets of cause and effect. The conceptual
framework, described fully in the Chapter 2 literature review, was developed through
the synthesis of the most recent and relevant literature and proved the cornerstone of
this research.
The conceptual framework was used throughout the study to:
• synthesize the significant outcomes in the literature review
• capture and codify the rich data collected in the case studies
• frame case study reports
• aggregate the findings in cross-case analysis
• develop the descriptors for each condition in various contexts
• present findings as a framework of conditions for IMCoP development
Through a detailed screening process 12 exemplar IMCoP cases were identified.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with each community’s convener and
supporting data collected from artifacts, web-site audits, documents and promotional
materials. The multi-case research methodology and the attendant screening processes
are described in Chapter 3 of this thesis. Chapter 3 closes with a detailed description of
the open and axial coding and data analysis employed and the significance of the
conceptual framework in ensuring the findings were both grounded and generalizable.
Four theory building cases were selected and data coding was carried out
beginning with the literature-based framework of conditions and additional conditions
as they surfaced through interaction with the data. The findings for individual cases are
presented in Chapter 4. The structure of these four community narratives provided an
opportunity to test the practicality of the conceptual framework as a tool for describing

Bronwyn Stuckey
and recognizing community. The narratives also provided an opportunity to present a

holistic view of each community and convey some of the complexity and diversity
within them. Cross case analysis is explored in Chapter 5 and findings are offered as a
set of core components, and associated attributes, for IMCoP development. The findings
are then examined in light of data gathered from the remaining cases and the relevant
literature. In effect the remaining eight cases and literature were used to measure
breadth and depth of the research findings.
In Chapter 6 the conclusions are expressed as a framework of issues and
conditions for IMCoP development, advice to community managers and facilitators as
to their role in this development and an exploration of the developmental anomalies
found in educational communities. Recommendations are made for further research and
testing of the design framework findings along with a projection of the significance of
the findings to the field.

Bronwyn Stuckey

Bronwyn Stuckey
2. Literature Review
2.1. Contributing Areas of Research
Educators around the globe face demands for continuing teacher professional
development. These demands are set against broad imperatives for school improvement
and pressures to exploit available online technologies. The impetus for this research
sprang from an attempt to build effective continuing teacher professional development
over the Internet. The primary goal of that professional development effort was to share
and build knowledge in a specific aspect of teaching practice. It sought to do this by
intentionally developing a small focused community of teachers who would share
knowledge and support each other using online communication. The background story
to this effort will be familiar to educators, in many fields of learning, who are similarly
being challenged to build online professional development communities (Barab,
Makinster, Moore, & Cunningham, 2001; Jones, Lang, Terrell, Thompson, & Ramondt,
2001; Schlager & Fusco, 2004).
The literature relevant to this research spans several interconnected and
interdependent fields. As detailed in the Introduction Chapter, continuing professional
development through an online community infrastructure was the goal of the
StageStruck Professional Development Community. Questions, about the design, focus
and validity of that online professional development effort, led to a re-examination of all
the relevant contributing areas of literature. This literature review determined the extent
and value of empirical evidence available to guide community building efforts. This
chapter maps a focused journey through the relevant learning epistemologies and the
available evidence about effectiveness when professional learning is mediated over the
Internet.
The review begins with a brief summary of each of the contributory learning
areas and then focuses fully on the theory and research publications relevant to the
community of practice (CoP) and its Internet-mediated form (IMCoP). A major part of
this chapter is devoted to a synthesis of the best advice from fields of online community
and community of practice. This synthesis resulted in the beginning of a conceptual
framework that arguably may impact on the field of Internet-mediated community

Bronwyn Stuckey
development well into the future. The review closes with the emergent research
questions and a case for a specific qualitative research strategy to investigate them.
2.1.1. The flow and relationship of the contributing bodies of knowledge
After an overview of the current climate for educational reform the review
positions effective practices in teacher professional development on and offline. The
review follows teacher professional development through a series of clarifying lenses
defined by each of the contributing bodies of research; social theory of learning,
community, community of practice, Internet-mediated community of practice. The
review narrows its focus from a broad consideration of the social and situated nature of
professional learning, to examine trends in community development, to support and
facilitate professional learning, and then to the community of practice for professional
learning and its Internet-mediated equivalent. Table 2.1 aligns the focus questions with
the key areas of literature investigated in this research.
Table 2.1
Flow and narrowing of focus for teacher professional development
Contributing bodies of knowledge and related focus questions Section
What are the imperatives for continuing teacher

2.2
professional development and what does effective
practice look like?
How and in what ways can online learning afford the

conditions required for social theories of learning? 2.3
What does community look like and what evidence is

there that it can be effectively realized online? 2.4
What are communities of practice and in what ways

have they served the needs of continuing education? 2.5
What guidelines and precedents exist to support the use

and development of Internet-mediated communities
2.6
of practice? What further research will support this?

Bronwyn Stuckey
Each section explores the main theoretical issues and implications, to be drawn
from the contributing body of research, for teacher professional development. At the
same time each section reflects on the available evidence as to the effectiveness of this
professional development when mediated over the Internet. Focusing on what is
currently understood to be effective practice builds a grounded theoretical and empirical
basis for the adoption of IMCoPs in the service of continuing teacher professional
development.
2.1.2. Key terms
For the purposes of this research the following definitions of the key terms have
been adopted. The rationale for the more critical terms is developed within the area
contextually appropriate for each in the literature review. Where this is the case the
relevant section is noted within the definitions stated here.
a) Teacher Professional Development (TPD)

Teacher professional development is the sum of all education offered to teachers
to enhance professional career growth. Fullan and Steigelbauer (1991, p. 326) takes an
inclusive view of teacher professional development and includes in it all stages of
teacher learning. “The sum total of formal and informal learning experiences throughout
one’s career from preservice teacher education to retirement.” This research focuses
specifically on the inservice period of that teacher development described in many
professions as continuing professional development (CPD). Schlager and Fusco (2004,
p. 124) summarize the current view of professional development when they say,
“Professional development is viewed as the as a career-long, context-specific,
continuous endeavor that is guided by standards, grounded in the teacher’s own work,
focused on student learning, and tailored to the teacher’s stage of career development”.
Section 2.2 deals in detail with the issues of that continuous endeavor and the perceived
current best practices in TPD.
b) Internet
The Internet is the sum of technologies delivered over the set of protocols known
as Transmission Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). This includes World

Bronwyn Stuckey
Wide Web technologies and tools, E-mail and Listserv, Chat, CGI, ASP, Java,
JavaScript, weblogs, Voice over IP, and Cookies to build static, interactive and dynamic
and/or database driven content. Much of the Internet activity is served and accessed
through the World Wide Web. Many people use the terms Internet, online, computer-
based and web-based interchangeably. Each of these terms is quite different in its true
meaning. This study holds that the main distinction lies in understanding that the World
Wide Web is part of the subset of Internet technologies, as are E-mail and various Chat
protocols and programming languages.
Network infrastructures vary greatly in terms of the access and connections they
permit or exclude. These infrastructures are described in three main ways; as either
Internet (open Internet), intranet (internal and often within organisation) or extranet
(connecting organizational network and externals). The definition of Internet used in
this research was greatly influenced by the online community research work of Cothrel
and Williams (1999) who distinguished and categorized communities not by their
technology but based on the networking relationship. They saw Internet, intranet and
extranet communities in terms of their networking and outcomes. This distinction is
vital to, and is explained in full in, Section 2.3 of this review. The definition of the
Internet, adopted for the purposes of this research, is therefore taken to be networking
offered to link geographically distributed members not within a single organizational
infrastructure.
c) Internet-mediated
Activity that is carried out through, involving, or to some extent dependent on
the Internet has been variously labeled as “web-supported” (Barab, Makinster, &
Scheckler, 2004, p. 55) when embracing a wider technological base than the web as
Internet-mediated (Gammack, 2002). When an activity or communication is mediated it
is conveyed via an intermediate agent, which in this case is Internet technology.
Internet-mediated communication is a subset of the Internet-based computer-mediated
communication (CMC). CMC is defined as human communication via computers and
includes many different forms of synchronous (real time) and asynchronous interaction
(any time) that humans have with each other using computers as tools to exchange text,
images, audio and video (Webopedia, 2002). Communities examined in this research
were defined as Internet-mediated if the mainstay for ongoing communication was the
Internet. This does not mean that there was no component of face-to-face
Bronwyn Stuckey
communication but that the Internet offered a continuing mechanism for community
wide interaction.
d) Community of Practice (CoP)

“Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of
problems, a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this
area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4).
Wenger (1998) proposes there are the three key components of the CoP. A community
of practice focuses on a common practice within a domain. For instance, a community
of scientists (science is the domain) working together to further their knowledge on
participatory research (the practice) may be a community of practice. Likewise a group
of teachers of English as a Second Language (domain) meeting and working together to
further skills in using technology in teaching (practice) may form a community of
practice. A full subsection of this review is dedicated to describing and defining the
community of practice (Section 2.4).
e) Internet-mediated Community of Practice (CoP)

The term Internet-mediated Community of Practice was coined by the researcher
to combine the notions of CoP and Internet-mediated community and identify the
communities to be investigated. These are communities where the participants share a
domain and practice and will communicate via the Internet to develop and share
knowledge in that practice. In these Internet-mediated groups participants are highly
distributed, and very importantly, non-organizationally connected. The community
activities and ties are largely but not exclusively sustained over the Internet. This
distinguishes this community from those organizational or commercial groups
connected through intranet or extranet networks or technologies. The community or
subgroups may meet face-to-face, indeed face-to-face communication may have a
substantive role in the community activity, but the Internet sustains the group as a whole
across borders and over time.

Bronwyn Stuckey
f) Successful Online Community

The research adopts Bruckman and Jensen’s (2002) pragmatic definition of
success in online communities as being a prolonged level of member activity and
engagement.
In online communities in which participation is genuinely voluntary, success is

somewhat easier to judge. If people choose to participate, they likely think that
they are benefiting from the experience in some way. If this were not the case,
they would not spend their valuable time participating in the online
community. (Bruckman & Jensen, 2002, p. 22)
Online people are considered to ‘vote with their feet’, so communities that have
been in existence for a sustained period of time, with continued activity and growth
should be deemed successful (Bruckman & Jensen, 2002; Riel & Polin, 2004).
g) Education sector
The work of all communities of practice is by nature related to learning and
thereby educational but not all IMCoPs concern themselves with issues for educators.
This study investigates the development of IMCoPs in a wide variety of contexts. It
seeks to separate, for the purposes of comparison, communities with educators as
members from those made up of non-educators. The domain of the community
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, pp. 29-32) has been used to complete the
distinction. Communities with educators as members, and with educational issue/s as
the domain, are described as IMCoPs in education sectors. For instance, the StageStruck
Community was comprised of educators and the domain of the group was performing
arts education. Issues arising in the pilot of that web site design raised questions about
whether the problems encountered were universal or specific to communities in the
educational sector. Communities not made up of educators and/or do not focus on
educational issues are described as IMCoPs in non-education sectors.
h) Exemplar
The community cases were deemed exemplar (Yin, 1993) because, after having
met the criteria to be considered successful (Bruckman & Jensen, 2002), they would
offer strong examples of community of practice and a high probability of illuminating
Bronwyn Stuckey
the conditions sufficient for effective community development. Factors such as

longevity of community, ongoing growth and participation, continuity of convener role,
educational or non-education sector were all considered when screening for exemplar
IMCoP cases.
i) Heuristic case
In this research multi-case methods arose as the most effective way to study the
conditions for successful IMCoP development and maintenance. The research defined a
number of cases as “heuristic” (Eckstein, 2000, p. 137) or theory building cases.
Eckstein describes the development of multi-case research with small number of
heuristic cases in a political context. A wider pool of cases was viewed as ‘plausibility
probes’ for theory validation and further development. In this research, where more
usually such probes appear as single cases studied prior to a major study (Eckstein,
1975), multiple cases were explored after to test the plausibility of hypotheses that
emerged from the earlier more in-depth heuristic cases.
j) Community convener
For the purpose of this study the management role fulfilled by a person who
manages, co-ordinates, convenes, designs and facilitates engagement in the IMCoP is
known as the community convener. This person’s role in the community is more
frontline than most managers and more ongoing than a web designer. This person is
engaged in the strategic planning of the community and the day-to-day communication
within it.

Bronwyn Stuckey
2.2. Teacher Professional Development
Although professional development is not a panacea, it can support change in

such areas as, standards, assessment, and curriculum, creating the culture and
capacity for continuous improvement that is so critical for educators facing
current and future challenges. (Loucks-Horsely, 1998, p. 4)
It is vital to anchor this review in the literature and evidence that strongly links
educational reform, teacher practice and effective teacher professional development.
This first section of the review argues that there has been pressure for widespread
educational reforms and that those reforms radically impact on the need for, and types
of, professional development required by teachers.
The literature shows that systemic reforms can only be achieved by widespread
change in teaching practice (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Fullan, 1993a;
Hargreaves, 1997b; Little, 1994). The call for change in practice has, in turn, brought
about a re-evaluation and prioritizations of teacher professional development by systems
and academic institutions. Traditional, largely event-based professional development
has been found wanting (Corcoran, 1995a; National Staff Development Council, 2001;
Rhoton & Stiles, 2002). In response, principles for professional development have been
devised to build capacity for teachers and schools to meet the current reform agendas.
There has been recognition that a change to more collegial, reflective and ongoing
teacher professional development experiences will play a key role in the implementation
of new practices. Reform requires teachers to collectively review and re-conceive their
professional practice. “While it may be possible for teachers to learn some things on
their own, rethinking old norms requires a supportive community of practice” (Darling-
Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995, p. 600).
2.2.1. The climate of educational reform
Multiple forces have been acting for change and educational reform over the
past fifteen years. (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Fulton & Riel, 1999; Loucks-Horsely,
1998; Serim, 1996) Educational reform imperatives and an agenda for national goals,
accountability and raised standards have dominated the literature about change in

Bronwyn Stuckey
schools since the early 1990s. At the heart of the reform are imperatives for improved
student learning. Put simply there has been a shift in how student learning is perceived
and how teachers are to teach them. These reforms are to be achieved with the limited
funds available for professional development and in a time of global teacher shortages.
Today, a tension is created globally as more students seek education and government
policies, like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) press for equity and greater accountability
for all teachers amidst alarming teacher retention statistics and reported professional
isolation (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Putnam
& Borko, 2000; UNESCOPRESS, 2002) .
Reform for improved student outcomes is driving change in many areas of
teaching practice. The literature shows a growing recognition of the importance of
leadership and change management as more than the executive’s or principal’s role in a
school. Classroom teachers are called upon to take up roles as grassroots change agents
in this climate of school improvement (Fullan, 1993a; Hargreaves, 1997b; Hargreaves
& Fullan, 1998; Harris, 2001). Areas of reform focus on pedagogical practices, equity,
assessment, school restructuring and the professionalization of teaching, and a call for
teachers to change the way they work (Little, 1994; Locke & Hill, 2003).
Futrell, Holmes, Christie, and Cushman (1995) conducted a large scale research
project where educators and administrators were surveyed to determine the links
between educational reform and professional development. The research had a total of
1,350 respondents from nine school districts. The reforms of concern to the schools at
that time varied from cooperative learning, assessment practices, standardized testing,
computers in the classroom and team teaching to multicultural education. The study
showed that:
Despite acknowledgment of the essential link between professional development
and reform, principals acknowledged that staff development's contribution to the
reform initiative at the school often amounts to nothing more than exposure of
educators to the change effort, not implementation of reform itself. (Futrell,
Holmes, Christie, & Cushman, 1995, p. 7)
The comments of one principal encapsulate a shift in focus for professional

development brought about by current reforms. The principal noted that “Current staff
development allows teachers individual professional growth in their own area but does
not give the school as strong a focus” (p. 7).

Bronwyn Stuckey
Change is required in the focus of professional development, from only building

an individual teacher’s personal capacity for teaching, to also building a more collective
capacity in schools, districts and the profession as a whole (Brown & Duguid, 1991;
Little, 1994; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Richardson, 2003).
For reform to be consistent and widespread it needs to impact on a profession
and build collective capacity rather than simply promote exemplary individuals. This
assertion is put by Kedzior and Fifield (2004) in an education policy brief on the
relationship between student learning and teacher professional development. Kedzior
and Fifield build on the work of Rhoton and Stiles (2002, p. 1) whose research in
reading and mathematics learning showed that 40 percent of the variation in student
learning could be attributed more to teacher expertise than any other factor. They build
a case to support their assertions for a new path for improving teaching and suggest that
the reform of teachers’ collective practices should be the critical focus of any
educational reform agenda. Hiebert, Gallimore, and Stigler (2003) clearly express the
implications of this new pathway when they say:
This new path moves educators away from a view of teaching as a solitary
activity, owned personally by each teacher. It moves them toward a view of
teaching as a professional activity open to collective observations, study and
improvement. It invites ordinary teachers to recognize and accept the
responsibility for improving not only their own practice, but the shared practice
of the profession. (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2003, p. 3)
Current reforms solicit significant shifts across school-based education. They

require shifts from centralized to distributive management (Fullan & Watson, 1999;
Hanson, 1997); from individual to professional capacity (Brown & Duguid, 2000); from
a concentration of formal learning to informal learning (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991;
Killion, 2000); from a need for teachers to have procedural and declarative to
pedagogical and professional knowledge (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002;
Shulman, 1987); from sharing discrete and explicit to implicit knowledge (Hargreaves,
1999; Wenger, 1998); from top down to bottom up implementation (Darling-Hammond
& McLaughlin, 1995).
For change to be implemented effectively it needs to be, not only widespread but
also, small, iterative, and continually evolving in a receptive school culture (Nias,
Southworth, & Yeomans, 1989; Rosenholtz, 1989; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999), a culture of
Bronwyn Stuckey
“continuous tinkering as an engine of professional health” (Knight, 2002, p. 235

emphasis added). All of this cultural change is required amidst policy and review calling
for greater accountability and higher standards of service and learning (National Staff
Development Council, 2001; Ramsey, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). In
Australia, Ramsey’s (2001) review of teacher education in New South Wales noted a
disconnection between schools, employers and universities in relation to teacher
professional development. This disconnection works against establishing teaching
standards and holds teaching back from being viewed as a professional practice.
Ramsey recommended establishing a professional body to reconnect all the stakeholders
in teacher education. It does seem clear from recent educational policy, that for
educational reform to be effective, reform needs to connect and impact on systems,
schools, teacher training institutions but arguably most critically it must impact on and
be owned by teachers as grass root change agents (Berends, 1992; Cuban, 1990; Fullan,
1993a). Teachers must take on as Fullan (1993b) coins it a new professionalism and
connectedness is a key in this.
2.2.2. Teaching as professional practice
Professional teaching is the subject of a significant body of international

literature (Fullan, 1993a; Grant, 1996; Ministerial Advisory Council on the Quality of
Teaching, 1997; Riel, 2000; Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 1998). A search on the term
professional teaching on the Internet reveals the enormous number of organizations and
institutions working to develop standards for professional teaching. But what does
research tell us professional teaching looks like? It is beneficial here to look at two
positions on professional teaching separated by almost a decade and offering two
different perspectives of agency in educational change. These two perspectives
represent a cross section of the current understandings of professional teaching.
Fullan and Hargreaves (1991, p. 3) describe professional teaching as interactive
professionalism where teachers need to actively work to improve their learning. They
describe professional teaching in terms of the personal activity and agency of the
teacher. Their guidelines, listed below, very clearly focus on how teachers can change
the learning environments within which they operate and thereby enhance the
professionalism of the practice.

Bronwyn Stuckey
1. locate, listen to, and articulate your inner voice;

2. practice reflection in action, on action, and about action;
3. develop a risk-taking mentality;
4. trust processes as well as people;
5. appreciate the total person in working with others;
6. commit to working with colleagues;
7. seek variety and avoid balkanization;
8. redefine your role to extend beyond the classroom;
9. balance work and life;
10. push and support principals and other administrators to develop
interactive professionalism;
11. commit to continuous improvement and perpetual learning;
12. monitor and strengthen the connection between your development and
students' development. (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991, p. 3)
Fullan (1993a, p. 8) went on to propose that moral purpose and change agentry must be
integrated into professionalism. Fullan’s view is that change agentry has four capacities;
vision, inquiry, mastery and collaboration. These interdependent capacities further
develop the picture of the teacher connectivity as career long learners always working
toward greater capacity.
Yinger and Hendricks-Lee (1998), on the other hand, examined professional
development and its impact on teaching and devised a view of teaching that appears
more systemic and represents a school-based view of agency. They describe
professional teaching as having the characteristics of:
• Continuous and collaborative learning
• Connection to systems and organizational learning
• Collaboration in professional communities of learners
• Reflection and inquiry
• Partnerships with parents and community
• Standards-based practice
• Alignment of outcomes-based learning for students and teachers
• Outcomes-based and performance-based assessment.
(Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 1998, p. 278)

Bronwyn Stuckey
When juxtaposed, these two perspectives present a picture of professionalism in

teaching that is developed at several levels; individual, locally collective, and as a
profession. In both perspectives, beyond the readily assumed focus on student outcomes
and attainment, we can see elements that describe professional activity that is
continuous, collegial, collaborative, and reflective and extends well beyond the school
confines. These two perspectives also serve to reposition teacher learning as a legitimate
and essential part of work of a professional teacher (Abdal-Haqq, 1995; Corcoran,
1995a). “Redefinition of teacher work has led to reconceptualizing professional
development and to increased regard for its role in many quarters, particularly when
large-scale systemic initiatives are launched” (Abdal-Haqq, 1995, p. 1). Beyond the
recognition of the importance of professional development, this is not simply a call to
more professional development but for greater effectiveness. Loucks-Horsley &
Matsumoto, (1999) reached this conclusion as one of their key findings after reviewing
the status of professional development in the National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future (National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF),
1997) report. “Clearly, we need more teachers who are well prepared to teach to more
challenging standards and better professional development is unanimous. At the same
time, professional development is being subjected to increasing scrutiny” (Loucks-
Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999, p. 258). Education systems need to design a shape and
form of teacher professional development that will move teachers and teaching as a
practice toward Fullan’s vision of new professionalism.
2.2.3. Traditional teacher professional development
What does the literature tell us about the regard with which traditional
professional development practices are held? Research firstly offers significant
recognition of the vital role of professional development in the implementation of
reform (Corcoran, 1995a; Corcoran, Shields P. M., & Zucker, 1998; Darling-Hammond
& McLaughlin, 1995; Little, 1994) and that alone, traditional strategies using event
driven delivery are not fully meeting teacher needs (Becher, 1999; Darling-Hammond,
1997; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Knight, 2002). “On the whole,
most researchers agree that local professional development programs typically have
weak effects because they lack focus, intensity, follow-up and continuity” (Corcoran,
1995a, p. 3).
Bronwyn Stuckey
Traditional professional development is criticized as being fragmented, unrelated

to classroom practice and lacking in the focus and follow-up that teachers require (Bull,
Buechler, Didley, & Krehbiel, 1994; Corcoran, 1995b). Teachers have not always
benefited from the event-based, isolated one hit nature of the training workshop. Event-
based activities may be effective in skill development but professional development
now needs to engage teachers in deep change of beliefs, principles and pedagogy
embodied at a local level (Fullan, 1993b; Hargreaves, 1997b; Putnam & Borko, 2000;
Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 2000). Strategies of professionalization that support teachers
to become highly qualified need to be available equitably at all stages of their careers
and in all localities (Ramsey, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
It needs to be said here that traditional and/or localized professional
development strategies are not in themselves inherently ineffective. Futrell, Holmes,
Christie and Cushman (1995) discovered, when surveying teachers and school
administrators in nine districts in the USA, that workshops and in-service days were in
this case likely to promote educational reform. This finding was attributed to the fact
that, in the school districts chosen, professional development activities were often
planned from the local school level to address topics identified by classroom teachers.
Teacher perception of the need was a driving force for the workshop activity and
teachers therefore invested in it. This kind of ownership surfaces as a tension for
reform-based TPD, in that while professional development is integral to the reform of
teacher practices, teachers themselves need to own the practices. The dissatisfaction
with a lot of traditional professional development then is not just about the shape and
form of the activity but also concerns issues of relevance and degree of teacher
ownership (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1996).
Literature on teacher professional development also takes the opportunity to
remind us of the fundamentals of how teachers themselves learn (Ball, 1996; Darling-
Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Huberman, 1995).
Teachers learn by doing, reading and reflecting (just as students do); by
collaborating with others; by looking closely at students and their work; and by
sharing what they see. This kind of learning enables teachers to make the leap
from theory to accomplished practice. (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995,
p. 2)

Bronwyn Stuckey
This reminder of how teachers learn is critical to the design and development of
effective professional development. Hiebert (1999) sums the advice we should take
from an understanding of teacher learning when designing effective continuing teacher
professional development.
Research on teacher learning shows that fruitful opportunities to learn new

teaching methods share several core features (a) ongoing (measured in years)
collaboration of teachers for purposes of planning with (b) the explicit goal of
improving students' achievement of clear learning goals (c) anchored by
attention to students' thinking, the curriculum, and pedagogy, with (d) access to
alternative ideas and methods and opportunities to observe these in action and to
reflect on the reasons for their effectiveness. (Hiebert, 1999, p. 15)
The 1996 National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future report What
matters most: Teaching for America’s future (National Commission on Teaching &
America’s Future (NCTAF), 1997), raised five major recommendations. The second of
these was to “reinvent teacher preparation and professional development” (p. 10). This
recommendation was intended to ensure effective and “continuous high-quality learning
opportunities” (p. 85) for all teachers.
2.2.4. Effective teacher professional development
If there is widespread concern about the current application of traditional models

of professional development, then what does the research suggest might be more
effective? In answer to this question researchers and policy developers proposed
guiding principles for high quality professional development (Corcoran, 1995b;
Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Guskey, 2003; Hawley & Valli, 1999;
Hiebert, 1999; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Nocente, Redhead, &
Skytt, 1999; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Further, researchers analyzed contemporary
literature to produce characteristics for particular professional development foci such as
visionary leadership (Guskey, 2003) or science and technology education (Wilson &
Berne, 1999). Guskey (2003) reported only a small overlap after his examination of
thirteen published lists describing characteristics of high quality professional
development.

Bronwyn Stuckey
In order to visualize the kind of activity that might best serve teacher needs and
the reform agendas it was important for this current research to determine if core themes
could be identified in the literature. Table 2.2 presents a comparison of five views of
effective professional development. The first column, Guskey’s (2003) summary of the
overlapping characteristics, is juxtaposed with four other representative perspectives.
The table compares those characteristics used to describe the shape and form of
effective professional development, having accepted and omitted characteristics related
to the critical nature of student learning outcomes, pedagogy and standards. Appendix
E: Principles of High Quality Professional Development offers full details of the
principles from which these key characteristics were drawn.
Table 2.2
Summary of principles for high quality professional development
Guskey Corcoran (1995) Darling- Loucks-Horsley, Nocente, Redhead,
(2003) Hammond, Hewson, Love & Skytt (1999)
McLaughlin & Stiles (1998)
Milbrey (1995)
• Supply • Support site- • Concrete tasks of • Teachers build • Choice and
sufficient time based activity teaching their knowledge personal
and resources • Support teacher, • Inquiry, and skills application
• Promote school and reflection and • Model strategies • Mentors model
collegiality and district experimentation teachers use appropriate
collaborative initiatives • Collaborative, with students techniques
exchange • Grounded in sharing • Build a learning • Accommodate
• Aligned with knowledge knowledge community different skill
other reforms about teaching • Sustained, • Teachers to levels
• Site based • Intellectual, ongoing, serve in • Encourage
• Building social and intensive and leadership roles problem solving
leadership emotional supported • Links to other • Afford
capacity. engagement • Connected to parts of the experience and
• Respect teachers other aspects of education observation
as professionals change. system • Feedback from
and adult • Continuous self- colleagues
learners assessment and • Flexible delivery
• Sufficient time improvement. situations
and follow-up • Program
support materials to have
• Are accessible longevity.
and inclusive.
While there are, as Guskey reported, wide variations in these guidelines there are
also recurring themes. These themes would suggest that effective professional
development offers opportunity for teacher learning to be reflective, collegial, situated,
ongoing and sustained, and to extend in activities and partnerships outside the school.
The lists that follow aggregate the professional development principles, outlined in
Table 2.2, about those recurring themes.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Reflective
• Intellectual, social and emotional engagement
• Inquiry, reflection and experimentation
• Choice and personal application
Collegial
• Promote collegiality and collaborative exchange
• Collaborative, sharing knowledge
• Build a learning community
• Feedback from colleagues
Situated
• Site based
• Aligned with other reforms
• Grounded in knowledge about teaching
• Concrete tasks of teaching
• Connected to other aspects of change.
• Afford experience and observation
Ongoing and sustained

• Sufficient time and follow-up support
• Sustained, ongoing, intensive and supported
• Continuous self-assessment and improvement.
• Program materials to have longevity.
Extends outside school

• Support teacher, school and district initiatives
• Links to other parts of the education system
Professional development is reflective when it uses observations,

experimentation, inquiry, reflection, self-assessment and feedback from respected
colleagues. It may be said to be collegial when it promotes collaborative exchange,
knowledge sharing, to build capacity for leadership, mentoring and community.
Professional development can be said to be situated when it supports teacher knowledge

Bronwyn Stuckey
and skills at different levels and promotes personal problem solving while being aligned
with other reforms on the school agenda. It can be said to be ongoing and sustained
when materials and support are available over sufficient time and flexible situations for
teachers to continue to revisit, rehearse and tinker with change. Professional
development extends outside the school when it supports and links school, district,
system, academic and local community initiatives and supports the flow of exchange
between them. The next sections will briefly examine each of these themes and the
evidence of their relevance to teacher professional development.
2.2.4.1. Reflective
For teachers to grow professionally, they must be part of learning communities
that engage in “examination of assumptions, exploration of existing practice, and
formulation of new possibilities” (National Research Center on English Learning and
Achievement, 1998, p. 1).
Schön (1983) introduced the powerful concept of the reflective practitioner,
describing a teacher operating through reflection-in-action to improve practice.
Reflective practice links action and reflection in ways that assist teachers to surface
their assumptions and feelings about their personal practice (Brookfield, 1995; Cervero,
1988; Osterman, 1990; Schön, 1983). The reflection and dialogue in turn can open the
way for a tinkering or experimentation with new practices of the kind that Huberman
(1993, p. 15) aptly describes as bricolage. Through bricolage, after having recognized,
assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses of their current practice, teachers can
experiment with taking on aspects of new practices, and fit them within their own needs,
styles and contexts.
Strategies for reflection on one’s own assumptions and experiences can take
various forms such as story telling, journaling and portfolio development, action
research, participation in professional communities and programs and coaching by
professionals and leaders in the field (Ferraro, 2000). Critical to many activities of
reflective practice is the opportunity to publicly surface one’s assumptions and have
dialogue about them with others engaged in the same practice. Reflective practitioners
need to operate in professional groups enabled to surface and reflect on large and small
issues of shared practice. There is empirical evidence that being reflective is a key
component of continuing education in many professional fields; English as a second

Bronwyn Stuckey
language teaching (Florez, 2001), higher education (Hall, 1997), nursing (Driscoll &
Teh, 2001), medicine (Parboosingh, Badat, & Wooster, 2003), social justice (Amulya,
O’Campbell, Edoh, & McDowell, 2003) and adult education (Cervero, 1988; Osterman,
1990) to name a few. Opportunities for reflection should shape continuing education,
and be integral and ongoing, to be an effective tool for reform. As Ferraro (2000, p. 2)
concludes, “Therefore, effective teacher professional development should involve more
than occasional large-group sessions; it should include activities such as study teams
and peer coaching in which teachers continuously examine their assumptions and
practices”. Olson and Craig (2001) explored the relationship between narrative
authority (Olson, 1994) in knowledge communities (Craig, 1995). Their work further
strengthens the case for collective reflection where educators have the opportunity to
share the “rawness of their experiences” and where, through articulation, examination
and reflection, “each person becomes simultaneously both an author of their own stories
as well as an actor in the stories authored by others” (Olson & Craig, 2001, p. 670).
2.2.4.2. Collegial
Over this last ten years there has been a growing recognition that a culture of
collegiality is required (Erickson, Brandes, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 2005; Jarzabkowski,
2001; Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1993). This collegiality can be achieved through an
environment where teachers teach teachers in a supportive network of practice (Jorge
Grünberg & Armellini, 2004; Lieberman & Miller, 1990; Little, 1987, 1993; Novick,
1996).
The National Research Center (1999) carried out a study on learning processes
and the development of competent performance. The study produced recommendations
for four characteristics of environments geared to promote teacher learning. These
characteristics describe environments that are learner-centered, knowledge-centered,
assessment-centered, and of most relevance to this current review, community-centered.
Loucks-Horsley and Matsumoto summarize that fourth recommendation of the report in
relation to teacher professional development to say that, “Effective learning experiences
for teachers build in time for teachers to work together and provide each other feedback.
They have norms for people learning from one another and continually attempting to
improve” (Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999, p. 8).

Bronwyn Stuckey
Principles, outlined in section 2.2.2, define ongoing activity that builds on

current practices, in a climate where teachers can take risks as part of a learning
community. This learning community is a place or space where teachers support and
learn from each other and take the time to reflect on the value and effectiveness of that
change. A move to this kind of collegial focus for professional development suggests
new responsibilities for and expectations of teachers and the system. On this broader
professional development horizon teachers need to be prepared to contribute to, and
take responsibility for, not only their learning but the learning of their peers.
This suggests quite a different organization of learning opportunity (and
obligation) than one that supplies teachers with measured increments in
knowledge, skill, and judgment from a known pool of effective ‘classroom’
practices. (Little, 1994, p. 3)
There are no simple formulae, but it does seem to be widely understood that, for
effective teacher professional development, communication and collaboration with
peers is cardinal (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Lieberman & Grolnick,
1996, 1999; Lieberman & Miller, 1999).
In summarizing the findings of the new principles for learning (National
Research Council, 1999) Loucks-Horsely and Matsumoto (1999) throw a spotlight on
teacher participation in a community as important for teacher learning. They summarize
this to say that “teacher learning is enhanced by interactions that encourage them to
articulate their views, challenge those of others, and come to better understanding as a
community” (p. 261).
2.2.4.3. Situated
The most promising forms of professional development engage teachers in the
pursuit of genuine questions, problems, and curiosities, over time, in ways that
leave a mark on perspectives, policy and practice. (Little, 1993, p. 3)
McLaughlin (1991) presented a view of effective professional development

firmly “embodied in teaching contexts” (p. 70). To do this TPD needs to take on board
several dimensions of situativity and meet teachers needs in experience, context, culture
and time. This was supported empirically by Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman and

Bronwyn Stuckey
Yoon (2001), through their large-scale evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional

Development Program. They found that reform was well served by professional
learning experiences that related to teacher experiences and meshed with the reform
agenda within the school. They allude to the potentiality of situated activity when they
say:
Activities that are linked to teachers' other experiences, aligned with other
reform efforts, and encouraging of professional communication among teachers
appear to support change in teaching practice, even after the effects of enhanced
knowledge and skills are taken into account. (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman,
& Yoon, 2001, p. 22)
Schlager & Fusco’s (2004) research review found a convergence around several
characteristics of effective teacher professional development. One characteristic clearly
supported in their review was that effective TPD was “grounded in the teacher’s own
work”, and “tailored to the teacher’s stage of career development” (Schlager & Fusco,
2004, p. 124). Their findings remind us that a situated perspective has dimensions of
place and time as it relates to individuals in the process of developing their practice.
TPD needs to meet teachers’ needs in all their different stages of career development.
Erickson, Brandes, Mitchell and Mitchell (2005) conducted a study of two
intentionally developed projects for university and school partnership. Their
comparison, of two small-scale but long-term community-based projects, further
supports the generative capacity of highly situated collegial activity in the development
of practical (practice) and formal knowledge (theory) over time. They do, however,
offer caution as to issues of ownership and the nature of power relationships in such
communities and advise us to avoid “loading them up with their own specific agendas”
(p. 793). Ownership and power need to be seen as aspects of situativity. They will be
revisited later in this review when the issues surrounding intentionality in the
development of Internet-mediated community is discussed further.
2.2.4.4. Ongoing and sustained

The report Teachers Take Charge of Their Learning (National Foundation for
the Improvement of Education, 1996, p. 1), asserts that “continuous teacher learning is
the key to helping students achieve high standards of learning and that the profession

Bronwyn Stuckey
itself must take responsibility for weaving continuous learning into the job” (p1).
Teachers need time to make the connection between their learning and their own
classroom experiences. They need time to test out new ideas and practices and to reflect
on these. They need time to share those experiences and assumptions then continue to
refine their practice.
For individuals, professional development needs to be ongoing and continuous
in order for teachers to visit and revisit assumptions and tinker on changes in their
practice (Knight, 2002). For groups, “recommended practices must be tried and
observed in many contexts and the results accumulated and shared over time and
location” (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002, p. 9). Hiebert, Gallimore and Stigler
promote the value of the Japanese program Lesson Study (Shimahara, 1998) which
encourages teachers to participate, working in small teams, throughout their careers. In
order to be part of this program teachers abandon the protective isolation of their
individual classrooms and become prepared to publicly share their work practices. Their
focus is on developing, testing, observing and refining lessons and their “repeated
observations over multiple trials can, over time, yield trustworthy knowledge” (Hiebert,
Gallimore, & Stigler, p. 9). The longevity of this program and the teachers’ continual
engagement can be seen to not only change practice but to act as quality control on the
outcomes.
In the case of lesson study, teachers’ non-instructional time was clearly
considered part of teacher work. By committing to an ongoing and sustained program
of development both the system and the school are validating teacher learning as part of
the quality and reform agendas.
Professional development should not be a process of inoculating teachers with a
given set of in-service development activities. Rather than a one-shot injection
of information, professional development needs to be seen as a continuing
process that values, build upon and support the learning of teachers, via informal
and flexible means as well as through more formal professional development
activities. (Grant, 1996, p. 11)
An often cited barrier to TPD is time. This certainly is an issue in an event-based

paradigm where teachers are withdrawn from school or class for discrete chunks of
time. Costs may prohibit follow-up sessions or visits to peer classrooms. This barrier
could be in part reduced if TPD activities, embedded in the school day and year, created
Bronwyn Stuckey
a regular pattern of engagement over a longer period (Abdal-Haqq, 1995; Rényi, 1966;
Sparks, 1994). The call is for career-long, self-directed learning, to develop professional
teaching standards with a view to improved student outcomes, and it requires a
sustained and ongoing approach to answer this call.
2.2.4.5. Extend beyond the school

There is wide recognition in the literature that many teachers find themselves
operating in professional isolation once they leave university (Herrington, Herrington,
& Omari, 2002; Rogers & Babinski, 1999) and the door to the classroom closes
(Pomson, 2005; Putnam & Borko, 2000). It would seem that little may have changed
since Lortie offered the metaphor of the basic structure of schools being like egg crates
where teachers “spend most of their time apart from colleagues” (Lortie, 1975, p. 23). If
as Reilly (1999b) suggested “Educators are ‘islands of excellence’ with no ferry service
to connect them to each other or to groups of their peers” (p. 60), then the further
challenge is for continuing teacher professional development to find effective ways to
connect those practicing teachers. Hargreaves (1997a) posited that this connection will
benefit more than teacher morale as, “Cultural change is critical to schools of the 21st
century. Teachers need to operate comfortably in collaborative working relationships
that extend beyond their school boundaries and the wider community” (p. 90).
School relationships need to extend out into the local community and school
district as well as across educational systems. For the profession these relationships
need to be built between teachers at various stages of their career, teaching in different
disciplines, as well as in different geographic locations. At the school and district level,
this broadening of the professional development environment is described by Fine
(1992) as creating “educationally and emotionally rich communities of learners” (p. 2).
Fine’s call for a community basis to professional development is echoed in the research
of Bransford, Brown and Cocking (1999), Huberman (1995), Lieberman and Grolnick
(1999) and Little (1994).
The most persistent norm that stands in the way of 21st century learning is
isolated teaching in stand-alone classrooms. Transforming schools into 21st
century learning communities means recognizing that teachers must become
members of a growing network of shared expertise. (Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005,
p. 1)

Bronwyn Stuckey
There is an imperative for new professional development strategies and for

teachers themselves to take control of their personal professional development.
However, discussion about what makes for effective professional development did not
just spring out of the 90s reform agenda. As long ago as 1981, Joyce and Showers
(1981) reported that the most effective teacher professional development activities were
those that combined theory, modeling, practice, feedback and coaching for application,
particularly peer coaching.
2.2.5. The Pressure to take teacher professional development online
Given increased student intakes, falling teacher retention, call for teacher
standards and qualification and the induction and retraining of para-educators to meet
teacher shortages, there is increasing pressure for TPD to reach the large and
widespread numbers of teachers (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). With the funding constraints
for face-to-face interaction, Internet technologies present an attractive component in
achieving this reach (Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005). While the technology can reach the
teachers what is not clearly understood is how it can be employed as part of an effective
high quality teacher professional development program.
Novick (1996) and Pennel and Firestone (1998) supported a growing
disenchantment with traditional training and reported on a move towards teacher
networks. Networks offer teachers connection to a wider community of interest,
collegial interchange, resources, ongoing support and, leadership opportunities.
A major challenge to providing this type of high quality professional
development is cost. Schools and districts understandably feel a responsibility to
reach large numbers of teachers. But a focus on breadth in terms of number of
teachers served often comes at the expense of depth in terms of quality
experience. (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001, p. 23)
The gauntlet was thrown down by Ryder & Wilson (1996, p. 11) when they
suggested “The challenge for the postmodern educator is to discover the capabilities
and natural constraints associated with distributed pedagogy for scaffolding learners in
the age of information.” The “ferry service” (cited on page 31) Reilly spoke of may be
enabled to some extent, for widely distributed individuals, through a network or

Bronwyn Stuckey
community supported by Internet-mediated technologies (Gordin, Gomez, Pea, &

Fishman, 2000; Poole, 2002).
There is a common thread emerging for a teacher-centered community of
practice to act as a hub of the learning in teacher professional development. The
literature indicates that effective practice in professional development requires ongoing
development of the reflective practitioner in a peer-supported community. Yet it has
also most recently recognized that while there is a role to be played by Internet
technologies in extending and enhancing community beyond the school, a community
culture needs to nurtured first in the face-to-face environment within the school
(Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Palinscar, Magnusson, Marano, Ford, &
Brown, 1998; Pomson, 2005; Printy & Marks, 2002; Schlager & Fusco, 2004).
We need to ensure we have a clear view of how to effectively employ
technology for professional development. While education looks to new professional
development strategies, community developers look to new technologies for creative
ways to support the existing face-to-face communities and to create new ones. The
technology increasingly presents affordances for connection, communication and
collaboration that can be harnessed to cultivate online community (Kim, 2000; Kollock,
1996; Powazek, 2002; Preece, 2000; Shirky, 2003; Wellman, 1999).

Bronwyn Stuckey
2.3. Social Learning Theory and Online Affordances
The constraints on constructed knowledge come largely from the community of

which one is a member . . . By continually negotiating the meaning of
observations, data, hypotheses, and so forth, groups of individuals construct
systems that are largely consistent with one another. (Cognition and Technology
Group, 1992, p. 117)
Section 2.2 described the qualities of effective professional development as being

reflective, collegial, situated, ongoing and sustained, and to extend in activities and
partnerships outside the school. This section of the review explores some of the realized
potential of technology to enable effective teacher professional development. Learning
is part of the dynamic environment made up of people and connections within it. These
characteristics resonate with a socio-cultural view of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). This
study assumes its basis of social learning through theories collectively considered
situative perspectives (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Putnam & Borko, 2000). The
complementary bodies of theory and research that are considered by the researcher to
take a situative perspective are:
• Social Constructivism (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978)
• Constructionism (Bruckman & Resnick, 1995; Papert & Harel, 1991; Resnick,
1996)
• Cognitive Apprenticeship (Collins, 1991; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989)
• Situated Learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991)
• Situated Cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Clancey, 1997)
• Reflective Practice (Boud & Walker, 1998; Schön, 1983)
2.3.1. Internet affordances for social learning
For the purpose of this study the Ryder and Wilson (1996, p. 1) definition of
affordances as “a potential for action, a perceived capacity of an object to enable the
assertive will of the actor” has been adopted. This study concerns itself with the
opportunities for action and extending human capabilities through the use of Internet

Bronwyn Stuckey
technologies. What social learning processes and communications do these

technologies afford?
Much of the recent literature in the field of online learning is influenced by
social constructivist theories of learning. Constructivist and constructionist frameworks
have been applied to create online environments that do much more than deliver
information. Best practice in online learning speaks to issues of flexibility, sociability,
authenticity, interaction, facilitation, collaboration, reflection and transformation (Bonk
& Dennen, 1999; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Herrington & Oliver, 2000; Palloff & Pratt,
1999; Sherry & Wilson, 1997). The literature demonstrates that technically the Internet
does afford various structures, connections, modes of communication and collaborative
groupings. However, it may be more empowering to view affordances in terms of how
we adapt and customize the capacity of the technology, in the service of our pedagogies,
than to assume the technology itself implicitly or inherently carries any affordances.
Kimball and Rheingold (2001) suggest indeed it is our knowledge of how to use a
technology that establishes its affordances.
The great advantage of new media is not how much information they can put at
disposal of individuals and organizations – but the kind of conversations they
make possible. The technology for sharing knowledge and cementing powerful
social networks is no longer rarely accessible or expensive. The knowledge of
how to use the technology, not the software or the physical means of
transporting it, will be the strategic advantage of those who possess it and
diffuse it. (Kimball & Rheingold, 2001, p. 7)
Resnick (1996) echoes this view of the tractable nature of the Internet
affordances when she says,
The Internet acts as a type of Rorschach test for educational philosophy. When
some people look at the Internet they see it as a way to deliver instruction. When
other people look at it, they see a huge database for students to explore. When I
look at the Internet, I see a new medium for construction, a new opportunity for
students to discuss, share, and collaborate on constructions. (Resnick, 1996, p. 5)
Arguably, the greatest momentum in current best practice in online learning,

beyond the constructivist tenet of student centeredness, has gathered behind relationship
building and collaborations between learners, teachers, domain experts and mentors.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) is one example of a field or

movement capitalizing on the juncture of technological and theoretical affordances of
the Internet. It blends the affordances of the technology and possible infrastructures
with the sociocultural learning theory to develop new learning environments and
practices.
The literature of learning design, online learning, distance education and
organizational learning is dotted with visions of the potential of the World Wide Web as
a transformative medium (Brown, 1998; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen &
Mayes, 1992; Riel, 1998). It is worth examining a small number of these visions to see
how they position Internet technology. Palloff & Pratt (1999, p. 17) envision a new
paradigm for distance learning as a jigsaw of pieces at the centre of which was online
community. The connecting pieces related to teamwork, guidance, collaborative
learning, facilitation, active creation of knowledge and meaning, interaction and
feedback, shared goals and buy-in from everyone. Canning and Stager (2003) propose
that distance learning has been replaced by a much more effective learning concept;
distributed learning that embraces the affordances of information and communication
technologies. Sherry & Wilson (1997) visualized the World Wide Web as an
opportunity for transformation, communication environments created where students
initiate setting agendas, connections, conversations and collaborations, and teachers find
themselves filing quality student work for future reference.
Brown (2000) and Oliver (2001) share a vision of online learning as an ecology,
“an adaptive system composing elements that are dynamic and interdependent” (Brown,
2000, p. 7). Brown views the reach and reciprocity of the web as transformative
features that “enables us to leverage the small efforts of the many along with the large
efforts of the few” (p. 2). Oliver (2001) presents a framework for design of online
learning settings; an ecology of learning activities, learning resources and learning
supports. This framework, while applicable to many learning contexts, when applied in
the Australian vocational education and training sector allowed designers to harness the
capability of the Internet to create highly effective student-centered learning. Salmon
(2000) presents a five step model to e-moderating, a process that gives prominence to
cooperation, socialization, collaboration and reflection. This process firmly establishes
the need to provide for social health in ecology. Salmon’s work was also amongst the
first to declare the integral role of the facilitator or moderator in such online learning
contexts. The emphasis in best practice online learning has shifted from mediating
Bronwyn Stuckey
teaching to facilitating learning. Each of these models presents, not just an online
counterpart to existing teaching and learning practices but, an Internet that is enabling
new modalities for learning.
Tenenbaum (1997) hypothesized that online technology and educational reform
are moving along the same trajectories.
A central tenet of professional development and school reform is the creation of
an enabling participant-driven environment for students and teachers alike. Web
technology shares and promotes this same imperative. The key dynamics of the
World Wide Web and school reform are exactly the same. (Tenenbaum, 1997, p.
485)
It is evident from proponents at the leading edge, that online learning raises
many of the same themes identified as requirements for effective practice in
professional development. It is prudent to revisit each of those themes and examine the
evidence that shows how effectively technology can be harnessed to TPD goals.
2.3.1.1. Reflective practice

The Internet enables cognitive apprenticeship and reflection when the following occurs:
• facilitated discussion encourages reflection in a forum or chat
• sharing and critiquing of publications, peer work samples and programs
• individuals or teams make explicit their reflections through forums, weblogs and
online portfolios.
There are a number of programs reported in the literature where preservice

teachers have used Internet technologies to carry out reflective practice activities. In
reviewing these activities Hawkes and Romiszovski (2001) were highly critical of the
fact that, in the bulk of studies of teacher reflection and technology, researchers focused
almost exclusively on the highly controlled and intrinsically transient environment of
preservice education. Therefore this review examines three examples, of teacher
education programs harnessing online technologies for reflective practices, ranging
across preservice, postgraduate and continuing professional development programs.
The Knowledge Building Community (KBC) Project (Ferry & Kiggins, 1999) was
established at the University of Wollongong Australia as part of a preservice program
innovation. The KBC integrated online technologies into the program over an extended

Bronwyn Stuckey
period to link preservice teachers, on school-based experience, with supervising

teachers and lecturers. The pre-service teachers discussed issues of the day’s teaching
and used online groups and bulletin boards to reflect on what they had learned. These
student teachers were able to reflect on the practices of teaching and shared experiences
with peers working in different school contexts. The system was able to capture
historically and with some immediacy the thoughts and feelings of all the contributing
community members. In their use of the asynchronous tools, the student teachers valued
the opportunity to revisit the dialogue and reflect on their learning. “When I go back
over what we have done in our group work and also what I have done myself I am just
amazed at how much I have learnt and how far we have travelled” (Ferry, Hoban, &
Lockyer, 1999, p. 6).
In the Post Graduate Certificate in Education (McNair, 2004), at the University of
Ulster, online discussions were similarly employed to encourage teachers, working in
teams to carry out deeper analysis of their teaching practice. The teachers were located
in their schools and the activity and in-depth dialogue remained grounded in their local
practice. “The online element provided a rich source of collaboration that linked
University-based material with teachers, students and pupils, together with a strong
focus not only on pragmatics but also on deeper levels of analysis of teaching” (McNair,
2004, p. 1).
Hawkes and Romiszovski’s (2001) two-year study of Chicago elementary
teachers engaged in asynchronous computer networks in Technology Supported
Interdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning sought to test the potential of CMC to host
critically reflective dialogue. Their findings demonstrated that, while asynchronous
communication was generally less interactive than face-to-face, its content was more
reflective. This was attributed in part to the fact that the online communication freed
teachers, from the “minutiae of curriculum development tasks” (p. 305) that often
dominate face-to-face meetings, to reflect on bigger issues.
All three programs provided forums for dialogue and reflection which teachers as
learners accessed while physically engaged in situated practice in their respective
schools. The two academic programs did report that, because learners were able to
readily contextualize the issues raised in the dialogue, they developed a deepening of
reflection and metacognitive awareness over time. All three programs were enabled by
the online technology as they allowed learners to be distributed in schools, yet able to

Bronwyn Stuckey
talk, on topics of personal/local importance with peers, teachers and academic staff on a
daily basis.
These programs also allowed for some level of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins,
1991), employing a modeling, coaching, and fading paradigm of traditional
apprenticeship. Collins (1991) puts forward the notion that technology can help realize
apprenticeship-based learning environments in ways that were not conceivable in earlier
times. These three projects demonstrate that technology can create new opportunities for
teacher learning, opportunities for collaborative reflection, at different stages of their
careers. In these environments teachers regularly reflected on their own and others’
practices and, through the ongoing nature of that activity, developed a culture of
reflection.
2.3.1.2. Collegiality
There is evidence that collegiality is very important in teacher development
(Ellis, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994; Klein, Gregory, & Shank, 2000; Little, 1990). This
collegiality is developed through teachers coming together in an atmosphere of trust,
sharing and a valuing of one’s own and others’ contributions (Schrage, 1990). There is
clear evidence that such environments can be developed in the face-to-face world of
schools (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2000; Palinscar, Magnusson, Marano,
Ford, & Brown, 1998). A community-based perspective has been applied in reform-
oriented TPD to support initiatives from high stakes accountability, teacher retention
(Dallas, 2005) to curriculum and pedagogy (Raphael, 2005). While these groups may be
identified as learning circles (Riel, 1995), professional learning teams (Raphael, 2005),
or professional learning communities (Dallas, 2005) their strength lies in their
essentially collegially-based designs.
Internet-based tools offer a promise of many-to-many communication but can
they support collegial relationships? Case histories from online communities like the
seminally famous Well (Figallo, 1993; Rheingold, 1993), in existence now for more
than twenty years, clearly demonstrate a potential for the Internet to sustain and enhance
relationships and close ties. EdNet@UMass (Reilly, 1999a), started in 1991, was one of
the first online educational projects to present conclusive evidence of the possibilities
for the Internet to support working relationships and interdependence. EdNet@UMass,
hosted by the School of Education, Massachusetts, was a community connected via the
early iterations of e-mail and web forum technology activities. Educators from the USA

Bronwyn Stuckey
and 29 other countries took part in what was described as a forum for ‘promising
practices’. Ednetters, as the EdNet@Mass community members were called, came to
the network for many varied and personal purposes. The spaces and activities for
involvement proved equally varied and supportive of a collegial atmosphere. Ednetters
were able to engage together in symposia, discussion, guest speaker appearances or field
trips, communicating as a group of peers in a shared field.
If we come forward to 2005 we can see the embodiment of collegiality in
Webheads in Action (Stevens, 2005), an International group supported by a plethora of
Internet technologies. Webheads in Action (WIA) is a community of Teachers of
language teachers and students who meet and explore use of leading edge
communication technology in their practice (Stevens, 2005, p. 1). The group started
connecting members in 1998 and is a largely self-managed and open community that
works to practically support members in testing, exploring and using technology for
teaching. The community’s relationships are described by its community founder as,
“Active WIA participants bring evidence of strong bonds of online collegiality and
loyalty, while questioning and reflecting critically upon our experiments, tinkering with
free communication tools and environments” (L. Stevens, personal communication,
March 15th 2004). Through their online engagements, and with the support of other
members, participants have gained the confidence and experience to carry out research
and give professional presentations and publications in their field (Gonzalez, 2002).
Joining a WIA meeting, one gets a very strong sense of closeness between people, many
of whom may never have met face-to-face (Stevens, 2002).
It can be seen that collegiality is attainable over online technology but there are
also strong caveats in the literature to this picture of ready and productive collegiality.
Managers and facilitators of online community-based professional development courses
report that teachers often proved either reticent to communicate or unwilling to critique
each others’ work (Riel & Polin, 2004). Some like Schlager and Fusco (2004), believe
the culture of collegiality must be acquired locally first if more than early adopters are
to benefit from collegially-based online activity. Others have reported that teacher
engagement, in such online environments, has been a struggle to cultivate and sustain
(Barab, Makinster, Moore, & Cunningham, 2001) The nature of these difficulties will
be discussed in Section 2.5 of this review, when the precedents for educational online
community development are reviewed more fully.

Bronwyn Stuckey
2.3.1.3. Situativity
Online activity can be considered situated, at one level, if the participants are
geographically distributed and still able to be ‘together’ in dialogue and collaborations
(Hung & Chen, 2001). On a second level, the activity may be situated if the participants
have the opportunity to work through authentic problems that apply in their local
context. This was evident in the research surrounding the three teacher education
programs explored in 2.3.1.1 where the participant-driven online dialogue proved to be
of genuine value to the local practice (Ferry & Kiggins, 1999; Hawkes & Romiszowski,
2001; McNair, 2004).
Situativity, on a third level, can involve more than publishing information or
sharing knowledge relevant to the practices and context of the participants.
Collaborative projects with outcomes of genuine personal and practical value offer a
truly situative environment for knowledge building. Constructionism (Papert, 1993)
builds on the constructivist theory to suggest that two forms of construction are vital to
learning. Firstly, there is the socially constructed nature of knowledge that might be
developed through dialogue and story telling. Added to the intangible nature of this
constructed knowledge, constructionism contends that the best learning occurs when we
work to develop tangible artifacts. These personally meaningful constructions can serve
to reify abstract and tacit knowledge (Bruckman & Resnick, 1995; Cannings & Stager,
2003; Wenger, 1998). Distributed Constructionism (Resnick, 1996), extends this theory
to suggest that educators can take advantage of the connectivity of the Internet to allow
groups of people to work together on the design of products. Joint constructions online
can range from online forums and dialogue to products and resources. The capability of
Internet tools to support groups to surface authentic problems and work in distributed
construction can be seen in the participatory web site design of the Webheads in Action
members (Stevens & Nyrop, personal communication March, 3, 2004) and the
collaborative action research projects of the MirandaNet Fellows (Preston, n.d.).
Members reify situated knowledge in the development of products and tools that are
relevant and useful to them and their communities.
Tools are being aggregated and used to realize the communication,
collaboration, file sharing, and storage necessary to support situativity and distributed
construction. But while the capabilities of Internet tools like e-mail, FTP, chat, VOIP,
databases, knowledge repositories, wikis, peer-to-peer and meeting applications are
becoming mainstream for workplace learning in many other environments, they are only
Bronwyn Stuckey
just emerging as options in mainstream educational contexts (Bonk, Kim, & Zeng,
2005; Schlager & Fusco, 2004).
2.3.1.4. Ongoing and sustained activity

For an online group, appropriately chosen and implemented online technology
has the potential to create archives that maintain a history of interaction and resources.
Issues and resources can be visited and revisited over different stages of a person’s
career or community membership. In this way the technology allows for group activity
that is long- lived.
Even though widespread use of the Internet itself is comparatively young, some
of the most successful online communities have been in operation for five or ten years.
MirandaNet, an educator action research community in England has used e-mail and
purpose-built Internet forums to support its community work for the past ten years.
Tapped In, one of the most well known online teacher communities has been in
existence for six years now having survived major upgrades of technology without
substantive loss of membership. Both communities report steady growth patterns and
have retained members from the first years of the community (C. Preston, personal
communication January 10, 2003: J. Fusco, personal communication, February 18,
2004).
It is not difficult to understand how online technologies support ongoing
dialogue. Asynchronous tools and e-mail archives create persistent conversations and
allow members to revisit conversations and build on their views and knowledge over
time. Internet distributed audiovisual technology allows members to sustain
engagement, even if they miss the synchronous events, through chat transcripts, digital
recordings and presentations (Preece, Maloney-Krichmar, & Abras, 2003).
Many long-lived Internet-mediated activities and sites report various patterns of
engagement waxing and waning over time. The long term sustainability of such
activities depends on the critical mass of interaction (Preece, 2001), effective
facilitation and moderation (Ferry & Kiggins, 1999; Salmon, 2000) and ongoing value
perceived by participants (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
2.3.1.5. Extending beyond the school

The importance and value of peer interaction in online learning goes well
beyond the teacher/student or expert/novice relationship. Novices on the Internet are

Bronwyn Stuckey
able to collaborate with peers and work alongside experts, to share and to explore and
learn as part of a network. Learners can be given opportunities for “reciprocal
teaching” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Teachers teaching teachers and teachers as learners
are concepts that are integral to this idea of reciprocal teaching in professional
development. Slay (1999) described the competencies of graduate learners that could be
enhanced by use of Internet technologies. Her list focused on the social competencies
of learning, social responsibility, community and professional practice and community
involvement.
Learning can be supported in a “zone of proximal development” (ZPD)
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57). The ZPD is best described as the region of skill that lies
between the learner’s independent functioning and the learner’s functioning with social
support. The Internet affords connections between practitioners and their formal and
informal learning beyond the physicality of people being together in the same place at
the same time. A ZPD can be cultivated through a community of novices and experts
linked by appropriate Internet-based activities and opportunities (Bradshaw, Powell, &
Terrell, 2002; Ryba, Selby, & Mentis, 2002). This is an important point as we consider
the urgency to break the isolation of classroom teaching and create reciprocity in
artificially bounded individual classrooms, domains of learning, schools, districts and
systemic divisions (Putnam & Borko, 2000).
While professional development needs to extend beyond the school it also needs
to extend beyond the individual focus. One of the reform issues raised by Brown and
Duguid (2000) was the need for professional development to be focused on building
capacity within the profession rather than developing star individuals. This focus on the
collective is seen by many as the true most powerful affordance of online learning. This
shift for online learning was well described by a prediction from Brown. “Let me end
with a brief reflection in an interesting shift that I believe is happening; a shift between
using technology to support the individual to using technology to support relationships
between individuals” (Brown, 2000, p. 9). Schrage and Connor (Schrage & Conner,
n.d.) view this shift as being from simply ‘connecting’ to demands for true collaboration
a shared space. “If you don't have a shared space you're not collaborating. One of the
tests of a shared space is whether it's an invitation to innovation. Is it creating
opportunities for other people to add value?” (p. 5). Internet technology can be
employed to make establish and enhance connections and extend access to shared
spaces for local and distributed communities (Schlager & Fusco, 2004).
Bronwyn Stuckey
It is possible to project from Tenenbaum’s assertion that “the key dynamics of the
World Wide Web and school reform are exactly the same” (Tenenbaum, 1997, p. 485),
to say that there is evidence that these dynamics can coalesce if they meet in a social
learning environment. What will this coalescence look like? For teachers it is an
environment where they can take charge of their own professional development, share,
collaborate and reflect with colleagues (near and far, expert and novice) on genuine
issues of their practice, in an ongoing fashion. The group that would inhabit this
environment might just be a community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
2.4. Community
The word community is at risk of losing its meaning. From the prevalence of
terms such as ‘communities of learners’, ‘discourse communities’, and ‘learning
communities’ to ‘school community’, ‘teacher community’, or ‘community of
practice’, it is clear that community has become an obligatory appendage to
every educational innovation. Yet aside from linguistic kinship, it is not clear
what features, if any are shared across terms. This confusion is most
pronounced in the ubiquitous “virtual community”, where, by paying a fee or
typing a password, anyone who visits a web site automatically becomes a
‘member’ of a community. (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2000, p. 2)
2.4.1. The difficulty in defining community
Dictionary definitions show that from the Middle English communite, meaning
citizenry, or from the Old French, from Latin comm nit s, meaning fellowship, comm
nis, common, the use of the term community has always been open to interpretation
(Lexico Publishing Group, 2005). The concern expressed by Grossman, Wineburg, and
Woolworth, in the above quote, about the interpretation of the term community is
shared by many other commentators (Brown, 1999; Hamman, 2000; Preece, 2000;
Stuckey, Lockyer, & Hedberg, 2001). They recognized how blurred the meaning and
value of community can become when bandied about as an “omnibus word” (Poplin,
1979, p. 3). The question is how clearly we have to define the concept of community to
begin to talk about let alone cultivate it?
In practice there are a number of ideologically different views on the standard
we should adhere to when declaring any group to be community. Views expressed by
leading theorists vary from wanting very clear recognition to preserve the veracity of
community through to a stance that it does not matter whether a group is or is not a
community, but whether it is treated as one.
One of the best arguments for the clear and cut-down identification of
community is put by Preece (Preece, 2000, p. 9) who suggests that community faces a
loss of value when, “Commercialization of the Internet is sweeping online communities

Bronwyn Stuckey
along in its wake, thereby diluting the potency of the concept”. She states that, “E-
commerce entrepreneurs take a very broad view of community. Any chat or bulletin
board or communications software can be regarded as an online community” (p. 16) .
We can readily find evidence to support this viewpoint by scanning the plethora of
responses in a search for the term community on any web-based search engine.
While Preece believes we need to be clear because community has become such
a vogue word, others like Agre (2003) have spoken of these groups more as imagined
communities (Anderson, 1991; Shumar, 2005). Anderson spoke of the imagined
community that creates nations and nationalism. “It is imagined because the members of
even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or
even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (p. 5).
Agre defines community similarly to be a “set of people who occupy analogous
locations in social or institutional structures” (Agre, 1998, p. 71). People may not meet
but they share sets of structural relationships and may therefore identify as a group.
Agre speaks in similar terms of prospective or imagined communities such as the
community of folks living in a political jurisdiction, the community of freelance
landscape gardeners or fire fighters who drive a particular truck. For Agre the actions or
interventions of community instigators only serve to further ‘communitize’ these groups
(P. Agre, personal communication, April 27, 2001) and perhaps move them closer to the
form of realized community Preece defines.
Wenger, who has at times been criticized for being descriptive rather than
offering definitions of community, more philosophically asks us does it matter if a
group claiming to be a community meets any single definition. His stance, in
community of practice development, is that it is less important to decide whether a
group is or is not a community than it is to ask whether a group will benefit from being
viewed as a community. (E. Wenger, personal communication, February 27, 2004).
Wenger’s perspective, like Agre’s takes into account the very dynamic nature of
community development, but overlooks the fact that in order to take a view of the group
as a community one would still need to have an idea of what community or community
of practice (the outcome) was.
This research takes a view that respects and values all three of views. Without
being slavish to definitions we do need to understand what community is and is not. To
cultivate new communities we may need to appreciate the environments and
circumstances in which people might imagine themselves being part of a community.
Bronwyn Stuckey
And further to realize community we have to ask ourselves how the groups we work
with will benefit by being viewed as communities. Years of sociological debate have
not produced an agreed definition of community, so it seemed was unlikely this research
could do so. It became evident that it would be more valuable for this research to focus
on recognizing community, by the characteristics of this social entity, than defining it
precisely.
2.4.1.1. Recognizing community

Long before the pundits dreamed of taking the community online, sociologists
struggled to agree on defining and describing community. In 1955, George Hillery was
so struck by the plethora of sociological definitions that he drew together 94 of them in
an effort to isolate shared definitional concepts. His analysis, still widely cited today,
was to find that only one concept was actually common to all. It was acknowledged that
community dealt with people. Hillery did find a degree of agreement in 69 of the
definitions suggesting that community was also comprised of the components of area,
common ties, and social interaction (Hillery, 1955).
Poplin (1979) was to follow in Hillery’s footsteps and carry out a similar meta-
analysis of 125 sociological definitions some twenty years later. Although Poplin noted
that language and descriptions had changed over time, he found consistent evidence that
Hillery’s conditions remained valid as core definitional elements of community.
More recently, the concept of community has been adopted in new contexts and
applications that surely could have never been conceived by Hillery or Poplin.
Regularly we can hear the media describing events in the local community, community
of science, learning communities, communities of interest, user communities, ethnic
communities, customer communities, online or virtual communities, discourse
communities, communities of practice and many more.
To build on Hillery and Poplin’s studies this review examined a further 25 recent
definitions of community selected from literature of the last twenty years. New
instances describing community in current contexts and in various fields, such as
sociology, learning sciences, business management, knowledge management, commerce
and web development, were included. Many of the definitions included conditions
specific to the context in which the community may be developed, for Riel and Polin
(2004) for example that is the learning community, where for Hagel and Armstrong
(1997) a commercial orientation underpins their definition. Only a very small number

Bronwyn Stuckey
describe community as it may be played out in an Internet-mediated environment. All

the definitions were selected to broaden the view taken by Hillery and Poplin and to
examine community beyond purely sociological contexts. These definitions including
those embracing technology-mediated, workplace and learning contexts were
deconstructed into component parts. A table of these 25 sets of definitional components
is presented in Appendix F: Deconstruction of 25 recent definitions of community. They
were then aggregated and categorized within Hillery’s four themes to determine
whether as definitional components they still held their relevance for community as it is
instantiated today.
An analysis of the definitions did reveal, as Poplin had noted, new language and
terms have been applied in recent descriptions. While the concepts in the definitions
were found to be highly interrelated and interdependent they were readily able to be
associated with the four Hillery components. While not meant to represent a mutually
exclusive categorization, Table 2.3 offers an association of concepts around the Hillery
themes and represented in this way it serves as a snapshot of community that might be
used for recognizing it.
Each component was considered to be associated by being a motivator for,
contributor to, or result of the theme in question. For instance a shared history can be
considered a common tie in community whether the history is developed within or
before joining the community. A shared history with others in a community might serve
as much as an attractant to joining the community as it could be a product of the
community. Likewise, participation structures may be a mark of place in an online
community or may be the vehicle through which the place is created.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 2.3
Association of recent definitional components to Hillery’s four themes
Asterisk (*) denotes points of clear resonance between these descriptors for community and the
requirements of effective TPD
People Common ties Social interaction Place
individual and group connections interactions place and time
• group of individuals • shared goal, interest or • multilateral • long term
• grassroots initiative* need communication commitment*
• identify themselves • shared set of values and • ongoing exchange* • shared resources
with something culture • mechanisms for • collective goods
larger than the sum • distinctive focus reproduction`* • technology
of their individual • share a concern • make decisions • participation
relationships • overlapping histories* • reciprocity * structures
• group entity • shared knowledge • proactive partnerships • integration of
• common identity • web of relationships • repeated, active content and
• defined boundaries • mutual participation* communications
• limited membership interdependence* • intense interactions • sense of belonging*
• governance, rituals • mutual obligation • communicating
• social conventions, • common practices* knowledge*
• social policies • advancing collective • discussion
• valuing of member knowledge * • sharing
generated content* • deepen knowledge* • active collaboration
• emergence of roles • affective ties* • responsive resource
• relationships* • clear purpose • solidarity, support*
• sociability * • learning goals • criticism, conflict*
• shared history • conflict resolution
• civic engagement
A number of issues did surface through this analysis that served to qualify and
enhance understanding of the four definitional components. It was necessary to update
the notion of area to go beyond the geographical, to be considered a temporal location
and, to include area as a virtual place online. There has been much discussion on the
translation of the geographical concept of area or place when considered in the virtual
world (Fernback, 1999; Wellman, 2000). The desire to describe a physical place can be
seen in some of the metaphors and expressions that abound in Internet publications. We
tell people to ‘go to place’ when we give them a URL. Titles of papers and books
describe villages, homesteads, and campuses when describing the development of ties
and communication online. Graphical interfaces are found using images of campuses,
buildings and offices to delineate the areas or tools on a web site. We call the opening
page of a web site the home page. It is not surprising then that we can consider Internet-
mediated communities to have an area or place as the location for the ongoing activities
of the community. This research adopted the term place to cover the broader online and
offline view of what Hillery designated as area.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Individual and group identities are concepts that appear in several definitions
(Herring, 2004; Koku & Wellman, 2004; Müller, 1999; Schwier, 2002; Shaffer &
Anundsen, 1993) and may be associated across a number of Hillery’s components.
Identity may be formed through a combination of common ties and social interactions.
It is not a separate or new definitional component but more one acquired or learned
through the complex interactions between people, place, common ties and social
interaction.
Issues of time, longevity, continuity and the ongoing nature of interaction were
concepts raised in several definitions (Erickson, 1997; Figallo, 1998; Hamman, 2000;
Kim, 2000; Müller, 1999; Schwier, 2002; Shaffer & Anundsen, 1993; Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). These do not relate a new component of community but a
highly relevant qualification of social interaction. Hamman (2001b, p. 75) refined
Hillery’s theme of area to describe it as sharing of ‘area for at least some of the time’.
For interaction to be considered community-like, it needs to have a level of longevity
and an expectation of continuity and a future. An event or gathering might be
characterized by common ties and social interaction but if not extended over time could
not be considered the act of a community. Community activity and development needs
to be considered as continuing over time (Figallo, 1998; Kim, 2000; Stuckey, Lockyer,
& Hedberg, 2001; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
It is not difficult to see in Table 2.3 points of clear resonance between these
descriptors for community and the requirements of effective TPD, outlined in section
2.2; situated, collegial, reflective, ongoing and sustained and extending beyond the
school. Some of these points have been asterisked in Table 2.3. Most notably the
community descriptors suggest a community-based program has the potential to support
the situated, collegial and reflective requirements for effective TPD.
On the whole, current definitions of community continue to support, as key
components, the four simple themes set down by Hillery. These four themes were to
become the conceptual framework used later in this research to recognize community
and structure community stories.

Bronwyn Stuckey
2.4.2. Teacher communities and networks
There appears clear empirical evidence, in face-to-face contexts, that teacher

networks and communities are successful in raising collegiality, inter-relatedness,
collaboration and professional esteem as well as the development of skills of reflective
practice and a sense of professionalism. Projects and reform initiatives based on teacher
networking have proven effective professional development vehicles within disciplines,
and across schools, districts and regions (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Little, 2002;
Parker, 1977).
Building on the first examinations by Parker (1977) some 20 years earlier,
Lieberman (2000) critically examined the role of networks as learning communities.
The National Writing Project (NWP) showed that where teachers had worked in joint
enterprise they developed a sense of value as partners and colleagues. By engaging each
other in activities of teaching, learning, mentoring, authoring and critiquing, teachers
began to build a sense of community. They demonstrated a commitment to inquiry and
continued development and found renewed energy for the practice of teaching through
their ongoing network engagement (Lieberman, 2000).
Perhaps most well documented project is the development of the Community of
Learners Project (Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman, Myhre, & Woolworth, 1998) in an
urban USA high school across the English and History departments. It included
experiences, novice and some pre-service teachers in a group devised as a forum to
design interdisciplinary curriculum. After three years the project was able to
demonstrate a strong influence, especially on the more experienced teachers in the
group. This project was not an observation of a naturally forming community, but an
intentional intervention to effect change in individuals and the culture of the workplace.
“We created a ‘community of teacher learners’ by declaration and invited teachers to
join us” (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001, p. 949). While this kind of
community by declaration might work in the physical world the StageStruck experience
would suggest this is not an effective strategy for initiating community with highly
distributed groups meeting over the Internet.
The research surrounding this project provides us with many insights into the
difficulties, accomplishments and critical value encountered in community-based TPD.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Two key findings appear most relevant to this current research. It took a long time for
cultural change to become part of the practice of the departments and individuals
concerned. Time and regular engagement was required to develop trust and for teachers
to leverage the knowledge of the community as enacted practices in their classrooms
and part of a dominant culture (Havelock, 2004) . Time was also required to develop a
group trust that would allow teachers to openly reflect on their practices and critique
those of others. These changes are deep and long standing and had ramifications beyond
the writing and humanities teaching practices that began as the community’s focus. The
facilitation role of the researchers was to prove “critical to sustaining the development
of a community” (Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman, Myhre, & Woolworth, 1998, p. 30).
Effective facilitation by the researchers worked over time to overcome factional rifts,
mediate conflict and enable the development of trust. In part this was effective because
they were not a part of the issues to be overcome, but it was also due to the fact that
they were dedicated to this task and actively promoted and supported the group’s work.
Thomas, Grossman, Wineberg and Woolworth assert that to be successful a teacher
professional community must “relate the practical and directly applicable aspects of
teaching and the intellectual renewal of teachers” (2001, p. 952). This assertion is
supported by Lieberman (2000) who concluded that, while teachers may be attracted to
network engagement by lofty goals, they still wanted to account for day-to-day
problems. “Sustaining educator’s commitment and interest hinges on keeping the work
focused on practice” (Lieberman, 2000, p. 223).
Other studies, carried out in the USA, Canada and Australia (Erickson, Brandes,
Mitchell, & Mitchell, 2005; Little, 2002), focusing on small-scale, high school teacher
communities showed that teachers gained significant practical and formal knowledge.
This was evidenced by the fact that some participants carried long term investment in
the network, some as long as fifteen years, in the case of the Australian Project for
Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL) teachers.
The literature also reveals that community development, whether in networks,
learning circles or learning communities, as a complex system, is not without its
difficulties (Davis & Sumara, 2001; Lieberman, 2000; Vance & McKinnon, 2002;
Watson & Prestidge, 2003). These networks require a long and continual gestation
period. People need time and a stable basis on which to hold conversation, exploring
new practices, testing out practices, reflecting and sharing their explorations (Hiebert,
Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Lieberman, 1995; McDonald & Klein, 2003). This long
Bronwyn Stuckey
term engagement is also a factor in breaking the persistence of privacy (Little, 1990)
that prevents teachers from entering into a true culture of critique (Little, 1990; Riel,
Rhoads, & Ellis, 2005; Vance, 2004; Vance & McKinnon, 2002).
2.4.3. Community management
The role of management, co-ordination, facilitation and leadership as vital to

community development arises over and over in the literature. Lack of effective
facilitation or an understanding of what it entails is at the heart of the health or
otherwise of many community-based interventions (Darling-Hammond, 2000;
Goodfellow, 2003; Klecka, Clift, & Thomas, 2002; Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, &
Soloway, 1998; Vance & McKinnon, 2002). The community coordinator, facilitator or
in some cases called manager usually operates within the core level of activity in a
community (Wenger, 1998). This person is uniquely positioned in that they, while part
of the active core group, their role will see them in constant touch with members at the
periphery. An effective facilitator is often the most effective feedback mechanism in a
community as it is this person that communicates regularly with the most members and
knows who is who across the community (Berge, 1995; Brook & Oliver, 2003; Kollock
& Smith, 1996; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). The lessons learned from these
face-to-face community-based TPD projects are compelling and must be heeded by
anyone seeking to design similar projects on or offline.
The community convener is central to the development of the community of
practice and this is recognized as key in the literature, none more explicitly than Wenger
et al (2002). Figure 2.1 graphically describes the central position of the convener or
coordinator in the activity of the community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Outsider
Coordinator
Active
Peripheral
Figure 2.1: Degrees of community participation

(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 57)
Other members will come and go over time and none but the core members are
most likely to share the full history of the group. The convener is the one person most
likely to have high levels of continuity and contact with members in roles right across
the community. The person in this role would serve as a key informant about the
community infrastructure, activity, development and history.
2.4.4. Online or virtual community
The term ‘community’ is no less contentious when the community is mediated

over Internet technologies. A number of notable researchers and community developers
have avoided using a single precise definition of online community. In an effort to
overcome the restraints of defining community, White (2004b) cites a Foundation for
Community Encouragement workshop participant, a federal judge who obviously
borrowed from the words of his peer Justice Potter Stewart (1964) when he, defined
hard core pornography saying “Community is like pornography, I don't know how to
define it, but I sure know it when I see it” (p7). In a significant research study of fifteen
online communities, Williams and Cothrel (2000) also opted not to define community
going into their research preferring to allow, as an outcome, the analysis of the case
Bronwyn Stuckey
data to define community. Initially described by Howard Rheingold in his writings

about The Well in 1992, the online or virtual community has developed as a social
structure and support with healthy prospects for application in education and training.
Yet Rheingold (1993, pp. 57-58) himself has ceased using the term “virtual
communities” and prefers, because of the blurring and ambiguity of term, to use online
social networks.
Brown cautioned as to how much this blurring of meaning is exemplified with
community in online contexts.
Community is quite possibly the most over-used word in the Net industry. True
community – the ability to connect with people who have similar interests – may
well be the key to the digital world, but the term has been diluted and debased to
describe even the most tenuous connections, the most minimal activity. (Brown,
1999, p. 1)
To this point this review has focused on building a picture of community and
attributes of its social infrastructure. When that community is mediated online the
infrastructure requires inclusion of some form of technological architecture. Research
has shown that, to the detriment of social development, the technological architecture
can assume a precedence for many intentionally developed online groups (Barab,
Barnett, & Squire, 2002; Klecka, Clift, & Thomas, 2002).
Shirky (1995) put the technological and sociological aspects of community into
perspective when he reduced the online architecture to simple physics.
… the basics of electronic space can be broken into two parts: group dynamics
and simple physics. The simple physics is the movement in electronic space and
is governed by software and tools. The group dynamics is social interaction
governed by human behaviour. (Shirky, 1995, p. 91)
It is important at this time to contextualize the use of technology to avoid a

techno-centric view of online community. The literature is dotted with evidence to show
that a design that focuses overly on the technological aspects, attempting to build the
community out from the tools rather than harnessing technology to community needs,
is often doomed to failure (Klecka, Clift, & Thomas, 2002; Preece, 2000; Saint-Onge,
2003; Stuckey, Hedberg, & Lockyer, 2001).

Bronwyn Stuckey
If we agree that community technology supports more than a gathering of people

and more than a stream of messages, what is the more that we need to understand?
Rheingold (2001) suggested that online social networks are webs of relationships that
grow from computer-mediated discussions. The webs grow from conversations among
people who share a common affinity (e.g., they work for the same company,
department, or in the same discipline) and who differ in other ways (e.g., they are in
different locations, keep different hours, specialize in different disciplines, work for
different companies). When the people are distributed across time and space, then these
conversations need to take place online, over an intranet or private internet forum.
Whether one is talking about online community, virtual community, web-based
community, computer-mediated community or Internet-mediated community the social
entity described should be recognizable as a community.
2.4.4.1. Online architectures and the communications they support

Often we hear or read of communities described as the technologies or modes of
communication that support them, for instance references to a listserv or e-mail
community, or videoconference community. However a web site or an e-mail list alone
is not the community, anymore than the hall, the library or the newsletter are the
community in a physical context. The whole design for online community is
confounded by perceiving the community as the sum of tangible and visible traces it
leaves. Community is a social entity and also a communicative process of negotiation of
meaning, identity and culture (Fernback, 1999; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
Community needs infrastructure and included in that infrastructure, for the online
community, will be a technical architecture but it is not the community. It is debatable
that a single architecture or sets of architectures exist that might be considered
community architecture. Online architectures have been labeled as portal, hub, network
and interest group and all these terms can be found to be used erroneously in place of
community. Most more aptly describe different possibilities for communication rather
than any social and pedagogical affordances of the technology (Ryder & Wilson, 1996).
Table 2.4 describes the features of several online architectures and the communications
they may afford. These categories are not always distinct, nor mutually exclusive, but
drawing a distinction helps us further visualize what a community looks like and the
opportunities and tools that are called for in community architectures.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 2.4
The span of web architectures labeled as ‘communities’ on the web (adapted from
Stuckey, Lockyer and Hedberg, 2001b)
Broadcast Interpersonal
One-to-many/ central source to large One to one/ among people/ many-to- many, bi-directional
audience, uni-directional
web site Portal Network Interest Group Community
Information Resource & Services-based Communications & Relations-based Collaboration-based
Increasing Dimensions of Interactivity and Identity
Simply put, the requirements on the architecture move from a central platform
publishing from one-to-many at one end of the spectrum through to architectures of
participation offering many-to-many communication and supporting varied size group
association, communication and collaboration. Where static web site architecture might
involve little or no member-to-member interaction and be about forming the identity of
the publisher, a network, interest group and community require tools that allow
members to increasingly associate with others and participate in the building of
reputation and identity for themselves and others.
A portal in architecture is an entrance; in online architecture it often creates a
gateway. It is largely a resource-based entity presenting a repository of links, resources,
and contacts. It may not require membership and rarely involves member-to-member
communication beyond adding or recommending resources. Database tools, to populate,
search, recommend and rate resources might be at the heart of such architecture. A
portal may aggregate, recommend and point out to community environments.
Network architectures may house members loosely tied to each to share
information across the group. Members may be aware of others in the group and
engage in discourse individually or as a group. An interest group builds on a network to
offer forms of communication between members and allow for sub-groups. The ties will
be stronger than a network and members contribute not only with communication but
with resources, ideas and leadership. Network architectures may be the first steps or the
core of a flexible and extensible design for community architecture.
Community architecture extends to support opportunities for members to
collaborate and work on joint projects. There are increased requirements to support the

Bronwyn Stuckey
affective nature of community through facilitation, individual and group identity, sub-
group activities, productivity and cohesion (Riel & Polin, 2004). A community has
collaboration as its focus and offers experts and novices varying roles and ways to
communicate, contribute to and initiate ideas and joint projects. Aggregating a set of
tools in space does not make the group inhabiting that space nor using the tools a
community. The popular use of the term community to describe both Internet
architecture and a social group has created intense ambiguity. The architecture
describes the technical design that might optimize opportunity for community to
develop and requirements can be very idiosyncratic for each community. If architecture
is viewed as a dynamic platform for community activity then the vision for design needs
to incorporate the flexibility and capacity, for the kinds of communication and
collaboration community requires.
2.4.4.2. Connectivity for Internet-mediated community

An important part of scaffolding the online infrastructure and the architecture
is connectivity. Cothrel (2000) describes the true affordances of the Internet to build
community as its ability to connect people many to many. Shirky (1995, p. 2) similarly
describes the capability of Internet architectures as the “ability to send information out
to groups of people and let them reply to you, to one another individually, or to a group
as a whole, all while using the same device”. This many-to-many communication and
the main network connectivity of intranet, extranet and Internet forms of connectivity
are described in the Figures 2.2 to 2.4. These infrastructures represent not only a way of
connecting computers to one another but also a way of globally connecting individuals,
groups, teams and communities to one another. The original set of linkage diagrams
(Stuckey, Hedberg, & Lockyer, 2001) have been synthesized with the Williams and
Cothrel (2000, p. 82) categories to describe connectivity for online community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
BEFORE MOVING TOWARD
Intranet connectivity
Organization wide community

Organizational groups and sub-communities
Figure 2.2 Intranet networking
Figure 2.2 describes intranet connectivity, where members within an
organization become part of a private global local network. This type of bounded
connectivity occurs for instance within organizations, school networks and across
educational systems. Members may be able to access this network off-campus or off-
site through a secure virtual private network connection.
Extranet connectivity
External clients Organization Business community
Figure 2.3 Extranet networking

Figure 2.3 demonstrates an extranet structure where an organisation might
connect others outside the organization into the internal organization. This type of
connectivity is used by corporate groups to extend a service of part of a private network
(intranet) to those not supported through the intranet, such as agents, customers, and for
business to business (B2B) activity. Authorized persons typically access this network
off-campus or off-site through a secure virtual private network connection.
Internet connectivity
Distributed individuals Internet-mediated community
Figure 2.4 Internet networking

Bronwyn Stuckey
Figure 2.4 describes the most extreme creation of new connections made
possible online. In this last model of connectivity a set of highly distributed, previously
unconnected people could be connected without needing to share a geographic location,
workplace, employer or commercial relationship. The Internet-mediated community
would best fit this model. For example, the StageStruck community sought to create a
group that did not already exist. It was not extending ties the way global corporate
communities might be said to build community within the organization. It was not
bridging groups or organizations with some existing commercial relationships. It sought
to develop ties between distributed individuals who as a group had no existing
relationship.
As this review will show, in the next section, a majority of the literature about
communities especially CoPs has grown out of commercial and/or organizational
contexts and online these are built over intranet or extranet connectivity (Havelock,
2004). The successful communities in this body of literature are largely of potentially
known size, strategically developed, with geographically close or distributed members
but connected through a single corporate employer or organization. The members may
even share training and support in the use of a single endorsed corporate platform or
toolset. Conversely, managers of Internet-mediated communities often face disparities
in member familiarity and expertise with particular online tools (e-mail, chat, VOIP
etc), available connection speeds (dial-up, ADSL) and the locations for connecting
(home, work, other). It is important to acknowledge that Internet-mediated communities
inherently bump into obstacles not often faced by their organizational counterparts.
Awareness of the differences should temper any efforts at design based solely on
models or rules derived from organizational contexts.
2.4.4.3. Intentionally developed Internet-mediated communities

Can community be orchestrated? Some describe intentionality in relation to
community in terms of the choice made by individuals when they join or engage in a
community (Kowch & Schwier, 1997). However, there is more contention around
another aspect of intentionality in relation to the creation or design of community. Many
experienced community commentators question whether communities can be designed,
built or made, proposing that they grow through personalization, member participation,
contribution and ownership and shared inquiry (Barab, Barnett, & Squire, 2002; Fulton

Bronwyn Stuckey
& Riel, 1999; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; O'Brien & Van der kuyl, 2004; Preston,
n.d.; Wenger, 1998).
One of the most reported intentionally-developed communities is the learning
community defined by Kowch and Schwier (1997, p. 1) which “is a group of individuals
engaged intentionally and collectively in the transaction or transformation of
knowledge”. This type of Internet-mediated community has posted promising results in
TPD within preservice, induction and postgraduate teacher education programs.
Across school programs like the University of Georgia’s Network for English
Teachers and Students (UGA-NETS) (Hudson-Ross & Peg, 2000), the University of
Wollongong’s Knowledge Building Community (Ferry & Kiggins, 1999) and the
University of Missouri preservice teacher cohort study (Poole, 2002), all clearly situate
preservice learning to capitalize on field experience and the authentic environment of
schools. Each program was able to accomplish this while, in varying degrees, offering
inservice mentors and partner’s engagement in a new form of professional development.
All projects offered community-based learning through a hybrid of face-to-face and
Internet-mediated activities. Over time technology has been used to support newsletters,
bulletin boards and discussion forums, e-mail support and one-to-one and many-to-
many dialog. UGA-NETS in particular, reported over time a very positive influence on
professional dialog and cultural change in secondary English departments where the
program ran.
A learning community such as UGA-NETS pulls secondary teachers out of the
isolation of their classrooms, departments, and schools making the status quo
harder to maintain or to defend. UGA-NETS work takes teachers beyond the
local school culture and forces them to interact professionally. Cross-school
colleagues have no patience for conversations that deteriorate to local politics,
complaints, norms, or assumptions. (Hudson-Ross & Peg, 2000)
Design innovations for teacher induction programs have adopted Internet

technologies as a way of breaking the isolation of beginning teachers while raising
capacity for reflection and critique (Babinski, Jones, & DeWert, 2001; DeWert,
Babinski, & Jones, 2003; Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005; Herrington, Herrington, & Omari,
2002) The Lighthouse Project is an example of one such successful Internet-mediated
program providing “social, emotional, practical, and professional support to beginning
teachers” (DeWert, Babinski, & Jones, 2003, p. 311). It was found that beginning
Bronwyn Stuckey
teachers engaged in online discourse firstly to foster a sense of community, secondly to

relate personal experiences, and thirdly to provide advice. While the social activity was
managed by all members of the group, with no designated facilitator for the group, no-
one modeled the required problem-solving processes and both teachers and faculty
tended to offer advice rather than encourage reflection (Babinski, Jones, & DeWert,
2001).
In postgraduate studies two strong examples arise, the Harvard Graduate School
of Education Wide-scale Interactive Development for Educators (WIDE) and in the
Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS) program, developed by a partnership
of Chicago Public Schools, the Detroit Public Schools, Northwestern University and the
University of Michigan. These programs demonstrate a successful marriage of
community-based design and inquiry-oriented learning. While sponsored as part of
more conventional academic program offerings, they bring educators together in
learning communities with opportunities to collaborate, support and mentor, solve
problems and build solutions together (Havelock, 2004; Whitehouse, 2003).
Intentionally developed learning communities have also shown very positive
results in furthering knowledge in specific domains and curriculum areas for more
experienced teachers. The Math Forum, while operating as a volunteer supported
program and described as a digital library, offers a community-based service to teachers
and students in the area of mathematics. Its design combines the possibilities for breadth
of a resource-based portal and the depth in multidirectional interaction of a network
(Shumar, 2005; Shumar & Renninger, 2002). Since 1992, the Math Forum has
successfully involved staff, teachers, students, parents, mathematicians, and software
developers as volunteers in a partnership for mentoring and tutoring math learning. This
project blurs the boundaries between service provider and community, because a staff
supported volunteer network provides the service.
While the Math Forum’s design always included a repository function other
communities, like the Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) (Barab, Barnett, & Squire, 2002;
Barab, Makinster, Moore, & Cunningham, 2001) in distinct contrast, avoided resource
collections in an effort to encourage members to linger in the community and engage in
professional reflection and dialog rather than visit to scoop up resources and leave.
While the ILF used video vignettes of genuine ‘warts and all’ inquiry learning lessons,
to encourage teacher dialog and contribution, it struggled to elicit the critical mass of
contributions it sought from members until it became a tool for preservice learning. It
Bronwyn Stuckey
has been suggested that time and engagement online to access the video content and
comment represented an investment classroom teachers were unable or unprepared to
make. Preservice teachers on the other hand with more extrinsic motivation and focused
goals, were more readily able to engage in the community discourse (J. Moore, personal
communication, May 5, 2004).
Talking Heads was a large Internet-mediated program devised and managed by
Ultralab for the National College of School Leaders (NCSL) in England. New heads
(principals) were able to share knowledge and raise their effectiveness in their
leadership roles (National College for School Leadership, 2003). Talking Heads as a
whole may not be considered a community but a number of the topical nodes and
smaller local groups that arose have demonstrated in their dialog that they were building
both emotional ties and new knowledge. Similarly large in member numbers, Tapped In
which was built as a community architecture and infrastructure has been categorized as
a crossroads or as this researcher prefers meta-community. It has been a successful
platform from which to nurture communities.
These groups all vary in the degree to which they might be recognized as
communities. Each employs a different architecture and tool sets to support interaction.
What all these programs and many others agree on was the pivotal role played by
facilitators in the core social interaction of their group (Babinski, Jones, & DeWert,
2001; Brook & Oliver, 2003; Chapman, Ramondt, & Smiley, 2005; Marx, Blumenfeld,
Krajcik, & Soloway, 1998). Facilitators who may be community managers but are often
different from community leaders (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002), serve as the
first point of human contact in community. The ways in which they work to model the
tone and etiquette of the community cannot be underestimated. Effective facilitators
spend a great deal of time in one-to-one relationships in these many-to-many
environments. Much of their work is carried out in the ‘back-channel’ activity, away
from the public gaze of the membership, welcoming, encouraging, building trust,
making introductions and linking people, information and activities.
Putting people together in a place real or virtual does not make a community and
does not ensure learning takes place. Stewart and Brown (1996, p. 2) remind us of this
when they say, “You can’t take a dozen people at random, give them a pot of coffee
and a box of doughnuts, and expect them to learn.” Yet it is a model not too dissimilar
from this which has predominated TPD for many years. New strategies like Internet-
mediated communities are not without their own frailties, difficulties and even dangers.
Bronwyn Stuckey
It is suggested that designers may be able establish frameworks, architectures

and spaces to invite, promote or facilitate interactivity but that it is the social activity of
the members that builds the sense and value of community (Brook & Oliver, 2003;
Havelock, 2004). There is a great deal of debate about whether community can be
contrived or is only truly effective when naturally occurring. If community
development is most effective when occurring as a natural process, how can community
managers and facilitators emulate that natural process? Wenger (1998) suggests that
communities can never be the result of a design, only a response to it.
This current research is built on the premise that developers and facilitators can
create an environment with opportunity for community and with potential for
community but that the members themselves take up that opportunity and thereby create
the community. Community itself cannot be designed but there may be some extent to
which it can be designed for.

Bronwyn Stuckey
2.5. Community of practice
A community of practice is not just a web site, a database, or a collection of best

practices. It is a group of people who interact, learn together, build relationships,
and in the process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment. Having
others who share your overall view of the domain and yet bring their individual
perspectives on any given problem creates a social learning system that goes
beyond the sum of its parts. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p 34)
To this point, this review has quite heavily focused on the community
component as the focus of this research and recognized community in many forms. The
review now focuses on the domain of knowledge and the attendant practices that
distinguish the CoP from the aforementioned communities.
Most critical to this research through the contributing bodies of knowledge
(professional development, online learning, and affordances of technology) is the
community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Hildreth, Kimble and Wright (2000, p.
3) define CoPs as “a group of professionals informally bound to one another through
exposure to a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and thereby
themselves embodying a store of knowledge”. For Wenger, McDermott and Snyder
“Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems,
a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by
interacting on an ongoing basis” (2002, p. 4). The embodied store of knowledge and
expertise referred to is the practice owned by the community. Practice is one of the
three central components: community, domain and practice that allow us to distinguish
the CoP from other types of community.
The domain of a CoP refers to the focal issues and how the members identify
with the main topic and the practice is represented in a repertoire of methods, tools,
skills and learning activities (Snyder, Wenger, & de Sousa Briggs, 2004). Key to the
concept of practice is the dimensions practice has, as the property of community and as
the source of coherence for it. These dimensions are joint enterprise, mutual
engagement and shared repertoire. For Wenger the interplay of these three components
will “create a context for the negotiation of meaning” (Wenger, 1998, p. 73). Through

Bronwyn Stuckey
engagement in this interplay members surface and share the knowledge of the skilled
practitioner and the processes essential to maintenance and innovation in the practice.
Brown (2002) effectively exploits a Bruner analogy to unpack the concepts of practice
and knowledge when he describes the differences between learning physics and being a
physicist.
Learning to be a physicist (as opposed to learning about physics) requires cutting
a column down the middle of the diagram, looking at the deep interplay between
the tacit and explicit. That's where deep expertise lies. Acquiring this expertise
requires learning the explicit knowledge of a field, the practices of its
community, and the interplay between the two. (Brown, 2002, p. 20)
Making tacit knowledge explicit is at the heart of the work of CoPs and the
value of sharing tacit knowledge is widely reported by researchers in various fields. A
number of researchers have expressed the importance of knowledge sharing in various
contexts. Fullan (1999, p. 15) suggests:
In brief, the secret to success of living companies, complex adaptive systems,
learning communities or whatever terms we use, is that they consist of intricate,
embedded interaction inside and outside the organization which converts tacit
knowledge to explicit knowledge on an ongoing basis.
Botkin (1999, pp. 3-4) has suggested:

Good ideas are knowledge waiting to be tapped, and it’s the trademark of a smart
organization – a fast company – that it knows how to honour and legitimize the
tacit knowledge that its people have stored up in their work practices and make it
visible.
And Brown further supports this focus on practice to say that, “A lot of our
know-how or knowing comes into being through participating in our community(ies) of
practice” (Brown, 2002, p. 20). Fullan (1999) positions the sharing of tacit knowledge at
the centre of complexity theory (Anderson, 1999; Thrift, 1999) and change processes
in educational domains and practices. Practice really is the crux of what sets a CoP apart
from other forms of community. To identify a community-like group as a CoP we might
ask ourselves what is the domain and practice of this group?

Bronwyn Stuckey
Beyond surfacing tacit knowledge, Wenger (1998) further proposes a duality

essential to the negotiation of meaning in CoPs, a duality of participation and
reification. The point being made is that meaning is not simply embedded in actions or
in artifacts. Meaning is negotiated in the interrelatedness of these two things.
Disembodied artifacts cannot convey the full meaning of a practice away from the
discourse of the community. Neither can participation in the discourse alone sustain
knowledge sharing. Recognizing the importance of this duality is timely given the
recent rush by many educational systems and institutions to invest in repositories of
reusable learning objects (Wiley, 2000). Objects alone do not share knowledge; they
need the participation of practitioners in developing, using, evaluating and
recommending and sharing them (T. Duffy, personal communication April 8, 2004).
The importance of CoPs and their knowledge sharing capacity has been argued
extensively in Wenger (1998) Barab and Duffy (2000), Allee (2000), Hildreth, Kimble
and Wright (2000), Williams and Cothrel (2000), Wenger, McDermott and Snyder
(2002), Davenport and Hall (2002) to name but a few. As education, like industry has
been called to work smarter, leaders strive to promote openness to change, leadership
opportunities and shared ownership of the goals of the organization. Whether change is
based on the 90s call to the learning organization (Senge, 1990) or the new
millennium’s knowledge-based organization (Wenger, 1998), the key to reform appears
to be the way the organisation values knowledge and its management.
Much of the existing theory, literature and indeed case-study research examine
organizationally supported face-to-face or workplace communities such as the seminally
famous Eureka Project of photocopier engineers at Rank Xerox (Orr, 1990), the
Chrysler Tech Clubs (Wenger, 1998), or the Clarica agent communities (Saint-Onge &
Wallace, 2003). On the other end of the community spectrum, reports and cases in
more technologically oriented publications have focused on online interest, user and
support groups like Slash dotcom (Kim, 2000), Cupid’s Touch (Figallo, 1998) and eBay
(Baron, 2001). Such online groups cater for disconnected and distributed membership
but are not necessarily formed around a practice. Research about such online groups,
while not CoPs, has the potential to inform at least some aspects of development of
IMCoPs. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder call for qualitative study to recognize and
understand the function of communities of practice when they say:
The extent to which any group is or is not a community of practice is not
something that can be determined in the abstract by its name or by
Bronwyn Stuckey
characteristics of members. You have to look at how the group functions and
how it combines all these elements of domain, community and practice.
(Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p. 44)
This call to qualitative investigation into the functioning of groups becomes an

imperative when we realize the dearth of literature available to directly support IMCoP
development.

Bronwyn Stuckey
2.6. Internet-mediated Community of Practice
Even though the technology that supports online communities has changed
tremendously over the years, the biggest change lies not in technology but in
who is using it. (Preece & Maloney-Krichmar, 2005, p. 5)
2.6.1. Existing guidelines in related fields to IMCoP development
None of the major proponents for online community or communities of practice

offer guidelines specifically for developing or sustaining Internet-mediated
communities of practice as they are defined for this research. Recently some attempts
have been made to draw up and test critical success factors (Hernandes & Fresnada,
2003). Hernandes and Fresneda drew together a collection of 13 critical success factors
from the virtual community literature and asked 100 leaders of virtual communities to
rate them. Their results proved largely inconclusive when 35 of 43 survey respondents
proposed additional factors they deemed more significant than those offered in the
survey.
It may be argued that work to develop online community in academic and
distance learning course contexts has an IMCoP focus (Lemesianou & Gutierrez, 2003).
However, the prescribed curriculum, less than voluntary nature of such groups, assessed
participation of members and often the lack of a clearly defined shared practice make it
doubtful that such groups are CoPs. Much of the literature related to class-based
academic CoPs (on or offline) could be said to describe at best ‘CoP-based’ designs
(Putz & Arnold, 2001), rather than actual functioning IMCoPs. Riel and Polin (2001, p.
3) describe such classroom attempts to develop CoPs as “more like educational tourism
than professional practice”. Others like Lueg (2000, p. 7) question what activities in so
called virtual communities of practice “qualify as shared practice in the sense of
communities of practice”. The two major research areas where guidelines relevant to
this research are offered are online community and community of practice. While each
has focused on components, none to date have focused on defining the conditions for
the highly distributed Internet-mediated community of practice.

Bronwyn Stuckey
The six sets of principles that follow represent the leading thinking to date in
those two most relevant fields. It is important to examine each individually and then
focus on where they overlap, disagree or become ambiguous and what bearing they
have on the conditions for development of Internet-mediated communities of practice.
The full table of guidelines for comparison of these six theories is presented in the
Appendix G: Selection of guidelines, strategies and principles from the relevant
literature.
2.6.1.1. Nine timeless design strategies (Kim, 2000)

Kim (2000) presents a high-level design plan for online community
development. Her background and experience in software design and business
architectures comes through in her approach to community design as logical and
grounded in reality rather than theory.
Nine Timeless Design Strategies and their Underlying Principles (Kim, 2000 p. xiii-xvi)
• Define and articulate your PURPOSE
• Build flexible, extensible gathering PLACES
• Create meaningful and evolving member PROFILES
history and context.
• Design for a range of ROLES
• Develop a strong LEADERSHIP program
• Encourage appropriate ETIQUETTE
• Promote cyclic EVENTS
• Integrate the RITUALS of community life
• Facilitate member-run SUBGROUPS.
Underlying principles:
• Design for growth and change
• Create and maintain feedback loops
• Empower members over time.
A key premise in Kim’s work is her definition of community. “A community is a

group of people with a shared interest, purpose or goal, who get to know each other
better over time” (Kim, 2000, p. 28). Much of the focus is on social development and
evolution and her strategies and the underlying principles could be applied to many,
Bronwyn Stuckey
perhaps any, form of online community. They could equally be applied to gaming
communities, commercial communities, organizational communities and IMCoPs. Of
all of the sampled community guidelines, strategies and principles, Kim’s seems the
most universally relevant advice presenting widespread diversity and grounded in clear
examples. Kim describes the nine strategies when “Taken together, these strategies
summarize an architectural, systems-oriented approach to community building that I
call ‘Social Scaffolding’ ” (Kim, 2001, p. 1). Kim’s work speaks to design for
community from a clearly architectural stance. While not focusing necessarily on the
technological attributes, her design principles are an articulation of infrastructure for
community.
Kim describes work-related communities, the closest in her examples to
IMCoPS, as either workplace or professional group. Many of the online communities
that she uses to demonstrate her principles and strategies are thematic, interest groups,
users groups, gaming or commercial sites with large numbers (1000s) of members. No
groups that might be readily construed as communities of practice are represented in her
examples. There is no mention of design for collaborative endeavor in Kim’s strategies.
The strategies describe a basis for sharing but do not present a strategy to develop the
deeper negotiation and collaboration expected in the opportunity for joint enterprise
integral to the CoP. In some part this joint enterprise may be supported in Kim’s final
underlying principle of empowerment of members over time. Kim describes this third
principle in terms of leveraging the ideas and efforts of members and in line with CoP
development she describes a shift in the level of contribution from management to
member-dominated over time.
Kim’s nine strategies describe strategies for online communities but it is
unknown how effectively they apply the subset of online communities that is the
IMCoP.
2.6.1.2. Twelve fundamental lessons (Williams & Cothrel, 2000)

Joseph Cothrel was research director in Arthur Andersen’s Next Generation
Research Group in Chicago which studied 15 communities facilitated over intranet
(organizational employees), extranet (company and customers) and Internet
technologies (open). The communities in question varied from corporate collocated, to
global organizations, interest communities, user communities and global villages.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Cothrel chose to categorize the communities by the dynamics of a group rather

than the technology used by it. For instance, employees in a single company were
classified as an intranet community. Cothrel’s characterization of the Internet
community was valuable for distinguishing IMCoPs from the more organizationally-
related communities in this study.
When choosing his community cases Cothrel opted not to define community but
use the attribute of many-to-many communication as a proxy for community. His case
study work was designed to allow a definition of community emerge from case
interviewees. Cothrel in no way resolved the definitional dilemma set out by Hillery
(1955) when the final cross case analysis produced a definition of community as a
“group of people willing and able to help each other” (p. 15).
Williams & Cothrel (2000) selected and examined four of these communities for
the lessons they offered. This lead to the articulation of the 12 fundamental lessons for
understanding how online communities can be established and maintained, presented in
Appendix G: Selection of guidelines, strategies and principles from the relevant
literature.
Furthermore, Williams and Cothrel deduced from the lessons that three kinds of
activity are critical to community viability:
(1) member development
(2) asset management
(3) community relations.
Member development related to all aspects of marketing the community to

prospective members. This will include articulating the goals of the community and the
value to members. Asset management entails not just sourcing and managing assets but
constantly offering resource value to members. Community relations are the social and
facilitation issues required to support the group as a community.
The research methodology employed in this research is to some extent modeled
from Cothrel’s use of case study, beginning with a larger pool of cases and narrowing
through a successive screening process to heuristic cases for intensive study.
In 2001 Cothrel distilled the lessons learned into a set of five ingredients for a
successful online community. Cothrel presented these diagrammatically as a set of steps
moving up from a platform of Purpose, Place Programs and Process to People.

Bronwyn Stuckey
People
Process
Program
Place
Purpose
Figure 2.5 Cothrel’s Five P’s - ingedients for a successful online community
(Cothrel, 2001)
These ingredients are very close to the Hillery (1955) definitional components
people, common ties, social interaction and place. Williams and Cothrel did include a
small number of IMCoPs in their study and because of this their findings, like Kim’s,
offer widely relevant advice to be evaluated against a larger number of clearly identified
IMCoP examples.
2.6.1.3. Four dimensions (Hung & Chen, 2001)

Hung and Chen (2001) present a conceptual model for community-based online
learning. Their findings are based on a synthesis of the literature in social constructivist
learning theory. They use the recent thinking about situated cognition, socio-
constructivist views of learning and the growing theory surrounding communities of
practice to develop principles for e-learning. Their research is intended to influence
directions taken in mainstream web-based learning toward a community-based model.
They have interpreted community as a sustaining factor in online learning.
Hung and Chen draw together four main principles and develop design
considerations to guide the realization if these principles. In summary, situatedness is
accomplished through offering meaningful authentic tasks relevant to the needs of the
learners. Commonality is created through shared interest and problems that require a
joint effort to solve. Interdependency can be seen in learners recognizing and making
use of the diverse expertise in the group. Infrastructure needs to include facilitation,
rules, processes and accountability as part of the norms negotiated in the community.
These principles all relate to learning as the development of a practice. While
Hung & Chen have a somewhat ambiguous focus on community-oriented e-learning,

Bronwyn Stuckey
their work touches at a macro level on the rudimentary basis for community
development. Offline or online the principles of situatedness, commonality,
interdependency and infrastructure are vital to all socio-constructivist learning
environments. These principles represent only part of a theoretical premise on which to
develop a community. While web-based learning environments may indeed be
communities of practice they may not. One of the web sites used by Hung and Chen to
demonstrate the principles is readily recognized as a community and the other not. The
advice line at www.epinions.com might be as close to a community as is a talk-back
radio interview. They both offer opportunity for shared repertoire (e.g. stories, actions
discourse) but they lack the opportunity for joint enterprise and mutual engagement as
dimensions of practice in a community (Wenger, 1998). Participants on an advice line
cannot collaborate to co-construct artifacts to reify knowledge; they cannot take up
diverse roles or move from the periphery to the centre. Hung and Chen may have overly
focused on the expert novice relationship, as their principles neglect the mutuality and
true reciprocity seen in a community of practice. “A community of practice is not
defined merely by who knows whom or who talks with whom in a network of
interpersonal relations through which information flows” (Wenger, 1998 p. 74). These
examples allow us to draw the distinction between a network and a community.
Networks like communities “share a common interest, exchange ideas, and help each
other” McDermott (1999, p. 3). They might link individual to individual and problem to
solution most particularly as individualists. The people in a network are unlikely to
associate their identity with the network.
While Hung and Chen have gone some way to describe the principles for
Internet-mediated community of practice development, they have clearly only described
a base level of interaction but not the relationship of participation and reification of an
IMCoP.
2.6.1.4. Ten critical success factors (McDermott, 2001)

Based on a study of best practice in communities of practice carried out for the
American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC) McDermott (2001) developed 10
critical success factors in building communities of practice. McDermott’s work is
rooted in both consultancy experience and major research programs in global
organizations, knowledge management and communities of practice.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Preceding the critical success factors, McDermott (1999) developed a series of

guidelines to help structure communities of practice. The guidelines and success factors
complement and qualify each other. The guidelines read as a set of issues to consider
when planning. The 10 critical success factors represent the activities in the early and
ongoing development of the community with suggestions as to the division of
responsibility.
Table 2.5
Summary of McDermott’s guidelines and success factors
Guidelines (1999) Critical Success Factors (2001)
• Build communities on strategically important Management Challenge
topics 1. Focus on topics important to the business and
• Build enough background context for people community members.
to understand each other 2. Find a well-respected community member to
• Use both human and information systems to coordinate the community.
share insights 3. Make sure people have time and
• Use multiple forums for sharing knowledge encouragement to participate.
• Help people “pull” insights from each other 4. Build on the core values of the organization.
when they need it, rather than “pushing” it out Community Challenge
to them 5. Get key thought leaders involved.
• Communities of practice live within an 6. Build personal relationships among
organizational culture community members.

7. Develop an active passionate core group.
• Build on the natural energy for learning
8. Create forums for thinking together as well as
systems for sharing information.
Technical Challenge
9. Make it easy to contribute and access the
community’s knowledge and practices.
Personal Challenge
10. Create real dialogue about cutting edge issues.
McDermott writes from a purely organizational perspective. When he speaks of

global communities he is talking about global organizations and enterprises whose
communities of practice span their countries of operation. Many lessons can be learned
about communities with distributed members from this organizational context but we do
not yet know how and to what extent they apply to non-organizationally-based
communities. Organizational communities are able to attract members and encourage
Bronwyn Stuckey
participation through their joint organizational culture, technology platform, time

allowances, strategic requirements and goals, mandates and extrinsic incentives. Non-
organizationally-based communities cannot rely on these strategies to attract members
or encourage their engagement.
McDermott focuses on face-to-face communities and internal groups in
organizations most connected over high-end intranets or extranets. Even so he believes
that the ease of use has more to do with design, infrastructure and reflecting the actual
way members of the community would think about their field than it is to do with
software functionality.
2.6.1.5. Ten tricks (Le Moult, 2001)

Le Moult’s background admirably establishes her to develop a series of lessons
learned to “make a CoP fly” (p.1). Her work and research has been in organizational
contexts and most particularly the large global organization Siemens Information and
Communication Networks U.S.
She developed threefold advice to community developers; a series of ten tricks
to help successfully manage a community of practice, as a set of fundamental questions
one should ask before starting a community of practice, and the ten classic pitfalls in
community development. The work is not meant to cover exhaustively the principles of
community development but to offer significant insights from successful practice from
the viewpoint of the community manager.
While Le Moult’s experience is with organizational CoPs, the tips are practical
and offer constructive advice applicable generally to all communities whether online or
offline. The tips span across the aspects of infrastructure, content, design and
facilitation. Much of the focus is on attracting members and direct management
offerings to the community and the domain. They read as a fine-grained set of practical
do’s and don’ts in community building.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 2.6
Summary of Le Moult’s tips and pitfalls for community development
Tips (do’s) Pitfalls (don’ts)
1. Actively generate content 1. Ignore moods and demands of members
2. Don’t be too strict in judging 2. Not enough content
3. Create executive awareness 3. Too strict or too loose
4. Use your own personal network 4. No scope
5. Support the snowball principle 5. No aims
6. Provoke voluntaries 6. Only technical platform
7. Keep it simple 7. No admin response
8. Keep it fresh (first in community) 8. No support (help and training)
9. Let it grow before structuring 9. Only extrinsic motivation
10. Rely on the fun factor 10. Bad moderation
Le Moult does not attempt to describe the relation of these community building
efforts to the practice. There is no advice for developing the shared repertoire, joint
enterprise or mutual engagement that gives coherence to the community (Wenger,
1998). The varied granularity of these tips requires they be tied into some over-arching
concepts or principles to make this cohesive advice.
2.6.1.6. Seven design principles (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002)

Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002, p.51) offer a set of seven design
principles for communities of practice. Developed through consultative work and case
investigation, almost exclusively from corporate and organizational contexts, they
present case stories and anecdotes.
1. Design for evolution
2. Open dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
3. Invite different levels of participation
4. Develop both public and private community spaces
5. Focus on value
6. Combine familiarity and excitement
7. Create a rhythm for the community.
The work is based and builds on Wenger’s (1998) theories of learning in

communities of practice and Lave & Wenger’s (1991) introduction to the concept of
Bronwyn Stuckey
communities of practice. This most recent work seeks to define and demonstrate the
community of practice as a dynamic growth and design process. The principles are a
conceptual level frame of reference for capitalizing on processes already at play in
organizations.
These design principles are not recipes, but rather embody our understanding of
how elements of design work together. They reveal the thinking behind a design.
Making design principles explicit makes it possible to be more flexible and
improvisational. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002, p 51)
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder describe a process of “design for aliveness”

(p.51), questioning the role of traditional design when it is a product of a self-directed,
evolving and often spontaneous process. In their view communities usually spring from
pre-existing personal networks and are tended as gardens in their development. The
authors’ choice of a gardening metaphor is carried through from the high level notion of
design as cultivation through to the provision of the essentials for growth in the design
principles.
These high level principles offer us a way to begin thinking about IMCoPs.
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder do recognize the challenges of what they call
“distributed communities” (pp. 113-139) and offer some specific guidelines within the
seven principles for these CoPs. However, they still view these CoPs through a largely
enterprise or corporate lens and cite examples of organizations working towards
globalization. These distributed CoPs do not account for community development in
diversity of and type of IMCoPS that for instance the StageStruck Learning Community
would represent.
2.6.2. Relating existing theories and guidelines
2.6.2.1. Designing a framework for synthesis of guidelines and principles

It was necessary to create a framework that would allow assembly of the elements of the
six very diverse but contributory perspectives to be synthesized. As has been shown, the
literature proposed a few structures that might be considered but each was found
wanting in some respect when applied to the full set of influences at play in an IMCoP.

Bronwyn Stuckey
The following guidelines were considered relevant, in addition to the six sets of existing
guidelines already discussed, and were used to further inform the development of
categories and the descriptive language used in the framework:
• The IBM Institute for Knowledge Management Research Report (Fontaine,
2001, p. 5), as a framework for studying communities of practice, developed a
mind map as a tree of issues “whose roots covered the landscape of a
community”. The issues were identified as:
Development Path – How did the community form and evolve? What was
its catalyst?
Membership – How and why did members join, leave or give of their
time and energy?
Activities – What did members do in the community? How did they
interact?
Organizational Support – How was the community supported by the
organization?
Value – What value did members receive? How did the organization
benefit from the community?
• Rogoff, Matusov, & White (1996) proposed three planes of analysis for
involvement in community; personal, interpersonal and community. Gray and
Tatar (2004) added the technology dimension these planes to accommodate the
engagement they considered enabled/hindered in online community.
• Parker’s (1977) guidelines for teacher network development cited in Lieberman
and Grolnick (1999) were drawn from an early study of 60 networks and
revealed five key components members of networks needed:
1. a strong sense of commitment to the innovation;
2. a sense of shared purpose;
3. a mixture of information sharing and psychological support;
4. an effective facilitator;
5. voluntary participation and equal treatment.
• Erickson, Brandes, Mitchell and Mitchell’s (2005) in an exploration of two
collaborative professional development projects in Australia and Canada
suggested a functional model of professional development depends upon:

Bronwyn Stuckey
a) a mutually held understanding of what types of classroom practices

nurture good teaching and learning,
b) a setting where teachers have a strong commitment and control over the
project and decide on its direction, and
c) a structure that allows teachers and teacher educators to meet regularly
in an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding.
The most relevant and intuitively accessible framework for aggregating and
synthesizing these concepts was Hillery’s four definitional components of community,
established in the Section 2.2 of this review. Through a process of selective reduction a
conceptual framework emerged. Conditions were sorted as to their strongest
relationship to either people (individual and group), common ties (connections), social
interaction (interactions) and place (place and time). Then commonalties were
considered in order for conditions to be subsumed or used to qualify more inclusive
expressions. For instance “design for evolution” came to represent and include as
attributes “let it grow before restructuring” and “build flexible, extensible gathering
places”. Likewise “create a rhythm” was selected to include “promote cyclic events” as
an attribute.
Table 2.7 is the start of that conceptual framework for recognizing the
community conditions in successful IMCoPS. Appendix G: Selection of guidelines,
strategies and principles from the relevant literature shows the original aggregation of
the harvested guidelines. While the relationship of these aspects of community is
complex and certainly not tabular, it is presented in this way in order to establish a clear
and grounded framework. The conceptual framework extends on the current literature
and represents a new two dimensional expression of the possible issues relevant to
IMCoP cultivation. It became the cornerstone of theory for this research program.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 2.7
Synthesis of the 6 relevant guidelines for development of community in IMCoPS

• Design for a range • Situatedness • Develop interdependency • Form communities
of roles around people, not
• Concentrate on • Create a rhythm applications
• Get key thought leaders communities that matter
involved • Integrate the rituals of • Create forums for
• Define and articulate your community life thinking together as well
• Create executive purpose as systems for sharing
awareness • Combine familiarity and
• Reinforce the excitement information
• Make sure people have community’s focus • Design for evolution
time and encouragement • Keep it fresh (first in
• Focus on value community) (flexible, extensible)
to participate
• Focus on topics important • Invite different levels of • Fit the tools to the
• Collect and use feedback community
from members to the business and participation
community members. • Develop both public and
• Find a well-respected • Create critical mass of
functionality private spaces
community member to
coordinate • Provide the materials that • Open a dialogue between
collaboration requires inside and outside
• Create meaningful and
evolving member profiles • Make it easy to contribute • Facilitate member-run
history and context and access subgroups.
• Develop an active • Rely on the fun factor
passionate core group
• Actively generate content
• Develop a strong
leadership program • Prime the pump with
communication
• Acknowledge the
voluntary nature of • Encourage appropriate
participation etiquette
• Harness the power of a • Create dialogue about
personal connection cutting edge issues
• Build personal • Play on all motives for
relationships among participation.
community members
• Don’t be too strict in
judging.
2.7. Research imperatives
Remembering back to original the problem posed about the StageStruck

Learning Community in the Introduction Section 1.2, this current research needed to
understand what conditions support successful IMCoPS, what contribution management
can make and whether communities in educational contexts are culturally different.
Many respected community of practice proponents support the notion that CoPs
are not made but grown (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Fulton & Riel,

Bronwyn Stuckey
1999; Kim, 2000). It is not by accident that several have also employed a gardening
metaphor to describe the way in which organizations, managers and coordinators can
act to develop community (Brown & Duguid, 2000; Schlager & Fusco, 2004; Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). It seems we cannot build a road map to community
development. Community is so dependent on what goes before it that it is truly
emergent not predictable (Baym, 1998; Havelock, 2004; Wenger, McDermott, &
Snyder, 2002). Yet there has been a call from several commentators that it is time to
empirically operationalize these online ecologies (Havelock, 2004). When talking about
gauging value in communities, McDermott (2001) calls for a systematic examination of
multiple communities. He calls for research to be systematic even when collecting
stories, which is a call that can aptly apply to a systematic examination of the conditions
for community.
It does appear that very little empirical research has been conducted into the
development of community in successful IMCoPS. Certainly no robust evidence exists
to support any one set of considerations for its development. It is time to replace
anecdote with evidence, especially for education, when there appears a clear fit between
the capacity of IMCoPs and the renewed requirements for accountability, professional
teaching and effective teacher professional development.
In some respects the IMCoP and its development preceded the localized versions
of the same. Recently, there appears to have been a step back in some research where
the culture of teacher community is being examined through more localized lenses
(Little, 2002; Printy & Marks, 2002; Schlager & Fusco, 2004). This may be due to some
of the reported difficulties encountered developing CoPs online (Barab, Makinster,
Moore, & Cunningham, 2001; Schlager & Fusco, 2004) and an understanding of the
need to build from existing communities when first cultivating community. These
reported difficulties may also be due to insufficient understanding of the conditions
required to cultivate and support an IMCoP. Each of the leading educational IMCoPS
has been precedent setting but there is a much stronger body of information about
domains other than education. The research activities investigated in this review were
very contemporary and the body of knowledge about communities of practice in
general, and more particularly IMCoPs was a currently developing body of literature.
An overarching question arose that could not clearly be answered through
examination of existing research findings and current literature; How does community
develop in an Internet-mediated community of practice? Clearly, the research needed to
Bronwyn Stuckey
describe and understand how the community component of an Internet-mediated

community of practice develops, under what conditions and over time. When this
question was considered in relation to the nature and development of the StageStruck
site, several other questions arose. Growing and widely reported impetus for the
development of intentional community, like the intent for the StageStruck site, meant
that the research also needed to examine the role and influence that community
management can have in the development of an IMCoP community. It was necessary to
understand whether the lack of community-like behavior observed on the StageStruck
site was unique to this group, to educational communities or to Internet-mediated
communities of practice per say. Therefore, the research needed to gather data that
would allow for comparison of IMCoPs in education and non-education sectors.
Ongoing teacher professional development communities of practice are complex
systems and no amount of empirical research can provide a solution, set of steps or
prescriptions that when applied will guarantee effective Internet-mediated Community
development. However, it should be possible to examine successful practice and
describe a set of optimal conditions for community development. It would be important
to know the broad set of all conditions that impact on community across many contexts.
Equally it would be important to drill down and identify the common conditions that
diverse contexts share. Both views are required to maintain recognition of the complex
system that makes an IMCoP. These conditions would be the framework to be
considered and to be evaluated for relevance in any new IMCoP design-based research.
2.7.1. The research questions
The key research questions arising from consideration of the current collective
wisdom and the original questions of how to cultivate IMCoPs for teacher professional
development then became:
1. To what extent can a framework based on Hillery’s four definitional
components of community be useful for describing and categorizing
community in IMCoPs?
IMCoPs?

Bronwyn Stuckey
4. How and in what ways do the conditions for development of successful
IMCoPs differ in education sector communities?
The process for exploration of these questions is described fully in Chapter 3 of this
research thesis.

Bronwyn Stuckey
3. Methodology
3.1. The Research Process
3.1.1. Rationale for the research design
The complex interplay of people, social interaction, ties and place that makes up
community in an Internet-mediated community of practice (IMCoP) is not something
that easily lends itself to experimentation or manipulation of variables. A multiple-case
design was chosen in this research to honor that complexity and to develop evidence
that might be both compelling and broadly relevant. Multiple case research designs have
proven popular in educational, social and innovation contexts where similarly complex
systems have been the subject of study. Investigations in areas as diverse as
organizational analysis (Dopson, 2003), community nursing (Cowley, Bergen, Young,
& Kavanagh, 2000), social context and criminal involvement (Byrne & Trew, 2005)
and, activism and the Internet (Kronauer, 1998) have successfully employed multiple-
case designs. Explorations such as these increased the generality of their findings
through their effective employment of a multiple-case design (Gomm, Hammersley, &
Foster, 2000)
This study sought a methodology that would produce naturalistic (Stake, 1976,
p. 20) yet generalizable findings as it investigated:
1. To what extent can a framework based on Hillery’s four definitional components
of community be useful for describing and categorizing components of
community in IMCoPs?
IMCoPs?
The purpose of the research was to develop “working hypotheses” (Cronbach,

1975, p. 125) that could guide community development for intentionally developed,
IMCoPs. This guidance could be rendered through identifying the key issues and
Methodology 89 27/06/2008
Bronwyn Stuckey
conditions present in successful communities (education and non-education sectors) and

assessing the extent to which these conditions were impacted by community managers
or conveners.
The research design sought to be both explanatory and exploratory (Yin, 1993).
The research was explanatory as it sought to evaluate and explain sets of conditions
found in past studies and related literature. A synthesis of this literature became the
conceptual framework for this research (described in full in Chapter 2 Literature
Review). Theory development was shaped but not constrained by, coding against this
conceptual framework. The study builds a bridge between the theoretical guidelines and
practical implications of the conditions observed in successful communities.
The study was also exploratory as it sought to build new theory distinctly
relevant to the IMCoP community. Through the lens of the conceptual framework, the
research was able to identify new conditions for community development in the specific
IMCoP context. The identification of new issues and conditions drew directly from the
design and activity of real communities and the coding and analysis of their case data.
The research process was heavily predicated on identifying and screening
exemplar cases (Yin, 1993, p. 12). The cases investigated needed to be strong positive
examples of IMCoPs and be selected through a clearly defined screening process. All
cases were required to be strong positive examples of the phenomenon of interest (Yin
1993, p.12). These cases were exemplar IMCoPs carrying a high probability of
illuminating the issues and conditions for effective community development.
3.1.2. Unit of analysis
The cases were all screened and for the purposes of this research deemed exemplar
IMCoPS. Table 3.1 lists the sets of exemplar cases studied in the research in their
respective education and non-education sectors. Appendix H: Criteria for IMCoP case
selection lists the full set of selection criteria through from exemplar IMCoP to heuristic
case selection.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 3.1
The purposive sample of exemplar cases for education and non-education sectors
Education sector Non-Education sector
• MirandaNet • CompanyComman.com
• Australian Flexible Learning Community • Government Online International Network
• Talking Heads • KM4Dev
• Tapped In • actKM
• Inquiry Learning Forum • Online Facilitation
• Webheads • PRNB
As was outlined in the literature review community is one of the three

interdependent components of the community of practice (Wenger, McDermott &
Snyder, 2002). While communities of practice were the cases under study, it was the
community within those CoPs that was the focus of this research. Community was the
embedded unit of analysis in this case study approach.
Figure 3.1 Community as the embedded unit of analysis in the IMCoP.
Figure 3.1 shows the relationship of community components (Hillery, 1955) to the CoP
components (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, 2002) to position community as the
focus of study within the IMCoP cases.
Ethics approval was sought to carry out interviews by telephone with key case
informants, who in most cases was the community convener, manager or facilitator. See
Appendix I University of Wollongong Research Human Subjects Ethics Approval.
Bronwyn Stuckey
3.1.3. Data Gathering Techniques and Sources
It was necessary to collect preliminary data about all cases in the pool to
determine:
1. that they were IMCoPs, and met criterion to be considered as exemplar,
2. to select a pool of heterogeneous cases and
3. how to divide the pool into heuristic and plausibility roles.
The techniques and sources sought appear in Table 3.2. Sources from this list
supplemented the key informant interviews to provide triangulation. The diverse mix of
sources would serve to support reliability for in-depth investigation of heuristic cases by
providing triangulation.
Table 3.2
Techniques, sources and collection methods
Techniques Sources
Interview: Key informant - community Transcripts and thick description in interviewer
convener/leader or developer notes.
Observation: Community web site audit Notes made on observing public content:
• Community discussions
• Community FAQs,
• Community introductions
• Community member profiles
Collected documentation: Drawn from available • Promotional media

artifacts, research literature, and publicly available • Tools and instruments
documents • Community Documents
• Papers, presentations and articles
• Interviews
• Published research findings
• Feedback data
• Evaluations
Appendix O: Key evidence types collected for each case and Appendix P: Key
Evidence sources made available for heuristic cases offer a full list of the key
documents and artifacts sourced as evidence.
Bronwyn Stuckey
3.1.4. Validity and reliability
Careful selection, screening and analysis were employed to ensure

implementation of the four aspects of quality design construct validity, internal validity,
external validity and reliability (Yin, 1989, pp. 27-51).
Construct validity was maintained in this study through adoption of the
guidelines developed in the synthesis of current theory and literature, the specification
of the unit and embedded units of analysis. These components focus the study on
specific measures in community of practice development and give direction to the
choice of data sought for evidence. The key informants of the study, the community
conveners, reviewed drafts of case reports at several stages of the data collection and
analysis process.
The study maintained internal validity by employing multiple-case methodology
and through the collection of various forms of data to produce a likelihood of
convergent evidence. The study sought coexistence and co-variation relationships
rather than causal relationships since this research was largely exploratory.
External validity came through a replication logic applied in the heterogeneous
heuristic and plausibility case methodology. The research did not seek to generalize to
the population of cases. The strength of the selection of heterogeneous cases is best
stated by Kennedy (1979, p. 79), “Generally speaking, a finding emerging from the
study of several heterogeneous sites would be more robust and thus more likely to be
useful in understanding various other sites that one emerging from the study of several
very similar sites”. Through the cross case analysis of carefully screened heuristic cases
and the plausibility check with the remaining exemplar cases, the “analytic
generalizations” offered should exhibit a high level of generality. As readers recognize
essential similarities to cases of interest to them, they will establish the basis for
“naturalistic generalizations” (Stake, 2000, p. 23).
Reliability is maintained through operational documentation and description of
the investigation steps and stages. An evidence database was maintained throughout the
case study research phase to store and annotate the various forms of evidence and field
notes gathered for each case. NVivo qualitative research software was used to tie the
database resources together as well as to code the rich evidence collected in notes,
documents, transcripts, and multimedia resources.
Bronwyn Stuckey
3.1.5. Limitations
The study carries some limitations inherent in ethnographic research and

exploratory studies. Issues of objectivity and researcher impact on the data and its
interpretation must be considered. The issue of subjectivity may be of most concern in
relation to the coding of rich text data. While multiple coders and establishment of an
inter-rater reliability protocol may have rendered this data analysis and its interpretation
more robust, multiple coders were not practical within the constraints of this research
design. While the framework did have some beginning structure, it largely grew
inductively out of “constant comparison technique” (Glasser & Strauss, 1967, p. 104)
working through successive coding of the data. The researcher was at that stage the only
person intimate enough with the coding schema to be able to apply it effectively.
The key informant in the case study was the community convener, a community
leader self-reporting the story of the IMCoP development. Informants represented a
management perspective on the community story. Any subsequent research study might
seek community member feedback and perspectives on the findings to verify that the
management view is a true picture of the significant issues and conditions for
community development. This current research stands as working hypotheses on which
further studies of that nature to might build.
Community is a dynamic entity and therefore the findings represent the case-
studied communities as they were in the research period bridging 2003 to 2004. Each of
these individual communities may present different rankings of issues and core
conditions today. It was hypothesized however that on average across cases they would
present similar rankings to those offered in this research.
Bronwyn Stuckey
3.1.6. Key research design features
Significant tensions arose in the study when trying to adapt and combine
differing research paradigms. The research is fundamentally ethnographic; examining
what was happening in communities and reporting the findings. However, the research
sought to develop findings that would be broadly generalizable. Strategies were adopted
to overcome threats to the validity of the findings by maintaining the value of rich
qualitative case data, while employing a structured coding framework and quantitative
measures to rank prevalent conditions.
Three key design factors ensured this study could expect to return compelling
answers for all four research questions. These were
a) the heterogeneous multi-case, case study method employed to develop a
broadly relevant picture of the conditions for community
b) interviews with each community’s convener or facilitator, employed to
gain insight into the core group activity and the management role in
community development and
c) the conceptual framework, as ontology for data coding and comparative
analysis across and between IMCoPs.
a) Multiple-case method
The research incorporates a number of naturalistic design features in its efforts
to reach grounded conclusions. A multiple-case design was chosen as no single case in
the literature or elsewhere could be considered representative of the population of
IMCoPs. This population is largely indefinable but expected to be vast when taking into
account all the possible domains, diversity of membership, practices and degrees of
maturity possible. “It is hard to identify one or two communities that are particularly
‘good’. Like organizations or people, each tends to be good at some things, but not
others” (McDermott, 2001 p. 2). A broadly based multiple-case approach would offer a
high degree of transferability of findings to other communities and contexts (Gomm,
Hammersley, & Foster, 2000; Mitchell, 1983).
The case study design employed in this research is based on replication logic
(Stake, 1995) where “two or three cases might be chosen in the hopes of replicating a
Bronwyn Stuckey
certain finding. The more replications the more robust the findings will be” (Yin, 1993,
p. 12). The design involved identifying a pool of prospective IMCoP cases and
developing theory through in-depth investigation of a smaller subset of that pool.
A pool of 12 cases was selected for study, six from educational and six from the
non-education sector. Education and non-education sector cases were selected to
develop common and education-specific findings of the conditions. From these cases
four were selected as the main heuristic (theory building) cases, two each from the
education and non-education sectors. Eight remaining cases were used in plausibility
testing to evaluate and refine the developing theory. Evaluation also included revisiting
the guidelines and advice offered by literature in the field.
b) Interview with community convener

Having examined the diversity of sources available for each case this key
informant interview promised to be at least one piece of evidence consistently available
for all cases. Case study methodology “places special importance on the individual’s
own version of events” (Bahr & Caplow, 1991, p. 85) and the telling of their story in
their own words. The key informant most able to shed light on how management actions
contributed to the success of the community was the community convener or manager.
The researcher’s role in the StageStruck community had been that of community
convener. Likewise key informants would need to be in a design and/or managerial role
in the community (similar to the researcher) and play a part in the day-to-day design and
discourse of the community. The person would need to have been part of the core of the
community since its inception able to tell the community story from an historical
perspective with knowledge of the gains made over time. In this research, the managers
of communities were essential to answering the research questions about design and
development of their IMCoPs.
It was recognized that single case informants are not unbiased observers of their
communities. Moreover, there is a risk that single informants represent only one view
of the community, when community itself presents many possible views. However,
community conveners can be the single most influential and informed members in the
community with their widespread view and central position. The community convener
or manager offered a valid source of evidence being in a rare position as one of the
externally identifiable members in the core group of a community of practice (Wenger,
1998).
Bronwyn Stuckey
The questions for this semi-structured interview were drawn from the
researcher’s experience coaching in an online workshop focused on CoP development.
The most frequently asked questions about the development of CoPs over three years
were harvested from that environment. These formed the core of the interview protocol.
The Informant Information sheet (Appendix J: Information provided to case informants)
consent form (Appendix K: Consent forms for case informants) and the interview
protocol (Appendix M: Case Community Convener Interview Protocol) were emailed to
each of the identified case informants listed in Appendix L: Case Community Convener
Informant List. When tested in preliminary interviews the answers given built into an
insightful story of a community’s cultivation.
c) The conceptual framework

The framework, the development of which was described fully in the literature
review Section 2.6.2.1, proved critical in making meaning from the wealth of rich text
data collected in each of the case studies. The conceptual framework began life as a set
of issues for community development synthesized from recent relevant literature. The
research was to test that set of conditions, using it as a framework for data collection,
coding and finally presentation of findings. This framework supported effective and
relatively objective coding and comparison of data for all four research questions. Use
of a sound conceptual framework, developed from a broad literature base, allowed this
research to evaluate and extend on the converging theoretical and conceptual positions.
The three levels of the conceptual framework are components, issues and conditions.
• Components - definitional components of community (Hillery, 1955)

o Conditions - the key issues for each component (from literature and
case data)
Attributes - ways the issue is addressed (from case data).
For example:
• Component: People
o Condition: leadership (parent)
Attribute: passionate core group (child).
The conceptual framework comprised at the top level of four community

components. These became parent nodes in the coding. At the next level, core
Bronwyn Stuckey
conditions were garnered from a synthesis of the literature and surfaced from coding the
case data. For each condition a number of attributes (child nodes) arose in the data to
describe significant qualities and instantiations. The framework reduced further to
allowed single words or phrases to represent key coding points (nodes) used to analyze
the data. The coding produced a set of non-literal terms with which to seek evidence of
the occurrence of concepts, these are shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3
The framework of issues identified in the literature used as parent nodes for coding

• roles • situatedness • interdependency • around people, not
• thought leaders • communities that • rhythm applications
• executive awareness matter • familiarity and • flexible, extensible
• time and • purpose excitement • history and context

encouragement • community’s focus • keep it fresh • tools to community
• feedback • value • sharing information • public and private
• coordinator • important topics • thinking together • inside and outside
• profiles • levels of • subgroups
• passionate core participation
• leadership • functionality
• voluntary nature • materials

collaboration
• rituals of community requires
life
• easy to contribute
• personal connection
• fun factor
• motives
• generate content
• personal relationships
• prime
• judging communication
• etiquette
• cutting edge issues.
Bronwyn Stuckey
3.2. The Research Plan
3.2.1. Stages in the research process

Table 3.4 defines the stages of the research process and demonstrates the flow
and overlap of data collection, screening processes and the various levels of analysis.
Screening processes were required to identify IMCoPs, exemplar and heuristic cases.
Data collection and some level of evaluation were required for each screening. These
stages are described in more detail below.
Table 3.4
Key stages of the research process and multiple-case design
Stages of the process Flowchart of the process
S
C D
R A
Stage 1: Identification and
E T collection of IMCoP cases. Is it an
E A IMCoP?
N
I C Stage 2: Selection of twelve
N O
exemplar cases and collection
G L Is it
L of intermediate level data for exemplar?
P E each.
R C
O T
C I
Stage 3: Selection of four
E O heuristic cases and in-depth data Meet criteria
S N for heuristic
collections and study of each. case?
S
D
A
T
Stage 4: Analysis of heuristic Heuristic case
A case data, individual case analysis
reporting and cross case
A
N findings. Findings
A
Stage 5: Testing of plausibility
L
Y of the findings against the case Remaining
Evaluate
S data for the remaining cases and findings cases and
I literature
S
advice in the literature.
Stage 6: Conclusions and Conditions

for IMCoP
recommendations for further research.
building
Bronwyn Stuckey
3.2.1.1. Stage 1: Identification and Collection of IMCoP cases

As part of a more ethnographic and experiential approach to case identification,
the researcher leveraged membership a number of communities to identify prospective
cases. Immersion in the discourse of the CoP building practice did prove to be a highly
successful strategy for identifying communities and particularly in building a rich pool
of non-educational cases. The two main communities relevant in this field were the
Yahoo supported Communities of Practice (com-prac at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/) and CPsquare (http://www.cpsquare.org).
The PRNM-wg and actKM communities were identified in this way.
The researcher had participated in two international Internet-mediated training
programs and workshops. These workshops brought the researcher into contact with
facilitators and leaders working in the IMCoPs in a wide diversity of fields. Two
workshops related to community development were strong sources of case information;
Foundations of Communities of Practice Workshop
(http://www.cpsquare.org/edu/foundations/index.htm) and Facilitating Online
Interaction (http://fullcirc.com/ws/onfaccourse.htm). These workshops gave the
researcher access to expert advice about community development and knowledge of the
existence of successful IMCoPs that had not yet become the subject of published
research and stood to be overlooked in the conventional literature searches.
Communities such as CompanyCommand.com and GOL-IN were to be unearthed and
their leaders identified through these contacts.
Literature review and Internet searches revealed communities such as Tapped In,
MirandaNet and the Inquiry Learning Forum. These IMCoPs had been the subject of
grant or government funding and the attendant research activity reported in an array of
publications.
It was vital to determine that all the communities selected met the initial criteria
of being successful IMCoPs. This level of screening could happen from an external
view of the community, the community’s public interface and available promotional
materials. The criteria below were extracted from the researcher’s IMCoP definition
and adopted for screening in this study. That is, in these Internet-mediated communities
of practice participants are highly distributed, and very importantly, non-
organizationally connected. The community activities and ties are largely but not
exclusively sustained over the Internet.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Criteria for selection as IMCoP:

1. Externally perceived to display the definitional components of community
(people, common ties, social interaction, place)
2. Focus on workplace or professional practice
3. Group is non-organizationally or cross-institutionally-based
4. Members are distributed
5. Internet technology/ies support the ongoing communications
6. In existence for longer than two years with sustained membership.
3.2.1.2. Stage 2: Selection of exemplar cases and preliminary data collection

Once a pool of 16 cases was determined, screening took place for their perceived
value as exemplars, able to offer up strong examples of community of practice with a
high probability of illuminating the conditions for effective community development
(Yin, 1993). The criteria for screening ensured effective access to the community
history and built the required diversity in the pool of cases. Criteria for exemplar case
selection:
1. Demonstrates community maturity through sustained engagement of members
2. The community convener was actively engaged in the day to day activity of the
community (not operating as an overseer or ‘absentee landlord’)
3. Community convener has been in place since inception
4. Purposive sampling to represent educational or non-education sector
5. Inclusion would add diversity to a heterogeneous pool of cases.
Cases selected represented diversity across and within IMCoPs for education
and non-education sectors. Heterogeneity was explicitly considered when selecting
cases for the case study pool. Cases chosen represent a broad spread across:
• domain and practices
• Internet technologies
• national, regional or international focus
• membership sizes
• intentional or emergent developments
• single and multi person management and facilitation
• funded, sponsored, institutionalized or renegade initiated
• evangelist leader or management initiated.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Through this process a set of 12 exemplar IMCoPs was arrived at with six cases
in education and non-education sectors. The selection of twelve exemplar cases created
a balance in numbers of education and non-education sector communities. Appendix N:
Descriptive Comparison of the 12 Exemplar Cases of IMCoPs (2003/4) provides a table
for comparison of the exemplar IMCoP cases to demonstrate the diversity represented.
Since the focus of the research was community development and management
influences on that development, the early data for each exemplary case came from
interviewing the community convener or manager. The convener of each community
agreed to an interview and where practicable to source further available artifacts for
case research. Appropriate ethics clearances and permissions allowed each case to be
included in the study with names identified. Informants were reassured that this study
was about identifying the conditions for community of practice development and that
their group was being held as an exemplar in the field.
The data collection was carried out simultaneously rather than the more usual
seriatim process where case data is used as building blocks toward theory development.
This simultaneity was necessary, as a preliminary level of case study data was required
to identify cases to be considered exemplar. The aim of this stage was to collect
“enough information about a context to provide a vicarious experience of it, and to
facilitate judgments” (Guba & Lincoln, 1998, p. 148). The interview was to be the
primary evidence collected and was used in part to screen communities for the next
stage. These interviews occurred over 2003 and 2004.
With dates and times negotiated for telephone interviews informants were sent
the interview questions and appropriate permissions. Each interview took approximately
60 to 90 minutes. Many of these teleconferences were scheduled well in advance and
for the most part in the work office hours of the informants, to account for the large time
zone differences between interviewer and interviewee.
All interviews were audio taped and the interviewer took notes during the
interview. Interviews were transcribed ready for data coding. Informants had the
opportunity to review the notes takes and the transcripts of the interview as well as the
list of identified evidence sources. At this stage, informants were able to offer
qualification of information offered and offer further evidence sources. Further evidence
was sought from supplementary data sources; analysis of online observation and
artifacts and published literature related to each case (see Appendix P: Key Evidence

Bronwyn Stuckey
sources made available for heuristic cases and Appendix Q: Key Evidence sources
made available for exemplar cases).
3.2.1.3. Stage 3: Selection and in-depth study of heuristic

The main activity carried out in this stage was the screening of exemplar cases to
select four heuristic cases. These four cases served a heuristic function (Eckstein, 2000,
p. 137) selected for their likelihood of being highly instructive in theory building.
Criteria for heuristic case selection:

1. Preliminary evidence suggests the case has the potential to be instrumental in
theory building
2. Maintaining a high level of heterogeneity of the cases
3. Enable as purposive sample of 4 heterogeneous cases (2 educational and 2 non-
educational)
4. Allows broad availability of multiple evidence sources
5. Has topical relevance
6. Offers access to multiple data sources for triangulation.
In addition to the primary evidence and the ability to meet the definitional
components of community, the probability of the ready availability of a diversity of
secondary sources relevant to the research issues was investigated. Each community
was considered for likely availability of supporting evidence from three other sources,
beyond the community convener interviews, to triangulate the data (See Table 3.2 for
evidence types). Some communities were screened out at this stage as the access to
organizational data was constrained by confidentiality and security issues. It meant quite
simply that not enough supportive data was likely to be available to uphold construct
validity.
The set of four heuristic cases was purposely chosen to equally represent
education and non-education sectors for community. The primary role for these cases
was to develop theory that would pertain to a broad selection of communities and to
surface any idiosyncratic differences between communities in education and non-
education sectors. The purposive selection of two education and two non-education
sector cases was carried out to so that the early data might yield insights into those
commonalities and idiosyncrasies. The chosen heuristic cases are listed below in Table
3.5.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 3.5
Four cases selected which served in a heuristic role
Educational Non-educational
• MirandaNet • CompanyComman.com
• The Australian Flexible Learning Community • Government Online International Network
With interview data already collected over 2003/2004, secondary data were
sourced through a variety of strategies in 2003 and early 2004. Interviews and data
collection happened sequentially building up the case for each community throughout
this time. Within appropriate privacy constraints, key informants supplied relevant data
of a non-confidential nature and the researcher conducted a web audit of the online
space. Searches revealed literature, documents, feedback and promotional materials.
Notes were prepared to describe the relevance and content of each of these pieces of
evidence.
3.2.1.4. Stage 4: Case and cross case analysis of heuristic case data
Main activities at this stage involved qualitative and quantitative analysis:
• Coding and analysis of rich text in each heuristic case to develop individual case
reports
• Analysis of coding to identify case specific issues and conditions
• Refinement of the issues through successive passes through the case data
• Analysis of idiosyncrasies in educational cases.
A database of evidence was built including transcripts, artifacts, notes and

memos and then coded within the NVivo qualitative research software. The data was
coded using the components, conditions and attributes of the framework (Table 3.3)
adding further conditions and attributes as they arose within the data. Coding was
carried out in successive passes through the data using a constant comparative approach
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Coding nodes also emerged inductively, with the content
analysis over the second and subsequent passes used to confirm the categorization of the
significant issues evident across the four sets of data. New coding nodes were created
for all significant data not accounted for already in the conceptual framework. The sets
of issues and conditions were stabilized through revisits to case data to account for
categorization of all significant statements. The final listing of conditions and attributes

Bronwyn Stuckey
used as parent and child ‘nodes’ for coding is offered in Appendix R: Excerpt from
coding, NVivo node listing May 02 2006.
After tallying, the frequency for each parent node was expressed as a percentage
of the total coded for each respective component. Appendix S: Comparison of
percentages of coded items for conditions presents the complete set of percentages for
each condition (parent node) across the four IMCoPs. Translation of frequencies to
percentages allowed for comparison of the scores and ranking of components in order of
importance for each case and as an average across the four cases. The ranking of
conditions and attributes allowed for development of comparative findings and a
measure of significance for core attributes, anomalies and idiosyncrasies. The cross-case
analysis was used to develop a set of conditions that would probabilistically support a
successful Internet-mediated community within a community of practice. It provided
emergent theory on the key issues and conditions for successful IMCoP development.
To answer the first research question, four individual case reports were prepared
using the headings of the conceptual framework supported by the ranked data. It was
important on two levels to offer a window into the kinds of cases at the heart of this
study. This largely narrative presentation of findings served as a high-level test of the
framework’s validity in describing community. The narrative also served to give a
holistic picture of each IMCoP and laid the context prior to the fine-grained cross-case
analysis and findings offered in Chapter 5.
Each case report for the heuristic cases offers an:
• Introduction
• Background
• Community case narrative
o people
o common ties
o social interaction
o place
• Community case statistical summary
o Ranking the components
o Ranking the conditions within each of the four components
o Ranking the conditions across the four components.

Bronwyn Stuckey
The frequency and ranking of conditions was analyzed and attributes supporting
the core conditions explored. Further examination of the coding revealed the extent of
management influence in the creation of these core conditions. The findings of the
cross-case analysis are presented in Chapter 5 and highlight commonalities and
anomalies pertinent to answering questions 2, 3 and 4 of the research.
3.2.1.5. Stage 5: Evaluation of plausibility of the conditions in evidence

Main activities at this stage involved:
• Examining the remaining eight cases to test plausibility of working hypotheses
• Revisiting the literature to evaluate the findings
• Refinement of the framework (issues and conditions) informed by the evaluation
The remaining cases served to check the generalizability of the findings. They
were plausibility probes (Eckstein, 1975) to check, refine and reify the conditions for
community development. Plausibility probes are generally undertaken after heuristic
case studies have been successfully concluded. They may constitute part of a series of
case studies devoted to the expansion and development of an interpretative schema or
theoretical formulation relative to the phenomenon represented by the case (Mitchell,
1983). If the hypotheses were valid then evidence of the significance of each issue
would hold in the data for the remaining cases (educational and non-educational). If the
hypotheses for cultural issues in educational communities of practice were valid then
the remaining four educational communities should provide evidence to support them.
The conditions with the strongest evidentiary base served as the research conclusions
and the set of IMCoP development conditions and attributes.
In this research the remaining eight secondary cases and the advice offered in
the literature were used to verify, moderate, refine and delimit as necessary the findings
of the heuristic cross-case analysis.
3.2.1.6. Stage 6: Conclusions and recommendations for further research

Main activities at this stage involved:
• Discuss findings and identify contribution to the field for this research
• Present conclusions for significant issues and conditions.
• Suggestions for further research.

Bronwyn Stuckey
This stage of the research served to deliver conclusions, identify the contribution
of this research to the field of knowledge and propose areas for further research.
Findings are presented across Chapters 4 and 5 for the four research questions.
Chapter 4 offers an overview of the 12 exemplar case story, a rich text narrative and
descriptive statistics, for each of the four heuristic cases. In Chapter 5 the cross-case
analysis of findings delivers a mix of descriptive statistics supported by an explanation
of the conditions and their relative importance. The plausibility of the findings is tested
by examining the support for each of the key conditions in the remaining eight exemplar
cases.
In Chapter 6 the findings are examined against the relevant literature and
presented as an evidence-based framework. The conceptual framework should be seen
as a set of theoretical formulations to be tested and evaluated in design-based research
projects like the redesign and re-launch of the StageStruck Professional Learning
Community. Suggestions are also made for further research to extend and enhance the
reliability of the conclusions.

Bronwyn Stuckey

Bronwyn Stuckey
4. Case Findings
4.1. Overview
The findings presented in this chapter are in answer to the first of the research
questions and examine the value of using the Hillery (1955) four definitional
components of community as an overarching framework for describing and analyzing
community. Each heuristic case story is presented as both a narrative and analytic
summary. This chapter describes the diversity of shapes and forms the Internet-
mediated Community of Practice (IMCoP) may take. The chapter begins by introducing
the 12 exemplar IMCoPS, listed in Table 4.1, at the heart of this study. The overview of
each exemplar case includes a visual snapshot of the community homepage, its URL at
the time of this research, its community, domain and practice (Wenger, McDermott &
Snyder, 2002), and a brief description of each community in terms of its purpose,
growth, longevity, communication modes and central activities.
Table 4.1
Exemplar IMCoPs offered in the overview
Education sectors Non-Education sectors
• MirandaNet* • CompanyComman.com*
• Australian Flexible Learning Community* • Government Online International Network*
• Talking Heads • KM4Dev
• Tapped In • actKM
• Inquiry Learning Forum • Online Facilitation
• Webheads • PRNM-wg
Asterisks (*) indicate IMCoPs selected as heuristic cases reported in full in this
chapter.
The narrative prepared from the interview data collected from the community
convener or manager is shaped around the community components. The summary
findings produced from the coding and analysis of all evidence collected close each
case. The summary describes the priorities and key issues that were evident for the case
and briefly discusses them. The chapter concludes with a reflection contextualizing the
case findings before moving to the detailed cross-case analysis and findings in Chapter
5.
Case Findings 109 27/06/2008

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.2. Exemplar Cases
4.2.1. Communities in the Educational Sector
4.2.1.1. Australian Flexible Learning Community
Figure 4.1: The Australian Flexible Learning Community web site

(http://flexiblelearning.net.au/community)
The Australian Flexible Learning Community is a place for vocational education

and training practitioners to collaborate and learn about the applications of
technology for quality teaching and learning. (Community web site promotion
http://flexiblelearning.net.au/community )
Australian Flexible Learning Community was formed around the domain of vocational
education and training and flexible learning practices as a community for teachers,
managers, consultants, and administrators. The first iteration of this community surfaced
in 1998 as part of a national vocational education professional development project
called LearnScope. The community was known as the LearnScope Virtual Learning
Community (VLC), and its goal was to support the take-up of flexible learning in
Australian vocational educational and training. It became the Australian Flexible
Learning Community (AFLC) as an instrument of the Australian Flexible Learning
Framework – a four year national strategy in operation between 2000 and 2004.
Bronwyn Stuckey
The purpose of the community was to provide professional development in the

area of flexible learning. It was federally funded through the resources of the Australian
National Training Authority (ANTA) and managed for the national body by the New
South Wales Department of Education and Training (NSW DET). At the community
level it was administered by two full-time officers, a community manager and a project
support officer, and advised by two levels of stakeholder bodies. Additional part-time
staff was occasionally employed to maintain various aspects of the community
infrastructure.
The community interaction was wholly web-based and the technical infrastructure
a purpose-built customization of a commercial product developed locally. Community
members, teachers, managers, administrators and consultants had opportunities for face-
to-face activities only through associated vocational education professional activities. At
the start of 2004 the community had in excess of 3,000 members, beginning to develop
a sense of community as they shared teaching resources, collaborated on workplace
learning projects and interacted about tools, practices and pedagogy (Brook & Oliver,
2003; Downes, 2002).
4.2.1.2. The MirandaNet Fellowship
Figure 4.2: The MirandaNet web site (http://www.MirandaNet.ac.uk)

Bronwyn Stuckey
The MirandaNet Fellowship, which was founded in 1992, is a professional

organisation, which strives to use ICT to make life better for learners in schools
and communities in twenty five countries. (Community web site promotion
http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/fellowship/ )
The MirandaNet Fellowship is a community of UK and International educators,

educational researchers, technology consultants focused on the domain of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) in school education and in supporting action
research best practices. MirandaNet’s evolution began with the closure of the Toshiba
sponsored Project Miranda at the London Computing Centre. The team of academics
involved wanted a way to stay working and learning together about ICTs in schools and
MirandaNet was born under the vision of its founder Christina Preston.
An ongoing stream of research, assessment, and demonstration projects over the
last twelve years has provided a rich learning environment in this community. Projects
have for instance explored the use of laptops, electronic whiteboards, web resources and
e-facilitation in K-12 contexts. The Fellowship’s work has been funded through grants,
tendered and sponsored action research projects, and industry partnerships. Core group
members act as part of a professional consultative organization, where professionals
talk, listen and collaborate with government, industry, teacher educators and researchers
(Cuthell, 2002; Preston, n.d.).
This is a structured community where those accepted for membership enter as
MirandaNet Scholars. After making a clear contribution to the community through a
personal workplace research project and publication, Scholars may be promoted to
become Fellows. Fellows are the experienced inner circle of the community who offer
mentorship and expertise back to the community.
The 260-member community was supported by web and e-mail-based technology,
public and private web forums. Fellows, as a group and within geographical limits, had
opportunity throughout the year for face-to-face interaction through the community
workshops, seminars and related educational conferences.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.2.1.3. Talking Heads
Figure 4.3: The Talking Heads web site (http://www.headteachers.ac.uk)
Talking Heads is an online community for English head teachers that began as a
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) funded pilot in January 2000. The
DfES recognised that head teachers are frequently isolated and that there is a
wealth of knowledge that this group can share with each other. (Ultralab web
site project promotion http://ww3.ultralab.net/projects/talkingheads )
Talking Heads is a community of English head teachers (executives) focused on
the domain of leadership and in supporting leadership practices in schools. Talking
Heads was commissioned as part of a pilot program in England for 1200 teachers
appointed to their first headship in schools between January and December 1999. The
community-based approach sought to transform the continuing professional
development of school leaders.
The 1999 pilot was funded by Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in
advance the National College of School Leaders (NCSL) and managed by a project
manager and 12.5 full-time online facilitators from Ultralab, a learning technology
research centre at Anglia Polytechnic University (Bradshaw & Powell, 2003; Jones,
Lang, Terrell, Thompson, & Ramondt, 2001). The community was part of an
institutionalized training program and members of this pilot group were issued laptops
to support their online engagement and expectations set for their level of participation in

Bronwyn Stuckey
the community. Talking Heads offered an opportunity for the newly appointed heads to
engage in practical dialogue and collaboration with peers, policy advisers and senior
decision makers on matters from policy administration, through to equity issues and
strategies to promote religious tolerance. Existing district-based groups of primary and
secondary school heads were supported online as the core nodes of the community.
Community members could also join various teams, special interest communities and
local working groups within Talking Heads.
Beyond the pilot, the community management was passed back to the NCSL in
2003. By 2004, a third intake brought membership to beyond 2400 with a facilitation
team of 23 people. The demonstrated benefits of community engagement carried the
motivation for new member involvement. The community space was completely
private, built on a customized toolset and interface designed especially for
communication and resource sharing within the community. The communication was
mostly asynchronous, employing tools to structure and support discussion,
argumentation and interpersonal communication. The community infrastructure was to
become a blue-print for other more recent NCSL web-based professional development
programs like Virtual Heads and Networked Learning Communities programme.
4.2.1.4. Webheads in Action
Figure 4.4: The Webheads in Action web site

(http://www.vancestevens.com/papers/evonline2002/webheads.htm)

Bronwyn Stuckey
Webheads in Action – a community of practice of language teachers and

practitioners which meets in a number of cyberspaces to explore a variety of
multimedia computer mediated communication tools and their application to
language learning and role in professional development. (Community founder
Vance Stevens web site http://vance.Webheads.info/ )
Webheads in Action is a community of teachers, academics and students

primarily on applications of CMC in teaching and learning, particularly in language
instruction. Webheads in Action began after an offering of the Writing for Webheads
online course which focused on English language learning. People engaged in the
course stayed together over synchronous technologies and began to attract a greater
proportion of teachers than students. An online portal was created in 1998 to support
their ongoing communication and meetings. The community was initially facilitated by
its founder who was joined in leadership by an informal groundswell of members.
Webheads in Action grew to over 60 recognized members in 2004 and with some 300
on the community mailing list. As an independent community, Webheads has neither
sponsorship nor affiliation to attract funding and as such, relies on the financial and in
kind support of the founder and its members and technology vendors. This community
is a self-organizing entity as members, in an effort to support the community, seek out,
explore opensource, shareware and freeware tools, and organize online conferences
such as the such as the Webheads in Action Online Convergence (WiAOC) and support
external events like the Electronic Village Online (EVO). The structure of the
community web site reflects and acknowledges that distributed leadership as the portal
hyperlinks out to the many member sites and resources.
Vance Stevens, who coordinated this program, established two main objectives:
“to help each other learn about forming and maintaining robust online
communities” and to “demonstrate and explore use of the latest synchronous and
non-synchronous communications technologies”. (Almeida d'Eca, 2004 para. 2)
The community was founded on the idea that language acquisition requires
technology with a membership predisposed to work in online media (González, 2003;
Stevens, 2003). Some groups within the community manage to meet face-to-face at
various TESOL conventions and other venues. In 2004 the community had a

Bronwyn Stuckey
community portal, a Yahoogroup and offices in Tapped In, Learning Times and. The
mainstay of the community has been a well-attended meeting, held weekly since 1998,
and employing technologies ranging from voice, text, instant messaging, webcams, and
chat (Steele, 2002).
4.2.1.5. Tapped In
Figure 4.5: The Tapped In web site (http://ti2.sri.com/tappedin/)
The online workplace of an international community of education professionals.

K-12 teachers, librarians, administrators, and professional development staff, as
well as university faculty, students, and researchers gather here to learn,
collaborate, share, and support one another. (Community web site promotion
http://tappedin.org/tappedin/)
Tapped In is an international community of K-12 teachers, librarians,

administrators, professional development staff, university faculty, students, and
researchers, focused on many domains and varied practices of teaching and teacher
education. Tapped In began in the USA in 1997 by SRI International with a National
Science Foundation (NSF) Collaborative Research on Learning Technologies (CRLT)
grant. The vision was that of a shared ‘virtual place’ (Schlager & Schank, 1997) with an
infrastructure designed as a conference centre within which professional dialogue
would take place and educators could engage in lifelong career development. From a
Bronwyn Stuckey
membership of 300 in the first year, 800 in 1999, Tapped In boasted some 17,000
members before migrating to Tapped In Version 2 (TI2) (Schank, Harris, & Schlager,
2002).
This community was categorized for this research as a ‘meta-community’ or
‘community of communities’ drawn together through one vibrant reception area. It is
variously described in the literature as a community, an online workplace (Schlager,
Schank, & Godard, 1999), a teacher professional development institute (Craig, Lee, &
Turner, 2003) and a crossroad (Riel & Polin, 2004). Today it is the meeting point for
many educational communities, where topical discussions and events occur ranging in
domain from problem based curriculum assessment, pre-service teaching to the art of
storytelling. The community was managed by a full time community director, a
manager/newsletter editor and many volunteer community assistants who work in
aspects of community support and session leadership. In the early days, the community
ran over a purpose-built Multi-user Object-Oriented (MOO) environment (Schlager,
Fusco, & Schank, 1999) but has since migrated to a new custom built T2 web-based
environment also rich in synchronous communication tools. There are plans to continue
integrating real time technologies like Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP).
4.2.1.6. Inquiry Learning Forum
Figure 4.6: The Inquiry Learning Forum web site (http://ilf.crlt.indiana.edu/)

Bronwyn Stuckey
The Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) is an online community of K-12 math and
science educators working together to share, improve, reflect, and create learner-
centered classrooms. While developed primarily for Indiana mathematics and
science teachers, the ILF is open to all teachers, school administrators, university
faculty, and pre-service education students interested in inquiry-based teaching
and learning, free of charge. (Community web site promotion
http://ilf.crlt.indiana.edu/tour/tour1.html)
The Inquiry Learning Forum is a community of Indiana K-12 educators formed

around the inquiry learning practices in the domains of mathematics and science. The
forum was funded by NSF and Indiana University School of Education funds up until
2004. From its start in 1999 and launch in March 2000, it continued to develop its
domain of inquiry learning but has moved from the goal of creating an online
community to supporting communities online (Barab, Makinster, Moore, &
Cunningham, 2001; Barab, Makinster, & Scheckler, 2004). The community grew to
4900 registered users in 2004. Its most active members were pre-service teacher groups
and specialist subject communities engaging in professional learning with an inquiry
learning focus.
The ILF was designed and developed by the principal investigator, a full-time
project manager, a full-time programmer and a team of 2-4 graduate assistants. As a
research project it was overseen by a principal investigator and two advisory boards,
one made up of very senior research leaders and one consisting of community
stakeholders (teachers).
Central to this community was the design metaphor of a classroom visit operated
over purpose-built web technology, and designed to support discussion, delivery of
video vignettes, download of work samples and teaching resources. Members ‘visit’
classrooms, reflect and critique situated classroom strategies and outcomes in order to
understand and improve inquiry learning practices (Barab, Barnett, & Squire, 2002).
The community moved to support small groups in 2001 and offered an enhanced suite
of communication tools including synchronous tools of chat and whiteboard. These
smaller, private and topically focused groups became the real niche for the community
as activities resonated with the change in focus from creating a single online group to
supporting multiple communities.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.2.2. Cases in Non-Education Sectors
4.2.2.1. CompanyCommand.com
Figure 4.7: The CompanyCommand web site (http://companycommand.army.mil/)
Professionals who are fiercely resolved to prepare for combat and who continually
share what they are learning with each other will be more effective and will grow
more effective, combat-ready units. (Community promotion
http://companyteam.army.mil/about.htm last accessed 20/05/2003)
CompanyCommand is a community of American USA commanders formed

around the domain of company command and in supporting the excellence in practices
of battle ready command. Those with ambitions for command connected to a larger
world, many styles of leadership and commanders past, present and future. Engagement
in this community was designed to start the learning curve for command before the
officers take command (Dixon, Allen, Burgess, Kilner, & Schweitzer, 2005; Kendall &
McHale, 2003; Snyder, Wenger, & de Sousa Briggs, 2004).
The seeds of this group were sown in 1992 with conversations among young
infantry captains, sharing stories and book reviews and tools they found valuable as they
prepared to take command. The community was operated independently, funded and
developed by its founders and over time a dedicated team of volunteers. Today, the
4000 strong community of commanders maintain the momentum and relative
Bronwyn Stuckey
independence as part of a learning agenda at the West Point Academy. The founders
continue developing value for the community in tenured positions at West Point.
In 2004 the community web site was built on customized commercial and object-
oriented technology named Simplify, largely focusing on asynchronous conversations
and resource delivery. Access to the resources such as management tools and
instruments is an important part of motivation to join this community. Added to this the
community has a strong focus on story telling and is replete with video files, interviews
and images to represent the authentic context and the human elements of stories
(Schweitzer, 2004).
4.2.2.2. Government Online International Network
Figure 4.8: The Government Online International Network web site

(http://www.governments-online.org)
A global network of government officials working on ensuring access to, and

accessibility of, national government information and conducting and
coordinating pilot projects in the field of electronic public consultation, with the
goal of adjusting the policy process of countries around the world. (Community
promotion http://www.governments-online.org )

Bronwyn Stuckey
The Government Online International Network (GOL-IN) is a community of

senior civil servants formed around the domain e-government and in providing capacity
for the technical best practices to support it. GOL-IN is a community comprised of
national representatives from 25 countries engaged in e-government. The purpose of the
community was to further e-government through investigation and development of joint
projects based in respective areas of national interest or concern.
The GOL-IN community began in 1993, when a group of civil servants decided
that they wanted to continue informal collaboration after the completion of their G7-
sponsored information technology project. Members discovered that informal contact
with colleagues was an opportunity to learn about current and future technology issues
facing their own respective governments. The community was lead by an international
chair but its activity was largely community driven, by the needs of its stable 25
member nations and 80 member registrations. It is supported by each member agency or
member state by allowing civil servant members to variously participate in the
community activities and projects.
The community had a web site which was maintained with low-cost proprietary
tools but relied more readily on e-mail list communications. The community as a whole
met once a year in a three day face-to-face meeting. Project goals for each upcoming
year were decided, and reports from completed projects delivered, at the annual event.
Project foci vary from e-democracy, portals to open source in e-Government issues.
This community was highly valued by its representative agencies for activity that
crossed boundaries with a two-way flow of knowledge between the online community
and the respective government workplace communities of its members (America
Speaks, 2002; Coleman S. & Gotze, 2001).

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.2.2.3. Knowledge Management for International Development Organizations
Figure 4.9: The Knowledge Management for Development web site

(http://www.km4dev.org/)
KM4Dev is a community of international development practitioners who are

interested in knowledge management and knowledge sharing issues and
approaches, and who seek to share ideas and experiences in this domain.
(Community promotion
http://www.km4dev.org/index.php/articles/htmlpages/580?)
Knowledge Management for Development’s (KM4Dev) community of

international knowledge management practitioners focus around the domain of
knowledge management (KM) and the development of KM practices in development
organizations. KM4DEV formed after face-to-face workshops held in February and June
2000, and is a community focusing on knowledge management issues in international
development organizations such as donor agencies, civil society organizations, and
governments. KM4DEV currently supports a membership of over 400 worldwide.
Originally, the topic of the KM4DEV community was the application of
knowledge management in non-government organizations (NGOs) concerned with
economic development. As new people entered the conversation, the discussion came to
include a very different topic: the importance of knowledge in economic development.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Bellanet, a non-profit international secretariat based in Ottawa Canada, has invested its
own resources and sought support from other organizations to provide the face-to-face
interactive events that played a crucial role in the launch and early development of the
KM4DEV community (Lamoureux, 2005; White, 2004a).
The community was managed by facilitators and a technical infrastructure from
proprietary and open source technology sourced and provided by Bellanet. It also used
basic e-mail list services to reach low bandwidth areas for members in developing
countries. A web portal was added to the community in 2002 to support greater sharing
of resources. A volunteer core group created in 2004 further supported the community
and help respond to its needs. The core group communicates through a Dgroup (open
source php) environment.
The community encouraged members to propose and engage in small group
projects of benefit to the developing world and seeks to find funding to support them. At
the time of this research the main list had 240 members and had recorded a steady
growth across the three and a half years since its inception.
4.2.2.4. Online Facilitation
Figure 4.10: The Online Facilitation web site

(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OnlineFacilitation/)

Bronwyn Stuckey
The online facilitation listserv is for discussion about the skills, techniques and
issues around online facilitation in a variety of Internet online environments and
virtual communities. (Community promotion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OnlineFacilitation/ )
Online Facilitation is a community of facilitators, managers, instructional designers,

teachers and consultants which formed around the domain of group facilitation and the
practices to support it online. Online Facilitation was founded in 1999 and currently
services a membership in excess of 900.
The community began with the risk taking of the community founder who,
uncertain of the success, simply wanted to start a conversation with others about
facilitation. Her belief was that there was good conversation and learning in bringing
together people interested in online facilitation. In 2004, the community supported
people working in very diverse fields from online learning, organizational development,
NGOs and all manner of communities of interest facilitated online.
The community was wholly volunteer facilitated and moderated and supported a
breadth rather than depth of conversations. The community had seen steady growth
reaching from 700 to 900 in 2003. The community has no formal structure but leaders
have emerged at different times to supplement the facilitation work of the founder. The
Online Facilitation community has gained a significant profile in the domain, largely
because of the eminence of the community founder and its informally formed core
group of leaders. It is a place for practitioners in the field of online facilitation to
establish a reputation for themselves.
The sometimes high volume asynchronous communication of this group is carried
out wholly online over the free Yahoogroup’s e-mail archiving, file repositories and
moderation tools. Members of this group also freely communicate via personal e-mail,
blogs and the community list to share facilitation resources and strategies and to
problem solve on sometimes sensitive and political facilitation issues.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.2.2.5. PRGA Working Group on Participatory Natural Resource Management
Figure 4.11: The Participatory Natural Resource Management web site

(http://www.prgaprogram.org/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=23)
PRGA Working Group on Participatory Natural Resource Management (PNRM)

is a working group of the Program on Participatory Research and Gender
Analysis of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR). PNRM-wg was established in 1996 by the PRGA to give more
visibility to innovative participatory research in Natural Resource Management,
to attract more donor and management support and broader recognition in the
scientific community, and to add value to collaboration. (Community web site
http://www.prgaprogram.org/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid
=23 last accessed 15/06/2004).
Participatory Natural Resource Management Working Group’s (PNRM-wg)

community of scientists, researchers and partner organizations formed around the
domain of natural resource management and practices of participatory research and
adaptive, collaborative management. The community was initiated to develop a
conceptual framework, to raise and qualify issues of definition, language and
methodology associated with the application of newly emerging participatory research
approaches to challenges of natural resource management. . Members were

Bronwyn Stuckey
practitioners of participatory research for improved management of the natural

resource base supporting agriculture, forestry and fisheries in developing countries.
Through a series of strategic decisions, refocusing of goals and reconstituting of the
community it changed size and representation twice over the years. In 2000 a
reconstituted community hosted a smaller stable group of 25 members with a core
member was to facilitate and coordinated online and offline activity. In that year
community members decided they needed to grow and removed membership
boundaries to steadily grow to 150 members in 2004.
The community, as its name implies, served working group functionality within
PRGA. Until 2002 the PRGA, the parent community, administered a small grants
program to fund community project proposals. The PNRM-wg community has
established a searchable collection of resources gathered through the development,
collaboration and recommendation of members. Internal community project groups
have also developed resources such a book and collection of case studies.
The PNRM-wg is supported primarily through an e-mail listserver and a web-
based community space and repository built on opensource technology. The parent
program, PRGA, hosts a face-to-face seminar every two years and funds are sought
from member agencies and partners to enable community members to attend.
Throughout the year face-to-face meetings may be held in small self-organizing project
subgroups of the PNRM-wg.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.2.2.6. actKM
Figure 4.12: The ActKM web site (http://www.actkm.com/)
actKM is a learning community dedicated to building knowledge about public

sector knowledge management. Our ultimate aim is to be a key source of public
sector knowledge management knowledge. (Community web site
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act-km/ last accessed 10/05/2004)
actKM is a community of public sector workers and consultants formed around the
domain of knowledge management and practices to support KM in the Australian public
sector. The actKM community began in 1998 through the vision of founding members
Shawn Callahan and Kate Muir and a small number of public sector enthusiasts. It
began with monthly face-to-face gatherings in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) of
Australia and in 2004 supported approximately 900 members spread around the world
(Callahan, 2002). The community progressed within a year, from the face-to-face mode,
to engagement augmented with online listserv discussion and support.
The online modality allows the conversations to be continued between meetings
and for those not physically in Canberra to be part of the community. The group hosts
its own annual KM conference, actKM awards and sustains a member’s only online
community space. It has for some time now been supported by a coordinating
committee, small administration group and a facilitator and various sub-committees for

Bronwyn Stuckey
activities such as the annual conference. The coordinating committee meets monthly
and an annual planning meeting is held in October or November to take advantage of
financial input and feedback from the annual conference. The community is operated
wholly on a volunteer basis with funds raised in the annual conference and other events
returned to support the community activities.
actKM has used the free services of Yahoogroups to host its e-mail list, archives
and document repositories and opened a web space with public information and private
areas hosting a community knowledge base. Face-to-face meetings have been held
uninterrupted, as they were first in the end of 1998, on the first Tuesday if the month.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.2.3. Summarizing the diversity
The 12 IMCoPs studied in this purposive sample are as rich as they are diverse. All
have been in existence for at least three years and have established patterns of continued
growth and engagement. Table 4.2 gives a comparison of the communities as they
existed in 2004 to demonstrate the heterogeneity of the cases.
Table 4.2
Comparison of exemplar IMCoP communities
Launch Community Domain Practice Stage of Dev Member

Numbers
In 2004
AFLC 1999 Educators in adult Flexible Flexible learning maturing 3000+
vocational learning and delivery
education
MF 1992 Educators, ICTs in Research best stewardship 260
industry & education practice use of ICTs
academic
TH 1999 School heads Leadership and School leadership maturing 2400
K-12 management
WiA 2002 Secondary and TESOL Language learning stewardship 60

tertiary using technology
Teachers
TI 1997 K-12 educators Many & varied All teaching and coalescing - 17000
learning stewardship
ILF 1999 Pre-service Inquiry Inquiry learning in maturing 4900

teachers learning math and science
CC 1999 Military Battle ready Excellence in maturing 4000

commanders command military command
GOL-IN 1993 Senior civil e-government Technical aspects e- maturing 85

servants government
KM4Dev 2000 KM practitioners Knowledge KM in development coalescing 400

management organizations
OF 1999 Community Facilitation Online facilitation maturing 900

managers &
facilitators
PNRM-wg 1997 Scientists Natural Participatory coalescing 150
resource management &
management research
ActKM 1998 Public sector Knowledge Public sector KM maturing 900
workers management
The communities selected as heuristic cases represent that diversity and

purposely include communities in education and non-education sectors, with large and
Bronwyn Stuckey
small registrations, intentional and emergent development, regional diversity, and

employing different modes of communication. Appendix N: Descriptive Comparison of
the 12 Exemplar Cases of IMCoPs (2003/4) provides a more detailed comparison of
communities with additional descriptive information provided for IMCoP regional base,
organizational affiliation, cultivation and key modes of communication.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.3. Heuristic Cases

This section presents a descriptive narrative for each of the four communities
studied as a heuristic case. These four cases were selected as having the most likelihood
of being highly instructive in theory building.
The presentation of this narrative-based section is an effort to honor and
acknowledge communities of practice as complex social systems (Allee, 2000; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Preece, Maloney-Krichmar, & Abras, 2003; Thomas, Kellogg, &
Erickson, 2001.), rather than only seeing each community, in a more reductionist view,
as simply an aggregation of conditions. This narrative, written as a summary of
information presented in the data sources, is in part answer to the first of the study’s
research questions. After a brief introduction and background to the case, the narrative
is structured around the strands of the conceptual framework (Hillery, 1955) to present
findings for how the IMCoP cultivates each of the components of community, people,
common ties, social interaction and place.
In balance to the holistic view presented in case narratives, each heuristic case
closes with an analysis of the statistical findings, derived from the coding, of the case
rich text data. Text was coded using NVivo and nodes built from the conceptual
framework. Additional conditions and attributes were recorded as they surfaced from
the data. Frequencies and percentages were then calculated from that coding for the key
components and their related attributes. The community percentages allowed the
communities to be described quantitatively and for conditions arising in the data to be
ranked, prioritized and graphed. These statistical data act as a summary for each case
with respect to the relative importance of the components and conditions and highlights
important attributes for each condition. In their entirety the case findings serve as
context to the cross-case analysis and findings presented as results in Chapter 5.
The four cases narratives that follow are for:

Heuristic Case 1: The Australian Flexible Learning Community (4.3.1)
Heuristic Case 2: US Army CompanyCommand.com (4.3.2)
Heuristic Case 3: The MirandaNet Fellowship (4.3.3)
Heuristic Case 4: The Government Online International Network (4.3.4)

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.3.1. Heuristic Case 1: The Australian Flexible Learning Community (AFLC)
4.3.1.1. The Australian Flexible Learning Community case narrative
Up until now like so many other teachers who have had an interest in this field of
delivery I have been self trained working often in isolation gaining skills tips
tricks and tools from trawling the net. Most of the benefits of my learning have
been confined to myself and is not shared more widely, not because I am
misanthropic. But because there has been no forum where on a regular basis I
could go to discuss, share, learn and develop my skills and enthusiasm. The
problem is now solved; The LearnScope virtual community has arrived (Bowman,
2002, teacher personal reflection).
Introduction
The Australian Flexible Learning Community (AFLC) had its roots in a national
educational framework designed “to create and share knowledge about flexible learning
and to support its take-up in vocational education and training” (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2005a, p. para. 5). It was sponsored by a national Framework but not
institutionalized by it. In other words there was no requirement for practitioners to be
part of the community. It was offered and they engaged in it voluntarily.
Over the five years of its existence the community changed more than just its
name as it strategically broadened and narrowed its foci in line with the impetus created
by national initiatives and related programs. This was an intentionally developed
community of practice, perhaps the first in Australia, to bring together state-based
initiatives and training providers nationally. It is important to describe briefly the
changes, in national programs and the decisions that flowed from them, to guide the
community’s design and development.
Background
The community, originally known as the Virtual Learning Community

(LearnScope VLC or VLC), began operation in 1998 as an instrument of the Australian
National Training Authority sponsored LearnScope project. The LearnScope project
Bronwyn Stuckey
supported teams in registered training organizations to develop work-based professional

development programs. Part of the support offered to vocational education and training
(VET) teams was their own online learning environment, the LearnScope VLC.
The LearnScope Virtual Learning Community was the starting point of this
community’s design and the Australian Flexible Learning Community of 2003/4 was
the end point of the design. In 1999, the LearnScope program developed a web site
which from the very beginning was envisioned as a community. The community was to
be a place for members to learn about flexible learning while personally experiencing
online communication practices. Research carried out in the early days of the
community by Weatherley and Ellis (2000) described the community as a place for
members to learn to be online. “The ability to interact was highlighted throughout this
study as a significant factor in being able to provide sound educational opportunities”
(Weatherley & Ellis, 2000, p. 3).
In late 1999, the Australian Flexible Learning Framework was endorsed and, the
LearnScope program became a professional development tool in the development of
Creative Capable People (the first of the Framework’s four main goals). LearnScope
and its fledgling community went on to become strategic tools in the Framework. Over
the period 2000 to 2004 the VLC was developed to broaden its focus beyond its first
key projects to attract members, beyond the Framework projects, from the broader
vocational and adult education community. The LearnScope site became a part of the
larger community, as a public ‘tenant’ community. Projects like the newly developed
Flexible Learning Leaders (FLL) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005b) whose own
community space was private, were invited to share stories with the wider community
through a showcase area on the front page.
The change of name to the Australian Flexible Learning Community occurred
near the end of 2002 was to reflect the broader purview of the community. Table 4.3
summarizes chronologically the significant events leading into and over the AFLC
development.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 4.3
Factors affecting the community development
Date Events in the community development
1998 • Launch of LearnScope professional development initiative
1999 • Launch of LearnScope Virtual Learning Community (VLC)
2000 • Creation of Australian Flexible Learning Framework 2000-2004
• LearnScope VLC branded as part of the framework
2001 • Independent evaluator appointed to evaluate site
• Project manager for community appointed
2002 • Evaluation of LearnScope Initiative
• Focus on stabilizing infrastructure and technology platform
• Broadening of membership base beyond key projects
• Name change to Australian Flexible Learning Community
2003 • Focus on social aspects of community development
2004 • Consolidation of community
• Last year and evaluation of the Framework (2000-2004)
Table 4.3 relates the LearnScope and Framework influences on the community’s
development. The community always maintained a focus on the practices of flexible
learning but changed to serve a larger membership. In early 2004 this 3000 member
strong community could be described as still ‘coalescing’ (Wenger, McDermott &
Snyder, 2002), still establishing relationships and trust for the majority of members. At
the community core, the group enveloping LearnScope leaders and very active
members, some with mature connections from the very beginning, the ALFC could
readily be described as ‘maturing’ (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). Members
were using the community to clarify their goals, expand their practices and level of
leadership experience.
People
The AFLC was launched at a time of great change in vocational and further
education in Australia. New training packages, new pedagogies, the casualization of the
workforce and the requirements to offer vocational learning more flexibly are all recent
issues impacting this field of education (Eklund, Kay, & Lynch, 2003; Hawke &
Cornford, 1998). The Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector is very different
to the school and university sectors yet it overlaps with both. Nationwide, educators in

Bronwyn Stuckey
this sector are working in large state and regionally-based institutes through to very
small independent training providers. Time for professional development is one of the
biggest problems for practitioners operating in environments where half their number is
part-time and professional development can be hugely under-resourced (R. Grozdanic,
personal communication, March 23rd 2004). Teachers in this sector have been described
as being intimidated by the volume of demands placed on them in adopting change. The
field for this educational sector is both diverse and shifting as members are physically
dispersed across the country and operate in over 100 disparate industry training areas.
The members vary greatly in their online experience, commitment and sense of
community. The community manager remarked that “Individuals who contribute the
most almost always come from somewhere else where they’ve been given those sorts of
opportunities. I think there’s a big link between participation and value and people
having been resourced elsewhere”. This is certainly true of the members in the key
Framework projects who had been afforded greater opportunities and support than the
average teacher member for many of whom LearnScope was their first online
experience.
From its inception the AFLC maintained an open membership policy. Anyone
interested or engaged in flexible learning was eligible to take up membership of the
AFLC and join the community activity. Visitors were able to freely read community
discussions and download resources. Memberships were, however, required to
contribute articles, join discussions, vote on polls or join in events. Personal profile
spaces were provided for member’s full names, institutional or organizational
affiliations, contact and biographical details including training area and articles they
contributed. Members could search for industry contacts or local networks using a
number of criteria. While anonymity had been discussed at different times in the
community’s life, the management and steering groups considered member identity to
be critical to the networking aspects in a professional community. Profiles and status in
the main projects are celebrated at different points in the community life through the
Postcards from Flexible Learning Leaders and LearnScope updates.
All aspects of the Australian Flexible Learning Framework were the subject of
stringent strategic evaluation and reporting. As an instrument of the Framework the
Australian Flexible Learning Community had therefore been subject to cycles of
evaluation. The managers were required to report three times a year to the Flexible
Learning Advisory Group (FLAG) on progress towards meeting the goals of the annual
Bronwyn Stuckey
strategic plan. Over 2002 and 2003 the community management team consisted of a
project manager, project support officer, and a part-time technical coordinator. The
original staffing consisted of a project manager who oversaw a number of contractors
but there was too much work to be done in the community space for one person (R.
Grozdanic, personal communication, March 15th 2003). As the community grew, a
small number of paid contractors were employed in various community activities and
events, ranging from a ‘cybrarian’ employed early in the community’s development to
manage resources a few hours a week, to short term hosting of one-off events.
The community was further supported by a core group that sprang at first from the
leadership and active membership of LearnScope and from those engaged in other
vocational education programs at the time. Eliciting, valuing and responding to user
feedback were integral to the community design and implementation throughout its
existence. The community maintained several layers of stakeholder input and feedback
mechanisms. At the highest level was the FLAG group representing each of the
Australian stakeholder States. On a second level the Content and Strategy Group was
established in 2002 with six to eight representative practitioners also from each of the
Australian states. This group, known internally as the Brainstrust, met via
teleconference and occasional face-to-face meetings to discuss issues of community
development and value at a grass roots level. The members of this group were respected
outspoken leaders active in flexible learning and online community development.
Additional service and leadership roles evolved in the community over time.
Some roles such as cybrarian faded out and community facilitator of the General Forum
arose when the community site began to develop a critical mass of resources and dialog.
New groups arose at members’ requests and leading members were engaged to facilitate
them. “Ask a Techo” was a hugely popular space that emerged as a service after being
recommended by a member. Voluntary leadership roles also emerged as smaller interest
groups began to meet, taking up the capacity of the site to offer private and dedicated
small group spaces. In 2004 there were 37 of these independently facilitated private
groups meeting in the AFLC.
Senior managers and executives, like representatives on FLAG, also served as
champions for the community, raising its profile in the wider vocational education
community. Some senior executives are members and on occasions they have joined in
the social activities of the community. The often relaxed social context was part of the
enduring nature of the community. The ANTA and state leaders had direct access to the
Bronwyn Stuckey
opinions of practitioners, and the practitioners in turn could put faces to the names of
bureaucrats. There were other vocational education web sites for exclusively for
strategic discussions, in the Australian Flexible Learning Community where members
and senior executives felt free to be a little irreverent, and to tolerate criticism in ways
not possible in more formal environments (R. Grozdanic, personal communication,
March 15th 2003).
Common ties
The AFLC had clear ties to significant national vocational education policy,
events, training and funding opportunities. Topics for discussion in the community
were drawn from those, along with related news and issues in the field of flexible
learning, the calendars of the Framework, and programs and the events of the partner
states and institutes. The community manager spoke of constantly grazing the news
media and publications to ensure that news items, discussions, articles and other
resources gave members opportunity to reflect on the hottest topics and latest
technologies in the field. This would include the sharing the outcomes of many other
projects in the national framework, continually offering members access to new
practices, toolboxes, research, and learning objects and finding creative and different
ways to showcase them.
Relationship to the Framework and its funded projects gave the AFLC an
immediate profile and some expectation of value. The Framework underpinned projects
like LearnScope which in turn offered funds to support professional development
projects about the country. The AFLC pulled together strands form many of the
Framework programs and projects and by association was something practitioners and
training executives may have felt compelled to be a part of if they wanted to stay up-to-
date. The community manager suggested that for those new to flexible learning, “The
community seemed like a place to get information about all the things that they were
hearing about on the periphery of groups in their organization”.
TAFE systems in each state and territory would actively promote the community
as would the Framework communication officers. The annual funding, intake and
events that surrounded Framework projects also served to attract members to their own
community who were then prospective members of the AFLC. The leaders of projects
like LearnScope were active members in the AFLC as well as their own communities. In

Bronwyn Stuckey
many cases they were some of the most highly regarded vocational education
practitioners in the country and their high regard served to further attract new members.
The deliverables of this community fed directly into the Framework from which it
sprang and for members being recognized in relation to implementation of the
Framework was another clear reason that people came back to the community.
For the senior executive in the VET sector across Australia, the association to the
Framework made this community an integral part of the sector’s professional
development strategy. For the community management this association meant
accountability to the members and the bureaucracy, such that strategic planning,
evaluation and reporting had been prominent drivers in the design and implementation
process. This in many ways makes the infrastructure and processes of this community
more akin to those an extranet based community might face. For the members the
association, with the Framework, legitimized the activity of the community as it opened
with a perceived level of credibility and goodwill. This credibility is evidenced at all
levels when for instance senior officers in the ANTA and state executive used the
community in a loose relationship to communicate and seek feedback on
implementation of current policy issues like access and equity.
The community manager described a typical pattern of engagement in the early
days where, a new member arrived with an imperative as part of a funded project,
seeking out a particular advertised event, or resource, or to find access to specific
support. People replied to the community manager, “I don’t want a community I just
want to go to the site and get some resources and I want to get out of there.” These
members exhibited a pattern of very selective and tightly focused use of the community
which was often sustained for up to the first year of membership. The highest volume of
use by general members was in the community Hub and Go Learn areas. Many in the
second year, after the original pressing need had been satisfied, began to gain
confidence to look around to see what else the community offered. A specific and
pressing need in relation to flexible learning was the most common tie in this
community. However the ‘grab and run’ action of many in their early membership was
a source of concern for the community manager. The process of moving people from
resource-based use to dialogue and collaboration took a significant time and ongoing
exposure to the norms and culture of the community. It took people from asking “what
can I get” to “what can I give”. Reflecting on how far the community had come and,
how new this all was in those early days of 2000, the community manager quipped, “It
Bronwyn Stuckey
took me three months to post after I started working there. I described it as… like
walking into an auditorium full of colleagues with a blind fold on and being required to
yell. I remember it so distinctly that’s how it was and I thought God I work here and I
feel like that.”
This community encompassed topics integral to the job of a registered training
organization (RTO). While Topics included grants, projects, professional development,
support programs, technical support and tool testing over time, teaching and learning
with new learning technologies and supporting people at the practitioner level was
always the primary focus.
There was a small but perceptible shift in 2004 agenda setting by the community
management and core group members to topics proposed by members. The community
manager described a constant tension between providing a service and offering
ownership. “It’s really hard finding a balance between providing things and trying to get
members to take responsibility for things. For in many cases they’re not ready to. So
that’s a problem we’re grappling with all the time.”
Social interaction
The now named Australian Flexible Learning Community had, over the first five
years changed in its relationship to the Australian national vocational initiatives that
funded it and has therefore had several reactive cycles of design and redesign. The
domain of the community had remained flexible learning while the community’s
purview and membership broadened. The design of the community that existed in 2004,
while recognizing the value of the original LearnScope VLC, was not a natural
evolution but an intentional design to meet the goals of national imperatives.
The design of the original LearnScope VLC contained three key elements of
published resources, access to experts, and forums for discussion. The community web
space had dedicated areas for each of these activities (Weatherley & Ellis, 2000). Under
a constructivist paradigm the vision was to inspire practitioners. As the community
manager described it they were, “not responding to a need but leading and influencing a
change of culture, creating a need”.
This community was tied very closely to the rituals of the larger VET sector in
Australia. Over the four years (2000-2004) the community was a place to learn about
teaching and learning online. It was a place to prepare for and advertise the major

Bronwyn Stuckey
national conference activities and affiliated international events. It was also a place to
gain information about, national grant funds and to link back to aspects and projects on
the Framework site. State and federal initiatives were widely discussed and meaning
made of their ramifications for practitioners. Through these facilities the AFLC
remained attuned to the rhythm of the larger vocational education community.
Educators in small independent training companies sought out and received information
and support as readily as their counterparts in much larger state institutes. In 2003 the
site included a Feature story focusing on something key about the Framework each
month. In 2004 this became an ‘opinion piece’ by written by an industry leader. This
change marked the having moved to look less to the Framework and more outward into
the world.
The community site in 2004 variously allowed members and visitors to access to
the community artifacts. For members the community provided opportunity to attend
online events, play games, vote in polls, network with colleagues, initiate and join
discussions, publish resources, locate practitioners in various fields, publicize events,
problem solve technical issues, access training, and focus on special interests. The
community infrastructure also supported member initiated events, groups and
collaborations held within smaller public or private spaces of the community. In this
way distributed leadership has been encouraged throughout the community. Members
could initiate interaction in the community space in a number of ways:
• Publish articles and resources
• Propose events, guest speakers, poll topics
• Open discussion on burning issues
• Advertise local events and issues
• Propose and manage new interest groups
The community management sought to make contribution to the community fun

and easy to accomplish. The AFLC kept social and light-hearted activity high on the
agenda. It was not by accident that the early involvement on the web site allowed for
simple non-threatening activities such as social polls, surveys, quizzes and quirky news
items. This was considered an audience that needed to grow comfortable with being
online and have successful and satisfactory first activities. At its simplest, the point and
click of a poll could be a first step to contributing or joining in an e-mail game. The

Bronwyn Stuckey
social perspective in the community was intended to make the engagement, at least on
some level, not all ‘smell like work’. The community manager said these were people
who “didn’t want to go home from work to work”. Simple tools like the instant
messenger and the presence tools supported sociability and informality as they allowed
members to see who was online, raise another’s attention and chat in real time.
Beyond the key projects, community sponsored activity was centered on a
monthly calendar of events. A spike in activity was recorded on the web site just after
each month’s newsletter is distributed to members. Rhythm was readily recognizable in
this community as the newsletter announced and linked members directly into the
current cycle of activity. Beyond those first fun and social activities members were
offered a regular schedule of events. The monthly structure announced in the newsletter
offered a two week industry leader visit; Expert Spruik or Opinion Piece, a moderated
forum, competition and weekly polls. There was a constantly changing calendar of
discussions, online experts, involvement in online learning games, FLL Postcards.
LearnScope updates and current and relevant news set in motion the rhythm of the
community. Much of the work of the community manager was to source and facilitate
each of these events. “I’m spending time encouraging, making things easier for people
to do things laterally, and bringing people into contribution. If I see someone has done
something in the field, I’ll approach them and put a writer in contact with them. I am
constantly offering to resources people like that.” This personal approach along with
resource or technical support proved effective in bringing in material that was
innovative or instructive.
Another tension arose in supporting both ‘newbies’ and early adopter experts
within the same community. The AFLC seemed to readily attract VET educators who
were new to flexible learning but struggled to retain value for those with more expertise.
It was hoped that smaller targeted interest groups would encourage early adopters to
focus on issues of importance and at their own level of expertise. Private groups
themselves created a tension. On the one hand private groups were more active than
larger open forums. People in private groups seemed more open to expressing their
views and freely discussing even politically sensitive issues. In part this greater
interaction may be attributed to the fact that people knew exactly who in the audience
reading their contributions. On the other hand the funding body wanted the majority of
activity to be visible or shown on the site. At the time of this research groups had just
greater control over site functionality and special interest groups were about to take off,
Bronwyn Stuckey
but there were some 30 groups using the existing toolset centrally managed. At that time
no protocols or statements of responsibility existed to reconcile visibility, private
discourse and the need for sharing and reporting back to the community.
The level of interaction by 2004 was recognized as substantial. In a critical review
of the community Downes, (2002 p.1) commented “Indeed, the unexpected turns
sometimes produce the most interesting material. And whatever difficulties are
encountered is more than compensated by the enjoyment of traveling through an active,
engaged, and knowledgeable e-learning community.” In summary the community
manager reflected, “People seem to be realizing this is a way to be happier in your work
life, networking with other groups.”
Place
The AFLC was financed by funds from the Framework. The funds supported the
technological and human resource requirements of the community. There was little or
no marketing as such and the community relied on promotion by word of mouth from
members, leaders and sponsors in their respective workplaces. The financial support
was vital to remunerate guest speakers, consultants and contractors employed in the site
activity. Not to diminish the large contribution made by volunteers to the community,
but the community manager could not imagine how this community could have got off
the ground without its annual budget.
The community was supported by a customized proprietary learning
management system (LMS). The community manager worked with the vendors to adapt
the product, “attempting to specifically define the functionality we want and have their
tool to meet it”. That first year of the Framework, 2001, the community focus was on
implementation of stable and appropriate Internet-based technology. In 2002 the focus
shifted to reinforcing the social ties of the community and the development of a rhythm
of events and activities. The four main areas of the community web space were the
Community Hub, Go Learn, a Resource Centre and the tenant LearnScope site. They
represented containers for dialog, professional development, community artifacts and
links respectively.
The web site included access to many tools and activities. The community’s
technical infrastructure offered synchronous and asynchronous tools along with
structured community profile pages and the ability to see members logged onto the site.

Bronwyn Stuckey
The functionality of the profile was such that members could recognize authors of
articles, click on their name, see their photograph, link to their profile, read about them
and see any other contributions they made on the site. The interface design brought
activity from across the different areas of the community to the entry level homepage.
This aggregation of most current interactions allowed members to login and quickly
identify recent activity and topical discussions. The capabilities listed in Table 4.4
demonstrate the breadth and depth of activity in the community space in early 2004.
Table 4.4
Opportunities for engagement in the Australian Flexible Learning Community
Technological tools and objects offered through the community site
• Registration forms • Email

• Discussion • Instant messaging
• Chat • Who’s online
• Resources • Search
• Polls • Personal member profiles
• Games • Links
• Private spaces • Email subscription to discussions
Artefacts developed and contributed by the membership
• Newsbytes • Forums
• Articles • Research reports
• Links • website links
• Resources • Technical support
• Professional development activities • Expert Spruik
Roles and identities offered to members or external identities promoted through the community site
• Community members Non permanent roles and related tenant groups

• Forum Moderators (and LS managers)
• Managers • Expert Spruik- guest thought leaders
• Brainstrust members
• Sub-community leaders (fledgling 2004) • Flexible Learning Leaders
• Software and technical administration
The currency and quality of the resources, linked to information and expertise was
vital to new community members. Many new members reported their first activities in
the community were to download resources and seek information from experts. The
community manager described going into the field and meeting members whose
feedback suggested they found it easy to download resources but how new the
experience of speaking out in such public spaces was for them. To support engagement
from the periphery the community manager worked in the ‘back-channel’ by phone, e-
mail and instant messenger to greet new members, raise member contributions, and to

Bronwyn Stuckey
broker links between new members projects, activities and tools. LearnScope managers,
community staff and over time core members would also reach out to others in the
community to support contributions and engagement. By 2004 the most active parts of
the site were self-supporting with rarely a time during the day with less than ten people
logged in.
As might be expected for an innovative and successful community of practice the
AFLC attracted interest from researchers (Brook and Oliver, 2002; Eklund, 2004; and
Weatherley & Ellis, 2000). It was evaluated in successive research activities from 2000
to 2004. The findings of this accumulated research, while carried out in the early years
of the community’s development, confirmed that members were developing a sense of
community and finding value through their engagement.
4.3.1.2. The Australian Flexible Learning Community case statistical summary

Data for this case was collected from a number of sources detailed in Appendix O: Key
evidence types collected for each case. The documents and/or descriptions of them were
then coded using the nodes of the conceptual framework offered in Table 3.4 of Chapter
3. The data presented in this section are presented as the findings of that coding. Firstly
the overall frequency of and relative importance of the four components is presented
and discussed. This is followed by an examination of the conditions present within each
component for this community. Finally, the findings for the relative importance of the
most highly ranked conditions across the four components are offered.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Ranking the components.
Table 4.5 and Figure 4.13 indicate the overall distribution of issues identified in
the AFLC development across the community components. This large and almost
wholly online community had a clear priority for developing ongoing social interaction
and sense of place for members.
Table 4.5
Frequency of occurrence in coded items for each of the four components
Component Freq. %
People 294 26%
Common Ties 130 12%
Social Interaction 351 31%
Place 341 31%
TOTAL 1116 100%
The percentages shown in Table 4.5 represent the percentage of all coded items for
this case attributed to each of the four community components. Social interaction and
place were both highly rated, with both scoring 31% of coded items in this community.
People was the next highly rated component at 26% with common ties rating very lowly
at only 12% of the coded items for this community.
Figure 4.13 visually demonstrates the priorities of the community when the
percentages for the four components are graphed.
People
40%
30%
20%
10%
Place 0% Common ties
Social interaction
Figure 4.13 The percentage of nodes in the AFLC rich text coding attributed to each of
the four community components.

Bronwyn Stuckey
This community functioned almost entirely online, serviced by face-to-face only

through the members other associations and projects. The community focused on dialog
and resources for its modes of social interaction which proved to rate very strongly in
the AFLC. The data indicated the community’s focus on place was in part due to the
political associations and constant refocusing under the national Framework. The focus
in early years on establishing the online environment and developing the resource base
also contributed to the high priority for place demonstrated in Figure 4.13.
We can only speculate at the very low rating for common ties, but it may in part
be attributed to the community’s broad and diverse membership, and while flexible
learning was a common practice, the contexts in which members operated were often
quite disparate (urban, rural, small RTO, large college, the cultures of numerous trades
and disciplines).
Ranking the conditions within each of the four components
In the section that follows the components are presented in order of importance
(highest percentage of coded items to lowest) for the AFLC. The respective core
conditions within each of the components and their importance are also examined.
Place
Figure 4.14 shows the most notable conditions for the AFLC within the Place
component were evolution, tools, public and private spaces.
Percentages rated within PLACE Conditions

1 Around people
2 Resources
20% 3 Evolution
component coding
4 Tools
Percentage of
15% 5 Public and private

10% 6 Inside and outside
7 Ownership
5% 8 Reliability
0% 9 Navigation
10 Promotion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
11 Status
Conditions 12 History and context
13 Resourcing
14 Personal touches
Figure 4.14 Plot of conditions rated within PLACE for the AFLC

Bronwyn Stuckey
The most noted condition evolution comprised of technology, infrastructure and

architecture planning. Tools were important when used for sharing information, for
feedback statistics and as centrally implemented structures. The public and private
component was important when providing for subgroups and their spaces. Of lesser note
were resources and promotion. Resources proved important when generated internally
by community members. Promotion of the community was important in terms of
opportunities for cross-promotion and through external events, conferences and
workshops.
Social interaction
The four most highly rated conditions within community shown in figure 4.15
are social interaction related to functionality, modality, rhythm, reporting.
Percentages rated within the SOCIAL INTERACTION Conditions

1 Modality
2 Currency
40% 3 Familiarity and excitement
component coding
Percentage of
30% 4 Levels
20% 5 Functionality
10% 6 Rhythm
0%
7 Fun factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
8 Generate content
9 Etiquette
Conditions 10 Motives
11 Professional and social
12 Reporting
Figure 4.15 Plot of conditions rated within the SOCIAL INTERACTION for the AFLC
Most notable is the spike at the functionality component, shown in figure 4.15,
which for the AFLC comprised collaboration, conversation, publishing, networking and,
access to expertise. Modality was the next frequent condition and was marked by
aspects of the dialog-base, event-base, resource-base and face-to-face relations. The
monthly timing, newsletter and related content were all important aspects of aspects of
rhythm. Reporting proved important in terms of feedback to community management
and the strategic reporting to sponsors. Levels of engagement were rated in relation to
the balance of high and low levels of commitment required to engage.

Bronwyn Stuckey
People
As demonstrated in figure 4.16 roles and profiles proved the most significant conditions
in this component.
Percentages rated within PEOPLE Conditions

1 Roles
Percentage of component
50%
2 Relate to larger community
40% 3 Executive awareness
30% 4 Time
coding
20% 5 Ties
6 Profiles
10%
7 Leadership
0% 8 Sponsorship
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 Management support
Conditions
Figure 4.16 Plot of conditions rated within PEOPLE for the AFLC
Roles were mentioned frequently, most noticeably the roles of conveners,

facilitators, stakeholders, advisors and members (both active and peripheral) proved to
be important. The ability to develop a profile through interaction was important, as
were recognizing the community demographics and raising the profile of community in
the wider vocational education context. Part of that significance could be seen in the
importance of the relationship of the community to the larger community.
Common ties
Figure 4.17 demonstrates that the most noted conditions within common ties were
situatedness, relationship to the larger community purpose, value and diversity.
Percentages rated within COMMON TIES Conditions

1 Situatedness
30% 2 Value
25% 3 Purpose
20% 4 Focus
coding
15% 5 Diversity
10% 6 Accreditation and recognition
5% 7 Values
0% 8 Cutting edge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Conditions
Figure 4.17 Plot of conditions rated within the COMMON TIES for the AFLC

Bronwyn Stuckey
Situated aspects related to the perceived practicality of the community activity,

and the formation of groups around communities and topics that mattered. The clear
purpose of the community also proved significant.
Value was variously found in shared understandings, either as recognized
immediate value or in individual agency. The large community size with the diverse
backgrounds, skills and contexts of the members and their organizations operated as ties
to this community.
Ranking the conditions across the four components
Table 4.6 lists the most highly ranked individual aspects in the AFLC data. While
people as a category ranked third in the community components, people in terms of
their roles played out in the community was the most highly reported issue.
Table 4.6
Conditions ranked highest for data across all components for the AFLC
Conditions
1. Roles (Pe)
2. Activity (SI)
3. Evolution (Pl)
4. Tools (Pl)
5. Modality (SI)
6. Profiles (Pe)
7. Situatedness (CT)
8. Rhythm (SI)
9. Public and private (Pl)
10. Reporting (SI)
11. Levels (SI)
12. Resources (Pl)
13. Promotion (Pl)
14. Relate to larger community (Pe)
Most significant in roles were members and their levels of activity, then
administrators and thought leaders. The most highly rated activities were dialog,
resources and projects. The evolution of tools and the community architecture was a
significant factor as the community site evolved with its membership and strategic
goals. Issues related to reporting were important which might be expected in a
community where funding was tied to a national framework and strategic planning.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.3.2. Heuristic Case 2: US Army CompanyCommand.com
4.3.2.1. The Company Command case narrative
CompanyCommand.com has become, in effect, my O Club meeting, the other

rifle commander next door, and my never ending source of reference. How do
you measure the value of THAT? (Anonymous, 2001 - community member
feedback)
Introduction
Originally the founders of this community were looking to publish a book of their
accumulated knowledge but they knew they did not just want to publish a static book on
the web. They wanted forums for members to access the work of those who have gone
before them. They wanted to have the tools (e.g. instruments, protocol, and templates)
that members would use in their practice. They wanted to offer ways to share in deeper
meaning making as they had in their own the sharing of stories. The foundation for
design and management was embodied in the community’s very simple guiding theory
“Our profession learns through conversation. We will facilitate that conversation” (CC
web site vision).
Background
CompanyCommand.com is a “maturing” (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002 p.

22) IMCoP having moved through a stage of sharing to stewardship of the community
knowledge. The community brings together online military commanders in all of the
United States, (U.S.) outposts and zones of military action. It has a highly homogenous
membership made up of mostly current and prospective US military commanders. As a
community of practice CompanyCommand.com grew in official status within the US
Army from its virtually “bootlegged” (Wenger, 2002 p. 22) status in 1999 to becoming
celebrated and fully “sanctioned” (Wenger, 2002 p. 22). As of 2002 it became officially
legitimized and sponsored as a learning strategy of the US Military Academy, West
Point.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Part of the reason members were attracted to and valued this CoP was its
autonomy. While being independent, CompanyCommand.com had always honored the
core values and traditions of the US military. The narrative that follows will
demonstrate that independence, the high credibility and devotion of the leaders was a
design that explicitly valued sharing and story telling.
Tony Burgess and Nate Allen (community founders) were classmates at the US
Military Academy at West Point and fatefully part of the first class to be allocated
computers to complete their studies. Later, in 1992 while attending the Infantry
Captains Course they were constantly discussing and sharing information on leadership
through notes they made and shared. Later still, while stationed in Hawaii they
continued to share stories and ideas sitting on the porch each evening. They decided to
work proactively to collect stories from outgoing commanders in preparation for their
own upcoming commands. Their time together was extremely valuable, as they talked
about and shared annotated copies of books they had read, and compared the experience
of doing the same job in different places. Burgess and Allen began formally recording
and collating their knowledge. As a result of their amassed knowledge, they had drawn
up a six-month plan for command before they took their positions and they felt
confident about what lay ahead. They did go on to be recognized as outstanding
commanders.
A number of the founders’ peers reported daunting learning curves when first
entering command. Through these discussions with others the CompanyCommand.com
founders realized how effective their sharing had been in securing their own high level
of preparedness for command. A small team began to form around, as a way to take
this learning experience to all aspiring commanders, publishing a book of accumulated
knowledge notes. At that stage, however, no publisher could be found. The team came
to view the web as a vehicle to accomplish this when it took on a new member who
could program the web site and build tools for online discussions. Tools were quickly
added to the web site, and then ideas and stories that were to become the basis of the
web site began to accumulate in February of 2000. The domain name
CompanyCommand.com was also purchased in that year.
In its first year and a half the community was officially non-profit and funded by
private out-of-pocket expenses of the founders. Now it has been gifted to the Army.
The leaders are in tenured positions at The US Military Academy, West Point. West
Point maintained the level of innovation for CompanyCommand.com and for the team
Bronwyn Stuckey
to continue to operate as a ‘skunk works’ (Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 1943) , as the

community manager reported his General saying, “If you don’t fail at something you’re
not trying hard enough to succeed.” Today while academically independent
CompanyCommand.com is a celebrated part of the current US military knowledge
management strategy.
People
Commanding is a job people only do for a finite number of years. Each command
may conceivably last a period of 18 months. The CompanyCommand.com support
team (as the leadership team in this community prefers to call itself) members are
officers and were all company level leaders. They have all passed through the practice
of command and have genuine credibility within that domain and with their peers. The
voice of this team is evident in the community features and newsletters that carry their
passion and personal experience. People feel as if they know Tony and Nate (the
founders) through their stories. If the people and voices are real, then, the site is real.
For one community manager human connection was summed up with, “In the absence
of that voice it is just information sharing, with that (voice) it is a community.”
The CompanyCommand.com support regularly meets face-to-face to share and
collaborate, recruit new volunteer teams and constantly support each other in their
various roles. The team in late 2003 comprised a dedicated webmaster/programmer, a
leader who works as main page editor and manager, a chief operations officer handles
relations with the Army, a writer carries out interviews, stories and site editorial, a
reading team manages project activities and discussion around books that members
read. Two other leaders manage sourcing of content and development of the newsletter.
The team aims to explicitly model community values and keep these highly visible on
the CompanyCommand.com agenda. Developing and supporting others to develop
quality resources and conversations is a clear goal of this community. The community
manager offers this advice:
So far, in our experience, the community doesn’t run itself. The community
opens up discussions, and shares discussions and generally polices itself, but
we’re very aware of our role of the influence in what products we feature you
know the featured tools, the feature stories, they should be best in class and
should be things anyone can be proud to have developed or to use.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Additional community roles and responsibilities emerged with the growth of the
community in order to maintain the currency and quality of interaction. As of 2004,
Topic leads manage and facilitate topical areas in the forum, Command contacts make
themselves available to mentor from their personal expertise and Pointmen serve to lead
projects and carry out other tasks within the community. There were issues with
PlatoonLeader.org, the sister community, that had problems when a team of volunteers
fell away in their efforts. The leaders may not have received enough mentoring or
training to play out their roles. A new team was implemented with training, motivation
and targeted efforts to offer the team greater ownership. People who now take up these
community roles receive training, support resources and a place in the
CompanyCommand.com Team (CC team).
The CC team work actively to bring member voices into the community. Those
efforts have involved travel to battle fields of Iraq to carry out video diary interviews,
telephoning a new member to support a first written contribution. The CC team reports
that there is often an abundance of people wanting to help and contribute who just need
to know how to go about it. The team works through personal contact to facilitate
member contributions and their consistent high quality. The support team makes it easy
for members of the community to be seen and heard and for others to access their
contributions. There is a strong focus on story telling. It is as important within the inner
community CC team as it is outside and in the wider community. Stories have a
recognized value for the members, as this feedback shows.
Hearing about something that really happened, in a story format, is usually much
more meaningful than simply being told what you should do. When you reflect on
someone else's experience this way, you come much closer to learning the lessons,
good and bad, that the story teller learned, without actually going through it. (CC
web site, 2001)
As has been explained earlier in this case story, there are many ways for members
to take up leadership in this community. The member dog tags, personal profiles show
the member roles along with photos and tools such as the rich video content are used to
bring commander and their stories to life. Voluntary work in the community is
acknowledged and celebrated in small but personally significant ways. One example of
such an acknowledgement can be seen when topic leads are given personalized business
Bronwyn Stuckey
cards from CompanyCommand.com to declare their leadership role and value to the
community. The CC team itself is supported through regular face-to-face meetings and
this team is now broadening to institute new sub-teams of volunteers working to
enhance value in activities such as mentoring.
Common ties
The value and type of tacit information that surrounds effective command, ranges
from small simple insider knowledge, to processes to deal with very complex and
sensitive situations. Commanders in battle fields and training posts around the world
may be linked as experts in their own practice to sharing with more novice commanders
awaiting deployment. For instance, a commander in Afghanistan might pass on
information about packing personal mousetraps to soldiers awaiting deployment.
Mousetraps, which were not supplied to soldiers, help decrease mouse populations as
mice draw deadly snakes to the military digs. Or a member in a current war zone might
ask for advice from experienced community members in order to most effectively
counsel troops coming to terms with the first loss of life in their troop. There is some
sense of urgency, and an evident level of trust in a speedy response, when members
pose such requests for support. Because of the nature of the practices, and the current
world climate, this community often deals with serious human issues. The community
support team constantly monitors the forum to maintain the high response rate and
ensure member value and confidence in the community. Quality, integrity, and
scrupulous adherence to standards along with a strict domain focus have been essential
to CompanyCommand.com’s value creation, reputation and ability to attract members.
The community purpose of preparing battle ready commanders is described
succinctly in publicly available informational and promotional material:
We are on a mission to connect Company commanders past, present, and future
-together in a conversation specifically about building effective units. Why?
Professionals who are fiercely resolved to prepare for combat and who
continually share what they are learning with each other will be more effective
and will grow more effective, combat-ready units. (Who We Are
http://companyteam.army.mil/about.htm last accessed 20/05/2003)

Bronwyn Stuckey
Strategic goals have been absolutely vital. The vision of this community is to
help to transform the Army into a knowledge-based learning organization by enabling
and promoting two important processes: the lateral sharing of knowledge among
leaders; and an integrative approach to learning between the Army’s institutional and
operational leaders. The community dialogue works to further issues of transparency
and ownership in strategic matters. For instance, the initiatives for transformation,
processes to enhance the capacity of the profession into the future, had little or no
ownership at a grassroots level. It had been organized in a top down fashion.
CompanyCommand.com supported ownership by bringing the conversation of the
General’s to the commanders. Sharing the stories and making it real is important, the
community manager described this as “bringing them into the same coffee shop”. In
opening these forums for dialogue the community reinforces the community values
while allowing dialog that may have no other place to surface in the formal world of
command. An invitation to contribute on the community web site puts this simply as,
“we want real-world, practical, ready-to-apply stuff” (CC web site).
Strategic tools and instruments are also developed by members and these make up
the greatest number of downloads from the community site. The ready availability and
diversity of practical tools and instruments allows for just-in-time value for members
preparing for new commands.
Kilner describes the learning design of the CC community as based around the
relationship of elements in the Con4-P model (Hoadley & Kilner, 2005). This model
proposes that interrelationship of Content, Conversation, Connections and Context, with
clarity of Purpose, is the basis of cultivating vibrant knowledge sharing environments.
Boundaries help define the purpose, domain and topics for this CoP. This is not a
community to talk about the redesign of military uniforms; there are other places for
that. This is a place for specific discussion of current command practices. Boundaries
have been tightened over the five years of the community’s existence. The community
was open to military personnel worldwide but closed its doors to the public and
international military commanders in early 2004. This was in part a security issue, but
the community leaders report this greater privacy may have served to strengthen the
trust levels in the community and therefore the potential for value. The community now
regularly publishes selected highlights of internal activity, out to a splash page on a
public web address.

Bronwyn Stuckey
The community has always had clear standards for member engagement, practices
and resources. Standards have been in place since the community opened. Standards
have been set also in terms of the member expectation for practicality and
responsiveness. Firstly, as CC embodies the military traditions, processes and standards.
Secondly, standards are set through the very positive role models of the community
founders who set a high standard for making connections. And thirdly, standards are
maintained through facilitation and moderation of the contributions of the CC members.
If a question, directed to a topic lead, remains unanswered after 24 hours, it is attended
to by another member of the CC support team. Members have come to trust that they
will find timely, relevant, practical solutions in this community.
External incentives don’t seem to connect with this community. Selfless service
is a core value of the military and self-promotion is not largely encouraged. A
competition with monetary prizes was implemented at one stage to motivate
contribution, but did not increase submissions, some members were even insulted. It is
true to say that many members, will give great input through a team member, remain
happy to be anonymous (an attribute not allowed on some features).
Social interaction
CompanyCommand.com has always projected a human interface more than a

technological one. The support team works proactively to source and resource the
specific command needs with contributions from fellow members often garnered
through time consuming one-to-one contact. The leaders readily pick up the telephone
to scout for ideas, broker requests and connect the members with questions to those with
the relevant expertise. From its first forums to the present day the community has set a
high standard for being responsive to members needs and connecting people.
After the initial Internet-mediated community success, the book Taking the
Guidon: Exceptional Leadership at the Company Level (Allen & Burgess, 2001) did get
published and, is now in its third printing. It came to have a ready-made audience in the
community membership and the sales in turn funded further work of
CompanyCommand.com. The book became a perfect vehicle for many people’s first
social interactions in the community. Each copy of the book came with an inscription
from Nate Allen and Tony Burgess and an invitation to meet in the online community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Members have reported the strongest bonds develop when they buy the book, attend a
face-to-face seminar, and then join in the activity of the online community.
Members of the support team contact people to invite them to contribute and offer
them the support they may need to do this in a quality way. Indeed, one of the
community leaders, overseeing stories and quality, said he spent 25% of his time in the
back-channel talking one-to-one with members. This back-channel is necessary to
develop the front-channel resources. It is not so much that people don’t want to
contribute. It is much more that they don’t know how to do it. This facilitation effort
pays off not only in the contribution at hand, but as history shows, people who have
been featured become more visible on the site and do continue to contribute. There
seems to be some barrier that needs to be broken down, and it is broken down by
personal contact and support. This success is described by a community manager as
being “down to the people and running this as a relationship not a business”. The
members are clearly part of a strong social context.
The community offers multi-dimensional communication (e-mail , quizzes,
discussions, stories, scenario role play challenges), clear identification of members
(names, images and profile dog tags), access to experts and mentoring (stories and an
intended mentoring program), a level of sustained commitment from developers and
members (consistent core team and pattern of development and growth since 1999) and
very importantly varied roles for members (readers, contributors, co-producers
reviewers, editors, storytellers, mentors, and leaders in the core team).
People at different stages in their careers have markedly different engagement
patterns in the community. The biggest users are in the year before they take command,
seeking to prepare for that experience. They download lots of resources. When they are
in command they seek just-in-time learning and download what they need if they need
it. Out of command people like to scan the site and look for places to contribute their
experience.
In this community the rituals and etiquette of the larger military community are
evident in every activity, conversation and resource. It is the rituals and imperatives of
that larger community that drive much of the need in this community, whether that is
advice from the battle field or the first use of a standard reporting instrument. The
community has a clear advantage over many in that etiquette is very much a part of
military life. This IMCoP does not spend a great deal of time regulating or moderating
itself, it has no need.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Interdependency is created within the community by recognising the internal

expertise. Command contacts (the database of coaches) are a prime example of the way
in which this community internally connects members and knowledge. Recent
commanders put themselves forward as contacts or coaches on various aspects of
command. In doing so they agree to be available for the community members to contact
them and personally tap into their experience.
A distinct rhythm within the community was created by the events and activities.
A monthly newsletter, weekly change of the field officer images, a roll over of news,
quizzes, command challenges and forum topics, all work to create a regular pattern of
activity in the community. The community development was described by its leaders as
not a “natural amorphous thing but a very directed thing” where the community support
team is planning themes and sourcing resources months ahead.
The design of this community allows for various levels and depths of engagement.
Members can engage in:
• taking a quiz to the extended time in reviewing a command reading
• light level of interaction engagement required to download a tool to in-depth
interaction of topic leads in a forum
• lower level interpersonal communication of rating a member posting to the high
level communication of dialog in forums
• minor commitment of the posting information in a forum to the significant
commitment of collaborating on a project at one of the community Rally Points.
A community manager best described the goals of communication for the

community. “With the folks on the conversation we wanted to create that mess hall
conversation, to create that sitting on the porch conversation, but do it for everyone.”
The community has been limited to some extent by its size. With over 4000
members it was difficult for every person to contribute and be heard. New software
Simplify (by Tomoye) now allows the designers to add nested and community-based
specialty spaces. The aim here is to create greater intimacy for the members. The site
has now adopted the object-oriented online software and will be a pilot group for the
vendor company and the software. So far it has gained wide acclaim is for instance the
Fast Company Award.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Place
One of our mottos was ‘we exist to serve company-level leaders’. We see
ourselves as firstly gathering and developing world class products that we
deliver to them at their convenience, and the second half is that we connect them
laterally. (Community manager)
The CompanyCommand.com web site was until May 2003 delivered through
purpose-built php web architecture. It has since mapped its features and tools over to
the object-oriented knowledge management tool Simplify. The software developer has
been a partner in the development of the community’s technical infrastructure. The
community relies on a great deal of fresh audio-visual resources to convey the stories of
command. These different and complementary media seem to draw participants to the
value rather than the technology right from the start. Interestingly the community
leaders did not originally know they were a community of practice, they were working
intuitively and from the evidence of their own careers. In a community leader’s words,
“Things took off - we went a year and half and had never heard the term CoP. We were
just doing this and thrilled the impact it was having.” The capabilities are listed in Table
4.7 to demonstrate the breadth and depth of engagement offered in the community
space.
Table 4.7
Opportunities for engagement in the CompanyCommand.com community
• Discussion • Calendaring of events
• Chat • weblogs
• Digital library • Internal bookmarking of site areas
• Multimedia resources • Dog tag personal member profiles
• Rating scales for objects • Search
• Quizzes and command challenges • Links
• Weekly update commander in the field • Digital library of command tools
• Monthly newsletter • Video OPDs (video interviews)
• Professional reading and reviews • Forums
• Database of command contacts • Technical support
• website links • Member Rating of contributions
Roles and identities offered to members through the community site
• Dog tag member profiles • Registration for command contacts and
pointmen
• Topic leads - identification of discussion • Rally Points for small focused group
topic leaders collaborative work
• Leadership Challenge Scenarios voting, role • Invitation to join the CC team
play and discussion

Bronwyn Stuckey
Technologically the community site was originally run with a private Internet
Service Provider (ISP), open source software and all volunteer workers. Indeed the
founders devoted their personal funds to sustaining the web server, software and domain
names in the early years. There were 300 visits the first month and 2000 in the second
and from that time visits to the site exploded. By June of 2000 the site had scored 12
000 visits. After only one year of operation the Army Times carried a full-page story on
CompanyCommand.com that opened the doors for the value of this CoP to be
recognized by the US military at large. By late 2003 the community boasted a
membership in excess of 4000.
Growth was all by word-of-mouth in that first year. The leaders contacted friends
to identify points of contact in every army post that they knew. These contacts would
contact others and serve both to promote the community and to seed and harvest the
first member contributions. Upon reflection, a community leader described this process
to say “Later we realized this was an idea virus. One at a time you get people fired up
and they become their own little vector. You tell two people, they tell two people and so
on.”
The CC team was to be recognized, by Fast Company’s Fast50 in the March 2002
issue, for the knowledge management model they had created. Additionally, the
CompanyCommand.com and platoonleader.org communities of practice gained
recognition as the Army’s most innovative knowledge management initiative for that
year. As a result, of the impact these communities are having on the way the Army
learns and shares knowledge, Army senior leaders asked the team to work full time to
provide a focus of command, research and passing on knowledge.
The leaders were then invited to go to Washington to explain what they were
doing, and so it was that Army wide recognition finally came in April of 2002. Also in
2002 a challenge by a Colonel to prove the value of CompanyCommand.com caused the
community leaders to really reflect on what they were about. They began to garner
feedback from members and some very clear messages came through. A junior person’s
world can be so small that their commander can be the world for them, or at least their
only model of command. This community of practice allows those juniors to see the
broader world of command and to start the learning curve before they take up
command. It is fitting to close this story on two pieces of that feedback from members.

Bronwyn Stuckey
I can assure you without a doubt that the value added of your website is such
that without it, I would not have been able to complete many of the myriad tasks
that I face on a daily basis without making onerous mistakes that would have
required a long time to untangle and fix.
I often find that the information offered on these pages bridges the gap between
the "school-house" answer to leadership challenges and the "boots-on-the-
ground" answer.
4.3.2.2. The CompanyCommand case statistical summary
Figure 4.18 represents the overall distribution of issues identified in

CompanyCommand.com. The percentages shown in Table 4.8 represent the percentage
of all coded items for this case attributed to each of the four community components.
Like the AFLC place then social interaction ranked mostly highly in the community
issues raised.
Table 4.8
Component Freq. %
People 259 26%
Common Ties 277 19%
Social Interaction 328 27%
Place 345 29%
TOTAL 1209
The community’s focus on place was predominantly related to issues surrounding

the development of quality resources, tools for sharing and public and private spaces. In
terms of the community activity this community was predominantly dialog and
resource-based as it balances a goal of professionalism with a realized practicality
across all its interactions. Figure 4.18 visually demonstrates the priorities of the
community when the percentages for the four components are graphed. Once again
common ties appeared to be the least ranked component of the community development

Bronwyn Stuckey
but unlike the AFLC, this community was quite symmetrically balanced across the four
components with a slight skew to the component of place.
People
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Social interaction
Figure 4.18: The percentage of nodes in the CC rich text coding attributed to each of
(highest percentage of coded items to lowest) for the CC. The respective core
Place
Figure 4.19 shows that the most notable conditions in establishing place were tools,
reliability, evolution, promotion and resourcing.

1 Around people
2 Resources
Percentage of component coding
30% 3 Evolution
4 Tools
25%
5 Public and private
7 Ownership
15%
8 Reliability
10% 9 Navigation
10 Promotion
5%
11 Status
0% 12 History and context
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 Resourcing
Co nditio ns 14 Personal touches
Figure 4.19 Plot of conditions rated within the PLACE for CC

Bronwyn Stuckey
Tools for sharing information, thinking together and for feedback statistics proved
to be most important. Tools that were implemented centrally were appreciated and with
some recognized constraints. Reliability was sought in quality resources and the sense
of ‘safe harbor’ the community created. The ongoing evolution of technology,
infrastructure and architectures proved key to developing place for the community.
Promotion was largely word of mouth and through personal relationships of the
community conveners and leaders. Resourcing was also significant in terms of funding
and the partnership like relationship of the community founders with West Point.
Social interaction
Figure 4.20 demonstrates that functionality was the most notable condition in
social interaction. Interdependency, story telling, reflective practices, mentoring,
conversation all proved to be significant functions of interaction.
Percentages rated within SOCIAL INTERACTION Conditions
70% 1 Modality
2 Currency
60%
3 Familiarity and excitement
50% 4 Levels
40% 5 Functionality
6 Rhythm
30%
7 Fun factor
20% 8 Generate content
10% 9 Etiquette
0%
10 Motive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 Professional and social
Conditions
12 Reporting
Figure 4.20 Plot of conditions rated for SOCIAL INTERACTION in CC
Aspects of modality that proved important were the dialog-based, resource-

based, informal and integrated nature of community interactions. Also important was
the ability of the community conveners to generate content by seeking out contributors
and offering facilitator support and resources to community members to develop their
content. Etiquette proved important in CC with then high profile for understood and
explicit norms and community moderation.
People
Figure 4.21 shows the key conditions for people in CC were roles, relationships to
the larger community, profiles, ties, leadership and executive awareness. Key roles in

Bronwyn Stuckey
the CC community were facilitators and leaders and their volunteer nature proved very
important.

40%
35%
30%
1 Roles
2 Executive awareness
coding
25%
20% 3 Time
15% 4 Ties
10% 5 Profiles
5%
6 Leadership
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
7 Sponsorship
Conditions
8 Management support
Figure 4.21 Plot of conditions rated for PEOPLE in CC
Aspects of the relationship to the larger community that were valued were the
community autonomy and a view of the community as an inspiration to, and a source of
fresh ideas for the larger military community. Profiles were developed through
interaction which included aspects of morale building. Making personal connections
and relying on personal relationships were important ties within the community and
these were modelled by a passionate core group. The maintenance of a distributed
leadership was an effective part of this personal connection. Executive awareness
proved interesting in that the community’s bootlegged past and institutionalized future
were both rated as important.
Common Ties
Figure 4.22 shows the key components of common ties for CC were
situatedeness, value, relationship to the larger community, and values. Situatedness, as
the highest rated condition, was steeped in the practical gains that came from
community engagement.

Bronwyn Stuckey

Percentage of component coding 30%
25%
1 Situatedness
20% 2 Value
15%
4 Purpose
10% 5 Focus
6 Diversity
5%
7 Accreditation and recognition
0% 8 Values
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 Cutting edge
Conditions
Figure 4.22 Plot of conditions rated for COMMON TIES in CC
Topics and sub-communities formed around issues currently important to the

membership. Value was recognized in practical ways as well as for understanding the
value of the shared understandings and cultural change members were making. Ties to
the CC community also came through the core values it embodied, values important to a
professional military community.
Table 4.9 lists the individual conditions ranked most highly in the data analysis
as core conditions identified within CompanyCommand.com. Once again while place
proved the highest ranked category of issues, functionality of social interaction was the
highest individually ranked issue. Much of this functionality centered on creating
interdependence amongst members through conversation, story telling, reflective
practices and mentoring. Tools were significant in as much as they supported sharing
information and thinking together.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 4.9
Highest ranked conditions for the CompanyCommand.com community
Conditions
1. Functionality (SI)
2. Roles (Pe)
3. Tools (Pl)
5. Value (CT)
6. Reliability (Pl)
7. Relate to larger community (CT)
8. Evolution (Pl)
9. Modality (SI)
10. Profiles (Pe)
Interestingly the community’s relation to the larger community was a significant

issue. It was autonomy from and as an inspiration to that larger community while being
able to scrupulously embody the core values of the wider military community that was
significant. Community reliability was rated highly, established through its high quality
resources and the creation of a safe environment (also bound up in the community’s
autonomy and boundaries) for discourse.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.3.3. Heuristic Case 3: MirandaNet Fellowship
4.3.3.1. The MirandaNet case narrative
We had suddenly been plunged into a very different world from the narrow
horizons of our individual schools. We found that we actually knew more than
some of the experts. We were even asked to write chapters for books. Now
anything seemed possible eight years on and everyone involved in that original
project is now a significant figure, to a greater or lesser extent, in the world of
ICT. It comes as a pleasurable shock to be told you are regarded as an expert in
your given field! (Franklin, 2002 para. 4 - member personal reflection)
Introduction
The MirandaNet Fellowship has been operating for 12 years bringing educators
together to carry out action research in schools. The domain of this community is
innovative practice in teaching and learning with ICTs. To this end, MirandaNet does
more than draw people together in conversation spaces; the community supports people
in working together in collaborative action research projects. The Director described the
community as building the capacity for excellence and innovation in education
internationally.
MirandaNet has a healthy relationship with industry in the UK and this is part of
why its community has been so long lived and successful. The community came about
in a period when the professional status of teachers was in question and teacher
retention was poor (Dolton & van der Klaauw, 1995; Dolton & van der Klaauw, 1999).
MirandaNet developed the resources through its industry sponsorship to fund teacher
involvement in research programs. For teachers this meant classroom release, support
and recognition as a highly regarded professional (Litchfield, n.d; Preston & Van der
Loo, 2005).
MirandaNet operates on one level as a research consultancy providing advice to
education, industry and government. It does this by carrying out research, not rooted

Bronwyn Stuckey
solely in academe, but through partnerships with classroom teachers in schools where
teachers are research partners. “What MirandaNet does is to provide an innovative and
inclusive forum for the agents of change. This is achieved through peer mentoring and
action research strategies” (Cuthell, 2005 p.324). This recognition of classroom teacher
expertise and teachers as researcher partners is pivotal to the community.
Background
In 1992 the now Director of MirandaNet, moved to the Institute of Education at

the University of London, when the Inner London Computing Centre closed. She
initiated the original research project under Toshiba sponsorship, called the Miranda
Project that involved 15 Toshiba Scholars. At the close of the project five of the
Scholars expressed a desire to maintain the relationships that had been established. So
it was that MirandaNet was born. Today the community has in excess of 250 members
and chapters spread around the globe. International MirandaNet has Fellows in more
than 15 countries. There are currently seven locally-based chapters run by Fellows in
Australia, Bulgaria, China, the Czech Republic, England, Ireland and Northern Ireland.
When MirandaNet began, information and communication technology was an
area of education that seemed ripe for community-based professional development
(Cox, Preston, & Cox, 1999; Cuthell, 2005; Preston & Van der Loo, 2005). There were
many new practices, tools and artifacts to take on board. Teachers were ready to move
into exploring Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Yet, there was
relatively little funding devoted to professional development in this area and teachers
sought to gain experience using these tools as part of their teaching and learning
practices. It was a sufficiently different and then a novel aspect of curriculum and
pedagogy, that it was seen as requiring a community to find the answers. Innovation
required more than a coming together of early adopters to discuss using technology.
MirandaNet was able to take the practice to those early adopters.
Beyond using the tools, MirandaNet extended an opportunity to research and
publish, not usually afforded teachers working in a school. “The opportunity for creative
collaboration within a learning space is often in sharp contrast to the working
environment of the curriculum delivery, administration and meetings” (Cuthell, 2002, p.
3). For academics MirandaNet offered new partnerships with teachers. And for industry

Bronwyn Stuckey
it offered ways to have technology piloted and evaluated in authentic environments with
committed educators.
People
MirandaNet is managed by a small secretariat consisting of the Director and

founder, a web editor, an administration manager, and a Fellowship secretary. The
Fellowship activity is overseen by an Advisory Council made up of 25-30 very senior
academics, technologists, industry representatives, and government agency and
education system representatives from across the United Kingdom.
The Director, Christina Preston was well known in the Educational ICT area, both
in academic and industry circles, well before she launched the MirandaNet Fellowship.
It is largely her passion and vision, and on many occasions her personal finances, that
guided, buoyed and prodded the community into the level of respect it now holds in the
UK educational sector.
The MirandaNet infrastructure is underpinned by a discrete three-tiered structure
and a clear pathway to a role in the community core. This structure is outlined in table
4.10.
Table 4.10
The progression and change in status in the MirandaNet Fellowship
Status Role Activities
Fellow • Advisory Consultancy in funded projects

• Academic Mentoring
• Industry Speaking and presenting
Scholar Qualifying route to Implementing local action research

Fellowship program
Publishing findings in the community
Member Entry point to the Peripheral participation through to project

community membership. Access to events, dialogue and
resources.
This progression begins with application, or recommendation by an existing

member. An accepted member begins with Member status which allows them to enter
into the discourse of the community. They have full access to the e-mail list, newsletters
Bronwyn Stuckey
and web site profile and published resources of the community. They may then move to
become Scholars. Scholars are encouraged to carry out a local action research projects
and to publish their findings to the community. The Scholars are supported in their
research endeavors by a mentor from the community’s senior tier; the Fellows. Scholars
may seek funding from the community to attend community events as further support
on their qualifying route to Fellowship status. A scholar’s research and findings are
reviewed by members of the Fellowship and on satisfactory completion Scholars will
publish their findings over the community web site. Having met collaboration and
publication obligations to the community, a Scholar may then be awarded a Fellowship.
Fellows are the inner circle of mentors to the community. Fellows may hold office in
specific areas as Consultant Fellows, Mentor Fellows or Speaker Fellows. Being a
Fellow in MirandaNet is regarded as a both prestigious and very marketable in terms of
a curriculum vitae and as proof positive of accomplishment in teaching with ICTs.
It is worth examining briefly the role of the Consultant Fellows as consultancy
and funding is a key enabler in this community’s ongoing work. The community
leadership for research projects is supported by a Core Team of Fellows. This team
includes project consultants; senior associates, consultants and academics with various
ICT specializations. Project consultants are highly respected leaders, practitioners and
researchers in the field of educational technology and active Fellows in the MirandaNet
community.
Partnerships are a key in the MirandaNet Fellowship. Some partnerships evolve
through the prescribed structure of the community and the attendant roles. Members, as
they progress to Fellow, are able to operate in collaborative groups as mentors, peer
reviewers, buddies, team members and leaders. Partnerships also exist at senior and
executive levels with the educational institutions, government agencies and vendor
groups. These partnerships are actualized through the community dialogue, research
projects, the Advisory Board membership and funding opportunities. A large part of the
attraction for these highly respected senior partners, at least in the early days, was the
credibility and high regard in which the community founder was held in this domain.
She had been a very successful educational software developer and researcher and had
established relationships with many of these organizations in past collaborations.
Twelve years later the attraction for new members is the high regard with which the
total community is held. This respect is in part due to the caliber of its membership, but

Bronwyn Stuckey
also due to the community’s reputation for consistently producing high quality research
from authentic contexts.
The Director’s role as leader, sponsor and champion and her interaction in this
community cannot be overstated. She has worked to generate projects, tenders and
professional development opportunities for the community. The Director described her
role as sometimes being a matchmaker between the community partners and
international relationships. Because of those efforts this community’s finance and
support affords the collaborative professional activity of the members.
Members develop their profiles and status through opportunities for discussion,
research and publication, project team work, presentation and shows, mentoring and
leadership in the community. The leadership role of Fellows is integral to the
community’s ability to realize a research capacity. Fellows work as leaders,
collaborators, mentors and peer reviewers for fellow members. Scholars and Fellows,
working in a voluntary capacity, often present on behalf of MirandaNet and the
corporate partners at conferences, workshops and trade exhibitions.
Common Ties
MirandaNet has a clearly articulated purpose. This is best expressed in the

community’s mission statement. “MirandaNet strives to enrich the lifelong learning of
professionals involved in education. Using advanced technologies the Fellowship spans
social, vocational, cultural and political divide to create lifelong learning solutions for
the education marketplace” (Cuthell, 2005, p. 324). The community norms have a clear
view of teachers as professionals and the members work to have teachers operate in the
roles and activities accorded that professional status.
There are issues of timing that have contributed to MirandaNet’s successful
development. The climate was right for teachers to find a stage for celebration of their
practice and gain professional acclaim (C. Preston, communication, Dec 20, 2003). The
way in which industry and education in the UK have become such effective
collaborators might also be quite unique. The British government has actively worked
to build good relations between technology manufacturers and vendors and the bastions
of education and research (C. Preston, communication, Dec 20, 2003). Against this
climate MirandaNet was able to establish a collaborative environment that represents a
win-win for all parties with no compromise in the values of either. The Industry

Bronwyn Stuckey
Partners are leading technology corporations the caliber of Toshiba, Promethean and
Actis in the United Kingdom. These partners may fund projects or offer leading edge
technology for school-based pilots.
Teachers work as evaluators and researchers and the industry provides the
technology and resources to enable the research projects. No product endorsements are
built and teacher recommendations serve to describe effective ways to incorporate new
technologies into constructivist classroom pedagogies. Teachers are clearly the
beneficiaries as MirandaNet establishes them as collaborators and researchers able to
publish valued work for their peers. In this way the MirandaNet Fellowship is grounded
in classroom action research programs. The community is able to leverage the long
standing partnerships between academic institutions, schools and technology
corporations that have developed within the community, to carry out large and small
scale research programs.
MirandaNet’s activity is clearly situated in schools and authentic contexts for the
integration of ICTs. This situativity makes MirandaNet’s research capability compelling
for teacher researchers, academics and technology vendors alike. The community
founder described the community activity as being “working groups of people moving
forward together” (community director). The supportive culture of the community
shines through when at the tenth birthday party, in a discussion of the community
traditions of the community, participants said they felt this was a place to take risks and
people would be there to support them in that. They described it as “jumping off a cliff
with their eyes closed”.
Project-based activities have included a wide variety of technologies and groups
over the twelve years of the community’s life to date. Two examples of the community
involvement in research can be seen in the Scoop and Interactive Whiteboard projects.
Members trialed the Scoop technology (now called Think.com) designed by Oracle, as a
tool for educational communities. Over a year members reflected on and made explicit
their requirements for such a community tool and the designers were given feedback
and ideas for refinements. In another project, the Fellowship, and partners
Schoolscape@Future EU Minerva project and Promethean Interactive Whiteboards,
established a professional development program for teachers, in the use of the latest
whiteboard technology. From this professional development, teachers in turn, developed
case studies and resources which were shared throughout the community. MirandaNet’s
project and research activity develops knowledge for the community and each project in
Bronwyn Stuckey
turn gifts resources, in the form of reports, case studies and curriculum plans, to its
members and the wider educational community. This publishing raises the profile of the
community and furthers its capacity to attract partners, clients and members.
The goal has been to develop individuals, effective teams and partnerships, and
the capacity of the profession with regard to the use of ICTs in education. This goal and
community model is replicated in each of the six additional MirandaNet chapters
spawned about the globe. Each chapter is headed by a local academic chair and is built
on the MirandaNet Fellowship multi-partnered, multi-level structure.
Social Interaction
People feel that they grow by having people who are equally interested in the
area to talk to. A lot of them know someone, through the meetings, in the
associations who knows something about what they want to know. People
gradually become expert in one area or another and people ask them for advice.
(Community Director)
People rarely leave this community. It has maintained a steady growth pattern
over 12 years from the opening five members to the current 250 -300 members. There is
ebb and flow in terms of their level of activity and working party involvement but there
was clear evidence, from the stories told at the tenth birthday party of the community,
that members deeply value their ongoing association.
The MirandaNet Fellowship, by virtue of its structure and norms, develops strong
ties and interdependency between the members, clients and partners. This is a small
selective and clearly bounded community with less than 300 members. The two-tiered
framework of Scholars and Fellows creates mentoring and leadership relationships
amongst peers. The research project partnerships, between people in different
educational contexts, create strong bonds between members as they come to rely on and
relate to each other when working together. Members build individual and group
knowledge and capacity through their relationship with each other.
There are both public and closed forums on the Internet site to support members’
thinking and working together. Through their membership in MirandaNet members
have the opportunity to explore new practices with cutting edge ICTs in a consultative
organization, where professionals talk, listen and work together. Whether in an industry,
academic or advisory capacity, MirandaNet Fellows all work to provide services for

Bronwyn Stuckey
each other and ‘reify’ (Wenger, 2002) their practices in artifacts shared over the public
site with the larger external educational community.
Participants in MirandaNet projects and research activities are able to publish
work in a professional arena and to build up a status amongst their peers. At any one
time there may be between five and twelve independent projects supported by the
community. Project bidding was a major part of the director’s role until a person was
hired to concentrate on winning bids. Unless specialist knowledge is required, most
project teams are formed by sending out information to the community and asking who
wants to be involved. The community is selective in the types of projects in which it
engages. Companies do vie for MirandaNet to work with them but the director clearly
stated that some products and/or company cultures were not considered good enough for
MirandaNet to work with.
Through involvement in MirandaNet, teachers don’t have to leave the classroom
to reflect on their practice and to gain support for innovation. Members are afforded the
opportunities to work as a leader within their own school and across project related
schools.
For educators this community offers substantive support in the use of the most
current ICTs through:
• A forum for educators to take ownership of professional dialogue and exchange
with colleagues locally and internationally
• Joint ownership of a growing knowledge base about the use of ICT in teaching
and learning
• Opportunities for presentation and publication by professionals for professionals
• Shared contributions and research findings about teaching and learning
• Educational web resources recommended for teachers by teachers
• Openings for peer e-mentoring and peer review of e-journal articles
• Recognition and soon to be implemented accreditation for achievement with
ICTs in teaching and learning.
There is a constant flow of messages, relating to project updates and new topics
for discussion, between members over the community e-mail list and private discussions
of the Miranda Link. This flow is punctuated and focused by the monthly e-mail
newsletter. The newsletter draws member attention to reports and updates form current
activities, educational policy updates and changes, funding opportunities and
Bronwyn Stuckey
engagement opportunities. This community keeps members up-to-date with new

government initiatives and priorities in relation to ICTs in education and discussion in
the community has been used to formulate responses to media coverage, government
press releases and ministerial requests.
The rhythm and connection of the community is further supported by face-to-face
workshop and events held throughout the year. The workshops help members to stay
abreast of the cutting edge technologies and pedagogical practices in school and
curriculum areas. Face-to-face events in MirandaNet also allow members to socialize.
The organizers have deliberately made face-to-face activities very social and
entertaining and to treat the teacher members well when they come together. This is
important to both teacher professional esteem and the development of ties within the
community. Indeed the community director reported that MirandaNet gatherings were
very highly regarded for being fun, motivational and opportunities for celebration. In
the words of the community director “I deliberately make that a part of raising teachers’
self esteem. We do have a very serious entertainment side to the whole thing.”
Place
Network communities are a form of technology-mediated environments that foster

a sense of community among users. One of the design dimensions of network
communities is developing a sense of persistent, shared space as an environment
that frames the presence of multiple actors and provides mutual awareness. The
shared space of a network community offers the potential for verbal and non-
verbal communication at all times, but the space does not exist only when explicit
communication is taking pace. There is a “there” there, even when participants are
quiet or absent’ (Cuthell, 2005 p.322).
This community is largely based on a hybrid of activity, preferring to organize

face-to-face events wherever possible. The community organizes five or more seminars
a year, depending on the availability of funding. Personal relationships and
professionalism are cemented and celebrated in these workshops and other face-to-face
events like the ten-year party held in 2002.
MirandaNet Fellowship has two Internet-mediated communication systems. The
public site MirandaNet is open to the broader educational community. A large number
of the resources of the MirandaNet Fellowship are available over the public side of the

Bronwyn Stuckey
community web site. It is accessed by over 1000 visitors a week seeking resources and
advice. The most accessed parts of the community site are the member profiles with
associated partnerships and the case studies. The community resources, projects and
publications link to the priorities and standards of, and are linked on, the National Grid
for Learning, an English Government Clearinghouse of educational resources.
Table 4.11
Opportunities for engagement in the MirandaNet Fellowship community
• Noticeboard • Resources
• The Fellowship • Publications
• The Consultancy • International
• World Ecitizens • Research
• Company Partners • Professional Development
• News & Events • Forums
• Newsletter • Database of Scholars, Fellows & Partners
• Professional reading and reviews • website links
• Project and research reports • Registration and advertising for seminars and workshops
• Member • Scholar
• Fellow • Consultant Fellow
• Mentor Fellows • Speaker Fellows
• Advisory Council member • Industry partner
• International chair • Project leader
MirandaLink is the community’s private or closed conference system. Since 1999,

the community has been in partnership with Oracle sculpting the facilities of Think.com
to build the community interface and tools. This partnership has allowed the
community to develop customized tools and interfaces and to focus resources in face-to-
face activity wherever possible.
The community consultancy actively generates its funding through bids for
research projects, pilots of new technology, advice on policy development, and the
creation of local and international partnerships. The community has been successful in
tenders for government and industry projects and has lately been the one of the key
consultancies invited to tender for strategic projects in England. In a recent program
where teacher innovators were nominated for an e-learning project, ten of the forty
accepted participants were MirandaNet Fellows. The partnerships and consultative
projects are a major part of what sustains the activity of this community and makes
engagement equally worthwhile for members and partners. At the most grassroots level,
the funding that the community attracts for action research and pilot programs, is often

Bronwyn Stuckey
able to release teachers for short periods of time, compensate them for expenses, and
support the school with resources. In some circumstances the technology piloted in the
research, for instance laptops, may be retained in the school after the research is
completed.
The community management and Scholars have worked over the past twelve
years to position MirandaNet as an expert advisory body in the field of educational
technology. The passion and vision of the Director and now the Directors of the seven
International Fellowships have sustained the currency and relevance of each community
to both its teacher members and the industry sponsors. Constantly bidding for projects
and seeking industry funding is a large task but the activity of MirandaNet could never
be sustained without it. It is highly unlikely that an unfunded and wholly volunteer
organization could, over twelve short years, develop the professional profile and
credibility that MirandaNet currently holds.
4.3.3.2. The MirandaNet case statistical summary
Ranking the components
The percentages shown in Table 4.12 represent the percentage of all coded items
for this case attributed to each of the four community components. Most notably place
and common ties are far out weighed by social interaction and people. Unlike CC
where place and social interaction were almost evenly rated, in MN social interaction
and people are the stand out components for this community. Interesting place was very
lowly ranked with greatest sense of place being derived for this IMCoP from the rich
face-to-face program of the community.
Table 4.12
Component Freq. %
People 326 29%
Common ties 222 20%
Social interaction 380 34%
Place 183 16%
TOTAL 1111

Bronwyn Stuckey
Figure 4.23 represents the overall distribution of issues identified in the

MirandaNet Fellowship social interaction in this community is largely focused on
interdependency, collaboration, publishing and research activities.
People
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Place Common ties
Social interaction
Figure 4.23: The percentage of nodes in the MN rich text coding attributed to each of
Roles in this community were clearly structured and centered on members (active
and peripheral), leaders and partners. Social interactions in the community were
predominantly project-based. Maintaining opportunities for high and low levels of
commitment from members was important in keeping members engaged in the
community. Funding played a significant role in establishing place for MirandaNet as
the community and its status was largely due to the collaborative project work and face-
to-face offered to members.
(highest percentage of coded items to lowest) for the MN. The respective core

Bronwyn Stuckey
Social interaction
Key conditions with respect to social interaction were functionality and modality.
The aspects of functionality that rated most highly were collaboration, interdependency,
publishing and resource development carried out by members within the community.

1 Modality
2 Currency
3 Familiarity and excitement
70%
4 Levels
60%
50%
5 Functionality
6 Rhythm
coding
40%
30% 7 Fun factor
10% 9 Etiquette
0%
10 Motives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 Social interaction/Professional and social
Conditions 12 Social interaction/Reporting
Figure 4.24 Plot of conditions rated for SOCIAL INTERACTION in MN
The project based mode of interaction rated strongly in this community where
consultative and personal research projects are core. The variation in levels of
commitment and engagement, from full project work, mentoring to online discourse and
workshops, proved important. The community rhythm is supported by news and a series
of workshops and gatherings spread throughout the year.
People
Figure 4.25 demonstrates that roles were highly significant in MN. In particular
the community focus was on the roles of partners, members active and peripheral and
leaders.
60%
component coding
50%
Percentage of
1 Roles
40%
30%
3 Time
20%
4 Ties
10%
5 Profiles
0%
6 Leadership
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 Sponsorship
Conditions 8 Management support
Figure 4.25 Plot of conditions rated for PEOPLE in MN

Bronwyn Stuckey
The community profile in the external world and individual profiles developed
within the community also rated as important. Development of leadership and morale
were also noted aspects of profiles. Sponsorship also rated highly in this community
where grants and tendered projects support the community efforts. Sponsorship was
bolstered by the relationship of the community to the larger educational and political
context.
Common ties
Figure 4.26 demonstrates that the highest ranked conditions for common ties were
situatedness, value and accreditation and recognition. Situatedness firstly related to
supporting a climate of change and new teacher professionalism. Other aspects of
situativity were the currency of the topics and sub-communities (project teams) that
formed around important issues.

25%
1 Situatedness
20%
2 Value
15% 3 Relate to larger community
coding
10% 4 Focus
5 Purpose
5% 6 Diversity
0% 7 Accreditation and recognition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 Values
Conditions 9 Cutting edge
Figure 4.26 Plot of conditions rated for COMMON TIES in MN
The highest ranked conditions for common ties were situatedness, value and
accreditation and recognition. Situatedness firstly related to supporting a climate of
change and new teacher professionalism. Other aspects of situativity were the currency
of the topics and sub-communities (project teams) that formed around important issues.
Value was found in a balance of group and individual aspects such as individual agency
and shared understandings. Wanting to be on the cutting edge using ICTs in the
classroom was also a common tie for members in this community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Place
Figure 4.27 shows that the key conditions for place in MN were tools, resourcing,
ownership and inside and outside community exchanges. Tools were used for sharing
information, networking and were largely centrally implemented.

1 Around people
2 Resources
3 Evolution
18%
16%
4 Tools
10% 7 Ownership
8%
6%
8 Reliability
4% 9 Navigation
2% 10 Promotion
0% 11 Status
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 History and context
Conditions 13 Resourcing
14 Personal touches
Figure 4.27 Plot of conditions rated for PLACE in MN
Resourcing mostly related to funding which is a high priority to support the

community in its project and consultancy work. Ownership was embodied in the
community’s democratic processes and in the member progression through to consultant
fellow. The flow of knowledge across community boundaries was important in making
the community relevant to the profession, domain and workplace o members Reliability
while rated less highly was important in terms of the quality of resources and the
stability of the community.
The priorities demonstrated in Figure 4.23 vary markedly from those of the two
preceding cases. People and social interaction far outrank either common ties or place.
The decreased priority on place may in part be attributed to the high level of face-to-
face activity in this community. There is less need to establish a ‘where’ online when
the group has a physical sense of the place. Table 4.13 lists the individual issues ranked
most highly in the data analysis within the MirandaNet Fellowship.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 4.13
Highest ranked issues for the MirandaNet Fellowship
Conditions
2. Roles (Pe)
4. Profiles (Pe)
5. Value (CT)
6. Modality (SI)
7. Leadership (Pe)
9. Sponsorship (Pe)
10. Tools (Pl)
The most significant issue was functionality; what people were able do together.
The most significant interactions supported collaboration, interdependency, publishing,
research, mentoring and consultation. The community activity was situated in cutting
edge topics of interest to members. The integral nature of the community’s profile, with
relation to the larger community, and its project-based research was clearly significant.
The community was seen as a place for ‘first in community’ knowledge while
maintaining a strong relationship to the rituals of the larger community. Core values
ranked highly in the conditions within this community and served to model and embody
the community’s goals of professionalism. The fun factor was also part of those core
values in this community. Members valued the personal agency they developed through
engagement in the community’s activities and being recognized for their
accomplishments.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.3.4. Heuristic Case 4: Government Online International Network
4.3.4.1. The GOL-IN case narrative
The Government Online International Network’s recent report, Online

Consultation in GOL Countries: Initiatives to Foster e-Democracy, offers one of
the best analyses of U.S. progress toward inclusive policy formulation within
federal agencies. (America Speaks, 2002 p.17)
Introduction
The Government Online International Network (GOL-IN) community began

with a group of civil servants who decided to continue meeting after the completion of
their G7-sponsored information technology project. The members’ informal contact
with colleagues in other governments had been an opportunity to share and build
knowledge about current and future technology issues facing their own national
governments. The community, as it stood in 2004 had a bounded membership limited
to senior civil servants working in e-government and with a limited representation for
each country. Twenty five different government agencies and their members present the
diverse issues, perspectives and concerns facing their respective national governments.
In a global perspective this community is considered a mature high-level international
forum. The project and research outcomes of the community are highly valued and
referenced in the e-government sector worldwide (America Speaks, 2002).
Background
The predecessor to this community started in 1993 as a very formal entity

connected to the G7. The prime ministers of G7 countries had decided there should be a
concerted effort to share knowledge on the issue of online government. When the G7
project finished and presented its final report, the members said that they wanted to
continue, basically as an informal community of practice. Members sought to maintain
the connections but in a more informal environment for collaboration with more of a
focus on personal learning than was available in existing OECD or EU networks. The

Bronwyn Stuckey
GOL-IN community had no formal funding or sponsorship but was entirely dependent
upon the commitment of resources, human and other, by each of the international
member agencies. Member nations drew benefits from the boundary crossing of GOL-
IN members and knowledge between this community and their respective agencies.
People
To reflect its all-volunteer nature the community has a clearly defined structure
and simple infrastructure. It is a requirement that members are civil servants working in
the field, and each country has only one official representative. This person is the
primary point of contact for communications, contributions and membership approval
for their agency and nation. This official representative’s role is fairly informal and can
be handed on from one person to another in the agency if a representative changes
agencies or jobs. Other members may be proposed to the group through that national
representative. For example the US has six additional members while Sweden has four.
Membership is strictly for civil servants and a number of consultants have been refused
membership by each successive chair. This was important as members described having
a degree of intimacy knowing that everyone was a civil servant. There were things they
can do in the group that they may not do otherwise. Each respective agency funds the
time and involvement of its members.
There was no recruitment process for new member governments, although new
countries do join from time to time. New member countries and representatives are
negotiated and approved within the community. In 2002 the government of Fiji found
Government Online International Network on the web and e-mailed the chair. A few e-
mail s back and forth and the country and representing agency were invited to join. The
makeup of the network did not need to be representative, neither in country
membership, nor in member agencies in those countries. It was suggested by the
webmaster that, at their level of seniority many of the members had known each other
for a number of years but there were still small numbers of new representatives and
governments joining the community.
The community engagement is supported by an international chair, agency
sponsors, members, champions and project leaders and a webmaster. The official
language of the community is English. Given the diversity of cultural backgrounds of
members and the nations represented, language and translation is a serious issue to

Bronwyn Stuckey
overcome in interaction in this community. The English-speaking countries do tend to

share more than other countries, partly because they don’t have to translate reports,
papers and other resources.
The chair oversees the activity of the community and this responsibility is
passed on to a new country after a period of time (one to two years). Canada fielded the
first chair, then England, then Sweden, and Korea in 2004. One person was nominated
as the key representative for each country and becomes a core group member and the
single point of entry for their country in this community.
This is a very stable group with a small turnover in membership. When a
national contact leaves, it is usual for that retiree to appoint someone new. This is an
implicit process because there is no real process for applying to be part of the core
group. Membership of the core is handled in more subtle and informal ways and
jealously guarded. Many of the members of this community are very senior managers
and very busy people. They may delegate other agency staff to work on community
tasks. While the membership and activity is voluntary, for most people, it was not like
people were using spare time or positioning their engagement as part of their primary
work. Allocation of member time was largely dependent on the commitment and
discretion of the agency and this did change over time. They may have allocated time
for community engagement but it was still basically competing with national time.
Therefore this commitment varied a lot and depended on the perceived value of
community engagement within the member agency.
Each country’s representative agency sponsored the activity of their members
differently. In some cases the members themselves were very senior managers who
championed the work of the community back in the agency. The chair of the network,
for instance when Sweden was the chair, was also the Director-General of his agency.
There was automatic buy in for members in his agency and he allocated time for two
people to work on community goals. In other cases members may have to lobby
management for allocation of resources and time and justify their time in team budgets.
Some of the more energetic national representatives also serve to champion the work of
the community in other e-government contexts.
People do regard membership in the network as a community, more than as a
network or formal task force. Members reported having become quite close even though
they may only physically meet once or twice a year. There is a tension between
personal and agency learning goals and personal and agency agendas. For the majority
Bronwyn Stuckey
membership was a personal commitment with personal goals and personal learning
rewards while fulfilling a role as a government representative. For a smaller number
their role was primarily as government representative and they sought knowledge
returns primarily on their agency’s behalf.
The community activity was largely project focused and based on priorities
derived within the community itself. Participation in any of the community’s projects or
activities is completely voluntary. Opportunities for leadership arise in the project-based
focus of the community activity. Teams of people form around endorsed projects and
may work very closely together over the coming year. Two sets of recognition and
rewards were earned from effective engagement in the community. There was the
observable and explicit recognition gained within the community, and the recognition
other members didn’t see; the recognition gained back in one’s own agency for
community-developed knowledge and expertise.
Common ties
The tie that binds the members of this group is the development of e-
government. Representatives from some of the less technologically advanced or more
novice e-government countries may see membership largely as a vehicle for trend-
spotting. But for many people in this community they are actually setting the trends.
This is one reason that the community activity focuses around reifying knowledge
through tangible and explicit project outcomes.
There are different motivations for groups and agencies to be members of GOL-
IN and in turn for their representatives. Some of the core members and key people are in
this because they learn a lot themselves and they contribute to the community. At least
some see it as a necessary way to develop a shared practice to develop e-government.
There are a lot of challenges in this area and governments about the globe are grappling
with very similar issues. In some cases people will be working toward political or
national strategic goals with their community engagement. They may raise a topic in
the community for project work seeking to gain support for it in their agency. The
power of the community is such that attention to a topic in GOL-IN may in turn
influence that agenda in the local agency. It was suggested by the community informant
that this kind of politicking can be a risk to the network. At the same time it was
probably one of the motivators because members work more freely on or raise the

Bronwyn Stuckey
profile of their political or strategic goals through this network environment. “I get a
chance to influence tomorrow’s agenda” (GOL-IN community webmaster).
Typically a project leader, or one who becomes that, is the initiator of a project.
They make a proposal to a chair and contact a few others they know who would be
interested. Then back-channeling or when meeting in other contexts they share ideas for
projects. A project proposal is circulated at various stages to the whole network and
then discussed at the annual meeting. If of sufficient interest to the community at large
the project will be endorsed. Since this is a volunteer group, no one is refused to do a
project. It is often the case that the idea is important, not who proposed it. A person may
work on it by themselves if no one else is interested. Project teams may also invite
doctoral students to carry out the work of a project.
To some extent the members do not have a shared practice because the work
they do and the systems they use are hugely different. Members have overcome this
disparity through the long-term engagement of most members in the network. Members
have known each other for a number of years and have a shared history of learning
together. And while their systems, technical and political, might be vastly different they
develop a better understanding across the issues when they discuss them in this trusted
group. New generations of e-government practitioners are coming into the community
with different agendas to the ‘old guard’. This transition might be less destabilizing
than it seems as the community webmaster and online facilitator pointed out “Members
who are old hands to government but new to the community have good chance of
joining quickly and building up trust around them.” Access to the community’s history
and sharing appears to be vitally important for all.
Projects do gain recognition for the team members instrumental in the
development. The state of XML in government projects was an example of this, where
the whole group contributed to writing the report and each member was recognized for
that. However, the issues are the most important point of recognition within this
community. Members in this domain care more about seeing a topic raised than who it
was that raised it. As a norm members avoid explicitly declaring political goals as this
could cause the community to lose legitimacy. After all the EU has the arena to carry
out those more formal negotiations. This community is about personal learning and
informal agendas, even though they are inherently political. For the most part, perhaps
uniquely, people in this community do not highly rate personal recognition within the
community. More ideas are royalty-free than they might be perhaps in other research
Bronwyn Stuckey
communities. Members of GOL-IN may raise an issue in order to see it discussed

outside their workplace. Indeed in some instances members may provide information to
a project and taking a perspective contrary to that of their government. In this way the
member may use the community discourse to surface issues or garner evidence for a
position not able to be articulated in their own workplace. Members value the kudos or
gains their work in GOL-IN might raise in the local and national community.
Social interaction
The community meets in a three day face-to-face event once a year hosted by the
country of the current chair. This event marks the start of the next year’s activity and the
reporting phase of the previous year’s completed projects. The community will typically
endorse a small number of projects each year at this annual meeting and support those
projects with its own web space. The outcomes of projects are all eventually published
to the community and in the public arena.
The face-to-face meeting is integral to the goal setting and trajectory for the
community. The feedback on the community, its projects and member priorities are
determined in this event. In this way as the webmaster explained it “The annual meeting
takes the temperature of the group”. The face-to-face gathering also served to energize
and re-energize the community. The activity at this annual gathering supported a spirit
of community and camaraderie for the eighty strong group. This event was very well
attended by the membership and usually gathers 70 to 75 members. Usually the host
country sets the agenda for the first day (typically presenting a showcase of the
country’s e-government accomplishments) and the subsequent days are organized by the
community.
The community work parallels that of the OECD work that preceded it but is
now carried out in an informal network. Each year the community would focus on a
small number of issues. Members propose project topics and if there is a critical mass of
support and endorsement that project will be launched. The members proposing the
topic will take the role of project leader. Often project leaders will have national
projects in their agency or government on the same topics, else the agency might not
agree to allocate the time and resources required to be project leader
Communication between the annual meetings occurs mainly via the main e-mail
list, which has about 80 subscribers. The online communication is pivotal around this

Bronwyn Stuckey
community meeting. The face-to-face event causes a spike in the whole-of-community

online communication as the preparations for the meeting are made. It then switches to
small group communication after the event. The back-channel communication escalates
after the event as teams form and project leaders and members raise follow-up
questions. It is, however, recognized that civil servants, especially at this level of
seniority, will be judicial with the use of their time when they engage online. In most
months there would be less than twenty messages on the whole-of-community e-mail
list. The community webmaster suggested he had, “never been on a civil servant list
where we have too much activity, usually have too little activity”. Much of the
collaboration beyond the conference is based around the small group, tightly focused
less, visible communication required for project completion.
Usually there are several concurrent projects at any given point in time. Some
projects are quite ambitious and range from arranging a conference to writing a
significant research publication. Management of a distributed voluntary team is not like
managing formal working groups where you can assign people to work on a something
like a survey for 3 months. A commitment to the community appears to drive people to
complete project outcomes. This is evident in the positive track record of the
community’s completed projects published on the web site over the past five years.
Some examples of past community-based projects are:
• An e-democracy book in published in 1998. Community members were joined
by a doctoral student from Minnesota who did much of the writing. In this
project and others the project goal is realized with the support of a postgraduate
researcher/practitioner in the domain who was external to the community.
• A 56 page white paper on the Architecture of e-government. This project had
five people writing. Several of the important points emphasized in this paper
were drawn from or directly influenced by authors’ discussions and
consultations with members of the community. This project was very closely
related to the work the members were doing.
Although member agencies do sponsor the participation of individual members,

the emphasis in the community is on relationships between and learning for individual
members. The issues under discussion in the community may not at times have reached
a level of importance to be recognized by the participant agencies of members. Each
member must justify the time spent in community conversations and projects to their
Bronwyn Stuckey
own agency and each agency values and sponsors that time differently. In that sense,
the culture of each of the agencies represented serves to shape the community.
Place
The community itself does not receive any ongoing government funding or
rather is supported by the distributed sponsorship of all the member national agencies.
The community is largely sustained by the member nation agencies motivated by their
understanding of the possible return for committing staff time to the network.
In many of the member agencies, membership of this group is seen as
prestigious and powerful. Power and prestige may be gained by an agency having
knowledge before other national groups and by being the point of dissemination for
community knowledge.
The community meets only once a year as a whole and face-to-face in one of the
member countries. The remainder of the time, people used telephone, the community e-
mail list and project specific web sites to continue their collaborations and dialogue.
Some open forums were attempted, but did not attract member patronage. They were
never publicized and did not receive much attention from members. That was described
as one of the disadvantages of the community not having a central secretariat, or
specific funding at the centre to facilitate community wide activity. It was reported
quite ironically that most members don’t use the web very much other than to find
news. It may also be that for such senior executives ‘push’ rather than ‘pull’ technology
of forums are more familiar and appropriate to their work practices and time constraints.
Table 4.14 demonstrates the breadth and depth of engagement offered in the
community space.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 4.14
Opportunities for engagement in the GOL-IN community

• Email list • Private spaces
• Discussion • Search
• Resources • Links
• Meeting reports • Research papers
• Links • website links
• Forums
• Chair • web master
• National representative • Project leader
• Member • Project member
In 2004 there were 80 subscribers to main mailing list and each of the projects
can have its own list and a web space. Sometimes the community opens thematic lists,
but this has been sporadic. People from English speaking countries made up most of the
dialogue on the list. Many people in non-English speaking countries preferred either to
talk on the phone, share e-mail s and point to links. Much of this kind of back-channel
communication was not therefore captured or reflected in the visible community space.
It was considered by the webmaster that this would be a completely different
community if it was open to general public. “What we have is more ‘intimate’. The
boundaries are quite clearly set. We never said that we have Chatham-house rules. But
I know whenever I quote someone, I always ask. I would never forward something
without asking, although we’ve never discussed that”. Norms have clearly developed
and while the community is informal there is still a clear sensitivity to the highly
political nature of the domain and practices. It is definitely not the same politically
charged experience members might face in EU or OECD meetings where the agenda is
more about negotiation than personal learning. This community involves formal settings
but quite informal work and is clearly about collaborating and learning.
Working members and national representatives, who were more often in expert
rather than management positions, needed to gain buy-in from the management in their
agency to participate. The kind of work that this community involved members in was
difficult to fit into a formal government structure. People in this level of seniority in
public service were expected to produce project plans and budgets for all their activities.
It could be quite difficult to make a specific project plan for community involvement
because members never knew how much time could be required.

Bronwyn Stuckey
4.3.4.2. The GOL-IN case statistical summary
Figure 4.28 represents the overall distribution of issues identified in GOL-IN.

The data presents a similarly shaped set of priorities to the MirandaNet Fellowship with
people and social interaction far outranking place and common ties. Both communities
are employed a high level of face-to-face communication and were almost exclusively
project-based. The focus on people largely surrounded issues of roles of leaders,
members and representatives within the structured framework of the community and
projects. Social interaction functioned to build collaboration, publishing,
interdependency and research. Activity in the community was largely project-based and
linked to a yearly rhythm of events. Value in the community was attained on a personal
level even though member roles were to represent their respective government agencies.
Table 4.15
Component Freq. %
People 138 25%
Common ties 121 22%
Social interaction 170 31%
Place 125 23%
TOTAL 554
Figure 4.28 represents the overall distribution of issues identified in GOL-IN.

The percentages shown in Table 4.15 represent the percentage of all coded items for this
case attributed to each of the four community components.

Bronwyn Stuckey
People
40%
30%
20%
10%
Social interaction
Figure 4.28 The percentage of nodes in the GOL-IN rich text coding attributed to each
of the four community components.
(highest percentage of coded items to lowest) for the GOL-IN. The respective core
People
The key conditions for people, shown in Figure 4.29, were roles, profiles and
leadership. The voluntary nature of role adoption proved important for members,
leaders, and agency representatives. Profiles related to the community profile and
presence in the optical arena. Internally the distributed leadership for project activity
and research was also of some importance.

1 Roles
component coding

Percentage of
40% 3 Time
4 Ties
20%
5 Profiles
0% 6 Leadership
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 Sponsorship
Conditions 8 Management support
Figure 4.29 Plot of conditions rated for PEOPLE in GOL-IN

Bronwyn Stuckey
Common ties
Figure 4.30 illustrates that, of most significance to common ties in GOL-IN were
value, situatedness, and accreditation and recognition.
30% 1 Situatedness
component coding
2 Value
Percentage of
20% 3 Relate to larger community

4 Focus
10% 5 Purpose
0%
6 Diversity
7 Accreditation and recognition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8 Values
Figure 4.30 Plot of conditions rated for COMMON TIES in GOL-IN
Value was earned in personal and then agency/organizational value obtained by

representative members work in the community. Situatedness related to the boundaries
around the community and the somewhat exclusive and prestigious nature of
membership, representing organizational perspectives and politics. The relationship to
the larger community for GOL-IN focused on political relationships to agency
organizations and to make the community a place for fresh, first in community
information and inspiration. Also part of situativity was the practicality of the
knowledge and experience gained through community engagement. Accreditation and
recognition was external and extrinsic. While within the community, personal
recognition was not considered important, the authorship and recognition for the
community and represented organizations was politically important.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Social interaction
4.31 shows that, as with the prior cases, functionality in interaction rated most highly.

1 Modality
2 Currency
3 Familiarity and
component coding 40% excitement
Percentage of
30% 4 Levels
20% 5 Functionality
10% 6 Rhythm
0% 7 Fun factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
8 Generate content
9 Etiquette
12 Reporting
Figure 4.31 Plot of conditions rated for SOCIAL INTERACTION in GOL-IN
The functionality most valued was collaboration, publishing and, interdependency.

Modalities that were valued were the project-based nature of community activity and
the face-to-face opportunities in the annual conference. Levels of engagement were
important in terms of whole of community or small group activity, and the low level
commitment of e-mail dialog and high level commitment of project work. The
community rhythm was year, revolving around the annual conference, its lead up and
resultant project team activity.
Place
Figure 4.32 show that resources, tools, status and ownership were conditions of
importance too developing place in GOL-IN.
1 Around people
2 Resources
3 Evolution
component coding
25% 4 Tools
Percentage of

10% 7 Ownership
5% 8 Reliability
0% 9 Navigation
10 Promotion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
11 Status
Conditions 12 History and context
13 Resourcing
14 Personal touches
Figure 4.32 Plot of conditions rated for PLACE GOL-IN

Bronwyn Stuckey
Resources, tools, status and ownership were conditions of importance too

developing place in GOL-IN. Resources that were developed internally through
community collaborations were highly regarded. Tools used for sharing information that
were push technology and centrally implemented were important. The status,
recognition and reputation of the community and its member agencies were not the
highest priority but were integral to resourcing and member commitment. Ownership,
while a lesser condition was important for while members represented their respective
agencies, their personal learning was of primary importance.
Table 4.16 lists the individual conditions ranked most highly in the data analysis
within the GOL-IN community. They define a very limited membership and a
brokering role for members in relation to knowledge gained.
Table 4.16
Ranked issues for the Government Online International
Conditions
1. Roles (Pe)
3. Modality (SI)
5. Value (CT)
6. Levels (SI)
7. Resources (Pl)
8. Profiles (Pe)
10. Leadership (Pe)
The mode for activity in this community was almost exclusively project-based and
centered about a rhythm created by its annual conference. The community was focused
on collaboratively producing quality research outcomes. This community developed a
relationship to the wider community that was both political and synergistic while being
fresh and inspirational. Levels of interaction proved important in the community, not in
relation to what was on offer as much as to commitment allowed by the sponsoring
agency’s level of support. Boundaries were a significant part of establishing common

Bronwyn Stuckey
ties as they created exclusivity in the membership and status in the broker roles for
members and their agencies within their national context.
4.4. The value of the conceptual framework
The conceptual framework, beginning with Hillery’s four community

components, proved to be a very effective lens for examining and reporting on
community issues and in examining case data.
At the component level the researcher was able to distinguish aspects and issues
of the community portrayed in the case informant interview. The criteria provided by
the conditions in the framework alerted the researcher to these as they arose in the
interview data. In reporting and comparing case findings the framework gave the
language to describe attributes and conditions and to see their interrelated nature.

Bronwyn Stuckey

Bronwyn Stuckey
5. Cross case findings

5.1. Overview
Chapter 5 presents findings of the cross-case data analysis in answer to the three
remaining research questions:
IMCoPs?
The chapter serves to identify the conditions shared by all four communities and to
present them, in order of relative importance, within each of the four components;
people, common ties, social interaction and place. Because the research questions largely
rely on the same data, the findings for questions two and three are presented together as
they relate to each component.
The findings were arrived at through data coding and analysis using the
conceptual framework devised in this research. The conceptual framework is comprised
at the top level of four components (people, common ties, social interaction and place).
At the next level are conditions that surfaced within each component. Each condition
then in turn has a number of attributes to describe it. For example: the component
‘people’ had ‘leadership’ as one of its core conditions. And one key attribute of
‘leadership’ was the ‘passionate core group’ of the community.
Items in the rich text data were coded and the frequency of items and totals for
each case calculated. Then percentages for each case were calculated from frequency of
coded items in each component, condition and attribute. Percentages allowed the
findings for each case to be ranked and for high level comparison of statistical findings
across the four cases.
The findings of the research suggest there is a set of core conditions likely to be
found present in successful IMCoPs and that each of these conditions can be described
by a number of key attributes. In this chapter those core conditions are described with
the more detailed findings reserved for the attributes that define each condition. Where
Cross case findings 199 27/06/2008
Bronwyn Stuckey
considered most appropriate examples of community activity have been offered to

exemplify and concretize the conditions.
5.2. Core conditions
When the percentages of coded items were compared a pattern was established for
the relative importance of each community component. Table 5.1 offers the statistical
data in a table format. The full table of comparison of conditions for all four
communities is offered in Appendix S: Comparison of percentages of coded items for
conditions. Figure 5.1 offers graphical representation of the comparison of
components. It indicates a clear pattern across the four communities.
40%
35%
Percentage of coded items
30%
25% CCMD
GOL-IN
20%
MN
15% AFLC
10%
5%
0%
Components
Figure 5.1 Graphical comparison of component ranking in heuristic IMCoPs
Table 5.1
Statistical comparison of component ranking in heuristic IMCoPs
CCMD GOL-IN MN AFLC Average
People 21% 25% 29% 24% 25%
Common ties 23% 22% 20% 14% 20%
Social interaction 27% 31% 34% 31% 30%
Place 29% 23% 16% 31% 25%
Social interaction and then people consistently ranked highly. Common ties were
ranked the lowest component for 3 out of 4 IMCoPs. The ranking for place appeared
highly dependent on the community and the extent to which it relied on Internet-
mediated communication. Communities with the most communication carried out

Bronwyn Stuckey
online (AFLC and CC) ranked place more highly than those with an integral face-to-
face component (GOL-IN and MN). For instance place, at 16% of coded items, ranked
lowest of for MirandaNet but 29% and 31% for CCMD and the AFLC respectively. In
CCMD components were most evenly rated with all being between 21% and 29%. The
two lowest percentages were recorded in the two educational sector communities.
These were for place in MN and common ties in the AFLC.
The overall findings would suggest that social interaction, people, place and
common ties, in that order, are important in IMCoP development. In answer to research
questions 2 and 3 this section examines each of the component conditions, identifying
related key attributes and extrapolating from these the ways in which community
management contributed to the development of these conditions. Table 5.2 presents
the summary results from the rich text data coding and analysis. The most frequently
coded conditions for each component are presented in rank order, based on percentages
averaged across the four communities.
Table 5.2
Relative ranking of conditions when percentages were averaged across IMCoPs
People Common Ties Social Interaction Place
1. Roles* (46%) 1. Situatedness* (23%) 1. Functionality* 1. Tools* (17%)
(47%)
2. Profiles* (15%) 2. Value* (21%) 2. Modality* (18%) 2. Reliability* (10%)
3. Leadership* (9%) 3. Relate to larger 3. Levels* (8%) 3. Resourcing* (9%)

community* (20%)
4. Sponsorship* (8%) 4. Values* (8%) 4. Rhythm* (7%) 4. Evolution* (8%)
5. Time* (7%) 5. Accreditation and 5. Generate content* 5. Resources* (8%)

recognition* (6%) (4%)
6. Executive awareness 6. Cutting edge* (6%) 6. Reporting (4%) 6. Public and private*
(6%) (8%)
7. Ties (5%) 7. Focus* (6%) 7. Motives (3%) 7. Ownership* (8%)
8. Management support 8. Diversity (5%) 8. Etiquette (3%) 8. Status* (8%)

(3%)
9. Purpose (4%) 9. Professional and 9. Promotion (7%)
social (2%)
10. Fun factor (2%) 10. Inside and outside
(6%)
11. Familiarity and 11. History and context
excitement (1%) (5%)
12. Currency (1%) 12. Around people
(3%)
13. Personal touches
(2%)
14. Navigation (1%)

Bronwyn Stuckey
Conditions, marked with an asterisk, made up approximately 80% of their

respective component, and are referred to from this point as the core conditions. For
each of these conditions key attributes presented that led to better understanding of
diversity of ways in which the condition was lived out in successful communities. These
findings also offered insight into the extent to which community managers or conveners
were able to exert influence on the development of each condition.
In three of the four community components people, common ties and social
interaction, the first five to seven conditions delivered over 80 % of the coded items.
That is to say that the top five to seven conditions listed in Table 5.1 were on average of
greater importance than those that followed.
An exception arose for aspects of place which presented both a far less
homogenous pattern across the four communities and on average a less dramatic
difference in frequency for each condition. After the top single item; tools, the next
eight items were on average of roughly equally rank. The findings for these eight place-
related items will be examined and it must be recognized that, because of the closeness
of their percentages, the rank order may be less relevant because of the small size of the
differences.
The section that follows will unpack the core conditions and their key attributes.
The general finding for each condition is considered, then the management contribution
to that condition is discussed. Finally the plausibility of the finding is raised in relation
to the remaining eight exemplar cases. The management and plausibility sections are
not intended to offer exhaustive listings of all the contexts in which these conditions
were observed, but a sample representative of the key attributes, commonalities,
interesting idiosyncrasies and counter cases.
Each of the conditions is explored individually but the findings show that these
conditions are highly interrelated and interdependent. They can only be considered as a
set of core conditions. As plausibility testing shows, not all these conditions will be
considered equally in all communities but the core set does appear to be important for
consideration in all communities. Within each condition the key attributes also varied
for each community. While the core conditions may have been considered important
across all communities how it was instantiated was sometimes distinctly different in
each community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.1. Core conditions for PEOPLE
The people component of community encompasses all aspects of individuals,

identity, and what people bring to the community. Figure 5.2 illustrates the close
comparative importance of conditions for this component.

60% 1 Roles
Percentage of coded

3 Time
40% CCMD 4 Ties
items
30% GOL-IN 5 Profiles

20% MN 6 Leadership
10% AFLC
7 Sponsorship
0% 8 Management support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Conditions
Figure 5.2 Comparison of relative importance across heuristic cases for conditions
within the people component of community.
The graph demonstrates a clear pattern of resonance across the communities

with respect to the relative importance of each of the eight conditions. Conditions
arising were analyzed to identify the key attributes present for each. Table 5.3 relates
people conditions to their commonly observed attributes. These conditions and
attributes are examined in the sections that follow.
Table 5.3
People: Core conditions and related key attributes presented in rank order
Core conditions Key attributes
Roles (1) Important roles: members (active and peripheral), facilitators,
administration, stakeholders, partners, mentors, advisors and initiators
Structured opportunity for voluntary and paid role uptake.
Profiles (6) Building a personal profile through interaction within the community.
Building presence and morale.
Having a strong community profile.
Leadership (7) Strong distributed leadership program with a respected and passionate core.
Sponsorship (8) Either evangelist started or as part of a program, partnership or agency.
Time (4) Time to engage and recognition of members’ time

Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.1.1. Roles
Roles proved to be one of the most highly ranked conditions in all four
communities. The existence of roles, their types, whether voluntary or paid in nature,
and how they were structured all arose as important attributes of this condition. Most
highly ranked across all communities were the roles of active members, leaders,
facilitators, representatives, thought leaders, administrators, partners and peripheral
members. All community mangers distinguished active and peripheral members even if
only to express concern at the level of active membership, described consistently as
being between as 5% and 15% of total membership. Other roles highlighted as
relatively important but less consistently so were champions, mentors, sponsors,
resource developers, contractors and advisors.
Each community managed a different set of roles and a different process for role
development. In MirandaNet and GOL-IN, the two project-based and smaller sized
communities, these roles were highly structured from the first formation of the group. In
the AFLC and CC roles emerged as the community grew and began to recognize
specialist topics and encourage prospective sub communities. For CC and GOL-IN the
structure of the roles was closely aligned to the roles and titles, such a pointmen and
representatives, which members would associate with the workplace or broader
community. In other cases like MN it was the fact that the community enabled members
to take on new roles without leaving their work environment that sustained the
community. The MN director explained:
It seems to help them stay in the classroom. Not very often do teachers move
into other roles. Doing something outside the classroom and reflecting on their
practice and they don’t have to leave the classroom to do it. You do get the
chance to work as a leader in your own school or be the leader of a working
group across schools.
In all communities the roles were first and foremost voluntary and self-promoted
with exceptions being administrator, manager and some selected leaders. All
community managers or conveners were either paid as staff of the community or
sponsored by their agency or organization. A small number of remunerated or elected
positions, beyond the community convener or secretariat, arose as part of efforts to
sustain discourse or to offer a continuous flow of resources. For instance the AFLC
occasionally contracted some members to write targeted articles or facilitate forums,
Bronwyn Stuckey
while the teachers in MirandaNet might accept ICT tools for use in their schools as
remuneration when involved in a related action research project.
New members and novices did surface as an issue for a number of these
maturing communities. There was a tension for the community between serving both
the needs of those new to the practice and those more expert in the field. In the AFLC
the manager spoke of concern about “…keeping enough expert type people in the
community, the early adopters, so that newbies can learn from them. We’re constantly
getting influxes of new people. We seem to attract the newbie market that is reluctant to
use technology”. In the GOL-IN the members were uncertain of the value new members
would bring and how much they could share if they were new, young people new to
working with government. Members who were ‘old hands’ to government but new to
the community had a better chance of joining and becoming part of the core group.
Such people could quickly build up trust around them.
Management contribution
It was the case in all four communities that roles, structure and activity were
implemented by the community management. For MN and GOL-IN the various roles
were established as part of the core or initial structure of the community, inherited from
the original project from which the community grew. For CC and the AFLC new roles
opened up and were supported over time, in an emergent fashion. Roles were often
structured by the managers as part of the community’s ongoing design while at the same
time in response to a new area of need. People were often identified through their
community profile and engagement then, for instance, invited to fill roles as topic
leaders or special interest group facilitators.
Management was able to support members with resources or payment in order
for them to take up roles with higher levels of contribution. The AFLC manager was
hopeful that even though it was difficult to cater to the ‘higher-end’ expert members
that might change with special interest groups. “SIGs might help there - head hunt
experts to run those and get those early adopters, that high end back in.”

Bronwyn Stuckey
Plausibility of findings
Roles proved variously emergent or structured in the remaining communities. In

examining the remaining exemplar communities it could be seen that voluntary roles
were universally important and that initial roles are more likely structured and
intentionally enabled (five of eight remaining IMCoPs) rather than totally emergent.
This is particularly true for community management, conveners and advisory boards.
For example the structured nature of roles in the Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) is
contrasted with the emergent and very fluid nature of roles and their uptake in
Webheads in Action. From the outset in the ILF roles were structured to include
sponsors, a moderator, and membership of two advisory boards (one academic advisor
and one hyper-affiliate board) that managed the development of the community. Within
the community a role was designed for classroom teachers to act as case leaders and
inquiry learning guides. In contrast, for Webheads in Action roles are and have always
been entirely informal and fluid. Where, without formal role structures, various
members of the core group and the community founder are able to step in and out of
coordinator, leadership and community support roles as and when needed. Tapped In
has a structured and well supported volunteer program to foster varied member uptake
of roles such as greeters and session leaders. Conversely in Online Facilitation, which
had formally only the one convener role, members were seen to, voluntarily support the
community and step into the breach and take the lead to greet new members in the
convener’s absence.
The role of convener varied greatly across the communities carrying out a mix of
facilitation, leadership, moderation, journalism and managerial tasks. It can be said
however, that in all communities studied, the conveners, appointed or volunteer, were
current or past practitioners and were highly respected within the community and often
in the broader domain.
5.2.1.2. Profiles
It was important that members were able to develop a personal profile through
dedicated tools and spaces within the community architecture and more intangibly,
through their contribution to the community. To varying degrees three of the four
communities offered a discrete member profile as part of the online architecture. In the

Bronwyn Stuckey
AFLC for instance members could relate self-stated biographies with member
photographs and linked articles published in the community. In CC ‘dog tags’ allowed
members to know not only the background of their peers but also their current
deployment status and relevant areas of expertise.
Beyond an architectural support for individual profiles, member profiles were
most regarded when built up through recognition of interaction in the community. In all
communities members were recognized in some way for their roles and contributions to
the community. For instance, in CC ‘dog tags’ appeared at the end of each story to link
the author back to their profile. Topic leads in the community were offered community
business cards in recognition of their status and profile in the community. Both the
AFLC and CC offered regular feature interviews or ‘postcards’ as visually rich
spotlights on individual members throughout the year. In MN progression from scholar
to fellow was marked by explicit recognition in newsletters, published works marked a
change in the individual profile in the community. The MN director explained, “Once
they’re in, they’re then offered other projects that we are doing and they gradually build
up a profile of the kind of work that they have done.”
In GOL-IN the member profile as the national or agency representative, while
important, was less than the perceived profile of the community itself. Politically
members often cared more about raising matters in the community discourse than
recognition for their role in it. A high profile for membership in the community in their
workplace and broader community was an important condition in all four communities.
Management contributed to this condition through the design of the community

space and the tools offered members to develop a personal profile, often with supporting
content. Profiles best served the community and individuals when they linked
dynamically to the interactions and roles of the members within the community. The
community front page or the front pages of sub-community groups were further
opportunities to give profile to members through spotlights, citation and attribution of
most recent discussions and messages posted and, raising member recognition on entry
to the community. A snowball effect was observed in terms of engagement. CC
managers reported that members, recognized in a feature interview, were in turn likely
to be motivated to contribute further and more publicly to the community and really

Bronwyn Stuckey
began to assume a role in the core. Part of the snowball effect also came from
promoting the community and its members in the wider community to raise the profile
of the community itself. Members sought to identify with communities that had a clear
and respected profile in the domain.
In the remaining exemplar communities profiles were found to be of importance

but in very different ways. Whether they were part of the community architecture or
established through contribution to the community they were important to member
engagement.
In the Tapped In community virtual environment member profiles are achieved in
a somewhat unique way. Members have the opportunity to establish the equivalent of a
virtual office developing personal and professional ‘furnishings’, and aggregate links to
group memberships, colleagues and resources. Presence tools and readily accessible
linking and joining tools allow members to recognize, identify and join colleagues in
synchronous and asynchronous dialog. Tapped In has also developed a community
profile and standing that sees it as perhaps the premier IMCoP environment in the
educational sector. The infrastructure supports many communities, courses and cadres
seeking to effectively support community over Internet technologies. Alternatively, the
profile of Online Facilitation, while closely linked to the high standing of the founder in
the field, sees the community as a place to be recognized as knowledgeable in the field
of online facilitation.
For Webheads in Action the member profile is informally created from the
community portal through the community’s spider web of linkages out to member
personal web sites and blogs. Members clearly identify with the community through
their own sites and when speaking or presenting on behalf of the community.
It was noted that even communities mediated over listserv technology like
KM4Dev and Online Facilitation did still have facilities for web-based member profile
pages ranging from simple generic content to fully fleshed personal web pages. Many
members however did not use these facilities perhaps preferring to maintain their
connection to the community through email only and never visiting the archives or
community space on the web. These IMCoPs relied more on profiles developed through
community interaction and because of the community profile were attracting already
high profile leaders in the field.
Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.1.3. Leadership
Leadership was to some extent distributed in all four communities. While in the
early days the community may have been managed by a central initiator or manager,
over time the base of leadership broadened to include others highly respected in the
community and the domain. Distributed leadership was created through the opening of
new forums, sub-communities and projects. New leaders in turn often brought their own
social networks into the community. In the AFLC the tenant project LearnScope and
other national framework projects produced a number of new leaders for the broader
AFLC each year.
At the centre of the distributed leadership was invariably a passionate core group
of people. In CC for instance this passionate core itself functioned as a community
practice which served to experiment with and model collaborative and reflective
practices. In MN this core group made up the group that led and supported projects, the
Consultant Fellows, the success of their activities in turn attracted further funding into
the community. It was recognized across the communities, often through harsh
experience, that this distributed leadership program did require targeted support,
guidelines, training or mentoring if it was to succeed. For instance, in CC first
experiments showed that training, mentoring and follow up were required to support
member uptake of roles in the distributed leadership program.
The core leadership in each community served to model the collaborative norms
and leadership practices critical to community. The MN director offered advice that was
borne out in all four communities:
My advice would be actually you need a really stable team and leadership,
before you launch into a big membership. You can sign them up but they won’t
actually be doing anything. Build a tradition and hand down the tradition.
Distributed leadership often began with a management ready and able to

recognize and capitalize on a critical mass of interest forming around a new topic. It was
usually the community managers who, behind the scenes brought people and topics
together at the right time and, opened up and supported new leadership roles. People
very often needed personal contact and some reassurance that they had the skills,
Bronwyn Stuckey
support and sometimes resources behind them to take the risk a more high profile
engagement in the community.
Structures to support resource development and projects offered further
leadership roles for members. In MN individual action research projects and community
research projects allow members to assume leadership role in the community and in
their local school environments. In the AFLC thought leadership could be assumed in
member promoted articles and discussions surrounding them or in leading the work of a
special interest group.
Leadership and its relationship to management varied widely in makeup and

development across the remaining IMCoPS.
Distributed leadership emerged in the PNRM-wg when members led collaboration
on the community book Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods
published in 2000. Members of the community developed the proposal for the book,
identified a publisher, commissioned chapters from community members, oversaw a
process of peer review of the chapters, and edited the book. In Webheads in Action
members assumed leadership roles in the community conferences and champion roles
when speaking, presenting or publishing on behalf of the community. In Tapped In
members led sessions, hosted events, managed the helpdesk and mentored new
volunteers preparing to take leadership roles.
Core group leadership was observed in the small actKM executive, which included
the community coordinator and a coordinating committee, which oversaw the annual
planning, while other dedicated subgroups oversaw of the community’s conference and
awards as focal points of the community calendar. In Talking Heads an inner
community, the facilitator forum, comprised of the staff facilitators for each of the
districts and sub-communities, constituted an intermediate steering committee and
reporting body. In the ILF the member advisory board offered hyper-affiliates an
opportunity to take up leadership roles and impact directly on the design and
management of the community. In all these cases the bodies were comprised of the
people drawn from of the passionate core of the community, whether as staff or
volunteers.

Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.1.4. Sponsorship
Sponsorship in IMCoPs was very different to what might be understood in
organizationally-based communities of practice. In IMCoPs the most effective forms of
community sponsorship came from evangelist founders, institutional programs and or
partnerships. In the case of CC and MN the community was supported in the initial
years by the philanthropy of the founder/s. Their personal financial resources were used
to pay for requirements from servers and domain name fees to expenses or to release
teacher members from school to attend community events. These communities did in
time attract funding and sponsors. CC is now under the auspices of West Point and MN
formed a series of successful corporate partnerships. It was, however, only after each
community had gained a notable profile in the domain that this occurred. Without the
personal funds, energy and vision of the founders neither of these two communities
might have ever gained the success that caused them to appear on their eventual
sponsor’s radar.
The AFLC on the other hand was borne out of a national framework and as such
carried institutional branding and national sponsorship from its outset. The community
manager described the sponsorship under the Framework as; “…each state and territory
has stakeholders who have a vested interest in this whole thing succeeding. So what’s
important to show is that this sits under the umbrella that’s called the Framework and
within that there are lots of different champions, sponsors and levels”. GOL-IN relied on
an even more distributed pattern of organizational sponsorship where the activity of
each individual member was supported by their national agency. The most committed
level of sponsorship came from the organization of the national chair whose agency
hosted the annual conference.
Sponsorship was very dependant on the type and domain of the community.
Acting as or finding community sponsors was a large part of the job of the community
managers. For the management of the AFLC strategic planning and reporting were part
of accountability to the sponsorship of a national framework. For MN industry partners
were required to carry out school-based research activity. This was described by the
community director as a dating agency role where she was finding and bringing
projects, collaborators and partners in touch with each other. For CC the success of the
almost renegade community brought it to attention of the dean of West Point, who
Bronwyn Stuckey
offered the community and its founders a place in a learning organization that would
allow the community to maintain its independent or autonomous reputation.
The research findings are that all intentionally developed communities require
sponsorship whether that is sponsorship is derived from an institutional, grant-funded,
or philanthropic perspective. For instance in Online Facilitation the evangelistic
founder with an unwavering vision for the community has sponsored the community
with time, energy and expertise. While she has also been the facilitator for the
community her role in championing the community and its activities is the essence of
sponsorship in a non-organizational community. Webheads in Action, a community that
started in a similar way to Online Facilitation, having gained a high profile in the
language learning domain over the years attracted technology sponsors and partners to
support community events and member lead conferences.
In KM4DEV community non-government organizations (NGOs) concerned with
economic development are sponsored by Bellanet, a non-profit international secretariat.
This sponsorship involved more than financial or technical support; it involved the
championing of community issues in the represented NGOs and on the international
stage. Tapped In and the ILF have been variously sponsored by National Science
Foundation grants and matching funds from SRI International or Indiana University’s
Center for Research in Learning Technology.
5.2.1.5. Time
This condition is very closely related to resources, roles, rhythm, and modalities
as elements of design that can be used to honor members’ time. Where organizational
communities can readily offer collocated employees release time for engagement in
community activity, issues of supporting member time are somewhat different in
IMCoPs.
In MirandaNet community resource allowed members time to be released from
school duties and to be supported to attend certain events. In GOL-IN time was
supported variously by the member agencies. In CC topic leads were supported and
trained so that their time working in leadership roles was both effective and personally
satisfying.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Honoring member time was more than supporting work release or role uptake.
In the IMCoP in particular it was about ensuring activities, tools and modalities were
targeted and well selected to meet member needs and time constraints. In CC high
production values were used to share first hand experiences in multimedia resources and
reliable high quality practical resources within the community. In the AFLC the clear
monthly rhythm of events and new topics announced in the hyperlinked newsletter
allowed members to key into relevant activities and plan their time online.
The management in an IMCoP may not be able to release people from their
regular workloads to attend to the activities of the community but it has a great role to
play in ensuring member time can be wisely spent. Selecting and supporting a rhythm of
practical activities, modes of engagement, tools and topics that well matched the
member needs and goals, and well supported leadership opportunities, all allowed
members to optimize time spent in the community. Maintaining standards, high
response rates and effective communication channels also ensure that members develop
positive expectations for their time invested in the community.
The remaining exemplar communities addressed this issue of member time in a

plethora of different ways. In Webheads in Action the regular weekly meeting allowed
member to drop in at any time over a number of hours to engage. Each meeting
employed and experimented with new tools in ways that would be similar to the
teaching practices of the TESOL teacher members, encouraging them to take them into
the workplace. Online Facilitation has served a membership of technologically
experienced community facilitators over the immediacy of push technology of
Yahoogroups listserv and file sharing technologies. KM4Dev has employed discussion
tools to be effective over the limited bandwidth connectivity that members in
developing nations will experience. A volunteer greeter in Tapped In will ensure that a
new member will have a personal escort and guide to show them about the community
architecture and inquire as their interests and expertise, linking them to activities and
peers.

Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.2. Core conditions for COMMON TIES

Common ties in a community are the things that draw people together, the
attractants to the community. Figure 5.3 suggests a number of anomalies in terms of the
pattern of relative importance across communities for conditions related to common ties.

1 Situatedness
30% 2 Value
Percentage of coded
25% 3 Relate to larger

CCMD
20% community
GOL-IN
items
15% 4 Focus
MN 5 Purpose
10%
AFLC 6 Diversity
5% 7 Accreditation and
0% recognition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 Values
Figure 5.3 Comparison of relative difference across heuristic cases for conditions within
the common ties component of community.
Conditions arising were analyzed to identify the core conditions present for each.
Table 5.4 relates each of the core conditions to their commonly observed attributes.
These conditions and attributes are examined in the sections that follow.
Table 5.4
Common ties: Core conditions and related attributes presented in rank order.
Situatedness (1) Practicality, supporting communities that matter, important topics,
boundaries and responsive to the climate.
Value (2) High recognized value, shared understandings, personal value, agency
value and cultural change
Related to larger Fresh and first in community, as inspiration, through rituals, autonomy,
community (3) political, and synergistic.
Values (8) Core values embodied in community and reflecting the values of the domain
Accreditation and External, extrinsic and internal recognition
recognition (7)
Cutting edge (9) Working on leading edge issues and innovating
Focus (4) Clearly reinforced focus

Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.2.1. Situatedness
The degree to which the content and issues of the community were situated in
the domain and practices was rated as the foremost common tie in three of the four
communities. The exception was GOL-IN which while still rating situatedness highly
presented value as its greatest issue. This may explained by the fact that the community
crossed over diverse environments and practices and was seen largely seen as
trendsetting, visioning and innovating rather than responding to existing situations and
challenges.
It’s not a shared practice because we are hugely different. We’ve known each
other for a number of years and shared a lot of things and learn together. I can
see that I have a better understanding of things when I discuss them with these
people than when I discuss with people who are new to e-government.
(John Gotze, community informant)
The practical nature of the community content and interaction was a highly
ranked condition in all four communities. Community feedback often related to the
usefulness and detail of specific conversations, stories and tools shared within the
community. Practicality was supported in many different ways and meaningfulness was
created through situated relationships and practices. For example in CC story telling
brings authenticity of voice and content from the front line of battle. In MN it is the
action research carried out with and by teachers in their schools that ensures practical
insights are raised. For GOL-IN the member proposed project-based activity and for the
AFLC it was the choice of topics, guest speakers and leaders, and member promoted
articles that kept the community discourse relevant and focused on the practices of the
community.
This did not mean that the community discourse was constrained at a practical
level but it was the place to gain most immediate value and find a bridge to make
research, literature and thought leaders more intellectually accessible to the
membership. More theoretically-based activities could be seen when CC members
reviewed leadership books for the community, when the AFLC held an Expert Spruik
with inspirational guest speakers, or when MN offered gatherings focused on specific
pedagogical approaches.
It was evident that the community and any sub-communities were formed
around things that mattered to the membership and the larger community or domain.
Bronwyn Stuckey
This drawing of boundaries was important. Boundaries and how rigid or flexible they
were served to clarify what the community was about and what it was not. On an
ongoing basis attention to boundaries defined the community membership, topics, sub-
communities, privacy levels, quality standards and choice of projects and resources. MN
members revisited community boundaries with the first agenda item of every MN
workshop. Each meeting opened with a review, for its current relevance to the
community, of the Fellowship’s mission statement. In speaking about the CC’s tight
focus and attention to boundaries, a core team member said, “That has been a huge big
part of our success because commanders, company commanders know that when they
come everything will relate to them, everything is relevant in a powerful way.”
It proved vital for community managers and facilitators to be prepared to

leverage climate and need in the community. Keeping in close touch with both the
issues in the domain and the needs of members was vital to know where the boundaries
needed to be drawn and how permeable or not they should be at any given time.
Managers and facilitators needed to be attuned to issues inside and outside the
community and prepared to seize opportunity, carpe diem. Staying abreast of issues
outside the community (in the domain) meant scouring the field to source current and
appropriate information, resources and guests.
Being abreast of issues inside the community meant putting in place effective
feedback loops and continually sharing and acting on feedback. While conventional
feedback mechanisms such as surveys can be one part of staying in close touch with
members, close touch was more regularly achieved through the constant personal
connection of the community managers and facilitators to the members. For the two
project-based and more face-to-face mode communities MN and GOL-IN much of
connection was made at community events. In the two more online mode communities
AFLC and CC, managers and facilitators described their presence in the community
space and the ‘back-channel’ or one-to-one discussions they held with members as
essential and consuming 25% to 50% of their ongoing workload. The AFLC manager
explained:
I am so connected to the site I notice things every day but not scientifically
recorded. I measure success from the users I meet in the field, evidence of

Bronwyn Stuckey
activity on the site and just the general mood and feel. I am constantly
monitoring for that sort of thing but not in a quantitative way.
Exemplar communities demonstrated the situated nature of engagement in
IMCoPs. Whether the communities relied on events, topics, infrastructure, feedback or
leadership programs, they all maintained a relevance to the workplace needs of
members.
Knowledge Management for Development (KM4Dev) has seen the core topic of
the community shift from knowledge management in non-government organizations to
knowledge in economic development. This shift was as a response to a change in
membership and the topics of importance to that membership. The community works to
meet the practical needs of members not just in creating networks, artifacts and
discourse but also in encouraging practical member-driven small group projects and
assisting members to find funding to implement them. In actKM the sessions of the
annual conference act as response to the key interests of the membership and current hot
topics in the domain of knowledge management in government.
In all exemplar communities the management and facilitators maintained personal
contact, one-to-one with members as part of community facilitation and an effective
feedback loop. Advisory boards and core group meetings also provide valuable
feedback to sustain the relevance of the community. In the ILF two advisory boards
oversaw the community design and development and the goals respectively of
stakeholders and practitioners. In the large Talking Heads community, the 23
facilitators, a community in themselves, served as an advisory board to the community
leadership (head teachers) and the management organization of Ultralab.
5.2.2.2. Value
Value is different from values (a condition later in this component). Value
related to the gains for membership and engagement. The key issues here were that
value was recognized for the community and that the community built out from a core
group with a shared understanding of the value of being and working together.
Recognized value was a core condition in common ties. Knowing there was a
high likelihood of value for members going into the community was vital. The

Bronwyn Stuckey
community needed not only to offer value to members but to be perceived to do so. This
meant making success explicit, getting members to express their levels of satisfaction
and promoting successes inside and outside the community. CC published feedback
from members when a senior colonel questioned the value of the time spent by founders
in the community. MN held a reflective session at the ten year birthday party where
members told stories of what community engagement meant to them. MN also
published reflective articles, like that of a member’s personal and professional account
of being a MirandaNet Fellow, on the community’s public web site. From GOL-IN we
get a tangible sense of recognized and prized value from the webmaster who said,
“Some countries see it as something very special to be on our mailing list. They don’t
allow their colleagues to join or post, even though they forward and share a lot of stuff
from the e-mail list.”
All four communities seemed assured of initial success when they leveraged the
shared understanding of a core group of members, a shared understanding of what they
stood to gain by working together. In AFLC this was the early experience of the
LearnScope teams and their passion for collaboration, team work and action research. In
CC this was the experience of the founders in their personal sharing of stories. GOL-IN
and MN grew out of projects which when ended left the members wanting to prolong
the very positive learning experience they shared.
In many cases there was a shared experience but it was more about a shared
understanding from a successful experience. The experiences themselves could have
been separate or happened elsewhere. It was the understanding that was shared. These
successful communities had at their core people who had an experience that convinced
them there was real value in sharing and working together. In speaking about members’
prior collaborative experiences the AFLC community manager said, “Individuals who
contribute the most almost always come from somewhere else where they’ve been given
those sorts of opportunities. I think there’s a big link between participation and value
and people having been resourced elsewhere.”
In terms of value, members proved to be balancing a tension between personal
value and workplace, agency or organizational value. Personal value did appear to be a
slightly stronger motivator but members in all communities valued the community and
their engagement in terms of its broader value to their organizations and their personal
professionalism. This was well put by Cuthell (2002) a senior Fellow of MN who said:

Bronwyn Stuckey
What is shared, however, is an involvement with education and learning. The

involvement is both personal and professional, with demarcation between the
two impossible. The ways in which one learns shapes one’s teaching, and the
ways in which one learns shapes further learning. (p.185)
In some case building value was a great challenge. This was the case in the
intentionally-developed AFLC where cultural change was one of the sponsor’s goals.
The community manager said in relation to value, “That’s our biggest challenge so it’s
not like we are a community and we are responding to a need. We are a community
trying to influence, to change a culture… People don’t know what they don’t know”.
GOL-IN also proved to be a community trying to set trends rather than simply reinforce
current practice and culture in the domain.
It may well be that in order to become successful a community has to be

perceived to be successful. Making the successes of the community explicit and visible
inside and outside the community seems clearly a task for management and the core
group members. It is was vital for each community that they develop structures that
allow people to reflect on, make explicit and share their successes in relation to the
community whether at the GOL-IN conference reporting, the CC feedback and stories or
the AFLC articles published on the community homepage. These coupled with the
strength of word of mouth, dealt with in the place conditions, served to raise and
reinforce an expectation of value for members.
It might at first seem that there is little the community management can do to
shape a shared understanding of being together, since in most cases this describes an
activity that preceded joining the community. However, it can be seen that leveraging
the stories of those who have successful collaboration experiences, by having them
reflect on and articulate the value, might go some way toward developing a level of
shared understanding for a new group. Sponsoring a joint working experience also
served to offer opportunity for people to gain the experience and share their
understandings.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Value was clearly demonstrated in the acts of community members, through

community mechanisms for feedback, dialog, and advocacy. The most tangible
demonstration of this value is represented in the Webheads in Action story.
Webheads in Action is the most organically developed and socially egalitarian
community of all the cases studied and arguably the most tangible representation of
community value. In this community members have a standing meeting time each week.
On most occasions the agenda is negotiated in the meeting as is the leadership, note
taking, recording and follow up activity. Each meeting is held across a number of core
and sometimes novel technologies and ranges from informal to theoretical discussions.
The focus of the activity is predominantly on improving learning for language learners
and finding and actually testing the tools and strategies that will support this. In many
meetings those tools and strategies are used and reflected on as part of the meeting
process. Members support each other to explore and employ a number of cutting edge
media and share the results of their application with the community through member
web pages, weblogs and conferences. The evidence of community value is found in web
sites, blogs, conferences and discussions across the web.
Value was also clearly evident when core community members acted as strong
advocates for Webheads, PRNM-wg, MN, actKM, often promoting and presenting on
behalf of the community, demonstrating value found in their community in external
domain related venues and conferences.
5.2.2.3. Relating to the larger community

The relationship to the larger community (profession or domain) was another
highly ranked condition for people in IMCoPs. This condition described a two-way flow
of knowledge from the IMCoP and its larger external community ensures the IMCoP is
a system attuned to and impacting on the larger system.
On an explicit level relationships were maintained through allowing language,
structures, patterns, processes and activities to flow between the wider community and
the IMCoP. Relationship building could be seen from the outset in the GOL-IN agency
representation and community structure or the CC appropriation of topic lead as a title

Bronwyn Stuckey
for community facilitators, or in ongoing efforts such as the AFLC or MN mentoring of

members writing proposals for external government grant funding.
In all cases the relationship to the larger community was sustained by member
access to the freshest ideas and information in the field. In 2003/4 for GOL-IN
members, this freshness was for instance part of defining the trend for the use of XML
in e-government while for CC it was embodied in access to stories told by commanders
while situated in or recently returned from battle zone deployments. In MN the
community’s leading edge research on the viability of laptops for teachers was to
influence the Ministry of Education to carry out a large scale research program.
On a more tacit level the boundary spanning role played by leaders, publications
and partnerships served to maintain two-way flow of information for the community.
These boundary objects served to promote the communities as places of inspiration to
their larger communities. This could be evidenced in the broader community’s high
regard for research publications in MN, and GOL-IN. Or when MirandaNet members
staff the stands for vendor partners they promote both the products and the cutting edge
focus of the community. CC has been broadly cited as a source of inspiration both for
members of the domain (as community feedback attests) and for its use of IMCoP for
knowledge sharing generally.
Management had a clear influence on this condition. Community design and
infrastructure decisions often mirrored recognizable forms in the larger community.
Managers and facilitators were vigilant about proactively staying abreast of and
evaluating the larger community issues and the timeliness of attention to them in the
community. For instance, in CC and the AFLC, both conversation and resource-based
communities, the community managers spent considerable time seeking out and/or
promoting the latest issues, information, advice and resources and supported community
interaction around them. Bringing quality resources into the community was only
eclipsed in importance by the quality of the IMCoP developed events and resources that
crossed into the wider community. These served to position each community within the
domain. An example of this was the GOL-IN community developed report on e-
Government which gained profile and acclaim for the community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Relationship to the larger community was created in a number of ways and proved
to be most significant when it was two-way. Two communities are mentioned here to
suggest how a diverse range of events, partnerships and infrastructure can serve to
maintain relationships.
The Participatory Natural Resource Management Working Group (PNRM-wg) is
a working group within the larger PRGA network. It works to collaboratively develop
resources for the membership. Like GOL-IN it hosts a major face-to-face event, in this
case biannually, and funds this activity through the member agencies. This group is very
closely tied to the larger community of resource management, centers and the member
agencies by virtue of their sanction and support for member engagement.
In contrast, Tapped In which is sponsored by SRI International has developed a
very dynamic relationship to the larger ‘education community’. It partners with
academic organizations, has tenant organizations, curriculum bodies and professional
bodies to extend its relationships into many domains, sectors and global areas of
learning. The ongoing calendar of diverse hosted groups and events coordinated and
promoted by the community management, keep Tapped In fresh and abreast of a broad
range of current issues in education.
5.2.2.4. Values
It was evident that embodying the core values of the domain and the profession
within the community was a condition for success. This varied depending on the
strength of the values existing in the respective professional and or domain. In this
research, the value base of each community was important for quite different reasons
and depended on whether the community was reinforcing strongly defined values or
working to create a new culture for the profession.
In various ways members entering the community knew what to expect in terms
of the values it would extol. This was most evident in CC, which strived for excellence,
building on widely understood and strongly held military values. GOL-IN also built its
interactions upon the political background of civil service and international relations.
Values are what MN sought to develop when engaging teachers in pedagogical practice
and action research, bringing them into the culture of research, strengthening their

Bronwyn Stuckey
values and sense of professionalism. Values were equally an important factor for AFLC
trying to develop a culture, described in the national Framework as “Creative, capable
people” (Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 2005, p. 1) in the vocational
education sector in Australia. For the AFLC explicitly linking to the values of the
Framework served to build some expectation of the value to be encountered within.
Because of the strong values inherited from the domain, GOL-IN and CC relied
far less on explicit rules of etiquette to guide social interaction. On the other hand the
AFLC’s implicit norms were, after a series of transgressive behaviors, made explicit a
few years into its operation. MN’s values base was extended when it opened World E-
citizens to further opportunities for member’s professional and collaborative
engagement. World E-citizens embodies norms of diversity, and peaceful collaboration
between educators in nations of the world.
For most community managers and facilitators establishing this condition was
about ‘walking the talk’. It was about the management and core members modeling and
making explicit the values of the domain or profession through each community
activity. To some extent this would indicate that the managers and facilitators
themselves need to be highly experienced in the domain area to honor these values.
IMCoPs prove to be values-based systems. For many values are inherent in the
domain and practices but made tangible by engagement in the activity of the
community.
For instance, in Talking Heads which was devised as a large scale leadership
development program, set out to explore the core values and practical implementation
of leadership required in a climate of school reform. Values were high on the agenda
for the PNRM-wg where scientists, researchers and partner organizations support each
other in realizing the core values of participatory research practices in the domain of
natural resource management. In the Inquiry Learning Forum, case lesson contributions
and the ensuing community discourse explore and foster the values and practices of
inquiry learning.

Bronwyn Stuckey
These environments all needed to embody the core values of the wider community
or domain, or hold a strong vision for cultural change and related practices, in order to
attract and retain members.
5.2.2.5. Accreditation and recognition

Recognition itself proved to be somewhat inconsistent in terms of its relevance
across the four communities but it did appear linked to the norms of the domain. Where
it was important it was external, internal and extrinsic forms of recognition that proved
to be most important. Members in some communities needed to be recognized inside,
and sometimes more importantly outside, the community for the contribution and levels
of professionalism they demonstrated within. External recognition was most evident in
aspects of the two project-based communities especially MN where recognition for
publishing in relation to personal or collaborative project outcomes was highly prized.
In GOL-IN external recognition was important but it was often the nation or the agency
that as a priority was recognized for contribution or authorship rather than the individual
representative.
In CC, however, while objects were identified internally with their contributor’s
name, self-promotion per se was frowned upon as outside the accepted norms. That
being said, internally other forms of recognition were very high in this community.
Topic Leads were given business cards to signify their leadership roles in the
community. Member profiles displayed the roles and status of community members as
Topic Leads and Command Contacts. A rating scheme was introduced to the
community architecture in the latter years to acknowledge value to the membership of
the individually contributed resources, thereby indirectly recognizing the contributor.
The MN director was exploring ways to gain academic credit for the research
activities carried out within the community and with the community support. While in
GOL-IN the webmaster suggested that “Recognition may not be the goal… In this kind
of community ideas are more royalty-free. It might be the idea that’s important, not
who brought it in”. In this community it was sometimes more important for an
individual that a topic be discussed than it was to be recognized for bringing that topic
to the table.
In the AFLC all sub-group memberships, discussions and articles linked to the
originating member profile. This was significant in building the profile of members, not

Bronwyn Stuckey
just being able to see who and where but to readily acquaint oneself with the roles,
experience, interest and beliefs of others.
It was important to recognize that accreditation and recognition occur on several

levels; public and private, intrinsic and extrinsic. Awareness of this and the norms of the
domain allowed each community to recognize members in appropriate ways.
Establishing well crafted personal and group profile tools and showcasing or
spotlighting members were some of the technological enablers to member recognition.
Recognition and rating schemes are another possibility, which allow members to rate or
rank the value of member and management contributions. Personal praise and support
from community facilitators and leaders offered publicly or in back channel further
buoyed recognition within the community.
Community infrastructure and activities variously offered acknowledgement and

recognition of members and their contributions. In Tapped In for instance, a newsletter
named After School Online, is e-mailed monthly, and both promotes the upcoming
month’s events and gives recognition to leaders and member contributions and
activities. Before that newsletter goes out the community facilitator has contacted
community leaders and collected content, news, scheduled activities and events to be
included. These leaders and the activity of the groups are all recognized in a
community-wide distribution of the newsletter.
In Webheads, Online Facilitation and Tapped In the publicly offered support
and welcome into the community is recognition of new member engagement. In actKM,
members can receive recognition as part of community subgroups for the KM
conference planning and presentations or in artifacts contributed to the collective goods
of the community. In the ILF, MN and Talking Heads like the AFLC, membership of
advisory bodies was clearly part of the recognition of member contribution.

Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.2.6. Cutting edge

What made an issue cutting edge was not just its newness but that it was an issue
on the forefront of the domain and held a current level of importance for members. For
instance in the AFLC an exploration of e-mail games combined innovative techniques
for learning with a technology already in widespread use to offer teachers a simple
inroad to online learning. In a time when schools were being encouraged to spend
money on electronic whiteboards a MN research project explored their true potential as
tools of teaching and learning in schools. In GOL-IN a collaborative research project on
e-democracy surfaced issues for consideration by member nations as their governments
work towards this goal. In CC an assembly of members passed on the collective wisdom
of returning officers and offered new commanders deploying to Afghanistan a manual
of the most up-to-date advice possible.
An illustration of the power of connecting leaders in conversation happened in
March 2004, when Eric Lopez and five other officers who had commanded
companies in Afghanistan flew to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, to interact with
leaders in the 25th Infantry Division (LIGHT) who were preparing to deploy.
For three days these captains shared with Soldiers in the 3rd Brigade Combat
Team the hard-earned knowledge they had forged in places like Kandahar,
Kabul, and the Shahi-Kot Valley. Their stories about combat operations, the
enemy, and the Afghan environment had a directness and immediacy that only
someone who had recently led Soldiers in Afghanistan could provide. (Dixon,
Allen, Burgess, Kilner, & Schweitzer, 2005, p. 1)
Community manager’s described member feedback that constantly

acknowledged the cutting edge nature of the community discourse. The director of MN
commented, “Interestingly a lot of the fellows who have been in for a long time and
have found that it’s valuable at job interviews. Because the fellowship is unusual, that’s
been a really good way of getting promoted because membership is an opportunity to
talk about leading edge work that they’ve done”. For GOL-IN the webmaster reflected
that, “It is a good way to keep up with the issues. Or to say here are some things that
will come up.”

Bronwyn Stuckey
Management contribution to this condition harkened back to the conditions of

situatedness and value. Knowing what was of foremost importance in a domain and the
needs of members meant constantly grazing the appropriate media, literature, resources
and news in the domain and maintaining close personal connections with members and
exposing identified issues to the community. This did not mean that topics and activities
needed to be centrally controlled. Part of a manager’s staying in close contact with
members was recognizing a member who, with a little mentoring, could raise a new
topic, make a major contribution or take up a leadership role. Sometimes getting the
cutting edge issue into the community was a matter of support and resourcing. The
AFLC manager suggested: “If I see someone has done something in the field, I’ll
approach them and put a writer in contact with them. I am constantly offering resources
to people”. The CC team similarly supported on the one hand, commanders in the field
to record video interviews, and on the other editorial support or mentoring for first time
contributors publishing a resource.
Being cutting edge meant different things for different communities. For
Webheads in Action, teaming constructivist pedagogies with effective and innovative
multimedia tool makes for cutting edge hands-on activity. In the ILF discourse
surrounding practical and multidimensional demonstrations of authentic classroom
efforts at inquiry teaching is cutting edge. In PNRM-wg aggregating new stories of
participatory research in developing nations to create a book is cutting edge. In Online
Facilitation sharing guidelines to support facilitation of highly distributed work teams
may be considered cutting edge. What was considered cutting edge was more than a
resource, a topic or a technology; it combined a number of factors including new forms
of collaboration, exploration and innovation.
5.2.2.7. Focus
Maintaining an explicit focus on domain was important to the four heuristic

communities. This condition was tied closely to the domain and values of the

Bronwyn Stuckey
community. In CC it was about keeping the laser beam-like focus always on the topic of
command and on the quality of the community’s shared resources. For MirandaNet the
focus was on action research on the use of ICTs in schools and on raising teacher
agency and sense of professionalism. In GOL-IN the focus was e-government and on
discourse and project work that would support member and agency efforts in that area.
For the AFLC it remained vocational education teaching and learning and the flexible
approaches that would support it. All four communities never deviated from their
respective foci over the years of community development. They did not try to be all
things to all people but worked to tightly sustain boundaries around the specific domain
and practices that the community formed around.
Conveners, core members and leaders all played a large role in maintaining the
focus of the community. From the topics in the management developed news bytes,
guest speakers or events, to the topics of subgroups and special interest groups, the
focus of the community was cohesive, clear and sustained. Some of that management
work can be in ensuring that norms of the community are adhered to and that potentially
divisive disagreements are not allowed to blur the focus of the group. This can be
achieved by continually reflecting back to the participants the focus goals and norms of
the group. In the AFLC, as part of a consideration of anonymity for members, the
membership had discussed the focus of the community. They decided that this was a
professional community, focused on professional networking to enhance outcomes for
learners. It was not a community where members would discuss hobbies, pets or
personal problems; contexts that might all benefit from anonymity. The AFLC was
clearly focused on flexible learning and it was not considered that anonymity would
serve the needs and focus of the community.
All remaining exemplar communities sustained the focus of the community in part
through the convener facilitation of member engagement. On some occasions, like that
experienced by KM4Dev, a change in membership caused the focus of the community to
shift and requiring the community management to support revisiting the focus and its
relevance to members. PNRM-wg acted to reshape the community and the size of its
Bronwyn Stuckey
membership in order to better sustain a critical mass for community discourse and
collaborations. In Tapped In the focus for the community broadened with growth, from
building a community to supporting communities, as part of recognition of the multi-
community environment that has evolved. The community has supported the
organizations and people who are there, and continued building its own community and
relationships with new people. In actKM the norms of the community would remind
new posters that the professional focus of the community required people to be
identified beyond their usernames. In a number of communities member’s first postings,
in two cases all postings were moderated to ensure that the focus of the community
discourse was maintained.
5.2.3. Core conditions for SOCIAL INTERACTION
Social interaction includes all the transactions between members and focuses on
the social and group rather than individual interactions. Figure 5.4 demonstrates, as was
the case for people, a close comparative importance for the conditions in this
component. The graph demonstrates a clear pattern of resonance across the four
communities with slight variations in intensity for some conditions.

1 Modality
70%
2 Currency
Percentage of coded
60% 3 Familiarity and

50% CCMD excitement
GOL-IN 4 Levels
tems
40%
30% MN 5 Functionality
20% AFLC 6 Rhythm
10% 7 Fun factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 Etiquette
12 Reporting
Figure 5.4 Comparative importances of core conditions for the social interaction
component of community across heuristic cases.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 5.5
Social interaction: Core conditions and related attributes presented in rank order.
Functionality (5) What people can do in and with the support of the community? Supporting
interdependence, collaboration, publishing, conversation, story telling,
mentoring.
Modality (1) Dialog and resource-based or project-based. Great importance of back-
channel communication and the mix of face-to-face with online.
Levels (4) Low level and high level commitment
Rhythm (6) Cycles of monthly and or annual events and activities
News, content, event timing, newsletter
Generate content (8) Priming the pump with content and maintaining facilitator support for
member development of content
These conditions and attributes are examined in the sections that follow. It is
relatively simple to summarize the findings for social interaction in IMCoPs. The key
factors suggest it is important to focus on what people can actually do, in what mode/s
they can do this, how often and at what levels they are invited to engage.
5.2.3.1. Functionality
Functionality was the single most highly rated condition in community social
interaction. This condition relates to what social interaction people were able to actually
engage in as members of a community. Attributes equal in terms of their importance
were interdependence and collaboration as the highest rated in this condition of
interaction. As functional activities and in order of importance, publishing,
conversation, story telling, mentoring, research, networking, access to expertise,
consultation, training and problem solving all appeared important. While some of these
may appear self explanatory, it is worth examining what it was about interdependence
and collaboration that made them clearly overriding conditions for interaction.
For some project-based communities it was obvious that collaboration and
interdependence were vital. In GOL-IN projects proposed at the annual conference
would never get off the ground without building a small team of collaborators interested
in investigating the same issues. Likewise MirandaNet’s consultancy research projects
could not be tendered for if leaders were not confident of being, as part of an
interdependent system, able to call on members to commit to do the work.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Building an interdependent system also meant having a core group, recognizing

the many-to-many potential of community interactions and members learning to depend
on others outside of the immediate community management. The managers of CC
believed it was their support for a carefully crafted combination of connections,
conversation, and content that worked to enable member contributions and build
interdependency. Interdependence does appear to be very closely tied to role structure
of the community, distributed leadership, its sub-communities and opportunities for
building close collaboration for the core and other small groups. Cultivating
interdependence meant building up a critical mass of social interaction that allowed for
people to build ties and form a passionate core of people at the centre of the community.
In the AFLC the core group was made up of the members of the key projects and
the community’s two advisory boards. The AFLC manager described the people at the
core as “People who hang around and are passionate and share and have courage.
People who have made that shift can see the value as a ‘win-win’”. In CC this
passionate core was made up of the 25 plus volunteers who make up the CC team,
people with leadership roles in activities and discourse of the community. This core was
built out from the personal ties and relationships developed by the community founders.
In MN this core group is made up of the Fellows and more particularly consultant
Fellows who lead project and mentor activities. In GOL-IN the core group is made up of
community elders, the past and present project leaders and members. The GOL-IN
webmaster supports the AFLC manager’s description of core group collaboration as a
win-win in contributing to community when he says “Some of the core members and
key people are in this because they think they learn a lot themselves and they contribute
to the community. At least some of us (I’m one of the core members) see it as a
necessary way to develop a shared practice to develop e-government.” In some
communities it was the behavior of this core group that some community managers,
who expressed doubt that their group might be a community, considered the most
‘community-like’. They recognized the core group served a vital role in modeling
interdependence and reciprocity.
The key to functionality began with knowing what types and how much
interaction and collaboration would suit the community membership and domain.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Building up that core group at the centre of the community was an imperative.
Management assisted this process when they invited people into new roles, when they
facilitated people and topics coming together, and when they stepped aside to support
others in leadership. This is not an easy task as was pointed out by the AFLC
community manager when she spoke of the early stages of the community.
We’re trying to build in functionality that will allow maximum interaction
between members. Again there’s that constant tension between how much do we
provide and member engagement and member ownership. It’s really hard
finding a balance between providing things and trying to get members to take
responsibility for things. For in many cases they’re not ready to. So that’s a
problem we’re grappling with all the time.
The findings suggest that a critical mass of functionality was consistently

important but that what constitutes a critical mass of functionality is highly
individualized in each community. It was not so much about building structure but
fostering an enabling climate and culture. Interdependence which far out-ranked all
other aspects of functionality can clearly be seen in two diversely different education
sector communities. The chaotic, self-managed and supportive nature of Webheads in
Action readily supports member reliance on each other and a preparedness to collaborate
with others. On the other hand the structured progression and research project-based
nature of MirandaNet also allows for members to rely on each other and clearly
understand the ways that their roles can to contribute to knowledge building for the
group.
5.2.3.2. Modality
In each community the types of interaction were crafted to suit the community.
Whether project-based (GOL-IN and MN) or dialogue and resource-based (CC and
AFLC) there was a constant flow of activity for people to engage in. Decisions made
about the main modes of community activity had ramifications for the whole of
community design. Modality was rated as a vital condition for social interaction,
although a distant second to functionality. Modality relates to the ways in which people

Bronwyn Stuckey
came together to interact. It gives form to the functionality discussed earlier. It describes
the basis of interaction (dialogue, resource, project), the forms the interaction took
(formal, informal, public or back-channel) and over what modes (face-to-face, online or
mixed mode).
The clearest distinctions were between dialog-based, resource-based and/or
project-based communities. In CC and the AFLC interaction was largely based around
conversations and resource sharing. Communities like MN and GOL-IN were dedicated
to project-based activity with conversation and resources, not developed within the
community, holding a much lower priority. MN and GOL-IN both grew out of the
project activities of an original core member group and that successful mode of
interaction continued into the new context.
Informal modes of interaction which ranked highly, served to support trust
building, innovation and the voluntary nature of community engagement. Professional
yet more informal forms of engagement such as story telling, games, challenges and
discussions were valued by members of all four communities. In GOL-IN the web
master described this value as, “The deliberate informality (even an intentional lack of
legitimacy) is aimed at avoiding the kind of visibility and tactical politics that can
complicate the agendas of multilateral agencies such as the OECD or the EU.” In MN
not following traditional and formal pathways opened the community up to innovation
and volunteerism. The level of informality can be seen in the Director’s description of
project team building. “I just send out messages and see if anyone wants to get involved
and we set something up. Rather than creating a situation where people have got
conscience or guilt or have got to do something or other”. A community member
reflected on the community’s openness when describing the meeting process as “All
meetings begin on the edge of a mental cliff and proceed forwards from that point”.
Back-channel interaction, informal interaction not in the public many-to-many
spaces, proved to be a large part of community interaction in terms of percentage and
value. The GOL-IN community web master estimated only 30% of communication was
going to the larger whole community group. Back-channel communication was integral
to the facilitator or manager role and a backbone for small group member-to-member
communications. Back channel was used for e-mailing between project team members
in GOL-IN or a for a leader’s support check-in with a new topic lead in CC.
Management clearly recognized the worth of this informal private contact. In the words
of a CC team member the “back-channel leads to front-channel stuff. You get that
Bronwyn Stuckey
relationship with a person of trust then they’ll send you their good stuff.” Some
community managers used presence tools such as instant messaging (IM) to
acknowledge and greet new members. The AFLC manager for instance said “Whenever
I’m online I always use IM to greet people and say “Hi my name’s Rose, I haven’t seen
you online before”. A core group member in the AFLC summed the importance of a
convener’s use of back-channel and one-to-one communications to say:
It is an important point to note that this learning and sharing does not always
occur spontaneously, and maintaining momentum is an essential task for a
committed leader. Frequent and pertinent communication is fundamental in this
role, and the use of phone calls, personal contact, e-mail games, newsletters etc.
is essential. (Manto & Bateman, 2001, p. 2)
Overall face-to-face communication rated more highly than online. Members in

all communities cherished opportunities for groups to meet face-to-face whether as an
integral part of the community activity or as part of related professional gatherings and
associations. Reporting from those face-to-face gatherings online was a way to bring
small group activity to the whole of community. Integrating the online, face-to-face and
other communication media was a clear asset to community building. An example of
successful integration could be seen in the progression to membership in CC, “If you’ve
read the book, been to a seminar, been in the community - those people just are great.
We have a strong sense that, and we don’t know why, but different kinds of media make
a difference.”
As was demonstrated in other areas of this chapter, communities presented with

different priorities depending on the modes of engagement. Choices were made very
early in the life of these communities as to what base interaction they would have. It
proved important for the management to know the goals of the membership, how people
wanted to engage and what they wanted to get out of that engagement. For CC
discussion and high quality resources were a clear need for aspiring and beginning
commanders, where for GOL-IN the evidence-seeking approach of a project basis was
essential to senior civil servants developing new e-government processes.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Informality was largely established by the members in their interactions but the
tone for this could be set by leaders modeling the level and importance of informal
communication in their public and private interactions. The community managers
recognized that back-channel communication is a large part of any community.
Conveners in particular recognized that not all communication was readily visible to the
whole community and worked to understand the level and value of back-channel and
one-to-one communication. The web master for GOL-IN suggested social network
analysis could be very valuable in understanding community engagement especially in
this less visible area of communication. A discussion about lurking in the MN
community for example surfaced a number of ways that back-channel and informal
communication supported their membership. One example related by a member states,
“I guess I'm an avid reader, frequent idea-taker and URL-copier, but only rarely reply. I
did once start a discussion ... (got some interesting replies, but they were to me rather
than to the whole group).”
Conveners recognized that back-channel communication, often one-to-one, was
a large part of their facilitation role in the early stages community. In the AFLC, MN
and CC the conveners all reflected positively on the value of their private and informal
communication in building contributions and garnering feedback, further raising trust
and a sense of community.
Community managers accepted that activities could target less than the entire
membership and be successful as community events. On the whole they were
opportunistic about choosing and mixing appropriate modes of interaction. In a small
group face-to-face workshop in MN held to explore pedagogical practice with new
technologies, a VOIP research project meeting in the AFLC, or an acknowledgement
that web forums don’t work for GOL-IN members, modality was tailored to each
specific community.
The findings of this research do indicate that mode of communication does indeed
matter in the knowledge sharing that happens in communities. While the findings would
not refute the value of firstly understanding the kinds of knowledge the group needs,
they did show that for some groups a project-based mode of interaction was preferable
to meet member needs, for example MirandaNet, GOL-IN, actKM. Other communities

Bronwyn Stuckey
like Online Facilitation, Talking Heads, Company Command and PNRM-wg to varying
degrees, combined primary discussion with a resource base as the preferred mode for
interaction and knowledge sharing.
There was evidence in the research findings that face-to-face is an important
modality. All communities, even if they were built completely on an Internet-mediated
platform, garnered value from the external face-to-face events and relationships in
which their members engaged. There was some element of, at least desire for, face-to-
face activity. Whether communities used face-to-face gatherings in their calendar like
PRNB-wg or actKM, supported gatherings for core members or leaders as CCMD or
Talking Heads did, or grafted community opportunities onto broader community
activities or conferences like Webheads in Action or members simply announced their
travels and activities in the hope of meeting up with others as in OF.
Communities like PRNM-wg, KM4Dev and actKM were able to effectively
integrate several modes of communication weaving monthly face-to-face, ongoing
online and annual conference events together to build the community calendar. A clear
exception to the need for face-to-face engagement was raised when the facilitator of
Online Facilitation suggested that someone trying to organize a meetup for the
community would most likely be pointed back to work with through community
listserv. Some individuals have organized one-on-one meet ups but this is a group
largely satisfied with online engagement. The lack of interest in organized face-to-face
may be strongly influenced by the global nature of the group and the fact that
facilitating online engagement is the domain of this community of practice.
5.2.3.3. Levels
Levels of engagement proved notable for social interactions and for different
reasons across the communities. While all four communities did foster engagement and
roles requiring high levels of commitment, several also experimented with opportunity
for lower level or low commitment forms of engagement. In some cases these were light
fun activities that within a few mouse clicks would allow people to interact with the
interface or each other. Such was the case for the AFLC with its polls, competitions and
online games. The purpose of these was to get people, new to the online environment
and the community space, to do something and have simple and successful first ways of
engaging. Reading the community newsletter was another low level engagement

Bronwyn Stuckey
delivered by push technology to members. As web site hits proved it was a continual
hook back into the community site and activities. Such simple ways of engaging served
as ways for members to keep in touch with the community even if not investing a large
amount of time in each visit.
Low commitment activities could also be integral in surfacing tacit knowledge
and assumptions about practice. The CC command challenges were an example of a low
commitment task. Described as a common sense test and designed to extend into deep
thinking and dialogue. These small tasks offered variation to the levels of engagement.
At the lightest level, members were invited to rate a series of choices offered in a
scenario-based activity. After submission of a response the tools showed how others had
rated each choice. At a deeper level and built around this basic challenge was a
reflective dialogue exploring the scenario and the collective and individual choices.
Levels of activity were important for GOL-IN but more in terms of one’s own
experience with the moderate levels of e-mail traffic across the community listserv.
Very senior civil servants were unlikely to take tolerate volumes of email or to take up
social conversation over e-mail but proved even less likely to engage in pull technology
of online forums. In MN the listserv set a level of interaction, a basis for sharing, where
people exchange views, promote activities, seek partners or share resources. The high
level commitment in this community web site was offered through face-to-face events
and in team-based collaborative action research projects.
Varied levels of engagement supported members in continued engagement over

time and the design of activities to invite this engagement was a community
management task. Communities needed to provide ‘light and shade’ in levels of
expected engagement for all members. Activities with low level commitment and
engagement supported first timers ‘dipping their toes’ into community engagement and
old timers maintaining a watching brief on the community activity.
Managers made the most of both push and pull technologies and simple
automated tools for polls, quizzes and scenarios to invite low commitment engagement.
Simple and well targeted tools were powerful hooks for online engagement. At the
lowest commitment, reading the management composed newsletter or e-mail list traffic
helped busy members stay abreast of current community issues. Hyperlinks in

Bronwyn Stuckey
newsletters hooked members back into the community activity and directed them
directly to their areas of interest. Scenarios, polls and games offered multi-level
engagement when linked into discussion spaces. Guest speaker events, topical
discussions and time-bounded activities served to revive community engagement while
requiring a short term commitment from members. Project teams, special interest
groups and leadership opportunities provided members with ways to engage in a higher
level commitment activity.
Not all IMCoP activity should require a high level commitment from members.
Not establishing the appropriate diversity can have detrimental effects on the level of
engagement in an IMCoP. In Talking Heads, an institutionalized community designed
to support new head teachers, participants could take part in a number of different
activities each with its own levels of commitment. Regular hot seats allowed invited
thought leaders, or educational administrators, to address questions from the
membership. Members could join in facilitated conversations around new directives or
initiatives in education in an interface that used a simple visual argumentation tool,
making it easy to identify positions within the discussion and create summaries of the
group viewpoint. They could leave sticky notes and reminder on their own personal
pages or the pages of their colleagues.
In the ILF members were able to watch the video vignettes of fellow teachers in
action, to review lesson plans and work samples from students, hear teacher reflection
after the lesson and ask questions of the classroom teacher in a forum as to the choices
that were made in the inquiry-based lesson. This rich visual content could be viewed
and reviewed over time. They were invited to create and promote their own teaching
examples with video, text, samples and lesson plans, but few took up this opportunity. It
was later found that the amount of content a teacher needed to explore to understand a
lesson was considered overwhelming in terms of the time commitment from teachers,
even though the items had been segmented for ease of use. This was a lesson in terms of
understanding the modality, time and commitment levels members are prepared to
dedicate to access and share knowledge. The community did find that one sector of the
membership, preservice teachers, were able to engage fully over this modality and
accordingly the community modified its focus to further supporting preservice groups.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Levels of activity and engagement were less clear in the largely listserv
supported IMCoPs; KM4Dev, and Online Facilitation. Project or mentoring activities
have arisen where smaller groups of members were prepare to engage in more
committed collaborative activity, otherwise engagement remained as thinking together
and resource sharing.
5.2.3.4. Rhythm
Rhythm was important and closely correlated to the degree to which the online
activity sustained community interactions. In GOL-IN and MN the rhythm was based
about an annual program. MN held five or six face-to-face workshops or events in a
year. GOL-IN held an annual conference which initiated and closed project activity for
the year. In the AFLC and CC the rhythm centered about a monthly program of events
and change in activities. In the AFLC for instance the monthly newsletter e-mailed to
each member announced a framework of new topics, guest speakers, training programs
and stories. The community web site hit rates showed a large spike immediately after,
and for the week to follow, the newsletter’s delivery. The monthly rhythm was also
signaled on the community home pages, with changes in images, editorial, news,
features and guests all centering around the monthly cycle of events.
A rhythmic structure allowed members to know when to expect new content and
opportunities to engage, to be selective, use their time wisely, plan their involvement.
Members stayed in touch with the community issues, even if only minimally engaged,
for instance when scanning a monthly newsletter.
Whether on a weekly, monthly basis, management’s influence over the

development of the community rhythm came down to negotiating the kinds of activities
the community oriented itself about, how much of that activity happened online or
offline and how frequently. A lot of the work of community planning and infrastructure
fell under the banner of developing rhythm. Regularly scheduled advisory board
meetings, community newsletters, discussions, conferences, events, workshops, guest
speakers and competitions variously served to establish a base pattern of regular
activity. Having an established a rhythm did not constrain the activity of the community

Bronwyn Stuckey
and the calendar was not so crowded that the community could not accommodate
compelling ad hoc tasks, topics or events.
Each community was able to find a simple rhythm that worked for the
membership, their respective workplace contexts and the domain of knowledge.
actKM is an interesting case where the rhythm that existed in 2004 naturally
evolved over a number of years. The community began with monthly face-to-face
meetings and then adopted an Internet-mediated Yahoogroups environment to maintain
communication between meetings and to reach members not in the Canberra geographic
location. Updates from the Canberra meetings were available to those unable to attend
physically and conversations were extended over time and geographic locations. The
online membership grew and when in Canberra members, some online members visiting
in the city, will still attend the monthly meeting. After a year a commercially successful
conference event was devised as an alternative to the high cost events already in
existence. The conference proved a way to raise the status of the community and
members, a major highlight on the annual calendar and a funding stream for ongoing
community activity. None of the events in the cycle have been superseded but as the
community has grown larger and more in tune with the diverse needs of members it has
been able to focus on a rhythm of integrated activities of greatest benefit to members.
Activities within a cycle varied across the exemplar communities integrating
content, timing and modality in newsletters, events, guest speakers, discussions, polls,
news bytes, spotlight on members, subgroups or topics, reporting on feedback
mechanisms, conferences, seminars and competitions. For Webheads it was a weekly
cycle marked by the Sunday meeting, for actKM and Tapped In the monthly cycle
pivoted about the meeting or newsletter. Annual events were as a climax to the year’s
activity in actKM and PRNM-wg (biannually). Two exceptions proved to be the ILF and
Online Facilitation. Online Facilitation’s listserv is a steady flow of communication
throughout the year with no planned rhythm. The ILF on the other hand, having now
focused on pre-service teachers, has a cohort basis and works to the rhythm imposed by
academic calendars. The academic school year, that inservice teachers are part of, is
also leveraged in the Tapped In rhythm. In the summer, activities change a great deal
and the community hosts a summer carnival. The focus becomes much more on
professional development than just community. This use of rhythm further exemplifies

Bronwyn Stuckey
the community’s close to the relationship to the wider community and work life of the
practitioners.
5.2.3.5. Generate content

It was found that generating content was important to social interaction.
Communities needed to proactively generate content and to keep a steady flow of new
content appearing within the community. Content could be raised in new topics,
resources, events or projects. Content varied from the tools and instruments of
command shared in CC, the articles posted by members in the AFLC, political
initiatives that would affect classroom teaching with ICT in MN or project topics raised
by agency representatives in GOL-IN. This condition is closely related to the rhythm of
the community activity and knowing what is a critical mass of activity for each
individual community. Over time more content is generated by the core and active
groups of members and fostering this shift in responsibility is part of the work of
community management.
In all four heuristic communities the content was actively sourced, brokered,
raised, introduced and fostered by community management and the core group. This
does not mean that content was driven purely from the center. In many cases proactively
generating content was an act to ‘prime the pump’ or to mentor, sponsor or support a
community member to present content or a new topic. In the early days of the
community this may mean that more content is primarily initiated, but not necessarily
decided, by management to flesh out an effective calendar of events. In the AFLC, CC
and MN the conveners spent much of their time sourcing content or supporting others to
do the same. This activity is somewhat planned when working within the community
rhythm, and some what opportunistic; being in close and constant touch with the
membership, advisory boards, and leaders so that you become aware of opportunities to
generate content and do what it takes to support them.

Bronwyn Stuckey
A number of the remaining exemplar communities generated content through

tools and events like newsletters, guest speakers, thought pieces, games and even
competitions and conferences. In Online Facilitation the facilitator and few key
contributors are on constantly the lookout for resources, blog postings and news items
of interest to the community. In Webheads in Action the core group experiment with
tools and bring them to the attention of the community for further testing and discussion
of their affordances. The ILF classroom vignettes like the multimedia interviews of CC
were high quality content directly developed with financial and human resources of the
community. Workshops and seminars in KM4Dev and the PRNM-wg provided
extensive content and learning opportunities to members.
5.2.4. Core conditions for PLACE
Place related to the identity of the community and the sense of it as an entity,
including its structure, tools promotion and resourcing. Figure 5.5 demonstrates a level
of disparity in terms of the pattern of relative importance across communities for three
conditions related to place. The degree of difference is discussed below.

1 Around people
2 Resources
3 Evolution
Percentage of coded items
30% 4 Tools
20%
CCMD 6 Inside and outside
15%
GOL-IN 7 Ownership
10%
MN 8 Reliability
5%
AFLC 9 Navigation
10 Promotion
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
11 Status
12 History and context
Conditions
13 Resourcing
14 Personal touches
Figure 5.5 Comparative importances of conditions for the place component of
community across heuristic cases.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 5.6
Place: Core conditions and related attributes presented in rank order.
Tools (4) Centrally implemented toolset important because of what people could do
with them; sharing information and feedback
Reliability (8) Safe harbor and quality resources whether as output of the community work
or as a repository of practical instruments and guidelines
Resourcing (13) Funding
Evolution (3) Evolution in general was important, of the technology, of the architecture
and infrastructure and that it was planned
Resources (2) Individually contributed and internally community developed
Public and private (5) Subgroups and public and private spaces
Ownership(7) Member-driven development
Status (11) Recognition, relationships, reputation
5.2.4.1. Tools
For three of the four communities the main toolset was centrally resourced and
implemented. In and of themselves the specific tools did not prove critical. What the
tools enabled people to do was much more important. Tools for sharing information
were the most highly noted. These included discussion tools, repositories with tools to
upload resources, and download published materials and tools to support networking
opportunities with peers.
The choice of tools at the launch of community varied greatly and came down to
knowing what members would initially want to do together, supporting that and being
open to building out from a toolset and an initial platform. Two of the communities, MN
and GOL-IN, the project-based communities, had an e-mail listserv as part of the initial
platform. The two conversation and resource-based communities, CC and the AFLC
began through a more fully developed web architecture allowing for discussion and
repository building. In some cases tools were abandoned when found inappropriate for
the community as was the case with web forums in GOL-IN or the PHPNuke interface,
originally used by CC’s companion community PlatoonLeader.org, which did not scale
as required nor support nested communities.
Whether as part of strategic reporting, as was the case in the AFLC and to some
extent CC, tools to gather feedback and statistics about community engagement ranked
highly. Tools to gauge page hits, numbers of reads, downloads and comments and

Bronwyn Stuckey
ratings proved relatively important in evaluating engagement, understanding active

membership and recognizing peaks and troughs in activity.
Since the tools in these communities were centrally implemented the community
management was solely responsible for implementation of the toolset on offer. The
choice of tools beyond an initial platform was largely dictated by emerging needs of the
community. In all four communities tools were experimented with and added over the
life of the community to support demand for new forms of interaction such as
synchronous activity in chat and VOIP, small group privacy, e-zines and blogs.
Community tools varied so greatly across the 12 communities examined in this

study. The focus of sharing and thinking together was maintained across all
communities, from the Online Facilitation which has maintained only a Yahoogroup’s
site with an archived listserv for all the community’s life to the custom-built multi-
functional Think.com interface used by Talking Heads. Where KM4Dev had selected
tools to meet the needs and bandwidth limitations of members in developing nations,
Tapped In used a custom built MUD-like interface with a toolset largely based on
synchronous activity and real time meetings. There were no prescribed toolsets only
tools that were implemented centrally to support the ways members prefer to interact,
their workplace practices and the contexts from which they connect.
5.2.4.2. Reliability
Reliability in this case is not meant in its more accepted research definition but
is used to describe what made members view their community as a reliable source of
knowledge about their domain. It was marked by the community staying true to the
community focus and the needs of members. For instance, quality resources were the
most highly ranked condition for creating reliability for communities. Whether as output
of the community work or for a repository of practical instruments and guidelines, these
resources developed by individuals and shared across the community were highly
regarded. In CC resources ranged from member developed practical administrative tools
Bronwyn Stuckey
and instruments through to processes and stories offered by commanders in active

deployment.
In the AFLC information and opinion pieces published by members and known
as articles were a corner stone of the community resources. In MN it was the published
works, the result of individual action research programs of scholars and collective
consultancy projects, which were prized inside and outside the community. In GOL-IN
it is the end product of the research projects such as the E-democracy book that marked
both the community’s ability to create knowledge and the high quality of its output.
Another attribute of reliability, was how important it was to create a safe harbor
for members. Creating an environment safe for discourse, collaboration and critique was
achieved through the climate, norms and responsiveness of the community. For the
AFLC community manager this meant “…being recognized makes people come back.
People are asked to promote and report on their projects. When they get positive
reinforcement people come in again. If you post an item and get responses then you join
other activities.” In CC topic leads worked to respond to member inquiries within 24
hours, and if they were unable, a member of the support team would step in to assist.
The stability of each of the communities was also a factor in creating safe
harbor. Each community had been around for a number of years and access to the
history and record of interaction allowed new members to develop expectation for their
own engagement. Maintaining a healthy core group did not mean retaining the same
people at the core. The stability of the community meant that over time members could
drop back from or step into active engagement as they needed. For instance, the director
of MN described the comfort people felt in an established community as “…they might
be in projects for a while, then appear to disappear and then lurk on MirandaLink and
then suddenly pop up again, some people as much as 18 months or 2 years later. Quite
interesting that very few people actually leave.”
Community managers set a high standard for responsiveness and support in

these communities. Such standards, modeled by the convener, facilitator and core
group, became norms for the community. The longevity of each of the communities is
testament to their reliability and stability.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Once again it was the conveners and core group members who initially created
the safe harbor in the community. They did this by constantly and visibly modeling the
norms and practices of the community. The management can also put into place
practices to set and maintain high standards when they devote resources, human or
financial, to editorial support, leadership or mentor training, multimedia, research,
feedback loops and reporting.
All the communities examined set standards that developed a sense of reliability
for the community, whether by using low bandwidth technologies like KM4Dev or
PNRM-wg or by the high standards for quality set within community events like the
actKM conference or Online Facilitation’s reputation as the place to be recognized in
the field. Both Webheads in Action and Tapped In have developed a reputation for being
warm and supportive environments where new members are greeted and guided through
their first community experiences. Conversely to the low technology KM4Dev design,
these communities employed technology adventurously and yet through volunteerism
and the culture of the community managed to put at ease those new to the technology.
The communities developed a reputation and capacity for quality output and
supporting relevant engagement. Some were recognized for their high standards. For
instance MN this reputation was to pay off when the community was invited to tender
for cutting edge research projects. As the director pointed out, “Now government often
asks us to bid because they want to build community. We know what it involves - you
see it’s to do with using capacity”. In CC the award of Fast Company’s Fast 50 award
for innovation was recognition of the value and reliability of the work of the
community. Aside from a well attended public conference, actKM offers annual awards
to those working in knowledge management in government and these awards are highly
regarded partly because of the regard with which actKM is held in the field. Online
Facilitation has had a number of offers form academic institutions and commercial
ventures to take over the community, which is a clear measure of the reliability and
status of this community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
5.2.4.3. Resourcing
All four communities were resourced in different ways. GOL-IN was resourced
and sustained through the individual member agencies. The AFLC was funded under the
auspices of a national education framework. MN and CC both began with philanthropic
efforts of their community founders. Both communities attracted new resourcing
opportunities as a result of the reputation and status the community had carved out in
field. For MN corporate partners and consultative work funded new community
activities. For CC it was West Point that offered the community a home after it gained
high regard for its professional development capacity for commanders.
Community resourcing funded such diverse aspects of community as the small
secretariat in MN, release from school for classroom teachers to take up consultancy or
workshop activity, travel for CC support team member to carry out interviews with
commanders in battle front deployments or the time for members to work in analyzing
data collected in a GOL-IN community survey.
The consensus across the communities was that resourcing was essential to the
viability of the community. The essential nature of some level of resourcing was
summed up by the comments of the AFLC manager, “I can’t imagine genuine
communities running on their own resources unless they are train-spotters, young
developer communities or passionate or intrinsically motivated medical help groups
where there is a genuine need that could run without resourcing.” The GOL-IN web
master felt the community could do so much more if it had access to central resourcing
for infrastructure like a permanent secretariat to better facilitate ongoing community
activity.
In the case of MN, resourcing and the high hit rate on the web site led to
attracting other resources. As the community director suggested:
The fact that we are reasonably well financed has to be a strength. There is no way
this sort of thing would go on voluntarily because there isn’t the capacity in the
profession to do it voluntarily because of the teacher retention issues. Where this
kind of thing used to be done in a voluntary way it isn’t now.
Budgetary constraints meant that community managers had to make careful and
considered choices about expenditure. For the AFLC this meant after the six week
development of the web architecture the focus of the first year was to build, what
research showed people wanted; a resource base. The resources of the following year
were devoted to building and strengthening the social infrastructure. Budgetary
Bronwyn Stuckey
constraints also meant choosing to maintain a project officer to facilitate community

activity over the development of member special interest groups and further events. In
MN, financial issues saw the community newsletter, which had been contracted out for
development, abandoned for a period of time and re-emerging, in email, an internally
developed format that was financially more sustainable.
Philanthropic community founders were the funding sources for the early years
of two of these heuristic communities. Their confidence in the potential of the
community and the passionate core they were able to cultivate served to maintain the
community over its early years. The communities attracted further resourcing and
sponsorship through the high profile of the community and the quality of the resources
developed by the community. While most community managers recognized that these
communities would not exist without some resourcing it appeared that a minimal budget
and a passionate core group of people can develop into a well resourced community.
The financial support of IMCoPS varies immensely with very few surviving
unfunded. Even if the funding only supports an online technology and a salaried or
sponsored facilitator, most communities other than Online Facilitation were financially
resourced. While all IMCoPs were dependent on high levels of volunteer support,
resources were harnessed important in initiating and sustaining community. PRNG-wg,
as part of PRGA was funded by donors, who are acknowledged on the parent
organization’s website. KM4Dev was funded by member agencies and NGO’s. Tapped
In and the ILF initially had equal support from founding institutions and NSF grant
funds. Talking Heads was resourced by the government’s NCSL. Two communities,
Online Facilitation and actKM overcame resourcing issues, at least initially, by using
the Yahoogroups freeware environment for community development. Online
Facilitation remains founder facilitated and supported by her human resources.
Some have managed to raise funds, to progress and sustain the community, from
the collaborative activities within the community. Where MirandaNet is able to consult
on paid educational technology research projects, building a business model around the

Bronwyn Stuckey
annual conference allowed actKM to consider a hiring a paid facilitator. Whether

financial or human capital is harnessed, resourcing is a very important concern to the
ongoing effectiveness of all communities.
5.2.4.4. Evolution
Evolution in general was important in terms of the technology and architecture.
While this evolution was in response to the needs of community members, it appeared
important that it was planned for. This was most evident in the development of sub-
community or private group spaces. Community leaders in the two communities with
the predominance of activity online, the AFLC and CC, came to realize over time that
there was a need for more, smaller dedicated spaces for special interest groups. These
spaces needed to be planned for and groups offered toolsets and host rights in order to
as infrastructure for leadership, training, guidelines and support.
A number of communities did make sizeable changes to architecture and
technical infrastructure over the first years. CC moved form the in-house designed and
built tools to an object-oriented environment supported by a partnership with the vendor
company. This new environment better supported the resource base the community
sought to develop. GOL-IN made a commitment to Gossamer, an open source tool for
its community web site but found this style of tool and interface did not attract member
engagement. The low threshold e-mail listserv was found to serve the community needs
most effectively.
Management was responsive to member needs and worked to research and

explore additional tools and infrastructure for the community. Design for community
was an ongoing effort and community managers were constantly looking at other
communities and listening to members to plan for evolution. Managers were called
upon to weigh up the value of different aspects of evolution and to make decisions
about which aspects and in which order to fund additional capability. This involved
staying abreast of the tools that were available and understanding what members might
use most effectively, what might readily equate to their workplace practices, and what
technical constraints they were operating under. Whether freeware, opensource or

Bronwyn Stuckey
proprietary, community managers were working to improve the efficacy of the

communication tools.
Most communities had evolved, and continue to evolve, in their development of

place and uptake of tools. However for most it was clear that no radical changes were
made that would threaten the successful formula already in operation.
The actKM evolution already sited here in terms of cycle of events shows how
the community evolved ways of communicating and integrating face-to-face and online
modes. For Webheads in Action evolution is fast paced. While they still maintain a
home base in Tapped In and Yahoogroups they also foray into many voice and audio
technologies as their needs for communication tools grows more and more
sophisticated. Several communities added to or changed the toolset in the period leading
to 2004. In 2002, in response to community needs Tapped In moved away from the
original MUD to a new custom-built web platform for T2. The community continues to
listen to what members need and explores what else is available on the web as the
community moves forward. In accord with a groundswell of activity from members,
Webheads and Online Facilitation began to incorporate member blogs in the
community network.
Two communities, actKM and Online Facilitation, which had grown up with
Yahoogroups, were examining platform options having found that the community
evolution and had outstripped the affordances of this service. In particular they were
dissatisfied with the listservs support for subgroups and a capacity to take conversations
deeper in smaller specifically focused groups. This level of discourse can be seen as
noise over an open listserv, to those not interested in the topic at hand. But moving a
community platform is a large and radical change and at the time of this study neither
had moved.
5.2.4.5. Resources
The resources most valued in these communities were those either individually
contributed to a community repository or those developed internally through community
collaborations. While there was sharing of URLS and references to external resources it

Bronwyn Stuckey
was the practical resources developed by members that appeared most prized. For the
AFLC and CC, which were the two conversation and resource-based communities, the
close relationship between conversation and resources was vital. The CC team had
developed their own theory to describe the successful interplay of resources and
conversations:
Content grows out of conversations. Content can be both the topic of
conversations and an end product. For example, if five company commanders
who have experience with convoy operations have a conversation; the result is
valuable content that is useful to many others. Likewise, content in the form of
a convoy SOP requires a conversation for it to come alive and have meaning.
To be useful, content must be current, rich in context, and relevant to the
immediate needs of company commanders.
For the AFLC providing resources was a more problematic issue. The
community needed to serve a very diverse spectrum of needs in online learning. The
instruments of online learning that might be shared in a community were less discrete
and clear-cut than the basic tools required by new commanders. The AFLC manager
reported that; “In terms of feedback, we’ve constantly got the tension between people
who want specific things on specific topics when we feel that our role is actually to
provide a range of things.” None the less quality was always an issue. In the AFLC
members were free to promote individual articles (advice, instruments, opinion pieces,
information) to the community site but there was always a concern about how much
these varied in quality. In 2004 the community formed an editorial special interest
group with the aim of assisting and mentoring members in writing quality articles. A
similar kind of service existed to support high quality resources for members of CC and
MirandaNet Fellow mentor Scholars to produce, carry out, and publish the results of
their school-based action research.
Management influenced the development of resources in many ways. Firstly, the

architecture of the community site allowed members to upload and promote resources
such as the articles in the AFLC or tools in CC. Secondly, the support infrastructure of
management and/or the core group ensured the quality of those resources, as in CC core

Bronwyn Stuckey
members worked with contributors to edit their contributions or the mentoring of

teachers by a Fellow in MN to see classroom action research through to publication.
Thirdly, by promoting shared work like the consultancy of MN or the research
whitepapers of GOL-IN. Fourthly, by bringing in resources, guest speakers, and events
from the broader community, each community was able to help cultivate an
understanding of what quality practice can look like.
Resources proved important in the remaining exemplar IMCoPs. Most of these

communities were resource and dialog-based. In the ILF those members resources were
and CC the audiovisual content were produced through community funding and
support. Quality resources in this case were artifacts of authentic inquiry teaching
practice opened up for discussion rather than exemplar lessons for people to follow or
recreate. It is the membership that decides the quality and value of a resource. In a more
informal fashion resources were shared over the listserv for Online Facilitation and
actKM or file upload and feedback was quickly offered as to their prospective value to
the practice.
5.2.4.6. Public and private

All communities described an evolution that saw the community reflect on the
need for subgroups and private spaces. Each community maintained an open web site
allowing for all members to read and contribute to the discourse. With community
maturity there was a growing acceptance that smaller groups might be advantageous.
This was particularly true for CC and the AFLC, with their greater reliance on the
Internet-mediated aspects of community. In these communities there was a realization
that smaller groups and private spaces might allow people to engage more deeply in key
topics and work on joint ventures. The AFLC manager commented:
I notice and from anecdotal feedback people are far less nervous going into those
private groups and expressing their views, more keen to post in spaces where they
know who is going to read it and sometimes it is very political sensitive.
Under consideration were the ways in which these private groups or sub-
communities might report back to the full community and remain part of the community

Bronwyn Stuckey
rather than become tenants of the community space. The AFLC manager also described
a tension with the funding body for activity to be visible or shown. She questioned
whether, if 60% of the discourse was private, sponsors would be content and described a
pressure for funding bodies to be able to see something.
Endorsing and creating public or private spaces and the conditions and timing for
new subgroups is very much in the hands of community management. After a few years
of operation, managers of CC and the AFLC (dialog ,and resource-based) communities
did come to realize, through community developed capacity, that these groups were
needed and the climate was right in terms of prospective ownership, leadership, privacy
and trust in the community. In GOL-IN and MN, the project-based communities, project
teams effectively served as sub-communities from the outset of engagement.
Subgroups and public and private spaces were all rated in the findings. Public and
private spaces can be those presented to the world and those allowed only to members.
The first boundaries encountered in IMCoPs are those around the main online discourse.
Some communities like Webheads have no private spaces and others like the AFLC,
Online Facilitation, KM4Dev allowed read only access to non-members and required
membership to contribute. Other still like GOL-IN, Talking Heads, ILF and CC the
discourse was entirely private but static or dynamic web pages might offer a public view
of the community activity.
Boundaries were also raised internally related to the material and interaction that
was public to the whole of community, and that which was carried on in private or in
subgroups. Private communication was found in back channel communication which
seems to form a significant part of the community convener/facilitator’s work. Over
time many of the communities studied discovered that there was a need for more
intimate and private areas to concentrate on the specific aspects of the community work.
There were exceptions in the exemplar IMCoPs where, for instance, Online Facilitation
and Webheads in Action do not have discrete subgroups but do from time to time form
teams that work together on topics or events. Tapped In and the AFLC also housed
tenant groups which formed a unique relationship to the wider community. These
Bronwyn Stuckey
private groups employed the architecture of the community space for their wholly
private activities while members could avail themselves of the activity of the main
community.
5.2.4.7. Ownership
Communities used facilitation by the conveners to enable ownership in the
community. The fact that the members drive the topics and activities of the community
is very important. In the early days of the community this might be more proactively
facilitated by the community management moving out to the core group members. In
more mature stages the support for, and work of, the core group and distributed
leadership ensure a high sense of ownership in the community. Feedback mechanisms
play a large part in keeping the community and its management in control of the
trajectory of the community. Because the IMCoPs were all non-organizationally based
there was little evidence of stakeholder ownership overriding that of the membership.
The community manager for the AFLC described her role as constantly on the
lookout for topics to include in the community’s focus. And while she was in constant
contact with members she found herself wishing the feedback loop were better in order
to ensure the right topics were being raised. Her comments alluded to a tension,
described for a number of community managers, between providing a service and
building a self-managed and self-directed community.
Management was best able to support ownership through a strong distributed
leadership program and through maintaining multilayered and effective feedback
relationships, structures and processes.
It is difficult without in-depth study of member perspectives to determine the

degree of ownership in any one community. It may be self-evident however, that if
communities that have existed over time, and members have remained engaged, that
some sense of ownership will have developed. Taking the view from the AFLC

Bronwyn Stuckey
manager’s dilemma, a view of the community management as providing services was

not evident in most of the remaining exemplar communities.
5.2.4.8. Status
The status and prestige of the community, while not a goal of the community, did
prove to be an important factor in successful IMCoPs. Members valued the perceived
role and recognition of the community in the domain or workplace. If the community
held a reputation then the members carried it by association. MN members cited
membership of the community in their CVs and sought references from the community
manager when applying for promotion. CC topic leads are given CC business cards to
mark their leadership roles in the community.
Status of the community has much to do with the quality of output, consultancy,
and professionalism the community is perceived, by the broader community, to support.
In these four heuristic communities issues of quality were always high on the agenda.
Quality concerns were embodied in the AFLC's tension on allowing member promoted
articles while seeking to retain quality on-topic resources, the research mentoring of
MN, the research value demands of multi-agency sponsorship in GOL-IN, and the high
quality video interviews in CC. These internal quality foci were part of what gained the
communities their high regard in the external world. This status in turn attracts more
members, members who anticipate value in their engagement.
By the very nature of their profile and selection as exemplars the remaining
communities had achieved some level of status within the domain and in some cases
association with the various sponsoring persons or organizations. When members of
Online Facilitation see it as a place to be recognized in the field, or knowledge
managers strive to win actKM awards, or Webheads are invited to keynote at
International conferences, or when educational thought leaders establish offices in
Tapped In, we are observing a clear measure of a community’s high profile in the
domain.
Bronwyn Stuckey
5.3. Comparison education and non-education sector communities
While all communities of practice could be said to address educational agendas,

this research needed to distinguish between IMCoPS in education sectors and non-
education sectors to answer research question 4. How and in what ways do the
conditions for development of successful IMCoPs differ in education sector
communities? Education sector IMCoPs are those grounded in academic context or
related to school, vocational or tertiary education. Non-education sector IMCoPS are
those cultivated in multi-organizational, government, non-profit and other institutions.
Figure 5.6 compares the percentages found for each of the four community
component for the four heuristic communities. It can be seen that the components
people and social interaction demonstrate closely related score.
1
40%
30%
20%
10% CCMD
GOL-IN
4 0% 2
MN
AFLC
Components: 1 = people, 2 = common ties, 3 = social interaction, 4 =place
Figure 5.6 Comparison of percentages for each community component across the
four heuristic communities
Common ties and place vary more widely with ranges between 14% and 22% for
common ties and 16 and 31% for place. Figure 5.7 shows this same data when
categorized as education and non-education sector IMCoPs.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Non-education sector communities Education sector communities

1 1
40% 40%
20% 20%
CCMD MN
4 0% 2 4 0% 2
GOL-IN A FLC
3 3
Components: 1= people, 2 = common ties, 3 = social interaction, 4 = place

Figure 5.7 Comparison of community sectors and components of community
It is interesting at this high level of data analysis there does not appear to be a
common nor idiosyncratic pattern for educational communities. Non-education sector
communities appear to prioritize the four components similarly while the two education
sector communities vary greatly on two of the components, most radically on place. It
should be noted that the two communities vary greatly in terms of their sizes, degree of
Internet-mediation and modalities. The difference in ranking of place may be an effect
of these differences in conditions rather than attributable to the sector.
People
Figure 5.8 shows the comparison of the percentages for each of the conditions and
averaged for education and non-education sector communities.
1 Roles
component coding
60%
Percentage of
50%
40% 3 Time
30%
Non-educ at i on
4 Ties
E ducat i on
20% 5 Profiles
10%
6 Leadership
0%
7 Sponsorship
8 Management support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Conditions
Figure 5.8 Comparative importances of averages for education and non-education

sectors in the conditions for the people component of community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Communities in educational and non-educational sectors exhibited very similar

patterns in relation to the key conditions of people. Small differences did occur on two
conditions; roles, and ties. Roles proved to be marginally more important in educational
communities than their non-educational counterparts. Insight into why this may be the
case could be found in the fact that the roles on offer in these communities were
possibly new for teachers, where in CC and GOL-IN the roles of the community echoed
the roles of the workplace. The MN director described the community as allowing
teachers to take on new roles without leaving the comfort of their schools.
Ties, in terms of relationships, ranked slightly higher for non-education
communities. There was clear evidence in these communities that personal relationships
were important in attracting member engagement.
Common ties
Figure 5.9 demonstrates a level of disagreement in terms of comparative

importance for each of the conditions related to the common ties component of
community, when averaged for educational and non-educational sectors for community.

1 Situatedness
2 Value
30%
component coding
4 Purpose
Percentage of
25%
20%
Non-educ at i on
5 Focus
15%
E duc at i on 6 Diversity
10%
7 Accreditation and
5%
recognition
0%
8 Values
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 Cutting edge
Conditions
Figure 5.9 Comparative importances of averages for educational and non-educational

sectors in the conditions for the Common ties component of community
In the case of common ties there is not complete agreement between cases in each
sector (see Figure 5.2). The greatest differences are found in the relative importance of
value, relationship to the larger community, focus and diversity. Non-education sector
communities demonstrated a higher overall importance for value from the community
and its relationship to the broader community. While the focus of the community and

Bronwyn Stuckey
the diversity of the membership proved of greater importance in education sector

communities.
Relationships to the larger community appeared less important in education
sector communities. This may be because that wider community in the education sector
communities studied is a large amorphous area (K-12 ICT use and vocational education)
encompassing large diversity and disparity in workplace contexts. Where in the non-
education sector communities the larger community was more discrete and the domain
more narrowly defined (e-government and command). Workplaces of e-government and
military command may be assumed less diverse than the range of contexts for teaching
and learning.
Social Interaction
Figure 5.10 shows there is a clear pattern of resonance between communities in

education and non-education sectors in terms of social interaction. The areas of
moderate difference indicate that non-education sector communities may place greater
importance on the modality of the communication. Most important was recognition of
the resource or project-base of the community and the use of back-channel
communication in these communities.

1 Modality
2 Currency
3 Familiarity and
60%
excitement
50% 4 Levels
40% 5 Functionality
Non Educational
30% 6 Rhythm
20% Educational 7 Fun factor
0% 9 Etiquette
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 Motives
11 Professional and
social
12 Reporting
Figure 5.10 comparative importances of averages for educational and non-educational

sectors in the conditions for the Social interaction component of community
Education sector communities ranked the fun factor as a condition when it was not
at all visible in the non-education sector counterparts. This was epitomized by the

Bronwyn Stuckey
following kinds of quotes from education community leaders:
We do have a very serious entertainment side to the whole thing. When we went
to Prague we organized a program of concerts, visits, boat trips you know all sorts
of things that we like to do (MN).
I know I am far more likely to enjoy the site because it is warm and friendly rather
than just because it has great resources (AFLC).
Place
Figure 5.11 demonstrates that percentages across the communities for place
delivered widely variable data when comparing education and non-education sector
communities. When examining the communities individually, the four also communities
demonstrated widely varying patterns for rankings (see Figure 5.4).

1 Around people
2 Resources
3 Evolution
4 Tools
component coding
20%
Percentage of
5 Public and private

15%
Non-E ducat i on
6 Inside and outside
10%
E ducat i on 7 Ownership
5% 8 Reliability
0% 9 Navigation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
10 Promotion
Conditions 11 Status
12 History and context
13 Resourcing
14 Personal touches
Figure 5.11 Comparative importances of averages for educational and non-educational

sectors in the conditions for the Place component of community
There was near agreement between the two sectors around conditions 1, 3, 4, 7, 9,
10, 11, 12, and 14. Education sector communities showed a lower ranking for resources,
and reliability than their non-education counterparts.
Averaging percentages across the communities for place however, delivers the far
less homogeneous findings when comparing data for education and non-education
communities. Each of the four communities displayed such radically different patterns
of relevance (see Figure 5.4) that these findings may not be offer strong evidence of
difference between education and non-education sector communities.
Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 5.7
Variations observed for importance of conditions for IMCoPs in the education sector
Greater importance in education sector Lesser importance in education sector
roles relationship to the larger community
focus value
diversity resources
modality reliability
fun factor
public and private
inside and outside
resourcing
The findings, while from a small number of cases and showing relatively small
differences, would suggest that the conditions described in column of the Table 5.6 may
describe issues, above and beyond the full set of the core conditions, that management
of education sector IMCoPs should remain be mindful of. Further research is warranted
in this area to explore what this means in terms of conditions and attributes most
relevant to education sector IMCoPS. Further research might investigate whether these
conditions are also rated important by the membership and whether these eight
conditions are as important in IMCoPs launching in educational contexts today.
The next chapter returns to the literature to discuss and position the cross-case
findings and suggest where this research fits in terms of adding to that body of
knowledge. The conclusions are offered in Chapter 6 as a final conceptual framework
for community design within IMCoPs.

Bronwyn Stuckey

Bronwyn Stuckey
6. Discussion and conclusions
Chapters 4 and 5 of this thesis presented the findings related to each of the four
research questions. Chapter 4 presented an overview of all 12 communities and the
detailed description of each of the four heuristic communities. These case findings were
presented in both narrative and descriptive statistics, offering data for each case to
assess the appropriateness of the conceptual framework for describing community.
Chapter 5 offered a cross-case analysis of the data and examined the plausibility of the
findings in relation to the remaining eight exemplary cases while distilling out the
findings for research questions two to four. This chapter discusses the plausibility of
the findings in relation to the research literature. It examines and discusses the findings
for each of the four research questions, and proposes the generalizability of the findings
and directions for future research.
It is important to remember that this research set out to understand the
development of community as an aspect of the Internet-mediated community of
practice. The research sought to empirically identify the conditions and attributes of
community that were important to its successful development as such the focus is on
community embedded specifically within an IMCoP environment.
The discussion that follows also includes insights from the most currently relevant
literature in the fields of online community, community of practice and continuing
teacher professional development. A number of pseudonyms have arisen in more recent
literature that do, by definition resemble the IMCoP. Literature related to open
congregations similar to IMCoPs is associated with electronic networks of practice
(Wasko & Faraj, 2005), virtual communities of practice or VCoPs (Kondratova &
Goldfarb, 2004; Lueg, 2000) and computer network mediated communities of practice
(Hew & Hara, 2007). These do offer some relevant advice. However, to date, there is
still a dearth of literature directly relevant to IMCoPs when viewed as highly distributed
and non-organizationally connected communities. The bulk of the CoP literature is still
largely focused on organizational and/or collocated instantiations of community (Dube,
Bourhis, & Jacob, 2006; Kimble & Hildreth, 2005; Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2005).
In relation to teacher communities the literature for online communities largely
appears in academic contexts and focuses on preservice education (Dreon Jr &
Discussion and conclusions 263 27/06/2008

Bronwyn Stuckey
McDonald, 2006; Goos & Bennison, 2004), beginning teachers (Cokely & Qualters,
2006; Herrington, Herrington, Kervin, & Ferry, 2006; Pyne, 2004) or course-based
communities (Baker-Eveleth, Sarker, & Eveleth, 2005). Even within a controlled
academic environment Baker-Eveleth, Sarker and Eveleth, begin to acknowledge the
complexity of IMCoP development when they say,
Creating a learning community in a non-traditional setting, such as an online
environment, requires the same foundation of a community of practice, along with
the added framework of a learning community. (Baker-Eveleth, Sarker, &
Eveleth, 2005, p. 3)
In teacher continuing education recent literature has been dominated by large scale
research in networked learning communities (National College for School Leadership,
2005) supporting interactions across clusters of schools, or professional learning
communities (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas,
2006; Stoll & Louis, 2007) which describe communities of practice ostensibly rooted in
face-to-face school and local district environments.

Bronwyn Stuckey
6.1. Discussion of IMCoP components, conditions and attributes
This section focuses on determining the plausibility of the findings by holding

them up against the relevant corpus of literature. The findings for each component are
initially tested against the six key works of Kim (2000), Williams and Cothrel (2000),
McDermott (2000), Hung and Chen (2001) Le Moult (2002) and Wenger, McDermott
and Snyder (2002). To aid readability, full citations will only be given in relation to
these six works when a direct quote is employed.
Since the basic conceptual framework was devised from a synthesis of the six
contributing authors’ works it would not be surprising to see a clear relationship
between that literature and the final conditions. However, additional conditions did
surface inductively, from interaction with the case data and served to extend and qualify
the framework. It is largely for key attributes of each condition that this research
contributes most to the field.
This section reintroduces the synthesized set of issues raised in the extant
literature and compares these with core conditions that presented in the data coding and
analysis. The findings show a number of principles encountered in the literature were
confirmed, others became subsumed as attributes of the core conditions, still others
proved to be of only minor importance, while a number of additional conditions and
attributes surfaced as important.
In the four sections that follow, the findings for each of the four community
components are examined in light of the relevant contributing and contemporary
literature. Each section begins with a table comparing the contribution made to the
framework by the six key sets of principles and the core conditions and attributes
supported in the findings. The discussion that follows each table concentrates on the
core conditions, those making up 80% of each component, across the four heuristic
communities, and found plausible in examination of the remaining exemplar IMCoPs.
In that discussion, the relationship to the relevant bodies of research is further examined
and the unique contribution of this research highlighted.

Bronwyn Stuckey
6.1.1. People
As Table 6.1 indicates the findings for core conditions for the people component
of community corroborate the importance of the conditions originally drawn from the
six key bodies of literature.
Table 6.1
Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of PEOPLE to the
Principles Core conditions Key attributes
drawn from literature supported by findings drawn from findings
Roles (numerous) 1. Roles • role types (numerous)
Thought leaders • role formation (structured/emergent)
Coordinator • nature (voluntary/elected/paid/targeted/
Passionate core anonymous)
Voluntary nature
Sponsorship
Profiles 2. Profiles • member profile

• development (self stated/through interaction/
visual/management led/structural)
• community profile
• demographics
• morale
• presence
• leaders
Leadership 3. Leadership • distributed

• respected
• central
• passionate core
• modeling
mentioned across 4. Sponsorship • institutional/program

roles and • partnership
participation • corporate/executive
• evangelist
• agency supported
Time and 5. Time • to engage

encouragement • longevity
• recognition of member’s time
Since these extant bodies of literature relate to different types of community, not
specifically IMCoPS, it would suggest that the core conditions may be common across
many different types of communities (online community, CoP, learning community). It

Bronwyn Stuckey
is at the attribute level that the findings serve to qualify the conditions specifically for
IMCoPs.
All six of the key bodies of literature recognize that community development is
dependent on the uptake of, and interaction between, various roles. Wasko and Faraj’s
research (2005 p.53) supports the research finding that interconnectedness of roles serve
engagement in the community, describing members as motivated if “…they are
structurally embedded in the network”. The research findings suggest that IMCoPs in
most contexts need to support structured opportunity for voluntary and paid role uptake.
It is however not as simple as assigning roles and expecting to initiate engagement, as
Lueg (2000, p. 2) points out that,
However becoming a member is not a formal process like being appointed but a
process of growing into the role of the full member along with its rights,
responsibilities and capabilities.
The six key works each described diverse roles in community, the majority of
which were supported in the findings for key community roles. Common to all literature
was the pivotal and highly proactive role of the community facilitator and/or convener.
This role however did not on its own support the mature communities examined in this
research. Several other roles and modes of enactment proved important. Key roles were
found to be members (active and peripheral), facilitators, administration, leaders,
stakeholders, partners, mentors, advisors and initiators. For Kim the key roles are those
held by community staff. as enablers and models for community development. She
suggests that a diversity of roles will emerge as the community grows but that not all
roles will be required in the early stages or in small communities. In various ways all
four heuristic cases studied demonstrated roles that evolved with the community
maturation and modality, to become the distinct role sets observed. The research
findings support Kim’s view of the highly contextualized nature of role structure, a
structure that will not see all communities require all roles even over time.
However, Kim’s view confines each role to the interaction of the community,
where this research describes a broader view of roles important to the whole of
community activity (inside and out). From Hung and Chen’s constructivist learning
perspective roles are less numerous and perceived as part of a community’s structural
dependence. While these researchers focus on the relationship between novices and

Bronwyn Stuckey
non-novices and their interaction in a zone of proximal development (ZPD) it is useful

for this research to consider that roles emerge from enabling and establishing that ZPD
within the collective social interaction of the community.
Williams and Cothrel acknowledge that a number of roles are important within a
successful community. Moderators and coordinators are key roles in community as their
work serves to put members on “center stage” (p.20) of the community. Williams and
Cothrel also introduce the roles of guides, peer mentors and a group seen as the inner
community or core made up of what they term “hyper-affiliates” (Cothrel, 2000 p.20).
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder and McDermott also support the vital role of the
community’s core. For McDermott this active core group provides the potential
successors to the community conveners or coordinators. For Wenger, McDermott and
Snyder community is comprised of a coordinator, active and core groups. From their
organizational perspective, they also connect roles, outside the community such as
customers, suppliers and “intellectual neighbors” as important community-related roles.
While many facilitators were concerned about raising the overall interaction in the
community, the research would suggest it is better to focus, most particularly in the
early stages, on cultivating engagement of a core group. McDermott (p.6) proffers
advice that “More important than balancing participation is to build an active core
group.” Management respect for, and patronage of, core group individuals is vital (Hur
& Hara, 2007; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Wasko and Faraj (2005 p.52) explain how raising
the status of core group individuals can in turn serve the needs beyond the core of the
community, “Leveraging centrality and promoting individual reputations may also help
signal the potential quality of responses to novice participants and lurkers”.
The findings suggest that in some cases role types may be designated in
community infrastructure and in other cases they emerge over time. The findings
endorse Kim’s view that not all communities will support the same roles and, that the
need for some roles will only emerge as the community grows and matures. It is true
that at the time of this research, most of the communities studied had retained their
original facilitation roles and often the people in them. However, there was an evolving
distributed leadership that had taken on roles and tasks similar to those of the central
coordinator or facilitator. Management’s role in enabling community roles can best be
summed up by Kim (p.117),

Bronwyn Stuckey
What’s the lesson? In a nutshell, it’s that communities are held together by a web
of social roles, and you can help your community flourish by providing features
and programs to support these roles.
One of those programs Kim proposes may be met by what Le Moult (p.3) has
described as management role to “provoke voluntaries” to take up community roles.
The research findings suggest that volunteerism, and management support for it, were
key attributes of role development no matter what the roles were. While it was found
that members needed to work out roles for themselves (Blanchard & Markus, 2007) and
that roles can often emerge through interactions (Bourhis, Dube, & Jacob, 2005),
managers needed to offer infrastructure, expertise, training, mentoring, relationships
recognition and sometimes financial support to provoke volunteers.
Interestingly, role uptake in community proved not to be completely voluntary, as
management in some cases used finances to employ a secretariat, facilitators or to
commission articles or attract thought leaders to events. Bos et al (2007, p. 663)
summarize a trend for commercial virtual CoPs that directly relates to issues raised by a
number of IMCoP community managers in this research, “Faced with stiff competition
for online attention, many communities of practice web sites are moving away from all
volunteer efforts towards professional or for-profit management”.
A role structure found important in a number of communities, but not recognized
in the literature, was the advisory board or steering committee. While Hung and Chen
believe online communities have little need for any kind of executive committee, this
research would suggest that is not the case for IMCoPs. In many cases the active and
passionate core group served in an executive committee role but a number of the
exemplar communities had specific steering bodies or executive groups to oversee the
development and progress of the community. This was definitely the case where
communities were in the service of reform or cultural change and with some form of
institutional or political support or sponsorship especially in education sector IMCoPs.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Profiles
The research findings suggest that profiles relate to system, personal, public and
community profiles. Building a personal profile through interaction within the
community, using profiles to build presence and morale and having a strong community
profile all proved compelling. This finding suggests that both personal (individual) and
community (collective) profiles are important. Individual presence and the ability to
gain a profile through interaction in the community ranked highly. Profile development
begins with the opportunity for personal profile page; presence tools opportunities
where management or the system infrastructure showcases individual contributions.
Kim supports the importance of up-to-date member profiles to promote individual
identity, relationships and to begin to build trust in the community. The research
findings suggest that profile development, both self-stated and earned within the
interaction of the community were key aspects of a member profile and identity.
Acknowledgement of the voluntary activity of people in a community profile can be
used to inspire and motivate other members. Profiles were integral to the community,
supporting identity, morale, presence, and leadership credibility (Blanchard & Markus,
2007; Kondratova & Goldfarb, 2004).
Williams and Cothrel view profiles as an aspect of the community’s asset
management where creating member profiles is one way of making expertise visible and
of selling members to one another. Where in a slightly different slant on profiles,
McDermott positions member profiles as part of personal contact where it they serve to
make it easy for members to connect with each other. Hung and Chen on the other hand
consider profiles as part of the facilitative structures of the community. Demographic,
system log and profile data was a valuable resource to community managers when
planning and evaluating community membership and activity. These data form an
important part of the tracking and feedback provided to community management.
Kim supports the notion that it is important for reputation to be developed within
the community and tied to the community activity. She also recognizes the importance
of reputation developed in the community through elements of ‘freshness’ which begin
with members being able to maintain an up-to-date personal profile.
Also important in the findings was the perceived profile of the community within
the profession and domain. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder support the need for the

Bronwyn Stuckey
community profile both within and outside the community. They recognize that the
standing of the community and its leaders in the domain builds a profile for the
community which further sustains it by attracting new members, sponsorship and
status. This was a finding clearly supported in this research.
Leadership
The research findings suggest it is important that IMCoPs have a strong

distributed leadership program and a community supported by a passionate core of
respected members. For Kim (p. XIV) an effective leadership program is as the “fuel in
the community engine” for which it was critical for its development be well planned.
The research findings show that leadership was effective when it involved a passionate
core, and rated most mention when it was distributed, respected and was able to serve as
role model to the community. Leadership programs needed to be partly planned and
partly emergent but always requiring support, mentoring or training (Bourhis, Dube, &
Jacob, 2005). As Kim suggests it is a matter of recognizing enthusiast members and
supporting them through leadership rituals to take on greater control and access rights.
She cautions against lack of planning as dangerous and warns that communities need to
offer training and support as part of an ongoing leadership program. Hur and Hara’s
(2007) study of a large Korean online teacher community strongly supports this need for
both distributive leadership and dedicated management support. Like several of the
communities in the INDISCHOOL study offered training and offline meetings in
support of volunteer managers who moderated discussions.
Hung and Chen viewed leadership as being focused around opportunities to gain
reputation and the complimentary motives of, and exchanges between, novices and
experts. For Williams and Cothrel it is about cultivating opinion leaders as evangelists
and thought leaders, and McDermott reminds us of the potential for thought leaders to
engage and keep a practice reflective.
For McDermott a key to leadership is the choice of a well-respected member as
the coordinator. These coordinators might spend a quarter of their time working with
senior practitioners and thought leaders to attract others. Wenger, McDermott and
Snyder agree that the passionate and active core of the community needs to be
supported in greater ownership of, and visibility in, the community without this costing

Bronwyn Stuckey
them extra time. They suggest the core group and active membership constitute at least
10-15% of community interaction.
Williams and Cothrel suggest the core group development begins by building on
existing networks and groups where ties and the value of being together have already
been established. This position on the finding, rather than developing, a core group is
further supported by Wenger, McDermott and Snyder. It was clear from the research
findings that, whether community builds from an existing core group or a new group
forms around a shared understanding of the value of being together, the passionate core
at the center of the community was as essential as the proactive role of the coordinator.
Hung and Chen suggest that the democratic and self-governing nature of online
communities means that they rarely require hierarchical supervisory bodies. The
research findings would contradict this view, recognizing that more than half of the
communities studied had steering committees, advisory boards and senior leadership
teams. These groups acted more as sounding boards for the community planning and
design. In many cases these bodies were comprised of the people drawn internally from
of the passionate core or externally from sponsors and stakeholders of the community.
Sponsorship
Le Moult, McDermott, Williams and Cothrel and Wenger, McDermott and Snyder
all view community from enterprise contexts where hierarchical champions and
stakeholders seek return on investment for community efforts. Sponsorship from this
context is bound up in organizational support, change and ROI (Allen, Ure, & Evans,
2003) and seen as one of the roles of community. Whereas, from Kim’s more open
Internet view of community, sponsorship is bound in the co-evolution of management
and group needs.
The research findings suggest that sponsorship in IMCoPs represented more than
another role or level of engagement, it was a vital enabling force for community
development. Communities that may on the surface appear to have no sponsoring
organization proved to have been initiated and advantaged through the sponsorship of
an evangelistic founder or leader, through agency investments, government initiatives or
through partnerships and alliances.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Hung and Chen suggest that the democratic and self-governing nature of online
communities means that they rarely require hierarchical supervisory bodies. The
research findings contradict this view, recognizing that more than half of the
communities studied had steering committees, advisory boards and senior leadership
teams. These bodies were not at odds with the self-governing nature of community but
more often enablers for it.
Time
The research findings suggest that time is a concern for community development
on a number of levels. Where it is readily evident in organizational CoPs how we might
ensure time as an enabler for member engagement (Allen, Ure, & Evans, 2003; Bourhis,
Dube, & Jacob, 2005), it is much more complex issue in these non-organizationally-
based IMCoPs. In these communities, particularly when they were intentionally
developed, it was necessary for the time and encouragement that McDermott speaks of
to be a priority. Some member agencies were able to support member time for
engagement but on the whole it was more likely this was about applying community
staff time to honor and support effective use of member time.
McDermott and Kim both support this concept of scaffolding members’ use of
time. For McDermott this support can be in the form of the technical choices and
technical support in the community that will save member time. Or support for member
time might be offered in community bulletins, summaries and splash pages to target
member engagement. McDermott (p.6) suggests we need to “…make it easy to connect,
contribute and access the community” and envisage how the chosen tools and activities
might integrate to the daily work of the membership. Kim additionally suggests that
time delimited activities can be a useful element, in a community’s calendar, to allow
members to schedule and plan effective use of their time. Hur and Hara (2007) suggest
offering good resources in a readily available form is a way of respecting member time
in the community. Hur and Hara raise another time related issue raised overlooked by
many community developers and implicit in findings of this research. It takes a long
time to develop the interconnectedness required in community, for individuals and for
the group. The findings of their study suggest it takes time for communities to be
considered successful and more than two years for members to become active. The

Bronwyn Stuckey
current research findings would support this view as each of the communities studied
was at least three years old, some as long as ten, and most of them would still be
described as maturing (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
6.1.2. Common ties
There was significant support in the literature for the situated nature of
community activity, for its purpose, focus, topics and value. But as Table 6.2 indicates
missing in the literature, yet encountered in the research, was the elevated importance of
a shared understanding of the value of being together, the relationship to the domain and
the core values of the domain and community (as opposed the value gained from
community) and the very supportive role of recognition and accreditation for member
engagement.
Table 6.2
Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of COMMON TIES to the

Situatedness 1. Situatedness • practicality
Important topics • communities that matter
Communities that matter • climate
• boundaries
• topics
Value 2. Value • personal/ project/ agency
Purpose • shared understanding
Community’s focus • cultural change
• recognized value
Rituals of community life 3. Relate to larger • promotion
Fresh community • rituals
• inspiration
• fresh
• autonomy/political/synergistic
Build on the core values 4. Values • domain
of the organization. • core values
Acknowledge the 5. Accreditation and • extrinsic/intrinsic
voluntary nature of recognition • internal/external
participation
Important topics 6. Cutting edge • combine technology, processes and
Cutting edge issues topics that are leading edge
Focus 7. Focus • Continually review and reinforce

Bronwyn Stuckey
While the rituals of the larger community were raised by Kim and relate to what
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder describe as inside and outside relationships, the
research findings suggest that a relationship to the wider community was essential to the
development of community in IMCoPs. This relationship was larger than just
maintaining rituals or a two-way flow of communication but was an embodiment of the
values, concerns, and norms of the larger community practitioners were drawn from.
Situatedness
Practicality, supporting communities that matter, focusing on important topics,

boundaries and being responsive to the climate were all important attributes of the
situated nature of common ties in IMCoP communities. The research findings clearly
support a situated context in which practicality, activity embedded in real environments
and building communities that matter are all important (Allen, Ure, & Evans, 2003). It
was also important that the community activity be in keeping with topics that matter to
the membership and work to address issues inherent in the climate of the time. Hur and
Hara’s (2007) study of the INDISCHOOL teacher community showed, as this study did,
that the most frequently shared knowledge was practical and personal.
Hung and Chen suggest projects embedded in meaningful activity, contexts and
technologies that can be used in the work context are the keys to situativity. McDermott,
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder and Le Moult recognize the practical nature of activity
that is at the heart of communities of practice. Williams and Cothrel suggest situativity
can begin with leveraging existing networks and communities, making the members the
core group that moves a new community forward.
Much of what was described in situatedness in this study would relate to what
Kim describes as ‘purpose’. The purpose of the community is about knowing the
membership and its needs and meeting those needs in practical solutions.
Value
The research findings showed that a high perceived value, recognized value,
shared understandings, personal value, agency value and cultural change were among
the key attributes of value in community. Where perceived value relates to what
motivates members to join the community, recognized value relates to the gains

Bronwyn Stuckey
perceived for the workplace or the profession and personal value is the gains
experienced by the individual member. Value emerges through activities, events and the
relationships explored within the community. Kim goes further to support the goal of
the owners’ of the community, addressing issues akin to those supported in the
sponsorship aspect of people.
From Hung and Chen’s learning perspective, value is personalized to the learner.
For McDermott value is tied to passionate interests of members and is embedded in
aspects of practice. When management works to cultivate community he suggests that it
is better to focus on value (what people might receive) as a community motivator rather
than commitment (what people might contribute).
While Wenger, McDermott and Snyder speak from an organizational perspective,
they make a valid point about the way value within the community changes over the life
of the community. People come and go and bring their personal agendas which will
serve to shift the central focus of the community. Value also changes over the period of
membership when what we value as novices in the early days of engagement may be
quite different to the value we derive as ‘old-timers’ or as part of the core group. They
suggest we encourage members to articulate value throughout the life of the community
and to keep assessing the community is bringing value to the majority of members.
Whatever phases the community may be in, they urge us to focus on value rather than
commitment when designing for community.
For the IMCoP, Wenger, McDermott and Snyder offer another salient reminder
that value is often found in small informal exchanges, exchanges that are much less
easily supported online. While we can readily envisage quality resources and the
newest and most accurate information offering value to members (Kondratova &
Goldfarb, 2004; Sharrat & Usoro, 2003), a lot of more subtle but value resides in the
one-to-one back-channel communications between members and members and leaders.
This area of value is very closely related to modality, a condition of social interaction.
Relationship to the larger community
A relationship to the community’s larger context was found to be one signifier of

community success. This relationship was seen in the way the community stayed fresh,
offering ‘first in community’ information and support, or the way it provided inspiration

Bronwyn Stuckey
to that larger group. Communities were valued for the ways they maintained a two-way
relationship to the larger community or profession. These seemingly disparate and
idiosyncratic ways of relating are as diverse as echoing the rituals, language and
structures of the larger community, and depending on the culture of the domain,
providing autonomy from the larger community (Hur & Hara, 2007), or being
politically aware of, or synergistic to the larger community.
This condition has a parallel in the organizational relationships but is really only
hinted at in the literature, this research presents a new view of the importance of that
external relationship. While Kim recognized that rituals were an important part of
community, her view is more generic and does not recognize a broader community or
domain that the IMCoP relates to. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder go closest to
recognition of this relationship when they suggest communities of practice need to build
dialog between inside and outside. However, from their organizational perspective, they
speak of maintaining a view of the broader community, in terms of competitors and
similar groups outside, as measures of community design. In this research the outer
relationship was very much a two-way flow of content, resources and achievements that
worked to build the identity and status of the IMCoP.
Values
The findings showed it was important that core values were embodied in the
community activity and that the community continued to reflect the values of the
domain, initiative or reform agenda. This condition is closely linked to the relationship
to the larger community but rather than more tangible aspects of ritual (Kim, 2001) and
infrastructure it represents issues of philosophy, ethos and core values. This condition
was largely overlooked in most of the literature and for this research study is a major
contribution to the current wisdom.
More than the simple rules of etiquette that Kim or Le Moult propose, values in
IMCoPs relate to the understood norms and values embodied in the group. Bourhis,
Dube, and Jacob (2005) remind us that it is not just roles, but how they are performed
that builds values in the community. While Kim does see value held in instruments such
as codes of conduct or rules of etiquette, she also supports the deeper understanding of
how values are embodied when she says, “What is comes down to is that community
staff members are the ultimate role models, and what they do and say will be emulated.”

Bronwyn Stuckey
The research findings would broaden the pool of role models to include the core group
and active members as well as the staff and management of the community. It is
recognized that community values are enhanced if managers “shine a spotlight” (Kim,
2000, p.235) on active members when their actions embody the values of the
community or when we offer status to members and make is apparent (Wasko and
Faraj, 2005).
McDermott does recognize core values but once again from his organizational
perspective considers these as the values of the organization. This perspective would
relate closely to the values seen in the intentionally designed IMCoPs supported by
government or political initiatives, where the values of the initiative or workplace were
those embodied in the community.
Accreditation and Recognition
The research findings suggest that recognition is important and that it is perhaps
most important when it is internal and extrinsic. Many of the communities studied
invoked voluntary activity and leadership and offered members acclaim for their
contributions. Visible support and recognition for these activities and roles impacted not
only on the recipients but on the whole community culture and morale. The extrinsic
recognition is a condition overlooked in the literature. A lot of community literature
assumes altruism as the only motivator of community engagement but Hew and Hara’s
(2007) study of motivators for online engagement in knowledge sharing suggest
altruism is one of six possible motivators and that as this study found extrinsic
recognition such as project team credits, member spotlights and leader business cards
are valued.
Hung and Chen view recognition and reputation as part of the labor differential
and interdependency between novices and experts. While recognition was found to be
part of individual identity building, it was also part of community building for the
group. While not consistently employed across the communities, recognition was
variously employed in supporting distributed leadership, networking and the public
profile of the community itself.
Cutting edge

Bronwyn Stuckey
Talking about cutting edge issues in the domain was important to IMCoPs. This
condition was closely related to the situatedness of the activity. Issues dealt with in the
community needed to be cutting edge and of importance to the practices of the
membership.
When Le Moult suggested keeping it fresh and first in community, she was
speaking of introducing new organizational information first to the community.
However this ‘first in community’ still applies to non-organizational communities.
Being able to access the freshest and most up-to-date information in the domain was a
clear motivator to membership of the IMCoPS studied.
Focus
Maintaining the focus of the community proved to be vital to sustaining

engagement in an IMCoP. People are not members of communities of practice purely
for enjoyment and socializing, they have real needs and a practice to refine.
Williams and Cothrel (p.8) quote Bauhaus, a case informant for Sun, whose
experience clearly resonates with the findings of this research: “Staying focused on the
objective of the community is the most important thing. When the interest becomes
muddy, the community falls apart.”
Staying focused can also be about maintaining the boundaries of the community;
knowing what topics are in pertinent or not; who should take part and who should not
(Hara & Kling, 2006).
6.1.3. Social interaction
To decide what kind of connections to make between people, you need to

understand what kind of knowledge they need to share; what kind of community
they are inclined to be, and how tightly sharing knowledge needs to link with their
everyday work. (McDermott, 2001 p. 7)
The above quote from McDermott touches on a number of the conditions of social
interaction that were found to be important in this research. Table 6.3 demonstrates that
a number of the conditions adopted from the literature were supported by the research

Bronwyn Stuckey
findings. Modality however, was largely absent in the originating literature while in the
findings proved an important condition for social interaction in IMCoPS.
Table 6.3
Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of SOCIAL
INTERACTION to the principles encountered in the literature
Functionality 1. Functionality • interdependence
Interdependency • collaboration
• publishing,
Easy to contribute • conversation
Help members help • story telling
• mentoring
each other
• reflective practices
2. Modality • online (pull/push)

• face-to face
• formal/informal/integrated
• based (resource/event/dialog/
project)
• back-channel
Levels of participation 3. Levels • commitment (high/low)
• group (small/whole group)
Rhythm 4. Rhythm • cycles of content and engagement

Cyclic events • news (headlines/newsletter)
• event organization (scheduled/ad
hoc)
• event timing
(weekly/monthly/annual)
Generate content 5. Generate content • prime the pump

Prime the pump • facilitator role
• support member driven
contribution
Functionality
The research findings suggest that for social interaction it is important what people
can do in and with the support of the community. The types of functionality that were
clearly supported in community were interdependence, collaboration, publishing, and
conversation, story telling, mentoring and reflective practices. Clearly missing in the
literature was the issue of modality and to some extent the variety of levels of
engagement in the community discourse. Modality relates to the mode of being

Bronwyn Stuckey
together, beyond what people can do, it is the modes of communication around which
the community remains alive.
For Hung and Chen interdependency, the primary attribute of functionality, is
created in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) through a relationship between
infrastructure and interdependency, novices and experts. The community creates a
structure that leverages “the different demands of the participants in the community”
(p7) to develop what Williams and Cothrel suggest is to assemble a critical mass of
functionality with information and services meaningfully integrated. They describe a
seamless weaving of discussion groups and other online offerings and a community
management able to “prime the pump with communication”. Wenger, McDermott and
Snyder go further to suggest that “Every phone call, e-mail exchange, or problem
solving conversation strengthens the relationships within the community” (p59).
McDermott suggests, “Understanding which kinds of knowledge a group needs to
share is key to selecting the forms, structures and systems that will be most effective”
(p2). This critical mass view of functionality is supported by Kim who describes a set of
five simple and focused functionalities that allow members to peruse archives, browse
directories, engage in discussions, challenge in games and scenarios and start their own
spaces.
Modality
The research findings for modality showed that the mode of activity and the mode
of communication were both highly relevant. Community activity that was project-
based, or dialog and resource-based ranked highly. Online, face-to-face and informal
communications also rated highly and findings indicated the importance of back-
channel communication within the community.
McDermott advises us that, “Understanding which kind of knowledge a group
needs to share is key to selecting the forums, structures and systems that will be most
effective.” (p2). Wenger, McDermott and Snyder further this thinking when they say,
What allows members to share knowledge is not the choice of a specific form of
communication (face-to-face as opposed to web-based, for instance), but the
existence of a shared practice – a common set of situations, problems and
perspectives. (p24)

Bronwyn Stuckey
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder do advocate however, for a mix of idea-sharing

forums and tool building projects to support both informal and planned community
activity. Hung and Chen see the strength of tasks and projects as enabling through doing
and reflection-in-action (p8) and the research findings readily support this view for
project-based communities.
It was evident in this research that face-to-face interaction played an important
part of almost every community. As the quote that follows explains, online communities
are not totally lived online.
But increasingly it is accepted that online communities rarely exist only online;
many have off-line physical components. Either they start as face-to-face
communities and then part or all of the community migrates on to digital media, or
conversely, members of an online community seek to meet face-to-face. (Preece &
Maloney-Krichmar, 2005, p. 2)
There is much support in contemporary literature for the findings that face-to-face
plays an important part to enrich online activity in almost all communities (Hara &
Kling, 2006; Hartnell-Young & Neal, 2006; Hew & Hara, 2007; Hur & Hara, 2007;
Lueg, 2000; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). If people do not have it they hunger for it and take
advantage of opportunities within their domain, practices, workplaces or professional
activity to seize it. Hew and Hara (2007) recommend organizing face-to-face
conferences to sustain community relations. In studies of online communities, Hartnell-
Young and Neal (2006) and Hara and Kling (2006) reverse the dynamic and describe
the relationship of online and face-to-face as complex social relationships (developed
face-to-face) enriched by online communication.
The findings raised back-channel communication as being very important to
community building and maintenance. Hew and Hara (2007) suggest this is where much
of the social-emotional interaction takes place rather than in the public spaces of
community.
Levels
This research adds to the understanding of what levels of engagement mean in

community. The research findings suggest that levels of engagement are a broad and
multidimensional component of community development. Levels involve not only the

Bronwyn Stuckey
levels of engagement across the community in terms of participant numbers, or levels

inherent in different community roles, or in the mastery of the practice; levels are also
quite a pragmatic issue when they relate to the levels of member commitment and time
required by community activities, projects and events. A well tuned diversity in levels
of engagement was vital condition for the success of social interaction in the IMCoP.
Hung and Chen take a view on levels of engagement that focuses on the novice-
expert relationship and the levels of mastery of the practice each brings to the
community. For Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (p. 57) level relates to the member’s
position within the community; whether as core group members or on the periphery.
The key to good community participation and a healthy degree of movement
between levels is to design community activities that allow participants at all
levels to feel like full members.
Levels of engagement are recognized as a being dependent on a number of

community management activities and in particular the proactive one-to-one work of
the community convener or facilitator. McDermott (p.6), speaking of the convener of
the Turbodudes Community says, “The strongest predictor of high attendance is how
much time the he has spent the previous week walking the halls”.
Hara and Kling (2006) raise the issue of the poor level of reflective dialog
observed in teacher online communities and remind us that we cannot expect teacher to
engage in practices online that are not part of their culture in their meeting in the face-
to-face world.
Rhythm
Regular news, content, newsletters, focused engagement and events were all part
of the rhythm of the community. A cycle of monthly and or annual events set a rhythm
that allowed members to plan for engagement and stay in touch with the community.
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder suggest that events, guest speakers, key projects
and other milestones create a rhythm and this rhythm both maintains the community
visibility for the individual members and is an indicator of community ‘aliveness’.
There are many rhythms in a community – the syncopation of familiar and
exciting events, the frequency of private interactions, the ebb and flow of people

Bronwyn Stuckey
from the sidelines into active participation, and the pace of the community’s
overall evolution. (p. 63)
Kim also supports regular cyclic events, time delimited activities, weekly
newsletters and the like along with community devised tools and strategies to support
rhythm. Mc Dermott, dealing mostly in collocated corporate communities, sees regular
informal face-to-face meetings as creating an easily sustainable rhythm.
Generate content
The research findings show that it is important for the community to continually
generate content to meet the needs of the community membership. This was found to be
the purview of the community management in the earliest days and the core group as
the community begins to mature. Generating content did not mean content always came
from the center, but that the center was also able to scaffold and mentor the membership
to develop content. Williams and Cothrel quite aptly used the metaphor of continually
priming the pump to initiate social interaction.
Le Moult (p.3) warns of the pitfall of insufficient content for community
development;
You have to reach a critical mass which differs. If there is not enough interesting
content, people will work less in the community, contribute less. That’s a real
vicious circle!
6.1.4. Place
Table 6.4 shows the core conditions this research highlighted as part of place were
the development of reliability and in building a safe environment, along with the
importance of resourcing, status and ownership in supporting value and belonging as
aspects of place. There was support in the literature for the evolutionary nature of place
and for the development of public and private places within the community. Tools were
important as things to build around people’s needs not vice versa.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Table 6.4
Relationship of the findings of core conditions and attributes of PLACE to the principles
encountered in the literature

Not applications tools to 1. Tools • implementation
community (socially/centrally/ integrated)
Sharing information • use (member use/ networking/
Thinking together thinking together/ sharing
Materials collaboration information/ feedback statistics)
requires • constraints
Collect and use feedback from
members
Don’t be too strict in judging 2. Reliability • stability

Etiquette • safe harbor
Make it easy to contribute
• quality resources
Considered in part in 3. Resourcing • funding

sponsorship • staff
• platform (purpose built/
commercial/
opensource/partnership)
Evolution 4. Evolution • technology (planned/emergent)

Flexible, extensible • infrastructure (planned/emergent)
Let it grow before structuring • architecture (planned/emergent)
• activity (planned/emergent)
Considered in sharing and 5. Resources • individually contributed
materials collaboration • internally developed
requires
Public and private 6. Public and private • public and private
Subgroups • subgroups
Empower members over time 7. Ownership • tension between providing

also considered in forming service and building ownership
community around people • member driven development
Harness the power of a 8. Status • recognition

personal connection • relationships
• reputation

Bronwyn Stuckey
Tools
Online communities are not fundamentally about technology. They are about
enabling environments for building relationships. (Kim, 2001, p.5)
The research findings suggest a centrally implemented toolset is important, not for
the tools themselves but, for what people are able to do with them; primarily sharing
information, thinking together, gaining feedback, and collecting statistics. Beyond this
pure utilitarian use, effective technology can serve as a motivator to community
engagement if they make engagement contribution easy (Hew & Hara, 2007).
Williams and Cothrel ask that we make sure to fit the tools to the community and
suggest that some communities may only require simple listserv and others more
sophisticated. This range of tools was certainly borne out in the variety of tools used in
the 12 exemplar IMCoPs. For McDermott tools not only continue the connection, they
support systems for thinking together as well as systems for sharing information. Tools
should make it easy to contribute and access knowledge and practices. That is easy, not
necessarily in terms of how simple it is, but in terms of how it integrates with people’s
work, lives and the domain. McDermott couches ‘easy’ in terms of reducing friction,
with the community management’s aim being to reduce the friction involved in
engaging and contributing to the community. This is in accord with McDermott’s view
that it is the type of knowledge to be shared that will determine the systems for
communication (Allen, Ure, & Evans, 2003).
Kim and Cothrel both report on the significance of feedback loops and the use of
reporting tools in cultivating and sustaining community. These tools were raised in the
findings and form a significant part of the reporting structures of the community.
Reliability
The findings suggest that maintaining a high standard for resources, a surety of
safe harbor for member experimentation and growth, and maintaining community
stability were vital to the perceived reliability of the community and therefore the value
members derived from it. The three key aspects to reliability were the quality of
resources, the safe environment and the history and length of existence of the
community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Whether the community was resource, discourse or project-based, issues of

quality and standard setting always arose. Kim (p.70) touches on a key concern raised
by the AFLC manager about supporting both open member contribution and standards;
Unrestricted contributions often lead to a site overwhelmed by low quality
material – while setting up gathering places for instance, can be easy and fun,
keeping it lively an interesting is another matter entirely.
Much of the literature makes mention of a level of trust as a key element is

developing a sense of community. McDermott endorses the safe harbor view of
reliability for community and goes further to suggest that the one-to-one work of the
community facilitator, convener and core group members were fundamental to that trust
building. He suggests, “…live contact is key to building a sense of commonality,
enthusiasm and trust”. Williams and Cothrel speak of a sense of intimacy and comfort
as being part of community and trust building. Recent literature supports the importance
of developing of respectful and tolerant environments and the role of the community
convener or moderator in establishing that environment (Hew & Hara, 2007). Gee
(2005, p. 214) suggests we should set aside the notion of developing community and
concentrate on nurturing “affinity spaces” ripe with potential for social interaction and
association. It is clear from the findings and the literature that the atmosphere and
culture developed in the environment is vitally important.
While Kim would support the development of codes of conduct as part of this
trust building process, the findings suggest such formal rules were of minor importance
and only came into existence if a major ruction occurred in the community.
Resourcing
Funding was an important part of the community development. Sponsorship,

partnerships, commercial works and activities were all able to create revenue that the
communities could put to community use. None of the communities studied used fees or
levies to gain funding, but several did use the status the community had developed to
carry out conferences and or consultancy that would attract funding to the community.
In all cases funding was highly pertinent to the ability of the community to serve

Bronwyn Stuckey
member needs. Technical platforms, paid coordinators, supported member gatherings

and publications were all part of the ways that funds were raised were expended.
Much of the literature does not speak to issues of resourcing in community.
While the related issues of sponsorship and workloads for community conveners are
discussed by Williams and Cothrel, and Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, there is little
mention of the funding models for non-organizational or non-commercial communities
like the IMCoPs examined in this study.
Evolution
Evolution in general was important, evolution of the technology, of the

architecture and infrastructure and that community evolution was both planned and
emergent in design. The design for community was informed by close contact with the
members, their needs and through effective and transparent feedback provisions.
Blanchard and Markus (2007) describe this as evolution and co-evolution between the
technical characteristics of the community tools and the socially learned use of them.
For Kim design for growth and change is a guiding principle and she states that
policies should evolve as the community grows. She advises us to begin by building
small scale infrastructure for gathering places and not to over design or over commit to
a design.
As a community designer, one of the most damaging mistakes you can make is to
over design your community up front and invest too heavily in a design paradigm
or technology platform that can’t easily be changed or updated. (Kim, 2000 p.XV)
Le Moult also advises us to keep it simple and start with easy structures and
tools that don’t overload – to let it grow before structuring. Cothrel advises that we need
to fit the tools to the community and know the group needs and the stage of
development in order to do select appropriate technology. Hew and Hara’s (2007) study
of teacher community suggests that as the community evolved, so the teachers’ needs
grew as well. This supports Wenger, McDermott and Snyder view that design is a seen
as catalyst to evolution, and the community of practice must always remain a work-in-
progress. For Williams and Cothrel community feedback is essential to that work-in-
progress. So evolution is clearly a concept that is supported across the literature for
online community, communities of practice and IMCoPs.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Resources
Individually contributed resources were the most highly rated in the research
findings especially if they were developed internally with community support. Such
resources were the reifications of practice seen in member developed articles, findings
and summaries of discourse or research and the outcomes of project activity.
Cothrel suggests that communities need to develop resources internally and
externally but that they are only one form of asset. People’s commitment to the
community is perhaps a greater asset. McDermott suggests that community requires
more than typical knowledge management methods and that it is not just about
collecting artifacts. We need a shared context to even know how to share or use them.
Public and private
It was found in this research that while smaller subgroups may not have been part
of the early design of all communities, they did come to be part of the maturing
community. Bounded groups allowed for focus and free exchange. Often the closest ties
were developed between members who worked together in these subgroups and project
activities. The subgroups did require private spaces and mechanisms for reporting and
sharing back into the main community. This condition is supported by a number of
authors.
The key to designing community spaces is to orchestrate activities in both public
and private spaces that use the strength of individual relationships to enrich events
and uses events to strengthen individual relationships. (Wenger, McDermott &
Snyder, 2002 p59).
Kim’s view supports the research findings and further suggests that larger
communities in particular will find the need to implement smaller groups and support
members with technology and infrastructure to manage their groups.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Ownership
Ownership was found to be a vital component of community and one that

intricately linked to a number of other conditions. Ownership was tied for instance, to
reliability (trust building), empowerment through roles, leadership and mentoring, and
the one-to-one work of the community facilitator. Community management worked to
support members, most particularly the core group, over time, to assume more and more
ownership of the community. Roles, financial autonomy and ownership have proven to
be highly interdependent (Hur & Hara, 2007).
One of the most illuminating findings of the research was the tension between
providing service and fostering ownership, that management needs to be mindful of as
the community matures. McDermott (2000, p.8) sums this tension for designing
emergent systems when he states; “Too much support and they lose their appeal to the
community members. Too little support and they wither.”
Status
The research found that the status of the community was a factor in its ability to
attract new members and thought leader activity. The status of the community in the
field or domain was important to member identity and their engagement in the
community. It was also dependent on relationships, recognition and reputation.

Bronwyn Stuckey
6.2. Conclusions
6.2.1. Research Question 1:

To what extent can a framework based on Hillery’s four definitional components of
community be useful for describing and categorizing community in IMCoPs?
While many researchers over a long period of time have cited Hillery when
defining community (Bruckman, 2006; Hamman, 2001a; Poplin, 1979) few employed
the definitional components in their inquiry. It has been recognized that these conditions
were highly interrelated and interdependent and therefore categorization cannot be
considered finite, completely unambiguous or mutually exclusive. The apparent
simplicity of the four component framework belies the complexity and depth described
by the conditions and the attributes categorized within them.
One of the few studies to actually take up Hillery’s definitional framework was
Hummel and Lechner’s (2002) research to profile a broad variety of online communities
such as games, business-to-business and interest communities. Their use of graphical
presentation of findings was of inspiration to this work, there was little, from the
distinctly different communities examined, the loose adaptation of Hillery and the
technologically focused features ascribed to each component that this study could build
upon. Figure 6.1 typifies the way Hillery’s four components proved a valuable lens with
which to view community in IMCoPs. The four component framework allowed the
conditions to be categorized and the communities to be profiled and compared.
1
40%
30%
20%
10% CCMD
GOL-IN
4 0% 2
MN
AFLC
3
Components: 1 = people, 2 = common ties, 3 = social interaction, 4 = place
Figure 6.1 Comparison of percentages for community components across the four
heuristic communities

Bronwyn Stuckey
The conceptual framework initially devised during the literature review process
and described in full in the Chapter 2 proved critical to this research process. In any
case study research dealing with rich text data there are complex issues of subjectivity,
reliability and validity at play. The development of this framework was to offer a
theoretical schema that allowed the researcher to recognize the significant issues in that
rich text case data. The conceptual framework served as the instrument to identify and
capture key data from the rich text developed for each case. In effect the schema
ensured the research was firmly grounded in the theoretical and conceptual literature
and was able to take advantage of what little empirical evidence was available. The
schema did not constrain or limit the research because, when seen as a framework, it
was easily extensible. The collective case data was used to refine, extend, qualify and
verify the conceptual framework.
The conceptual framework was able to provide coding nodes that were readily
established in NVivo. Attributes of these nodes were then established as the coding took
place and different forms or attributes of a condition (node) were observed. Establishing
the framework in NVivo allowed for numbers of instances to be recorded as well as
their forms. Development and analysis of the attributes built up during the coding
allowed for insight into the how the various issues are addressed and what influences
are at play to establish them. This data was critical to the exploration of the role and
influence of management activity in the development of the community.
The qualitative affordances of the framework allowed for coding of rich text to
produce narrative findings for each heuristic case (as presented in Chapter Four). This
framework readily allowed for a consistency in shape for community stories and,
because of this consistency, ready comparison across communities.
As a quantitative instrument, frequencies arrived at by coding with the
conceptual framework, allowed for a presentation of the findings in descriptive statistics
(as presented in Chapter Five). The community and cross community percentages
allowed the communities to be compared quantitatively and for conditions surfacing in
the data to be ranked and prioritized. The frequencies and percentages supported by
narrative evidence across a majority of cases offer up strong empirical evidence of the
core conditions in successful IMCoPs.

Bronwyn Stuckey
6.2.2. Research question 2:

What are the core conditions for development of community in successful IMCoPs?
The research findings suggest there are core conditions present in successful
IMCoPs and that these conditions vary by key attributes depending upon the needs and
context of each individual community. Table 6.5 presents the final set of conditions that
were found to be core to the cultivation of community and supported in the key
literature.
Table 6.5
An evidence-based conceptual framework: Core conditions for cultivation of IMCoPs
People Common Ties Social Interaction Place
Roles Situatedness Functionality Tools
Profiles Value Modality Reliability
Leadership Relating to the larger Levels Resourcing
community
Sponsorship Values Rhythm Evolution
Time Accreditation and recognition Generate content Resources
Cutting edge Public and private
Focus Ownership
Status
The focus and priority of these conditions will vary depending on the domain,
community context and the prospective membership of each community. Even in the
four heuristic communities these factors varied in their levels of importance. However,
on average and with varying attributes, the core conditions presented in the final
conceptual framework (Table 6.5) all rated as important for community development in
IMCoPs.
In summary the people component of community requires that, over time,
members have access to, and support for community roles, profile development,
leadership, and sponsorship while the community design and activity honors the use of
member time. The common ties component requires that the community activity is
authentic and situated in member contexts and needs. Value is derived from the focused
and cutting edge nature of the activity and core values of the domain embodied in the
culture of the community. Situativity, value and values are further achieved through the

Bronwyn Stuckey
community’s strong two-way relationship with the larger community outside as well as
the internal and external recognition for member contributions.
Social interaction can be summed up by thinking about the affordances of being
together (functionality), over what modes of being together (modality), to what various
levels of commitment (levels), through what recurring pattern/s of engagement
(rhythm). Where the management and core group actively cultivated content (generate
content) their efforts clearly added to the effectiveness of the social interaction that
surrounded it.
Place was contributed to by the tools made available to the community but not for
technologies sake but for the types of activity and engagement the community tools
afforded. Place was also bound up in the creation of a safe harbor for engagement and
identity building. Reliability was to some extent built by setting and sustaining high
standards with quality of resources and tools. Sense of place is not a static thing. It
grows and evolves with the member needs and recognizes that the community may have
needs to interact in smaller group to achieve its goals.

Bronwyn Stuckey

In what ways can community management cultivate the core conditions for successful
IMCoP development?
There is a great deal of impetus, as reported in Chapter 2, for the intentional

development of community in many sectors. Community management cannot design
community, only design for community (Wenger, 2004). The management role in
community development is as an enabler to the community and its membership. As
Wenger (2007, p.) most recently suggested “You only ‘build’ community when the
members join you in the vision of community and its value”. The findings of this
research would suggest that this building process is also about fluidity and openness to
change. Most communities started small through member involvement the design
evolved over time. One problem major with the StageStruck community was the front-
loaded nature of the design process, that put technical architecture before social
infrastructure, expected the membership to grow into the design rather than the design
to grow with member demand.
The following four summaries offer insights drawn from the findings and as they
relate to management’s contribution to the development of each of the components and
their core conditions. This summary presents the understandings, actions and design
developments that community management need to be mindful of and act upon in order
to cultivate community successfully in an Internet-mediated community of practice.

Bronwyn Stuckey
PEOPLE
The research findings suggest that there the five core conditions within the people
component; roles, profiles, leadership, sponsorship and time, were all impacted by
enabling design and actions of the community management (including the convener and
facilitator). Table 6.6 details the core conditions and matches them to summary
statements of management activity observed to contribute to development of people.
Table 6.6
Advice for management in cultivation of the PEOPLE component of community
Core Conditions Management contribution
Roles Be prepared to support a range of evolving roles by design and/or emergence
Recognize that multiple roles are needed to cultivate community and be watchful
as opportunities arise to implement and adequately support new ones whether
voluntary or remunerated.
Profiles Create meaningful and evolving member and community profiles
Integrate personal profile pages to the design and publicize and promote member
and community activity to develop individual and community identity and
external profiles.
Leadership Develop a strong distributed leadership program, beginning with the core
group
Work early to build from, or build up, a passionate core group and actively
support new leaders in assuming their roles.
Sponsorship Secure sponsorship for the community and for individual membership
Communities need sponsorship unless supported by a passionate and evangelistic
founder. Look for associations, partnerships and collaborations.
Time Value member time and creatively support time for engagement
Understand member time constraints and design and facilitate activity, rhythms,
modes of engagement and tool use to respect these.
To some extent it is the community infrastructure that supports people through

planning for roles, profiles, leadership and sponsorship. However the people component
also included management activity around much less tangible aspects such as
developing or leveraging a passionate core group and being sensitive to the time
pressures of members.

Bronwyn Stuckey
COMMON TIES
Seven core conditions were identified in relation to common ties for community.
Many of these conditions relate to the ‘What’s in it for me?’ question that prospective
members might ask. Management has a key role is supporting these conditions by
fostering, promoting, brokering and facilitating ties within the community. These are
ties to the practical nature and focus of the community activity; ties to the larger
community or domain and its core values; and ties developed between members through
their collaborations and successes. Table 6.7 details the core conditions and matches
them to summary statements of management activity observed to contribute to
development of common ties.
Table 6.7
Advice for management in cultivation of the COMMON TIES component of community
Core conditions Management contribution
Situatedness Concentrate on communities and topics that matter
Leverage climate and stay abreast of, and drawn upon, current issues and matters
of import to the community.
Value Support a shared understanding of the value of being together
Have members articulate value and support opportunities to collaborate and
develop a shared understanding of the value of being together
Relating to the Work to be an inspiration to the wider community outside
larger community Be innovative yet practical, collect and share feedback and be able to relate and
communicate success to the wider community in a two way relationship.
Values Build on the core values of the institution, profession or domain
Understand and embody the culture and values inherent in, or aspired to, by the
membership and wider community in order to foster appropriate values.
Accreditation and Consider a variety of forms of accreditation and recognition
recognition Consider and act on opportunities to publicly (internal and external) gain kudos,
recognition, acknowledgement for members and the community.
Cutting edge Create real dialogue about cutting edge issues
Know what is cutting edge in the domain and to the membership and support
discourse around this in the community.
Focus Continually reinforce the community's focus
With membership support and regularly revisit and restate the focus of the
community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
SOCIAL INTERACTION
This component relates to how people can actually engage within their
community. Successful social interaction requires that community management clearly
understand the practitioners, their needs, behaviors, tolerances and preferred ways of
engaging. They leverage these understandings to build infrastructure to support content,
tools, activities and modes of communication that will bring high value return for
members. Table 6.8 details the core conditions and matches them to summary
statements of management activity observed to contribute to development of social
interaction.
Table 6.8
Advice for management in cultivation of the SOCIAL INTERACTION component of
community

Functionality Create a critical mass of functionality as required by membership
Foster interdependence, collaboration, publishing, conversation, story telling,
and mentoring.
Modality Consider how best knowledge needs to be shared and by what modalities
Know what ways of being together will work - from project, dialog and/or
resource-based, online and face-to-face and blending of these modes.
Levels Invite different levels of participation and use
Develop small low commitment through to extended high commitment areas for
engagement. Link variety of activity level, tools and rhythm of community
activity.
Rhythm Create and maintain a group rhythm and an allowance for personal
rhythms of practitioners
Find the right rhythm in a cyclic program of newsletters, events, guests, activities
and mix of appropriate modalities. Respect that individual rhythms will impact
on engagement.
Generate content Actively generate content and support structures for member generated
content
Create and support a steady flow of new content, news, and links from
management and membership.

Bronwyn Stuckey
PLACE
Place is perhaps the most slippery of the components to fully grasp. For IMCoPs
it includes the tangible resourcing and the architecture of spaces and tools offered in the
online environment. But far more pertinent is the sense of place that comes with
association, affinity or identifying with a place and the people who inhabit it. For
community management this entails creating a safe environment where community
engagement and risk taking can evolve. In such an environment the community
management and the core group members work to exemplify and sustain reliability and
standards while supporting ownership and member-driven trajectories. Table 6.9 details
the core conditions and matches them to summary statements of management activity
observed to contribute to development of place.
Table 6.9
Advice for management in cultivation of the PLACE component of community
Tools Fit the tools to the community
Understand the ways that members wish to interact and engage then support
centrally maintained or endorsed tools that enable this.
Reliability Nurture a safe environment for experimentation and high quality resources
In a supportive environment set standards and support members to develop and
share quality resources – editors, mentors, reviews.
Resourcing Seek new partnerships and platforms to support community assets
Always be on the look out for ways to fund and extend community activity
Evolution Design for evolution by keeping it flexible and extensible
Know that design is fluid and needs to be open and targeted to member needs.
Resources Support high standards and quality resources
Develop standards, mechanisms and functionality to support and sustain standards
in all community resources.
Public and Support both public and private spaces to the benefit of the whole
private Recognize that the need for private spaces and sub-communities will emerge and
prepare capacity to support this before hand.
Ownership Foster ownership
Use distributed leadership and effective feedback mechanisms to foster a sense of
ownership.
Status Position the community within the domain
Work to promote and publicize the work of the community and attract the key
leaders and practitioners in the field.

Bronwyn Stuckey

How and in what ways do the conditions for successful development of IMCoPs differ in
education sector communities?
The findings suggest that at the component level there was no discernable pattern
of difference between education sector IMCoPs and their non-education counterparts. It
was at the level of conditions and attributes that small but perceptible differences did
emerge.
In answer to this final question it appears that there are few minor idiosyncrasies
in education sector communities for which designers and managers of IMCoPs may
need to take heed. Small differences did occur on two conditions of people; roles, and
ties. Roles proved to be marginally more significant in education sector communities.
Insight into why this may be the case could be found in the fact that the roles on offer in
these communities were new opportunities for teachers. Teachers were offered new
leadership opportunities in their communities without leaving their classroom teaching
positions. Differences were found in the relative importance of value, relationship to
the larger community, focus and diversity. Non-education sector communities
demonstrated a higher overall importance for value from the community. While the
focus of the community and the diversity of the membership proved of greater
importance in education sector communities. The paradox of focus and diversity both
being important might also be symptomatic of the domain and the broad workplace
contexts from which the communities drew members. This inference might be
corroborated by the finding that relationships to the larger community appeared less
important in education sector communities. Again, this may be because that wider
community in education is a very large amorphous context unlike the more narrowly
defined areas and workplaces and domains of e-government and military command.
There is a clear pattern of resonance between communities in education and non-
education sectors in terms of social interaction. The areas of moderate difference
indicate that non-education sector communities may place greater importance on the
modality of the communication. Most significant in this was the recognition of the
resource or project-base of the community and the use of back-channel communication
in these communities. Educational communities rated the fun factor as a condition when
it did not appear at all significant in the non-education sector communities.

Bronwyn Stuckey
6.2.5. The value and generalizability of the conclusions
What is it that this research actually adds to the field? Firstly this research was the
first response to requests for empirical research to determine, beyond single cases, what
it takes to cultivate community online. Further than that, this research is the first
empirical study to specifically examine the IMCoP and the conditions for successful
development of community within that context. Secondly, the multi-case methodology
allowed the research to examine a broad spectrum of IMCoPs and to compare and
contrast communities in education and non-education sectors. Thirdly, the research
having focused on the managers and conveners as key informants was uniquely
positioned to understand the role management played in cultivating community.
As was the experience with the early StageStruck community, today there are
many researchers, officers, educators and facilitators attempting to intentionally develop
IMCoPs for professional development. How this is actually achieved cannot be resolved
in a simple formulae, recipe or set of rules. Even a listing of the core conditions, as
presented in this research, can only be considered meaningful when access is also
granted to the rich case narratives that fully contextualize those core conditions.
This study carries some limitations inherent in ethnographic research and
exploratory studies. Issues of objectivity and researcher impact on the data and its
interpretation must be considered. The issue of subjectivity is of most concern in
relation to the coding of rich text data. In future research multiple coders and
establishment of an inter-rater reliability protocol would make this enhance the
robustness of the findings.
The key informant in the case study was the community convener, a community
leader self-reporting the story of the IMCoP development. Informants represented a
management perspective on the community story. Any subsequent research study using
the framework might seek community member feedback and perspectives on the
findings to verify whether the management view of what is important is shared by
community members and therefore a true picture of community development. In effect
without this verification this current research findings could be considered working
hypotheses from which further studies might build.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Community is a dynamic entity and therefore the findings represent the case
studied communities as they were in the research period bridging 2003 to 2004.
Individually each of these communities may present a different order of priorities in
2007, depending on the level of maturity or development of the community. However it
is hypothesized that on average across the cases they would present similar rankings to
those offered as the findings of this research.
Today we face the convergence of a number of trends; the strategic importance
of knowledge and an emergence of opportunity for mass collaboration. This study
represented community case development in selected cases up to 2004 and a number of
these, like many other communities, are now adopting, experimenting with and forming
around, Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) (Thomas, 2005) designed to allow
users to take advantage of the new tools and services associated with Web 2.0
(O’Reilly, 2003). While it is true that tools were not the highest priority in these
communities, it remains to be seen if and how the conditions for IMCoP cultivation
might be impacted as communities and individuals appropriate freely available social
software. This question would justify future empirical work to understand the relevance
and importance of the conditions in such environments.
The research determined that there were core conditions present in successful
IMCoPs and that management did play a significant part in creating an environment in
which those conditions could surface and flourish. It could be seen that in terms of the
StageStruck community space the original design shown in Appendices A-D could be
considered “socially autistic” (Giménez-Lugo, Sichman, & Hübner, 2005, p. 178)
having only weakly considered a bounded section of the gamut of conditions relevant to
IMCoP development. The StageStruck design clearly addressed a number of the
components of place but overlooked the importance of the more socially oriented
conditions for people, common ties, social interaction and place. Redesign for the
community could now take advantage of understanding the core conditions and
contextualized advice to management about cultivating them.
The earliest advice for all IMCoP developers would suggest that it is important
that where possible we tap into the existing core groups or communities rather than
struggle to develop IMCoP community from scratch and that we address each of the
community components of people, common ties, social interaction and place when
designing for community.

Bronwyn Stuckey
For the StageStruck community the most immediate intervention would involve
the convener identifying and/or building a core group of practitioners interested in and
working with StageStruck. Internally this might be achieved through personal one-to-
one relationship building with existing community members and through an effective
architecture for member profiles to ensure prospective core group members can readily
identify and relate to each other. Reaching out to develop external sponsorship or a
partnership with a relevant teaching association or education system would both target
promotion of the community and serve to support situativity and relevance.
Early activity in the community space suggested that a resource and discussion
basis might prove to be the key modality for member engagement in this community.
With this in mind the convener needs to actively work to encourage high quality
storytelling, resource sharing and discussion. The convener might work initially with
members of the core group, while watching for opportunities for new members and
roles to emerge, to bring together opportunity for role development and the members
who might best fulfil them.
While IMCoPs like StageStruck did use Internet technologies to mediate their
activity, the technology was relatively unimportant in comparison to the human and
social conditions that needed to be put in place.
It is ironic that for the first time in history information technology has made
global community possible, but that it takes acts of the human heart to make it
real. (McDermott, 2001, p.8)

Bronwyn Stuckey
References 304 27/06/2008

Bronwyn Stuckey
References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Making time for teacher professional development. ERIC

Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education Digest 95-4.
Agre, P. (1998). Designing genres for new media: Social, economic, and political
contexts. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 Revisiting computer-mediated
communication and community (pp. 69-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning. OD Practitioner,
32(4).
Allen, N., & Burgess, T. (2001). Taking the Guidon: Exceptional Leadership at the
Company Level: The Center for Company-Level Leadership.
Allen, S., Ure, D., & Evans, S. (2003). Virtual communities of practice as learning
networks [Electronic Version]. Masie Center Learning Consortium. Retrieved
12/05/05 from
http://www.masie.com/researchgrants/2003/BY_Final_Report.pdf.
Almeida d'Eca, T. (2004). Webheads in Action (WiA): An online community for
professional development – from past to present [Electronic Version].
Humanising Language Teaching, Year 6. Retrieved 17/05/05 from
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan04/sart10.htm.
America Speaks. (2002). Taking Democracy to Scale [Electronic Version]. Taking
Democracy to Scale: Reconnecting citizens with National policy through public
deliberation, America Speaks background paper to ‘Taking Democracy to
Scale’. Retrieved 09/09/05 from
http://www.americaspeaks.org/conference/background_paper.pdf.
Amulya, J., O’Campbell, C., Edoh, M., & McDowell, C. (2003). Transformative
learning in social justice organizations through reflective practice. Paper
presented at the Fifth International Conference on Transformative Learning,
Columbia University.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. New York: Verso.
Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organizational science. Organization
Science, 10 (3), 216-232.
Arnold, M. (2003). Intranets, community and social capital: The case of Williams Bay.
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23(2), 78-87.
Australian Flexible Learning Framework. (2005). Background to the Australian Flexible
Learning Community [Electronic Version]. Best of the Australian Flexible
Learning Community 2001-2004. Retrieved 21/09/05 from
http://community.flexiblelearning.net.au/ProfessionalDevelopment/content/articl
e_7000.htm.
Babinski, L. M., Jones, B. D., & DeWert, M. H. (2001). The roles of facilitators and
peers in an online support community for first-year teachers. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 151-169.
Bahr, H. M., & Caplow, T. (1991). Middletown As an Urban Case Study In J. R.
Feagin, A. M. Orum & G. Sjoberg (Eds.), A Case for the Case Study. Chapel
Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Baker-Eveleth, L., Sarker, S., & Eveleth, D. M. (2005). Formation of an online
community of practice: An inductive study unearthing key elements. Paper
presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What we think we
know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 500-508.
Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a
community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. The Journal of
Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489-542.
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.
Jonassen & S. M. Land. (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning
Environments (pp. 25-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barab, S. A., Makinster, J. G., Moore, J., & Cunningham, D. (2001). Designing and
building an online community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry
Learning Forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4),
71-96.
Barab, S. A., Makinster, J. G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities. In S.
A. Barab & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities In The Service Of
Learning (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press
Baron, D. P. (2001). Private ordering on the Internet: The eBay community of traders
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved 16/05/05 from
http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol4/iss3/art1/.
Baym, N. K. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.),
Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community
(pp. 35 - 68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Becher, T. (1999). Professional practices: Commitment and capability in a changing
environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Berends, M. (1992). A description of restructuring in nationally nominated schools.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and
Restructuring of Schools.
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the
field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Blanchard, A. L., & Markus, M. L. (2007). Technology and community behavior in
online environments. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference of
Communities and Technology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.
Bonk, C. J., & , Kim, K. J., & Zeng, T. (2005). Future directions of blended learning in
higher education and workplace learning settings. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham
(Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs (pp.
in press). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. P. (1999). Teaching on the Web: With a little help from my
pedagogical friends. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 3-28.
Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, J., Yew, J., Yerkie, J., Dahl, E., et al. (2007). From
shared databases to communities of practice: A taxonomy of collaboratives
[Electronic Version]. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, 652-
672. Retrieved 25/03/07 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/bos.html.
Botkin, J. (1999). Smart business: How knowledge communities can revolutionize your
company. New York: The Free Press.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The
challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.
Bourhis, A., Dube, L., & Jacob, R. (2005). The success of virtual communities of
practice: The leadership factor. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 3(1), 23-34.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Bradshaw, P., & Powell, S. (2003). Online communities for school leaders [Electronic
Version]. VCI Conference. Retrieved 22/05/05 from
http://www.iw2.co.uk/work/vci_presentation/.
Bradshaw, P., Powell, S., & Terrell, I. (2002). Online communities - Vehicles for
professional learning? [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 05/09/04 from
http://slartibartfast.ultralab.net/~stephenp/blog/archives/bptbera2002.pdf.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). Teacher learning. In J. D.
Bransford, A. L. Brown & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington D.C: Committee on Developments
in the Science of Learning, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education National Research Council.
Brook, C., & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning communities: Investigating a design
framework. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 139-160.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Brown, J. (1999). There goes the neighborhood [Electronic Version]. Salon 21st.
Retrieved 15/03/03 from
http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/01/cov_19feature.html.
Brown, J. S. (1998). Internet technology in support of the concept of "communities-of-
practice": the case of Xerox. Accounting Management and Information
Technologies, 8, 227-236.
Brown, J. S. (2000). Learning, working & playing in the digital age [Electronic
Version]. 1999 Conference on Higher Education of the American Association
for Higher Education. Retrieved 12/05/03 from
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/seelybrown/.
Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the
ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2), 15-28.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Research, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of
practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organizational Science, 2(1), 40-57.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Brown, J. S., & Solomon Gray, E. (1995, November 1995). The people are the
company. How to build your company around your people. . Fast Company.
Bruckman, A. (2006). A new perspective on “community” and its implications for
computer-mediated communication systems [Electronic Version]. CHI 2006 ·
Work-in-Progress. Retrieved 25/01/07 from
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/papers/bruckman-community-chi06.pdf.
Bruckman, A., & Jensen, C. (2002). The mystery of the death of MediaMOO: Seven
years of evolution of an online community In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar
(Eds.), Building Virtual Communities (pp. 21-33). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bruckman, A., & Resnick, M. (1995). The MediaMOO project: Constructionism and
professional community. Convergence, 1(1), 94-109.
Bull, B., Buechler, M., Didley, S., & Krehbiel, L. (1994). Professional development and
teacher time: Principles, guidelines, and policy options for Indiana.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center, School of Education,
Indiana University.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Buysse, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice:

Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263-
277.
Byrne, C. F., & Trew, K. F. (2005). Crime Orientations, Social Relations and
Involvement in Crime: Patterns Emerging from Offenders' Accounts. Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(2), 185-205.
Cannings, T., & Stager, G. S. (2003). Online constructionism and the future of teacher
education [Electronic Version]. IFIP Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working
Conference: ICT and the Teacher of the Future. Retrieved 21/05/05 from
http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV23Cannings.pdf.
Cervero, R. (1988). Effective continuing education for professionals. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning:
exploring the link. Innovations in Educational and Teaching International,
42(3), 217-230.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cognition and Technology Group. (1992). Some thoughts about constructivism and
instructional design. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism
and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 115-119). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cokely, M., & Qualters, D. (2006). Urban teaching connection: Creating and inquiring
through a virtual community of practice [Electronic Version]. American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Retrieved 21/03/07 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p36183_index.html.
Coleman S., & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy
deliberation. London: Hansard Society.
Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol &
B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications
for reform. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Collis, B. (1994). A reflection on the relationship between technology and teacher
education: synergy or separate entities? Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education, 3, 7-25.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2005a). The Australian Flexible Learning Framework:
More about flexible learning. Retrieved 11/09/05, from
http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/guide/index.htm
Commonwealth of Australia. (2005b). The Australian Flexible Learning Framework:
Projects: Flexible Learning Leaders. Retrieved 11/09/05, from
http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/leaders.htm
Community Learning Network. (2001). Community Learning Networks Online Forum.
Retrieved 12/04/07, from http://waoe.org/web/vol1no13/recall.htm
Corcoran, T. B. (1995a). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional
development. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Corcoran, T. B. (1995b). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide
for state policymakers. National Governors' Association
Corcoran, T. B., Shields P. M., & Zucker, A. A. (1998). The SSIs and professional
development for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Cothrel, J. (2001). Building an Online Community -The Five P's. EC Symposium,

Seamless integration of the Internet into your marketing program Retrieved
18/07/04, from http://technologyexecutivesclub.com/prebuildingan.htm
Cothrel, J., & Williams, R. L. (1999). On-line communities: Helping them form and
grow. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 54-60.
Cowley, S., Bergen, A., Young, K., & Kavanagh, A. (2000). A taxonomy of needs
assessment, elicited from a multiple case study of community nursing education
and practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 126-134
Cox, M. J., Preston, C., & Cox, K. (1999). What Motivates Teachers to use ICT? Paper
presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference.
Craig, C. J. (1995). Knowledge Communities: A way of making sense of how beginning
teachers come to know. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(2), 151-175.
Craig, J. M. B., Lee, B. Y., & Turner, J. A. (2003). Tapped-In and Tapped-In 2
http://people.virginia.edu/~jmc4as/docs/TIFinalReport.doc.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American
Psychologist, 30(2), 116-127.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-
13.
Cuthell, J. P. (2002). MirandaNet: a learning community--a community of learners.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1).
Cuthell, J. P. (2005). What Does It Take To Be Active? Teacher Participation in Online
Communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(3), 320 -
332.
Dallas, F. (2005). Enhancing the 3 R's of resilience, retention, and reform through
middle school faculty professional learning communities. Paper presented at the
2005 meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Policy for restructuring. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The work
of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.
New York: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Futures of teaching in American education. Journal of
Educational Change, 1(4), 353 - 373.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Davenport, E., & Hall, H. (2002). Organizational knowledge and communities of
practice. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 171-227.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2001). Learning communities: Understanding the workplace
as a complex system. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92,
85-95.
DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M., & Jones, B. D. (2003). Providing online support to
beginning teachers Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 311-320.
Dixon, N. M., Allen, N., Burgess, T., Kilner, P., & Schweitzer, S. (2005).
CompanyCommand: Unleashing the power of the army profession. West Point,
NY: The Center for the Advancement of Leader Development and
Organizational Learning.
Dolton, P., & van der Klaauw, W. (1995). Leaving Teaching in the UK: A Duration
Analysis [Electronic Version]. The Economic Journal, 105, 431-444. Retrieved
02/05/05 from http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v105y1995i429p431-44.html.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Dolton, P., & van der Klaauw, W. (1999). The turnover of teachers: A competing risks
explanation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 543-550.
Dopson, S. (2003). The potential of the case study method for organisational analysis.
Policy & Politics, 31(2), 217-226.
Downes, S. (2002). LearnScope Virtual Learning Community. Retrieved 12/12/06,
from http://www.downes.ca/post/31475
Dreon Jr, O., & McDonald, S. P. (2006). Using an online community of practice to
foster inquiry as pedagogy amongst student teachers. Paper presented at the 7th
International Conference on Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana.
Driscoll, J., & Teh, B. (2001). The potential of reflective practice to develop individual
orthopaedic nurse practitioners and their practice. Journal of Orthopaedic
Nursing, 5, 95-103.
Dube, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2006). Towards a typology of virtual communities
of practice [Electronic Version]. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,
Knowledge, and Management, 1. Retrieved 09/11/06 from
http://ijikm.org/Volume1/IJIKMv1p069-093Dube.pdf.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design
and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for
Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon
Schuster Macmillan.
Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. Greenstein & N.
Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science (pp. 94-137).
Eckstein, H. (2000). Case study in political science. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P.
Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method. Key Issues, Key Texts (pp. 119-164). London:
Sage.
Eklund, J., Kay, M., & Lynch, H. (2003). E-learning: Emerging issues and key trends.
Retrieved 21/07/06, from
http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/research/2003/elearning250903final.pdf
Ellis, N. (1993). Collegiality from the teacher's perspective: Social contexts for
professional development. Action in Teacher Education, 15(1), 42-47.
Erickson, G., Brandes, G. M., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher
learning: Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(7), 787-798.
Erickson, T. (1997). Social interaction on the net: Virtual community as participatory
genre. In J. F. Nunamaker Jr & R. H. Sprague Jr (Eds.), Proceedings of the
thirtieth Hawaii international conference on systems science (Vol. 6, pp. 23-30).
Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Etzioni, A. (1988). The Moral Dimension. Toward a new Economics. New York. : The
Free Press.
Fernback, J. (1999). There is a there there. Notes toward a definition of
cybercommunity. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet Research. Critical Issues and
Methods for Examining the Net (pp. 203-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ferraro, J. (2000). Reflective practice and professional development. ERIC Digests, ED
449-120
Ferry, B., Hoban, G., & Lockyer, L. (1999). The use of computer-mediated
communication to support the formation of a knowledge-building community in
initial teacher education [Electronic Version]. Conference of the Australasian
Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Retrieved

Bronwyn Stuckey
17/09/03 from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/ferryhoban.pdf.
Ferry, B., & Kiggins, J. (1999). Making use of a knowledge building community to
develop professional socialisation [Electronic Version], 1-13. Retrieved
20/08/03 from http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/aug99/ferry1.pdf.
Figallo, C. (1993). The WELL: Small town on the Internet highway system [Electronic
Version]. Public Access to the Internet meeting sponsored by the John F.
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, May. Retrieved 07/03/04
from http://www.socialchemy.com/smalltown93.htm.
Figallo, C. (1998). Hosting web communities: Building relationships, increasing
customer loyalty, and maintaining a competitive edge. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Fine, M. (1992). Chart[er]ing urban school reform: Philadelphia style. Philadelphia:
CUNY Graduate Center/Philadelphia Schools Collaborative.
Florez, M. C. (2001). Reflective teaching practice in adult ESL settings [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved 15/03/03 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-4/esl.html.
Fontaine, M. (2001). Research Report: Understanding, identifying and selecting the
roles needed to staff and support communities of practice [Electronic Version].
http://www.openacademy.mindef.gov.sg/OpenAcademy/Central/HTML%20Fol
der/KM/bcp/downloads/IKM_Community_Roles_Research_Report_04-01.pdf.
Franklin, B. (2002). MirandaNet - a personal reflection. Retrieved 06/06/06, from
http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/fellowship/reflection.htm
Fullan, M., & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd
ed.). New. York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1993a). Change forces. Probing the depths of educational reform.
London: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1993b). The professional teacher: Why teachers must become change
agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 12-17.
Fullan, M. G. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. G., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What's worth fighting for? Working together
for your school. Toronto: Commissioned by the Ontario Public School Teacher's
Federation.
Fullan, M. G., & Watson, N. (1999). School-based management: reconceptualizing to
improve learning outcomes [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 23/03/03 from
http://www.oecs.org/oeru/documents/Outcomes.pdf.
Fulton, K. P., & Riel, M. (1999). Professional development through learning
communities [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 13/04/03 from
http://www.edutopia.org/php/article.php?id=Art_481&key=238.
Fulton, K. P., Yoon, I., & Lee, C. (2005). Induction into learning communities.
Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Futrell, M. H., Holmes, D. H., Christie, J. L., & Cushman, E. J. (1995). Linking
education reform and teachers' professional development: The efforts of nine
school districts [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 01/01/04 from
http://www.edpolicy.gwu.edu/resources/linking/paper_a_d.html.
Galston, W. A. (1999). Does the Internet strengthen community? [Electronic Version].
Institute for Philosophy & Public Policy. Retrieved 15/03/04 from
www.puaf.umd.edu/ippp/fall1999/internet_community.htm.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Gammack, J. (2002). Mindscapes And Internet-mediated Communication [Electronic

Version]. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7 Retrieved 05/09/05
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue3/gammack.html#Communication.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: from The Age of
Mythology to today’s schools. In David Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond
Communities of Practice: Language, Power, and Social Context (pp. 214-232).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning
organizations and professional learning communities during standardized
reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-156
Giménez-Lugo, G. A., Sichman, J. S., & Hübner, J. F. (2005). Addressing the social
components of knowledge to foster communitary exchanges [Electronic
Version]. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1, 176-294.
http://www.inderscience.com/storage/f563104981117122.pdf.
Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study method. London: Sage.
Gonzalez, D. (2002). Index of 'Webheads in Action' Web pages and related sites
http://www.malhatlantica.pt/teresadeca/webheads/wia-index.htm.
González, D. (2003). Webheads in Action: A community of practice for language
teachers professional development in CMC [Electronic Version]. CETA
Cordoba English Teachers Association: Emotion in Motion. Cordoba, Spain. .
Retrieved 19/05/05 from http://dafnegon.tripod.com/wia/cetaintro.htm.
Goodfellow, R. (2003). Virtual learning communities A report for the National College
for School Leadership [Electronic Version]. Virtual learning communities:
Communities of practice and other frameworks for conceptualising, developing
and evaluating NCSL's initiatives in linking staff and school communities.
http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=2627.
Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2004). Emergence of a pre-service community of practice
http://www.merga.net.au/publications/counter.php?pub=pub_conf&id=224.
Gordin, D., Gomez, L., Pea, R., & Fishman, B. (2000). Using the World Wide Web to
build learning communities [Electronic Version]. Journal of Computer-mediated
Communication, 2. Retrieved 20/11/03 from
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc.vol2/issue3/gordin.html.
Grant, C. M. (1996). Professional development in a technological age: New definitions,
old challenges, new resources. Technical Education Research Centers
(TERC)(May), 72-118.
Gray, J., & Tatar, D. (2004). Sociocultural analysis of online professional development:
A case study of personal, interpersonal, community, and technical aspects In S.
A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in
the Service of Learning. New York: : Cambridge University Press.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). What makes teacher community
different from a gathering of teachers? [Electronic Version]. An occasional

Bronwyn Stuckey
paper Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and Center on English
Learning & Achievement, University of Washington. Retrieved 22/05/03 from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Community-GWW-01-2001.pdf.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Ch. 6: Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research:
Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousands Oaks: Sage.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional
development to promote visionary leadership. NASP Bulletin, 87(637), 38-54.
Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A. G. (1997). Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual
communities. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hall, S. (1997). Forms of reflective teaching practice in higher education. Paper
presented at the Learning Through Teaching: 6th Annual Teaching Learning
Forum, Murdoch University, Perth.
Hamman, R. (2001a). Online community members are real people, too: Focus on users
http://www.infonortics.com/vc/vc01/slides/hamman.pdf.
Hamman, R. B. (2000). Computer networks linking network communities: A study of
the effects of computer network use upon pre-existing communities [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved 18/04/04 from
http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/mphil/short.html.
Hamman, R. B. (2001b). Computer networks linking network communities. In C. W.
M. Mowbray (Ed.), Online Communities (pp. 71-96). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hanson, M. (1997). Educational decentralization: Issues and challenges, Program to
Promote Educational Reform. Santiago, Chile.
Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2006). Professional development & knowledge management via
virtual spaces. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan & P. Trifonas (Eds.), International
Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments (pp. 849-870): Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Harasim, L. M. (1993). Networlds: Networks as social space. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.),
Global Networks: Computers and International Communication (pp. 16-34).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. Teachers' work and culture
in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (1997a). The four ages of professionalism and professional learning. The
Status of Teaching, Special issue of Unicorn, 23(2), 86-108.
Hargreaves, A. (1997b). Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the
quest for success. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with
heart and mind (pp. 1 - 26). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What's worth fighting for in education?
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 47(2), 122-144.
Harper, B., & Hedberg, J. (1997). Creating motivating interactive learning environments
[Electronic Version]. ASCILITE. Retrieved 07/12/03 from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Harper/Harper.html.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership &
Management, 18(2), 169-183.
Harris, A. (2001). Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership &
Management 21(3), 261 - 270
Hartnell-Young, E., & Neal, G. (2006). Addressing the education of boys: a community
of practice approach. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE)
Conference. Parramatta, Australia, November 2005 [Electronic Version].
Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference.
Parramatta. Retrieved 25/02/07 from
http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/har05457.pdf.
Havelock, B. (2004). Online community and professional learning in education:
Research-based keys to sustainability. Association of Computing in Education,
12(1), 56-84.
Hawke, G., & Cornford, I. (1998). Australian vocational education and training policy
change: but will the revolution improve the quality of training. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 6(2), 104-133.
Hawkes, J., & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of
asynchronous computer-mediated communication on teacher development.
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 285-308.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional
development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-
150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hernandes, C. A., & Fresnada, P. S. (2003). Main critical success factors for the
establishment of virtual communities of practice [Electronic Version]. 3rd
European Knowledge Management Summer School. Retrieved 07/09/05 from
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/743/kmss03_32.pdf.
Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling
& J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of
Learning (pp. 338-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Kervin, L., & Ferry, B. (2006). The design of an online
community of practice for beginning teachers [Electronic Version].
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6. Retrieved
15/01/07 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss1/general/article1.cfm.
Herrington, A., Herrington, J., & Omari, A. (2002). Using the Internet to provide
authentic professional development for beginning teachers. In A. Williamson, C.
Gunn, A. Young & T. Clear (Eds.), Winds of change in a sea of learning: 19th
Annual ASCILITE Conference (pp. 811-814). Auckland, NZ: UNITEC Institute
of Technology: ASCILITE.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic
learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,
48(3), 23-48.
Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher
online knowledge sharing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3),
245 - 268.
Hewitt, J., Brett, C., Scardamalia, M., Frecker, K., & Webb, J. (1995). Schools for
thought: Transforming classrooms into learning communities. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association, Annual Meeting. .
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3-19.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching
profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational
Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2003). The new heroes of teaching
[Electronic Version]. Education Week. Retrieved 20/08/04 from
http://www.lessonlab.com/about/index.cfm/c/ab_84.
Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice in the
distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1),
27-38.
Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20,
111-123.
Hoadley, C. M., & Kilner, P. G. (2005). Using technology to transform communities of
practice into knowledge-building communities. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25(1
- Special issue on online learning communities), 31 - 40
Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers' professional
relations. In Little J. W. & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' Work:
Individuals, Colleagues & Contexts (pp. 11-50). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Conceptualizations, exchanges and
experiments. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 1(2).
Hudson-Ross, S., & Peg, G. (2000). Going public: Making teacher educators' as a model
for preservice teachers [Electronic Version]. Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200010/ai_n8905488.
Hummel, J., & Lechner, U. (2002). Social profiles of virtual communities [Electronic
Version]. Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 7.
http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2002/1435/07/14350172b.pdf.
Hung, D. W. L., & Chen, D. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian, thought and
learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the
design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38, 3-12.
Hur, J. W., & Hara, N. (2007). Factors cultivating sustainable online communities for
K-12 teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 36(3), 245-268.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of
schools. Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Jarzabkowski, L. M. (2001). The social dimensions of teacher collegiality [Electronic
Version]. Australian Association of Research in Education Conference.
Retrieved 05/12/2004 from http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/jar01124.htm.
Jonassen, D. H., & Mayes, T. (1992). A manifesto for a constructivist Approach to
technology in higher education [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 07/05/2004 from
http://apu.gcal.ac.uk/clti/papers/TMPaper11.html.
Jones, S., Lang, G., Terrell, I., Thompson, K., & Ramondt, L. (2001). Establishing on-
line communities for school leaders an interim report (The NCSL pilot, Talking
Heads - January to December 2000) [Electronic Version]. BERA Conference.
http://www.ultralab.net/papers/bera2001/th/bera2001th.pdf.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Jorge Grünberg, J., & Armellini, A. (2004). Teacher collegiality and electronic
communication: A study of the collaborative uses of email by secondary school
teachers in Uruguay British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 597-606.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1981). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching.
Journal of Education, 163(2), 163-172.
Kahn, J. (1988). Immigrant selectivity and fertility adaptation in the United States.
Social Forces, 67, 109-128.
Kearnes, P. (2004). Education research in the knowledge society: Key trends in Europe
and North America [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 15/05/05 from
http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/core/cp02_07e.pdf.
Kedzior, M., & Fifield, S. (2004). Teacher professional development [Electronic
Version]. University of Delaware Education Research & Development Center,
The Education Policy Brief series. Retrieved 10/11/04 from
http://www.rdc.udel.edu.
Kendall, R. E., & McHale, K. J. (2003). Evolution: Advancing communities of practice
in naval intelligence [Electronic Version]. Naval Postgraduate School PhD
Thesis. Retrieved 25/01/06 from
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/navy/kendall.pdf.
Kennedy, M. M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Quarterly,
3(4), 661-678.
Killion, J. (2000). Log on to learn: To reap the benefits of online staff development, ask
the right questions. Journal of Staff Development, 21(3).
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web: Secret strategies for successful
online communities. London: Addison Wesley.
Kim, A. J. (2001). Design strategies of successful communities [Electronic Version].
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=21189&seqNum=2&rl=1.
Kimball, L., & Rheingold, H. (2001). How online social networks benefit organizations
[Electronic Version]. Everyday Interactive Networks (EIN). Retrieved 15/07/04
from
http://www.ein.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=1
29.
Kimble, C., & Hildreth, P. (2005). Dualities, Distributed communities of practice and
knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 102-113.
Kimble, C., Hildreth, P., & Wright, P. (2001). Communities of practice: going virtual.
In Y. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge management and business innovation (pp.
216-230). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Klecka, C. L., Clift, R. T., & Thomas, A. R. S. (2002). Proceed with caution:
Introducing electronic conferencing in teacher education. Critical Issues in
Teacher Education, 9(28-36), 1-18.
Klein, S., Gregory, T., & Shank, M. (2000). Intentional communities of practice in
teacher education: The example of a community of teachers. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting, The American Anthropological Association.
Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development: learning as
practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 229-241.
Koku, E. F., & Wellman, B. (2004). Scholarly Networks as Learning Communities: The
Case of TechNet. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for
Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 299-337). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Kollock, P. (1996). Design principles for online communities [Electronic Version]. PC

Update, 15, 58-60. Retrieved 07/07/03 from
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/design.htm.
Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and
conflict in computer communities [Electronic Version], 15. Retrieved 20/12/03
from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/vcommons.htm.
Kondratova, I., & Goldfarb, I. (2004). Virtual communities of practice: Design for
collaboration and knowledge creation [Electronic Version]. Proceedings of the
European Conference in Products and Processes Modelling. Retrieved 12/02/07
from http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/iit-publications-iti/docs/NRC-47157.pdf.
Kowch, E. G., & Schwier, R. A. (1997). Characteristics of technology-based virtual
learning communities [Electronic Version] from
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/communities/community.
PDF.
Kronauer, M. (1998). Social Exclusion" and "Underclass" - New Concepts ... Case
study report on participation and non-formal education in the support. In H. J.
Andreβ (Ed.), Empirical Poverty Research in a Comparative Perspective.
Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Gomez, M. L. (2001). Just showing up: Supporting early
literacy through teachers’ professional communities. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 675-
680.
Lamoureux, L. (2005). KM4Dev: a community of development practitioners sharing
experiences in Knowledge Management approaches [Electronic Version].
Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 1, 110-113. Retrieved
18/09/06 from
http://www.km4dev.org/journal/index.php/km4dj/article/viewFile/14/34.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Le Moult, D. (2001). How to make a CoP fly [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
03/01/2004 from
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgibin/item.cgi?id=98480&d=1&h=417&f=41
8&.
Lemesianou, C. A., & Gutierrez, A. (2003). Online communities of practice: Lessons
from two projects at Montclair State University [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
12/11/2004 from http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~lueg/papers/commdcscw00.pdf.
Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational
performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831-841.
Lexico Publishing Group. (2005). Dictionary.com (Publication. Retrieved 20/12/03,
from Lexico Publishing Group, LLC:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=community
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591-596.
Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities. Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(3), 221-227.
Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education.
Teachers College Record, 1, 7-46.
Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1999). Networks and reform in American education. In
L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 292-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Professional development of teachers (6 ed.). New
York: MacMillan.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers - Transforming their world and their
work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Litchfield, D. (n.d). At the end of the day... Retrieved 05/12/06, from
http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/pubs/david_litchfield.htm
Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.),
Educators’ handbook: a research perspective (pp. 491-518). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 501-536.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of education
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Little, J. W. (1994). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational
reform [Electronic Version]. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing
Education - September 1994. Retrieved 04/12/2003 from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/little1.html.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: opening up
problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18(8), 917-946.
Locke, T., & Hill, M. (2003, December 2003). Constructions of primary teaching
practice in the wake of 90s "reforms". Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE
Joint Conference,, Auckland, NZ.
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. (1943). Skunk works. Retrieved 21/03/06, from
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=16504&rsbci=1
5047&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Loucks-Horsely, S. (1998). Effective professional development for teachers of
mathematics. Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development
for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science
and Mathematics, 99(5), 258-271.
Lueg, C. (2000). Where's the action in virtual communities of practice? [Electronic
Version]. German Computer-Supported Cooperative Work Conference.
http://www.staff.i.uts.edu.au/~lueg/papers/commdcscw00.pdf.
Manto, M., & Bateman, C. (2001). Building a Learning Community [Electronic
Version]. LearnScope. Retrieved 10/05/05 from
http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/learnscope_resources/8_5Manto.rtf.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1998). New technologies
for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1),
33-52.
McDermott, R. (1999). Nurturing three dimensional communities of practice: How to
get the most out of human networks. Knowledge Management Review, Fall.

Bronwyn Stuckey
McDermott, R. (2000). 10 Critical success factors in building communities of practice

[Electronic Version]. Retrieved 03/01/2004 from http://www.co-
il.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/knowing.shtml.
McDermott, R. (2001). Knowing in Community: 10 Critical Success Factors in
Building Communities of Practice Community Intelligence Labs [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved 12/06/2006 from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-
garden/cop/knowing.shtml.
McDonald, J. P., & Klein, E. J. (2003). Networking for teacher learning: Toward a
theory of effective design. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1606-1621.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Enabling professional development: What have we
learned? In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in
the 90's: New demands, new realities, new perspectives. New York: Teachers
College Press.
McNair, V. (2004). Using a virtual learning environment to build reflective practice
among student teachers [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 12/05/05 from
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/connected/connected12/specialfeature/index.asp.
Ministerial Advisory Council on the Quality of Teaching. (1997). Raising the standing
of teachers and teaching. Retrieved 07/08/03. from
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/reviews/macqt/standa.htm.
Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and Situation Analysis. The Sociological Review, 31, 187-
211.
Mueller-Prothmann, T., & Siedentopf, C. (2003). Designing online knowledge
communities: Developing a usability evaluation criteria catalogue [Electronic
Version]. 3rd European Knowledge Management Summer School. Retrieved
07/12/2004 from
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/2760/kmss03_03.pdf.
Müller, C. (1999). Networks of 'personal communities' and 'group communities' in
different online communication services: First results of an empirical study in
Switzerland [Electronic Version]. Exploring Cyber Society Conference, July 5-7
1999, University of Northumbria at Newcastle/UK. Retrieved 15/03/03 from
http://www.soz.unibe.ch/ii/virt/newcastle.html.
National College for School Leadership. (2003). talk2learn: An evaluation report on
NCSL's online communities including Talking Heads and Virtual Heads.
National College for School Leadership. (2005). International perspectives on
networked learning [Electronic Version]. Networked Learning Communities.
http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/collections/network-research-
series/reports/international-perspectives-on-networked-learning/nlg-
international-perspectives-full-report.pdf.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF). (1997). What
matters most : Teaching for America's future New York.
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1996). Teachers take charge of
their learning: Transforming professional development for student success
[Electronic Version]. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education,
Washington, DC. Retrieved 12/04/04 from
http://curie.umd.umich.edu/TeacherPrep/149.pdf.
National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. (1998). A framework
for professional development [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 20/08/04 from
http://cela.albany.edu/research/partnerC4.htm.

Bronwyn Stuckey
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington:
National Academy Press.
National Staff Development Council. (2001). National Staff Development Council's
standards for staff development. Retrieved 10/11/03. from
http://www.enc.org/resources/records/full/0,1240,019801,00.shtm.
Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary
school. London: Cassell Educational.
NIDA, & University of Wollongong. (1998). StageStruck. On Australia on CD Sydney:
Department of Communications and the Arts, Australian Federal Government
Nocente, N., Redhead, P., & Skytt, J. (1999). Teaching and learning with technology: A
professional development model. In J.D. Price, J Willis, Dee Anna Willis, M
Jost & S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.), SITE 99 Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education (pp. 701-706). San Antonio,Texas: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Novick, R. (1996). Actual schools, possible practices: New directions in professional
development [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 12/05/05 from
http://www.nwrel.org/cfc/publications/actualschool.html.
O'Brien, J., & Van der kuyl, T. (2004). Professional learning and changing teacher
attitudes: the role of technology-based approaches and resources [Electronic
Version]. The Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE).
Retrieved 13/02/04 from www.aare.edu.au/04pap/obr04743.pdf.
O’Reilly, T. (2003). The Architecture of Participation [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
21/10/05 from http://weblogs.oreilly.com/pub/wlg/3017.
Oliver, R. (2001). Seeking best practice in online learning: Flexible Learning Toolboxes
in the Australian VET sector. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
17(2), 204-222.
Olson, M. R. (1994). Interlocking narratives in teacher education. Journal of
Professional Studies, 1(2), 26-34.
Olson, M. R., & Craig, C. J. (2001). Opportunities and challenges in the development of
teachers' knowledge: the development of narrative authority through knowledge
communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 667-684.
Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community
memory in a service culture. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective
Remembering (pp. 169-189). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Orum, A. M., Feagin, J. R., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). The nature of the case study. In J. R.
Feagin, A. M. Orum & G. Sjoberg (Eds.), A case for the case study (pp. 1-26).
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Osterman, K. F. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education
and Urban Society, 22(2), 133-152.
Palinscar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N., Ford, D., & Brown, N. (1998).
Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the
GisMLcommunity. Teacher and Teacher Education, 14(1), 5-10.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective
strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Papert, S. (1990). Introduction. In I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist learning. Boston: MIT.
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism [Electronic Version].

Constructionism. Retrieved 12/07/03 from
http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
Parboosingh, J. (2003). CPsquare Healthcare Practice Group Discussion.
Parboosingh, J. T., Badat, M. C., & Wooster, D. L. (2003). Individualized learning
strategies. In D. Davis, B. E. Barnes & R. Fox (Eds.), The Continuing
Professional Development of Physicians: From Research to Practice. Chicago:
American Medical Association.
Parker, A. (1977). Networks for innovation and problem solving and their use for
improving education: A comparative overview. Unpublished manuscript. School
capacity for Problem Solving Group, National Institute of Education,
Washington DC.
Pennell, J., & Firestone, W. (1998). Teacher-to-teacher professional development
through state-sponsored networks. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 354-357.
Piele, E. B., & Briner, W. (2001). Team and organizational learning in a cross-
functional community of practice: the importance of privileging voice. Career
Development International, 6(7), 396-402.
Pomson, A. D. M. (2005). One classroom at a time? Teacher isolation and community
viewed through the prism of the particular. Teachers College Record, 107(4),
783-802.
Poole, M. J. (2002). Developing online communities of practice in preservice teacher
education [Electronic Version]. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL) Conference, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Retrieved 12/07/03
from http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/161.pdf.
Poplin, D. E. (1979). Communities: a survey of theories and methods of research (2nd
ed.). New York: MacMillan.
Powazek, D. M. (2002). Design for community. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability.
Chichester: Wiley.
Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and
measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology 20(5), 347-356.
Preece, J., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2005). Online communities: Design, theory, and
practice [Electronic Version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
10. Retrieved 22/02/06 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/preece.html.
Preece, J., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Abras, C. (2003). History of emergence of online
communities. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of community: From the
village to the virtual world. London: Sage Publications.
Preston, C. (n.d.). Community focus on research and dissemination [Electronic
http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/pubs/research.htm.
Preston, C., & Van der Loo, L. (2005). MirandaNet: An E-community of practice. Paper
presented at the IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education.
Printy, S. M. (2002). Communities of practice: Participation patterns and professional
impact for high school mathematics and science teachers. The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.
Printy, S. M., & , & Marks, H. M. (2002). Communities of practice and teacher quality.
In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Educational Administration, Policy and Reform
(pp. 91-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. .

Bronwyn Stuckey
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational researcher, 29(1),
4-15.
Putz, P., & Arnold, P. (2001). Communities of practice: Guidelines for the design of
online seminars in higher education [Electronic Version]. Retrieved March 18
2003 from http://www.parnold.de/present/putz_arnold_2000.pdf.
Pyne, K. (2004). MOOing in the Teachers’ Lounge: Pre-service English Teachers in a
Virtual Community of Practice [Electronic Version]. Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 3952-3957.
http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=1
3015.
Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2005). Local Virtuality in an Organization:
Implications for community of practice [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 12/05/07
from http://www.iisi.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload/C_T/2005/Paper12C_T2005.pdf.
Ramondt L., Chapman, C., & Powell, S. (2002). Talking Heads report: Introduction
http://intra.ultralab.net/~leonie/cothsreport02/.
Ramsey, G. (2001). Review of teacher education in NSW: Why quality matters?
(Report): NSW Department of Education and Training.
Raphael, J. (2005). Improving instruction through professional learning teams:
Emerging results of a field test. Paper presented at the 2005 meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada.
Reilly, R. A. (1999a). EdNet@UMass: A ferry service connecting educational islands of
excellence [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 15/03/03 from
http://www.umass.edu/ednet/the-pub.html.
Reilly, R. A. (1999b). EdNet@Umass: Providing quality professional development via
the Internet [Electronic Version]. The Journal Technical Horizons in Education,
26, 60. Retrieved March from
http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=2098.
Rényi, J. (1966). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional
development for student success Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association (NEA) Foundation for the Improvement of Education.
Resnick, M. (1996). Distributed constructionism [Electronic Version]. International
Conference on the Learning Sciences. Retrieved 07/05/03 from
http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/archive/Distrib-Construc.html.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Rheingold, H. (2001). Face-to-face with virtual communities [Electronic Version].
Syllabus Magazine. Retrieved 12/12/05 from
http://www.syllabus.com/syllabusmagazine/article.asp?ID=4135
Rhoton, J., & Stiles, K. E. (2002). Exploring the professional development design
process: Bringing an abstract framework into practice. Science Educator, 11(1),
1-8.
Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan,
84(5), 401-406.
Riel, M. (1995). Learning circles: virtual communities for elementary and secondary
schools [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 15/03/03 from
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/Guidelines/Riel-93.html.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Riel, M. (1998). Conceptual order and collaborative tools - Creating intellectual

identity. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-
centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. xvii-xx).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Riel, M. (2000). New designs in teaching and learning, White Paper commissioned by
the U. S. Department of Education Secretary's Conference on Educational
Technology [Electronic Version]. Research Methods for Educational
Technology, 1, 17-38. Retrieved 09/09/2002 from
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/techconf/2000/white_papers.html.
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2001). Communities as places where learning occurs [Electronic
Version]. AERA 2001. Retrieved April, 2001 from
http://gsep.pepperdine.edu/~mriel/office/papers/Riel_&_Polin-LC.htm.
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Learning communities: Common ground and critical
differences in designing technical support. . In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray
(Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Riel, M., Rhoads, J., & Ellis, E. (2005). Culture of critique: Online learning circles and
peer review in graduate education. Paper presented at the AERA, 1005.
Rogers, D. L., & Babinski, L. (1999). Breaking through isolation with new teacher
groups. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 38-40.
Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1996). Models of teaching and learning:
Participation in a community of learners. In D.R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.),
Handbook of education and human development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Longmans.
Rush, D. (2002). Leveraging what other people know: Tacit knowledge transfer at
Aventis [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 20/10/03 from
http://www.kmworld.com/kmw04/presentations/Rush.pdf.
Ryba, K., Selby, L., & Mentis, M. (2002). Analysing the effectiveness of on-line
learning communities [Electronic Version]. Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Retrieved 25/04/04 from
http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/nonref/pdf/KenRyba.pdf
.
Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. G. (1996). Affordances and constraints of the internet for
learning and instruction [Electronic Version]. Paper presented at Association
for Educational Communications Technology (AECT) February 14-18.
Retrieved 17/05/02 from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html.
Saint-Onge, H. (2003). Guest speaker presentation. On CPsquare. Live teleconference
discussion.
Saint-Onge, H., & Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging communities of practice for strategic
advantage: Butterworth-Heineman.
Salmon, J. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. UK: Kogan
Page.
Schank, P., Harris, A., & Schlager, M. (2002). Painting a landscape onto TAPPED IN 2
[Electronic Version]. Presented to the "The Role of Place in Shaping Virtual
Community" workshop at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Conference, New Orleans, LA, November 16-20, 2002. Retrieved 16/04/04 from
http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/PaintingTI2.pdf.
Schlager, M., & Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher professional development, technology, and
communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? In S. A.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing Virtual Communities in the

Service of Learning (pp. 120-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (1999). Evolution of an online education
community of practice [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 19/08/05 from
www.tappedin.org/info/papers/evol99/.
Schlager, M., & Schank, P. (1997). TAPPED IN: A new on-line community concept for
the next generation of Internet technology. Paper presented at the Second
International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning,
Toronto, Canada.
Schlager, S., Schank, P., & Godard, R. (1999). TAPPED IN to Teacher Professional
Development: An On-line Conference Center for Education Communities
[Electronic Version]. SRI International. Retrieved 19/05/05 from
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cscl/posters/schank.pdf.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. (1988). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds. New York: Randon House.
Schrage, M., & Conner, M. (n.d.). Our shared playground: An interview with Michael
Schrage [Electronic Version]. LineZine. Retrieved 12/03/04 from
http://linezine.com/3.1/features/msmcosp.htm.
Schweitzer, S. J. (2004). Discussion Forums: The Core of Online Communities of
Practice [Electronic Version]. CALDOL Research, West Point, NY. Retrieved
12/18/05 from http://www.efios.com/kgarden/schweitzer597_project.pdf.
Schwen, T. M., & Hara, N. (2004). Community of practice: A metaphor for online
design? In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing Virtual
Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 154-180). Cambridge Cambridge
University Press.
Schwier, R. (2002, June 1, 2002). Shaping the metaphor of community in online
learning environments. Paper presented at the International Symposium on
Educational Conferencing, The Banff Centre, Banff, Alberta.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning
organization. London: Random House.
Serim, F. (1996). Building virtual communities for professional development
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/serim.html.
Shaffer, C. R., & Anundsen, K. (1993). Creating community anywhere: Finding support
and connection in a fragmented world. New York: Putnam.
Sharp, J. (1997). Community of practice: A review of the literature [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved 3/07/01 from http://www.tfriend.com/cop-lit.htm.
Sharrat, M., & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge-sharing in online
communities of practice [Electronic Version]. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, Paper 18 Issue 2. Retrieved 25/05/05 from
http://www.ejkm.com/volume-1/volume1-issue-2/issue2-art18-sharratt.pdf.
Sherry, L., & Wilson, B. (1997). Transformative communication as a stimulus to web
innovations. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp. 67-73). Englewood
Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
Shimahara, N. K. (1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching
as craft. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 451-462.
Shirky, C. (1995). Voices from the net. Emeryville, CA: Ziff-Davis Press.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Shirky, C. (2003). Social software and the politics of groups [Electronic Version].
Networks, Economics, and Culture mailing list. Retrieved 10/07/03 from
http://shirky.com/writings/group_politics.html.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Shumar, W. (2005). Ethnography at the Math Forum [Electronic Version]. Quality
Digital Library Research. Retrieved 01/11/2005 from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july05/khoo/09_shumar.pdf.
Shumar, W., & Renninger, K. A. (2002). On community building. In Renninger K.A. &
W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in
cyberspace (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Slay, J. (1999). The use of the Internet in creating an effective learning environment
[Electronic Version]. AusWeb Conference, Southern Cross University, Lismore
NSW. Retrieved 21/05/05 from
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw97/papers/slay/paper.htm.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and
mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research
Journal, 41(3), 681-714.
Snyder, W. M. (2003). Communities of practice in government: leveraging knowledge
for performance; Learn how this evolving tool for cross-organizational
collaboration currently is being used in a variety of public sector settings and
how it can help you cultivate improved performance outcomes in your backyard.
The Public Manager, 32(4), 17-22.
Snyder, W. M., Wenger, E., & de Sousa Briggs, X. (2004). Communities of practice in
government: leveraging knowledge for performance [Electronic Version]. The
Generative Dialogue Project from
http://www.generativedialogue.org/documents/SnyderCOPgovperformance.pdf.
Sparks, D. (1994). Time for learning: A view from the national level: North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) Policy Brief, report no. 4.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Stamps, D. (1997). Communities of practice: Learning is social. Training is irrelevant?
Training, 43, 34-42.
Stebbins, R. (1987). A. Sociology: The Study of Society. New York: Harper & Rowe
Publishing Inc.
Steele, J. (2002). Herding Cats: A Descriptive Case Study of a Virtual Language
Learning Community. [Electronic Version]. Thesis, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania Graduate School and Research. Retrieved 26/05/05 from
http://netdial.caribe.net/~jhsteele/cats.pdf.
Stevens, V. (2002). Webheads chat logs from September 8, 2002 [Electronic Version].
Retrieved 15/03/04 from http://www.homestead.com/prosites-
vstevens/files/efi/chat2002/wfw020908.htm.
Stevens, V. (2003). Teacher professional development in online communities of
practice: How does this impact language learning? [Electronic Version]. CALL
(Computer-Assisted Language Learning) Symposium, Cairo, Egypt. Retrieved
12/03/06 from
http://www.geocities.com/vance_stevens/papers/egypt/tpd_online.htm.
Stevens, V. (2005). Webheads - Intuitive chaos management in online collaborative
interaction [Electronic Version]. Knowtips Conference Retrieved 20/04/05 from

Bronwyn Stuckey
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-
vstevens/files/efi/papers/horizonlive/2005feb25whjam.htm.
Stewart, P. (1964). JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 [Electronic Version], 378
U.S. 184 from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=378&invol=184
.
Stewart, T. A., & Brown, V. (1996). The invisible key to success [Electronic Version].
Fortune, 134. Retrieved 20/12/2003 from
http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/invisible_key.htm.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional
learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational
Change, 7(4), 221-258.
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional Learning Communities: Divergence,
Depth and Dilemmas. Professional Learning. Columbus, OH: Open University
Press.
Stuckey, B., & Hedberg, J. G. (2000, December). Building on-line community: the way
forward for professional development. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2000:
Learning to Choose: Choosing to Learn, Lismore, NSW.
Stuckey, B., Hedberg, J. G., & Lockyer, L. (2001, September 8-11). Growing an on-line
community of practice: Community development to support in-service teachers
in their adoption of innovation. Paper presented at the 9th Improving Student
Learning using Technology Symposium, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Stuckey, B., Lockyer, L., & Hedberg, J. (2001). The case for community: On-line and
ongoing professional support for communities of practice. In M. J. Mahony, D.
Roberts & A. Gofers (Eds.), Education Odyssey 2001: Continuing the journey
through adaptation and innovation, 15th Biennial Forum of the Open and
Distance Learning Association of Australia (pp. CD-ROM ). Sydney:
ODLAA/Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia.
Tenenbaum, B. (1997). A virtual instructional media center unifying professional
development and school reform [Electronic Version]. Annual National
Educational Computing Conference. Retrieved June 30-July 2 from
http://www.k12imc.org/information/library/description.php.
Thomas, E. (2005). Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall
Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S. (1998). In the
company of colleagues: An interim report on the development of a community
of teacher learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 21-32.
Thomas, J., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. ( 2001.). The knowledge management
puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledge management. The IBM Systems
Journal, 40(4).
Thrift, N. (1999). The place of complexity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(3), 31-69.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: U.S. Department of
Education
UNESCOPRESS. (2002). More children, fewer teachers: new UNESCO-ilo study sees
global teacher shortages causing decline in quality education [Electronic
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/2002/45.htm.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Vance, V. (2004). The persistence of privacy in teacher profesional development online.

Paper presented at the The Australian Association for Reasearch in Education
(AARE), Melbourne.
Vance, V., & McKinnon, D. H. (2002). Teacher professional development online:
Fertile ground or fetid swamp? [Electronic Version]. paper presented at
Untangling the Web: Establishing Learning Links ASET Conference 2002.
Retrieved 07/06/05 from http://www.aset.org.au/confs/2002/vance.html
Verma, A., & Lonti, Z. (2001). Changing government workplaces [Electronic Version].
CPRN Discussion Paper, Canadian Policy Research Networks
Retrieved 12/05/04 from http://www.cprn.com/documents/2920_en.pdf.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),
35-57.
Watson, G., & Prestidge, S. (2003). A networked learning community approach to
sustain teacher ICTprofessional development. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 19(2), 227-240.
Weatherley, R., & Ellis, A. (2000). Online learning: What do teachers need to know
about communicating online? [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 03/07/05 from
http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2000/weatherley-ellis.htm.
Webopedia. (2002). Online dictionary and search engine you need for computer and
Internet technology definitions (Publication. Retrieved 10/01/04, from
Internet.com: http://www.webopedia.com
Wellman, B. (1999). The network community. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the
Global Village (pp. 1-48). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Wellman, B. (2000). Must community have a place? [Electronic Version]. The
Community Web, An Online Discussion Spring 2000 Retrieved 15/03/03 from
http://www.commurb.org/features/futurecommunity.html.
Wellman, B. (2004). The three ages of Internet studies: Ten, five and zero years ago.
New Media and Society, 6(1), 123-129.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1997). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as
communities. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace.
London Routledge.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W., M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational
frontier. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 139-145.
Wesley, P., & Buysse, V. (2001). Communities of practice: Expanding professional
roles to promote reflection and shared inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 21(2), 114-123.
White, N. (2004a). Click, collect and coalesce for NGO's: Exploring the intersections
between online networks, CoPs and events. In Paul M. Hildreth & C. Kimble
(Eds.), Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice (pp.
282-294). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
White, N. (2004b, 20/12/04). Facilitating and hosting a virtual community. from
http://www.fullcirc.com/community/communityfacilitation.htm

Bronwyn Stuckey
Whitehouse, P. (2003, April). The power of peer learning: Designing for peer
interactions in online professional development courses for educators. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Whittaker, S., Issacs, E., & O'Day, V. (1997). Widening the net. Workshop report on
the theory and practice of physical and network communities. SIGCHI Bulletin,
29(3), 27-30.
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A
definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional
Use of Learning Objects: Online version.
Williams, R. L., & Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart ways to run online communities.
Sloan Management Review, 41(i4), 81-91.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in
Education (pp. 173-209). Washington, D.C: American Educational Research
Association.
Woodruff, E. (2001). CSCL communities in post-secondary education and cross-
cultural settings. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL II:
Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 157-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Revised ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publishing.
Yinger, R. J., & Hendricks-Lee, M. S. (1998). Professional development standards as a
new context for professional development in the US. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and practice, 4(2), 273-298.
Yinger, R. J., & Hendricks-Lee, M. S. (2000). The language of standards and teacher
reform. Educational Policy, 14(1), 94-106.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendices
Appendix A: The StageStruck Online Community Design

http://www.StageStruck.uow.edu.au
Synthesis of Community Essentials, Planned Internet Activities and Features
Clear focus driven by the members

Think tanks Resource upload/download Publication area
Online tutorials Quick Starter pages Member project proposals
Online meetings Links to professional associations Feedback and suggestion forms
Employ appropriate technologies and styles of communication
Resource database Chat topic and guests Project activities
FAQs Links Template and PDF files
Listservs Browser-based publishing Ideas forums
Threaded discussions Archives F2f functions & events
Members feel part of a social network where expertise, leadership, content contributions are valued.
Groups (k-6, 7-10) Member moderated/lead discussion Student publishing online
Leadership & mentor program Experts online program Schools link-up for local & International project partners
Buddy activities (novice/expert) Rewards and accreditation for Publicizing and encouraging member workshops & publications
Collaborative project member activity
development Promotion of local f2f activity
Provides ongoing discussion, sharing of, and collaboration on, commonly valued things
Syllabus forums Database to support sharing units of Tutorials
Links work Student research forum
Celebration of student works & Classroom practice forums Calls for participation in member developed projects
achievements Member moderated/lead discussion Workshops & conferences
Teaching programs
Syntheses of Community Essentials & Listing of Planned Internet Activities and Features (Stuckey &
Hedberg, 2000)
Appendices 329 27/06/2008

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix B: Pedagogical issues and activities for StageStruck Community
Learning Characteristics Internet activities for StageStruck

Situated learning Simulations
Discussion of classroom management
Contributions to peer calls for assistance in listservs or forums.
Curriculum links
Quick starters
Hints and tips
Modeling and explaining FAQs
Uploaded/Downloaded artifacts
Tutorials
Project involvement
Partnerships
Chat sessions
Coaching and scaffolding FAQs
Tutorials
Unit templates
Contributions to peer calls for assistance in Listservs or forums.
Articulation FAQ
Contributions to peer calls for assistance in listservs or forums.
Chat sessions
Proposed project ideas and new directions
Reflection on performance Contributions to peer calls for assistance in Listservs or forums
Chat sessions
Partnerships
Project involvement
Exploration Uploaded/Downloaded artifacts
Tutorials
Project involvement
Partnership

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix C: The Community architecture

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix D: Log of StageStruck site activity 2000-2001
Log of StageStruck hits 2000-2001 to main page
Months 2000 2001

Jan - Feb 345
Mar - April 208
May - June 232
July - Aug 217
Sept – Oct 275
Nov – Dec * 139 1563
* Launch December 2000
Log of StageStruck hits 2000-2001 to all pages
6897 Dec 2000

6042 Jan 2001
3760 Feb 2001
4920 Mar 2001
7768 Apr 2001
16388 May 2001
72179 Jun 2001
80106 Jul 2001
20929 Aug 2001
2551 Sep 2001
3660 Oct 2001
1989 Nov 2001
16052 Dec 2001
Log of StageStruck member registrations 2000-2001
Months 2000 2001

Jan - Feb 18
Mar - April 15
May - June 33
July - Aug 30
Sept – Oct 27
Nov – Dec * 26 51
* Launch December 2000

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix E: Principles of High Quality Professional Development
Guiding Principles Characteristics of High 12 Principles guiding Characteristics of High Design Principles
Corcoran (1995 p.3) Quality PD development of course Quality PD Loucks-Horsley, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin
Guskey (2003) activities Hewson, Love & Stiles (1998) & Milbrey, 1995)
Nocente, Redhead, Skytt 1999
p.704-705
• Stimulate and support site- • Content-focused • Linked to curriculum • Driven by a well-defined • Engage in concrete tasks of
based activity standards and teachers image of effective teaching
needs classroom learning and
teaching
• Support teacher initiatives • Extended • Incorporate opportunities • Provide opportunities for • Grounded in inquiry,
as well as school and for choice and personal teachers to build their reflection and
district initiatives application knowledge and skills experimentation
• Are grounded I knowledge • Collaborative • Mentors model appropriate • Use or model with teachers • Collaborative, sharing
about teaching techniques the strategies teachers will knowledge among
use with their students educators
• Model constructivist • Part of the daily work • Result in usable classroom • Build a learning • Sustained, ongoing,
teaching process and product community intensive and supported
• Offer intellectual, social and • Ongoing • Accommodate different • Support teachers to serve in • Connected to other aspects
emotional engagement skill levels leadership roles of school change
• Demonstrate respect for • Coherent and integrated • Project-based approach to • Provide links to other parts
teachers as professionals encourage problem solving of the education system
and as adult learners
• Provide for sufficient time • Inquiry-based • Project-based approach to • Continuously assessing
and follow-up support afford experience and themselves and making
observation improvement.
• Are accessible and • Teacher-driven • Feedback from colleagues
inclusive.
• Informed by student • Skills to be learned
performance identified
• Self-evaluation. • Flexible to accommodate a
range of delivery situations
• Understand implications of
technology use
• Program materials to have
longevity.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix F: Deconstruction of 25 recent definitions of community
Definitional elements Researcher

1. • social group (Stebbins, 1987)
• with a common territorial base
• those in the group share interests and have a sense of
belonging to the group.
2. • bonding, not one to one, but a group of people to each other (Etzioni, 1988)
• shared set of values and culture – much more than interest.
3. • member feels part of a social whole (Figallo, 1998)

• interwoven web of relationships between members
• ongoing exchange between members of commonly valued
things
• relationships between members last through time.
4. • dynamic whole (Shaffer &

• emerges when people share common practices Anundsen, 1993)
• make decisions jointly
• identify themselves with something larger than the sum of
their individual relationships
• make long term commitment to well-being (their own, one
another’s and the group’s).
5. • group of individuals dedicated to sharing and advancing the (Hewitt, Brett,

knowledge of the collective Scardamalia, Frecker,
• commitment among its members to invest its resources in the & Webb, 1995)
collective pursuit of understanding. Knowledge Building
Community
6. • membership: (Erickson, 1997)

• relationships Virtual Community
• commitment and generalized reciprocity
• shared values and practices
• collective goods
• duration.
7. • distinctive focus (Hagel & Armstrong,

• integration of content and communications 1997)
• openness to competitive information/access
• commercial orientation
• valuing of member generated content.
8. • shared goal, interest or need (Whittaker, Issacs, &

• members engage in repeated, active participation O'Day, 1997)
• intense interactions and strong emotional ties
• members have access to shared resources
• reciprocity of information
• shared context of social conventions, language and protocols.
9. • content in context (Kahn, 1988)

• creativity in communicating knowledge
• collaboration for building communities of learners.
10. • small group of people whether linked by geography or shared (Kearnes, 2004)
interest
• which addresses the learning needs of members Learning Community

Bronwyn Stuckey

• through proactive partnerships.
11. • frequent, multilateral and for a certain period durable Muller

communication contacts (Müller, 1999)
• commonly shared norms, values and collective practices
• defined boundaries between inside and outside, and
development of common identity.
12. • promotes discussion, sharing, and active collaboration (Community

• provides responsive resource for those seeking assistance and Learning Network,
information 2001)
• is driven by the participants, as a real grassroots initiative.
13. • limited membership (Galston, 1999)

• shared norms
• affective ties
• sense of mutual obligation.
14. • group of people (Kim, 2000)

• with a shared interest, purpose or goal,
• who get to know each other better over time.
15. • function (Woodruff, 2001)

• identity
• discursive participation CSCL communities
• and shared values.
16. • shared knowledge, values, and beliefs (Barab & Duffy,

• overlapping histories among members 2000)
• mutual interdependence
• mechanisms for reproduction. Community of
practice
17. • clear purpose for the community (Preece, 2000)
• help to create social policies that guide not stifle
• support social interaction
• sociability built through trust, collaboration and appropriate
styles of communication.
18. • a group of people (Hamman, 2000)

• who share interaction
• and some common ties between themselves and others in the
group
• who share an area for at least some of the time.
19. • a clear and shared focus is driven by the members (Stuckey & Hedberg,
• members feel part of a social network where their expertise, 2000)
leadership, and content contribution and requests are all
valued and reciprocated.
• ongoing discussion, sharing of, and collaboration on,
commonly valued things.
• appropriate technologies and styles of communication are
employed.

Bronwyn Stuckey

20. • networks of civic engagement (Arnold, 2003)
• norms of generalized reciprocity. Community as social
capital
21. • Shared history and culture (Schwier, 2002)

• Identity or recognized focus Virtual Learning
• Mutuality Community
• Plurality from intermediate associations
• Autonomy - Individual identity
• Participation that promotes self-determination
• Valued future
• Technology
• Learning
• Integration through supportive norms, beliefs and practices
22. • groups of people (Wenger,

• share a concern, set of problems or passion about a topic McDermott, &
• and deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting in Snyder, 2002)
this area
• on an ongoing basis. Community of
practice
23. • membership, (Riel & Polin, 2004)

• task features
• learning goals,
• participation structures
• mechanisms for further growth and reproduction.
24. • networks of interpersonal ties (Wellman, 2004)

• that provide sociability, support, information
• a sense of belonging and social identity.
25. • shared history, purpose, culture, norms and values (Herring, 2004)
• solidarity, support reciprocity
• criticism, conflict, means of conflict resolution
• self-awareness of group as an entity distinct from other
groups
• emergence of roles, hierarchy, governance, rituals.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix G: Selection of guidelines, strategies and principles from the relevant literature
ONLINE COMMUNITY GUIDELINES COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Nine Timeless Design 12 Fundamental lessons on Four dimensions for a vibrant Ten Critical Success Factors Ten tricks to help managing 7 CoP design principles
Strategies establishing and maintaining web-based e-learning in Building Communities of successfully a CoP (Le Moult, (Wenger, McDermott &
(Kim, 2000) online communities community, Practice (McDermott, 2000) 2002) Snyder, 2002)
(Williams & Cothrel, 2000) (Hung & Chen, 2001)
• Define and articulate your • Create critical mass of 1. Situatedness Management Challenge 1. Actively generate 1. Design for evolution
PURPOSE functionality 1. Focus on topics important content
• Build flexible, extensible • Collect and use feedback 2. Commonality to the business and 2. Open a dialogue
gathering PLACES from members community members. 2. Don’t be too strict in between inside and
• Create meaningful and • Harness the power of a 3. Interdependency 2. Find a well-respected judging outside
evolving member personal connection community member to
PROFILES • Prime the pump with 4. Infrastructure. coordinate the community. 3. Create Executive 3. Invite different levels
history and context. communication 3. Make sure people have awareness of participation
• Design for a range of • Help members help each time and encouragement to
ROLES other participate. 4. Use your own personal 4. Develop both public
• Develop a strong • Acknowledge the 4. Build on the core values of network and private spaces
LEADERSHIP program voluntary nature of the organization.
• Encourage appropriate participation Community Challenge 5. Support the snowball 5. Focus on value
5. Get key thought leaders principle
ETIQUETTE • Fit the tools to the
involved. 6. Combine familiarity
• Promote cyclic EVENTS community
6. Build personal 6. Provoke voluntaries and excitement
• Integrate the RITUALS of • Play on all motives for
relationships among
community life participation
community members. 7. Keep it simple 7. Create a rhythm.
• Facilitate member-run • Reinforce the 7. Develop an active
SUBGROUPS. community’s focus passionate core group. 8. Keep it fresh (first in
• Provide the materials that 8. Create forums for thinking community)
Underlying principles: collaboration requires together as well as systems
Design for growth and change • Concentrate on for sharing information. 9. Let it grow before
Create and maintain communities that matter Technical Challenge structuring
feedback loops • Form communities around 9. Make it easy to contribute
Empower members over time. people, not applications. and access the 10. Rely on the fun factor.
community’s knowledge
and practices.
Personal Challenge
10. Create real dialogue about
cutting edge issues.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix H: Criteria for IMCoP case selection
Exemplar cases
Criteria for exemplar case selection:

1. Demonstrates community maturity through sustained engagement of members
2. The community convener was actively engaged in the day to day activity of
the community (not operating as an overseer or ‘absentee landlord’)
3. Community convener has been in place since inception
4. Purposive sampling to represent education or non-education sectors
5. Inclusion would add diversity to a heterogeneous pool of cases.
Cases selected represented diversity across and within IMCoPs for education
and non-education sectors. Heterogeneity was explicitly considered when selecting
cases for the case study pool. Cases chosen represent a broad spread across:
• domain and practices
• Internet technologies
• national, regional or international focus
• membership sizes
• intentional or emergent developments
• single and multi person management and facilitation
• funded, sponsored, institutionalized or renegade initiated
• evangelist leader or management initiated
Heuristic cases
Criteria for heuristic case selection:

1. Preliminary evidence suggests the case has the potential to be instrumental in
theory building
2. Maintaining a high level of heterogeneity of the cases
3. Enable as purposive sample of 4 heterogeneous cases (2 educational and 2
non-educational)
4. Allows broad availability of multiple evidence sources
5. Has topical relevance
6. Offers access to multiple data sources for triangulation.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix I: Research Human Subjects Ethics Approval
Scanned approval to go here

Bronwyn Stuckey

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix J: Information provided to case informants
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Community Manager Information sheet
Bronwyn Stuckey
Project title: Growing an online community of practice: Community development to support in-service
teachers in new practices.
Key researcher/doctoral candidate: Bronwyn Stuckey and supervisors Dr Lori Lockyer and
Professor John Hedberg phone( +612 95286009 or +612 4221 3555 )
Description of the research

A pilot web site and was designed for registration for the StageStruck Professional Development
Community. Cross-case study of successful Internet-mediated communities of this nature is being
carried out to determine conditions for successful community development. It is hoped to develop a set
of conditions or design and management propositions for both education and non-education sectors and
to inform new online community development. The conditions arising form the cross-case analyses will
be investigated with the selected StageStruck pilot site members to negotiate a design and plan for the
relaunch of the site and a move toward true community development. Cases will also be used to
compare the findings about possible cultural issues in community development in educational
communities and those developed in other non-education sectors. The cases chosen will be presented as
exemplars in their domain and the field of community and professional development.
Your involvement as community leader/facilitator
You will be asked to take part in a interview to last 60 to 90m minutes and provide what you see as
relevant supportive data and references in relation to the history and development of your community.
The questions for this interview are attached so that you may consider your involvement before
committing. This interview and the story of your community to be built from it will constitute the
primary evidence in the case report and the cross-case study analyses. You will be asked to share or
identify any supporting documents, reports, research and literature that you deem relevant to this
activity. No confidential material will be used in the reporting of the case. It is intended to identify the
case and the community leader in the case report. Since this research is about hallmarks of success it is
these issues that will be the focus of the report and should serve to highlight the very positive aspects of
your community’s story.
It is planned that these case stories will form the basis of a web enabled database of exemplars in
community development and may be used in other publications such as journal articles, conference
presentations and books.
I will be available by email or telephone to answer any questions you may have concerning the research
and procedures, so please do not hesitate to ask. If you have any concerns or complaints regarding the
way the research is or has been conducted, you can contact the Complaints Officer, Human Research
Ethics Committee, University of Wollongong on +612 4221 4457.
You will be free to refuse to participate or, having consented, to withdraw your consent at any time
without that refusal or withdrawal affecting your treatment, care, studies, their relationship with the
University of Wollongong. Data and published material will be made available for your perusal, input
and consent at stages during the research process (e.g. transcripts, aggregated data, case story, cross-
case analyses, final conclusions.
Yours truly,
Bronwyn Stuckey

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix K: Consent forms for case informants
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Community Leader Consent Form
Growing an online community of practice: Community development to support

in-service teachers in new practices.
Bronwyn Stuckey
I have been given information about Growing an online community of practice and
discussed the research project with Bronwyn Stuckey who is conducting this research
as part of a Doctoral Program supervised by Prof John Hedberg and Dr Lori Lockyer
in the department of Education at the University of Wollongong.
I understand that, if I consent to participate in this project I will be asked to

• complete an interview related to the history, management and facilitation of the
(insert community name) community.
• offer supporting data or literature references related to the development of the
(insert community name) community.
• review transcripts, analyses and material for publication related to the (insert
community name) community.
I have had an opportunity to ask Bronwyn Stuckey any questions I may have about the
research and my participation. I understand that my participation in this research is
voluntary, I am free to refuse to participate and I am free to withdraw from the
research at any time. My refusal to participate or withdrawal of consent will not affect
my treatment in any way /my relationship or my relationship with the University of
Wollongong,
If I have any enquiries about the research, I can contact Bronwyn Stuckey or her
supervisors Dr Lori Lockyer and Professor John Hedberg phone( +612 95286009 or
+612 4221 3555 )or if I have any concerns or complaints regarding the way the
research is or has been conducted, I can contact the Complaints Officer, Human
Research Ethics Committee, Office of Research, University of Wollongong on
42214457.
By signing below I am indicating my consent to participate in the research entitled

Growing an online community of practice, conducted by Bronwyn Stuckey as it has
been described to me in the information sheet and in discussion with her. I
understand that the data collected from my participation will be used for purpose (eg
thesis, journal publication, and web site case presentation etc), and I consent for it to
be used in that manner.
Signed Date
....................................................................... ......./....../......
Name (please print)
.......................................................................

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix L: Case Community Convener Informant List
IMCoP Case Informant/s
Australian Flexible Learning Community Rose Grozdanic

(AFLC)
MirandaNet Fellowship Christina Preston

(MN)
Talking Heads Leonie, Ramondt,

(TH) Gill Roberts,
Malcolm Moss
Webheads in Action Vance Stevens

(WiA) Sus Nyrop
Tapped In Judy Fusco

(TI) BJ Berquist
The Inquiry Learning Forum Julie Moore

(ILF)
Company Command Major Peter Kilner

(CC) Major Tony Burgess
Government Online John Gotze

(GOL-IN)
Knowledge Management for Development Lucy Lamoureux

(KM4Dev)
Online Facilitation Nancy White

(OF)
Working Group on Participatory Natural Anne Braun

Resource Management
(PNRM-wg)
Mark Schenk
actKM

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix M: Case Community Convener Interview Protocol
1. Briefly describe [your community].

Include:
• When started
• With whom and by whom
• Organizational support, champions or sponsors
• How long in operation
• Stage of development (early, mature)
• Numbers then and now and growth patterns over time
• Main purpose and beneficiaries of the community
• Membership (voluntary, head-hunted etc)
• Activities (face-to-face, online, teleconference, hybrid)
• Technology/ies selected and why.
2. What are the hallmarks of [your community] that distinguish it as a

community of practice rather than perhaps a network or a community of
interest? What evidence is there that the members view themselves as a
community?
3. What have been the greatest enablers and barriers to the development of [your
community]? Have you experienced any failures or setbacks? Describe.
4. How is value recognized for the community involvement within and beyond
the community? (recognition, rewards, accreditation, time)
5. What is the cost for, and the benefit they received by, members in their active
involvement in [your community]? (time, involvement, esteem, kudos, project
activity etc)
6. How does the community motivate engagement, contribution and ownership

from members? (To enlist, on enlisting and over time? Is there an anticipated
lifespan for community membership?)
7. What roles and responsibilities are significant in the development and

maintenance of this community? (leadership, champions, mentors, facilitators,
critical friends, team members etc)
8. How is [your community] supported, resourced and facilitated?
9. What relationship does the community have with or for management and
sponsors? Does the community work toward organizational or strategic goals?
10. Do you measure the success or impact of the community/ies? How?

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix N: Descriptive Comparison of the 12 Exemplar Cases of IMCoPs (2003/4)

* Indicates community of practice selected as heuristic case
Launch Community Domain Practice Regional Org. Cultivation Stage of Number Modes of
Base Affiliation Dev In 2004 communic.
AFLC* 1999 Educators Flexible Flexible Australia & ANTA intentional – maturing 3000+ Web & e-
in adult learning learning International semi- mail
vocational and structured - Async
education delivery sponsored
MF * 1992 Educators, ICTs in Research UK & Independent emergent – stewardship 260 e-mail,
industry & education best International structured – Web &
academic practice self- F-2-F
use of supporting Async
ICTs
TH 1999 School Leadership School England NCSL intentional – maturing 2400 Web &
heads and leadership structured - F-2-F
K-12 management institutional Async
WiA 2002 Secondary TESOL Language International Independent emergent – stewardship 60 Web
and tertiary learning unstructured Chat
teachers using - self- VOIP
technology supporting Webcam
Sync
TI 1997 K-12 Many & All International SRI intentional – coalescing - 17000 Web & e-
educators varied teaching International unstructured stewardship mail
and - sponsored Async
learning
ILF 1999 Pre-service Inquiry Inquiry Indiana CRLT intentional – maturing 4900 Web &
teachers learning learning Indiana structured - F-2-F
maths and University sponsored Async &
science sync

Bronwyn Stuckey
CC * 1999 Military Battle ready Excellence in USA West Point emergent – maturing 4000+ Web &
commanders command military Military structured - F-2-F
command Academy institutional Async
GOL- 1993 Senior civil e- Technical Europe & Independent emergent – maturing 85 e-mail &
IN * servants government aspects e- Asia structured - F-2-F
government sponsored Async
KM4 2000 KM Knowledge KM in International Bellanet intentional – coalescing 400 Web, e-

Dev practitioners management development unstructured mail &
organizations - sponsored F-2-F
Async
OF 1999 Community Facilitation Online International Independent intentional – maturing 900 e-mail
managers & facilitation unstructured blogs
facilitators - sponsored Async
PNRM- 1996 Scientists Natural Participatory International PRGA intentional – coalescing 150 Web, e-
wg resource management structured - mail &
management & research sponsored F-2-F
Async
actKM 1998 Public sector Knowledge Public sector Australia Independent emergent – maturing 900 e-mail,
workers management KM structured – F-2-F
self- Async
supporting

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix O: Key evidence types collected for each case
The key data was collected in interviews with community leaders, people in direct
contact with the members and who facilitate the activity and ongoing design of the
community interface and infrastructure. In addition to the interviews, supporting
artifacts were sourced to further describe the community, its attributes, growth and
impact over time. The categories of artifacts collected for each community are
mapped in table [ ] below.
Data sources sourced and reviewed for each case
Community Leader Website Evaluations Published Promotional

Interview Audit Feedback Literature Media
1. Company Command
2. E-Government
3. KM4Dev
4. actKM
5. Online Facilitation
6. PRNM-wg
7. MirandaNet
8. AFLC
9. Talking Heads
10. Tapped In
11. Inquiry Learning

Forum
12. Webheads

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix P: Key Evidence sources made available for heuristic cases
Database of documents retained for each case
CCMD GOL-IN MIRANDANET AFLC

Bronwyn Stuckey
Australian Flexible Learning Community key resources

1. Interview with Rose Grozdanic (Community Management Team Leader)
Evidence: interview Sourced from:
Notes and recording of semi-structured Interview held over telephone
interview following the protocol
devised
2. Virtual Learning Community Professional Development Program Implementation Plan 2003

Evidence: document Sourced from
Part of the planning documentation for AFLC Community Management Team
the Australian Flexible Learning
Framework
3. Strategy 2002 LearnScope Virtual learning Community May Progress Report

Report to Australian National Training AFLC Community Management Team
Authority on the strategic goals and
achievement to May 2002
4. Strategy 2002 Final Report Virtual learning Community

Report to Australian National Training AFLC Community Management Team
Authority on the strategic goals and
achievement to Dec 2002
5. Welcome to the Community

Evidence: community resource Sourced from
Web site information CompanyCommand.com
6. Supporting the Development of Learning Communities In Online Settings

Evidence: published paper Sourced from
External inquiry report into sense of EdMedia Conference Proceedings 2002
community in AFLC (the LearnScope
Virtual learning Community
7. Online learning: What do teachers need to know about communicating online?

Evidence: published paper Sourced from
North American Web-based Learning Conference
http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2000/weatherley-ellis.htm
8. Designing For A Viable Online Professional Development Community

Evidence: presentation Sourced from
Poster presentation at Ausweb 2001 http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw01/papers/edited/weatherley2/paper.html
conference
9. Australian Flexible learning Framework; Supporting Flexible Learning Opportunities

Evidence: promotional material Sourced from
Poster presentation at Ausweb 2001 http://flexiblelearning.net.aul
conference
10. Australian Flexible learning Community

Evidence: observation Sourced from
Audit of Internet-technology, AFLC web site Jan 2003
functionality and activity
11. Background to the Australian Flexible Learning Community

Evidence: community resource Sourced from
Community history AFLC web site May 2005
http://community.flexiblelearning.net.au/ProfessionalDevelopment/content/article_7000.htm

Bronwyn Stuckey
Company Command key resources

1. Community web site
Evidence: direct observation and Sourced from:
physical artifacts CompanyCommand.com
Exploration and audit of community
web site tools and activities
2. Interview with Christina Preston

Transcript of semi-structured interview Interview held over telephone
following the protocol devised
3. Raw Feedback 01
Evidence: archival records Sourced from
Email compilation member feedback Community leaders
2001
4. What is our vision ‘02

Evidence: physical evidence Sourced from
Web site discussion archive CompanyCommand.com
5. Who are we?

Evidence: documentation Sourced from
Web page CompanyCommand.com
6. Champions of Innovation: Change your formation

Fast Company’s Fast 50 (March 2002 Fast Company (March 2002 issue)
issue) http://www.fastcompany.com/fast50/people/change/13.html
7. Grassroots Leadership: U.S. Military Academy

Online Article Fast Company
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/47/militaryacademy.html
8. Tony-Burgess-Check-in
Evidence: physical evidence Sourced from
Email to new members Community membership e-mail
9. US Army: CompanyCommand.com and PlatoonLeader.org

Interactive Session and proceedings E-Learn Conference Proceedings, Montreal 2002
publication
10. CompanyCommand: Unleashing the power of the army profession.

Book published by community leaders Community leaders 2005

Bronwyn Stuckey
MirandaNet Fellowship key resources

1. Title: MirandaNet Community web site
Evidence: direct observation and Sourced from:
physical artifacts MirandaNet
http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk
2. Title: Interview with Community Director Christina Preston

3. Title: MirandaNet Prospectus

Community Director
4. Title: MirandaNet: a learning Community – a community of learners

Evidence: research paper Sourced from
Review of the community interaction Community fellow
5. Title: MirandaNet – a personal reflection

Member testimonial Community web site
6. Title: Teachers as Innovators

Report on teacher motivation to use Community Director
technology.
7. Title: Inter-linx
Evidence: research proposal Sourced from
Academic research proposal Community Director
8. Title: eLearning Leaders

Community biography for project Community web site
tender
9. Title: What Motivates Teachers to use ICT?

Community research Community Director
Paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association
10. Title: Community focus on research and dissemination

Evidence: promotion Sourced from
Community web site
http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/pubs/research.htm
11. Title: ICT Support Network: Models of ICT Support and Innovation Provision – discussion
document
Becta Review of the Fellowship Becta
http://becta.org.uk/leas/leas.cfm?section=8&id=402
12. Title: MirandaNet: An E-community of practice

Evidence: research article Sourced from
Paper presented at the IFIP World Community Director
Conference on Computers in
Education.

Bronwyn Stuckey
Government Online key resources

1. Taking Democracy to Scale: Reconnecting Citizens with National Policy through Public
Deliberation
Evidence: research publication Sourced from:
Webmaster
America Speaks background paper to ‘Taking Democracy to
Scale’
2. Title: Interview with Web Master and community leader John Gotze
3. Title: Gotzeblogged The e-consultation world according to GOL-IN

Community Web Master
4. Title: Online Consultation In GOL-IN Countries - Initiatives to foster e-democracy,

Evidence: research paper Sourced from
Review of the community interaction http://www.governments-online.org/articles/18.shtml
5. Title: GOL-IN Meeting Notes

Community Web Master
6. Title: Messages from the GOL-IN Chair

Evidence: promotion Sourced from
Community web site
7. Title: Gotzeblogged
Evidence: :member blog Sourced from
Member/Web master blog
8. Title: GOL WebAudit

Evidence: observation Sourced from
Community web site

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix Q: Key Evidence sources made available for exemplar cases
Database of documents retained for each case
actKM KM4Dev PRNM-wg Online Facilitation
WiA ILF TI TH

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix R: Excerpt from coding, NVivo node listing May 02 2006
NVivo revision 1.3.146 Licensee: Bronwyn Stuckey

Nodes in Set: All Tree Nodes
Number of Nodes: 266
1 (1) /People
2 (1 1) /People/Roles
3 (1 1 1) /People/Roles/Types
4 (1 1 1 1) /People/Roles/Types/Mentors
5 (1 1 1 2) /People/Roles/Types/Facilitators
6 (1 1 1 3) /People/Roles/Types/Members
7 (1 1 1 3 1) /People/Roles/Types/Members/active
8 (1 1 1 3 2) /People/Roles/Types/Members/peripheral
9 (1 1 1 4) /People/Roles/Types/Leaders
10 (1 1 1 5) /People/Roles/Types/Champions
11 (1 1 1 6) /People/Roles/Types/Coordinator
12 (1 1 1 7) /People/Roles/Types/Contractors
13 (1 1 1 8) /People/Roles/Types/Stakeholders
14 (1 1 1 9) /People/Roles/Types/Thought leaders
15 (1 1 1 9 1) /People/Roles/Types/Thought leaders/Internal
16 (1 1 1 9 2) /People/Roles/Types/Thought leaders/External
17 (1 1 1 10) /People/Roles/Types/administrator
18 (1 1 1 11) /People/Roles/Types/sponsor
19 (1 1 1 12) /People/Roles/Types/Resource developer
20 (1 1 1 13) /People/Roles/Types/Partners
21 (1 1 1 14) /People/Roles/Types/Advisor
22 (1 1 1 15) /People/Roles/Types/Representatives
23 (1 1 1 16) /People/Roles/Types/Initiators
24 (1 1 3) /People/Roles/Role Formation
25 (1 1 3 1) /People/Roles/Role Formation/Emergent
26 (1 1 3 4) /People/Roles/Role Formation/Structured
27 (1 1 11) /People/Roles/Nature
28 (1 1 11 1) /People/Roles/Nature/Voluntary
29 (1 1 11 2) /People/Roles/Nature/Elected
30 (1 1 11 3) /People/Roles/Nature/Paid
31 (1 1 11 4) /People/Roles/Nature/Targeted
32 (1 1 11 5) /People/Roles/Nature/Anonymous
41 (1 3) /People/Executive awareness
42 (1 3 1) /People/Executive awareness/Bootlegged

Bronwyn Stuckey
43 (1 3 2) /People/Executive awareness/Institutionalized
44 (1 3 3) /People/Executive awareness/Sanctioned
45 (1 3 4) /People/Executive awareness/Recommended
46 (1 4) /People/Time
47 (1 4 1) /People/Time/to engage
48 (1 4 2) /People/Time/longevity
49 (1 4 3) /People/Time/recognition of
50 (1 5) /People/Ties
51 (1 5 12) /People/Ties/Personal connection
52 (1 5 14) /People/Ties/Personal relationships
53 (1 5 14 15) /People/Ties/Personal relationships/Judging
54 (1 7) /People/Profiles
55 (1 7 1) /People/Profiles/member
56 (1 7 1 3) /People/Profiles/member/profile development
57 (1 7 1 3 1) /People/Profiles/member/profile development/self-stated
58 (1 7 1 3 2) /People/Profiles/member/profile development/through interaction
59 (1 7 1 3 3) /People/Profiles/member/profile development/visual
60 (1 7 1 3 4) /People/Profiles/member/profile development/management lead
61 (1 7 1 3 5) /People/Profiles/member/profile development/structural
62 (1 7 1 4) /People/Profiles/member/Demographics
63 (1 7 1 19) /People/Profiles/member/Morale
64 (1 7 2) /People/Profiles/community
65 (1 7 3) /People/Profiles/presence
66 (1 7 4) /People/Profiles/leaders
67 (1 10) /People/Leadership
68 (1 10 1) /People/Leadership/Distributed
69 (1 10 2) /People/Leadership/Respected
70 (1 10 3) /People/Leadership/modelling
71 (1 10 4) /People/Leadership/Central
72 (1 10 9) /People/Leadership/Passionate core
73 (1 17) /People/Sponsorship
74 (1 17 1) /People/Sponsorship/Institutional~Program
75 (1 17 2) /People/Sponsorship/Partnership
76 (1 17 3) /People/Sponsorship/Corporate~Executive
77 (1 17 4) /People/Sponsorship/Evangelist
78 (1 17 5) /People/Sponsorship/Agency supported
79 (1 18) /People/Management support
80 (1 18 1) /People/Management support/Guidelines
81 (1 18 2) /People/Management support/volunteers

Bronwyn Stuckey
82 (1 18 3) /People/Management support/paid
83 (1 18 19) /People/Management support/Facilitation
84 (2) /Common ties
85 (2 1) /Common ties/Situatedness
86 (2 1 1) /Common ties/Situatedness/Practicality
87 (2 1 2) /Common ties/Situatedness/Communities that matter
88 (2 1 3) /Common ties/Situatedness/Climate
89 (2 1 4) /Common ties/Situatedness/Boundaries
90 (2 1 7) /Common ties/Situatedness/Topics
91 (2 2) /Common ties/Value
92 (2 2 1) /Common ties/Value/Personal
93 (2 2 2) /Common ties/Value/Project
94 (2 2 3) /Common ties/Value/Agency
95 (2 2 4) /Common ties/Value/Shared understanding
96 (2 2 5) /Common ties/Value/Profession
97 (2 2 6) /Common ties/Value/Cultural change
98 (2 2 8) /Common ties/Value/Recognised value
33 (1 2) / Common ties/Relate to larger community
34 (1 2 1) / Common ties/Relate to larger community/Promotion
35 (1 2 2) / Common ties/Relate to larger community/Rituals
36 (1 2 3) / Common ties/Relate to larger community/Inspiration
37 (1 2 4) / Common ties/Relate to larger community/Fresh
38 (1 2 5) / Common ties/Relate to larger community/Autonomy
39 (1 2 6) / Common ties/Relate to larger community/Political
40 (1 2 7) / Common ties/Relate to larger community/Synergistic
99 (2 5) /Common ties/Focus
100 (2 7) /Common ties/Purpose
101 (2 9) /Common ties/Diversity
102 (2 10) /Common ties/Accreditation and recognition
103 (2 10 1) /Common ties/Accreditation and recognition/Extrinsic
104 (2 10 2) /Common ties/Accreditation and recognition/Intrinsic
105 (2 10 3) /Common ties/Accreditation and recognition/Internal
106 (2 10 4) /Common ties/Accreditation and recognition/External
107 (2 11) /Common ties/Values
108 (2 11 1) /Common ties/Values/Domain
109 (2 11 6) /Common ties/Values/Core values
110 (2 17) /Common ties/Cutting edge
111 (3) /Social interaction
112 (3 1) /Social interaction/Modality

Bronwyn Stuckey
113 (3 1 1) /Social interaction/Modality/online

114 (3 1 1 1) /Social interaction/Modality/online/pull
115 (3 1 1 3) /Social interaction/Modality/online/push
116 (3 1 2) /Social interaction/Modality/F2F
117 (3 1 3) /Social interaction/Modality/Formal
118 (3 1 4) /Social interaction/Modality/Informal
119 (3 1 5) /Social interaction/Modality/Integrated
120 (3 1 6) /Social interaction/Modality/Based
121 (3 1 6 1) /Social interaction/Modality/Based/Resource-based
122 (3 1 6 3) /Social interaction/Modality/Based/Event-based
123 (3 1 6 4) /Social interaction/Modality/Based/Project-based
124 (3 1 6 5) /Social interaction/Modality/Based/Dialog-based
125 (3 1 7) /Social interaction/Modality/back-channel
126 (3 2) /Social interaction/Currency
127 (3 3) /Social interaction/Familiarity and excitement
128 (3 5) /Social interaction/Levels
129 (3 5 1) /Social interaction/Levels/low commitment
130 (3 5 2) /Social interaction/Levels/high commitment
131 (3 5 3) /Social interaction/Levels/small group
132 (3 5 4) /Social interaction/Levels/whole of community
133 (3 6) /Social interaction/Functionality
134 (3 6 1) /Social interaction/Functionality/Interdependency
135 (3 6 2) /Social interaction/Functionality/Consultation
136 (3 6 3) /Social interaction/Functionality/Training
137 (3 6 4) /Social interaction/Functionality/Mentoring
138 (3 6 5) /Social interaction/Functionality/Research
139 (3 6 5 1) /Social interaction/Functionality/Research/applied
140 (3 6 5 2) /Social interaction/Functionality/Research/carried out
141 (3 6 6) /Social interaction/Functionality/Publishing
142 (3 6 7) /Social interaction/Functionality/Collaboration
143 (3 6 8) /Social interaction/Functionality/Conversation
144 (3 6 9) /Social interaction/Functionality/Easy
145 (3 6 10) /Social interaction/Functionality/Problem solving
146 (3 6 11) /Social interaction/Functionality/Peer review
147 (3 6 12) /Social interaction/Functionality/Networking
148 (3 6 13) /Social interaction/Functionality/Support
149 (3 6 14) /Social interaction/Functionality/Access to expertise
150 (3 6 15) /Social interaction/Functionality/Reflective practices
151 (3 6 16) /Social interaction/Functionality/Story telling

Bronwyn Stuckey
152 (3 8) /Social interaction/Rhythm

153 (3 8 1) /Social interaction/Rhythm/News
154 (3 8 1 1) /Social interaction/Rhythm/News/Newsletter
155 (3 8 1 2) /Social interaction/Rhythm/News/Headlines
156 (3 8 2) /Social interaction/Rhythm/content
157 (3 8 3) /Social interaction/Rhythm/engagement
158 (3 8 4) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events
159 (3 8 4 1) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Timing
160 (3 8 4 1 1) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Timing/Weekly
161 (3 8 4 1 2) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Timing/Monthly
162 (3 8 4 1 3) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Timing/Yearly
163 (3 8 4 1 4) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Timing/Daily
164 (3 8 4 3) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Organization
165 (3 8 4 3 1) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Organization/Scheduled
166 (3 8 4 3 2) /Social interaction/Rhythm/Events/Organization/Ad hoc
167 (3 10) /Social interaction/Fun factor
168 (3 10 1) /Social interaction/Fun factor/Social dialogue
169 (3 10 2) /Social interaction/Fun factor/Games & Competitions
170 (3 10 3) /Social interaction/Fun factor/Social Event
171 (3 10 15) /Social interaction/Fun factor/Celebration
172 (3 11) /Social interaction/Generate content
173 (3 11 1) /Social interaction/Generate content/Facilitator support
174 (3 11 2) /Social interaction/Generate content/Community structure
175 (3 11 3) /Social interaction/Generate content/Funding
176 (3 11 12) /Social interaction/Generate content/Prime
177 (3 13) /Social interaction/Etiquette
178 (3 13 1) /Social interaction/Etiquette/Privacy
179 (3 13 2) /Social interaction/Etiquette/explicit norms
180 (3 13 3) /Social interaction/Etiquette/understood norms
181 (3 13 4) /Social interaction/Etiquette/moderation
182 (3 14) /Social interaction/Motives
183 (3 18) /Social interaction/Professional and social
184 (3 20) /Social interaction/Reporting
185 (3 20 1) /Social interaction/Reporting/Strategic
186 (3 20 21) /Social interaction/Reporting/Feedback
187 (3 20 21 1) /Social interaction/Reporting/Feedback/to community management
188 (3 20 21 2) /Social interaction/Reporting/Feedback/to each other
189 (4) /Place
190 (4 1) /Place/Around people

Bronwyn Stuckey
191 (4 2) /Place/Resources
192 (4 2 1) /Place/Resources/Generated
193 (4 2 1 1) /Place/Resources/Generated/Internal
194 (4 2 1 1 1) /Place/Resources/Generated/Internal/Individual
195 (4 2 1 1 2) /Place/Resources/Generated/Internal/Community Collaboration
196 (4 2 1 1 2 1) /Place/Resources/Generated/Internal/Community Collaboration/central support
197 (4 2 1 1 2 2) /Place/Resources/Generated/Internal/Community Collaboration/Member support
198 (4 2 1 2) /Place/Resources/Generated/External
199 (4 2 1 2 1) /Place/Resources/Generated/External/Linked
200 (4 2 1 2 4) /Place/Resources/Generated/External/Collected
201 (4 2 2) /Place/Resources/Access
202 (4 2 2 1) /Place/Resources/Access/Public
203 (4 2 2 2) /Place/Resources/Access/Members only
204 (4 2 3) /Place/Resources/Archived
205 (4 2 4) /Place/Resources/Copyright
206 (4 4) /Place/Evolution
207 (4 4 1) /Place/Evolution/Technology
208 (4 4 1 1) /Place/Evolution/Technology/Planned
209 (4 4 1 2) /Place/Evolution/Technology/Emerged
210 (4 4 2) /Place/Evolution/Infrastructure
211 (4 4 2 2) /Place/Evolution/Infrastructure/Planned
212 (4 4 2 3) /Place/Evolution/Infrastructure/Emerged
213 (4 4 3) /Place/Evolution/Architecture
214 (4 4 3 1) /Place/Evolution/Architecture/Planned
215 (4 4 3 2) /Place/Evolution/Architecture/Emerged
216 (4 4 4) /Place/Evolution/Activity
217 (4 4 4 1) /Place/Evolution/Activity/Planned
218 (4 4 4 2) /Place/Evolution/Activity/Emerged
219 (4 5) /Place/Tools
220 (4 5 1) /Place/Tools/Implemented
221 (4 5 1 1) /Place/Tools/Implemented/Centrally
222 (4 5 1 2) /Place/Tools/Implemented/Socially
223 (4 5 1 3) /Place/Tools/Implemented/Integrated
224 (4 5 6) /Place/Tools/constraints
225 (4 5 7) /Place/Tools/Use
226 (4 5 7 1) /Place/Tools/Use/For networking
227 (4 5 7 2) /Place/Tools/Use/For member use
228 (4 5 7 3) /Place/Tools/Use/Thinking together
229 (4 5 7 4) /Place/Tools/Use/Sharing information

Bronwyn Stuckey
230 (4 5 7 5) /Place/Tools/Use/Feedback~Stats
231 (4 6) /Place/Public and private
232 (4 6 1) /Place/Public and private/Spaces
233 (4 6 2) /Place/Public and private/Policy
234 (4 6 8) /Place/Public and private/Subgroups
235 (4 7) /Place/Inside and outside
236 (4 7 1) /Place/Inside and outside/Community - Institution~Organisation
237 (4 7 2) /Place/Inside and outside/Community - Profession~Domain
238 (4 7 3) /Place/Inside and outside/Community - Workplace
239 (4 9) /Place/Ownership
240 (4 10) /Place/Reliability
241 (4 10 3) /Place/Reliability/Stability
242 (4 10 11) /Place/Reliability/Safe harbour
243 (4 10 12) /Place/Reliability/Quality resources
244 (4 11) /Place/Navigation
245 (4 12) /Place/Promotion
246 (4 12 1) /Place/Promotion/conferences & workshops
247 (4 12 2) /Place/Promotion/articles
248 (4 12 3) /Place/Promotion/relationships
249 (4 12 4) /Place/Promotion/prospectus
250 (4 12 5) /Place/Promotion/Cross-promotion
251 (4 12 6) /Place/Promotion/Marketing
252 (4 12 7) /Place/Promotion/Word of mouth
253 (4 13) /Place/Status
254 (4 13 1) /Place/Status/Recognition
255 (4 13 2) /Place/Status/Relationships
256 (4 13 3) /Place/Status/Role
257 (4 13 4) /Place/Status/Reputation
258 (4 15) /Place/History and context
259 (4 16) /Place/Resourcing
260 (4 16 1) /Place/Resourcing/Funding
261 (4 16 2) /Place/Resourcing/Platform
262 (4 16 2 1) /Place/Resourcing/Platform/purpose built
263 (4 16 2 2) /Place/Resourcing/Platform/commercial
264 (4 16 2 3) /Place/Resourcing/Platform/freeware~opensource 2
265 (4 16 2 4) /Place/Resourcing/Platform/partnership
266 (4 19) /Place/Personal touches

Bronwyn Stuckey
Appendix S: Comparison of percentages of coded items for conditions

CCMD GOL-IN MN AFLC Average
(1) People
(1 1) Roles 30% 41% 45% 44% 46%
(1 7) Profiles 12% 12% 13% 14% 15%
(1 10) Leadership 9% 9% 10% 4% 9%
(1 17) Sponsorship 4% 7% 8% 7% 8%
(1 4) Time 5% 5% 4% 8% 7%
(1 3) Executive awareness 9% 3% 4% 7% 6%
(1 5) Ties 9% 4% 3% 3% 5%
(1 18) Management support 4% 0% 3% 5% 3%
(2) Common ties
(2 1) Situatedness 33% 24% 27% 28% 23%
(2 2) Value 31% 38% 25% 15% 21%
(2 4) Relate to larger community 17% 19% 9% 10% 20%
(2 11) Values 17% 7% 9% 9% 8%
(2 10) Accreditation and recognition 0% 15% 13% 4% 6%
(2 17) Cutting edge 5% 8% 9% 8% 6%
(2 5) Focus 6% 2% 5% 16% 6%
(2 9) Diversity 3% 5% 7% 12% 5%
(2 3) Purpose 5% 2% 6% 8% 4%
(3) Social interaction
(3 6) Functionality 57% 35% 60% 36% 47%
(3 1) Modality 13% 32% 11% 14% 18%
(3 5) Levels 3% 14% 7% 9% 8%
(3 8) Rhythm 6% 6% 5% 11% 7%
(3 11) Generate content 7% 0% 3% 6% 4%
(3 20) Reporting 2% 2% 1% 10% 4%
(3 14) Motives 4% 4% 4% 2% 3%
(3 13) Etiquette 5% 3% 1% 4% 3%
(3 10) Fun factor 0% 0% 4% 6% 2%
(3 18) Professional and social 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%
(3 2) Currency 1% 3% 0% 1% 1%
(3 3) Familiarity and excitement 1% 0% 2% 1% 1%
(4) /Place
(4 5) Tools 25% 12% 16% 15% 17%
(4 10) Reliability 17% 9% 9% 6% 10%
(4 16) Resourcing 7% 7% 13% 7% 9%
(4 4) Evolution 14% 2% 1% 17% 8%
(4 2) Resources 3% 19% 3% 9% 8%
(4 6) Public and private 6% 6% 10% 11% 8%
(4 9) Ownership 4% 11% 11% 5% 8%
(4 13) Status 5% 12% 8% 6% 8%
(4 12) Promotion 7% 9% 5% 9% 7%
(4 7) Inside and outside 3% 6% 11% 6% 6%
(4 15) History and context 3% 5% 9% 2% 5%
(4 1) Around people 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
(4 19) Personal touches 3% 0% 1% 3% 2%
(4 11) Navigation 1% 0% 0% 2% 1%
SOCIAL INTERACTION 27% 31% 34% 31% 31%

PEOPLE 21% 25% 29% 26% 25%
PLACE 29% 23% 16% 31% 25%
COsMMON TIES 23% 16% 20% 12% 20%

Bronwyn Stuckey

Stuckey THESIS

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stuckey THESIS

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Growing online community: Core conditions to support

successful development of community in

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the

1.1. The concept of community of practice........................................................................................ 1

1.2. The problem ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Revisiting professional development .......................................................................................... 6

1.4. Refocusing on community........................................................................................................... 7

1.5. The study...................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Contributing Areas of Research ................................................................................................ 13

2.2. Teacher Professional Development........................................................................................... 20

2.3. Social Learning Theory and Online Affordances ..................................................................... 38

2.4. Community ................................................................................................................................ 49

2.5. Community of practice .............................................................................................................. 69

2.6. Internet-mediated Community of Practice ................................................................................ 73

2.7. Research imperatives ................................................................................................................. 85

3.1. The Research Process ................................................................................................................ 89

3.2. The Research Plan ..................................................................................................................... 99

4. Case Findings ................................................................................................................................... 109

4.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................. 109

4.2. Exemplar Cases........................................................................................................................ 110

4.3. Heuristic Cases......................................................................................................................... 131

4.3.4.1. The GOL-IN case narrative ................................................................................. 183

4.4. The value of the conceptual framework .................................................................................. 197

5. Cross case findings .......................................................................................................................... 199

5.2. Core conditions ........................................................................................................................ 200

5.3. Comparison education and non-education sector communities....................................... 256

6. Discussion and conclusions............................................................................................................. 263

6.1. Discussion of IMCoP components, conditions and attributes .......................................... 265

6.2. Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 291

References .................................................................................................................................................. 305

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 329

to the principles encountered in the literature

Figure 2.1 Degrees of community participation 58

Appendix A: The StageStruck Online Community Design 329

I would also like to thank members of CPsquare (my community of practice),

A return to the literature describing effective teacher professional development

Literature Review 2 27/06/2008

1.2. The problem

Australia on CD was a Creative Nation Federally-funded cultural arts program

Literature Review 3 27/06/2008

Literature Review 4 27/06/2008

1.3. Revisiting professional development

Teacher professional development has been reviewed widely by governments and

Literature Review 6 27/06/2008

1.4. Refocusing on community

Recent research has also been grounded in collocated and/or organizational

1.5. The study

An aggregation of the definitions of community in the literature over the last

Through a detailed screening process 12 exemplar IMCoP cases were identified.

Literature Review 10 27/06/2008

and recognizing community. The narratives also provided an opportunity to present a

Literature Review 11 27/06/2008

Literature Review 12 27/06/2008

Literature Review 13 27/06/2008

2.1.1. The flow and relationship of the contributing bodies of knowledge

What are the imperatives for continuing teacher

How and in what ways can online learning afford the

What does community look like and what evidence is

What are communities of practice and in what ways

What guidelines and precedents exist to support the use

Literature Review 14 27/06/2008

2.1.2. Key terms

a) Teacher Professional Development (TPD)