Clarifying the Concept of Communities of Practice in Sport: A Commentary

Abstract

Steven B. RynneSchool of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland,Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia.Email: srynne@hms.uq.edu.auINTRODUCTIONSport is a unique social setting in which to examine the learning of various actors. Thediversity of sports, sporting levels, as well as the dominant sporting cultures and traditions,means that there is an undeniable need to explain and clarify the place and the potential ofany concept of learning. This is particularly so for a widely used (and often misused) conceptlike Communities of Practice (CoPs).The underlying reason that theories of situated learning have the potential to be so powerfulis because they foreground an aspect of learning the social - that had previously beenuncritically omitted in many discussions of learning. This is particularly relevant to coachdevelopment where learning from others, whether as athletes or developing coaches, has beenrepeatedly shown to be critical [1-5]. Indeed, as noted by Culver and Trudel, CoPs offer a wayin which we can describe and understand certain out-of-the-classroom learning opportunities.JOINT ENTERPRISE AND MUTUAL ENGAGEMENTCulver and Trudel remind us that CoPs are not simply groups of people who are gatheredwith the clear objective of learningŽ (p. 3). Other conditions must be satisfied for anycollectivity to be considered a CoP. In particular, the aspects of joint enterprise and mutualengagement are of great significance to the sporting domain. Indeed, previous research [6, 7]has been able to identify examples of joint enterprise. A major difficulty, however, isachieving a quorum of coaches over an extended period to negotiate a shared joint enterprise.W ithout a sufficiently captivating joint enterprise, the relations may more closely resemblean informal knowledge network [8].Regarding mutual engagement, it is the development of sufficiently engaging and bindingrelations that are difficult to achieve in coaching settings where the barriers to meaningfulinteractions are many and varied. This may be reduced in settings where competition isdecreased (e.g., coaches within the same club, coaches across leagues, coaches acrossdifferent sports), but these interactions are not without problems either [9]. Geographicalconsiderations are also of significance in Australia where the numbers of coaches availablefor involvement in particular communities (i.e., of similar standing who have a better chanceof establishing mutual engagement around a joint enterprise) are reduced. Perhaps a futureaspect that might be emphasised and investigated is the role of technology in formingdistributed CoPs. This may also aid interaction between coaches in different leagues,countries or even sports.