Rewenger when we weren't reading Wenger?
Wenger once again causes my head to throb as I attempt to decipher his thoughts. And by decipher, I don't mean the traditional meaning of "decipher", I mean. . . And by "attempt", I don't mean the traditional meaning of attempt, I mean . . . And by "I", I don't mean the traditional meaning of "I", I mean . . . Geez. Why use the word when you mean something completely different instead of finding the word you actually mean? I'm sure this will look like one big mess once it translates over to Pligg, but I hope my frustration translates.
I have a few issues with his definition (surprise!) of belonging and community. One page 181, he writes that "calling the viewers of a television program a community of practice, for instance, would be pushing the concept beyond its usefulness". But what of the multitude of blogs and discussion boards devoted to dissecting each and every detail of "Lost" or "Battlestar Gallactica"? Are they not a community of practice? Read Washington Post columnist (and my former neighbor) Lisa DeMoraes' weekly discussion "On TV" on washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/30/DI2008033001297.html) and you will see a definite community of practice of not only TV watchers, but of the live discussion itself, with their own inside jokes and pet names for the host. If Wenger's distinction is they don't fit the definition of a community of practice because they're not all watching the show together in each other's company, what if they twittering about it from their respective living rooms as they were doing so? Would it count then? What about attendees of a movie? Because they're all in the theater together, does that then fit the definition? Yet I would not consider myself part of the "Go Diego Go" community of practice simply because I accompanied my 4-year-old to the show at the Bryce Jordan Center. Does that matter how I identify myself? Or as I suggested in a previous post, is it only how others define me, no matter how I might be privately identifying myself, that matters?
I have a few issues with his definition (surprise!) of belonging and community. One page 181, he writes that "calling the viewers of a television program a community of practice, for instance, would be pushing the concept beyond its usefulness". But what of the multitude of blogs and discussion boards devoted to dissecting each and every detail of "Lost" or "Battlestar Gallactica"? Are they not a community of practice? Read Washington Post columnist (and my former neighbor) Lisa DeMoraes' weekly discussion "On TV" on washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/30/DI2008033001297.html) and you will see a definite community of practice of not only TV watchers, but of the live discussion itself, with their own inside jokes and pet names for the host. If Wenger's distinction is they don't fit the definition of a community of practice because they're not all watching the show together in each other's company, what if they twittering about it from their respective living rooms as they were doing so? Would it count then? What about attendees of a movie? Because they're all in the theater together, does that then fit the definition? Yet I would not consider myself part of the "Go Diego Go" community of practice simply because I accompanied my 4-year-old to the show at the Bryce Jordan Center. Does that matter how I identify myself? Or as I suggested in a previous post, is it only how others define me, no matter how I might be privately identifying myself, that matters?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Rewenger when we weren't reading Wenger?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/6938
Leave a comment