Doing Business with Theory: Communities of Practice in Knowledge Management

  • Norman Makoto Su
  • Hiroko N. Wilensky
  • David F. Redmiles


We explore how the notion of communities of practice (CoPs) was translated and popularized from its original inception by Lave and Wenger in 1991. We argue that the Institute for Research on Learning (IRL), a spin-off of Xerox PARC, proved instrumental in enrolling CoPs into the knowledge management (KM) discipline. IRL objectified, packaged, and made a business out of CoPs. CoPs in KM are now a formalized process coupled with technological artifacts to build groups of people who effectively share knowledge across boundaries. Drawing from participant observations, archival documents, and interviews with KM practitioners in the aerospace industry as well as key players of IRL, our research seeks to unveil the invisible history that the popularization of a theory can often obscure. We argue that CoPs provide a case study for understanding how abstract concepts in science are strategically and subconsciously reified, or made objects of inquiry, and appropriated by actors. This reification of a “soft” science blurs the line between theory and technology.

Key words

aerospace communities of practice knowledge management science & technology studies sociology of scientific knowledge 



Special thanks to Judd Antin, Jeanette Blomberg, Judy Olson, Sally Peters, and Erik Vinkhuyzen for their assistance in the data collection. This work was supported in part by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant 0808783.


  1. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (1st ed.). New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterfield, H. (1965). The Whig interpretation of history. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, M. (1996). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 67–78). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, G., & Bowers, J. (1995). Representing the user: Notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of HCI. In P. J. Thomas (Ed.), The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces (pp. 49–66). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davenport, T. H. (1994). Saving IT’s soul: human-centered information management. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 119–131.Google Scholar
  10. Dourish, P., Hayes, G. R., Irani, L., Lee, C. P., Lindtner, S., Nardi, B., et al. (2008). Informatics at UC Irvine. In: ACM Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08) (pp. 3651–3656). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  11. Duguid, P. (2008). Prologue: Community of practice then and now. In A. Amin & J. Roberts (Eds.), Community, economic creativity, and organization (pp. 1–10). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, G. (2001). Communities of Interest: Learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems. In: 24th Annual Information Systems Research Seminar In Scandinavia (IRIS’24) (pp. 1–14). Ulvik, Norway.Google Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, H. K., & Hirschheim, R. (2008). The structure of the IS discipline reconsidered: implications and reflections from a community of practice perspective. Information and Organization, 18(4), 280–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lave, J. (2008). Epilogue: Situated learning and changing practice. In A. Amin & J. Roberts (Eds.), Community, economic creativity, and organization (pp. 283–296). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Leonard, D., & Kiron, D. (2002, October). Managing knowledge and learning at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) (Tech. Rep. No. 9-603-062).Google Scholar
  23. Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Osterlund, C., & Carlile, P. (2005). Relations in practice: sorting through practice theories on knowledge sharing in complex organizations. The Information Society, 21, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palla, M., & Ward, M. (2006). Connecting value stream white-spaces through knowledge-based strategies and CoPs. Las Vegas: Raytheon Bridges the Gaps.Google Scholar
  26. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Rumizen, M. C. (2002). The complete idiot’s guide to knowledge management. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books.Google Scholar
  28. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Su, N. M., Wilensky, H., Redmiles, D., & Mark, G. (2007). The gospel of knowledge management in and out of a professional community. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP’07) (pp. 197–206). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Suchman, L. (1987). In: R. Pea, J. S. Brown, & C. Heath (Eds.). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sutton, S., Betser, J., Hornickel, M., Gregorio, M., Kern, J., Lincoln, C., et al. (2008). The Aerospace Corporation case study. In J. Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge retention: Strategies and solutions (1st ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach.Google Scholar
  32. The Boeing Company, Rocketdyne Division. (2003). In: P. Leavitt (Ed.). Using knowledge management to drive innovation (Spiral ed., pp. 117–142). Houston, TX, USA: American Productivity & Quality Center.Google Scholar
  33. Tufte, E. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
  34. Vann, K., & Bowker, G. (2001). Instrumentalizing the truth of practice. Social Epistemology, 15, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wenger, E. (1990). Toward a theory of cultural transparency: Elements of a social discourse of the visible and the invisible. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wilensky, H. N., Su, N. M., Redmiles, D., & Mark, G. (2008). A community of knowledge management practitioners: mirroring power across social worlds. In: Proceedings of the 20th IFIP World Computer Congress, WG12.6 Conference on Knowledge Management in Action (KMIA'08) (pp.195–207). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Wilensky, H. N., Redmiles, D. F., & Su, N. M. (2009). The dissemination of knowledge management. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP’09) (pp. 199–208). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, R. (1985). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society (Revised edth ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, T. D. (2002). The nonsense of ‘Knowledge Management’. Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 144. (Available at
  42. Zizek, S. (2008). The sublime object of ideology (2nd ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Makoto Su
    • 1
  • Hiroko N. Wilensky
    • 2
  • David F. Redmiles
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information and Library StudiesUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations