Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are online discussions enough to constitute communities of practice in professional domain? A case study of ergonomics’ practice in France

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of our research is to characterise how online discussions may provide support to the construction of a Virtual Community of Practice, as a way to develop a profession. To do so, we investigate the functions (sharing information, resources or experience) and the nature of knowledge (e.g. methodology and trends of ergonomics) exchanged on Ergoliste, a French-speaking online mailing list dedicated to ergonomics, as well as the status of participants. Our results reveal that the list has both informative and formative functions as it deals with sharing/seeking information, resources and experience, mainly between experts and novices in ergonomics, exchanging about situated and circumstantiated aspects of practices. Finally, these results are complemented by interviews with list participants which on the one hand confirm the main functions of the list and, on the other hand, reveal divergence in the perception that list participants belonging to a “community” structured only around this list. This research opens some prospects for more longitudinal investigations of the contents of the list, to analyse more deeply how the list can be viewed as an efficient tool to co-elaborate knowledge about ergonomics and its development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://groupes.renater.fr/sympa/info/ergoliste.

  2. Cramer’s V = 0.56.

  3. On this attraction graph and the following, lines represent attractions between variables, attested by Bayesian analysis. In addition to the specific comment of these figures representing attraction between variable, we sometimes refer to analysis of complete AR that also reveal repulsion between variables. These repulsions are not represented on figures for readability issues.

  4. These groups are defined on the basis of the quartiles of distribution of the topics in the set of messages exchanged in 2010.

  5. With a strong attraction Cramer’s V = 0.39.

  6. The strong presence of the employment category mainly corresponds to information and announcements about job seeking and offers, we will not focus specifically on this point.

References

  • Akrich M (2010) From communities of practice to epistemic communities: health mobilizations on the Internet. Sociol Res Online, 15(2). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/2/10.html

  • Akrich M (2012) Les listes de discussion comme communautés en ligne: outils de description et méthodes d’analyse. Mines ParisTech, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A, Roberts J (2008) Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice. Res Policy 37(2):353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bara J, Weale A, Bicquelet A (2011) Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. Swiss Political Sci Rev 13(4):577–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barcellini F, Détienne F, Burkhardt JM (2009) Participation in online interaction spaces: design-use mediation in an Open Source Software community. Int J Ind Ergon 39(3):533–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barcellini F, Détienne F, Burkhardt JM (2010) Distributed design and distributed social awareness: exploring inter-subjective dimensions of roles. In: Lewkowicz M, Hassanaly P, Rodhe M, Wulf V (eds) Proceedings of the COOP’10 conférence. Springer, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcellini F, Delgoulet C, Nelson J (2012) Pratiques d’échanges dans une communauté « en ligne » des ergonomes francophones: vers la définition d’un cadre d’analyse ? In: Paper presented at 47th congress of SELF, Lyon, France. 5–7 Sept 2012

  • Barcellini F, Delgoulet C, Fréard D, Nelson J (2013) Exchanging practices on Ergoliste: modelling online discussions as graphs of topics of interaction. In: Paper presented at the ECCE 2013—European conference on cognitive ergonomics, Toulouse, France

  • Barcellini F, Détienne F, Burkhardt JM (2013b) A situated approach of roles and participation in open source software communities. Hum Comput Interac. doi:10.1080/07370024.2013.812409

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaujouan J, Daniellou F (2012) Les récits professionnels dans une formation d’ergonomes. Le Travail Humain 75(4):353–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaujouan J, Coutarel F, Daniellou F (2013) L’expérience des autres dans la formation: apports et limites du récit professionnel. Educ Perm 196(3):25–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud D, Keogh R, Walker D (1985) Reflection: turning reflection into action. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois F, Gonon O (2010) Le Lean et l’activité humaine. Quel positionnement de l’ergonomie, convoquée par cette nouvelle doctrine de l’efficacité? Activités 7(1):136–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner JS (1996) The culture of education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant SL, Forte A, Bruckman A (2005) Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in collaborative online encyclopedia. In: Proceedings of GROUP’05 conference, ACM Digital Library, pp 1–10

  • Chung AZQ, Shorrock ST (2011) The research-practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors—surveying and bridging the gap. Ergonomics 54(5):413–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conein B (2004) Cognition distribuée, groupe social et technologie cognitive. Réseaux 124:53–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniellou F (2005) The French-speaking ergonomists’ approach to work activity: cross influences of field intervention and conceptual models. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 6(5):409–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniellou F (2006) Entre expérimentation réglée et expérience vécue: Les dimensions subjectives de l’activité de l’ergonome en intervention. Activités 3(1):5–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniellou F, Rabardel P (2005) Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: some traditions and communities. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 6(5):353–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Détienne F, Barcellini F, Baker M, Burkhardt JM, Fréard D (2012) Online epistemic communities: theoretical and methodological directions for understanding knowledge co-elaboration in new digital spaces. Work 41(Supplement 1):3511–3518

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg P, Baker M, Blaye A, O’Malley C (1995) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In: Spada E, Reiman P (eds) Learning in humans and machine: towards an interdisciplinary learning science, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 189–211

  • Ducheneaut N (2005) Socialization in an open source software community: a socio-technical analysis. J Comput Support Coop Work 14(4):323–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dul J, Neumann WP (2009) Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl Ergon 40(4):745–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dul J, Bruder R, Buckle P, Carayon P, Falzon P, Marras WS, Wilson JR, van der Doelen B (2012) A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55(4):377–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duveau-Patureau V, Mollo V, Soidet I, Olry-Louis I (2010) Délibérer: une activité du métier de magistrat explicitée par leurs échanges sur une liste de discussion. In: Paper presented at the congress of AIPTLF, Lille, France

  • Falzon P (1998) La construction de connaissances en ergonomie: éléments d’épistémologie. In: Dessaigne MF, Gaillard I (eds) Des évolutions en ergonomie. Toulouse, Octarès

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadbois C, Leplat J (2007) Connaissance et interventions. Activités 1(1):6–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Guérin F, Laville A, Daniellou F, Durrafourg J, Kerguelen A (2007) Understanding and transforming work. ANACT, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara N, Hew KF (2007) Knowledge-sharing in an online community of health-care professionals. Inf Technol People 20(3):235–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara N, Shachaf P, Stoerger S (2009) Online communities of practice typology revisited. J Inf Sci 35(6):740–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring SC (1999) Interactional coherence in CMC. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences

  • Hibbert K, Rich S (2006) Virtual communities of practice. In: Weiss J, Nolan J, Hunsinger J, Trifonas P (eds) The international handbook of virtual learning environments, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 563–579

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • International Ergonomics Association (2001) Full version of core competencies in ergonomics: units, elements, and performance criteria, version 2. Professional Standards and Education Committee

  • Johnson CM (2001) A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet High Educ 4:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimble C, Hildreth P, Wright PC (2001) Communities of practice: going virtual. In: Malhotra Y (ed) Knowledge management and business model innovation. Idea group publishing, York, pp 220–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein O, Licata L (2003) When group representations serve social change: the speeches of Patrice Lumumba during the Congolese decolonization. Br J Soc Psychol 42(4):571–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahlou S (1998) A method to extract social representations from linguistic corpora. Jpn J Exp Soc Psychol 35(3):278–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mollo V, Falzon P (2004) Auto-and allo-confrontation as tools for reflective activities. Appl Ergon 35(6):531–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollo V, Nascimento A (2014) Reflective practices and the development of individuals, collectives, and organizations. In: Falzon P (ed) Constructive ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, NY, pp 164–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece J (2000) Online communities: designing usability and supporting sociability. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece J, Moloney-Krichmar D (2003) Online communities. In: Jacko JA, Sears A (eds) Handbook of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 596–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Prost M (2012) Échanges entre professionnels de l’éducation sur les forums de discussion: entre soutien psychologique et acquisition de connaissances sur la pratique, Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Telecom ParisTech, Paris

  • Prost M, Cahour B, Détienne F (2010) Le soutien mutuel sur le web: un nouveau mode d’adaptation aux vécus professionnels difficiles? In: Paper presented the 45th congress of SELF, Liège

  • Prost M, Cahour B, Detienne F (2014) Le partage d’émotions et de connaissances sur la pratique: dynamiques des échanges dans les communautés de pratique virtuelles de professionnels. Le Travail Humain 77(2):177–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proulx S, Latzko-Toth G (2000) La virtualité comme catégorie pour penser le social: l’usage de la notion de communauté virtuelle. Sociologie et sociétés 32(2):99–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratinaud P (2009) Iramuteq: Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires. http://www.iramuteq.org

  • Reinert M (1986) Un logiciel d’analyse lexicale. Cahiers de l’analyse de données 11(4):471–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinert M (1993) Les “mondes lexicaux” et leur “logique” à travers l’analyse statistique d’un corpus de récits de cauchemars. Langage et société 66:5–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogalski J, Leplat J (2011) L’expérience professionnelle: expériences sédimentées et expériences épisodiques. Activités 8(2). http://www.activites.org/v8n2/rogalski.pdf

  • Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonhardt-Bailey C (2005) Measuring ideas more effectively: an analysis of Bush and Kerry’s national security speeches. PS Polit Sci Polit 38(4):701–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severinson Eklundh K, Mac Donald C (1994) The use of quoting to preserve context in electronic mail dialogues. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 37(4):197–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sole D, Wilson D (2002) Storytelling in organizations: the power and traps of using stories to share knowledge in organizations. LILA, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Boston, MA, USA. http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Storytelling_in_Organizations.pdf

  • Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tönnies F (2002) Community and society. David & Charles, Newton Abbot

    Google Scholar 

  • Viau-Guay A (2009) Analyse de l’activité déployée par l’ergonome lors de difficultés professionnelles: contribution à la formation initiale, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, Québec

  • Waterson P, Falzon P, Barcellini F (2012) The recent history of the IEA: an analysis of IEA Congress presentations since 1961. Work 41(suppl. 1):5033–5036

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of practices: learning, meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E, White N, Smith JD (2009) Digital habitats: stewarding technology for communities. CPSquare, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JR (2014) Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Appl Ergon 45(1):5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was realised with the support of moderators of Ergoliste and after information of participants. We also wish to thank Fanny Bensimhon and Vida El Zufari, two students who took part of the data collection process, Emmanuel Devouche for his help with Bayesian inferences, and Dominique Fréard for his help in data analysis.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Ergonomics Team, CRTD, Le Cnam, 41 rue Gay-Lussac, 75005, Paris, France

      Flore Barcellini

    2. LATI - IUPDP, University Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 71 Avenue Edouard Vaillant, 92774, Boulogne Billancourt, France

      Catherine Delgoulet & Julien Nelson

    Authors
    1. Flore Barcellini
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Catherine Delgoulet
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Julien Nelson
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Flore Barcellini.

    Additional information

    Flore Barcellini, Catherine Delgoulet and Julien Nelson have contributed equally to this work.

    Appendix 1: Description of interviews scheme

    Appendix 1: Description of interviews scheme

    Q1:

    Could you introduce yourself in a few words? For how long have you been practicing ergonomics? What is your current status, your areas of expertise, etc.?

    Q2:

    Why did you become in ergonomist? In what circumstances?

    Q3:

    What degree did you obtain in the field of ergonomics?

    Q4:

    Since training in ergonomics, have you undergone further training as part of continuing education?

    Q5:

    Are you a member of any association in ergonomics?

    Q6:

    Do you take part in any conferences or other gatherings (workshops, etc.)? If so, which are these, and how often do you take part?

    Q7:

    How did you first hear about Ergoliste?

    Q8:

    How long have you been subscribed to Ergoliste?

    Q9:

    Do you believe Ergoliste has allowed you to develop your knowledge and/or expertise? Could you please give an example where this could have occurred?

    Q10:

    Has Ergoliste allowed you to broaden your professional network?

    Q11:

    What are your expectations with respect to Ergoliste? What is your goal in participating in the exchanges that take place there? What do you expect from these exchanges?

    Q12:

    Do you think you share things with other members of Ergoliste?

    Q13:

    What about sharing a passion, a set of problems, or a set of preoccupations? Or none of the three? Or all of them? Give some examples

    Q14:

    Do you feel like you belong to an Ergoliste community? Could you argue your position?

    Q15:

    Do you consider yourself to be an active member of the Ergoliste community? Could you argue your position?

    Q16:

    Do you compare your experiences with that of other members via Ergoliste? Does this have any effect on your practice? Could you give an example?

    Q17:

    What place does Ergoliste have in your professional practice?

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Barcellini, F., Delgoulet, C. & Nelson, J. Are online discussions enough to constitute communities of practice in professional domain? A case study of ergonomics’ practice in France. Cogn Tech Work 18, 249–266 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0361-z

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0361-z

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation