Damian Etherington
Communities of Practice: Purpose, Activity & Structure GEM Summary of Research
2014
1
List of Figures
Purpose Figure 1. Reason why members joined Figure 2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following as the main aims of your group? Figure 3. The benefits of being a member Chapter Four: Activity Figure 1. Number of annual posts to JISC mailing lists Figure 2. Mailing list posts by category by year, 1999-2014 Figure 4. Number of posts per email thread per year, 2011-2103 Figure 5. Number of posts made by individual members per month, 2013
Chapter Five: Structure Figure 1. Community of Practice and Network of Practice Figure 2. Member Trajectories Figure 3. Social media posts by category, 2011-2013
2
Purpose
Aim and Objectives
GEM aims to champion “excellence in heritage learning to improve the education, health and well-being of the general public” (GEM:Home ND). For GEM, learning experiences in heritage settings are more than rewarding but can be “transformational”; they aim to “make that learning accessible, relevant and enjoyable for all” (GEM:Join ND). For GEM the promotion of “education as a core purpose of museums” (GEM:About 2010) is central to their function. Nevertheless, these loftier aims are reflected by only a minority of the research responses: with GEMs advocacy “on museum education issues” (Survey) being the most common of those that are mentioned. The vast majority of member responses focused on GEM’s encouragement of the “exchange of information, ideas and research” and the “the highest standards of educational practice” (GEM:About ND), with a number of responses describing it as “professional network” (Survey) and “a networking group for museum educators” (Survey). For these respondents, GEM was primarily a “sharing and professional development association for anyone interested in heritage learning” (Survey) where they can “obtain, swap and develop advice and new ideas to forward learning with the public and educational groups” (Survey). GEM is concerned with the promotion of museums as providers of learning and the in developing the professionalism of museum learning. Their members discuss GEM’s work in terms of the “support” (Survey) it offers “people working or volunteering in museum who have an aspect of learning included in their role” (Survey).
The research demonstrates a high level of consistency in the motivation for members joining. Survey respondents identified learning from best practice as the most significant driver for membership closely followed by professional development. Networking was the third most popular reason. GEM members continued to identify developing professional skills and sharing best practice as significant reasons for joining in substantial numbers beyond this. 3
100%
50%
0%
Figure 1. Reason why members joined both groups In addition, the reasons given by the respondents for joining were reflected in what they viewed to be the generic aims of their group. There was a strong correlation in their responses: this was not limited to positives but also extended to those aim for which they expressed negative responses. For the members sharing best practice and networking received the most agrees and strongly agrees of the available options. GEM members whose third choice in both was increasing professional skills. A few members selected dislike or strongly dislike for the options available and they did so in the same categories for both groups: coordinating shared practice, stimulating collaboration and developing learning. Responses to developing learning suggests that the majority of members believe that this is an important aim of both groups, but that a significant minority strongly disagree with this.
100%
50%
0% Sharing Best Stimulating Innovate Increase Practice Collaboration Knowledge & Professional Practice Skills Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Networking
Disagree
Coordinate Shared Activities
Develop Learning
Strongly Disagree
Figure 2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following as the main aims of your group? 4
Taken together with their previous answers it is clear members are motivated to join for similar reasons and believe that the groups in turn share similar aims. With these results it is possible to suggest that the perceived aims of the group relates directly to a person’s reasons for joining. For example, sharing best practice was identified in both the strongly agree and agree categories as the most popular chosen aim for the group, whereas the most popular reason for joining was to learn from best practice. Networking received a similarly strong selection as an aim of the group with professional development and networking given as the next most popular reasons for joining.
Role GEM is keen to promote its advocacy of museum learning with organisations such as government departments, the International Council of Museums, “the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Museums Association” (Gem:About ND). Its advocacy and support is valuable for “a profession which can feel isolated and undervalued in the heritage world” (Survey) and it also “advocates for learning in museums within the sector and with funders” (Survey). Members identify the “huge amount of support” (Survey) as a key role of GEM. While, as “a group that shares practice and informs policy and debate around museum education” (Survey) it is valuable professional organisation. The survey responses demonstrate that their “members value GEM because it offers them excellent networking opportunities” (GEM:Networking ND) which “offers training, development and networking opportunities for those involved in education in the museum and heritage sectors” (Survey). Highlighting, its role in “innovation and experimentation to strive towards best practice models” (GEMInt3) to improve professional practice and “keep track of trends” (GEMInt3).
Value For GEM members “this sort of community building is the most important aspect of a career and a professional life” (GEMInt1); it is “invaluable and provide[s] support and opportunity for professionals to engage with, learn from and collaborate with each other” (GEMInt2). Undeniably, GEM members value the “professional development 5
opportunity, learning, sharing, skills development, management, project and budget management” support and advice provided within the group. The trend towards freelance and contact work in museum education may underscore GEMs importance to its members: “It was really important to be part of this professional community when I was going it alone, particularly for networking and possible collaborations!” (GEMInt2). As such, the value of this groups lies not only in their “hugely beneficial” (GEMInt2) discussion group, but also in “bringing together like-minded people to improve, change and develop the sector” (GEMInt1) through “sharing practice and working with colleagues” (GEMInt3).
100%
50%
0% Access to Information
Networking
S. Agree
Professional Development
Agree
Enhance Ability to Work
Neither
Disagree
Career Development
S. Dis.
Learning Opportunities
Fun/Enjoyment
NA
Figure 3. The benefits of being a member
Developments The research highlights a membership that has strong views on the development of the group. Some “would like to see it get increased support e.g. from ACE” to gain “external funding for its important work” (GEMInt1) in recognition of the value GEM brings to the sector. Others would like the group to embrace digital more thoroughly by moving the GEM journal online to “free up other resources which could benefit members more” (GEMInt2) or “provide more resources online for free along with offering more training courses” (GEMInt3). This research suggests there is a demand for more fundamental change to GEM to make it “less stuffy and old fashioned and perhaps have younger and more dynamic people on the board” with “less a focus on the word’ ‘heritage’ too” (GEMInt1). However, these development and calls for change do
6
demonstrate member’s value for the group and the existence of community that is changing and development as members travel on different trajectories through group.
7
Activity Mailing Lists The mailing list has been an essential part of the life of GEM over the past sixteen years with both having grown to include over one thousand registered members. Since beginning in 1998 their use has steadily grown with it registering their highest number of posts ever in 2013-14. The JISC mailing list serves as a forum to support and provide advice for their members; they are the day-to-day embodiment of the life of the group.
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Figure 1. Number of annual posts to JISC mailing lists
It is a feature of the group that their members value as a “really effective” and “easy tool for people to share, advocate, network etc. on a daily basis” (Survey). As a resource members believe it is “excellent” and that it is “very easy to use”. It is a place where members can “ask for help, share ideas etc.” (GEMInt2) and “it’s a great place even for new professionals to say hello and ask for advice” (GEMInt1). Analysis of email threads shows a broad range of posts. The consistently largest proportion of posts relate to work opportunities. There appears to be a shift from requests for information to notices of conference and training events as the second most popular contributions to the list. Networking opportunities and calls for papers are two growing areas of the list with request of information on a downward trend. Contributions to the GEM list appear to be in support of the every-day needs of their members. 8
100%
50%
0% Jun-99
Jun-03
Jun-08
Jun-11
Jun-12
Jun-13
Jun-14
Work Opportunities
Development Opportunities
Conference and Taining Events
Call for Papers
General Chats
Networking Opportunities
Locating Resources
Requests for Information
Sharing Practice
Information Sharing
Miscellaneous
Figure 2. GEM mailing list posts by category by year, 1999-2014 The list is used for “both for sharing ideas, asking questions” (GEMInt1) but some members can find “irritating the amount of irrelevant things that come by email” (GEMInt1). The majority of responses were positive about the “debate and participation by many different people” (GEMInt2). With respondents describing their use of lists by responding “to a lot of people’s questions” or by “advertising events, both professional and academic” (GEMInt1). There are members who do not ask “'GEMland' a question” but they “do respond to people who post questions” (Survey). The ease of use and ease of participation was also a benefit highlighted by members who found merit in being able to “follow a thread of a conversation if you are interested and contribute” (GEMInt3).
One Two Three Four Five-Nine Ten-Nineteen Twenty-Twenty Nine
Figure 3. Number of posts per email thread per year, 2011-2013 9
The analysis of the number of responses to contributions to the mailing lists shows that the overwhelming majority of messages receive no reply directly through the mailing list.1 This is not to say there is no response to these messages as request for this research demonstrates; there were no replies to the mailing list post, instead members went directly to the survey link provided in the post. As such, the true scale of the response to forums cannot be reliably established. Nevertheless, it is possible to conclude that the proportion of responses to emails on the list are fairly static.
6
4
2
0 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
A13
B13
C13
D13
E13
F13
G13
H13
I13
J13
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure 4. Number of posts made by individual members per month, 2013
GEM emails are less likely to receive a response. The messages that do prompt ten to nineteen responses are likely to be requests for information and conference discussions with a significant minority of jobs related posts. Similarly, for discussion threads of twenty plus messages are focused on information sharing, with a significant proportion of jobs posts reaching this number of replies. Despite the range of mentions of the mailing list only one participant quantified the response they received from their “own request for help when completing an education workshop space” for which they “received around 5 replies” (GEMInt3). Indeed, member participation in the mailing lists is characteristic of Riberio’s Transient Core Members (2011) who are largely non-active participants, but do engage in irregular burst of activity. Figure 4. shows the activity of
A post to the mailing list counts are one message on the thread. Therefore, two messages on a thread means the initial message and a reply. 10 1
individual members selected at random over the course of 2013, there is steady stream of single replies, but on occasion some members will contribute to the mailing list in a burst of activity before returning to their normative states; it is a pattern observed in random selections for each of the years sampled from 2010 onwards.
Conferences and Events GEM engages regularly in face-to-face activities which brings it into line with traditional communities of practice as their members understand the value of “face to face networking for proper relationship building” to compliment the immediacy of email as a method “for quick answers to things” (GEMInt1). GEM also “organises regional events” as well as “an annual national conference” (Survey). Taking part in conference was viewed by members as “an invaluable event” where many “contacts made there … have been close colleagues ever since” (GEMInt1). They welcome the active participation of their members: “I also presented at the GEM conference after only having worked in museums for a year or so – and it was a warm environment in which to share” (GEMInt1). Nevertheless, conferences are “expensive” (GEMInt1) which makes them difficult for many to attend.
One respondent highlighted the value they placed on sharing GEM’s work “hosting a discussion stand” (GEMInt3) at another organisation’s event. GEM’s organisational structure also promotes face-to-face meetings with “advice and training” (Survey) being offered at regular regional events. Evening events are a “good opportunity to link up with friends who work in other museums and galleries and to meet new people” (GEMInt3), with some members finding these more useful than the annual conference due to their in-expense and convenient timings.
Networking GEM develops partnerships to disseminate good practice and advice; providing “really useful chance[s] to network and get advice from colleagues around the country” (Survey). Their local group structure, training and conference programmes offer a range of opportunities for their members to provide support and engage with each other. The research indicates strong support for their role as “a peer support network for those involved in delivering learning in museums” (Survey). For their members “being effective 11
is being inclusive to all members , developing a variety of opportunities (at different levels) to share and network and enabling all members to feel that they are an important part of a community of interest” (GEMInt2). For the memberships there is a recognition that being a member is about more than attending conferences and training: it is engaging in the life of the group “through networking events and visits” (GEMInt1) and joining the creation of a shared identity.
Uniquely GEM GEM’s organisational structure enables it to operate regionally with local convenors having their “regional email list, Facebook group, twitter and website for the regional GEM group” (GEMInt1). Meaning there are more opportunities for “regular Study Days, Study Visits and Conferences” with one region hosting around “28 events in 3 years, attracting almost 500 people from the region and beyond” (GEMInt1). The growing number of freelancers within museum education led to the creation of the Freelancer Network within GEM where you “gain access to an array of museum jobs advertised daily” (Survey). By playing “a more active part in GEM” through “going to/presenting at the annual conference and taking part in training/networking days” (GEMInt2) ensure freelances are not isolated and allows them to build significant professional relationships.
12
Structure
Structure and Organisation GEM organises around a number of issue based committees and beyond this “each region has its own group which organises meetings and training” (Survey) affiliated to the national GEM group. The national GEM group regularly consults regional groups on issues such as “website development projects” (GEMInt1). It is in these geographically situated groups that much of GEM’s work is organised and carried out with “area convenors” doing “most of the work with the annual conference by GEM central” (GEMInt1). Local convenors are responsible for “sharing ideas, responding to others, creating smaller groups and networks, managing events, helping others to develop” they also organise “study visits which are informal trips to hear projects at other venues; regional conference with speakers … etc.” (GEMInt1). As self-organising groups their direction is dictated by their members, with one respondent trying “to change the regional direction of the GEM group and make it a bit more radical and less risk averse than sometimes museum educators tend to be” (GEMInt1). The local groups also organise their own lists and events with some more active than others, but they do differ “for example GEM London is extremely active whilst GEM East Midlands has been without an area convenor for a while” (Survey). There was some dissatisfaction expressed with GEM central being described as “slightly cliquey though … it is getting a bit more dynamic” (GEMInt1). Regardless both groups are “very dependent on the members commitment to networking” (Survey).
Communities of practice as networks has been a feature of academic debate since the advent of distributed communities in the early-2000s. This research indicates members of the group identifies with both the definition of communities of practice and networks of practice, but that they more strongly agree that they are communities of practice.
13
100%
100%
50%
50%
0%
0% Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Figure 1. Community of Practice (Left) and Network of Practice (Right)
The structure and method of functioning results in GEM displaying both the features of a network as well as a community of practice. Networks of practice are less substantial groupings that rely on online networks of individuals who share the same practice but from distributed locations (Wenger 2011). As we have seen GEM organises primarily through their online email group: however, they do engage in a significant number of face-to-face activities that move them beyond the solely digital nature of networks of practice. There structures appear more suited to definitions of communities of practice as groups where people with a common passion interact regularly to improve their practice. As members demonstrate GEM has features of both, but they more strongly reflect what is commonly regarded as a community of practice.
Membership The research highlighted some discontent with GEM’s fees model. For example, “I was also disappointed that GEM started to charge freelancers to advertise on their website. This alienated a number of freelancers” and “has lost what was once a great resource (GEMInt2).” While for others the conferences were valuable “they are expensive so it is impossible to pay for myself as both a freelancer and a student” (GEMInt1).
14
Member’s Participation
Insider
Peripheral
Boundary
Outbound
Figure 2. Member Trajectories GEM members more readily identify themselves with the full range of trajectories available; with insider and boundary trajectories tying. Members on the periphery felt the groups were useful, but their “work does align exactly with the majority of the group” and they preferred to be a “‘lurker’” who followed but “never contributed to a discussion” (Survey). While members on boundary trajectories found the groups “useful” and it was “helpful to be a boundary member of a large number of networks” (Survey). Yet for one participant they were clearly on outbound trajectory as they found their membership of the group had offered “excellent opportunities at the right time in a career” but that now “this particular group is right for me now” (Survey). This is an aspect of the groups that would benefit from further research.
Time is most commonly agreed and strongly agreed barrier, it is also attracted a number of disagrees. Members tended to opt for disagree and strongly disagree to the suggested limits to participation without providing any alternatives. GEM responses show that time, lack of opportunities and lack of confidence attracted the most support as limits to participation, low awareness of activities, unfamiliarity with the group, communication barriers and lack of support attracted the most strongly disagree and disagree responses. Meanwhile, low awareness of activities, unfamiliarity with the group and lack of support were the most popularly disagreed with barriers.
Communicating with members Analysis of social media posts shows that they are engaging members on a range of topics. Social media output is more varied, with most prominent number of posts 15
focusing work opportunities, information sharing and conference and training events. There is also a relatively steady proportion of posts sharing practice. However, social communications vary from year-to-year.
100% 50% 0% 2011 Work Opportunties
2012 Development Opportunities
2013 Conference and Taining Events
Practice Sharing
Discussion Starter
Networking Opportunities
Information Sharing
Locating Resources
Requests for Information
Call for Papers
Miscellaneous
Figure 3. Social media posts by category, 2011-2013.
This research suggests that social media posts only appeal to a niche segment. Survey respondents are clear: email is their most popular method for communication with other people in the group. Of the response forty-nine percent of GEM members used email to communicate with the groups while only fifteen percent had used social media; the second most popular method of communication was face-to-face meetings with thirty-two percent. GEM also encourages members to “contribute an item to the GEM e-news” and their journal and Case Studies (GEM:Volunteer ND). Making their communications with members “very grassroots and bottom up” with members instigating much of the activity on their networks. Their elected officials rarely contribute, which members believe “is a real strength of this group – it feels like a community with similar aims” (GEMInt1). Nevertheless, the difficultly with this approach is that there is little control over the nature of the discussions within the groups. As such “communications seem to be about sourcing resources, handling collections and replicas” (GEMInt2) and not with the more ambitious policy aims of the group. However, this may not be a factor for members who respond to the issues that they find most relevant. For example, “I find requests for help in developing learning activities most relevant to my own practice and I am most likely to respond to it” (GEMInt2). 16
References Ribeiro, R. D. (2011). Recurrent Communities of Practice (RCoPs) and Transient Core Members (TCMs): Temporal behaviour of co-located and on-line Communities of Practice. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.
17