Damian Etherington
Communities of Practice: Purpose, Activity & Structure MCG 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 3. 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 The MCG was the product of a two day meeting at Sedgick Museum, Cambridge in October 1982; in the thirty-two years since its inception the group has continued to grow and develop. Although their “purpose hasn't changed” (MCGInt1) MCG members are well aware of the impact of technological change has had on the scope of the group with “computing and digital technologies now affect[ing] almost every area of museum operations” (MCGInt1). The MCG “is a group for those working with digital technologies” (Survey) which aims “to provide a forum for discussion between museums, gallery, archive and higher education professionals who work with museum technology and digital heritage”(MCG:Home ND).
The MCG’s aims apply across the “wide spectrum of disciplines” (MCG:About ND) that digital technologies including “programming, collections databases, and innovative ways of piloting and experimenting with new and emerging technologies” (Survey). For this group ‘computer’ is a loose description of their focus, with the majority survey respondents preferring to use the more modern ‘digital’ to describe their interest: it is “a group that focuses on digital heritage and museum sector” (Survey) and “a group of people concerned with digital practice within museums, consisting of both technical and content purposes” (Survey). Their aims were also reflected in survey returns which highlighted the importance of the MCG for “people working with IT in museums and related organisations offering mutual support” (Survey). It brings together like-minded professionals “in the museum industry who work on digital projects” (Survey) who are interested in promoting, “improving and influencing best practice” (MCG:Constitution ND). The MCG’s objectives are clear; to promote opportunities for professional dialogue, support and implement research into digital technologies and museums, produce report and publications in support of the purpose of the MCG and to “influence the development of best practice within the sector” (MCG:Constitution ND). It was clear from responses that MCG is “an extremely useful knowledge sharing network”, in which
3
“members help others keep up with the fast-moving world of digital in a changing museums' sector� (Survey).
100%
50%
0%
Figure 1. Reason why members joined 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. Beyond this point MCG members did not opt for other reasons in any significant number.
In addition, the reasons given by the respondents for joining were reflected in what they viewed to be the generic aims of their groups. 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 of both groups sharing best practice and networking received the most agrees and strongly agrees of the available options. More MCG members strongly agreed that increasing professional skills was the aim of their group, but gave more overall responses for innovating knowledge and practice in both the agree and strongly agree categories. Responses to developing learning suggests that the majority of members believe that this is an important aim, but that a significant minority strongly disagree with this.
4
100%
50%
0% Sharing Best Practice
Stimulating Innovate Collaboration Knowledge & Practice Strongly Agree
Agree
Increase Professional Skills 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? Role The MCG is rounded is day-to-day practice, but recently proposed constitutional changes “designed to help us have a more effective voice at senior levels within museums, funding bodies and other cultural agencies” (MCG:AGM 2013). By taking this approach the MCG are hoping to “help the sector invest resources wisely”, in doing so they are striving to “help highlight good work” and identity and “deflate trends, etc.” (MCGInt1). Until these changes take route, their roll remains as “a forum for discussing technology usage in Museums” (Survey). This does not lessen the value of the MGC as a group: “by supporting individual members learn new skills and discover best practice we help the whole sector” (MCGInt1). They “aim to do this at a number of levels, from individuals to representing our members to government, funders and other museum groups” (MCGInt1).
Value For MCG members “the group has inspired friendships, helped people find new jobs, helped people answer a huge variety of questions” (MCGInt1). They value each other’s “generosity and openness” in helping each other “keep up with the fast-moving world of digital in a changing museums' sector” (Survey). Beyond the immediacy of the value of helpful responses it is the deeply engrained tradition of networking that is a highly valued feature of the group.
5
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 of your group
It is again clear that the members share a similar understanding of the value of membership. For the MCG access to information, networking and learning opportunities were the most commonly strongly agreed and agreed benefits.
6
Activity Mailing Lists The mailing list has been an essential part of the group life over the past sixteen years with it having grown to include over one thousand registered members. Since beginning in 1998 their use has steadily grown 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. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Figure 1.) Number of annual posts to JISC mailing list
100%
50%
0% Jun-99
Jun-03
Jun-08
Jun-11
Jun-12
Jun-13
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
Jun-14
Figure 2. MCG mailing list posts by category by year, 1999-2014
7
Discussion topics in the MCG group have consistently focused on requests for information and information sharing; these should not be taken as question and answers as only the headline threads have been recorded in this analysis. This characteristic of the group’s discussion was also a feature of the survey responses: “the group mainly works through its mailing list where people either address specific projects or raise certain questions regarding best practice within a certain field” (Survey). General chats and opportunities for development are not strong features of discussions on the MCG list. Interestingly, sharing practice in this group tends to be expressed in the form of sharing information and not explicitly in sharing practice language. There has been a significant number of posts relating to training and conference opportunities: however, this tailed off in 2013-14 and it is not possible to see if this is an emerging trend or a oneoff blip. Whereas, there is a steady, if slightly growing, trend in call for papers; possibly reflecting some of the changes discussed in the previous chapter. The MCG forum has welcomed work opportunity postings, but they are not a consistently strong feature of posts. Instead, MCG members are more concerned with discussing and sharing issues relating to the core purpose of their group; connecting, supporting, inspiring museum technology professionals with members “weigh[ing] in if I have something to contribute” (Survey). Unfortunately, it can be “a very technical group” (Survey) making it difficult for non-technically minded members to access; “I don't understand most of the emails I get and tend to delete them” (Survey).
One Two Three Four Five-Nine Ten-Nineteen Twenty-Twenty Nine Thirty +
Figure 3. Number of posts per email thread per year, 2011-2013
8
The analysis of the number of responses to contributions to the mailing lists for shows that the 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 Dec
Nov
Oct
Sept
Aug
July
June
May
April
A13
B13
C13
D13
E13
F13
G13
H13
I13
J13
March
Feb
Jan
Figure 4. Number of posts made by individual members per month, 2013
The MGC list is more likely to spark discussion. The messages that do prompt ten to nineteen responses are likely to be requests for information and conference discussions. Similarly, for discussion threads of twenty plus messages are focused on information sharing. 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 5. shows the activity of 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.
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. 9 1
Structure
Structure and Organisation
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 MCG identified with both the definition of communities of practice and networks of practice, but that they more strongly agree that they are communities of practice.
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 of the group and method of functioning results in them 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 the MGC organise primarily through their online email group: however, it does 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 the group has features of both, but they more strongly reflect what is commonly regarded as a community of practice.
10
Membership The research shows a group that is cosmopolitan group: “Members are drawn from across the UK and we also have a reasonable international membership” (MCGInt1), with twenty-three percent of survey respondents coming from outside of the UK. Their membership categories include individual, corporate, honorary and advisory group; all membership for individuals is free with only corporate members having to pay; “the rate is set in relation to ticket prices for our main conference” (MCGInt1). Corporate memberships “may have played a larger role in the past” (MCGInt1), but the increasing cost of events is seeing more sponsorship as a growing part of their events, in reality they “are largely funded through events, which may include sponsorship” (MCGInt1).
Member’s Participation The participation of members in the groups vary with the research demonstration no evident pattern between length of membership and the role that respondents have within their groups or in their frequency of participation in the life of the groups. Response do differ when investigating member roles within the groups.
Peripheral
Boundary
Figure 2. MCG (Blue) Member Trajectories MCG participants preferred the more cautious peripheral and boundary trajectories when describing their roles within their groups. 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). This is an aspect of the groups that would benefit from further research. 11
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. The MCG participants identified time and lack of confidence as the main barriers to their participation in the groups. Meanwhile, low awareness of activities, unfamiliarity with the group and lack of support were the most popularly disagreed with barriers. MCG members were split choosing both communication barriers and jargon as one of the most agreed with and disagreed reasons for barriers to participation.
Communicating with members The MCG makes extensive use of Twitter and Facebook to reach their members. MCG conversations are “started by anyone, however it seems some people are more likely to get a response (or they're better at provoking conversation)� (MCGInt1).
Analysis of their social media posts shows that they are engaging members on a range of topics. The MCG’s social media output focuses conference and training events posts closely followed by information sharing. There is a growing trend in sharing practice through social media; the MCG uses hashtags to promote and create discussion, the two most prominent are #ukmcg and #drinkingaboutmuseums. 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.
12
Nevertheless, 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. Seventy-five percent of participants have used the email list, nineteen percent meeting face-to-face and only six percent having communicated with the group through twitter. This is despite the group preferring to email and twitter communication over fact-to-face meetings. There was a feeling that conversation at events tends to be more productive while mailing “list conversations have a broader reach” and that both “are preferable … social media” as they have limited accessibility and tend to be more “ephemeral” (MCGInt1). It is true to say that in these types of groups conversations started on the mailing lists can lead to members running “into each other at other events” (MCGInt1). Similarly, with both of these very specific groups the more specialised, for example, the “museum technology used” (MCGInt1) becomes the more likely that the members of these groups will engage in more detailed and frequent conversations.
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.
13