<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Community of Practice Struggles, Part 1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://silenceandvoice.com/archives/2009/11/26/community-of-practice-struggles-part-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://silenceandvoice.com/archives/2009/11/26/community-of-practice-struggles-part-1/</link>
	<description>Educational Research + (Virtual) Identity in Postmodernity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:45:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Keefer</title>
		<link>http://silenceandvoice.com/archives/2009/11/26/community-of-practice-struggles-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5148</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Keefer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://silenceandvoice.com/?p=2048#comment-5148</guid>
		<description>Nancy, thank you for your most thoughtful comment. 

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and thank you for sharing -- your definitions are nearly quotable in themselves, especially as they so clearly demonstrate a distinction between them. I suppose my challenge in this area is that I do not have such a strong distinction between them. 

I do not have the strong sense of community as you described it, and from a network perspective, often see it more as an extended community. Continuing this thinking, I do not have those strong and distinct boundaries that you listed. In many ways, my experience is often more focused around specific initiatives and experiences, and thus the community tends to expand and retract along the way. As a number of the people I know tend to be involved in more than one at a time, it feels more like an extended and distributed community of practice.

I also find that when I am busy with work and academic commitments, I tend to withdraw from my communities, as there is only so much time and I have been known to over commit.

I find this very useful, as I have not consciously processed all this in a similar manner before. This gives me food for thought today, when all I thought I would get is food for food&#039;s sake!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nancy, thank you for your most thoughtful comment. </p>
<p>Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and thank you for sharing &#8212; your definitions are nearly quotable in themselves, especially as they so clearly demonstrate a distinction between them. I suppose my challenge in this area is that I do not have such a strong distinction between them. </p>
<p>I do not have the strong sense of community as you described it, and from a network perspective, often see it more as an extended community. Continuing this thinking, I do not have those strong and distinct boundaries that you listed. In many ways, my experience is often more focused around specific initiatives and experiences, and thus the community tends to expand and retract along the way. As a number of the people I know tend to be involved in more than one at a time, it feels more like an extended and distributed community of practice.</p>
<p>I also find that when I am busy with work and academic commitments, I tend to withdraw from my communities, as there is only so much time and I have been known to over commit.</p>
<p>I find this very useful, as I have not consciously processed all this in a similar manner before. This gives me food for thought today, when all I thought I would get is food for food&#8217;s sake!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nancy White</title>
		<link>http://silenceandvoice.com/archives/2009/11/26/community-of-practice-struggles-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5145</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy White</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://silenceandvoice.com/?p=2048#comment-5145</guid>
		<description>Hey Jeffrey, it was fun &quot;dancing&quot; with you on the networks last night. I&#039;m re reading your post this morning and realized I am not quite sure I understand your question because I think I experience this online thing in a different way. 

For me, my communities (CoPs and otherwise) generally have distinct boundaries and more attention to the community aspect - attention to relationship, who is present, who is missing and thus the term &#039;friending&#039; actually has some significance. My NETWORKS on the other hand, are made up of people with whom I have found some connection -- most often topical or content related -- but who I often don&#039;t really know. So I don&#039;t need to spend too much time and psychic energe processing the relationship part - if it comes, it comes. if not, it is an emphemeral connection. 

Both are very useful. Both are different. There  is no way I could fully attend to the personal relationship aspects with everyone I interact with on the network. It would blow the top off my wee head. Some  of them ARE friends in the more traditional manner. But many are simply connections.

In that &quot;freedom&quot; I don&#039;t have to spend more of that precious psychic time worrying about &quot;pushy&quot; or &quot;rejected.&quot; I save that for my communities. ;-)

Does that make any sense at all?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Jeffrey, it was fun &#8220;dancing&#8221; with you on the networks last night. I&#8217;m re reading your post this morning and realized I am not quite sure I understand your question because I think I experience this online thing in a different way. </p>
<p>For me, my communities (CoPs and otherwise) generally have distinct boundaries and more attention to the community aspect &#8211; attention to relationship, who is present, who is missing and thus the term &#8216;friending&#8217; actually has some significance. My NETWORKS on the other hand, are made up of people with whom I have found some connection &#8212; most often topical or content related &#8212; but who I often don&#8217;t really know. So I don&#8217;t need to spend too much time and psychic energe processing the relationship part &#8211; if it comes, it comes. if not, it is an emphemeral connection. </p>
<p>Both are very useful. Both are different. There  is no way I could fully attend to the personal relationship aspects with everyone I interact with on the network. It would blow the top off my wee head. Some  of them ARE friends in the more traditional manner. But many are simply connections.</p>
<p>In that &#8220;freedom&#8221; I don&#8217;t have to spend more of that precious psychic time worrying about &#8220;pushy&#8221; or &#8220;rejected.&#8221; I save that for my communities. <img src='http://silenceandvoice.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Does that make any sense at all?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
