Welcome to 'My Thoughts Shared' for GSLL 6206; I look forward to hearing your thoughts....
cheers!

Monday, March 7, 2011

Brokering in Communities of Practice: Challenging Territory

 I found the concept of brokering in Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning, and Identity to be most relevant of all of the readings, theories, and concepts we have encountered thus far in this course. Wenger (1998) describes brokering in communities of practice as the translation, coordination, and alignment between perspectives. Brokering links practices through facilitating transactions between communities of practice. Practice elements of one community are introduced to another leading to learning. Wenger describes brokering as a process that provides participative connections between communities of practice. A person acting as a broker shares their experiences from another community of practice. Connections provided by brokers have the potential for new negotiation and for learning to occur.
As a manager, I link this process strongly to my work. Wenger states that the role of a manager is construed in terms of directing people but that a good part of the activities have more to do with brokering across boundaries between practices (1998, p. 109). The role of many types of managers is in coordinating people. They introduce groups to new ideas from other groups, and lead them through change. During this exchange they must convince the community that they are justifiable and have the knowledge to be trusted in this role. Wenger suggests that in order for a broker to be successful in this enterprise they need to have enough legitimacy to influence the development of a practice, mobilize attention, and address conflicting interests (1998, p.109). In some instances and depending on the manager, this can be a challenging endeavor.
Several times in my recent career a new manager was asked to introduce an idea to a community of practice I was involved in. I struggled with their role because I did not see them as legitimate to the community, even in the periphery. The manager did not have enough legitimacy because I did not see their educational background or experience as being substantive to give me confidence in their ability. This is a difficult position to be in as a manager. Wenger describes this occurrence for people in brokering roles as uprootedness. Wenger states that because communities of practice focus on their own enterprise, boundaries can lack the kind of negotiated understanding found at the core of practices about what constitutes competence. This makes recognizing the value of brokering difficult to assess (1998, p. 110).
I have always had a strong belief that being a successful manager involves collaborating with people in a workplace to create an environment which fosters teaching and learning. In many workplaces there are multiple communities of practice which come in contact with one another through various types of boundary encounters. Wenger describes these as one-on-one, immersion, and delegation. Whichever the type of encounter, the broker plays an important role.
In my current position, I am often asked to work as a project manager to advance new policies or initiatives towards making improvements in the organization. The role of project manager is an excellent example of brokering in communities of practice. Presently, I am working on a project which involves several communities of practice across two provinces. This has been very challenging and through it I have thought of my role as a mediator. It is complex work to help communities of practice negotiate understanding with one another even in the face of conflicting interests.
Wenger describes the process of brokering as complex and it is. At the outset of a project the difficulty lies in becoming recognized as legitimate. Once the project is advancing the difficulty is in staying in the periphery and not becoming so immersed in the work to be seen as a full community member. Wenger states that some people seem to thrive on being brokers. I have never really thought of myself in that way but have been doing this type of negotiating work for several years. It is isolating but gratifying at the same time. You bring a different perspective but understand the current way of thinking. You enable coordination between communities of practice, paving the way for new meanings to be created. People acting in the role of brokers can be viewed by communities of practice as those that create work and cause conflict. However, without the insertion of this person with a differing point of view, communities of practice will themselves become isolated and closed to new members. The possibility of growing through new learning and meaning is reduced threatening the survival of the community. The role of a broker can cause discomfort because of the potential for change. Conflict is common but understanding that this is, as Wenger states, an occupational hazard is giving me new insight on my own expectations.

References:
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, New York, N.Y.:
Cambridge University Press.


1 comment:

  1. Hi Dana,
    Thanks Dana for describing the broker’s tasks from your work experience. I was wondering how one can thrive to be broker in more than one community of practice in the workplace. As you mentioned, that Wenger described the “process of brokering as a complex”. In order to be a successful broker at the workplace one needs certain skills such as communication and problem solving. I think one of the barriers is that the broker may be resisted by the other members of the community of practice. However, by time and experience one can learn how to overcome difficulties and to “thrive on being brokers”. Thanks Dana for deepening my understanding.

    ReplyDelete