The concept emerged from the work of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991), who studied how people learn within social and work settings. They argued that learning is situated: it takes place within the social and cultural context in which people use their skills. A novice learns not just by receiving instruction, but by taking part in the work of more experienced practitioners. Over time, the novice moves from what Lave and Wenger called legitimate peripheral participation towards fuller membership of the community.

Wenger (1998) developed this account by identifying three features of a community of practice: mutual engagement, through which members form relationships and learn from one another; joint enterprise, which refers to the shared concerns and purposes that members negotiate; and shared repertoire, which consists of the language, tools, experiences and ways of working that the community develops.

These features help distinguish a community of practice from a professional association, a social network or a group of people with similar interests. Membership alone does not create a community of practice. Nor does the existence of a committee, a website or a programme of events. What matters is whether people engage with one another in ways that develop their understanding and influence how they work.

There is also an important distinction between a community’s shared purpose and the assumption that its members must agree. Differences in experience, values and judgement can enrich collective learning. Indeed, a community that avoids disagreement may reinforce existing beliefs rather than question them. From this perspective, critical discussion is not a threat to community but one of the means through which its practice can develop.

The concept also invites us to reconsider professional identity. Wenger (1998) argued that learning involves more than acquiring new skills. Through participation, people develop a sense of who they are and what it means to belong to a field of practice. A professional identity is therefore not fixed by qualifications or job titles. It continues to change through contact with others.

Yet communities of practice are not free from problems of power. Experienced members may control what counts as valid knowledge, whose views receive attention and who gains access to the group. Newcomers may find that the practices they are expected to adopt also restrict their capacity to challenge established norms. Roberts (2006) draws attention to these limits, questioning the assumption that communities will foster open and equal exchanges of knowledge.

This raises a further issue about the relationship between informal communities and formal organisations. A community of practice may develop within an organisation, but its value does not depend upon formal structures. Nor can an organisation ensure that a genuine community will emerge simply by creating one. Structures can offer support, resources and continuity, but relationships, trust and shared activity give the community its substance.

Perhaps the most significant contribution of the concept is its view of knowledge as something that people develop and revise together. Expertise remains valuable, but it does not reside solely with those who hold senior roles or formal qualifications. Each participant brings experience that may extend or challenge the understanding of others.

A community of practice is therefore both a social setting and a process of learning. Its success depends less on how many people belong to it than on what occurs between them. The critical questions concern whose knowledge counts, how people learn from difference, and whether participation enables members to question and improve their own practice.

References

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00618.x

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932