In a virtual world, can a community of interest inform practice.

Wilmott, Deirdre ; Knox, Ian

INTRODUCTION

Workplace and professional organisations have long recognised that a community of practice (CoP) is a means of validating informal learning through peer recognition (Center for History and New Media 2004). The relationship between CoP and business management is so well established that CoPs are seen to be the realm of professionalism. However, this paper argues that COPs exist outside business environments and acknowledgement of these communities provides business with access to a large body of previously unrecognised and validated knowledge that exists within such a community. This recognition can also legitimise skills, constructs and learning obtained though membership of these non-professional communities, providing evidence of competence by members who participate in those communities. For this study an informal virtual community based on an interest in film was examined, to determine if the attributes of CoP applied to it.

The paper is about the role of informal communities of practice in general, and whilst it will have implications for informal learning practices in business organisations, a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

The value of communities unconnected to the practice of organisations and institutes, is frequently differentiated from professional communities of practice by describing them as communities of interests where learning is only factual knowledge construction and has no collective purpose (Henri & Pudelko 2003). The implication of differentiating between non-professional communities of interest and professional communities of practice, is that whilst a community of practice is by Wenger's (1998, 2009, 2013) accounts, a highly proficient, competent and expert place of learning, communities of interest do not support practice, competence or high levels of learning.

When he developed the CoP concept, Wenger (1998) stated practice is the shared history of learning and he makes no inference that practice equates with professionalism (p.86). Li et al (2009) describe how Communities of Practice (CoP) theory has graduated from interaction between novices and practitioners, to personal trajectories and growth, to a managerial tool that implies practice exists only in the workplace. Nevertheless, communities unconnected to workplace have some significance in Wenger's view because they can exist as boundary encounters to CoPs based on workplace activities.

Boundary encounters are important because they 'create new interplays of experience and competence' and they are 'learning resources in their own right' (Wenger 1998:254).

The community examined in this study is a virtual community based around a forum and is devoted to the films of American director, John Ford. It was selected to test the existence of practice in a non-professional virtual community because Wenger (2009) has cited a non-professional interest in films as an example of a community of interest whose members do not engage in practice or learning as the topic does not normally embrace practice as he describes it. By establishing that a film community can be an authentic CoP, it is suggested that other communities unconnected to professional groups may be places of legitimate practice which include many attributes that are relevant to the workplace, including advanced analytical, technical and communication skills.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH

Forums or bulletin boards are one of the main forms of community in the virtual world, and this form of communication is now being recognised for their potential to business. Hajli, Sims, Featherman and Love (2014), who wrote from a marketing perspective about the value of information in online communities, in this case health discussion forums, believe 'individuals join online health forums to receive informational and emotional support. In addition, social media has empowered individuals to become active in online forums and communities and to generate content' (p.13). Ziegler, Paulus and Woodside (2014), writing about informal learning in an online Community of Practice, suggest 'shared learning and interest are what keeps these communities together ... all participation ... is considered legitimate learning and it is through participation that we learn not only how to do but how to be' (p.61).

One of the reasons it has been hard to recognise informal learning in the communities outside the workplace has been the difficulties observing and researching this form of learning. McGivney (1999, 2000, 2006) examined the connections of informal learning in all areas of daily lives by researching informal learning that was initiated by people without connecting it to workplace or educational norms. McGivney (2006) noted that researching informal learning outside the workplace was very difficult due to the complexities of recording the processes and this has limited the value of such learning. For business practitioners, this means that skills and knowledge acquired outside workplace experience may not always be recognised as valid because the process by which they were acquired is not understood. McGivney (2000) suggested that her research on informal learning indicated that the social nature of much informal learning led to a democratisation of informal learning that occurred regardless of academic achievement and that it was not based around hierarchical structure or age, but the learning is significant. She states 'informal learning that arises from social interaction and involvement in the community can be transformative and may lead to significant personal development outcomes' (p.43).

Since the advent of Web 2.0 has made virtual communities available to anyone with an online connection, it has become relatively easy for people to connect to social learning communities. This means that valuable learning experiences outside the workplace or academic institutions are becoming increasingly more common and understanding the value of them is becoming correspondingly more important to business practice. A way in which business can recognise and consolidate learning outside workplace practice is to understand that, regardless of the domain of interest of these CoPs, membership of them exposes participants to practice that may be highly relevant to the workplace.

METHODOLOGY

This research is based on a social constructivist approach to learning. It asked the question, whether virtual communities based around domains unconnected to the workplace could be valid communities of practice. It used ethnographic methods to examine practice in a virtual community where a small but very intense group of people use an online forum to analyse and share information and multimedia about American film director, John Ford. Atkinson and Hammersley (1998) note that 'all social research is a form of participative observation' (p.111). The ethnographical research method of participant observation led to an analysis of all public communication to determine if the Ford community's exchanges involved legitimate practice according to Wenger's (1998) description.

According to Clark, Holland, Katz and Peace (2009), the role of participative observer provides 'an efficient way of understanding complex situations and relationships' (p.346). The Ford community is based around a written forum which is organised into separate sub-forums, each containing related threads where members comment through public written discussion. In the two threads examined in this study, one contained over 800 posts where the discussion took place between 27 members, and the other thread contained 340 posts and the discussion took place between 21 members. The first thread commenced in 2007 and still continues; the second thread commenced in 2009 and also still continues. The interaction between members is reproduced in this study as written because it is considered the familiarity and shortened communication styles represent the integrity of the practice through the members' ability to participate using a shared language and condensed understandings. Members' names have been altered, but they are included because it is also considered by the authors that personal recognition evidences engagement between members.

The community is organised around a forum and all communication in this community is through asynchronous written posts that are available to all Internet users. Over a period, the community has amassed a wealth of resources and analysis about many Ford films but in this study, the analysis of its practice is from conversations about two Ford films. The discussions were not confrontational but used a mutual agreement on certain characteristics of the films to develop the members' perspectives of other aspects of the films. The discussions did not take place in threads devoted to the films but grew spontaneously in related threads. One of the discussions is about a film called Three Godfathers which is considered one of the lesser films of Ford. The discussion originates in a thread entitled 'John Ford' even though the forum has specific discussion threads for individual films. The other is a discussion about The Searchers which is considered Ford's best film, and this conversation originated in two sequences in a thread about actor John Wayne whose career had a strong connection to Ford.

This study tested whether there was evidence of Wenger's (1998) three dimensions of practice which are mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire in the community's interactions. The threads were chosen because communication in them is representative of the nuances of meaning the community creates from its exchanges, and they illustrate how members' learning is constructed and shared. Both conversations were initiated when a new member of the group saw the films for the first time and asked for community input into understanding them. The conversations about these films also reference a number of other well-known films and characters in Ford's films, as well as actors, incidents and previous conversations.

RESULTS OF STUDY

Practice in the Ford community

The Ford community observed in this study is a small group of people with a passionate interest in the films of John Ford. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) say that people in a community of practice share information, insight and advice. They suggest community members may also develop personal relationships and establish ways of interacting and a common sense of identity and in doing so they become a community of practice (p.4). Within this community drawn together by a common interest in Ford films, there is evidence of a sense of identity in their passion for analysing his films and by using the term 'Fordie' to describe both the films and themselves. Members remove a sense of anonymity by referring to each other by real names rather than user names and they intersperse their film discussions with digressions to personal actions, views and events.

According to Wenger (1998), practice is the 'process of negotiation of meaning through which community members experience the world and their engagement in it as meaningful' (p.52). Negotiation of new meaning, and therefore in Wenger's (1998) view, learning, occurs as members of the communities share and contrast experiences. He describes practice as the constant potential for continuing, rediscovering or reproducing. Within the Ford community, an examination of the archive indicates that these activities are significant parts of the members' interactions. Over a period of more than six years, they have constantly, and repeatedly, discussed a number of Ford films, particularly The Searchers in a variety of threads and contexts. They have analysed, speculated, shared technical aspects and contemplated the significance of small details and minor characters to the artistic meaning of the films. They also share news about rediscovered Ford classics, showings in festivals, activities of people connected to Ford and new published versions of films and new books, providing critical and insightful analysis.

The most important processes for negotiation of meaning in a community of practice are participation in the community and reification of artefacts and ideas. Wenger (1998) states that these processes 'form a duality fundamental to the human experience of meaning and thus to the nature of the practice' (p.52). Wenger (1998) further states that to enable one process, it is necessary to enable the other and whilst they exist through each other, they cannot replace each other.

   If participation prevails--if most of what matters is left
   unreified--then there may not be enough material to anchor the
   specificities of coordination and to uncover diverging assumptions.
   This is why lawyers want everything in writing. If reification
   prevails--if everything is reified, but with little opportunity
   for shared experience and interactive negotiation--then there may
   not be enough overlap in participation to recover a coordinated,
   relevant or generative meaning. This helps explain why putting
   everything in writing does not seem to solve all our problems (p.
   65).

The practice in the community observed, supports this description because it is based around recognition of meaning in the films of John Ford. Participation in the community involves the acceptance of certain reified artefacts and views of the community.

The main reified concept of the community is John Ford himself, which means the view that the director was a genius and that the artistic merit of his films influences all meaning negotiated within the community. The films are also seen as reified artefacts, which mean the plots, characters and even names are given meanings beyond superficial descriptions of the evolution of their stories. The two films discussed in this study have separate places in the Ford lexicon. Three Godfathers is referred to as a lesser work or flawed film. The Searchers is recognised as Ford's greatest film. To members of the community these descriptions contextualise the films rather than signify a lack of interest or emphasise the significance of one over the other.

The concept of participation is meant to 'capture the profoundly social character of the experience of life' (Wenger 1998:57). Wenger states that participation in social communities shapes experience, but it also shapes the community. Communities based around bulletin boards survive through the direct participation of their members who provide written posts, respond to each other's ideas and add new resources in the way of articles, links to books and other publications and creation of multimedia resources. McWilliam, (2012) suggests that such skills are now important to business development and customer communication.

Within the Ford community, the members' main activity is a continual negotiation of meaning by reanalysing, reviewing and observing what they understand to be the social and artistic value of the films. This discussion remains publicly accessible. Therefore, over time, the community has become a record of the analysis of the complexities of Ford's artistic legacy through the recording of written discussions and the public accessibility of those discussions. In the process of creating the written record, the community also supports and promotes a culture that encourages many attributes not directly connected to Ford. Participation in practice in virtual communities with written communication requires members of the community to develop high level writing skills, not always 'correct' English but very expressive and literate; the ability to understand and use a variety of technical applications; and the ability to analyse and interact appropriately with other members. All these attributes become highly transferable into other environments, and members often share their life experiences which develop out of the Ford community, including creation of blogs, and web pages, reviews for other websites and material related to Ford in academic or professional capacities.

The connection between community and practice occurs through three dimensions that Wenger (1998) refers to as mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire (p. 52). Altrichter (2005) suggests that it is through the presence of these three dimensions that CoPs form in business organisations and they provide the basis of recognition of competence. Iverson and McPhee (2002) believe that the three key elements of COPs--mutual engagement, shared repertoire and joint enterprise, encapsulate the socially constructed nature of knowledge creation, transfer and management systems within and across organisations. The community exchanges provide evidence of the existence of these dimensions in their practice.

Mutual engagement

Mutual engagement between members defines a community according to Wenger (1998) because it involves not only their competence, but also the competence of others. Competency to Wenger includes such processes as initiative and knowledgability, accountability and understanding the artifacts that support competency, including discourse, concepts and delegation (p.4). Sharrett and Usoro, (2003) suggest that within a business community of practice, the recognition of competence of members is one of the most important functions and within the Ford community, it is this competence which defines the status of members. This competence is not just a reflection of their knowledge of Ford but their ability to engage others in discourse and analysis.

Mutual engagement between members is evident in this study. Throughout all discussion, the members of the community have developed a unique perspective of their topic through their interaction and analysis and this is expressed in a very personal way that expands all participants' understandings about Ford films and appreciation of each other's competence. The conversation about Three Godfathers was begun by a member called Terry who had just seen the film for the first time. The member was a recognised classic film devotee but she had never been a Ford enthusiast until she met community members at a film festival. In response, Willow wrote several long involved analyses of the film that were each over a thousand words and then other members responded to her enthusiasm and emotional connection. Because of these questions and comments, another member, June, replied with several long posts commenting on Willow's views, adding her own perspectives and asking questions. Several other members posted agreements, questions, and shorter comments. These members acknowledged the value of Willow's analysis.

   Willow, this is what I meant when I told you that you have a gift
   for writing.

Other members were prompted to see the film again so they could join in the conversation.

   It's been a little while since I've seen it and I suspect I have a
   job now for the weekend. I agree that it's a beautiful looking
   film.

Willow acknowledged the applause for her responses, noting that Ford works and her response to them promoted her critical abilities.

   Thank you so much guys! It's comparatively easy to write about
   Ford's movies for me. If it moves me in some way, I am working out
   why in my mind already anyway, written down or not. There's always
   something for me to take away and chew on for a while.

The discussion following from Terry's comments was intense. It included original ideas and ideas gleaned from other writers on the topic, reanalysed and appropriated by the community. The ongoing discussion and its depth and particularly Willow's response was also answered by the original poster, Terry.

   Your words elicited an emotional response from me ... on a crowded
   NYC train after midnight ... filled with young folks going to and
   from the City ... on a Friday nite ... that I didn't initially have
   when I decided to read your post. You make me want to see a movie
   I've never really wanted to see. You are Cyrano.

The process of discussion and reanalysing the film then continues for over sixty posts with ten members involved in responding. There was a similar process during the discussion of The Searchers which continued for 63 posts between seven members because Terry also asked a question about minor characters. In this discussion, the critical analysis was led by June to whom members deferred on several occasions because of her expert knowledge. The conversations included analysis of characters' motives and a long discussion between four members which evaluated the role of the fool in Shakespeare and how this influenced Ford in his development of one character.

Toward the end of the discussion, the contribution of the member who started it was recognised.

   T you really got me interested with your OP. You asked the right
   questions to make us think, and said some pretty deep things about
   it yourself.

Terry responded to this by acknowledging that her interest had sparked a dynamic discussion.

   Thanxx Jaxxx. I'm glad my original little flint sparked the bigger
   forest fire you two are burning up the thread with.

The John Ford community, through long association, has a distinct awareness of their collective competence in understanding these films and clearly recognise their role in furthering that knowledge. The difference between participation in communities based around bulletin boards from other virtual environments is that, unlike commenting using blogs or some social media, all members have equal voices in the conversation and this is evidenced in the engagement between members of this community. Knowing how to influence meaning is an important part of any virtual community of practice, and this is something Ford community members do well.

Participants comment on each other's views, but because these environments are discussion, they also challenge and develop ideas from those put forward by other posters. Even though the atmosphere on this forum is nonconfrontational, the mutual interaction is recognised by members as an important part of the social experience. Wenger (1998) describes mutual participation as a creation of competence. In the conversations studied in this project, the competence of members and the development of their understanding of not only Ford but the tools of engagement were evidenced in their interactions.

JOINT ENTERPRISE

The second dimension of a practice is what Wenger (1998) calls joint enterprise. Wenger states that in pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other (1998:77). It is this ability to create relationships, share roles and support members that forms the basis of practice in business centred CoPs (McWilliam 2012). The virtual environment adds another perspective to this dimension, as it is done differently from face-to-face communities. The limitations of written communication require expressiveness and clarity, whilst being confined to the tools available which include images, expressive language and clarification.

Members of this virtual Ford community demonstrate their understanding of the virtual environment as they express ideas and views and respond to other members' views. This joint engagement is evident as a member comments on the impact of a moment in Three Godfathers. Another member located a still image of that moment, and the new poster then adds their comments and views on the moment.

   Fred, is this the moment you described? (picture posted)! posted a
   bunch of Dobe-centric 3 Godfathers pictures over in the Westerns
   section. The Kid looks upwards in that manner several times in 3
   Godfathers. It is a very striking look ....

The conversation then moved to a discussion of perspective, which was joined by more members who contributed technical information of film production.

As members discuss the two films, they develop an animated engagement through which they come to a deep and highly nuanced appreciation of subtext, artistic merit and seek to understand the impact of the experiencing Ford.

   The first time I sat down to watch The Searchers (all the way
   through, like you i had seen bits of it before), I literally didn't
   understand it. I was a blank. It was too quiet a movie for me, and
   too deep. This was just a few years ago, and I remember coming to
   the boards for a little hand holding, to find out what it was I
   missed....

The poster demonstrates an ability to draw others into the emotional connections to the film. The language in this post invites other members to participate in the poster's experience and emotions.

Joint enterprise in Wenger's (1998) view is defined by the participants in the very process of pursuing it. 'It is their negotiated response to this situation and thus belongs to them in a profound sense in spite of all the forces and influences that are beyond their control' (p. 52). The enterprise in this community revolves around a deep appreciation of Ford's artistic legacy but it is also about how members share the appreciation, intellectually and emotionally.

The virtuality of this community means that the whole negotiation of meaning of the enterprise, what Wenger calls 'the conditions, resources and demand that shape the practice' (1998:80), are all publically available as written texts to be reread and re-evaluated. Even within the context of relatively short discussion, the members use these archives to cite, redefine and reference ideas, so that the virtuality and format adds an aspect to the community that is not readily available in non-virtual communities. The ability to directly refer to what is happening enhances the depth of the conversation as well as contextualising it as more than abstract, undocumented, casual talk or objective description.

   Willow, you paint so beautifully with words, that I do not have the
   words to tell you how emotional reading your review made me.

   All of you could find depth in a soap commercial. You're all a
   treat to read.

This sharing of ideas is not just about uncritically glorifying Ford. A key part of the community's enterprise is to understand Ford, not to deify him. They welcome posters who do not understand Ford, yet at the same time they are intolerant of views that dismiss his work without justified argument. An important part of the enterprise is to explain their view and this is often initiated by a newcomer's questions but, as evidenced by Terry's response to her questions, they also incorporate others' views.

The key to recognising the joint enterprise in this community is to understand that the enterprise is not just a liking of films but a deep and passionate ambition to understand them as works of art. This level of enterprise is the explanation of why Wenger's (1998)comments, that talking about film is not a community of practice, and why this particular community based around film can be described as one. From the comments between members, the understanding of their enterprise is not tacit, they recognise the reason they come together, share their views and develop their understandings and competency in recognising Ford's artistry through their discussion, all in a confined virtual environment which relies on expression and written communication.

SHARED REPERTOIRE

As a result of their participation in the enterprise, the members of this community develop what Wenger (1998) calls a 'shared repertoire' (p.52). This repertoire reflects the history of the community and creates an environment that allows community members to engage using a shorthand language that defines their competence, both in the domain and as an integral member of the community. In business orientated CoPs, the ability to communicate through community repertoire implies an insider's view of the world, a commitment and a status that moves beyond an understanding of the topic (Iverson & McPhee 2002).

Competency in the Ford community is about addressing the complexity of the creation of the films and of the characters and emotions represented in them. Members of the community rarely indulge in redescribing plots or defining or explaining the roles of the characters. For example, The Searchers has an ending that has been endlessly analysed and discussed in the literature of film, both scholarly and popular. However, in the discussion of this ending in the online Ford community, no-one ever describes it. The words 'the ending' in relation to the film, have a significance beyond plot and immediately moves members into intense analysis with no further explanation. When this member speaks of the 'shutting the door', it is assumed that all those reading not only recognise the action but all the implications of the action. It is also assumed that all readers not only know who the character of 'Ethan' is, but also have a contextualisation of the character that allows them to make sense of observations that Ethan is shutting the door on himself with almost no explanation of why.

   I never think of that as the family literally shutting the door on
   Ethan. They all go into the house and disappear past the frame, and
   when the door shuts it almost seems to shut by itself, as if John
   Ford is saying 'and now we have come to the end of our story'--and
   that if a person in the movie is shutting the door, it's Ethan
   himself (though not literally/physically). He's too alienated, too
   tormented, too... still searching ... to hang up his spurs and
   settle down. He is the eternal wanderer.

During discussion, the members do not explain roles or actors and often interchange names of actors with their roles but they understand the significance of these without explanation. They abbreviate the names of films and refer to other situations in other Ford films simply by introducing a character's name or an observation yet it is clear they are communicating effectively.

   I know you know this already Miss J., but what a great story teller
   Ford is. This journey is soooo ... much. Look at life going on
   (Charlie come acourtin', I mean coming to marry Laurie) while Ethan
   and Martin search for Debbie..... How is Ford mixing these comic
   moments seamlessly with the Search (which is deadly serious). Oh I
   see ... he's a Master....

This discussion refers to some quite profound analysis of the role of a secondary character, not usually analysed in published works on the source. The discussion all relates to one particular scene but the title of this scene is not mentioned. In these discussions, it is assumed by the writer that the nuances of characters, Charlie, Martie, Debbie, Laurie and Ethan do not need explanation. It is also assumed that interchange of the character Charlie with the actor who plays him, is recognised. Most of these understandings came from previous conversations, so that even in a few short lines, the meaning or agreed conclusions that have been negotiated within the community are also tacitly acknowledged. The paragraphs conclude some points that confirm the community's view of Ford's artistry but that confirmation to an outsider may be incomprehensible because they are based on a shared repertoire of understanding amongst community members.

All this is referenced in a common repertoire. Wenger (1998) is careful to say that the common understandings are not implacable meaning but rather they become a foundation of negotiating meaning. In this community, these understandings are used, not as point of reference to inhibit new meaning, but as a means of creating it without necessarily arguing every point gone before. The shared repertoire is endemic to this community, and as such allows them to move between very subtle analyses of quite minute details, yet stay within the boundaries of their enterprise.

DISCUSSION

The authors recognise that not every internet grouping is a community. Blanchard and Markus (2004) argue that virtual groupings only become communities when they develop an identifiable 'sense of community'. They say that 'sense of community' develops through integration of members and the fulfilment of needs where people feel rewards in terms of status, and recognition of competence. In the Ford community observed, there is a very strong sense of community as members interact with each other.

Whilst the term 'community of interest' is used in some literature to differentiate between learning and non-learning communities, exact definitions are vague. Wenger (2013) sees communities of interest as those groups of people who share an interest but do not expand that connection into practice. People join non-professional communities to share pursuits with likeminded people. However because the community is not developed around a premise that its members develop expertise and competence as a condition of entry, this should not lead to the conclusion that the community does not support a very effective learning process as part of its core existence and thereby create a practice. Briard and Carter (2013) define a community of interest as groups of people who share an identity or an experience. Henri and Pudelko (2003) note that a community of interest is a gathering of people assembled around a topic of common interest. Its members take part in the community to exchange information, to obtain answers to personal questions or problems, to improve their understanding of a subject, to share common passions or to play. They believe the personal nature of the involvement in a community of interest separates it from a community of practice.

There is an important difference between sharing an interest and creating a practice which records and legitimatises meaning and this difference is evident in the community studied. By Wenger's (1998) definition however, it is the presence of practice which separates a community of practice from one of interest. Wenger states that the process of practice includes the creation of artefacts, common language, mutual engagement and negotiated meaning. Wenger et al (2002) claim that communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge or expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis. This view of a community of practice supports many of the attributes of the members of the community studied for this research. The commitment of members to the community is based around a highly personal interest, but in the process of social learning attributes of practice which supported Wenger's views on what constituted a community of practice were evidenced.

The evidence would suggest that whilst this Ford community exists to discuss film, a topic which even Wenger (2009) suggests may not support a CoP, its interaction satisfies the main criteria of a CoP. The community has developed a recognisable practice around the principles of participation and reification through the concepts of mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire. In the creation of this practice members develop not only a lexicon about the meaning of the films but analytical, critical and communication competencies which could be relevant to professional and academic environments.

There is nothing in Wenger's writing to imply that a community of practice and all its connotations of learning through shared experience and social interaction is a concept confined only to the workplace. Wenger (2013) describes a community of practice as a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do, and they learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. He also notes that the domain topic may only be of importance to the people who are invested in it. Therefore, regardless of the non-professional nature of the domain in the Ford community, exchange and recording of knowledge, development of expertise and personal growth are all significant parts of community membership. Wenger (2013) states that his definition of CoPs reflects the fundamentally social nature of human learning. Social learning and practice may exist whether it is the stated intention of the community is to learn or it is a tacit understanding, as is the case in the Ford community.

The development of Web 2.0 applications has opened opportunities for people to participate in virtual groups which can be highly sophisticated, immediate and intense (Thomas & Seely Brown 2011). Until the advent of Web 2.0 and its social communication applications, membership of non-professional communities was not generally an influential concept for business practice as it had been difficult to create legitimate communities of practice outside professional connections. This was because of the problems of maintaining key dimensions such as mutual participation, and joint enterprise over a period of time. Therefore, the impact of non-professional communities on professional organisations was relatively benign. The knowledge resources they created were negligible and their influence in the creation of relevant and transferable competencies the limited.

However, the advent of social media and Web 2.0 has allowed people to experience a sense of community in a completely virtual environment because the software developments mean that online Internet communities offer a unique experience to members. Even though they may have no physical shared spaces, face-to-face meetings or shared time zones, with only a very limited knowledge of software maintenance, it is possible to create strong, thriving and highly interactive communities.

Participation in virtual communities is not dependent on specific timeframes or activities, and can be undertaken in conjunction with other activities. According to Anderson (2007) the connection between Web 2.0 applications and learning has been well documented. Ebner, Holzinger and Maurer (2007) note that the interactive exchange of resources and the ability to connect socially that are major features of Web 2.0 environments, are very supportive to a social learning environment and enhance the opportunity for new directions of social learning. McLoughlin and Lee (2007) see the use of Web 2.0 as a working example of social constructivist theory as people explore social software which the writers call 'an open architecture that facilitates user-controlled, collaboratively generated knowledge and community focussed enquiry' (p.672). It is the advent of social technologies, particularly bulletin board applications, which has made it possible to create highly interactive, participative applications.

Communities, whose longevity allows them to be centres of practice, are now readily available to anyone who has an interest in a specific domain and, as a result, the social exchange of knowledge, meaning and shared expertise is becoming accessible to anyone who can connect online. The analysis of the threads about two Ford films, Three Godfathers and The Searchers, in this community demonstrates the existence of a highly active practice where meaning is negotiated using participation in discussion and a reified view of Ford's contribution to film art. The members demonstrate a very clear mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire that contribute to a very complex view of Ford's works. By these criteria the members of the group have created a practice.

Ramage (2012) notes that Wenger studied workplace communities which were typically co-located and were ones where members worked in fairly close proximity to one another so their collective learning was largely carried out face-to-face (p. 341). In these face-to-face workplace communities of practice, the negotiation of meaning essential to practice occurs through a variety of processes such as discussion, oral communication and meetings. However, virtual communities are not simply online reproductions of face-to-face communities. The community observed is an abstract created in a cloud space so the sense of community is created from its members' ability to reify a sense of presence and a sense of unity and purpose from a digital medium.

In the virtual community observed, communication, and therefore practice, is a complex arrangement of learning that occurs through the creation of recognisable personal identities and written interactions. Negotiation of meaning and practice in this community occurs through a written record which is readily available to all members. Because it is archived, the record provides a unique insight into the creation of knowledge through social learning. The archived record means the history of the negotiation and the history of learning in the community is therefore a major resource of the community and does not rely on the memory of old time members, unlike face-to-face communities.

Virtual communities can be repositories for locating new meanings and interpretations as well as places where members build competence in the domain that is recognised and accredited through peer and social interaction. This membership refocusses the practice from the 'non-professional' nature of the domain as perceived by those not connected to the domain to highly transferable learning, in terms of analysis, expression, communication and technical ability. It is suggested that membership of such communities is an example of the influence of boundary processes that Wenger (1998) suggests can be the 'start of new practices' (p255) that could merge professional and non-professional attributes.

The significance of this research is the conclusion that virtual communities based around bulletin boards can become highly enhanced learning spaces where an online community of interest can evolve into a community of practice. It is suggested that competence developed through this practice are not confined to the topic of the community but may be transferable to other environments. This has implications for workplace environments in the way they recognise competence and professional development. It adds another dimension to the formal qualifications, non-formal training and informal learning in the workplace which are generally recognised as learning environments for professionals.

CONCLUSION

In the same way that communities of practice theory has contributed to understanding the value of learning in the workplace, applying it to informal learning in people's private lives creates a means of legitimising and validating that learning and knowledge. It is recognised that not all forums or virtual centres on the internet will be communities of practice or even communities of interest and it is not possible to argue that every community becomes a place of significant learning and understanding. It would also be wrong to dismiss the significance of all such sites as places of learning and purveyors of practice. The analysis of the John Ford virtual community in this study provides evidence that the virtual environment of bulletin boards allows communities based on informal interests to become highly effective communities of practice. The community studied validated Wenger's descriptions of a community of practice and demonstrated with strong evidence, the dimensions of mutual participation, joint enterprise and shared repertoire. The existence of these dimensions within the community observed, extends the nature of the informal learning with it beyond the 'non-professional' nature of the domain into a broad spectrum of abilities.

There are significant implications for business education and business practice. The use of interest groups such as the film group observed which would have been dismissed as non-professional prior to the advent of virtual communities, could now inform business practice, knowledge creation and recognition of competency.

REFERENCES

Altrichter, H. (2005). The role of the 'professional community' in action research. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 11-26.

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. London: JISC.

Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1998). Ethnography and participant observation. In N.. Denzin & Y.. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry. London: Sage.

Blanchard, A.., & Markus, M.. (2004). The experienced 'sense' of a virtual community: Characteristics and processes. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 48-88.

Briard, S., & Carter, C. (2013). Communities of practice and communities of interest: definitions and evaluation considerations. Ontario: Ontario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health. Retrieved from www.excellenceforchildandyouth.ca

Center for History and New Media. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273.

Clark, A., Holland, C., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2009). Learning to see: lessons from a participatory observation research project in public space. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 345-36.

Ebner, M., Holzinger, A., & Maurer, H. (2007). Web 2.0 Technology: Future nterfaces for Technology Enhanced. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal Access to Applications and Services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 559568). Boston: Springer.

Hajli, M.., Sims, J., Featherman, M., & Love, P.. (2014). Credibility of information in online communities. Journal of Strategic Marketing, ahead-of-print, 1-16.

Henri, F., & Pudelko, B. (2003). Understanding and analysing activity and learning in virtual communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 474-487.

Iverson, J.., & McPhee, R.. (2002). Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice: Being True to the Communicative Character of Knowledge. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 259-266.

Li, L., Grimshaw, J., Nielson, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P., & Graham, I. . (2009). Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science, 4(11). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-1

McGivney, V. (1999). Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development. Leicester: NIACE.

McGivney, V. (2000). Informal learning and bridging the class divide in educational participation. Rising East, 4(2), 38-52.

McGivney, V. (2006). Informal learning: the challenge for research. In R. Edwards, J. Gallacher, & S. Whittaker (Eds.), Learning outside the academy: international research perspectives on lifelong learning. London: Routledge.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Presented at the ASCELITE 2007, Singapore.

McWilliam, G. (2012). Building Stronger Brands through Online Communities | MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved 20 September 2014, from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-stronger-brands-throughonline-communities/

Ramage, M. (2012). Communities of Practice Real and Virtual. In H. Donelan, K. Kear, & M. Ramage (Eds.), Online comunication and collaboration (pp. 339343). London: Routledge.

Sharrett, M., & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of practice. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187-196.

Thomas, D., & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of Learning: cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington Kentucky USA: authors.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2009). Communities of practice a brief introduction. Retrieved from http://neillthew.typepad.com/files/communities-of-practice.pdf

Wenger, E. (2013). What is a community of practice. Retrieved 15 July 2013, from http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/what-is-a-community-ofpractice/about:newtab

Wenger, E., McDermott, R.., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ziegler, M.., Paulus, T., & Woodside, M. (2014). Understanding informal group learning in online communities through discourse analysis. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(1), 60-78.

Deirdre Wilmott, Ian Knox

Federation University Australia