Recent orders
A community of practice (CoP)
COP
Student name:
Instructor:
Institution
Introduction
A community of practice (CoP) is, according to HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_anthropology” o “Cognitive anthropology” cognitive anthropologists HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Lave” o “Jean Lave” Jean Lave and HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etienne_Wenger” o “Etienne Wenger” Etienne Wenger, a group of people who share a craft and/or a profession. The group can evolve naturally because of the members’ common interest in a particular domain or area, or it can be created specifically with the goal of gaining knowledge related to their field. It is through the process of sharing information and experiences with the group that the members learn from each other, and have an opportunity to develop themselves personally and professionally ( HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice” l “CITEREFLaveWenger1991” Lave & Wenger 1991).
CoPs exist in offline (i.e., physical) settings, for example, a lunch room at work, a field setting, a factory floor, or elsewhere in the environment, but members of CoPs do not have to be co-located. They form a “virtual community of practice” (VCoP) ( HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice” l “CITEREFe.g._Dub.C3.A9_et_al.2005” e.g. Dubé et al. 2005) when they collaborate online, such as within discussion boards and newsgroups, or a ‘‘mobile community of practice’’ (MCoP) ( HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice” l “CITEREFKietzmann_et_al.2013” Kietzmann et al. 2013) when members communicate with one another via mobile phones and participate in community work on the go.
Communities of practice are not new phenomena: this type of learning practice has existed for as long as people have been learning and sharing their experiences through storytelling. The idea is rooted in HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_pragmatism” o “American pragmatism” American pragmatism, especially HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Pierce” o “C. S. Pierce” C.S. Pierce’s concept of ” HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_inquiry” o “Community of inquiry” the community of inquiry” (Shields 2003), but also HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey” o “John Dewey” John Dewey’s principle of learning through occupation (Wallace 2007). Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger coined the phrase in their 1991 book, ‘Situated learning’ ( HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice” l “CITEREFLaveWenger1991” Lave & Wenger 1991), and Wenger then significantly expanded on the concept in his 1998 book, ‘Communities of Practice’ ( HYPERLINK “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice” l “CITEREFWenger1998” Wenger 1998).
Communities of practice, looking from an organizational perspective can be defined as the part of the organizational structure that insists on sharing the learning that people have gained in doing a work with the other people of the organization (Wenger, 1998). These vary from other types of groups present within the organization, since they have their own boundaries and exist for a certain period of time. There are various stages through which communities of practice develop. The stages are characterized by activities of different kinds and interactions at different levels by the members of the community. The following figure shows the five stages of development as proposed by Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, p 69), through which communities of practice develop:
HYPERLINK “http://i0.wp.com/www.projectguru.in/publications/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/fig1.jpg”
Figure 1: Stages of Development of communities of practice (Source: Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, p 69))
As the above figure shows, communities of practice develop through various stages. Each stage has a different set of activities. The stages can be explained as follows
Stage 1: Potential: It is the stage in which, people encountering similar problems or situations, find each other and identify their commonalities
Stage 2: Coalescing: In this stage people after finding each other, identify their potential and discuss about what knowledge is to be shared.
Stage 3: Active: This is the stage in which actual knowledge sharing takes place. The maturity stage is the one in which communities of practice meet its purpose of knowledge sharing. It is the most active stages among all the five stages of development of communities of practice.
Stage 4: Dispersed: In this stage people do not interact actively. However, the formed community acts as a knowledge center from which the members of the community access required information whenever necessary
Stage 5: Memorable: The final stage is one that persists after the community becomes extinct. In this stage the members retain the memories of knowledge gathered when they were a part of a community.
Thus communities of practice are present everywhere and are developed with the help of the above mentioned five stages, thereby enabling efficient knowledge sharing among the members of the community.
References
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivatingcommunities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
The primary difference
The primary difference between consequentialist and non-consequentialist approaches is that in the former, consequences are thought to be the focus of analysis when deciding what action should or shouldn’t be done. Non-consequentialists, on the other hand, tend to place greater weight on outcomes and impacts over consequences (Lee-Stronach, 2021). Consequentialists believe that people should act according to maximizes utility and non-consequentialist believe that people should act according to what is right. It is important to understand the difference between these two approaches as they have different consequences. It would be wrong for someone from a consequentialist perspective to say that it does not matter if an individual does something wrong, whereas for some individuals from a non-consequentialist perspective, it could be life changing if they do something unethical or immoral (Savulescu & Wilkinson, 2019).
The theory of utilitarianism is associated with consequentialism approach. The approach is based on the assumption that the good of all ought to be the paramount consideration in moral decision-making. Utilitarianism assumes that a morally right action is one with probabilistically more utility or less disutility. Frequently utilitarianism is used synonymously with “the greatest happiness principle.” To apply this theory in a moral situation, we need to compare utility and disutility. A utilitarian will suppose that an action results in greater good for more people than any other option, and then pursue that course of action.
Deontology is a major theory associated with non-consequentialism approach. Deontological theories emphasize duty, obligation and moral rights and wrongs. The term deontology derives from the Greek word meaning duty. This term is essentially used to refer to the philosophical study of good, evil, etc., duties. It is associated with a categorical imperative or absolute value approach which means that all choices are viewed as either right or wrong, good or bad regardless of situation. Deontology is essentially an ethical theory because it focuses on individual action in relation to moral values as well as social norms.
Reference
Lee-Stronach, C. (2021). Morality, Uncertainty. The Philosophical Quarterly, 71(2), 334-358.
Savulescu, J., & Wilkinson, D. (2019). Consequentialism and the Law in Medicine. Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law.
The primary aim of initiating an argument is to convince and persuade the audience
Literature
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Course Title
Date
The primary aim of initiating an argument is to convince and persuade the audience to whom the argument is directed to with the goal of making them understand their topic while at the same time owe them to support their ideas. It is therefore for the urge of convincing and obtaining support that makes the person present concrete facts as proof to their audience that their argument is not an opinionated debate. Rachel Carson in her article ‘The Obligation to Endure’ (Carson, 2014) can be termed as one of the greatest persuasive essays of the year the 1950s due to her explicit use of the scientific facts as well as explanations in the presentation of her argument. Through her skillful presentation of the facts against pesticides, her audience was hugely convinced about the effects and dangers of the use of the harmful DDT that led to the eventual banning on the use of the pesticide. Rachel presents various facts in her argument to which she aimed at persuading her audience to which were a success to her motive of writing the essay.
Rachel Carson presents a variety of facts concerning pesticides throughout her writing, and besides she has also managed to have the scientific facts as well as their explanation relating perfecting to each other, and eventually introducing her audience to another augment. To begin with, Rachel Carson explains how the pesticides tend to be harmful to the environment, and then she goes ahead to demonstrate how the use of the dreadful pesticides is detrimental to the environment. And finally, she states of the assumption and reasoning that the use of pesticides is deemed to be necessary to the maintenance of the farm production is falsely (pg. 86). Rachel initiates her argument with a scientific fact regarding how pesticides contain certain chemicals to which contribute to the pollution of the environment as well as the living creatures in a manner to which cannot be revoked. She describes the pollutants as being evil as a way to portray the pesticide negatively, having an implication that the pesticides are causing more harm than good and therefore intrigues the reader of work as to whether the use of the pesticides is essential.
After making the reader question the use of the pesticide, she provides an answer by referring to Charles Darwin’s principle of natural selection where she proves that the use of the pesticides is unnecessary. She terms the use being useless because with the ability of the pests being able to mutate, there arises the need for the development of new insecticides and through this, she relates to the continued development of new pesticides as being useless for the control of the pest problem. After answering the question, she changes her tone to bring into light the real problem of crop production, where she states that ‘yet is our real problem not one of overproduction?’(pg. 86) as the creation of more pesticides is supposedly necessary for all the production of the crops. However, Rachel goes ahead and points out that due to the overproduction, a majority of the American citizens were required to pay over a billion dollars to cover the cost. Therefore, it is evident that Rachel Carson has done a lot of research before the initiation of her argument and thus proving she has the basis of her arguments. Through the skillful connection of the of the scientific facts, Rachel Carson assures her readers that she has done enough research through the provision of a variety of counts that are attributed to be reliable evidence.
In the article ‘The Obligation to Endure,’ Rachel has made it possible for her readers to understand her arguments by stating her facts in a manner that is not complex. She digs into details with her facts and explanations while at the same time compelling her readers with keywords and phrases to attract her audience on her side of the argument. For example, “In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world- the very nature of its life … chemicals sprayed on croplands or forests or gardens lie long in the soil, entering into living organisms, passing from one to another in a chain of poisoning and death” (pg. 84). She argues her point through first describing the chemicals as being sinister, grabbing the reader’s attention and then presents her facts in a more straightforward manner such that the readers can understand and get informed.
From the article, Rachel begins a new major point in her essay that precedes a fact that is aimed at strengthening her argument. On page 87, “The devotion of immense acreages to a single crop ….set(s) the stage for explosive increase in specific insect population”, here she refers to the incident in history where most of the towns were infected disease that was transmitted by beetles and therefore acts as a proof to her readers. From the skillful presentation of the arguments by Rachel, it leaves the audience with no choice but instead conforms to her argument as the evidence provided is solid and it is almost impossible for a person or the reader to argue against it. Rachel decides to use the scientific facts and explanations rather than using her statements that are opinionated according to her views so that her argument would be valid and successful and therefore she is compelled to present a compelling argument to which can be backed up by substantial evidence and not just meaningless statements. Rachel Carson has been able to successful persuaded her audience through her strong argument that is backed up by evidence to which makes the reader connect easily and therefore compels the reader to agree with her ideas.
Reference
Rachel Carson, “The Obligation to Endure”. Retrieved from: https://hilltownchautauqua.org/files/The_Obligation_to_Endure.pdfCarson, R. (2014). The obligation to endure. In The Ecological Design and Planning Reader (pp. 122-130). Island Press, Washington, DC.