Foundations and Essentials for the Doctor of Nursing Practice

Nurse Education Today (2008) 28, 246–252

Nurse

intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/nedt

Education Today

Building on Wenger: Communities of practice in nursing

Nicola Andrew a,*, Debbie Tolson b,1, Dorothy Ferguson c,2

a School of Nursing, Midwifery and Community Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, UK b Gerontological Nursing, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Community Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, UK c Community Health, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Community Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, UK

Accepted 11 May 2007

02 do

*

33

so so 1

2

KEYWORDS Communities of practice; Community engagement; Nursing; Knowledge generation; Practice development; Organisational development

60-6917/$ - see front matte i:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.05.0

Corresponding author. Tel 1 8312. E-mail addresses: n.andre

[email protected] (D. Tolson), d n). Tel.: +44 141 331 3463; fa Tel.: +44 141 331 3469; fa

r �c 200 02

.: +44 14

[email protected] .h.fergus

x: +44 13 x: +44 13

Summary Communities of practice (CoPS) provide a potentially useful practice based framework for constructing work based collaborative learning and promoting engagement with local and professional groups and communities. In nursing, we have, increasingly, to manage and deploy new and existing knowledge, although CoPs are currently not widely used to do this. This paper debates the framework created by Wenger and reviews the role of the CoP as an innovative way for educa- tors and practitioners to collaborate to develop and manage new knowledge and emerging practice.

�c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

A community of practice (CoP) is a model of situa- tional learning, based on collaboration among peers, where individuals work to a common pur-

7 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reser

1 331 8320; fax: +44 131

c.uk (N. Andrew), d.tol- [email protected] (D. Fergu-

1 331 8312. 1 331 8312.

pose, defined by knowledge rather than task (Wenger, 1998). There are two main perspectives on situational learning. The first is an activity based constructivist view, emphasising the importance of context specific learning in schools and in work practice (Resnick, 1987; Barab and Duffy, 1999). The second is an anthropological one, in which learning arises from participation in a wider social network (Lave and Wenger, 1991). In Higher Educa- tion (HE), the inclusion of civic and economic inter- action with a wide range of communities, including local, professional and business stakeholders is an increasing trend. This represents a change in HE,

ved.

Building on Wenger: Communities of practice in nursing 247

which has traditionally been associated with the attainment of individual and not collective goals (Houldsworth and Mathews, 2000).

As a tool for knowledge management and inte- grating scholarship, a CoP can provide a platform for collaborative work place learning, leading to practice development and the creation, manage- ment and dissemination of new knowledge. The ori- ginal concept does not specifically relate to nursing, indeed CoPs are not widely used in nursing, how- ever, they can be found in a diverse range of profes- sions and occupations (Wenger et al., 2002).

This article focuses on the concept of communi- ties, with reference to the CoP framework created by Lave and Wenger (1991) and debates its poten- tial application in nursing as a gateway to enhanced professional and educational networking.

Community engagement

Bond and Paterson (2005), Scottish academics, sug- gest that the issue of community engagement in the HE sector is becoming increasingly important. The impact ofmass higher education has led to an expan- sion of the HE sector to accommodate an increas- ingly diverse population, bringing universities out of the shadow of elitism and into the arena of public accountability. Increasingly HEI’S are striving to work in, and engage with, a variety of communities. Such collaborations can range from general consul- tation to active participation, described by Buys and Bursnall (2007) as ‘the coming together of di- verse interests and people to achieve a commonpur- pose’ (p. 73). They maintain that academics have not generally engaged in partnership with non aca- demic communities, traditionally viewing them as research participants rather than research partners.

Collaboration between practitioners and aca- demics has historically been regarded as difficult. Academics may lack respect for practitioner or lo- cal knowledge, believing that the resulting re- search may lack rigour. Conversely practitioners or local partners may feel that academics have lit- tle of a practical or applied nature to offer. This is highlighted in nursing where the integration of re- search and practice remains a controversial and unresolved issue (Buys and Bursnall, 2007; Booth et al., 2007).

The value of communities

Winter et al. (2000), Australian academics, argue that Universities want to be perceived as active community partners and acknowledged ‘sites of

citizenship’, contributing to the local social and economic infrastructure.

They argue that community engagement ‘must be core business to the university rather than an extraneous activity’ and maintain that leadership is required to enable institutional ‘recognition and reward of community engagement in teaching and learning’ (p. 221).

In a revival of the Town and Gown debate, Bond and Paterson (2005) critique the position of the uni- versity within the local community from the per- spective of individual academics. They argue that universities in the UK, including the ‘ancients’, have a tradition of vocation and sense of commu- nity purpose, which is exemplified by their role in the preparation of professionals in areas such as medicine and more recently nursing. Bond and Pat- erson (2005) note that in HE, while there seems to be a general agreement that increasing community engagement is desirable and valuable, there is little empirical evidence to demonstrate the results of such partnerships. Winter et al. (2000) believe that the value of communities in HE may not be easily quantified in financial terms. They argue that their true worth is more likely to be in relation to their role in the production and dissemination of knowl- edge and the development of professional values, which may eventually prove to be valuable in terms of research or project grants. Initially, however, the advantages may not immediately translate di- rectly into institutional goals and targets.

Unlike local or recreational communities, a pro- fessional community is one that forms within the work place as a way of sharing practice and promot- ing professional collaboration. Etienne Wenger, an American academic and business consultant, is a prolific writer on the value of communities as a tool for work place learning and knowledge manage- ment. Wenger et al. (2002) believe that knowledge management should be accorded the same impor- tance as any other business asset. They argue that it should not be managed by chance but should be organised in such a way, that its creation and deployment continuously drives the organisation forward. Knowledge, if it is to be of value, has to keep the organisation at the ‘cutting edge’ of inno- vation and should be managed ‘as companies man- age other critical assets’ (p. 6).

Wenger’s communities

The themes of belonging, participation, and collab- oration are central to the development; function and sustainability of a CoP. Wenger et al. (2002) describe CoPs as:

248 N. Andrew et al.

‘Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who dee- pen their knowledge and expertise in the area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (p. 4)

They discovered that like minded people in areas as diverse as insurance, oil and engineering compa- nies, formed communities within the workplace, however, they also observed that wherever these communities occurred, they shared three common domains:

Knowledge: creates common ground and common knowledge within the community. Community: creates the social fabric of learning. Practice: a set of frameworks, ideas, tools, infor- mation, styles, language, stories and documents shared by the community (Wenger et al., 2002).

Mitchell (2003), an Australian educational con- sultant, transferred Wenger’s original, industry based domains into the Australian state education system. He identified ‘practice’ as the weakest and least defined domain. Mitchell (2003) believes that community members must locate the investi- gation of their practice, including development of knowledge products such as documents and tools, at the ‘heart of the community’ (p. 39). Allee (2000), an American writer on knowledge net- works, observes that; ‘knowledge cannot be sepa- rated from the communities that create it, use it and transform it’ (p. 4).

Wenger (1998) observes that CoPs evolve from the things that individual’s value or that they rate as important. Even when subject to organisational strictures and boundaries, it is the community and not the organisation that generates the knowl- edge. The life cycle of a community is dependant on its continuing value to its members. CoPs utilise a gatekeeper of knowledge approach to provide an effective mechanism to enable organisations to ‘build, share and apply deep levels of competence’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 4). Snyder (1997), an American academic who worked closely with Wenger, sug- gests that in this context, competence implies not just a level of academic attainment but an ongoing developmental process as well as a behav- ioural approach.

A CoP differs from a network because it is ‘about something’ and not just a set of informal relation- ships. It continues to exist because it produces a ‘shared practice as members engage in the collec- tive process of learning’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 4). Lave and Wenger (1991), Wenger (1998) and Wenger et al., (2002) promote CoPs as a gateway to infor- mal professional learning, suggesting that, when embedded in the workplace, they can create iden-

tity and give meaning to professional practice. Wenger (1998) and Wenger et al. (2002) suggest that they can map a path to the understanding of complex professional issues and provide micro- level responses to work related problems; they both complement and substitute for formal learning mechanisms.

The original work undertaken by Lave and Wen- ger (1991) brought CoPs to the attention of the American business and academic communities. Subsequent research by Wenger (1998) and Wenger et al. (2002) has influenced educational develop- ment in America and in the UK, however, the authors and the concept are at times criticised within the literature. Boud and Middleton (2003) assert that CoPs may not be ‘useful or sufficient’ frameworks to underpin learning at work and prob- lem analysis (p. 195). They also dispute claims that they can provide a framework for the collection and dissemination of informal learning.

Knowledge generated from informal learning is often not acknowledged, valued or exploited with- in organisations. In many cases, it is seen as a mechanism for ‘doing the job properly and is thus rendered invisible as learning’. Consequently, its value is lost and not deployed or disseminated throughout the organisation (Boud and Middleton, 2003, p. 195). Visibility and sustainability in the longer term, depends on the development and dissemination of practice, to enable fledgling communities to become established, valued and ultimately, sustainable (Mitchell, 2003).

Communities of practice or professional communities?

Kupferberg (2004), in a rigorous critique of the Lave–Wenger paradigm, contests Wenger’s belief that CoPs exist everywhere and at every level. He argues that Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) have systematically ‘misread the modern landscape of learning’ through their narrow inter- pretation of the underpinning theory (p. 4). Kupfer- berg (2004) believes that professional identity starts to form long before an individual enters their chosen profession. He argues that Wenger’s view is too narrow and overlooks the fact that talented individuals are often identified and nurtured pro- fessionally from an early stage in their develop- ment. Kupferbergs’ definition of professional communities differs from Wenger’s description of CoPs. He focuses on the commitment and contribu- tion individuals make to a subject or discipline long before they enter the professional arena. Wenger’s

Building on Wenger: Communities of practice in nursing 249

CoPs, however, reflect the motivation of those entering vocational disciplines, such as nursing, who have limited opportunities to develop true professional identity before they leave school.

The difference lies in the nature of the commu- nity. A CoP is a useful tool for collaboration and knowledge management within a mainly profes- sional or vocational context. These communities are usually time limited and thrive or die depend- ing on member engagement. A professional com- munity (such as art or music) promotes career long identification with a discipline group that does not require constant active engagement to survive.

Although Wenger et al. (2002) believe that CoPs can evolve anywhere that individual’s are drawn together by shared interests, their focus of interest is those that contribute to overall organisational development. Wenger (1998) argues that work- place CoPs evolve because individuals wish to de- velop a professional identity and fit in with their peers. He firmly believes that the desire to learn and belong arises from individual motivation and continues to develop as the result of ongoing work centred engagement and collaboration. The belief that learning arises from motivated, work based so- cial participation, is central to Wenger’s work. Kupferberg (2004), on the other hand argues that this belief is unsubstantiated and lacking in sophis- tication. Wenger (1998) assumes that individuals within a career or work discipline are motivated by an inherent and self-generated desire to learn. Kupferberg (2004) argues that Lave and Wenger (1991) consistently fail to evidence or support their original theory underpinning CoPs. He maintains that the motivation to learn in professional and vocational occupations is more complex than de- scribed by Wenger (1998) and Lave and Wenger (1991). He illustrates this point by describing the motivation levels of a group of qualified nurses, the findings of an earlier study, concluding that motivation depends on extrinsic as well as intrinsic factors (Kupferberg, 1999).

Kupferbergs’ nurses emerge into a profession that exhibits all the characteristics of ‘cultural lag’. Their expectations of professionalism and sta- tus do not match the reality. As a result, they be- come vocationally paralysed and consequently fail to move on. Psychologically, they remain ‘on the same level as when they decided to enter the pro- fession’ (Kupferberg, 2004, p. 5). He suggests that their reluctance to move forward is related to a lack of extrinsic motivation, whereas Wenger’s be- liefs are based on the idea that individuals are motivated by an intrinsic need to develop shared professional values and identity. The self-determi- nation of individuals is central to Wenger’s theory

and is also reflected in the way in which he views aspects of community engagement.

Member engagement

Wenger (1998) describes the community develop- ment process as fluid, with members leaving and joining, being more or less active at different times.

Participant passivity is re-visited in Wenger et al. (2002) where the authors review stages of ac- tive and passive engagement, revealing a paradox. At certain times, members actively choose to be passive in order to observe the interactions of other members. They conclude that active passiv- ity is reflective of real life situations, where com- munity members, like individuals generally, are more likely to be active at points of direct personal relevance. They then retreat into passive or obser- vation mode when community concerns are not di- rectly relevant to them. An apparently inactive member, however, may use their passive observa- tions elsewhere, to inform other parts of their life and work (Wenger et al., 2002).

Hildebrand (1999) observes that Lave and Wen- ger’s (1991) CoPs permit and tolerate a high degree of participant passivity. She maintains that this pas- sivity reflects Wenger’s (1998) attitude to new com- munity members. Wenger (1998) indicates that the intellectual rhythm of the community of practice remains relatively undisturbed by the introduction of new members Hildebrand (1999), however, be- lieves that the ripples are minimal because the new member ‘is simply inculcated into the current power/knowledge regime of the community’ (p. 6). Wenger (1998) strongly believes that member- ship of a CoP automatically engages the individual in active participation within both professional and social dimensions. He maintains that it is this act of engagement that forms networks and pro- vides the building blocks of professional identity.

Communities of practice in nursing

Andrew and Wilkie (2007), in an editorial debating the nature of scholarship in nursing, observe that it is not well defined and continues to be regarded by practising nurses mostly as an academic occupa- tion. They suggest that this perception exists be- cause ‘practitioners and academics operate largely within separate communities’ (p. 1). Bond and Paterson (2005) highlight the fact that academ- ics are more likely to regard communities as poten- tial research participants than research partners.

250 N. Andrew et al.

Boyer (1990), an influential American academic, believed that this view promoted elitism and dis- couraged practitioner participation. Wenger’s (1998) work promotes an ethos of learning and practice based knowledge development through ac- tive engagement in practice within a CoP.

The fact that individuals are motivated to join a CoP primarily to develop a sense of identity and belonging is central to Wenger’s (1998) belief. Learning arises out of the act of social participation and evolves through community engagement and collaboration over time. Van de Ven and Johnstone (2005) discuss the nature and function of communi- ties in education. They conclude that scholarship, if it is to be of lasting value, must harness the strengths of both academics and practitioners. In nursing, the complexity surrounding the relative positions of theory and practice means that collab- orative working is not yet fully embedded into the profession. As a way forward, scholars and clini- cians could use this approach to underpin collabo- rative professional networking and to achieve greater theory/practice alignment (Peseut, 2004; Andrew and Wilkie, 2007).

Young and Mitchell (2003) promote CoPs as a tool for transferring knowledge and developing skills. They believe that ‘communities of practice have the potential to be an organisation’s most versatile and dynamic knowledge resource’ (p. 3). As an interface between education and industry or practice, such communities may have the poten- tial to reshape professional practice and improve productivity.

Experienced nurses can potentially exploit a CoP-based approach to challenge and change out- dated care practices and manage the resulting knowledge. Through the formation and establish- ment of ‘dynamic and engaged relationships’ a CoP has the potential to bridge ‘established and emerging practices’ (Macdonald, 2002, p. 174).

Challenging practice

Macdonald (2002), debates the concept of transfor- mative unlearning and suggests that nurses will, if properly prepared, ‘unlearn a trusted nursing prac- tice’ when presented with new evidence in the form of research or guidelines (p. 171). She discov- ered few references to unlearning but reviews a range of literature to support a ‘spiral path’, de- scribed as her own journey through unlearning (p. 170). She describes unlearning as the letting go of out dated practices of the past, to allow for the understanding and deployment of new knowledge. By entering into a period of critical reflection,

the practitioner is effectively engaging in a process of unlearning, making room for new, evidence based, practices. This period of reflection acts, as a bridge between past and present.

Argyris (1991) discusses the ways in which prac- titioners can challenge, change and develop prac- tice through the medium of single and double loop learning. Single loop learning, by definition, often conveys the inability of professionals to examine their own behaviour when confronted by challenges to cherished views and opinions. Profes- sionals nurture and protect a body of knowledge. When that knowledge is challenged, the resulting defensive and protective attitude may in the long term inhibit rather than promote learning. Double loop learning on the other hand, encourages chal- lenge and urges practitioners to participate in the design and action of change through open explora- tion, collaboration and evaluation (Argyris, 1991).

A CoP is a democratic way of working, encourag- ing shared leadership and working, therefore, increasing the likelihood of double loop learning occurring. Educators, practitioners and researchers in nursing can potentially collaborate within this framework to underpin change in practice and dis- seminate the knowledge at local and national lev- els (Macdonald, 2002).

Practice development

Kitson (2006), a respected nursing academic, be- lieves that a lack of willingness to engage, invest in and nurture nursing academic/practice partner- ships has contributed, in part, to the perception of nursing as a discipline whose infrastructure is still emerging. Reflecting on the professional standing of nursing, she observes that theory/practice inte- gration remains the principle challenge. Individual nurses continue primarily to identify with either education or practice but rarely with both. This partisan attitude may arise, in part, because nurses still do not feel that they either have, or are given, the skills that are necessary to integrate theory and practice (Roxburgh, 2006).

Rolfe (2005) in a robust, opinion led article ar- gues that the way in which the majority of nurses may want to assess, enhance and subsequently change practice has been downgraded. He suggests that an outdated obsession with medical research has resulted in an erosion of the value of qualita- tive approaches. The resulting devaluation of small but (according to Rolfe), valuable studies, contain- ing a richness of data not usually achieved in quan- titative studies, has in part, contributed to practitioner apathy and antipathy (Rolfe, 2005).

Building on Wenger: Communities of practice in nursing 251

A CoP recognises the symbiotic relationship of theory and practice. Wood (2006), in an editorial on the topic of the inter-relatedness of nursing and research, observes that the research process is much more than simply drills and protocols. If the learning environment evolves within practice, opportunities for professional/practice develop- ment are greatly increased.

She maintains that practitioners need to see re- search and nursing together in action within a prac- tice-based environment.

From 2000–2003, 30 practising nurses, Scotland, wide, operated as a CoP within the framework of the Gerontological Nursing Demonstration Project (GNDP). They collaborated online and in real time, with university academics, to form a nursing CoP, designed to challenge outdated practice and pro- mote professional and practice development in Gerontological Nursing (Tolson et al., 2005). The community was rooted in practice, interacted on- line, on a weekly basis and authored and tested several Best Practice Statements, now widely distributed throughout Scotland (www.geronurse. com). This initiative blended the dual approaches of practitioners and academics to create a success- ful, thriving and productive CoP. Members worked together in an environment where their different approaches to practice development were valued and encouraged and not automatically pegged as a disadvantage (Booth et al., 2007). The CoP chal- lenged the traditional view of research and achieved scholarship through ‘negotiation and col- laboration between researcher and practitioner, (Van de Ven and Johnstone, 2005, p. 20).

Boyer (1990) in his influential work, Scholarship Reconsidered, encouraged academics to challenge the traditional boundaries of research, urging them to include a practitioner led element to provide findings that were directly relevant to practitioners. CoPs may not bring instant economic benefit to the host institution, their value lies in the areas of knowledge rather then economic development (Winter et al., 2000) In nursing, Booth et al. (2007) have contributed substantially to scholarship and community engagement by promoting away forward that not only involves academics and practitioners in practice change and development but expanded to include the voices of both service users and carers.

Conclusion

The nature of working in HE is changing, moving from the promotion of predominately individual goals, to an increased emphasis on engagement with both local and professional communities.

The value of such partnerships, in economic terms is unclear. In the longer term, it may be viewed in terms of research related monies that result from community endeavour; however, it is the less tan- gible contribution to knowledge development and professional learning that may prove to be their greatest asset.

As a vehicle for the creation and management of knowledge systems, CoPs have the potential to re- lease the creativity of practitioners and allow the sponsoring organisation to harvest and disseminate the knowledge they produce. The literature reveals some criticism of the Wenger’s approach to com- munity development, suggesting that a CoP is, in reality, a simplistic and unrealistic answer to a complex issue. Central to this is the concept of the development of professional identity. A CoP is primarily concerned with the development of pro- fessional identity once the individual is within a profession. In a traditional academic learning com- munity, such as art and music, talented individuals tend to emerge and are nurtured at an earlier stage in their development.

In nursing, CoPs have the potential to allow practitioners and academics to collaborate to chal- lenge and change practice. As an approach to com- munity engagement, this way of working has the potential create a vibrant work and learning envi- ronment. The fluidity of the framework encourages practitioners and academics, to integrate incre- mentally, the dimensions of research, education, clinical practice and user experience, to respond to the increasing demand for wider institutional and professional awareness.

The CoP framework offers a knowledge develop- ment and management system designed to facilitate the integration of scholarship and profes- sional practice. The quality, complexity and trans- ferability of real life, as experienced by service users and providers, can be harnessed and given voice, through collaboration with university based academics and researchers.

References

Allee, V., 2000. Knowledge communities and networks of practice, OD Practitioner. <http://www.odnetwork.org/ odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html>.

Andrew, N., Wilkie, G., 2007. Integrated scholarship in nursing: an individual responsibility or collective undertaking. Nurse Education Today 27, 1–4.

Argyris, C., 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review 69 (3), 99–109.

Barab,S.A.,Duffy,T.,1999.Frompracticefieldstocommunitiesof practice. In: Jonassen, D., Land, S. (Eds.), Theoretical Foun- dations of Learning Environments. Lawerence Erlbaum, Inc.

252 N. Andrew et al.

Bond, R., Paterson, P., 2005. Coming down from the ivory tower? Academics’ civic and economic engagement with the community. Oxford Review of Education 31 (3), 331–351.

Booth, J., Tolson, D., Hotchkiss, R., Schofield, I., 2007. Using action research to construct national evidence based nursing care guidance for gerontological nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16, 945–953.

Boud, D., Middleton, H., 2003. Learning from others at work: communities of practice and informal learning. Journal of Workplace learning 15 (5), 194–202.

Boyer, E.L., 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, New Jersey.

Buys, N., Bursnall, S., 2007. Establishing university – community partnerships: processes and benefits. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 29 (1), 73–86.

Hildebrand, G.M., 1999 Contesting learning models. Paper pre- sented at the AARE and NZARE conference, Melbourne Decem- ber 1999. <http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/hil99582.htm>.

Houldsworth, C., Mathews, P., 2000. Group performance, composition, performance and educational attainment. Edu- cation and Training 42 (1), 40–53.

Kitson, A., 2006. From scholarship to action and innovation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 55 (5), 543–545.

Kupferberg, F., 2004. Professional communities and the life history method. Paper presented at the ESREA – Conference in Rosklde. 4–7th March 2004. <http://www.esrea.org/ conferences/Esrea%202004/ESREA-papers/kupferb.pdf>.

Kupferberg, F., 1999. Kald eller profession. At intdtraede sygeplejerskerollen. Copenhagen, Nyt Nordsk Forlag.

Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning, Legitimate Peripheral Participation. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge.

Macdonald, G., 2002. Transformative unlearning: safety, dis- cernment and communities of learning. Nursing Inquiry 9 (3), 170–178.

Mitchell, J.G., 2003. Effectively structuring communities of practiceinVET,ANTA,Melbourne.<http//www.anta.gov.au>.

Peseut, D., 2004. The work of belonging [Guest Editorial]. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 36 (1), 2.

Resnick, L.B., 1987. Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher 16, 13–20.

Rolfe, G., 2005. The deconstructing angel: nursing reflec- tion and evidence based practice. Nursing Inquiry 12 (2), 78–86.

Roxburgh, M., 2006. An exploration of factors which constrain nurses from research. Journal of Clinical Nursing 15, 535– 545.

Snyder, W., 1997. Communities of practice: combining organisational learning and strategy insights to create a bridge to the 21st century. Community Intelligence labs. <http// www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/cols/shtml>.

Tolson, D., McAloon, M., Hotchkiss, R., Schofield, I., 2005. Progressing evidence-based practice: an effective nursing model?. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50 (2) 124–133.

Van de Ven, A.H., Johnstone, P.E.P., 2005. Knowledge for theory and practice. <http://webpages.csom.umm.edu/smo/ avandeven/Vandeven&Johnstone%20Know%201-25-05pdf>.

Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning Meaning and Identity, sixth ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W., 2002. A guide to managing knowledge. Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Winter, R., Griffiths, M., Green, K., 2000. The academic qualities of practice: what are the criteria for a practice-based PhD. Studies in Higher Education 25 (1), 25–37.

Wood, M.J., 2006. Nursing practice research and evidence based practice. Clinical Nursing Research 15 (2), 83–85.

Young, S., Mitchell, J. 2003. Putting more practice into communities of practice. Paper presented at Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association (AVETRA) Conference, Australian Technology Park, Sydney, 10th April 2003.

.sciencedirect.com

Available online at www