Communities of Practice and Practice Preservation: A Case Study

Conference paper


Several studies stressed that communities of practice support organizational learning, innovation, and the development of members’ capabilities. People engaged in a technology-based community of practice do not just “use” a specific technology and its artefacts in order to achieve a given purpose or exploit a function. They recognise themselves as community members and share common values, ideas, knowledge, and opinions about the technological artefacts around which their community is built. The literature agrees that technological change might produce innovative dynamics within these communities by affecting the routines and practices of their members. However, technology change could encourage some people to build a community of practice in order to preserve the practice that took place before technological substitution. In this regard, people community as an instrument to preserve knowledge, rather than to create new. This study offers a preliminary delimitation of the concept of “practice preservation” and reports a study based on inductive approach in order to investigate this phenomenon: the case of MAME community.


Game Player Knowledge Creation Virtual Community Technology Substitution Videogame Industry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science 2(1): 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Brothers. New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, P. and Tushman, M.L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs – a cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schiavone, F. (forthcoming). User Innovation e Cambiamento Tecnologico nelle Tribù High-Tech. Mercati e Competitività.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook, D.N. and Brown, J.S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Studies 10: 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breton, P. (1995). L’utopie de la Communication: L’émergence de L’homme Sans Intérieur. La Découverte, Paris.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinreich, F. (1997). Establishing a point of view toward virtual communities. CMC Magazine, 3(2).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henri, F. and Pudelko, B. (2003). Understanding and analyzing activity and learning in virtual communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19: 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharratt, M. and Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge-Sharing in Online Communities of Practice. Journal on Knowledge Management 1: 187–195.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alvino. F., Agrifoglio. R., Metallo. C., Lepore, L. (2011). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: A Case Study. In A. D’Atri, M. Ferrara, J.F. George, P. Spagnoletti. Information Technology and Innovation Trends in Organizations. Springer, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katzy, B. R. and Ma, X. (2002). Virtual Professional Communities-Definitions and Typology. The 8 th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Rome, 17–19 June 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones, S. G. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. In S. G. Jones (Eds.), CyberSociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 10–35). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., and Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campbell, D.T. (1969). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution.General Systems 14: 69–85.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Marco, M. (2010). IS Research: Europe and the US. itAIS 2010 Panel, “Parthenope” University, October 2010, Naples.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Contu, A. and Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science 14(3): 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henri, F. and Pudelko, B. (2003). Understanding and analyzing activity and learning in virtual communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19: 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science 2: 14–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management DepartmentParthenope UniversityNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations