User:Compo

If you think the "early years" section should be retained, you should modify it so that it reads more clearly to readers. We are, essentially, a community of practice that each play a part in modifying and clarifying this page. As such, we each have our own role to play in ensuring this page is suitable for the general public - as any good encyclopedia should be. I removed the section because, in my opinion, it didn't contribute to an understanding of the subject. Thankk you for your consideration. March 13, 2007 Update To 'Compo' Re: 'Scientific Communities of Practice'

Dear Compo,

Unfortunately, upon broader review of your critique of our 'Scientific Communities of Practice' contribution to the 'Communities of Practice' Wikipedia site, a firestorm has erupted over your response.

While we appreciate your candor in admitting your ignorance of the field (you are to be commended for your honesty), the level of ignorance about scientific CoPs itself is not comforting.

Therefore, at close of business today, we intend to post a 'Communities of Practice (The Scientific Perspective)' contribution (as shown below) to the 'Communities of Practice' Wikipedia site, as Item number 3 in the Contents (below 'Communities of Practice').

As of today, our intention is to limit our regular updating of communities of practice research to the 'Communities of Practice (The Scientific Perspective)' section.

At the same time, we have noticed several other sections of the "Communities of Practice' site that appear very out-of-date to us, in a narrative style that is not scientific in nature: Therefore, if we are not welcomed as full collaborators to the current CoP site, then we will begin to offer more scientifically-accurate contributions to the totality of the CoP Wikipedia site.

Thanks again for contacting us. We look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely, stevenson-perez

[PROPOSED SUBMISSION TO COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE SITE (3RD LINE IN CONTENTS)]:

Communities of Practice (The Scientific Perspective)

As revealed in the latest Snyder & Souza-Briggs “Communities of Practice” research publication ( [1] ), all communities of practice (CoPs) steward the knowledge-assets of organizations and societies: Scientific CoPs are no exception in this regard.

The detailed scientific analysis of the unique applications of knowledge-assets that take place within scientific communities of practice has become an area of intense research in recent years; particularly as many western nations begin to transition into Science & Technology Information Age economies. As Coakes & Clark make clear in their latest 2006 communities of practice research ( “Communities of Practice In Information & Knowledge Management” [ [2] ] ), the proper application of knowledge-assets by pertinent communities of practice has suddenly become a central business concern of many modern societies.

Said another way, the specific approaches utilized by scientific CoPs in the development and the application of their scientific knowledge-assets is rapidly becoming the new economic engine of many former Industry-based nations, as they transition into Science-Based Societies.

Obviously, ‘what really works’ in the operation of scientific CoPs, and ‘what doesn’t work’ -- as scientific organizations and societies attempt to create and manage new scientific knowledge -- is a topic that demands rigorous scientific investigation.

The most immediately-distinguishing factor about scientific communities of practice, is that all scientific CoPs are unified, and readily distinguishable from all other CoPs, by their strict adherence to the use of the scientific method in the day-to-day operations that create and manage scientific knowledge:

1. By definition, all scientific CoPs develop and steward scientific knowledge-assets; after all, the Latin root for ‘science’ means ‘having knowledge’. All scientific organizations are knowledge management organizations.

2. Almost without exception, scientific CoPs also steward the learning-assets of their organizations: Again, by definition, all succesful scientific research organizations must possess a vibrant CoP learning-asset dimension. All scientific research organizations engage in organizational learning, as they create new scientific knowledge.

3. In addition, scientific CoPs almost universally steward suffering-abatement-assets that are used daily by the organization. As an example, consider the stated mission of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to ensure the safety & efficacy of all American drug products & medical devices: All legally-authorized medical organizations in the U.S. (and in most Western nations) have counter-part scientific CoP dimensions to respond to this federal mandate. Other examples of this same principle include all nuclear energy research facilities, aircraft manufacturers, and nanomolecule design organizations, that have similar responsiblities to promote the safety and quality-of-life of citizens worldwide.

Scientific CoPs in the United States demonstrate 3 additional characteristics in their operation that are remarkable:

1. Ever since the release of the Snyder & Souza-Briggs “Community-of-Practice” research (and their articulation of the landmark CoP definition, as cited above) scientists now understand that their scientific CoPs are always operating (24/7). All grant-funded science in the U.S., especially government-supported clinical medicine organizations, always operates in a scientific CoP setting.

2. Scientific CoPs operate principally at the informal organizational level, not at the formal, legal, and administrative levels of organizational structure. The human interactions that steward the knowledge-assets, the learning-assets and the suffering-abatement assets of scientific CoPs can usually not be located in the organizational “org-chart” of formal roles and responsibilities, but rather at the informal level of professional interactions for ‘how things really get done’ in the organization.

3. The quality of the knowledge-assets, learning-assets, and suffering-abatement assets of any given scientific CoP can be measured scientifically. The U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) has acknowledged the importance of precisely measuring the quality of the CoP assets stewarded by U.S. scientific organizations in such initiatives as its NIST Baldrige National Quality Program Health Care Criteria ( [[3]] ).

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also recently acknowledged the validity and the power of the scientific communities of practice approach to measuring the 'value' of NIH-sponsored scientific research with the launching of the new Office of Behavioral & Social Science Research intiative (see page 5 of the NIH "Healthier Lives Through Behavioral & Social Sciences Research" Report { [4] } ).

The American academic community is now insisting that the formal application of best-practices in the operation of scientific communities of practice must start early in the education of young scientists. Examples of ongoing research in this promising area of early childhood education in basic scientific CoP principles include Northwestern University’s “Bootstrapping a Community of Practice: Learning Science by Doing Projects in a High School Classroom Program” [5].

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has recently become even more strident in this regard, insisting that the scientific community must actively pursue the creation of more-useful communities of practice in science & technology on a global scale [6]: This new scientific CoP focus by the National Academy of Science falls under its high-priority Science & Technology for Sustainability (STS) Program [7].