At my institution, I have recently been asked to initiate and facilitate a community of practice comprising people who work in inter-, multi-, cross-, and transdisciplinary ways (hence the name ‘X’-disciplinary Community of Practice, to capture all this variety). This is intended as a formal community of practice, distinct from the informal community that has grown up within my own department, comprising people who happen to work in this way and stay in touch so we can exchange tips and resources. A couple of years ago, that group in my department banded together with a handful of contacts from across the institution (and a few folks from further afield) and met regularly under the banner of the ‘Transdisciplinary Pedagogy Network’ — a group not officially sanctioned or supported by the university, and with no formal membership. I think it qualifies as more of an open knowledge network. (I have to laugh because the ‘X-disciplinary CoP’ is supposedly more formal and structured than the TPN — and although it may be *on paper*, it isn’t in practice, which just goes to show that these things are better off evaluated by what they do, and how, than by what they are called…) At our institution, we also have a research centre dedicated to transdisciplinary work, and we teach an increasing number of modules/programmes about and for this way of thinking. I would say that the centre — and perhaps the university as a whole — strives to be a formal knowledge hub. Given that there is also a whole new university (in London) dedicated to interdisicplinary practice, I could imagine that some colleagues in this space might hope that the UK could develop into an even bigger knowledge hub.
It is interesting to use this classification system as a lens through which to evaluate my own work. Each of the different groups and stages has looked, felt, and operated differently, and this framework helps me think about why. I can also see some parallels with the Mastodon instance I was reflecting on in the comment quoted above.
Interesting exercise, it made me think differently.
✅ Formal community
I am part of an 18-month cohort where we meet five times for ten days in five different cities around the world to learn about Gestalt and intervening in systems. This is the first example that comes to mind as formal because we purposefully created and invested time in building our community.
At the same time, we have a formal mini-community with friends focused on offering help to host events, mostly using Open Space Technology (OST).
In this context, we are very intentional and clear about our boundaries.
✅ Informal community
Again, I think about OST or any participative space where I am simply a passing contributor or just a listener, or when I attend a meetup.
For me, informal communities have a stronger relationship with time, as we almost know they will end (whereas formal ones seem more likely to persist). So, interactions have a different nature and power dynamic.
✅ Open knowledge network
This seems organic; we reach out to our network for learning, or we do not even know what we will learn. I notice this when I meet someone new and am curious about them.
I have also seen this at work in the past during crisis management sessions, where people with different backgrounds gather to try to understand what is happening from multiple fragmented perspectives in order to integrate them.
✅ Formal knowledge hub
This can be considered a source of authority. The image I have is of a cathedral, where people are gathered together.
I have regular meetings with certain people to get information about what is happening in specific fields and how they are developing. I trust these people and their data.
What stands out for me is the perception of time, which seems to be part of the distinction. This leads to effort and investment, as there is a cost to maintaining structure over time.
The learning for me is community can be short time bounded. I always associated the word community with long time commitment.
I appreciate what is shared (fr Caitlin) – ” I wonder whether the degree of formality has perhaps changed (or might change) over time — and also whether different contributors or visitors would experience it differently as formal vs informal?”
1. FORMAL COMMUNITY – The food recovery/rescue organization of which I volunteer – Daily Bowl (DB) – https://dailybowl.org/ – is a formal community, with specific roles and responsibilities among the various teams in our organization. And we have partner donors and recipients, of which we also have frameworks, systems, and processes among us as part of our interactions and engagements.
Meanwhile, I learned that because of DB’s success in the space of food recovery and distribution, there are efforts to begin training other non-profit organizations and businesses, as well as facilitating networking (e.g., food donors, food recipients). And DB has been invited to other parts of the U.S. to share its story and growth. I’m curious if DB will evolve into an Open Knowledge Network.
2. INFORMAL COMMUNITY – I’ve been part of an online community – Women in PKM – since Dec 2023. It was started by a friend of mine, who hosts monthly online meetings. She also has a social platform space for asynchronous interactions. It’s a bottom-up, word of mouth group. It’s loosely structured, however, we do tend to talk about are personal knowledge management endeavors.
3. OPEN KNOWLEDGE NETWORK – Family Caregiver Alliance (FCA) – https://www.caregiver.org/ – is a San Francisco based organization with early roots shaping not only regional but also contributing nationally to the evolving family caregiver space. I appreciate their online resources and events. (They are among California’s Caregiver Resource Centers – https://www.caregivercalifornia.org/.)
4. FORMAL KNOWLEDGE HUB -Energy Central – https://energycentral.com/ – is not only part curator of news and author of original articles but also includes special interest networks (e.g., generation, energy management, environmental & sustainability, grid, intelligent utility) among the community. They have both membership and non-membership content, which includes webinars and articles. It’s interesting that within the community, they do have an identifier/status – member, expert, influencer – for each folk in the community.
At my institution, I have recently been asked to initiate and facilitate a community of practice comprising people who work in inter-, multi-, cross-, and transdisciplinary ways (hence the name ‘X’-disciplinary Community of Practice, to capture all this variety). This is intended as a formal community of practice, distinct from the informal community that has grown up within my own department, comprising people who happen to work in this way and stay in touch so we can exchange tips and resources. A couple of years ago, that group in my department banded together with a handful of contacts from across the institution (and a few folks from further afield) and met regularly under the banner of the ‘Transdisciplinary Pedagogy Network’ — a group not officially sanctioned or supported by the university, and with no formal membership. I think it qualifies as more of an open knowledge network. (I have to laugh because the ‘X-disciplinary CoP’ is supposedly more formal and structured than the TPN — and although it may be *on paper*, it isn’t in practice, which just goes to show that these things are better off evaluated by what they do, and how, than by what they are called…) At our institution, we also have a research centre dedicated to transdisciplinary work, and we teach an increasing number of modules/programmes about and for this way of thinking. I would say that the centre — and perhaps the university as a whole — strives to be a formal knowledge hub. Given that there is also a whole new university (in London) dedicated to interdisicplinary practice, I could imagine that some colleagues in this space might hope that the UK could develop into an even bigger knowledge hub.
It is interesting to use this classification system as a lens through which to evaluate my own work. Each of the different groups and stages has looked, felt, and operated differently, and this framework helps me think about why. I can also see some parallels with the Mastodon instance I was reflecting on in the comment quoted above.
Interesting exercise, it made me think differently.
✅ Formal community
I am part of an 18-month cohort where we meet five times for ten days in five different cities around the world to learn about Gestalt and intervening in systems. This is the first example that comes to mind as formal because we purposefully created and invested time in building our community.
At the same time, we have a formal mini-community with friends focused on offering help to host events, mostly using Open Space Technology (OST).
In this context, we are very intentional and clear about our boundaries.
✅ Informal community
Again, I think about OST or any participative space where I am simply a passing contributor or just a listener, or when I attend a meetup.
For me, informal communities have a stronger relationship with time, as we almost know they will end (whereas formal ones seem more likely to persist). So, interactions have a different nature and power dynamic.
✅ Open knowledge network
This seems organic; we reach out to our network for learning, or we do not even know what we will learn. I notice this when I meet someone new and am curious about them.
I have also seen this at work in the past during crisis management sessions, where people with different backgrounds gather to try to understand what is happening from multiple fragmented perspectives in order to integrate them.
✅ Formal knowledge hub
This can be considered a source of authority. The image I have is of a cathedral, where people are gathered together.
I have regular meetings with certain people to get information about what is happening in specific fields and how they are developing. I trust these people and their data.
What stands out for me is the perception of time, which seems to be part of the distinction. This leads to effort and investment, as there is a cost to maintaining structure over time.
The learning for me is community can be short time bounded. I always associated the word community with long time commitment.
I appreciate what is shared (fr Caitlin) – ” I wonder whether the degree of formality has perhaps changed (or might change) over time — and also whether different contributors or visitors would experience it differently as formal vs informal?”
1. FORMAL COMMUNITY – The food recovery/rescue organization of which I volunteer – Daily Bowl (DB) – https://dailybowl.org/ – is a formal community, with specific roles and responsibilities among the various teams in our organization. And we have partner donors and recipients, of which we also have frameworks, systems, and processes among us as part of our interactions and engagements.
Meanwhile, I learned that because of DB’s success in the space of food recovery and distribution, there are efforts to begin training other non-profit organizations and businesses, as well as facilitating networking (e.g., food donors, food recipients). And DB has been invited to other parts of the U.S. to share its story and growth. I’m curious if DB will evolve into an Open Knowledge Network.
2. INFORMAL COMMUNITY – I’ve been part of an online community – Women in PKM – since Dec 2023. It was started by a friend of mine, who hosts monthly online meetings. She also has a social platform space for asynchronous interactions. It’s a bottom-up, word of mouth group. It’s loosely structured, however, we do tend to talk about are personal knowledge management endeavors.
3. OPEN KNOWLEDGE NETWORK – Family Caregiver Alliance (FCA) – https://www.caregiver.org/ – is a San Francisco based organization with early roots shaping not only regional but also contributing nationally to the evolving family caregiver space. I appreciate their online resources and events. (They are among California’s Caregiver Resource Centers – https://www.caregivercalifornia.org/.)
4. FORMAL KNOWLEDGE HUB -Energy Central – https://energycentral.com/ – is not only part curator of news and author of original articles but also includes special interest networks (e.g., generation, energy management, environmental & sustainability, grid, intelligent utility) among the community. They have both membership and non-membership content, which includes webinars and articles. It’s interesting that within the community, they do have an identifier/status – member, expert, influencer – for each folk in the community.
Welcome back, Shirley!
Indeed, Harold . . . Thank you!