I often mentor groups who attempt to form communities of practice but, for reasons often beyond their control, they do not achieve a fundamental purpose of such communities – the sharing of practice. Instead, members hold back, happy to share general information, but reluctant to disclose and interrogate aspects of their practice, such as how their beliefs about learners and teaching.

With such groups, I suggest they value what they are achieving and not see themselves as failures. In many cases, the group is operating like a network, not a community of practice, and networks are also to be valued. A network is not inferior to a community of practice – it is just different. Let’s look at the definitions of both.

To clarify the unique features of networks, Wenger and Snyder (2000) distinguish between networks and three other work structures, as follows:

• work teams deliver a product or service;
• project teams seek to accomplish a specific task;
• communities of practice develop members’ capabilities and exchange knowledge;
• networks collect and pass on knowledge.

The above definition of networks is too narrow, according to Cohen and Prusak (2001, p.56), who find that both networks and communities of practice are groups of people brought together by common interests, experiences, goals, or tasks; and both imply regular communication and bonds characterised by some degree of trust and altruism.

However, Cohen and Prusak (2001 p.56) believe that networks are different to communities of practice in a number of ways:

• communities of practice are harder to organise, maintain and sustain, and are often intense, high-effort and short-term
• networks are simpler to organise, rely mostly on mutual needs and are often long-lasting.

Networks are also different to communities of practice in other ways:

• communities of practice enforce norms but networks are often too diffuse to do so;
• communities of practice have a type of closed membership while networks are open;
• and communities of practice have a shared domain of knowledge while networks are less concentrated in their focus (Cohen and Prusak 2001, p.56).

While networks are different to communities of practice, they are of value to both the individual and organisations:

Though network building mainly happens between individuals, it contributes to an organisation’s social capital. Many of the benefits individuals derive from networks and communities – a sense of membership and purpose, recognition, learning and knowledge – can also pay huge benefits to the organisation (Cohen and Prusak 2001, pp.60-61).

Networks are not inferior to communities of practice. Both have high value. Both are needed in VET.