Bible Translation Communities of Practice

Posting this paper on Bible Translation Communities of Practice in case it is of help to anyone involved in leading or participating in CoPs of various kinds (including MAP).

Abstract: There are currently several initiatives to bring Bible Translation practitioners together and facilitate learning from each other, often across organisational and geographical divides, and using various different mediums. Many of these could be classified as Communities of Practice, that is, groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2015). However, the number and variety of these communities can make it hard to know what is available and which to prioritise.

This paper begins by reviewing the Community of Practice concept, and then surveys several existing options in the domain of Bible Translation, in order to classify them according to various parameters and summarise their distinct contributions.  Second, the paper reviews the benefits and concerns related to participating in such Communities of Practice, based on questionnaire responses from Bible Translation practitioners, in order to identify factors that influence or hinder success, and propose best practice recommendations for future development and maintenance of these vital networks.

---

Extracted text from Bible_Translation_Communities_of_Practice.pdf:

Bible Translation Communities of Practice DRAFT for BT Conference 2021 presentation Phil King

1. Introduction When I started a new role coordinating Bible Translation Training and Development for SIL in October 2020, I quickly discovered expectations that I would participate in various existing communities of practice related to Bible Translation, but also create a number of new ones. As I started exploring this it raised a number of questions, which have in turn prompted this paper: what is a Bible Translation Community of Practice and what makes it different from other networks or teams? What makes a Community of Practice successful? What is already in existence, and in what situations would it be wise (or unwise) to create a new one? This paper represents some of my thoughts in working through these questions, reflecting on my own experiences of starting and leading Communities of Practice (COPs), most recently on Bible Translation Training and Development, from the general literature, and from sending out a questionnaire to find out the opinions of Bible translation practitioners.1 It begins by presenting some of the key concepts related to COPs, and then introduces some of the results from the survey about current Bible Translation COPs. This is followed by an exploration of some of the value tensions that need to be navigated in Bible Translation COPs, and ends with a set of best practice recommendations for those who participate in, or lead, such communities.

1.1. What is a Community of Practice? The concept of a community of practice emerged from research into what made apprenticeships successful for learning, in which the living curriculum of horizontal, peer-to-peer relationships among apprentices were found to be very important for learning, alongside the hierarchical relationship between apprentice and teacher. This aligns well with a social theory of learning, which says that we develop and grow best in collaboration with others, rather than individually. These insights led to an interest in developing such peer-oriented, self-governed learning communities even where there was not an official apprenticeship programme. Communities of practice are now typically defined as groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2015). This definition highlights three important aspects: the domain (the existence of a shared concern or passion); the community (that engages and interacts with each other); and the practice (a body of knowledge and resources related to the domain, often called the repertoire).

The questionnaire had 53 responses, though the sample was based on my own connections and communities of practice in which I participate.

1

An important aspect of COPs is that of identity. As Wenger (2010, 2) notes, learning is not just acquiring skills and information; it is becoming a certain person. On the one hand, when someone chooses to participate in a Community of Practice, they are voluntarily choosing to identify with that particular group of practitioners. On the other hand, participation in the community shapes participants imagination of what a (Bible Translation) practitioner is and how they behave. This aspect is sometimes described as a cognitive apprenticeship (eg. Dennen and Burner 2008), enabling junior members of the community to learn how to think and behave as they watch the interactions of others and their approaches to problem-solving and relationships. It is also useful to recognize different levels of participation in a COP, from those who are outside the community, or peripheral (only connecting very sporadically), then those who are occasional participants, those who are regularly active in the community, and finally those who form the core, without whom the COP would struggle to exist.2 Participants may move between these levels depending on their interest from time to time, and whether there is something particularly pressing for them that might make them more active. Recognising these levels and the natural ebb and flow in community participation is important to set appropriate expectations for those planning relevant COP activities.

1.2. Why Communities of Practice? Those who promote Communities of Practice note several reasons for having these community structures alongside more traditional organisational work teams. These include:: Providing support to members of the community; Improving thinking as members collaborate together; Developing understanding of what matters to practitioners in this domain; Making connections between practitioners with similar roles across different organisations or geographical contexts (and thus avoiding silos, where similar problems are worked on without the benefit of cross-fertilisation of ideas and approaches); 2

Terminology and image are based on Webber (2016).



Developing a repertoire of shared knowledge and shared practice (such as case studies, or solutions to recurring problems); Building leadership capacity for those participants who grow in confidence through peripheral participation and take on increasingly active membership.

1.3. Types of Community of Practice Looking specifically at Bible Translation COPs, the survey revealed a wide variety of ways that people are interacting regularly and learning to do their roles better. This variety can be described according to some of the parameters listed in the following sections.

1.3.1 Domain First, there are different types of Community of Practice based on the domain.

Broad scope: Some COPs have a very broad scope. For example, the BT List,3 a google group hosted at groups.sil.org, is open to any topics related to BT and Scripture Use (BT List FAQ). Similarly, the MAP (Modular Aggregation of Principles for Bible Translation)4 site has a broad scope for questions and resources related to Bible translation at the broadest level. Broad scope COPs have the benefit of providing a single access point for wide ranging discussion, but may end up with a large membership (diminishing the sense of camaraderie between members), many of whom may lurk on the periphery, as a lot of the topics covered may be irrelevant to their particular concerns. Narrow scope: Other COPs have a narrower focus. For example, a group for Sign Language consultants, or a Hebrew Reading group. The narrower focus means that those who participate are more likely to be active and committed, but it can be difficult to find enough core participants to make the group viable. For example, the BTOT and BT Consultants Google groups have not had enough interaction to thrive alongside the broader BT list. Whilst a narrower scope can enable the group to be more focused in the topics that are addressed, and build closer relationships between participants, there is a possibility of missing conversations on the boundary of this area of practice that might be beneficial.

1.3.2. Community Another set of factors revolve around the people involved to make up the community. Number of organisations involved: Some COPs are restricted to members of only one organisation (such as UBS, PBT or SIL) and sometimes an organisational email address is needed for access. Others are deliberately designed for practitioners to relate across agencies, which brings added benefits for collaboration, but may raise challenges for deciding who is allowed to participate, in order to ensure a safe space for discussion. Openness for others to join: Some COPs are open for anyone to join in, such as the MAP site which anyone can sign up for. This creates a welcoming environment and the possibility for a wide diversity of views, but participants need to be aware of the 3 4

To participate, email BT+subscribe@groups.sil.org. To participate, visit map.bloomfire.com.



potential for anyone in the public to view their interactions. Many other COPs have some kind of gatekeeper policy, so that others are welcome to join, but they need to go through an approval process. This is the approach used by EMDC online and the BT list. A third kind of COP is a closed group, for example, only open people with a certain role, such as the COP for SIL Eurasia Consultants. Size: COPs also vary in size, from less than 10 (for example in a Biblical Language reading group) to several hundred (on the BT List, MAP or EMDC online). Leadership: The COP may be very closely directed by its leadership, facilitated with a light touch of moderation, or allowed to be an open free-for-all, where members can do whatever they like.

1.3.3. Interaction The kind of community interaction also varies from one COP to another: Timing of interaction: Some COPs are based around synchronous interaction, in which everyone meets together at the same time, such as the Bible Translation Training and Development COP using EMDC online. This has advantages for ensuring everyone is on the same page, but can be very complicated to manage without privileging a subset of the group if people from different time zones are included. Other COPs are asynchronous, allowing participants to interact when they want to, which mitigates some of the time zone issues. These are typically written forums using web platforms, email, facebook, Whats App or other social media. Mode and platform for interaction: Some COPs emphasise face-to-face interaction (for example, a monthly lunch meeting to discuss translation issues), whereas many are primarily online, whether through virtual conferencing or discussion forums. Where a COP is hosted on an online forum (such as MAP or the BT list) there is usually a way to receive alerts about new content via email, but the growing repertoire of past responses is easy to access through the online platform. Digital natives may be more likely to participate on social media platforms or web forums, rather than email. Formality: Some COPs are more formal, with perhaps clearly articulated terms of reference and agendas for interactions, whereas others are more informal, responding flexibly to the needs of participants. Frequency: To fit the definition, a COP should entail regular interaction of a group of practitioners. However, that regularity may be weekly (such as a reading group, or a cohort of Consultants-in-Training), monthly, quarterly or six-monthly.

1.3.4 Practice Finally, there are a variety of different things that participants might typically do together in a COP, and the focus may vary from one community to another. For example: Problem solving (Help! Im stuck on translating this verse) Seeking experience (Who has done self-typesetting before?) Learning skills (e.g. Paratext, reading biblical Hebrew) Discussing developments (what do you think of this new book?) Building arguments (any other examples of this to help me write my paper?) Coordination and strategy (e.g.a recently started Interagency Translation Consultant Think Tank looking to develop ways to share consultants better)

2. Successful Bible Translation Communities of Practice Having looked at these features of COPs in general, what is it that makes for successful Bible Translation Communities of Practice? This section addresses this question with input from a survey of 53 practitioners carried out in August-September 2021.

2.1. What People Appreciate First, I asked people what they appreciated about the Bible Translation COPs they belonged to, and the following themes were prominent: Building relationships with others, being able to give and receive mutual encouragement; Being sharpened by other like-minded individuals; Crowd-sourcing information: accessing diverse expertise and finding solutions together Acquiring new skills Discovering new resources and seeing new perspectives Learning how others do things These fit closely with the purposes listed in Section 1.2, and suggest that there are BT Communities of Practice that are providing a useful kind of cognitive apprenticeship.

2.2. Signs of Success Second, I asked for signs that a COP is successful. Many of the replies focused on relational aspects, such as: Active participation from community members Participants expressing encouragement, thanks and hospitality to one another Respect for all members and humility in interactions Professional agreement and disagreement Other replies emphasised more rational signs, including: Practical and concrete input, not just theoretical The opportunity to access relevant expertise A variety of perspectives being expressed and affirmed

2.3 Barriers to success On the other hand, the respondents highlighted various issues that could hinder a COP from being successful. In this case, relational aspects were most prominent. Some of the recurring themes included: Expertise without humility (dogmatism, harshness) Dominant members, sometimes repeating predictable perspectives Fear of contributing, or the potential shame of asking questions when you have a reputation that might be threatened (for example, when you are known as a consultant) Academic or inter-organizational competition Participants judging others, or not valuing contributions In-jokes being shared by one subset of the community



Dominance by a subset of the community: whether that were members from particular organisations, or particular cultures (especially Western cultures)

Other barriers were also mentioned, including: Questions that no-one answers, or a lack of feedback on someones participation Irrelevant topics A feeling of too much in any sense (long emails, boring presentations, too many people) Top-down rather than grass roots focus Censorship Poor preparation for presentations or a lack of an agenda ahead of time Logistics: Timezone issues, or limited internet connection

2.4 Suggestions for Improvement When asked for possible improvements, the following ideas were emphasised by the survey: Create more local / regional inter-agency COPs (rather than just single agency COPs at the local level and interagency COPs at the global level) Provide more support for exegetes and translators, not just consultants (whether through separate COPs, or creating a more welcoming environment for exegetes in tone and topic within existing COPs) Set accountability expectations for relational behaviour within the community Ensure there is better information about what is available and what is coming up The survey participants also identified potential gaps in the current provision of COPs (although in some cases it may be that the respondents did not know about COPs that currently exist), asking for COPs focused on Different specific language families Sign Languages Developing resources and translation helps Oral Bible Translation Working with Buddhist or Shamanistic audiences Project planning, management and leadership

3. Value Tensions in Bible Translation Communities of Practice These perspectives on successful COPs revealed several values that are in tension with each other. In particular, there are tensions between being: secure

and

welcoming

safe

and

affirming a healthy conflict of ideas

directed

and

self-governing

committed to a community

and

connected across the

landscape voluntary

and

prescribed

Typically, those participating in such communities do not want to affirm one value at the expense of the other, but rather to manage a system that affirms both values. This is something addressed by the framework of polarity management, an approach that emphasises dynamic movement within a system, looking for warning signs that we are focusing on one value at the expense of another, and taking action steps to move the system to the benefits of the opposite pole. This approach fits well with the inherently dynamic nature of Communities of Practice. These different value tensions will be explored in turn through the lens of polarity management.

3.1. Secure and Welcoming First, there is a tension between the values of being secure and being welcoming. If this tension can be managed well, a COP would be one that is easy to join, but also where participants are confident that they will not be exposed to unnecessary risk. A sign that the focus is too much on security might be when potential participants do not know the COP exists, or how to join. For example, some of the survey respondents did not know about the BT list or the COP group focused on SIgn Language Bible Translation and Language Development, and 6 of the 7 respondents who said they were not a member of any Community of Practice identified the reason as either not being aware of them or not knowing how to join. When these warning signs are observed, action can be taken to publicise the COP more widely, for example looking for public websites where the information can be posted, or advertising within practitioner networks (such as the BT Conference). However, security can still be maintained by providing a gatekeeper for those who want to join the community, even if the information about how to join is publicly accessible, which can usually be done fairly easily for online COPs. For example, Google groups can be set up to require moderator approval for someone to join; as can Facebook groups; and EMDC online provides a relatively new platform with robust controls on who is allowed onto the platform, but then easy access to content once inside. On the other hand, perhaps the focus is too much on being welcoming if COP content that was intended to be confidential has been shared inappropriately. A key action step here is to articulate clear expectations about what can be shared within and outside the COP, and make sure there is good orientation for new members of the COP, to ensure they understand the framework.

3.2. Safe and Affirming a Healthy Conflict of Ideas A second tension is between the values of safety and a healthy conflict of ideas. A successful COP is a space in which people trust each other enough to be vulnerable, but are also able to express real differences of opinion in a way that contributes to learning. The focus may be too much on the value of safety when people express concerns that they are being censored (so they do not feel able to share their real opinions), or when people are bored of participating, or if groupthink is identified, where everyone seems to be sharing the

same opinion. Some action steps to bring in more diversity of opinions could include proactively encouraging peripheral members of the group to participate, who may not agree with the majority of the community, and affirming their contributions when they do step out to say something. Group facilitators can create a safe method of sharing controversial opinions or asking questions that someone is afraid to put their name to, for example, encouraging people to send such questions or opinions to the group facilitator, who can then share them anonymously with the community. Inviting outside speakers with a different perspective can be another way to increase a diversity of voices and ideas. On the other hand, warning signs that the focus has swayed too much towards allowing a healthy conflict of ideas include: opinions being harshly dismissed; people not being willing to contribute because they are afraid of being shamed (and perhaps subcommunities that just remain silent as a result); or vocal members repeating their pet concerns in every interaction. A key action step to restore safety might be to collaboratively establish and monitor community rules for behaviour in the group if these are not already in place. Such rules are common in social media groups on platforms like Facebook, and may include statements like Be kind and courteous. Were all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Lets treat everyone with respect or Be helpful and supportive. Share this space in a constructive way. Be supportive, not judgmental, of everyone who contributes. Such rules can be worded to focus on affirming positive behaviour. It is important that these rules are owned by the group and easy for people to access. Online forums can be set up so they are easily visible, and also perhaps sent out as reminders on a semi-regular basis, whereas in synchronous meetings the community could be reminded of them explicitly when they come together. Another step to encourage safety is to make sure that all contributions are affirmed, even when you disagree with them, and to make sure that all questions receive at least some response, rather than being left unanswered.

3.3. Directed and Self-governing Third, there is a tension between the values of a directed, well-led group, and the kind of self-governed, peer-oriented community which was at the heart of the original COP concept. A successful COP is well organized, but also responds well to the learning needs of members. The COP may be focusing too much on the directed value when participants start talking about the leadership as them, for example they wont allow me to talk about this. On the other hand, where the COP is allowed to be completely self-governed, meetings may end up being cancelled, certain participants may start to dominate, or the COP may become full of irrelevant or niche content that does not connect with others in the community. A key strategy for managing this tension is to use participatory methods which involve the whole community when deciding what is important and how the COP is going to be shaped. This is often called a COP charter. In online COPs, this can be done through polls or interactive whiteboard tools like Jamboard. The charter can also be regularly reviewed through these same participatory methods, to ensure that the leadership is still facilitating the COP in line with the desires of the community.

Affirming a variety of leadership roles and spreading out the responsibilities also helps to avoid any one person becoming too directive in the management of the COP. It is also helpful to plan a deliberate transfer of these roles to others after a certain period, to ensure different voices and perspectives are shaping the facilitation of community interaction.

3.4. Committed to a Community and Connected across the Landscape Fourth, there is a tension between the values of being heavily invested in one particular COP, and being connected to many different communities across what is often called the landscape of practice. That is, good learning and support takes place when there is a landscape of different connected communities of practice, each with a sufficient core of committed members for effective learning. On the one hand, if the focus amongst the wider group of practitioners is too much on just being committed to one community, each COP may only get limited answers and miss out on relevant learning from others. On the other hand, if the focus is too much on connections across the landscape (with requests to participate in many different COPs), we may find people do not have time to participate effectively in any one community, and questions asked in a community get left unanswered because people are too busy to answer them. A first action step to manage this tension is to stay alert to unnecessary duplication. This may mean allowing COPs to end if necessary, if they are too similar to something else already in existence or emerging. It is also useful to explicitly recognize that identity is a trajectory, and to expect people to journey within and across different communities rather than staying permanently fixed in one. A final idea to manage these tensions around investment in one or many communities is to think about learning citizenship across the landscape, which will be returned to further in Section 4.

3.5. Voluntary and Prescribed A final significant tension is between the values of prescribed or voluntary membership of COPs. A successful learning environment would be one in which all practitioners are benefiting from membership within at least one Community of Practice, but that membership is voluntary rather than forced. Perhaps the best way to manage this tension is by using growth plans and organisational expectations to ensure that practitioners are members of at least one COP, and to check in with them about their level of participation. However, the choice of which COP they join and how they contribute could be left to individual choice.

4. Best practices for Communities of Practice In summary, here are nine best practice suggestions for those leading and participating in COPs related to Bible Translation. These arise from my reading and my personal experiences, and are almost all examples that I have seen done well in at least one Bible Translation COP.

4.1. Identify a guidance team In order to spread the workload, maintain diversity and ensure a COP runs smoothly, begin by identifying a guidance team. This involves:

1. Identifying the different roles needed on the guidance team. This typically includes at least: subject matter experts; community facilitators and (especially for online COPs) technical experts.
2. Making sure the community knows who is on the team, so they know who to contact with any issues, and feel safe within the community. For an inter-agency COP, it is helpful to have an inter-agency guidance team, to avoid one particular organisational position becoming dominant.
3. Planning to rotate or transfer these roles after a period of time.

4.2. Co-create a transparent community charter With a guidance team in place, they can lead a participatory approach with the wider community to explore the foundations for the COP, working together to address questions including:

1. What is the purpose of this COP? Are we clear about the domain of practice?
2. What makes this COP unique? How does it relate to other COPs already in existence, and is it necessary to start something new?
3. Who is invited or permitted to become members of this COP? Is the membership closed or open? What is the process for inviting new people? Is there some sort of approval process for new members, and how will that work?
4. What is the expected behaviour for community participants? What should happen if someone does not follow expected behaviour?
5. What are the key topics that the group will address?
6. What will be the rhythm of events or online interactions?
7. What will be the measures of whether the COP is being successful? Some of these questions could be addressed in a first COP meeting, or in the early stages of creating an online forum. For example, asking people to contribute key topics that should be discussed within the COP, which then begins to build the first elements of the communities repertoire, beginning to clarify what is important to the group. Other aspects could be explored through polls or surveys, using interactive tools like Mentimeter. Once the charter begins to take shape, it needs to be easily accessible to the community, for example within an online forum, or perhaps linked to a website that supports a face-to-face gathering. The charter also needs to be reviewed by the community on a semi-regular basis, perhaps once a year, but depending on the regularity of COP interactions. This promotes the self-governing aspect of COPs, encouraging the community to reflect and shape the way they want the COP to continue to function.

4.3 Think about identity Third, it is important to think about what you want people to become as they participate in this COP. This involves thinking about Bible Translation practice holistically. Most COPs will

want participants to be growing in understanding and skills related to Bible translation. But there may be other aspects of identity that could be affirmed through the COP that are important for work in Bible Translation, such as: Problem-solvers Respectful relaters Spiritual disciples Skilled navigators of conflict Communicators (including cross-culturally) Listeners Researchers Resilient adapters Interdependent coworkers who prioritize the agenda of others COP activities and relational expectations can then be developed that will foster this identity. For example, if the COP seeks to foster a researcher identity, activities may involve participants each investigating a particular topic and then pooling their results as a group. If the COP seeks to foster listeners, activities might include responding to other participants contributions, seeking to ensure their perspective has been understood, before interacting further.

4.4. Provide access to artefacts Fourth, think about how you will provide access to the artefacts, or repertoire, that relate to conversations within the COP. This could include recordings of previous live sessions, forums where conversations took place, or community resources that have been developed by the group. The challenge within the international BT community is doing this in a way that is easily accessible to group members, but sufficiently secure to avoid risk. For online BT COPs there are several possible platforms that are being used by different communities, such as Google groups, EMDC online or Basecamp (for the Bible Translation Network). Explore which platform works best for the purposes of the COP you are involved with.

4.5. Encourage ethical learning citizenship across the landscape Fifth, encourage ethical learning citizenship across the landscape. The Bible Translation movement was an early adopter of the Community of Practice concept, along with various other community development organisations, so there are now a wide variety of different COPs, with wide or narrow scope, in different regional contexts, and with different topics in focus, creating a rich landscape of communities. Navigating this array of different possibilities of interaction can be overwhelming for new practitioners and those who are more experienced. With this context, one way to encourage each other to thrive in our own learning journeys is to promote the concept of learning citizenship (Wenger, 2010). That is, to ask the question, how can I be a good citizen within this landscape? Some possible aspects of learning citizenship include reflecting on: How will I contribute to the different communities of which I am a participant? Will I commit to being in the core of some, but more peripheral membership in others?



How can I use my multimembership of different communities to see and bridge boundaries between them? For example, my membership of a sign language COP may enable me to spot when a general issue is only being considered from a written language perspective in a more general COP, and suggest inviting a sign language translation expert to speak into that conversation. How can I connect others into relevant communities that will help them to grow, of which they may not be aware? Are there Communities of Practice that I am in a unique position to convene? Are there ways I can affirm others who are participating in COPs of which I am a member, whether directly or sharing the value of their contributions with their supervisor?

4.6. Motivate participation Sixth, continue to motivate participation in the COPs you belong to. One approach to this is to look for ways to affirm those who participate. Some online platforms make it easy to see who has contributed a lot, or initiates interesting conversations, or responds the most to others. The MAP list has ways to view some of these statistics. Other platforms, like Facebook groups, have options to give badges to those who participate with different kinds of interaction. A more formal approach used by some organisations (Collison 2020) would be to collect stories each quarter about peoples participation and use of the COP, and then issue awards to those who have been brave enough to share a challenge, to those who have given excellent answers to questions, or to those who have used the repertoire to address an issue. These stories have the added benefit of contributing further to the communitys repertoire. Another way to motivate participation is to add some extra spice (Collison 2020), especially within COPs that have been going for a long time. One way to do this is to use some fresh and different activities in the COP. Some possible activities to try are given below, with examples that could work for a COP aimed at Consultants-in-Training: Hotseat sessions: for example, invite a consultant (or couple of consultants) to be on hand and get people to think in advance of questions they want to ask about any aspect of consulting work. In a synchronous COP, the consultant could then work through these in the session, or in an asynchronous COP they could be available to answer questions over perhaps a 48 hr period. Hot topic: for example, choose a particularly challenging topic for Bible Translation in the context of the community, and have everyone look into it beforehand, then bring their experiences and ideas to share. Problem solving: for example, use one of your existing channels to collect 'my biggest challenge' stories from members of the COP, then use synchronous sessions or online forums to collaboratively discuss solutions to one or two of them Research and discussion: for example, assign a book chapter, article, video or conference presentation for everyone to interact with then discuss takeaways and implications in breakout groups Sharing tips and resources: for example, everyone has to bring and introduce the best tip or resource they have discovered so far as a Consultant-in-Training



Learning project: for example, choose a topic you feel that you do not know much about as a community then set the challenge to the group to see what they can find out over the month and bring it to share at next meeting

Thinking about the size of your COP is also important for motivating participation. Research into communities in general, and COPs in particular, suggests that the sense of camaraderie (and associated motivation) is highest in groups with fewer than 40 people (approximately). Participation in such communities might be easier to encourage, because of the greater relational connections. COPs with more than 40 people typically need more formalised leadership, and likely require more creative effort to motivate broad participation. Subgroups or breakout conversations can bring relational benefits even to large COPs.

4.7. Stay on the learning edge Seventh, seek to stay on the learning edge, in which members are continuing to learn new aspects of practice rather than just repeating familiar perspectives. This can be facilitated by pursuing and affirming diversity within the group. One simple way to do this is to seek inter-agency COPs wherever possible, which bring an inherent diversity of perspectives. Another idea is to integrate voices from outside the community, for example by interacting with a book or presentation by someone with a very different perspective to the group, and then discussing together how it impacts on the Bible Translation practice of those within the COP.

4.8. Pursue facilitative leadership Eighth, pursue facilitative leadership. The original impetus for COPs was to create forums within which peers support each other, so they may be most successful when those leading the community seek to facilitate these peer-to-peer learning opportunities. Some practical tips include: Encourage marginal voices who may have less confidence to speak into the COP Notice unanswered questions and flag them for others to address Facilitate connections, even if you dont know the answer Monitor disruptive voices and boundary discussions which can hinder fruitful peer-to-peer learning

4.9. Retrospect regularly Finally, make sure that you regularly look back together on how the COP has been working, and check in with the community as to whether needs are being met effectively. This might reveal that the COP has fulfilled its purpose for now, and it is time to let it enter the sunset phase, in which the repertoire may remain, but few ongoing conversations.

Resources and references Dennen, Vanessa P., and Kerry J. Burner. 2008. The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology 3: 425-439. Webber, Emily. 2016. Communities of practice, the missing piece of your agile organisation. Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Owrovki73o

Webber, Emily. 2020. Social group sizes, Dunbars number and implications for communities of practice. Online at https://emilywebber.co.uk/social-group-sizes-dunbars-number-and-implications-for-com munities-of-practice/. Collison, Chris. 2020. Communities of practice. Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pxd6ixU9kk. Wenger-Trayner, Etienne and Beverly Wenger-Trayner. 2015. Introduction to communities of practice: A brief overview of the concept and its uses. Online at https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ Wenger, Etienne. 2010. Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In Social learning systems and communities of practice, pp. 179-198. Springer: London.