Practice Contestation in and between Communities of Practice: From Top-Down to Inclusive Policymaking at the World Bank

Maïka Sondarjee
{"title":"Practice Contestation in and between Communities of Practice: From Top-Down to Inclusive Policymaking at the World Bank","authors":"Maïka Sondarjee","doi":"10.1093/isagsq/ksad071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n By focusing on like-mindedness, community of practice (CoP) scholars are often accused of downgrading issues of power and contestation. This article theorizes practice contestation as an integral part of participation in a community. Building on a relational ontology and the concept of epistemic power, I define practice contestation as tacit (practical) or discursive interventions challenging the shared background knowledge of a CoP. This process is bidirectional (pushing for and against change) and happens at two levels (within a CoP and at the boundaries with other CoPs). This framework leads to four types of practice contestation: internal disruption, internal resistance, external pressure, and external resistance. These concomitant types of contestation participate in the constant fluctuations of international practices and social orders. Methodologically, this article looks at the CoP of World Bank’s senior managers and their boundaries with other communities, and it builds on interview material and archival documents collected between 2017 and 2020.","PeriodicalId":380017,"journal":{"name":"Global Studies Quarterly","volume":"67 7-8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksad071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

By focusing on like-mindedness, community of practice (CoP) scholars are often accused of downgrading issues of power and contestation. This article theorizes practice contestation as an integral part of participation in a community. Building on a relational ontology and the concept of epistemic power, I define practice contestation as tacit (practical) or discursive interventions challenging the shared background knowledge of a CoP. This process is bidirectional (pushing for and against change) and happens at two levels (within a CoP and at the boundaries with other CoPs). This framework leads to four types of practice contestation: internal disruption, internal resistance, external pressure, and external resistance. These concomitant types of contestation participate in the constant fluctuations of international practices and social orders. Methodologically, this article looks at the CoP of World Bank’s senior managers and their boundaries with other communities, and it builds on interview material and archival documents collected between 2017 and 2020.
实践社区内部和之间的实践争议:世界银行从自上而下到包容性决策
实践社群(CoP)的学者们经常被指责贬低权力和争议问题,因为他们只关注志同道合者。本文将实践争论理论化,将其视为参与社群不可或缺的一部分。在关系本体论和认识权力概念的基础上,我将实践竞争定义为挑战 CoP 共享背景知识的隐性(实践)或话语干预。这一过程是双向的(推动变革和反对变革),发生在两个层面上(一个合作体内部和与其他合作体的边界)。这一框架导致了四种类型的实践竞争:内部干扰、内部阻力、外部压力和外部阻力。这些相伴而生的竞争类型参与了国际实践和社会秩序的不断波动。在方法论上,本文以 2017 年至 2020 年间收集的访谈材料和档案文件为基础,研究了世界银行高级管理人员的 CoP 及其与其他社群的边界。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信