According to Etienne and Beverly Wenger (2015: 2), a Community of Practice is a "a group of people who share an interest, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and deepen their knowledge and expertise on that topic through ongoing interaction that strengthens their relationships".

Its members agree to interact regularly in a safe environment that encourages dialogue, the identification and analysis of problems, the exchange of ideas, and the drafting of proposals and resources to solve them. The three key dimensions of a CoP are, according to Wenger (2015): mutual commitment, a joint purpose and a shared background of knowledge and resources. See Resource (1.1)

This methodological approach is characterised by going beyond established organisational structures by promoting links between organisations and encouraging the creation of networks and/or other ways of articulation. These processes are broadened when the CoPs are developed in virtual environments, as they enable connections between many geographies (cities, countries, regions), cultures and diverse historical and organisational networks.

A CoP promotes a sense of belonging. At the same time, it requires coordination, planning and management based on a consensual and collaborative work plan. It also should be flexible and allow for changes in its agenda according to the needs of its members and the context dynamics.

“Communities of practice are dynamic social structures that require “cultivation” so that they can emerge and grow” ²

Several authors (Jubert, 1999; Wenger and Snyder, 2000; Vásquez Bronfman, 2002; Lesser and Storck, 2001; Seely Brown, 1991) have contributed to broaden and deepen the concept of CoPs. Among other aspects that characterise CoPs, the following stand out:

• Group work
• Common goals and interests
• Sense of belonging
• An environment that fosters exchange and mutual learning for the generation of action-oriented knowledge
• Sustainability over time based on a systematic and agreed-upon work plan
• Creation and implementation of practices or tasks to achieve agreed proposals. For example, preparing, implementing, evaluating and/or discussing the results of a questionnaire; sharing and analysing the expressions of gender inequalities expressions in academic organisations; discussing documents or theoretical and/or methodological approaches; preparing presentations for conferences or other events related to its main aims, etc.
• Enhanced reflexivity on practices – individually and as a group.

According to Palmen and Müller (2023), some of the aspects that make CoPs unique are:

• They are based on learning processes developed through interaction and participation, in which knowledge is built on action and action is built on knowledge.
• Their internal logic is not a top-down transfer (from the more experienced to the less experienced), but rather they generate an environment of exchange and shared learning.
• They adopt non-hierarchical relationships: their members recognise each other as peers, valuing horizontality in the exchanges and decision-making (see elements of a CoP, below).
• Implied horizontal management and conflicts are seen as part of all relationships. Hence the central role of CoP coordination is to achieve the commitment and conviction of their members as well as valuing their experiences and achievement.
• Each CoP should establish its common purpose and motivate a sense of belonging of all its members.

• Understanding and dealing with the diversity of its members (which may pose a challenge for the CoP’s existence and sustainability) is fundamental. CoPs may be integrated by people belonging to different areas/sectors of the same organisation (intra-organisational CoPs). Or they may be integrated by people representing different organisations (inter-organisational CoPs).³

  (See Resources 1.2 and 1.8)

The academic organisations that make up a CoP have different histories, cultures, resources and political visions, and this diversity may pose a greater complexity for the definition of a common agenda. Yet at the same time, it offers a wealth of experiences and knowledge that adds value to the construction of ideas and innovative practices.

“Findings also show that when CoPs were transnational, multiorganisational, and interdisciplinary, their heterogeneity did raise some challenges in relation to the divergence of members’ contexts and geopolitical idiosyncrasies and that this should be considered when designing CoPs which transcend national and organisational boundaries.” (Thomson et al. 2022: 3) (See Resource 1.4)

Both CoP modalities (intra/inter-organisational) require building bonds of trust and collaboration. The second type requires merging and/or negotiating different organisational experiences, values and cultures. Therefore, it is essential to encourage mutual learning and exchange to create a sense of community and support each other.

In this sense, belonging to a space made up by peers in HEIs and RPOs and R&IOs who are trying to promote ideas, actions, and proposals for change in their organisations can contribute to legitimise them. (See Resource 3.1)

CoPs and other types of groups:

Source: edited from Creando comunidades de práctica y conocimiento en la Universidad una experiencia de trabajo entre las universidades de lengua catalana”, Zoia Bozu y Francesc Imbernon Muñoz, http://rusc.uoc.edu (See Resource 1.1)

How to achieve these objectives?

"One size does not fit all": Each CoP has to decide or even create the type of activities that can help it achieve its objectives. Among other factors, this decision will depend on: the phase of its development (start, intermediate, final), the defined priorities and main issues; also the institutional contexts, needs and experiences, as well as the professional profiles of their members; the expertise of the CoP facilitator(s) in the use of certain group learning resources; the commitment to innovative practices to achieve change.

Considering these specific characteristics, some examples of activities that can be carried out to benefit from working in a CoP are: mutual learning; role-plays and dramatisation of problematic situations; peer discussions and exchanges analyse those experiences, among others.

See Resource 2.2

Why is the strategy of setting a CoP positive for the achievement of inclusive gender equality in HEIs and RPOs and R&IOs?

The starting point of the CoPs that aim to promote and/or foster inclusive gender equality policies in HEIs and RPOs and R&IOs organisation is that "universities are no strangers to the reproduction of a patriarchal order that, in recent decades, is being questioned, especially by students, teachers and the feminist movement as a whole" (Bonder 2022: 5). Therefore, the goal of a CoP is to contribute to promote and/or strengthen "the organisation of the gender equality approach in the framework of university policies and governance structures and the mainstreaming of the gender equality approach (in its various meanings) in all university practices" (Bonder 2022: 3).

The activities developed by each organisation with this purpose find in a CoP an environment for the exchange of experiences and the creation of strategies that legitimise transformational processes of the bureaucratic structures and organisational cultures that reproduce multiple expressions of gender inequality in these organisations. In this sense, these CoPs are double as disruptive because:

1. they stimulate the visibilisation and questioning of the power structures and dynamics that reproduce gender inequalities through explicit and subtle forms of discrimination against women and people with non-binary identities and other social groups, proposing and promoting actions to reverse them.
2. they function as non-hierarchical environments that foster collaborative learning and the creation of strategies and interventions that promote individual and collective change, in the short and long term.
3. their goals include reviewing, from an inclusive gender equality perspective, the composition of all levels of institutions: the decision-making bodies, their policies and their main processes, as well as the interpersonal relationships that contribute to discrimination and are particularly detrimental to women and other discriminated social groups.

In other words, to promote sustainable change, all these three objectives need to interact. According to Bonder (2022: 3), "It is clear that the current context demands a structural transformation of higher education, therefore, it is a moment of "opportunity" to take advantage of learning about values, competencies, interpersonal relationships and organisational cultures and knowledge of social, cultural and economic issues that have generated research and gender equality policies in these areas". (See Resource 1.9)

This requires building alliances with feminist and diversity movements in order to give legitimacy and strengthen transformative proposals.

CoPs working for inclusive gender equality necessarily trigger processes that are both political and technical. According to Palmén and Müller (2023), the members of CoPs are "agents of change" who propose alternative formal and informal organisational strategies and procedures, and in this sense are "catalysts" of "disruptive practices for real change".