Recent approaches in social sciences have recognized the nature of learning as a collaborative social process (Lave & Wenger 1991). Similarly, within coaching, interactive experience has been identified as a principal knowledge source for practitioners (Jones et al., 2004). This is because much of what a new coach learns is through “ongoing interactions with specific individuals within practical coaching contexts” (Cushion et al., 2006, p.217). In this sense, Sfard’s (1998) participation metaphor of learning (Sfard, 1998) would appear to clearly resonate. Similarly, Wenger’s (1998) notion of 'communities of practice' (CoP) has recently been espoused as a means to promote experiential-led exchanges and their subsequent learning generation (Culver & Trudel, 2006). A CoP is defined as “a group of people, who share a common concern, set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al, 2002, p.4). It has also been suggested that learning and knowledge are acquired through involvement in activity as well as interaction with others; what Lave and Wenger (1991) describe as situated learning. Such learning involves legitimate peripheral participation as an initial form of membership characteristic of a particular community. Here, the “acceptance by, and interaction with, acknowledged adept practitioners make learning legitimate and of value from the point of view of apprentice” (Lave & Wenger, 2006, p.30). In others words, to become a member of CoP requires access to a wide range of ongoing activity, including opportunities for participation (Lave & Wenger, 2006).

However, this process of coaches becoming ‘full’ participants in practice communities can also be seen as an embodiment of mutual engagement, inclusive of inherent tensions and challenges (Wenger, 1998). However, similar to any other social group, CoPs are not devoid of power relations and, consequently, may not be particularly welcoming structures or ‘sharing knowledge’ enablers (Rynne, 2008; Wenger et al., 2002). This has emerged as a particularly problematic issue when establishing coaches’ CoPs. It also explains why the success of coaches’ CoP is largely dependent on the workings of facilitators in developing a perception of relevance and involvement among participants (Cassidy et al., 2006; Culver & Trudel, 2006); what Wenger et al. (2002, p.8) described as “the vitality of the leadership”. Such leadership has been conceptualised as encouraging “full participation, promoting mutual understanding and cultivating shared responsibility” (Kaner, 2007, p.32). Despite such recognition, a dearth of research exists examining the complexities inherent in establishing, developing and facilitating such a social learning environment. The aim of this study was to examine how facilitators assist coaches move and integrate from being peripheral to increasingly engaged and accepted participants thus further generating the vitality of a learning community of practice. 

Cassidy, T., Potrac, P., & McKenzie, A. (2006). Evaluating and Reflecting Upon a Coach Education Initiative: The CoDe of Rugby. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 145-161. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. Culver, D., M., & Trudel, P. (2006). Cultivating coaches’ communities of practice: Developing the potential for learning through interaction. In R.L.Jones (Ed.), The sports coach as educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching (pp. 97-112). London: Routledge. Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Locating the coaching process in practice: models ‘for’ and ‘of’ coaching. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 83-99. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2003). Reconstructing the relationship between universities and society through action research. In N.Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 131-166). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures. London: Routledge. Kaner, S. (2007). Facilitator's guide to participatory decision making. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kemmis, S. (1988). Action Research. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook (pp. 42-49). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2006). Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice. In R. McCormick & C. Autor Paechter (Eds.), Learning & knowledge. London: Sage Publications. Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: The Falmer Press. Rynne, S. B. (2008). Clarifying the Concept of Communities of Practice in Sport: A Commentary. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(1), 11-14. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, March, 4-13. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: University press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Massachusets: Harvard Business Press.