Using communities of practice in adult social care to build research capacity and foster best practice: a qualitative evaluation

Communities of Practice theory

Communities of Practice have been employed in social care for several years but more recently shifted from a professional to a community space to generate and share knowledge about social care practice and research (Hashem et al., 2024). The notion of COPs has been in existence for almost 30 years and was originally conceived as a mechanism to promote tacit forms of learning. Wenger (1998) argued that COPs have historically emerged organically, evolving into naturally occurring learning spaces. This typically occurs under conditions where tacit knowledge develops subconsciously within individuals and is further shaped as it becomes internalised and expressed as ‘common sense’. Wenger suggests that COPs are the prime context in which knowledge and knowledge-production are held (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002).

The constituents of COPs were re-configured from Wenger’s original discourse (1998) and re-worked around three fundamental elements that are now considered building blocks to every COP: a domain of knowledge, which defines a set of issues; a community of people who are concerned about this domain; and a shared practice whereby members are striving to be effective in their domain (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). Figure 1 demonstrates these constituents and the previous terminology. These three characteristics provide the ‘glue’ or supporting structures, connections and processes that keep COPs alive and active (Iverson & Mcphee, 2002; Iverson & McPhee, 2008).

Figure 1. The three domains of a Community of Practice.

Over time, Wenger and colleagues defined a COP as a set of people who “share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002). Wenger (1998) suggests that COPs have an inherent predisposition to deepen learning in a professional context, enabling learning to be embedded into the goals of an organisation. Wenger (1998) argued that COPs are an organisation’s assets, aimed at generating knowledge and being hard-wired into the fabric of an organisation, despite not being formal entities in themselves. The renaissance of COPs over the last 15 years, as a way for improving organisational performance, is apparent in areas including healthcare (Ranmuthugala et al., 2011), nursing (Gullick & West, 2016), social work (Gray et al., 2010) and academic-practice partnerships (Padilla & Kreider, 2020).

The conceptualisation of COPS aligns closely with Cooke’s (2005) framework for building research capacity in healthcare which outlines six interrelated principles: developing skills and confidence; ensuring research is close to practice; fostering linkages, partnerships and collaborations; supporting dissemination; promoting sustainability; and investing in infrastructure. COPs naturally support Cooke’s (2005) emphasis on collaboration and practice-based learning, offering a dynamic environment where research capacity can be nurtured through peer support, shared goals, and an egalitarian learning environment.

Background to the COPs

The COPs evaluated in this paper were initially established to help build a research culture, inform ongoing research, and foster networks and collaborations that bring together research ideas across adult social care. This was an integral part of the Kent Research Partnership project (2021–5) based in South-East England, a collaboration with the local authority (a two-tier county council) which aimed to foster adult social care partnerships and build research capacity. It was funded by National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR)’s Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR; NIHR131373).

The process in which the COPs were formed is outlined elsewhere (Hashem et al., 2024) but included three engagement exercises with stakeholders, including informal carers and people using care and support (abbreviated to ‘care experienced’), to identify the focus (July and November 2021, and March 2022). Three key concepts underpinned the COPs: co-production; equality, diversity, inclusion and intersectionality; and practice-oriented approach. The formation and operationalisation of the COPs were planned in-person but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the engagement exercises took place exclusively online and set the direction for the COPs to be an entirely online forum over the next three years. However, all COP members were invited to join a mid-point (September 2023) and final event (May 2025) for the overall Kent Research Partnership which were held in-person; following the mid-point event, new participants joined the COPs. Two COPs were established: (a) Supporting people with complex needs throughout the lifespan (shortened to ‘Complex Needs’), and (b) Enhancing, diversifying and sustaining the social care workforce (shortened to ‘Workforce’). Both COPS co-developed aims and anticipated outcomes (Table 1).

Fifty-one COPs, including three joint ones, took place between June 2022 and April 2025. They were initially chaired by academics but this role was transferred to practitioners and a member of our Lived Experience Working Group, as part of democratising and trying to engage practitioners. Both COPs had the same format of a speaker on a specific topic relevant to its domain, followed by discussion. Initially, COPs were 1.5 hours, with two speakers but later were reduced to one hour and one speaker, aimed at increasing the attendance of frontline staff. Topics for discussions were initially driven by all participants, stipulating what topics would be helpful but as the momentum reduced, reflected in lower attendance, it fell to the Researchers in Residence - researchers embedded within the local authority partner’s adult social care team (Smith et al., 2025) - to find speakers. Topics ranged widely, with both COPs providing a forum for local researchers to present ideas and receive feedback. Examples of presenters at the Workforce COPs included representatives from strategic organisations including Skills for Care, East Kent Health and Care Partnership, National Care Forum and Kent Integrated Care Alliance. The Complex Needs COP had a wider remit including different groups (e.g. homelessness, dementia, young people leaving care, older people, learning disabilities) and a range of projects (e.g. social prescribing, footcare in care homes, enhanced technology, exercising).

Membership numbers remained high throughout, with 115 people signed up to the Complex Needs COP and 122 in the Workforce COP (with some individuals participating in both). To facilitate communication among COP members in between meetings, we also used a cloud-based platform (‘Glasscubes’) that enabled COP members to share communication and resources in one place, allowing discussion, and making it easy for COP members to contact each other. It had fewer members, 64 for Complex Needs and 69 for Workforce COP. Monthly meeting attendance was smaller, between 7023 attendees per meeting for Complex Needs and 8–28 for Workforce meetings; joint COPs had larger attendance of 30–35.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)

Kent Research Partnership had active PPI involvement and engagement throughout all aspects of the project, stemming from the overall project’s inception in 2021. A vibrant Lived Experience Working Group (Mikelyte et al., 2025) met monthly and remained active throughout, providing ongoing guidance at every stage. For example, the research questions were informed by their involvement in running and attending the COPS, and they contributed to decisions about the study design. As the study progressed beyond the design stage, the group continued to inform key elements of the evaluation through monthly discussions. This included input on the choice of interviews, recruitment strategies, and approaches to data analysis. Members of the Lived Experience Working Group also played an important role in disseminating findings through their connections with allied social care organisations and linked communities, such as the local authority’s PPI body. The study’s public co-applicant co-led the Working Group and chaired many of the Complex Needs COPs. In addition, our care-experienced co-author (CT), a regular COP member, was integral to sustaining and evaluating the COPs.

Study design

A qualitative study design was employed using in-depth interviews to explore the influences and impacts of the COPs. Interviews were selected as a pragmatic approach to capturing the views of busy practitioners/stakeholders and unpack the ‘black box’ of how COPs worked, for whom and in this setting. Online interviews were the preferred format for most participants (Bryman, 2016).

Study participants

We used a purposive sampling strategy and participants were chosen based on predefined criteria that aligned with the purpose of the study (Bryman, 2016). We wanted a balance of settings (e.g. social care, university, third sector) and disciplines including members of the public (those already involved in Kent Research Partnership and/or regular attendees, and less frequent attendees); practitioners who attended regularly, and/or have presented, or who stopped attending; researchers who attended regularly and/or presented at the COP; those in strategic roles. We emailed individuals using our mailing list (as we had prior consent to do so) with an invitation to participate as well as the participant information sheet and consent form (Abrahamson, 2025) to complete and return by email. Written informed consent was taken from each participant and a time/date for interview was arranged, with the option of online or face-to-face.

Data collection

The topic guide (Table 2) was adapted from a previous study on COPs as the context was similar, in that both involved partnerships across several organisations (Abrahamson et al., 2025). The topic guides were split into three versions for practitioners, researchers and public contributors (Abrahamson, 2025) and refined for each participant group. Overall, 21 interviews were carried out (by Author 1) in January and February 2025, with 16 online and five in-person. Online interviews were transcribed using Microsoft Teams automated transcription and reviewed by Author 1; face-to-face interviews were recorded with a digitally encrypted Dictaphone and transcribed by a transcription service.

Data analysis

Interview transcripts were imported into Nvivo 14 and coded using an inductive-deductive approach using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021), following the standard six stages: familiarisation with the data; generating and refining initial codes; searching for themes; iteratively refining and defining themes; and writing up.

Listening to the audio/MS Teams recordings enabled familiarisation with the dataset. We kept reflective notes (e.g. thoughts, feelings, questions per interview and across the dataset) and tabulated the main points per interview including context (e.g. work setting), learning (e.g. topic specific) and outcomes (e.g. networking opportunities).

This led to generating initial codes in Nvivo whereby two researchers (Authors 1 and 2) independently coded three transcripts, using a hybrid process of inductive (based on the data) and deductive coding (literature and topic guide) (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Coding decisions were compared before all relevant data from the remaining transcripts were coded. Each code and sub-code were given a main label and a descriptor in Nvivo. Refining, describing and organising codes was an iterative process, pausing with each iteration to interrogate coding decisions and uncertainties. Each iteration was exported as an MS Word document, maintaining an audit trail. Comments on coding decisions were recorded using the annotations feature of Nvivo; memos were used to record reflections linked to a particular interview and/or (sub-) code. This led to developing themes and theoretical understanding across the dataset. We continued until we reached a level of coding saturation, when no additional issues were identified (Hennink et al., 2017) and the framework appeared to capture all data.

Thirdly, generating themes, moved the focus from coding each interview to exploring meaning across the dataset. Codes were grouped into potential themes, with some ‘collapsing’ of codes to develop broader patterns of meaning. This involved interpreting the significance of the codes and how they related to each other. For example, we explored within and across different disciplines, roles and settings looking for similarities and differences between researchers, practitioners and care experienced members. We used mind maps to help us interrogate the data and our decisions.

Fourth, reviewing themes involved a recursive review including refining the boundaries of each theme (what was or was not included), in relation to the coded data items and the dataset. This involved combining, splitting and discarding themes to develop a coherent overview of the dataset that accurately reflected the findings and provided the most apt interpretation of the data in relation to the research question.

Fifth, defining and naming themes aimed to capture the essence of each theme and differentiate from other themes. Ongoing analysis refined the focus of each theme, how they interrelated and contributed to the overall narrative. Lastly, writing up the data involved presenting the findings as a coherent whole and in relation to the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

An additional step was to map the results onto Cooke’s (2005) six principles of research capacity building. We tabulated each sub-theme against each principle, looking for supporting (and refuting) evidence and then developed this into a diagram to illustrate the relationships.

To benefit rigour, Guba and Lincoln’s (1982) concepts of trustworthiness were used. Strategies included maintaining an audit trail; regularly questioning decisions; using reflexivity to challenge assumptions and expectations; comparing across transcripts; analysing instances that did not appear to fit with the majority (Bazeley, 2013); discussing with other team members; and maintaining an audit trail (Bazeley, 2013).

Ethics

Ethical review and approval for this study was granted by Staff Review Committee, Division for the Study of Law, Society, and Social Justice, The University of Kent. The study was approved on 10/10/2022 reference number 0708.

Interview participants

Twenty-one interviews, including one care experienced dyad (married couple, E03) were carried out. Of those, some had more than one role, for example professional and caring responsibilities. Table 3 provides an overview of who was interviewed, which COP they attended, regularity of attendance and who presented at a COP.

1.   A shared endeavour – fostering an inclusive, collaborative learning environment

This theme captures how the COPs fostered an inclusive, collaborative space for learning. Participants described the COPs as genuine communities where diverse voices, including researchers, practitioners, and care-experienced individuals, were equally valued. The broad range of topics and flexible structure enabled engagement across disciplines, roles and settings.

a)   Broad topics and an inclusive learning environment

Both COPs were regarded as communities and the ‘community element’ remained at the core of both groups (P03). Most respondents liked the variety of topics and noted that it allowed flexibility to invite a wide range of speakers and to address a wide range of topics within the theme’s remit. We expected a clear differentiation between the COPs but this was not evident in the data. Many participants regarded the COPs as two interlinked areas, with blurred boundaries:

More importantly, the COPs brought researchers, practitioners and care experienced members together as equal partners:

Practitioners and researchers commented on the benefits of an inclusive space:

Care experienced members also commented on feeling valued, as equal partners, without sense of hierarchy:

b)   Thirst for capturing, co-producing and contributing to knowledge

There were different views about how to capture topic specific learning ranging from suggestions that we should have kept a log to the individuality of learning, depending on context, discipline and personal perspectives:

Care experienced members were explicit in their quest for knowledge, sharing learning and desire to contribute to improving practice:

This led to examples of how topic specific information was shared beyond the COP with colleagues, family and friends. Examples demonstrated how the COPs were closely linked to practice, for example passing on information to staff in a care home, and ‘discussions about the moral injury’ (E05) with a social work friend/colleague.

2.   Shared learning - within and beyond the COPs

This theme explores how learning generated within the COPs was shared and transferred across organisational boundaries, highlighting both the opportunities for collaborative growth and the cultural and structural barriers that inhibited wider dissemination and uptake.

a)   Promoting shared learning within the constraints of the prevailing culture

There were several comments around the ‘immense pressure time wise’ (P06) staff were under, such that even essential continuing professional development was hard to manage. This was in the context of an organisational culture not conducive to attending COPs:

Comments on the constraints of organisational culture were countered by the need to learn and innovate and demonstrated the impact of tacit learning. Practitioners valued the opportunities that the COPs provided but lack of hard outcomes made it difficult to challenge the status quo:

Even so, the prevailing view was that senior management needed to explicitly endorse and prioritise research (and COP attendance) but did not:

However, there were practitioners who attended COPs regularly and the local authority’s Practice Development Team for Adult Social Care explicitly stated that they were developing a COP for social care practitioners to promote continuing professional development, modelled on our COPs (P09).

b)   Learning through building relationships and a shared ‘language’ of research

Reflecting on each other’s experiences helped develop relationships across roles and settings, providing opportunities to bridge silo thinking:

There were discussions around the importance of challenging each other’s attitudes and how this (tacit) learning was important, albeit hard to evidence:

Many participants, researchers included, commented on the need to avoid using jargon within COP meetings (and more widely) because each sector (health, social care and research) used different terminology, with health and social care being ‘two very different worlds’ (P06):

While not explicit, this relates to avoiding language that excludes and suggests epistemic superiority. Other comments reflected on the need to learn the terminology of the other ‘camp’ reflecting an ongoing silo between health and social care:

Linked with this was ensuring the COPs catered to everyone’s level of research understanding, relating back to inclusivity:

All participants were asked what research skills they had learnt from the COPs but most were unable to identify specifics. Some, including care experienced members, already had research training (e.g. Masters) and/or were learning research skills through another strand of the Partnership (e.g. Fellowship funding for research/training) so were unable to directly attribute learning to COPs. Care experienced members identified learning about research terminology, using research to learn about a topic and how to write a lay summary.

3.   Shared impact - potential for influencing policy and practice

This theme explores how COPs foster opportunities for networking, validating research ideas, and embedding learning into practice, with aspirations to influence policy and service delivery, even when such impacts are difficult to evidence in traditional ways.

a)   Networking and developing knowledge-exchange collaborations

Networking was frequently cited as an outcome, with practitioners valuing better connections whether any tangible outcomes were identified or not:

For presenters, it was an opportunity to raise awareness of their role, or ‘brand awareness’ (P08) as well as networking:

Similarly, researchers valued networking opportunities across disciplines and settings, within and beyond the COP, enabling them to make new contacts:

Researchers also valued feedback from care experienced members to ensure that ideas were relevant and meaningful to them. This was reflected in comments about having research ideas validated, or endorsed, by COP members:

b)   Embedding learning into practice and influencing policy

There were concrete examples of how information was shared beyond the COP with partner organisations, with the potential to influence practice at both individual and a service level:

From care experienced members’ viewpoint, the COPs enabled researchers to focus on what mattered in a more tangible sense, with aspirations of changing practice:

Although too early to evidence, participants had long-term aspirations that what happened within the COP would reach further into partner organisations and potentially inform policy:

Participants acknowledged how hard it can be to evidence changes in practice or policy but that this did not preclude the need to try:

However, linking to sub-theme 2a, the limited support of senior management, largely due to heavy workloads, several practitioners also commented that they did not feel senior management necessarily supported COP attendance, particularly given the difficulty of evidencing tangible outcomes of social learning:

Most evidence related to individual and team-level capacity, such as increased confidence, knowledge exchange, and collaborative opportunities. Organisational-level impact was less evident, reflecting broader challenges in embedding learning cultures within adult social care settings. Figure 2 demonstrates the inter-relationships between Cooke’s (2005) principles and the findings.

Figure 2. Building research capacity: mapping onto Cooke’s (2005) principles.

Learning through participation and social interaction

While the COPs were structured around two thematic domains - ‘Complex Needs’ and ‘Workforce’ - care-experienced members found these boundaries somewhat artificial. This suggests that although the domains reflected practitioner concerns, what sustained the COPs was the social space they created for enriched, less formal learning (Pyrko et al., 2017). For practitioners and researchers, the distinction between the two COPs was meaningful, reflecting familiar categorisation of need, client groups and professional issues. In contrast, care experienced members did not experience this divide as clearly, arguably because the workforce engages holistically with individuals who have social care needs, making these issues inherently interconnected.

Explicitly evidencing learning proved challenging due to its tacit and contextual nature, yet participants described how they applied and disseminated knowledge informally within their workplaces, families, and wider networks. This resonates with Reed et al.’s (2010) argument that to be considered social learning, a process must: demonstrate that a change in understanding has taken place in the individuals involved; demonstrate that this change goes beyond the individual and becomes situated within wider social units or communities of practice; and occur through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network. We found evidence of all three aspects, particularly in participants’ reflections on challenging assumptions, sharing insights, and building networks.

Sustaining Communities of Practice

Pyrko et al. (2017) emphasised that the vitality of COPs lies in their ability to “think together” about real-life problems that people genuinely care about. This collective thinking was evident in our data, where mutual engagement and shared purpose sustained the COPs beyond their original thematic boundaries. Drawing on Wenger’s original discourse (1998), Iverson and McPhee (2002; 2008) argue that COPs require nurturing to embed knowledge exchange processes. Our findings support this view: although COPs evolved beyond their initial domains - developing malleable boundaries and allowing flexible, though still relevant, topics within adult social care - they continued to function as vibrant, inclusive learning communities.

The COPs created a valuable space for practitioners to develop relationships across settings and foster ‘soft’ learning skills. However, many practitioners perceived that senior management struggled to recognise the value of dedicating time to COP participation, particularly within a culture shaped by significant time and resource constraints and long-standing workforce shortages. This perception echoes Howlett, Arthur and Ferreira’s (2016) evaluation of COPs in education, where poor morale and a sense of institutional indifference led academics to disengage from COPs. Yet, such disengagement often overlooks the broader structural and systemic realities that inhibit learning and participation (Howlett et al., 2016).

Gray et al. (2010) note that COPs naturally align with the ethos of social work, which emphasises autonomy, self-direction, and empowerment. However, they also argue that policy initiatives—both past and present—have done little to foster a culture of learning. Our data suggest that the wider social care context, marked by chronic underfunding and workforce pressures exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, underpins many of the perceived organisational shortcomings. During the lifespan of the COPs, the host organisation underwent restructuring and inspection against new regulatory standards (Care Quality Commission, 2023), contributing to low morale and a perceived lack of support among staff.

Interestingly, this perception persisted despite senior managers expressing support for the COPs and the local authority continuing to invest in both the COPs and the Research Facilitator role beyond the formal end of the Partnership. This raises questions about the role of perception and professional conscience—many practitioners (and researchers), struggle to prioritise their own continuing professional development (CPD) amidst competing demands.

Gray et al. (2010) also suggest that COPs may serve as a valuable learning tool for first-line managers, enabling a values-driven approach to creating a rewarding team environment, even within organisations that are less responsive to practice development. As our findings confirm, given many comments from practitioners and researchers about the value of a shared egalitarian space to learn from care experienced members, social work and social care share a strong value base centred on empowerment. COPs offer a mechanism for practitioners to bring their social awareness into collaborative learning, fostering skills and understanding through groupwork. However, in our study, this potential was constrained by the organisation’s limited capacity to support and embed such learning in a sustained way, reflecting wider constraints and challenges endemic in the social care landscape.

Building research capacity: networking and collaboration

A key strength of the COPs was their potential for bringing in connections through networking, and developing opportunities for shared learning and collaboration, and consequently increasing the prospect of introducing new ideas into practice. There was evidence supporting all bar one (infrastructure) of Cooke’s (2005) principles to enhance research capacity building. Since the data was collected, the local authority has committed to sustain the Researcher in Residence’s role as a research facilitator within the organisation and established an internal COP for practitioners.

Practitioners described the COPs as hubs for expanding their research engagement and building partnerships. This mirrors findings from El-Amiri et al. (2020); Padilla & Kreider (2020), and Gullick & West (2016), who highlight the role of COPs in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration across sectors and enhancing research capacity across sectors. In our study, COPs provided a platform for practitioners to connect with others, share ideas, expand their networks and initiate research-practice partnerships.

Evidencing impact

Participants noted that while COPs influenced individual and service-level practice, evidencing their impact, particularly at policy level, remained challenging. This reflects broader critiques of COPs’ evidence base, especially regarding how new knowledge is embedded into practice (James-McAlpine et al., 2023). Evidencing impact of the COPs is not a phenomenon isolated to adult social care but is prevalent in assessing their impacts more broadly for instance in the healthcare sector (Ranmuthugala et al., 2011). Ranmuthugala et al. (2011) argue that measuring COPs’ impact requires baseline indicators and tailored evaluation strategies yet identifying quantitative indicators is challenging. Our findings suggest that while COPs hold promise for capacity building and practice improvement, there remains a gap in robust methods to assess their long-term impact.

Study limitations

This is a small qualitative evaluation of two COPs in a region of South-East England and thus lessons learned may have limited generalisability. We are not claiming data saturation and may have identified further nuances had we been able to interview more widely – it was particularly hard to recruit frontline staff and researchers. Some participants found it hard to remember the specifics of the COPs they attended, such that their comments were generic and analysis had to take this into account.