Women’s Collectives and Collective Action for Food and Energy Security: Reflections from a Community of Practice (CoP) Perspective

Abstract

In feminist political ecological discourses, women are seen as potential initiators and actors in collective action. Gendered differential practices in sustaining certain forms of collective action within the community have remained under-researched. Women play a key role as providers of food, water, fuel and fodder. They have also gained access to alternative means of livelihood and formed groups to conserve forest resources. Women’s roles hold the potential to ensure their claim to inclusion in the development process.

This article formulates a set of interrelated questions to interrogate the role of community of practice (CoP) as an analytical framework to understand informal community action led by rural women. These questions concern the significance of collective action in relation to social structures, institutions and processes. Communities practise different kinds of sustainable and shared methods of collective action; for example, women’s collectives or self-help groups continuously work to create sustainable forms of collective action. We argue that the CoP framework provides an opportunity to explore the integral social basis of collective action, which cannot be understood without acknowledging women as important agents in shaping community initiatives.

Keywords

Collective action CoP women’s empowerment food and energy security SHG

Introduction

The poor representation of women in research on environment and sustainability justifies initiatives to recognize women’s experiences and their central role in promoting conservation ecology. In the past, ecofeminists have contended that women’s engagement with ecology is closely connected to the very process of social formation (Shiva, 1989). Development studies acknowledge the key role women play as providers of food, fuel, fodder and water and as builders of forest groups that often form the basis of natural resource management. Although ecofeminist discourses recognize women as central actors, gendered differential practices in sustaining community-led collective action taken for the survival of small peasants in informal settings have yet to be acknowledged (Hawthorne, 2008; Mies & Shiva, 2014). A body of academic and grass-roots research is seeking to explore this state of affairs. Exploring outcomes of self-help group (SHG) activism, organizations such as SEWA (2014), NAWO (2017), MAKAAM (2016) and others have critiqued SHGs’ roles as purveyors of gender empowerment (see, e.g., Desai & Joshi, 2013; Dhungana & Kusakabe, 2010; Jakimow & Kilby, 2006; Kumar, 2009; Lahiri-Dutt & Samanata, 2006; Nayak, 2018). With the poorest women being at the bottom of the social pyramid, their contributions to survival and efforts to gain access to credit, clean energy, technology and so on remain far from mainstream analysis due to their local nature and feminized practices (Mies & Shiva, 1993). In this article, we examine how women in rural communities practise a variety of shared sustainable methods of collective action to deal with their everyday social reality. In line with previous research, we argue that women’s collectives, such as SHGs, are persistently working towards sustainable grass-roots collective action and the transfer of knowledge both within and between SHGs (Finnis, 2017). Here, the intention is to initiate a systematic study of grass-roots action using a community of practice (CoP) framework to illustrate and discuss the processes by which women adopt and reiterate collective strategies to strengthen sustainable communities.

In the 1980s, sustainability emerged as a powerful concept in the global South invoking initiatives and debates on restoring community practices in relation to ecology, water and forest management (Gadgil & Guha, 1995; Guha, 2013). We argue that these grass-roots collective action processes continue to survive through community-led initiatives and that there is a need to explore these actions through academic research. A challenge for such research is the idea that communities are homogeneous entities, a notion that has limited the role of community in development (Waylen et al., 2013). Consequently, the heterogeneity that defines communities and their practices remains an unexplored area of social enquiry. Women have consistently contributed their labour to traditional activities in water collection, farming, fishing and forestry. However, these contributions are marginalized in national accounts, and women are seldom beneficiaries of intervention policies. Not surprisingly, in India, as in many parts of the world, women become invisible in the market economy and remain unrecognized keepers of natural and social ecosystems (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2010/2011; Hawthorne, 2008).

Research on biodiversity management, for example, highlights local, community practices and agencies of change. However, collective action in the context of the ‘local’ is seldom discussed within a systematic framework. Within local communities, there are spaces of resistance and creativity in which groups, social networks, gender identity and other social factors govern and shape the collective action in relation to food, agriculture, ecological, conservation, biodiversity management and sustainable livelihood. Previous research has shown the intrinsic relationship between women and collective action arising out of women’s roles as providers of food, water, fuel and fodder (Agarwal, 2000; Philipose & Saffar, 2013). Thus, as Kirwan and Maye (2012) argued, it is crucial to analyse women’s organized efforts in sustaining such concepts at the grass-roots level. It is essential, therefore, to re-examine through formal research the interface between gender and collective actions that operates within communities in informal ways (Holmes, 2007).

Theoretical Framework

Lave and Wenger (1991) presented the first cohesive CoP approach. The main intellectual basis for the approach is the social theory of learning, which locates the framework at the intersection of theories of social structure and situated experience and theories of practice, power and meaning. CoP is situated within four interrelated premises: a) we are social beings, and this is a central aspect of learning, b) knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises, c) knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such enterprises, namely active engagement in the world and, finally, d) meaning – our ability to experience the world and our engagement with it as meaningful – is ultimately what learning is to produce (Wenger, 1998, 2000).

Thus, a CoP framework focusses specifically on the interaction among knowledge, practice and social structures. Learning through CoP is viewed primarily as a process of social construction and knowledge-sharing rather than a process of knowledge transfer. That is, CoP is based on participation and shared practice rather than knowledge being transferred in a linear fashion from master(s) to learner(s). Learning through practice engages with ideas of community and with the community’s role as a binding and knowledge-sharing parameter (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). By virtue of membership in a CoP, an individual can access and contribute to a social and interactional process, whereby the resultant collective identity itself becomes an important component of communal knowledge (Attwater & Derry, 2005; Blankenship, Ruona & Wendy, 2009). Within this context, Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) conceptualize three structural elements that constitute a CoP – community, domain and practice.

The first element ‘community’ is defined as a body of groups of people who share a concern or passion for something and who interact regularly to learn how to do it better. Drawing on Wenger’s concept of CoP, Bentley, Browman and Poole (2010, p. 3) refer to a community as ‘a set of interpersonal relationships arising out of people’s mutual engagement in learning through practice’. These authors further explain that groups may be formal but often function informally and are of different kinds bound by different bonds. Membership of multiple communities is the norm. In some communities, one may be a core member, while in others, membership is peripheral. However, significant for CoP are the reciprocal ties among the members based on accountability, trust, dependency and communication.

In the present article, women’s collectives or SHGs may be seen as collectives within which various tasks or activities concerning women’s socio-economic empowerment and knowledge-building are undertaken. These groups are formed, consciously or unconsciously, cohering on the basis of common social identities of caste, tribe and kinship/family or other social categories. In other words, members who share reciprocal ties within SHGs acquire identity and coherence in practice as a group.

The second element is the ‘domain’, which refers to a set of problems or passions or shared interest common to all members of the group or community. The domain is an important element in the structure of CoP because members can connect with each other on the basis of their shared interests. In the context of collective action and SHGs, ‘domain’ primarily refers to a set of problems women in the community experience in common with regard to household food and energy insecurities, issues of maternal health, their access to market and credit and so on. In sum, the lived experience of women’s struggles in everyday life can be described as their domain since the shared struggle fosters commitment and a desire to learn. Membership thus implies commitment to the domain and a shared competence, distinguishing them from those outside the domain. The experiences of being valued and recognized can be understood as an added value that contributes to members’ self-esteem and self-confidence as individuals and as a group (Huis, Hansen, Otten & Lensink, 2017).

In this article, the domain element is explored in relation to members’ commitment to participation in various community tasks such as organizing meetings with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), SHG meetings, group meetings and social campaigns in villages. Thus, we identify an SHG group as one where women help each other and share information, fostering relationships that enable learning and knowledge, sharing in efforts to reinforce and shape empowering activities at the community level.

The third element, ‘practice’, represents the basic body of knowledge the group shares and builds. Brown and Duguid (1991) suggest that CoP frameworks should emphasize practice because it creates epistemic communities, and it is knowledge produced by communities that generates advantages. In the context of SHGs in this study, practice refers to a variety of activities in which women are consciously engaging. As Wenger (1998) argues, CoP is not merely a community of interest but of practice. Women develop a shared repertoire of resources, experiences, stories, tools and ways of addressing recurring problems and learn from each other – in short have a shared practice. The knowledge they share and practise can be both tacit and explicit, represented as a collection of experiences, action, thinking and conversations that form the dynamic aspect of social learning. Although practice requires time and sustained interaction, the development of a shared practice may not be the result of a conscious effort.

It is by developing these three elements in parallel with each other that a CoP is cultivated. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) argue that when these three structural units work in cohesion, they ‘make a community of practice an ideal knowledge structure - a social structure that can assume responsibility for developing and sharing knowledge’ (cited in Bentley et al., 2010, p. 3). In this sense, the concept of CoP can be defined as a ‘knowledge group or a community’ that facilitates learning in a dynamic pattern and not in social isolation. Furthermore, because Wenger’s concept does not privilege research evidence over experience-rooted knowledge, CoP can serve to bridge traditional gaps in development studies and concerned disciplines between research and practice. However, it is important to acknowledge that CoPs do not guarantee social change. Although there is potential to harness and direct energy, communities of practice may also serve to stabilize forces resisting change and adaptation to new ways or methods of learning. For example, Johnson (2007) argued that the shared repertoire of resources and practices apply equally to discourses and ways of being in the community as to material resources. This implies that key dimensions of identifying and analysing CoPs are to understand the context of their creation, their ways of being and behaviours and their outcomes. For these purposes, Wenger introduced three additional concepts: participation, reification and identity.

Even within SHGs, not all members may feel able to participate to their full potential. By analysing CoPs, we gain insight into how social relations promote or hinder participation within and outside of groups. The second concept ‘reification’ recognizes that a shared repertoire may become ‘congealed’ when collectives fail to recognize that forms of decision-making, negotiating and agreeing within the collective may stagnate. By institutionalizing certain ways of ‘doing’, reification may function as a positive force for collective cohesiveness or contribute to conflict, disengagement and break down of the collective (Iaquinto & Faggian, 2011). The third concept ‘identity’ holds significance with reference to women’s engagement with community practices, as it describes a way of being in the world that informs and is being informed by experience and learning (Wenger cited in Johnson, 2007, p. 281). In this sense, the identity of each SHG is formed and linked with the experience and learning of the group. When identity is seen as a form of practice and as a negotiated experience involving different memberships, places and spaces, it becomes a useful point of entry for understanding how communities and practices are sustained, renewed or created in such conditions of mobility (Johnson, 2007, pp. 281–282). Thus, in the context of women’s collectives, formation of a group identity plays an important role in the functioning and stability of the groups in which women consciously participate in collective activities and are able to negotiate with other agencies including the household, market and non-governmental organizations. CoP is seldom applied to study development projects, although the framework offers the possibility to explore the process of situated learning among grass-root women’s collectives. CoP emphasizes the idea of situated learning, which means that learning is always experienced within a sociocultural environment and in relation to the community. The idea of ‘community’ and relationships among its individual members play an important role in creating social networks that encourage situated learning among members. Mayes and de Freitas (2007, pp. 348–349) argued that situated learning could be conceptualized such that in a particular context, social interaction with people and cultural elements within one’s environment play a crucial role in the process of learning. Mills (2011) took the discussion a step further by arguing that the situated learning theory suggests that learning is experienced and mediated through relationships within the community or within a CoP. When we decode this argument, we arrive at a simpler proposition, which is that it is the community that gives an identity to its members and fosters social interaction and/or intimacy, two factors that reinforce the idea of ‘self’ by facilitating learning.

Thus, learning becomes the core element of sustaining any form of collective action at the grass-root level, and CoP becomes a useful conceptual tool for the systematic study of community-level activities.

Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this article is to argue for the use of the concept of CoP as a framework to comprehend how community-based actions take shape in collectives such as SHGs. The CoP framework is used to describe how collective strategies that facilitate and sustain certain practices at the grass-root level also impart informal lessons among members of the collectives within the social network. The overarching aim here is to juxtapose collective action and social learning within the discourse of CoP. We argue that while emphasizing knowledge construction and learning and social structure and gender relations, CoP also contributes to the process of institutionalizing collective action within grass-root organizations such as SHGs. The CoP framework offers an opportunity to analyse the process of knowledge construction that takes place amongst women who have been constantly engaged in grass-root activities in a collective manner for their own survival.

For the purpose of this article, we operationally define SHGs as collectives that provide social identity to all its members. When women are engaged in community-level social action such as banning alcohol, seed saving, campaigning for maternal health, safe immunization and marketing non-timber forest products (NTFPs) through SHGs, their sense of ‘self’’ is greatly strengthened. The article argues that collective action does not exist in a ‘social vacuum’, rather it entails building asocial network based on unstructured interactions and situated learning. Thus, CoP provides an alternate perspective to understand grass-root collective action. The article further discusses how women’s access to SHGs and other forms of women’s collectives encourage members to gain knowledge, strive for empowerment and participate in decision-making by establishing connections between their lived experiences and the wider society. The three constitutive elements of CoP, namely joint enterprise, mutual engagement and a shared repertoire, are also examined in the context of women’s access to household food and energy security.

We explore the conceptual category of CoP, complemented with reflections from the field, and then move on to conclude whether CoP is a plausible conceptual tool to examine grass-root actions. Taking forward, Nicole Mills argued:

…activities and tasks do not occur in isolation within a community but instead are based on a multiplicity of relations. The individual learner is therefore, defined by, as well as defines, these relationships within the community. As such, learning becomes embedded within a social context, and social membership, identity and knowledge are mutually dependent. (Mills, 2011, p. 349)

On the basis of these arguments, we propose that women’s access to collectives forms a social context within which activities or tasks are shaped and learning takes place among its members. In this sense, social contexts, activities and learning become mutually dependent.

Methods

Field impressions were initially drawn from a feasibility study conducted in the rural areas of Kandhamal, Mayurbhanj and Nayagarh districts of Odisha (a state located in the eastern part of India). Field data were then collected from these districts in which women from subsistenceand resource-dependent communities are regularly involved with community-led initiatives through women’s collectives.

The sample for this study consists of six SHGs and their active women members who have been constantly engaged in community-based initiatives in their villages. Participants were from peasant, Kolha, Kondh and Saunth tribal communities of Odisha and other backward castes (OBCs).

The women were asked the following questions:

Why and when did you join the SHG?

What is the level of your participation in community based programmes?

Do you enjoy participating in different projects and interacting within the group, and what is your level of satisfaction?

Do you feel that your participation has added any value to your life and to the lives of people around you?

Do you perceive any change in household dynamics, especially with regard to decision-making and your ability to garner financial resources as a result of your participation in SHG activities?

Field data were also collected through unstructured interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Initial interviews were also conducted with NGO workers who shared information about women’s involvement in community practices concerning food and energy security.

The Field

Odisha (formerly Orissa), a state with a rich cultural heritage, is located in eastern India. It has a large tribal population (22.86%) (Jana & Ghosh, 2015, p. 25) who are economically most backward and geographically isolated. Of the three research sites, Mayurbhanj district has the highest tribal population in the state (58.7%), comprising mainly Saunth, Bathindia, Kolha and Bhumji tribes. In Kandhamal, the Kondh tribe comprises 52 per cent of the population, while Nayagarh has a minor tribal population of only around 14 per cent (Census, 2011; DHDR Kandhamal, 2012; DHDR Mayurbhanj, 2011).

Table 1.

Literacy, Poverty Level and Female Workforce Participation in the Districts Under Study

Districts	Literacy				Poverty Levels (2004/2011 –2012)	Female Workforce Participation
Districts	SC	ST	Female Literacy	Total	Poverty Levels (2004/2011 –2012)	Agricultural Workforce	Total Workforce
Nayagarh	54.20	66.29	72.05	80.72	63/33	41.41	12.83
Mayurbhanj	41.46	53.11	52.17	63.17	74/61	59.07	41.61
Kandhamal	45.58	58.34	51.94	64.13	71/59	59.41	43.37

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2017) and Odisha Economic Survey (2016/2017).

Though the district is rich in mineral reserves, most people in Mayurbhanj depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Handloom, handicraft and cottage industries are the other sources of income. It qualifies as an economically backward district, where vulnerability arises out of the frequency of natural calamities, poverty and crime (DHDR, 2011). Kandhamal is amongst the least developed districts of Odisha where the major issues are low healthcare, poor livelihood access, widespread poverty and food insecurity (DHDR, 2012) The forestry sector contributed about 10 per cent of the GDDP in 2004–2005; horticulture, forest produce and micro-enterprises are the main sources of livelihood in Kandhamal. Nayagarh, a hilly district, is a well-cultivated fertile valley and is an important tourist destination (https://nayagarh.nic.in).

Table 1 briefly depicts some indicators such as literacy rates, poverty levels and female workforce participation in the three districts from where field data were collected. Except for Nayagarh, the other two districts have female literacy levels below the national (65.46%) and State of Odisha (64.36%) averages (www.census.gov.in). Female workforce participation is higher in two districts with high tribal population than in Nayagarh. The data also indicate that within tribal communities, women’s labour play a significant role in both agricultural and non-farm activities.

About SHGs

Representation within SHGs (women collectives) of Nayagarh, Mayurbhanj and Kandhamal is primarily based on caste/tribe/kinship identities. Membership strength varies between 10 and 12 members, and functionally, members are oriented towards economic and social activities. Internal lending among members of collectives is a common economic function, whereas the social goals of the collectives are varied in nature and include health and nutrition campaigns, awareness of land and forest rights (Ma Narayani SHG), packaging of dry midday meal packets (Ma Shakti), fair price for NTFP, campaigns for the prohibition of liquor (Lakshmibahi and Suna Muhi) and so on.

The SHGs operate largely within a social space depicting the social character of any community-based organization. For instance, Ma Narayani comprises members from a patrilineal kinship structure that prevails in the Kondh tribe. In this regard, the respondents stated, ‘family/caste/tribe identities are critical to maintain a cohesive relation within the group’. Thus, the caste, tribe and kinship polarity of each women’s collective has a differential impact on the functioning of the grain banks.

Although all women included in the study worked, none of them was engaged in the formal labour market. Our respondents’ primary responsibility was house work and care duties. They were engaged in subsistence farming – raising poultry, petty vending/trading and selling vegetables and other goods at the local market. A majority of women are marginal farmers and contribute their labour for family farming. They also contribute to the household economy on an everyday basis for survival.

Women’s Collectives (SHGs) and CoP

Common Social Identities

All communities of practice are embedded within larger societal structures. In the study area also, most of these women participate in SHG initiatives as members of various groups based on caste, tribe, village and kinship identities. All of the SHGs discussed in this study were engaged in activities related to internal lending and income-generating activities. In addition, some groups were involved in taking social action on issues such as health and nutrition campaigns, awareness campaigns for land and forest rights and for demanding fair price for NTFPs and liquor prohibition in the region. Each women’s collective has a common goal with a specific emphasis on either social or economic empowerment. The functioning of SHGs reflects the social character of the community to which the women belong; consequently, social interactions among members create space for community practices at the community level. According to Kalpana (2008), SHGs are informally engaged with community initiatives because members are grouped and structured around their social identities.

Preliminary interaction with SHGs in this study showed that the Ma Naraini group in Phulbani Block of Kandhamal District is composed of women who are members of the same patrilineal kinship network of the Kondh tribe. A study of other SHGs revealed that there is a similar structural coherence within each group based on family or kinship ties, caste or tribal identities or intra-village relations. This pattern of organization reiterates how social identities are fundamental to the formation of collectives. Furthermore, a common identity among members not only maintains cohesiveness within groups but also becomes essential in shaping the purpose of collective action. The two SHGs from Thakurmunda Block in Mayurbhanj district comprised tribal (Saunth and Kolha) and OBC women from forest communities largely engaged in forest-related activities, including the collection of NTFPs such as firewood, mahuli (butter tree) flowers for making liquor, sal leaves (for making leaf-plates) and jhuna (gum made with the sap of a tree used for making incense), which supplement household incomes for everyday needs such as food and health care. In their group meetings, women in these SHGs often discuss issues pertaining to the collection and sale of NTFPs at appropriate prices alongside discussion of ways of preserving forest resources. A woman in an SHG at Suna Muhi, Phulbani Block in Kandhamal district, said, ‘we discuss issues of maternal health and nutrition in our monthly group discussion meetings. We have also started preserving seeds of the local variety of rice grain and other pulses in our homes to avoid seasonal food insecurity’. Similarly, members of Maa Bharti, an SHG in Basundia village in Thakurmunda Block, narrated that at SHG meetings, they would begin discussing issues related to the education of girls in tribal areas and women’s involvement in household decision-making. They also stated that ‘we (ame) use the meetings to discuss how to ask for a better price for sal leaf plates in the haat (local market)’. These statements reveal that women in SHGs engage in joint enterprises, which is a key characteristic of CoP.

Members of Suna Muhi and Lakshmibahi SHGs in Kandhamal district work towards addressing seasonal food insecurity by creating grain banks within their communities. For instance, women from the Kondh tribal community have been preserving local rice varieties, within their households. Agarwal’s (2016, p. 311) assertion that food security is a complex issue where women’s access to food has a significant impact on their household food security is corroborated by our field data. Women from Kondha Gauda (a sub-tribe) talked of how they started their grain bank:

We started our grain bank about 10-12 years ago with an initial membership of six to seven women. At first, we preserved jhuanga rice (a local rice variety) in the home of one of our members who has enough space to store around 70 tambies (local measure of weight) of rice. From our village elders we have learnt how to preserve grain. Now, we keep different varieties of grain and pulses… [in storage].

This suggests that this form of collective action has its origin in communities where an informal social network exists among women with family, tribe and kinship ties without any contractual negotiations (Gathii, 2011). The narrative also suggests that institutionalizing a grain bank system is a culturally grounded practice in which every member has assumed some self-initiated roles and collaborates with other members to cope with seasonal food insecurity albeit in a limited manner. Community practices like grain banks are primarily governed by informal rules of grain exchange and sharing. The social network within which women exchange and share collectively stored grains and pulses at the time of crisis is empowering women in the SHGs to develop a strong sense of ownership over the grain bank and a sense of self-sufficiency.

Although it is not possible to generalize from these impressions from the field, they provide a window into the internal operations of SHGs. In the ordinariness of regular everyday activities, women organized on the basis of social ties, initiated discussions and collaborated and strategized on issues of specific interest. As Johnson (2007) argued (see also Wenger, 1998), these forms may also contain the seeds of destruction for the SHG. The literature reports many critical issues concerning the sustainability of SHG initiatives (see, e.g., Desai & Joshi, 2013; Kalpana, 2008). These criticisms notwithstanding, some SHGs have earned a good reputation in terms of group savings, timely repayment of loans, creation of seed banks and the establishment of linkages with the local market to sell condiments and NTFPs. SHGs support empowerment ideals of women’s innate ability to learn, share knowledge and contribute to their own empowerment (Kabeer, 1999, 2001).

Mutual Engagement

Another dimension of CoP is mutual engagement. The situated learning theory emphasizes that in addition to having a common interest or goal, mutual engagement is a fundamental principle of a CoP. Membership in a community or participation in a project is encouraged through shared engagement in discussion, negotiation and exchange. Although mutual engagement creates the possibility for developing relationships among members, conflict, disagreement and challenges are also inevitable forms of engagement within a CoP. To quote Wenger as cited in Mills, ‘as a form of participation, rebellion often reveals a greater commitment than does passive conformity’ (Mills, 2011, p. 353). CoP involves multiplicity of relations and is diverse in nature. Every women’s collective is complex and entails a multiplicity of relationships including those of expertize and helplessness, ease and struggle, resistance and compliance and trust and suspicion (Wenger, 1998; Mills, 2011). Narratives of members of Banalata Mahila Sangha from Kandhamal district confirm that the patrilineal kinship/family ties ensure a smooth coordination of different community activities and build mutual trust among group members. However, in a subsequent FGD held with four of its members, the researchers learned that ‘relations of trust’ form the core principle of their SHG that enable women to engage in practices such as lending, borrowing and saving of money through micro-finance institutions, the exchange of food grain or any other social activity. The consensus from our field study was that reciprocity and understanding of each other’s social and economic situation within the group shaped implementation of any form of collective action. Women participated in community development projects only after they had developed relations of trust and compliance with fellow members of the collective.

This assertion is supported by observations from the field, for instance, in the SHGs at Thakurmunda Block. All members of the Maa Bharti SHG are from the tribal community. For these women, SHG is the only reliable source of loans. The conventional source, the village moneylender, charges unreasonably high rates of interest, and there is no transparency in the transactions. Previously, community members had struggled very hard to first pay off the interest and then the principal amount. The same loan arranged through the SHG incurred lower interest rates, and all transactions were transparent and managed by the women themselves. The transactions were facilitated and ensured through the group’s common social identity that grew out of belonging to the same tribe and having the same cultural moorings. Thus, it can be seen that social capital and trust are vital elements in engaging with community practices and institutionalizing collective action (Dumais, 2002; Huppatz, 2009). Amin and Roberts (2008) argued that different groups with specific identities reflect different dimensions of knowledge use. The social interaction that emerges as part of a group’s social identity can govern or regulate collective action within the community.

The Renewable Energy Access Project in Nayagaon village in Nayagarh district provides another example of the importance of trust in social relations; in this case, women’s adoption of improved cook stove (ICS) was the issue explored. Field work was conducted in the Nayagarh district as part of research on rural women’s access to new renewable energy technologies where the Climate Credit Pilot Project (C2P2) was implemented at the household level with the aim of reducing black carbon emission within the households selected under the clean energy project (Ramanathan et al., 2016). Women participated in the project through SHGs; for this, SHGs in different villages were identified for diffusion of clean energy technologies. The initial resistance to the implementation of ICS among women in the Maa Durga group was based on the belief that ICS was unsuitable for cooking traditional food. There was also a fear of perceived risks and a lack of knowledge about the ICS and the new technology. Data collected through FGDs revealed that communication among members was facilitated by the fact that the members belonged to the same caste. After one or two members who had invested in the ICS talked about its benefits—fuel efficiency, time economy, etc.—other members slowly came on board. Through mutual engagement and continuous sharing of information, women could learn to accept the ICS. Thus, it was observed that trust and reciprocity among women led to adoption and dissemination of new technologies. Within this shared space, members could engage in learning and supporting each other without experiencing a sense of inferiority.

The SHGs in the study conform to the CoP framework by adhering to the principles of sustained mutual relationships, a sense of common identity in relation to the practice and shared ways of learning which turn community initiatives into collective action (Wenger, 1998). Evidence in the field emphasizes women’s use of social capital as a vital element in engaging with community practices and institutionalizing collective action.

In the FGDs, it was observed that interpersonal communication among members of women’s collectives belonging to the same caste group provided further impetus to the exchange/sharing of information with others. This continuous exchange of information among SHG members enabled women to learn and take appropriate decisions with regard to owning a new technology or participating in grass-root community activities. The principle of mutual engagement within the collectives facilitates situated learning among the women at the community level.

Shared Repertoire

The third dimension of CoP is a shared repertoire: members of the community develop resources by sharing artefacts, narratives, discourses and reference points (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). As members of the CoP continue to participate in the maintenance and development of a shared repertoire, they naturally develop a common identity and a sense of shared membership and belonging within the community. As this study has illustrated, several of the SHGs’ projects are consistent with the shared repertoire aspect of CoP. The grain bank project organized by women of the Kondh community clearly reflects this. The culture of seed preservation has enabled them to maintain crop diversity in the region, and they have been able to save both grains and seeds in a traditional manner. Members of SHGs in Kandhamal and Mayurbhanj have been able to create market linkages for crops such as sal leaf plates, turmeric and mahula, a wild flower used mainly for preparing local liquor. The mahula flower has a significant place in Kondh culture and is in great demand. The women stated:

We preserve these flowers for about 3 to 4 months in our grain bank, and wait till we can get the maximum market price for them. When we negotiate to get 50 paisa higher than its usual rate per tambi, we sell these to local moneylenders. We have been able to save Rs. 500 by selling these flowers in each season. This amount is kept with our group savings.

Wenger (1998) suggests that by creating shared repertoires, members are also accepting a sense of belonging within the CoP. Within SHGs/women’s collectives, women are given a sense of identity and belonging with the group and its various initiatives. However, it is important to note that a shared repertoire may not always be nurtured in contexts of conflict and disillusionment. Members of Suna Muhi and Lakshmibahi SHGs felt that they could not engage in some community initiatives due to internal conflict and the collapse of trust between members. Sometimes, collective action fails to acquire the character of CoP in the absence of cohesive relationships. However, as exemplified by an SHG in Bhatalpadar village in Kandhamal district, despite having differences, women members were able, through a sense of their common Kondh tribal identity, to resolve a conflict and work as an epistemic community towards meeting their everyday needs by establishing linkages with the local market to sell charcoal, wood, sal leaves and mahuli flowers. On the other hand, the SHG Maa Shakti, based at Thakurmunda Block headquarters, was not successful in overcoming differences. The SHG members had different social identities, different kinship ties, religions and socio-economic backgrounds, and therefore, the SHG lacked social cohesion. The group was in conflict when there was a change in leadership. Every group elects a president, secretary and a treasurer, which are revolving posts that are changed by consensus or elections. The new set of office-bearers was accused of malpractices and lack of transparency. The old set of office-bearers stopped attending meetings but made weekly contributions to the group. Eventually, the group could not carry on with its normal functions: loss of trust and members’ inability to cross the boundaries of their social identities led to the collapse of the group. Notwithstanding the collapse of this particular SHG, the lessons learned proved to be valuable; members carried new knowledge with them into new groups and activities. The examples presented are not meant to suggest that the survival of the group takes precedence over learning. The CoP framework does not rate learning on a positive–negative scale, because all learning contributes to new insights and can be used in a myriad ways. As field impressions confirm, women learn to cooperate, negotiate and when needed even to raise their voice in resistance (Srivastava, Lane & Dhal, 2018). These insights via a CoP analysis invite us to re-evaluate research on SHG survival. Lave and Wenger (1991) argued that CoP encourages a system of relationships between people who develop a sense of place, identity and purpose to initiate any activity while resolving their differences (cited in Amin & Roberts, 2008, p. 354). However, there are no guarantees of success nor should success always be the primary goal. Lessons learned from failure to thrive in one SHG can be taken forward to new SHG constellations or other community activities.

Conclusions and the Way Forward

This study was undertaken with the aim of identifying and understanding whether collective actions in women’s collectives could be incorporated into the CoP frame of social learning. We adopted the CoP model because it offered opportunities to analyse the process of knowledge construction and learning that takes place in previously neglected groups such as SHGs among poorly educated rural women. We have discussed CoP as an alternative theoretical paradigm to understand community-based collective action in the rural areas of Odisha, using the conceptual categories of CoP to identify and complement findings from field study. The findings show that learning took place in all of the SHGs studied. However, many factors influenced the process of learning and the quality and quantity of collective actions of SHGs. Among these were the composition of the SHG itself, centrality of the project undertaken by members of SHGs and level of cohesion and trust among SHG members. Reciprocity, community-rootedness and relations of trust within the collectives played significant roles in influencing collective decision-making The CoP framework essentially revolves around these aspects. Gender empowerment entails the process of changing the way women see and experience their world. The role of empowerment is to help women recognize and understand their place in the web of cultural, socio-economic and political relations in which they are embedded. Furthermore, it entails making women aware that change is possible and that they have the power to contribute to these processes (Kabeer, 1999). The process of empowerment also requires that women are provided with the resources to make change possible. Previous research has shown that women’s empowerment can only be achieved when women perceive gender empowerment as meaningful and where initiatives focus on issues that are of central importance to women themselves (Chambers, 1997; Morgan, 2011; Srivastava et al., 2018; Yiching & Vernooy, 2010). A CoP approach enables this process as it allows us to identify and further strengthen forms of social networks to sustain collective actions in rural areas. In communities where gender relations are subjected to and bound by traditional norms and complicated by religion or other social categories, understanding how collective action is manifested and sustained by women from marginalized communities is of central importance in development projects. By extending the CoP framework to the study of women’s collectives/SHGs, it was possible to gain insight into how women in various groups were engaged in knowledge construction influencing empowerment processes and gender relations.

Further, the framework permitted insights into incremental changes in attitudes, processes and learning that form the basis for collective actions that may otherwise be lost. This is particularly important from an empowerment perspective, as CoP increases the potential for social inclusion and visibility of otherwise seldom recognized groups.

A review of literature shows primarily management studies and social learning engaged with CoP, and not much attention has been paid to understanding how various communities of practice operate within informal settings. The theoretical discussion presented earlier points out the possibility of an expansion of the framework into the field of gender and development studies and empowerment. An aim of this article was to contribute to that effort by presenting new knowledge of how the CoP framework supports analyses that help identify processes as they take root and advance the growth of SHGs. The findings show that once members begin to share a single identity that cuts across caste, tribe, family and other social identities, SHGs are capable of engaging with and participating in new projects in a more systematic manner. Thus, we argue that the addition of a CoP framework to gender and development discourses would go a long way in capturing the importance of social learning for empowerment processes that take place in the everyday life situations of these women.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Agarwal

(2000). Conceptualising environmental collective action: Why gender matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 283–310.

Agarwal

(2016). Gender challenges: Agriculture, technology and food security. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Amin

, & Roberts

(2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37(2), 353–369.

Attwater

, & Derry

(2005). Engaging communities of practice for risk communication in the Hawkesbury water recycling scheme. Action Research, 3(2), 193–209.

Bentley

, Browman

G. P.

, & Poole

(2010). Conceptual and practical challenges for implementing the communities of practice model on a national scale: a Canadian cancer control initiative. BMW Health Services Research. Retrieved from htty://www.blomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/3

Blankenship

, Ruona

, & Wendy

E. A.

(2009). Exploring knowledge sharing in social structures: Potential contributions to an overall knowledge management strategy. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 290–360.

Brown

J. S.

, & Duguid

(1991). Organisational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organisation Science, 2(1), 40–57.

Census (2011). Retrieved from www.censusindia.gov.in

Chambers

(1997). Whose knowledge counts? Putting the first last. London, England: Intermediate Technology Publications; London & New York: Routledge.

10.

Desai

R. M.

, & Joshi

(2013). Collective action and community development: Evidence from self-help groups in rural India. The World Bank Economic Review, 28(3), 492–524.

11.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2017). Depth and severity of poverty in rural Odisha: A district level estimation, Odisha. Retrieved from www.desorrisa.nic.in/pdf/Depth

12.

DHDR Kandhamal (2012). Retrieved from phdmoodisha.nic.in/report/hrs/kandamal_dhdr.pdf

13.

DHDR Mayurbhanj (2011). Retrieved from phdmaodisha.nic.in/reports/hdrs/mayurbhanj_dhdr.pdf

14.

Dhungana

B. M.

, & Kusakabe

(2010). The role of self-help groups in empowering disabled women: A case study in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Development in Practice, 20(7), 855–865.

15.

Dumais

S. A.

(2002). Cultural capital, gender and school success: The role of habitus. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 44–68.

16.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (2010/2011). Part 1, Gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment: Differentiated pathways out of poverty Status, trends and gaps. Rome: FAO.

17.

Finnis

(2017). Collective action, envisioning the future and women’s self-help groups: A case study from south India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 24(1), 1–23.

18.

Gathii

J. T.

(2011). Food sovereignty for poor countries in the global trading system. Loyala Law Review, 57, 509–540. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2002244

19.

Gadgil

, & Guha

(1995). Ecology and equity: Use and abuse of nature in contemporary India. London: Routledge.

20.

Guha

(2013, March 27). The past and present of Indian environmentalism. The Hindu Editorial, p. 8.

21.

Hawthorne

(2008). Wild politics: Feminism, globalisation, bio/diversity. New Delhi, India: Aakar.

22.

Holmes

(2007). What is gender? Sociological approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

23.

Huis

M. A.

, Hansen

, Otten

, & Lensink

(2017). A three-dimensional model of women’s empowerment: Implications in the field of microfinance and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1678). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01678

24.

Huppatz

(2009). Reworking Bourdieu’s capital: Feminine and female capitals in the field of paid caring work. Sociology, 43(1), 45–66. Retrieved from https://nayagarh.nic.in

25.

Iaquinto

B. I.

, & Faggian

(2011). Creating communities of practice: Scoping purposeful design. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 4–21.

26.

Jakimow

& Kilby

(2006). Empowering women: A critique of the blueprint for self-help groups in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 13(3), 375–400.

27.

Jana

P. K.

, & Ghosh

N. C.

(2015). Socio-economic conditions and quality of life in the tribal areas of Orissa with special reference to Mayubhanj district. Space, Culture, India, 3(2), 25.

28.

Johnson

(2007). Communities of practice and international development. Progress in Development Studies, 7(4), 277–290.

29.

Kabeer

(1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464.

30.

Kabeer

(2001). Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. In Kabeer

, McFadden

, Arnfred

, Dominguez

, & Saadallah

(Eds.), Discussing women’s empowerment: Theory and practice (pp. 17–54). Stockholm: SIDA.

31.

Kalpana

(2008). The vulnerability of ‘self-help’: Women and microfinance in south India (IDS Working Paper No. 303). Brighton: University of Sussex.

32.

Kirwan

, & Maye

(2012). Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 91–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.03.002

33.

Kumar

D. S.

(2009). Participation in self-help group activities and its impacts: Evidence from south India. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 32(3), 1–18.

34.

Lave

, & Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Lahiri-Dutt

, & Samanata

(2006). Constructing social capital: Self-help groups and rural women’s development in India. Geographical Research, 44(3), 285–295.

36.

MAKAAM (2016). Status papers and latest research related to women farmers. Retrieved from http://makaam.in/status-papers-and-latest-research-related-to-women-farmers/

37.

Mies

, & Vandana

(2014). Ecofeminism: Critique influence change. London: Zed Books.

38.

Mayes

, & de Freitas

(2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In Beetham

& Sharpe

(Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy in the digital age (pp. 13–25). London: Routledge.

39.

Mies

, & Shiva

(1993) Ecofeminism. London & New Jersey: Zed Books.

40.

Mills

(2011). Situated learning through social networking communities: The development of joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. Calico Journal, 28(2), 345–368.

41.

Morgan

S. L.

(2011). Social learning among organic farmers and the application of the communities of practice framework. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 99–112.

42.

Nayak

A. K.

(2018). Indian women in grassroots socio-political institutions: Impact of microfinance through self-help groups. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 17(4), 383. doi: 10.1504/IJICBM.2018.095672

43.

NAWO (2017). State level consultation on violence against women and girls in Odisha Report: NAWO and Odisha State Commission for women. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/32361185/

44.

Odisha Economic Survey (2016/2017). Retrieved from http://pc.odisha.gov.in/download/Economic_Survey_2016-17.pdf

45.

Philipose

, & Saffar

(2013). Gender and food security. In Figart

D. M.

& Warnecke

T. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on gender and economic life. Cheltenham: E. Elgar Publishing Ltd.

46.

Ramanathan

, Ramanathan

, Mohanty

, Rehman

I. H.

, Grahm

, & Ramanathan

(2016). Wireless censors linked to climate financing for globally affordable clean cooking. Nature Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3141

47.

SEWA (2014). Barefoot technicians and grassroots CEOs: How India’s self-employed women’s association (SEWA) is unleashing technology to spark innovation and enterprise among the rural poor. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/904131516800858447/pdf/

48.

Shiva

(1989). Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books.

49.

Srivastava

, Lane

, & Dhal

(2018). Meeting the challenges of gender empowerment. Yojana, 62, 48–51.

50.

Waylen

K.A.

, Fischer

, McGowan

P. J. K.

, & Milner-Gulland

E. J.

(2013). Deconstructing community for conservation: Why simple assumptions are not sufficient. Human Ecology, 41(4),575–585.

51.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Wenger

(2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organisation, 7(2), 225–246.

53.

Wenger

, McDermott

, & Snyder

W. M.

(2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

54.

Yiching

, & Vernooy

(2010). Seeds of empowerment: Action research in the context of the feminisation of agriculture in Southwest China. Gender, Technology and Development, 14(25), 25–44.