To begin this harmonizing, I bring together the two dissimilar viewpoints: that communities of practice are exclusively social structures and that technology has agency in situations. The overall goal is not to show that the social and the technological are the same – I do not believe in the ultimate reduction of such theories as cybernetics, which makes no distinction between organic and inorganic agency. Rather, I show that these two views look at the same object but do not contradict one another because they operate on different scales of vision. Using a strong magnification, Wenger’s social theories are useful as a tool for explanation and discussion. As we move back to a broader viewpoint with a weaker lens, Wenger’s social discourse becomes "fuzzy" (like a lower power on a microscope), and technology and technological agency come into play. An analogy might be made to physics: when studying the very small, we use quantum mechanics, when studying the very large, we use relativity and Newtonian descriptions and tools. This does not mean that one is better than the other, or that in order to understand the day-to-day workings of a community that one theory should be used over another. Both can be used – they are not mutually exclusive. The views that put social dynamics at their center, those that put technology at their center, and my theory are still looking at the same object – the community of practice.

More specifically, I believe, and hope to show, that technology does indeed participate in these communities, in some ways similarly and in some ways differently than do people. The key to integrating technology in such a theory involves altering or expanding Etienne Wenger’s commonly accepted definition of participation, and perhaps the definition of learning as well. I will show that technology is an important factor in communities of practice by showing that technology cannot be excluded through either technological or social determinism. Then, based on the work of Lucy Suchman, I will illustrate how context is the key to understanding how technology participates in CoPs. Next, I will demonstrate how technology has agency and that the agency is actually a legitimate form of participation. Following that, I will explain how CoPs co-evolve with technology, by extending the work of Andrew Pickering and his "mangle of practice," ultimately showing that the mangle of practice is the same as a community of practice. Finally, I will use one of Wenger’s case studies to illustrate my theory and compare it to his.