Abstract
This review essay first discusses a book authored by the Networking Theories Group and argues that the strategies for networking of theories are very similar to the learning mechanisms identified in the literature on boundary crossing. I propose that these two theoretical perspectives may be put into a fruitful dialogue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81, 132–169.
Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multi-level boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25, 240–284.
Bakker, A., & Akkerman, S. F. (2014). A boundary-crossing approach to support students’ integration of statistical and work-related knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(2), 223–237.
Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (2006). Diversity of theories in mathematics education—how can we deal with it? ZDM – Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(1), 52–57.
Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (Eds.). (2014). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education. New York: Springer.
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Caduri, G., & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2015). Is collaboration across incommensurable theories in mathematics education possible? Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 29.
Daniels, H. (2011). The shaping of communication across boundaries. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 40–47.
diSessa, A. A., Levin, M., & Brown, N. J. S. (Eds.). (2015). Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences. New York: Routledge.
Palm, R. (2009). Hegel’s concept of sublation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.
Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and methods for connecting theoretical approaches: First steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(2), 165–178.
Roth, W. M. (2011). Passibility: At the limits of the constructivist metaphor (Vol. 3). New York: Springer.
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Timmons, S., & Tanner, J. (2004). A disputed occupational boundary: Operating theatre nurses and operating department practitioners. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26, 645–666.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgments
I thank Sanne Akkerman, Ruben Noorloos, Sam Taylor, Dor Abrahamson, and Gail FitzSimons for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this review essay.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bakker, A. Book Review: Networking theories as an example of boundary crossing. Angelika Bikner-Ahsbahs and Susanne Prediger (Eds.) (2014) Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education . Educ Stud Math 93, 265–273 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9715-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9715-6