Advertisement

Epistemic Practices in Professional-Client Partnership Work

  • Nick HopwoodEmail author
  • Monika Nerland
Original Paper

Abstract

Relational aspects of professional practice demand increasing attention in research on work and learning. However, little is known about how knowledge is enacted in practices where different people work together. Working in partnership with clients surfaces a number of epistemic demands, responses to which are poorly understood. This paper analyses two cases of nurses working with parents in support services for families with young children. The questions asked are: What epistemic practices are enacted when professionals work in partnership with clients? How do they generate distinct modes of partnership work? Findings show how professionals’ and clients’ knowledge is mobilised and made actionable through practices of diagnostic reasoning, recontextualising, testing and contesting knowledge claims. A distinction is presented between partnership that unfolds as strengthening the client from a professional epistemic perspective, and that which validates and augments the client’s own epistemic contribution. This reveals how knowledge is made to matter and becomes a basis for action in the course of working with others, and informs a new analytical distillation highlighting key epistemic aspects of professional-client partnership.

Keywords

Partnership Professional knowledge Epistemic practices Professional practice Parenting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the Australian Research Council (DE150100365], and approved by The study was approved by South Western Sydney Local Health District Research and Ethics Office (HREC/15/LPOOL/77) and by the University of Technology Sydney HREC (2015000284). The authors wish to thank the staff and clients of Karitane, Tresillian and Northern Sydney Local Health District for their participation.

References

  1. Aarsand, L. (2014). The knowledgeable parenting style: Stance takings and subject positions in media encounters. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(5), 625–640.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.909895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avdi, E., & Georgaca, E. (2007). Discourse analysis and psychotherapy: A critical review. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 9(2), 157–176.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13642530701363445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billett, S., Ovens, C., Clemans, A., & Seddon, T. (2007). Collaborative working and contested practices: Forming, developing and sustaining social partnerships in education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6), 637–656.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930701625288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Damşa, C. & Nerland, M. (2016). Student learning through participation in inquiry activities: two case studies in teacher and computer engineering education. Vocations and Learning, 9(3), 275-294.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9152-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Day, C., Ellis, M., & Harris, L. (2015). Family partnership model reflective practice handbook. London: Centre for Parent and Child Support for South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving inter-professional collaborations: Multi-agency working for children's wellbeing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eriksson, I., & Lindberg, V. (2016). Enriching ‘learning activity’ with ‘epistemic practices’: Enhancing students’ epistemic agency and authority. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2.  https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v2.32432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eronen, R., Pincombe, J., & Calabretto, H. (2010). The role of child health nurses in supporting parents of young infants. Collegian, 17, 131–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2010.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evetts, J. (2014). The concept of professionalism: Professional work, professional practice and learning. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of researching professional and practice-based learning (pp. 29–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Fenwick, T. (2012a). Coproduction in practice: a sociomaterial analysis. Professions & Professionalism, 2(2).  https://doi.org/10.7577/pp/v2i1.323.
  13. Fenwick, T. (2012b). Learning among older professional workers: Knowledge strategies and knowledge orientations. Vocations and Learning, 5(3), 203–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9074-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler, C., Rossiter, C., Bigsby, M., Hopwood, N., Lee, A., & Dunston, R. (2012). Working in partnership with parents: The experience and challenge of practice innovation in child and family health nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(21–22), 3306–3314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04270.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gartmeier, M., Bauer, J., Gruber, H., & Heid, H. (2008). Negative knowledge: Understanding professional learning and expertise. Vocations and Learning, 1(2), 87–103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-008-9006-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Grundmann, R. (2017). The problem of expertise in knowledge societies. Minerva, 55(1), 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Guile, D. (2011). Interprofessional activity in the ‘space of reasons’: Thinking, communicating and acting. Vocations and Learning, 4(2), 93–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9052-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guile, D. (2014). Professional knowledge and professional practice as continuous recontextualisation. In M. Young & J. Muller (Eds.), Knowledge, expertise and the professions (pp. 78–92). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, L., Wood, L., & Day, C. (2014). An ethnographic study into the family partnership model: Implementation and sustainability. London: Centre for Parent and Child Support / South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.Google Scholar
  22. Hopwood, N. (2016). Professional practice and learning: times, spaces, bodies, things. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Hopwood, N. & Clerke, T. (2016). Professional pedagogies of parenting that build resilience through partnership with families at risk: a cultural-historical approach. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(4), 599-615.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1197299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hopwood, N. (2017a). Agency, learning and knowledge work: epistemic dilemmas in professional practices. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: an agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 121-140). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Hopwood, N. (2017b). Expertise, learning, and agency in partnership practices in services for families with young children. In A. Edwards (Ed.) Working relationally in and across practices: cultural-historical approaches to collaboration (pp. 25-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hopwood, N. & Edwards, A. (2017). How common knowledge is constructed and why it matters in collaboration between professionals and clients. International Journal of Educational Research, 83, 107–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen, K., Lahn, L. C. & Nerland, M. (2012). Professional learning in the knowledge society. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  28. Jensen, K., Nerland, M., & Enqvist-Jensen, C. (2015). Enrolment of newcomers in expert cultures: an analysis of epistemic practices in a legal education introductory course. Higher Education, 70(5), p 867.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9872-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Juhila, K., Hall, C., & Raitakari, S. (2016). Interaction during mental health floating support home visiting: Managing host-guest and professional-client identities in home-spaces. Social & Cultural Geography, 17(1), 101–119.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2015.1042401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Knorr Cetina, K. (2006). Knowledge in a knowledge society: Five transitions. Knowledge, Work and Society, 4(3), 23–41.Google Scholar
  32. Knorr Cetina, K., & Reichmann, W. (2015). Professional epistemic cultures. In I. Langemeyer, M. Fischer, & M. Pfadenhauer (Eds.), Epistemic and learning cultures at the university of the 21st century (pp. 18–33). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  33. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). Professional work and knowledge. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of researching professional and practice-based learning (pp. 79–106). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and working knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Mattila, A. (2001). Seeing things in a new light: Reframing in therapeutic conversation (Rehabilitation Foundation research report 67). Rehabilitation Foundation: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  36. Nerland, M. (2008). Knowledge cultures and the shaping of work-based learning: the case of computer engineering. Vocations and Learning, 1(1), 49-69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-007-9002-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nerland, M. & Jensen, K. (2014). Changing cultures of knowledge and professional learning. In S. Billett, C. Harteis & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook oif researching professional and practice-based learning (pp. 611-640). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Prior, L. (2003). Belief, knowledge and expertise: The emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(3), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Säljö, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 202–208.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, J., Swallow, V., & Coyne, I. (2015). Involving parents in managing their child's long-term condition – A concept synthesis of family-centered care and partnership-in-care. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 30(1), 143–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2014.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Houte, S., Bradt, L., Vandenbroeck, M., & Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2015). Professionals' understanding of partnership with parents in the context of family support programmes. Child & Family Social Work, 20(1), 116–124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, University of Technology SydneyBroadwayAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum StudiesUniversity of StellenboschMatielandSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations