Epistemic Practices in Professional-Client Partnership Work
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.
KeywordsPartnership Professional knowledge Epistemic practices Professional practice Parenting
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.
- 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
- 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
- Fenwick, T. (2012a). Coproduction in practice: a sociomaterial analysis. Professions & Professionalism, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/pp/v2i1.323.
- 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
- Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Guile, D. (2010). The learning challenge of the knowledge economy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Hopwood, N. (2016). Professional practice and learning: times, spaces, bodies, things. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Jensen, K., Lahn, L. C. & Nerland, M. (2012). Professional learning in the knowledge society. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- 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
- Knorr Cetina, K. (2006). Knowledge in a knowledge society: Five transitions. Knowledge, Work and Society, 4(3), 23–41.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and working knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Mattila, A. (2001). Seeing things in a new light: Reframing in therapeutic conversation (Rehabilitation Foundation research report 67). Rehabilitation Foundation: Helsinki.Google Scholar
- 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
- Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar