Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 2, pp 265–273 | Cite as

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

Springer. 329 pages. Hard copy: ISBN: 978-3-319-05388-2, $129 [US]. E-book: ISBN: 978-3-319-05389-9, $99 [US]
  • Arthur Bakker
Article

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.

Notes

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.

References

  1. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81, 132–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multi-level boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25, 240–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (Eds.). (2014). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caduri, G., & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2015). Is collaboration across incommensurable theories in mathematics education possible? Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 29.Google Scholar
  8. Daniels, H. (2011). The shaping of communication across boundaries. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. diSessa, A. A., Levin, M., & Brown, N. J. S. (Eds.). (2015). Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Palm, R. (2009). Hegel’s concept of sublation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Flanders, Belgium. Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roth, W. M. (2011). Passibility: At the limits of the constructivist metaphor (Vol. 3). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Timmons, S., & Tanner, J. (2004). A disputed occupational boundary: Operating theatre nurses and operating department practitioners. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26, 645–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations