Knowledge Work at Practice Boundaries

Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 3)

Abstract

In this chapter I examine what happens at the boundaries between intersecting practices where the resources from different practices are brought together to expand interpretations of multifaceted tasks. I develop the idea of common knowledge as a pre-requisite for mediating collaboration across the boundaries of specialist practices. I argue that common knowledge involves gaining sufficient insight into purposes and practices of others to enable specialists to bring their expert knowledge together in activities. I show that common knowledge is built in conversations at the boundaries between practices. Topics covered in the chapter include boundaries and boundary work, alternative envisioning at the boundaries, constructing sites for boundary work and knowledge talk at the boundaries.

Keywords

Common Knowledge Voluntary Sector Boundary Space Soft System Methodology Boundary Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Benhabib., S. (1992). Situating the self. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Boreham, N. (2004). A theory of collective competence: Challenging the neo-liberal individualisation of performance at work. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Sonderquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. S. (2004). Life as narrative. Social Research, 71(3), 691–710.Google Scholar
  6. Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, translating and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007, November/December). The whole of government approach to public service reform. Public Administration Review, 67, 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, H. (2004). Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, H., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with interactional expertise. Studies in History of Philosophy of Science, 37, 656–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Ark.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, A. (2009). Relational agency in collaborations for the wellbeing of children and young people. Journal of Children’s Services, 4(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, A., Barnes, M., Plewis, I., &Morris, K. (2006). Working to prevent the social exclusion of children and young people: Final lessons from the National Evaluation of the Children’s Fund. London: DfES. (Research Report 734).Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving inter-professional collaborations: Multi-agency working for children’s wellbeing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, A., & Kinti, I. (2009). Working relationally at organisational boundaries: Negotiating expertise and identity. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 126–139). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, A., Lunt, I., & Stamou, E. (2010). Inter-professional work and expertise: New roles at the boundaries of schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Edwards, A. (in press). Learning how to know who: Professional learning for expansive practice between organisations. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning across sites. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Engeström, Y. (2005). Knotworking to create collaborative intentionality capital in fluid organizational fields. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, & F. A. Kennedy (Eds.), Collaborative capital: Creating intangible value (pp. 307–336). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y. (2007a). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward co-configuration. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14(1 and 2), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engeström, Y. (2007b). Putting activity theory to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gergen, K. (1992). Organization theory in the postmodern era. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organization; new directions in organization theory and analysis (pp. 207–226). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Gregory, W. J., & Midgley, G. (2000). Planning for disaster: Developing a multi-agency counselling service. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(3), 278–290.Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartley, D. (2007). Education policy and the ‘inter’-regnum. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6), 695–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hjörne, E., & Säljö, R. (2004). “There is something about Julia”: Symptoms, categories, and the process of invoking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the Swedish school: A case study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerosuo, H. (2003). Boundaries in health care discussions: An activity theoretical approach to the analysis of boundaries. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 169–187). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  30. Kinti, I. (2008). Balancing at the boundaries of organizations: Knowledge co-configuration between experts. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Konkola, R. (2001). Developmental process of internship at polytechnic and boundary-zone activity as a new model for activity. (in Finnish) cited in T. Tuomi-Gröhn, Y. Engeström, & M. Young (Eds.) (2003), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary crossing. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  32. Laming (Lord). (2009). The protection of children in England: A progress report. London: The Stationery Office. Accessed September, 2009, from http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/HC-330.pdf.Google Scholar
  33. Mäkitalo, Å. (2003). Accounting practices as situated knowing: Dilemmas and dynamics in institutional categorization. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 465–519.Google Scholar
  34. Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: Case study in the politics of representation. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 241–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Middleton, D. (1996). Talking work: Argument, common knowledge, and improvisation in teamwork. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 233–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Midgley, G. (1992). The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Systems Practice, 5(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Midgley, G., Munlo, I., & Brown, M. (1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing housing services for older people. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(5), 467–478.Google Scholar
  38. Mørch, I., Nygård, K., & Ludvigsen, S. (2009). Adaptation and generalisation in software product development. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 184–206). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Powell, M., & Dowling, B. (2006). New labour’s partnerships: Comparing conceptual models with existing forms. Social Policy and Society, 5(2), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Santos, F., & Eisenhardt, K. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). Introduction: Discursive hybridity in medical work. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, C. (1995). Philosophical arguments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.Google Scholar
  49. Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2002). Surfacing issues using activity theory. Journal of Applied Systems Science, 3(1), 134–155.Google Scholar
  50. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt: Berne.Google Scholar
  51. Ulrich, W. (1988). C. West Churchman – 75 years. Systems Practice and Action Research, 1(4), 341–350.Google Scholar
  52. Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). Tool and sign development in the child. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol 6: Scientific legacy. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  53. Wartofsky, M. (1973). Models. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  54. Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations