Advertisement

Taxonomies of Epistemic Tools and Infrastructures

  • Lina Markauskaite
  • Peter Goodyear
Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 14)

Abstract

Chapters 13 and  14 are taxonomic. Chapter 13 maps a landscape of epistemic tools and infrastructures, identifying the main kinds of tools and infrastructures and describing some of their interrelationships. This taxonomic work does not spring from an academic desire to tidy up a fuzzy space. Rather, we want to argue that professional workers – and those who help them prepare for the professions – can benefit from being able to consciously distinguish between different kinds of epistemic tools and to think and talk about the tasks for which each is best suited.

Keywords

Epistemic tools Epistemic devices Epistemic frames Epistemic instruments Inhabiting epistemic infrastructure 

References

  1. Australian Association of Social Workers. (2003). Practice standards for social workers: Achieving outcomes. Canberra: AASW. Retrieved April 14, 2015 from http://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/16
  2. Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Board of Studies. (2003). Visual arts years 7–10: Advice on programming and assessment. Retrieved June 20, 2015 from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/pdf_doc/visual_arts_710_support.pdf
  4. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (Eds.). (2000). A world of standards. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Busch, L. (2011). Standards: Recipes for reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carmichael, P. (2012). Tribes, territories and threshold concepts: Educational materialisms at work in higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(sup1), 31–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00743.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, T., Moles, R., Nishtala, P., & Basger, B. (2010). Case studies in practice. Medication review: A process guide for pharmacists. Sydney, Australia: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, A. E., & Fujimura, J. H. (Eds.). (1992). The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A. (2011). A study of expert theory formation: The role of different model types and domain frameworks. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling (pp. 23–40). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making things visible. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Landa, M. (2011). Philosophy and simulation: The emergence of synthetic reason. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  14. Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fujimura, J. H. (1987). Constructing ‘do-able’ problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 257–293. doi: 10.1177/030631287017002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. (2005). Seeing in depth. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 85–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Handley, K., & Williams, L. (2011). From copying to learning: Using exemplars to engage students with assessment criteria and feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess, M. (2007). Integrating critical care skills into your practice: A case workbook. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.Google Scholar
  19. Lampland, M., & Star, S. L. (Eds.). (2009). Standards and their stories: How quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mulcahy, D. (2011). Assembling the ‘accomplished’ teacher: The performativity and politics of professional teaching standards. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nersessian, N. J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. P. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, V., Laragy, C., Giles, R., & Bland, R. (2004). Practice standards in Australia: Implications for social work education. Social Work Education, 23(5), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Star, S. L. (2005). Categories and cognition: Material and conceptual aspects of large scale category systems. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 167–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Timmermans, S., & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Tummons, J. (2011). Deconstructing professionalism: An actor-network critique of professional standards for teachers in the uk lifelong learning sector. International Journal of Actor Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 3(4), 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lina Markauskaite
    • 1
  • Peter Goodyear
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation (CRLI), Faculty of Education & Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations