Abstract
This chapter elaborates on the idea of weaving epistemic games, which we introduced in Chap. 14. The capacities needed to play weaving games are often central to professional expertise, yet learning to play them skilfully can cause significant challenges to novice professionals. Through an extended case study, we show how a process of professional inquiry (in pharmacy) involves weaving together multiple epistemic games. It also depends upon a weaving together of the epistemic games and material and social infrastructures: a skilful linking of conceptual, material and social that must be learnt in the process of becoming an effective, innovative practitioner. We conclude the chapter by arguing that professional education often looks to the established disciplines and scientific fields for an ‘epistemic toolbox’ that can underpin knowledgeable professional work. This perspective obscures the fact that professions also have their own ‘epistemic toolboxes’ that they deploy for getting jobs done skilfully and intelligently in practical situations. We argue that professional knowledgeable action requires the capability to take personal ownership of diverse epistemic toolboxes and learn to combine and deploy these tools within the epistemic practices of one’s profession.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Outlined, in this case, on the relevant Australian governmental website and in various guidelines for GPs and pharmacists.
- 2.
Andy Clark (2011) speaks to a very similar point, discussing notions of the active self-modelling needed to gain behavioural competence. He contrasts guided exploration, which simplifies problem-solving by helping isolate salient aspects of the environment from the mass of experiential inputs to natural problem-solving that may require massive prestructuring and prior knowledge (pp. 21–22).
References
Bachelard, G. (1984). The new scientific spirit (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Bertelsen, O. W. (2000). Design artefacts: Towards a design-oriented epistemology. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), Article 2. Retrieved July 17, 2015 from http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol12/iss11/12
Caird, C. (2012). Home medicine rules: Are you sure your patients are getting the most benefit from their medications? Health First Network Quarterly Magazine, 19(1), 26–27. Retrieved April 17, 2016 from http://www.healthfirst.org.au/client_images/339904.pdf
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.
Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.
de Souza, C. S. (2005). The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Representing models of practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennet, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects (pp. 20–40). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2011). Introduction: Reclaiming and renewing actor network theory for educational research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00667.x.
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.
Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249–279.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125–145.
Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction (pp. 17–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, D. N., & Tishman, S. (2001). Dispositional aspects of intelligence. In S. Messick & J. M. Collis (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 233–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P. (2017). Weaving Ways of Knowing. In: Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4368-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4369-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)