Weaving Ways of Knowing

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


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.


Weaving games Social infrastructure Epistemic infrastructure Epistemic tools 


  1. Bachelard, G. (1984). The new scientific spirit (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Souza, C. S. (2005). The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction (pp. 17–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.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