Epistemic Tools and Artefacts in Epistemic Practices and Systems

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


This chapter extends Chap.  8 by following tools and other artefacts into their broader contexts of use. This helps understand how they function in professional work and learning in the larger systems of professional practice. An important feature of this chapter is that we draw upon the different but interwoven epistemic cultures of learning, research and the professions: cultures which come together in the hybrid spaces of the university. We show that epistemic artefacts, produced by students as a part of professional learning, often have multiple functions and, most importantly, that they combine different epistemic qualities. We illustrate these qualities and argue that they provide important bridges between ‘learning to do’ and ‘learning to understand’ – thereby underpinning epistemic fluency.


Epistemic tools Nature of epistemic artefacts Epistemic cultures Hybrid epistemic spaces 


  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle (1934) Nicomachean ethics (H. Rackham, Trans.) (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bentley, T., & Gillinson, S. (2007). A D&R system for education. UK: Innovation unit.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bresnen, M., & Burrell, G. (2013). Journals à la mode? Twenty years of living alongside Mode 2 and the new production of knowledge. Organization, 20(1), 25–37. doi: 10.1177/1350508412460992.
  8. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers, and students. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action (New ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1929/2008). Experience and nature. Republished in John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  17. diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 28–60). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dunbar, R. I. M., Gamble, C., & Gowlett, J. E. (2010). Social brain, distributed mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engeström, Y. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in human activity. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory (pp. 171–195). Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettenen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engeström, Y. (2006). From well-bounded ethnographies to intervening in mycorrhizae activities. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1783–1793. doi: 10.1177/0170840606071898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engeström, Y., Nummijoki, J., & Sannino, A. (2012). Embodied germ cell at work: Building an expansive concept of physical mobility in home care. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 287–309. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.688177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Glick, J. (1995). Intellectual and manual labor: Implications for developmental theory. In L. Martin, K. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 357–382). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). The development of epistemic fluency: Learning to think for a living. In A. Brew & J. Sachs (Eds.), The transformed university: The scholarship of teaching and learning in practice (pp. 75–86). Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1998). Creating shareable representations of practice. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 6(3), 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.Google Scholar
  35. Henning, P. H. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated action. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 143–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (Eds.). (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Remond, WA: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
  37. Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ingold, T. (2011). Redrawing anthropology: Materials, movements, lines. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Kirsh, D. (2009). Problem solving and situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 264–306). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. V. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knorr Cetina, K. (2010). The epistemics of information: A consumption model. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(2), 171–201. doi: 10.1177/1469540510366641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lampland, M., & Star, S. L. (Eds.). (2009). Standards and their stories: How quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. London, UK: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: university students’ conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers & Education, 82, 393–408.  10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.024
  46. Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Margaryan, A., Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2011). Validation of Davenport’s classification structure of knowledge-intensive processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 568–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12(3), 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (1996). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 107–119). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nonaka, I. (2004). The knowledge creating company. In H. Takeuchi & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Hitotsubashi on knowledge creation (pp. 29–46). Singapore, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  55. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  56. Ohlsson, S. (1995). Learning to do and learning to understand: A lesson and a challenge for cognitive modelling. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 37–62). London, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  57. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rheinberger, H. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Säljö, R. (1995). Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive practices. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 83–95). London, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  63. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. V. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London, UK: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.Google Scholar
  66. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43, 197–205.Google Scholar
  67. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Suchman, L. (2005). Affiliative objects. Organization, 12(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization’s internal growth and profitability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). The instrumental method in psychology. Text of a talk given in 1930 at the Krupskaya Academy of Communist Education. Retrieved from
  71. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wartofsky, M. W. (1987). Epistemology historicized. In A. Shimony & D. Nails (Eds.), Naturalistic epistemology: A symposium of two decades (pp. 357–374). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.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