Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Taxonomies of Epistemic Tools and Infrastructures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education

Part of the book series: Professional and Practice-based Learning ((PPBL,volume 14))

  • 1889 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bowker and Star (1999) put it like this: ‘A “standard ” is any set of agreed-upon rules for production of (textual and material) objects’ (p. 13). We use a broader notion of ‘codes’ to include both formal standards and informal conventions for production of textual and material objects but also the other discursive activities that underpin professional epistemic practices in the broadest sense.

References

  • 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

  • Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (Eds.). (2000). A world of standards. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. (2011). Standards: Recipes for reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Landa, M. (2011). Philosophy and simulation: The emergence of synthetic reason. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, M. (2007). Integrating critical care skills into your practice: A case workbook. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mulcahy, D. (2011). Assembling the ‘accomplished’ teacher: The performativity and politics of professional teaching standards. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 94–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 429–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 191–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation (CRLI), Faculty of Education & Social Work, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Lina Markauskaite & Peter Goodyear

Authors
  1. Lina Markauskaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Goodyear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P. (2017). Taxonomies of Epistemic Tools and Infrastructures. 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_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4368-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4369-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation