Professional learning in clinical supervision: highlighting knowledge work

Purpose Clinical supervision is a crucial workplace practice for professional learning and development. Research is needed to investigate in detail what happens in supervision to understand how this practice contributes to learning. This paper aims to examine how professionals work with knowledge and navigate epistemic challenges in working with problems of practice. Design/methodology/approach Three pairs of psychologists audio-recorded five consecutive supervision sessions and were interviewed twice during that time. Analysis considered supervision as a site of emergent learning, focusing on what was discussed and how problems were worked on, whether as epistemic objects (open-ended, aimed at generating new insights) or by using an approach to knowledge objects that focused more directly on what to do next. Findings One pair consistently adopted an epistemic object approach, while another was consistently more action-oriented, focused on knowledge objects. The third pair used both approaches, sometimes expanding the object with a view to gaining insight and understanding, while at other times focusing on next steps and future action. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to study clinical supervision in terms of how knowledge work is done. Foregrounding the epistemic dimensions of supervision, it reveals previously unexplored but consequential differences in how knowledge is worked with and produced as supervisory pairs discuss complex issues of practice.

See What I Mean? Analogical Objects for Knowledge Mediation in Early Phases of Cross-Industry Innovation

The objective of this research is to explore the nature and role of analogies as objects for knowledge transfer in cross-industry collaborations. A case study of an organization seeking cross-industry innovation (CII) across two industry sectors was conducted, and the empirical data were analyzed qualitatively. We found that analogies used as knowledge mediation objects could be classified as explanatory or inventive, each expressed as linguistic or visual representations. Explanatory analogical objects help build prior knowledge of a foreign industry domain, thus easing later use of inventive analogical objects to identify how knowledge from one industry can be applied in another industry for innovation purposes. In these roles, the analogies serve as boundary objects. Both explanatory and inventive analogies can also serve as epistemic objects, motivating for further collaborative engagement. Visual representations of analogies help bridge the abstract with the concrete, thereby easing the process of creating analogies. They also enable nonverbal communication, thus helping bypass language barriers between knowledge domains. The reported research expands current research literature on knowledge mediation objects to the context of CII and provides added detailed understanding of the use of analogies in CII.

Political Dynamics in Knowledge Work: Using Visual Artifacts to Deal with Pragmatic Boundaries

Previous research on knowledge work has started to explore how organizational actors deal with pragmatic boundaries that arise from their different interests, priorities, and viewpoints. Material objects, such as visual artifacts, can be used to shape and manipulate pragmatic boundaries, but our understanding of these dynamics is only partial. In this paper, we maintain that focusing on the uses of visual artifacts offers an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the political aspects of knowledge work. To this end, we conducted a practice-based study of an architectural project in which the building design became contested. Our empirical analysis reveals four practices in which visual artifacts are used to deal with pragmatic boundaries: surfacing, bridging, preventing, and minimizing. Through these practices, organizational actors can make boundaries more or less visible with important implications on their power relations and the project at hand. The main contribution of our study is to advance understanding of the political dynamics in knowledge work by revealing how visual artifacts can be used to manipulate pragmatic boundaries. By so doing, our analysis also helps to move the conversation on visual artifacts beyond their role as epistemic objects that sustain (or hinder) knowledge work.

Versioning boundary objects: the citation profile of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM)

PurposeResearch objects, such as datasets and classification standards, are difficult to be incorporated into a document-centric framework of citations, which relies on unique citable works. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorder (DSM)—a dominant classification scheme used for mental disorder diagnosis—however provides a unique lens on examining citations to a research object, given that it straddles the boundaries as a single research object with changing manifestations.Design/methodology/approachUsing over 180,000 citations received by the DSM, this paper analyzes how the citation history of DSM is represented by its various versions, and how it is cited in different knowledge domains as an important boundary object.FindingsIt shows that all recent DSM versions exhibit a similar citation cascading pattern, which is characterized by a strong replacement effect between two successive versions. Moreover, the shift of the disciplinary contexts of DSM citations can be largely explained by different DSM versions as distinct epistemic objects.Practical implicationsBased on these results, the authors argue that all DSM versions should be treated as a series of connected but distinct citable objects. The work closes with a discussion of the ways in which the existing scholarly infrastructure can be reconfigured to acknowledge and trace a broader array of research objects.Originality/valueThis paper connects quantitative methods and an important sociological concept, i.e. boundary object, to offer deeper insights into the scholarly communication system. Moreover, this work also evaluates how versioning, as a significant yet overlooked attribute of information resources, influenced the citation patterns of citable objects, which will contribute to more material-oriented scientific infrastructures.

‘Ancient lore with modern appliances’: networks, expertise, and the making of the Open Polar Sea, 1851–1853

This article provides a transnational analysis of the campaigns for the organization of expeditions to the central Arctic region by the American explorer Elisha Kent Kane and the Prussian cartographer August Petermann between 1851 and 1853. By adopting a comparative approach, this study focuses on three interventions in the history of Arctic science and exploration: the construction of scientific expertise surrounding the relationship between the ‘armchair’ and the field, the role of transnational networks, and the significance of maps as travelling epistemic objects in the production of knowledge about the Arctic regions. In bringing both campaigns in conversation with each other, this article demonstrates that the histories of Kane's and Petermann's campaigns did not constitute isolated episodes but form part of a transnational nexus of imperial science and Arctic exploration in the nineteenth century. Moreover, based on research in libraries and archives in the United States, Germany and England, this study reconnects otherwise siloed collections and contributes new findings on the interpersonal networks of science and exploration. Finally, this article illustrates the importance of adopting comparative transnational approaches for understanding the fluid and reciprocal nature of Arctic science throughout the transatlantic world.

Skepticism

This chapter entertains a series of skeptical criticisms of the very project of epistemological theorizing—criticisms leveled by the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. The chapter begins with a discussion of the role of skeptical scenarios in Western and Buddhist philosophy. The remaining portions of the chapter explore a series of criticisms of the whole pramāṇa-based epistemological program that is predominant within the Indian tradition of philosophy. It examines a series of arguments provided by the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna against the very idea that epistemic instruments can be used to establish the existence of epistemic objects.

THE PANDEMIC AND THE ‘ENVIRONMENTALISATION’ OF GEOGRAPHY. AN EPISTEMIC-POLITICAL CHALLENGE

The purpose of this article is to extract from the COVID-19 pandemic a lesson for geographers: although without intending (or being possible) to simply go back to the past, it is necessary to re-value, nevertheless, the very quintessence of the identity of the geographical discourse, which has been characterised by a way of building epistemic objects that is committed to a dialogue between social research (represented by what we usually call‘human geography’) and natural research (represented by what we usually call ‘physical geography’). This project, presently called ‘environmentalisation,’ does not aim at anything overly ambitious: there is no case here for an exclusionary thesis in the style ‘geography should be this, and nothing else’; in fact, it just defends the idea that an approach such as that of environmental geography, resulting from an attempt at ‘environmentalisation,’ must have its place assured. Environmental geography, being committed to the construction of hybrid epistemic objects, allows us to mobilise the interfaces and knowledge necessary to deal with complex tasks such as the analysis of the short and long-term effects of the pandemic (among many other issues). However, the environmental geography project not only has to deal with intellectual challenges (integrating what knowledge, how and for what purpose?), but, in the end, it must also face political obstacles: the concrete power relations in the academic world and the zeal with which ‘borders’ and ‘territories’ are patrolled and defended, not to mention the resistance of many researchers to leave their thematic and theoretical-methodological comfort zones.

Students’ multimodal knowledge practices in a makerspace learning environment

In this study, we aim to widen the understanding of how students’ collaborative knowledge practices are mediated multimodally in a school’s makerspace learning environment. Taking a sociocultural stance, we analyzed students’ knowledge practices while carrying out STEAM learning challenges in small groups in the FUSE Studio, an elementary school’s makerspace. Our findings show how discourse, digital and other “hands on” materials, embodied actions, such as gestures and postures, and the physical space with its arrangements mediated the students’ knowledge practices. Our analysis of these mediational means led us to identifying four types of multimodal knowledge practice, namely orienting, interpreting, concretizing, and expanding knowledge, which guided and facilitated the students’ creation of shared epistemic objects, artifacts, and their collective learning. However, due to the multimodal nature of knowledge practices, carrying out learning challenges in a makerspace can be challenging for students. To enhance the educational potential of makerspaces in supporting students’ knowledge creation and learning, further attention needs to be directed to the development of new pedagogical solutions, to better facilitate multimodal knowledge practices and their collective management.

Do we measure or compute polygenic risk scores? Why language matters

Here, we argue that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are different epistemic objects as compared to other biomarkers such as blood pressure or sodium level. While the latter two may be subject to variation, measured inaccurately or interpreted in various ways, blood flow has a pressure and sodium is available in a concentration that can be quantified and visualised. In stark contrast, PRSs are calculated, compiled or constructed through the statistical assemblage of genetic variants. How researchers frame and name PRSs has consequences for how we interpret and value their results. We distinguish between the tangible and inferential understanding of PRS and the corresponding languages of measurement and computation, respectively. The conflation of these frames obscures important questions we need to ask: what PRS seeks to represent, whether current ways of ‘doing PRS’ are optimal and responsible, and upon what we base the credibility of PRS-based knowledge claims.