Professional Epistemic Games

Chapter 14 maps the different varieties of epistemic games to be found in professional work. In general terms, epistemic games are generative patterns of inquiry, and we show how this notion can provide insights into ways of working creatively with knowledge in professional fields, not just in the domains of scientific inquiry in which the term ‘epistemic game’ originated. Using distinguishing qualities of epistemic games – such as the sorts of knowledge each produces and the skills needed to play each game – we identify six main types of professional epistemic games and illustrate how they are played in professional work and learning. But we also note that these games are rarely played just one at a time. They are often woven together into one gradually unfolding situated activity.

[1]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[2]  Monika Nerland,et al.  Knowledge Cultures and the Shaping of Work-based Learning: The Case of Computer Engineering , 2008 .

[3]  David W. Shaffer,et al.  Epistemic frames for epistemic games , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[4]  J. Greeno,et al.  Practicing Representation: Learning with and about Representational Forms , 1997 .

[5]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[6]  K. K. Cetina Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures , 2007 .

[7]  Rainer Bromme,et al.  Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs: An Intimate but Complicate Relationship , 2008 .

[8]  J. Piaget,et al.  The equilibration of cognitive structures : the central problem of intellectual development , 1985 .

[9]  Monika Nerland Transnational Discourses of Knowledge and Learning in Professional Work: Examples from Computer Engineering , 2010 .

[10]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Professional Perception and Expert Action: Scaffolding Embodied Practices in Professional Education , 2010 .

[11]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  Inscriptions: Toward a Theory of Representing as Social Practice , 1998 .

[12]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[13]  F. Bartlett,et al.  Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology , 1932 .

[14]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[15]  A. Edwards Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise , 2010 .

[16]  D. Perkins,et al.  Partners in Cognition: Extending Human Intelligence with Intelligent Technologies , 1991 .

[17]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning : cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives , 2007 .

[18]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[19]  Anne Edwards,et al.  Being an Expert Professional Practitioner , 2010 .

[20]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Practice , 2020, On Violence.

[21]  A. Collins,et al.  Epistemic forms and Epistemic Games: Structures and Strategies to Guide Inquiry , 1993 .

[22]  Chris Corrigan,et al.  Effect of incorrect use of dry powder inhalers on management of patients with asthma and COPD. , 2008, Respiratory medicine.

[23]  A. Collins Representational Competence: A Commentary on the Greeno Analysis of Classroom Practice , 2011 .