Interprofessional Activity in the ‘Space of Reasons’: Thinking, Communicating and Acting

Abstract

The paper analyses a form of interprofessional working and learning (IPWL)-the fleeting spatial and temporal constitution of project teams with little prior history of working together-that is an increasing feature of work in the global economy. The paper argues firstly: (i) this form of working and learning is relatively under-researched in professional, vocational and workplace learning (PVWL); and, (ii) the research traditions-Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Cultural Anthropology/Symbolic Interactionist (CA/SI)-that some researchers in PVWL have drawn on to investigate IPWL do not allow them to capture the cognitive and symbolic complexity of this activity. Secondly, it is possible to reveal the nature of this complexity when the concepts and methods associated with CHAT and CA-SI-based approaches are supplemented with the concepts of 'inference', 'space of reasons ', 'restructuring and 'recontextualisation' (Guile, 2010). The paper demonstrates this claim by reinterpreting a classic study of the aforementioned form of working and learning undertaken by Hall, Stevens and Torolba that drew on concepts and methods from CA and SI (2002).

From struggles to resource gains in interprofessional service networks: Key findings from a multiple case study

“…Problems in interprofessional networking often relate to the difficulty of collaborating in a heterogeneous group in which the goals and priorities are understood in multiple ways (Baxter & Brumfitt, 2008;Guile, 2011;Visse, Widdershoven, & Abma, 2012). Participants face the challenge of moving beyond their own expertise to get the work done in the network; they need to adopt a shared vision of service provision rather than only focus on their part of it, and to adjust their actions to those of other network members (Baxter & Brumfitt, 2008;Edwards, 2010;Kvarnström, 2008;Seppänen & Toiviainen, 2017).…”

“…Organizations build networks in order to deal with complex problems (Chisholm, 1996), to produce goods and services (Beeby & Booth, 2000), and to create shared knowledge and capabilities (Hartley & Allison, 2002). For individual employees, interprofessional interactions in networks offer ever more complex positions (Edwards & Nicoll, 2004), as they have to cross traditional operational boundaries (Daniels, Edwards, Engeström, Gallagher, & Ludvigsen, 2010) and collaborate with people whose backgrounds, competencies, attitudes, and values are different from their own (Baxter & Brumfitt, 2008;Guile, 2011;Hall, 2005;Norris et al, 2005;Visse, Widdershoven, & Abma, 2012). Professionals may experience such collaborations as straining and overwhelming but also as stimulating and empowering.…”

“…There is a need to further develop a theoretical understanding of professional learning in networks (Appleby & Hillier, 2012;Barnett, Hoang, Cross, & Bridgman, 2015;Guile 2011). We respond to this call by providing insights on how the co-existence of struggles and resource gains can foster interprofessional and inter-organizational learning.…”

Epistemic Practices in Professional-Client Partnership Work

“…Expectations of working in closer and more complex relationships with others form part of wider forces that challenge professional expertise (Prior 2003). These changes are evident in concern with inter-professional practice (Guile 2011), inter-agency work (Edwards et al 2009), co-production with clients (Fenwick 2012a), and how professionals relate to communities and government (Billett et al 2007). Such relationships alter what it takes to perform professional work, generating demands associated with what Edwards (2010) calls a 'relational turn' in expertise.…”