Advertisement

The Role of Epistemology in Practice-Based Learning: The Case of Artifacts

  • Jordan WilliamsEmail author
  • Jackie Walkington
Chapter
  • 736 Downloads
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 10)

Abstract

One way that higher education institutions attempt to promulgate and standardise practices around practice-based learning is through the use of artifacts: forms, workbooks, documented practices, narratives and the like. This chapter examines the functioning of practice-based learning artifacts. In particular, the chapter is concerned with understanding how artifacts, whose official purpose is to educate about and standardise practice-based learning, are used in positive ways to promote best practice while at the same time they may work against development and implementation of best practice. We employ Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field and cultural capital to theorise the reasons for variations in the effectiveness of artifacts in standardizing practice-based learning activities. We bring Michel de Certeau’s concepts of strategy and tactic to bear on understanding ways in which academics use artifacts to inform their implementation of practice-based learning.

Keywords

Artifacts Standardization Cultural capital Practice-based learning 

References

  1. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. In Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P., & Lamaison, P. (1986). From rules to strategies: An interview with Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Anthropology, 1(1), 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. de Certeau, M. (1988). The writing of history. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kolb, D. A (1971). Individual learning styles and the learning process (Working Paper #535-71). Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Marx, K. (1959). (Friedrick Engels, ed.), Capital, vol. 3. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Reay, Diane. (2004). It’s all becoming a habitus: Beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Star, S., & Greisemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Svabo, C. (2009). Materiality in a practice-base approach. The Learning Organisation, 16(5), 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CanberraBruceAustralia

Personalised recommendations