52_¥. Engestrém and H. Toiviainen IEngesteom, ¥. (2004), New Forms of Learning an Co-configuration Work. Jonraal of Workplace Learning, 16, 11-21 Engesteim, Y, (2001). Expansive Leaening at Work: Toward an activity theoretical recon ceptuslizaion, Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156, Engestdm, ¥. (1999), Comaunieation, Discourse and Activity. The Communication Review, 3, 165-188 Engestrm, Y. (1987), Learning by Expanding: An activity theoretical approach to develop ‘mental research, Helsinki: Orienta Konsuli Engestrim, Y. and Blackler, F. (2005), On the Life of the Object. Ognization, 12, 307-330, Engestrim, Y., EngestrOm, R. and Keroswo, H, (2003). The Discursive Construction of Collaborative Care. Applied Linguistics, 24, 286-315, Engestetm, ¥., Engestrm, Rand Suntio, A, (2002). Can a School Community Learn to ‘Master its own Future? An activigy-theoretcal study of expansive earning among middle School teachers. In G. Wells and G. Claxton (eds) Learning fr Life in the 21st Century Sacicauenral perspectives on the furure of education. Londo: Blackwell, (pp. 211-224). Engestrdm, ¥., Engestrm, R., and Vahiaho, T.(1999).When the Center Does Not Hold: The importance of knorworking. In Chaklin, S., Hedegaards, M.,and Juul Jensen, U. (eds) Activity Theory ane Social Practice, Arh: Aashus University Press, (pp. 345-374) Engestrim, Y., Viekkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J, and Poikela, R. (1996). Change Laboratory asa Tool for Transforming Work, Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1, 10-17 Fambrough, MJ. and Comerford,S.A. (2006). The Changing Epistemological Assumptions ‘of Group Theory. The Journal of Applied Bebavioral Science, 42, 330-349. Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (eds) (2006). Making Projects Critical. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Knowledge Practice Laboratory (2006), Integrated project: Annes 1 - Description of Work. (Corporate document, no. KP-Lab;27490,) Retrieved on April 25, 2006, from KP-Lab project websice: hap:/ /wowkp-lab org /intranet/consortiunmisves/ oficial documents 602749000 cont core 3 LLeont’ey,A. N. (1978), Activity, Conseionmes, Personality. Englewood Clif: Prentice-Hall Stahl, G. (2006). Gronp Cognition: Compnter support for building collaborative knowledge, Cambridge: MIT Press. Toiviainen, H, (2003). Learning Acros Levee Challenges of collaboration in a soual-firm netsork, Helsinki: Department of Education, University of Helsink Vietor,B.and Boynton, A. (1998). Invented Hore: Maximizing your organitation’sincernal _arovth and profitability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Veekkunca, J. (2006). Hybrid Agency in Co-contiguration Work. Ouines: Crarical Socal Sines, 8, 61-75. ‘Vygotsky, LS, (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher poyholegcat process ‘Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Chapter 4 Professional learning as epistemic trajectories Leif Christian Lahn Introduction In this chapter we want to make a theoretical exploration into the concept “learning, trajectory.” It has become widely circulated in many fields, and, not suprisingly, different authors in different academic traditions use the term quite differently (Our intention here is not to do a conceptual cleansing. We will restric ourselves to the literature on professional learning and development where it has become more and more common to talk about “learning trajectories.” This state of the art concept is understandable for several reasons. First, it reflects a more com: ‘mon discontent in many fields of research with static notions like “competence,” “expertise.” Second, to speak of trajectories rather than a developmental process makes the diversity and multidimensionality of learning processes more salient, And third this term points to the embeddedness of trajectories in systems that varies along temporal and spatial dimensions. Professionals are members of a range of different institutions at the same time, and these may work together to provide very distinet learning opportunities. For example, career patterns (Brown, 2002) may tune the interests of individuals to a lifelong learning commitment, whereas a new tool may interact with such a trajectory and cither force the practitioner into updating her skills or in resisting a change of working conditions. For members of professional communities, issues related to their knowledge domain are of strategic Importance since it defines what they are and what they are entitled to do. Besides, ‘modern working life is said to be characterized by “eprstemafication” (Stutt & ‘Motta, 1998) as production processes become increasingly knowledge-dependent, and our use of codified knowledge is usually mediated by new technologies. By implication, trajectories that somehow link to these knowledge concerns may be crucially important when our theme is professional learning. We refer to them as “epistemic trajectories.” Another reason for using the term “epistemic wajectories” is that it may bring, to the fore issues of knowledge that have been taken off the scene for some years (Muller, 2000). Professional learning and development is understood in general terms, disregarding the distinctive regulating, qualities of knowledge. It may shape the way experts formalize their “communities of practice” and reproduce theit$4 L.C.Laha disciplines and modes of transmission (Bernstein, 1996). For example, nurses will | ‘update ther sis according to an educational regime that s quite diferent from accountants or lawyers. Researchers may easly atsbute thes variations to distinct ‘personal preferences among practitioners or to workplace provisions, and be blind to the societal division of knowledge that regulates the local level So in this chapter we will discuss why it may be fruitful to use the concepe of "uajectory when studying professional learning, We need to make some comments ‘on what is meant by “leazning trajectories,” and how it differs from “epistemic “trajectories.” Often these conceptual issues are part of larger methodological ds. ‘cussion on units of analysis and the sealing of observations. Our explorations inthis field are inspired by an ongoing Norwegian research project “Professional learning, in a changing society” (ProL EARN, see wwwpfiio.no/proleaen/) that studi the transition fiom school to profesional work in nursing, teaching, engineering and accounting. It seeks to combine longitudinal approachesand maltilevel studies ‘Some promises and pitfalls associated with such a design will be adresse. Sociology (of knowledge! profession), system theory “epistemic infrastructure” Knowledge development as mediated network Epistemic trajecto relations Reorganisation of Network level and different time seales professional communities ctive sense-making Perspectives on learning trajectories Social theory, cultural studies Sharing of embedded knowledge Interactive level and of past, present and Knowledge creation future events Commu trajectories For our purpose it may be useful to make a rough classification of learning trajec- ‘tories into three categories: Educational learning trajectories, informal learning ‘uajectories and organizational learning trajectories. They are shown in Table 4.1 together with the fourth, The frst category could also be referred to as didactic. It describes the formal stages in a schoo! subject when these are constructed on the basis of an understanding of the students” learning processes. The second is better known through labels like “lifetime learning. trajectories” (Gorard, Rees, Fevre & Welland, 2001), “learning careers” and is used within adult education and life course research as terms that underline informal and multi-linear processes ‘of personal development. The third, that we have called “organizational learning, trajectories,” is a generic term that includes both ladders in occupational carcers and more horizontal moves that tuen newcomers into profeient professionals. Different metaphors of learning may overlap with the categories above. It may be useful in our elaboration ofthe concepts “learning trajectories” and “epistemic trajectories” to adopt Sfard’s (1998) well-known dichotomy between the acquis tion metaphor and the participation metaphor of learning shat has recently been extended by Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005) to include 1 third metaphor, the knowledge creation metaphor. ‘The acquisition metaphor sees the human brain asa storehouse where learning takes place when information chunks are accessed in one situation, piled up in ‘memory and retrieved for implementation in new situations. In contrast the sec ond, the participation metaphor, understands social practiceas the locus of human, development; and the third will emphasize the mediated character of collective learning processes, Of course these distinctions are like caricatures that highlight only a few salient features and leave a lot of space for overlapping positions. In order to sharpen the categorization we have added a reference to theoretical basis pation Narrative theory! personality psychology Personal reconstructions. Col of life episodes Reflection on personal professional concexts Individual learner in Lifelong learning rofessio trajector fe-cycles lesson") or problem-solving tasks Is acqu new task or differences in strategies between novices/experts subject area or specific learning of cognitive Educational learning Cognitive psychology Instructional design in Individual learner on learning tasks Table 4.1. A typology of learning trajectories implications Analytical levels land time seal zs Theoretical basis Didactical action research Ethnographic approaches Shadowing methods, Historical analysis, Biographies ‘Task analysis through preferences (type verbal protocols. Learning logs Of data and data- Methodological collection)56 L.C.Lahn “The literature on educational learning trajectories drans mainly ftom “hard core” information processing models of human cognition or constructivist accounts with a sensitivity for contextual contingencies. The lifetime perspective leans on narratol- ‘ogy and research on life histories. Inline with different “turns” within the social sciences this tradition has moved inthe direction of eontextualism during the last, decades. The same could apply tothe coneept “community earning trajectories” that includes both theories of social participation that take individual mins ier acting with others asa point of departure ~ and those that focus on social context san infrastractuce for human learning. The later may coincide with approaches that address knowledge issues, and that ae indicated inthe right column, ‘When discussing the different approaches delineated below, we will go through the themes that are listed inthe left column. After providing a theoretical postion ing, we take a eloser look at their understanding of learning trajectories. What is learned and how? Does the analogy with trajectories make us more attentive to aspects of professional learning than a more prosaic term lke “learning process”? In answering these questions, we will explore the didactical implications of the different frameworks whieh are closely related to the process characteristics. They ate all addressing the HOW-dimension of professional learning, but didacties refers here tothe formalization of learning strategies that more or les reflects the different interpretations of processes. The two last categories on analytical levels/ ime scales and methodological preferences point to contrasts in research focus and approaches. In the following sections we will ist discuss the three perspectives on “learning, trajectory” and then argue thac they tend to neglect knowledge issues that, as pointed out above, are important when we ceal with profesional learn ing. So we bring back knowledge through a discussion of Karen Knocr Cetina’s (1997) concept “epistemic object.” In our final discussion some limitations in her framework are identified, but stil we want to welcome further explorations into epistemic txjectories Mapping thinking strategies in flexible professional work “The term “educational learning trajectories” includes two research traditions that have a legacy in cognitive psychology. The first has eoined “hypothetical leaning trajectories” (HLT) and is a conceptual framework and methodology for study- ing the steps taken by students to become proficient na knowledge domain, for example mathematics (Clements & Sarama, 2004), From detailed observations of vidal strategies it derives a presribed teaching sequence. The second tradition is closely associated with the research on expertise and is more relevant when we are dealing with professional learning Tina nutshell cognitivstc studies of expertise depart from the idea that differ ences in thinking processes could be derived from concurrent verbalization on the part of problem-solvers a they work on academic tasks The usual set-up isto com: pare the strategies of inexperienced and experienced subjects in specific academic Professional learning as epistemic trajectories 57 - sional domain ke el (Aahey, 1988) orca rmoring (Kare Be Persran, 1991). Thee co inca ser of algoridons“opeatenazng” tic hypothesis generation ancl refinement, use and intexpretation of diag tha so on. The “long way” from novice to expert performance is understood as Siadual proceduralization of rule-based behavior that improves the effcieney of fessional performance. After years of practice, less attention is paid to detailed Bperatons and more to contextual cues an alternative lines of ation, This combi tition of cognitive routinization and reorientation isat the core ofthe Dreyfuss! ode! of competence development (Dreyfus & Dreyfis, 1986). The later is often feferred to as a prototype defining the stages that an apprentice must pass on her ‘eay to proficiency in an expert domain. “The classical information-processing approach to skill acquisition may provide a valid account of mastery in restricted and stable domains like chess and formal Togies, but itis now widely eecognized that ales linear process must be assumed. when we observe the progression of candidates in “open” problem areas like management (Sternberg & Horvath, 1999) or teaching (Ropo, 2004). Recent reviews of expertise research include a large vaiety of new concepts and approaches, that has been introduced to account for skill aquisition in a complex and flexible working life (Charness, Feltovich, Hoffman & Ericsson, 2006; Feltovieh, Spiro & Coulson, 1996). They confirm the conclusion that the amount of practice isa poor predictor of expert performance, and that the transition into mastery of task isolien a complex and dynamic process. More attention is now paid to contextual ‘ariables that provide the practitioners with a wide selection of problems and scaf- folds that support an effective reorganization of knowiedge. Besides, the learner is being conceived as an active designer of his or her own learning environment Progress in expert performance is, according to Eriesson (1997), dependent on debiverate practice, on switching to “deep” strategies in a knowiedge domain and on involvement in self-regulatory moves like rehearsing a successful solution or mentally simulating a set of alternatives. Based on these short glimpses from research on expertise one could question the validity ofa linear and unidimensional representation of conceptual learning and instructional design ~ and it seems justified to be doubsful about “trajec- tory” as a generative metaphor for professional learning (Schon, 1983). At the conceptual level it is problematic to maintain che notion of a default pattern in expert development. Instead a wide variety of flexible paths must be assumed ‘Their starting- and endpoints will not be easily defined, making any reference to a “uajectory” misleading, Another criticism is methodological and refers to the circularity involved in the following steps: First to collect observational and self reported accounts of problem-solvers doing “thinking aloud,” then to translate these data ino information-processing concepts and finaly to use these to explain differences in human proficiency as brain mechanisms. ‘The mentalistic flavour of the cognitivist approach may be counterbalanced: by its emphasis on systematic and detailed observation of task performance. OF58 L.C.Lahn couse a successful use of these guidelines depends on a deep understanding of the profesional domain en the part of the designers, Another strength that ean be arributed to this tradition is its insistence on process descriptions ~ although the trajectories to be accounted for are rather short-lived, In recent studies of professional and vocational learning “learning logs” have become increasingly popular (Achtenhagen, 2001; Fuller 8 Unwin, 2002). Compared with “ehink Hloud? techniques, they do not carry the theoretical burden of mentalism. Besides, these logs are often extended in time and space. However, this scaling varies to ‘considerable degree between different approaches. On one hand qualitative Oriented researchers have derived guidelines from diary methods, whereas others tise precoded questionnaires with low demand on response elaboration. The latter search on sereen-based work alternative has atteacted a. growing populasty in ‘hanks to computer programs that allowa continuous logging of users? “naviga- tional pattems” or e portfolios (Deakin, Cété & Harvey, 2006). These reports ould be linked to vkteo-data in case of cooperative performances. sum, when using methods for mapping educational earning trajectories, one should be attentive to the framing of the target behavior and the sampling of time nd spaces This last point reminds us that professional performance and learning qvents may take the shape of shorter or longer cycles. For example, when we con trast the surgical work and training episoxtes of medlcal doctors and nurses with the defence of a lawyer and the familiarization of students in legal argumentation. Clearly, these situations differ in formats ~ in terms of “body language” on the first and formalized language in the second. In addition, the expert surgeon may gain practical experiences of cass, whereas the law students are offered written material to work on. Biographies and lifetime learning trajectories “The term “leaming trajectories” is widely circulated within the research literature on adult and lifclong, learning and has been defined in a number of ways. For fh between an autobiographical and life-course ‘our purpose one could «isting Griented approachand a hstorial and work-oriented approach, The former is for cnample represented by different rexs on “lifetime learning trajectories” (Gorard seal. 2001} ~sometines inmplying that carier stage in life have a determining fnflucnce later. The other tradition puts heavier emphasis on the social anc! insti tutional context ofthe learner and providesa more dynamic model of professional evelopment. Another dference is methodological~ respectively a preference for dary methods and narrative analysis or qualitative interviews an dsconrse analy SJoth research strands differ radically from the theoretical framework of cogzitivism, even if they tend to preserve the individual learner as unit of observation, This is feos clear in the historical approach. Of course both frameworks use an extended temporal and spatal span for learsing ~ compared withthe educational learning trajectories we reviewed above Heer ee ve ceoeedure in autobiographical and narrative positions is to ask Professional learning at epistemic trajectories 59 fof her ability to continuously redesign these contours as she lives her life (Helms The biographical and contestaitie perspectives onlaring trajectories have pean stongly represented by Dah esearcers (Olesen, 2008, eins Jorgensen £ Waring, 2002; Deis, 1999), Some ofthe mances beeen the aon group maybe relevant for our present icson, Olesen (2003), basing his argument Gmail theory an personality psychology, develops a concept platform that Shree stort of gah an he so go he oe hes terme conflicting expeienes into meaning esounts of ert to another, Inline with other chols he advocate a research ategy that nites the sy tlerto“voriing” a8 colsbortve proces /Goodion 8 Sikes, 2001) To Dlea's account the leaning aetory serine 9 a ubjcive reconstruction tfcomples ie eperences, whereas Tens Jorgensen and Waring ( , «owns ast Waring (2002) and Drier (1999) nweduce an extemal perspective on these bographil productions could peak of “subjective” and “abjecie leaning tetris” ~ although sch 2 istinction would not do jstice tothe diferent Danish authors refered here Sieh ong my enn sl ons or out present dscssion of “eamingtnjetore these short glimpses from ie hsory research highlight the flowing points Fist ve demonstrate how the concept "ujectory” is tned into a mutdimesionl category and that more tenon pd fo dynamic process In ight ofthe dstineions beween tugetive objective ard personal interactive introduced er, cotinuly in pro Reon development maybe a function ofa peronal projet a anda acer patern ina pectic expert clare or an aceeptd wy of de Up tothe present sate of ai In general one ceuld observe inthe erature 3 stronger emphasis on the institutional framing of biographies — : tim say Hom thei of peony otros! Me Alo sh jot onauction of personal naraives by story an researcher has become mote “Adve copie 2 vane emer nthe jet ete aon cae oppor a so go pial used as indators of proce occupational ie (Lahn, 2008)60 L.C.Lahn mediated by workplace characteristics. Rarely do we find any reference ro knowledge ‘ecologies in the trajectory of experts. This contrasts with the fact that professionals often make occupational choices that lead them into the forefiont oftheir expertise Inmore general terms one could say that the life history approaches tend to neglect the “what” issues related to professional knowledge. When the domain of jurisdic tion and identity formation is left out ofthe interpretational scheme, the importance ofiinstitutional contexts designed for learning may be underestimated, This prob. lematic from a methodological point of view. If diaries and portfolios are collected ‘ona lifeline basis, the learning qualities attributed to episodes may be quite doube- ful. It would be more justifiable to identify those patterns in relation to contexts where learning is attended to ~ for example, in the supervision of new nurses It is not easy to make any identification of clear-cut didactical programmes associated with the various frameworks presented above. As already mentioned, the research strategy of Olesen inchuctes the prospects of theoretical reflection and, knowledge creation in the interaction between storyteller and researcher. Similar aims have been proposed within the Anglo-American tradition where a range of methods are devised to support self-reflection and lifelong learning, strategics (Mezirow, 1997). Within the more contextualistic camp, similar programmes are complemented by models for the redesign of learning environments, and so on, But itis safe to conclude that the conceptual framework indicated by lifetime learning, trajectories is mainly introduced to enrich our understanding of human develop ment in complex environments ~ where professional life is one stich sector. Community participation as trajectories From the booming literature on social consteuctivist approaches to learning, the theoretical frameworks of Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger, John Seely Brown and others seem the most relevant ones when we study professional learning — since they take their empirical evidence from expert communities in working life. One of the main conceptual pillars in the edifice of Lave and Wenger (1991) is “legitimate peripheral participation.” Tt draws ou attention to the following qualities of occupational learning environments: The novice enters a field partly structured for training purposes where the curriculum may be defined through the allocation of tasks ~3 ‘so-called embedded pedagogy. She attains a mixed professional identity as both a member of a global expert community and as apprentice. ‘These definitions are institutionalized at the workplace in the format of more or less informal contracts that also partly regulate the tacit expectations attributed to the output of novices, as they progress towards an identity as experts in their community. The access tO these contexts is often mediated by tools or technologies that are both transpar- cent fo expert members of a community and problematic, since they are constantly replaced by new versions or configurations. Thus, experienced practitioners are asked to take on the role of learners ‘Wenger (1998) tends to blue the distinctions between learning, identity and trajectory — by claiming that “As trajectories, our identities incorporate the past Prof sional learning as epistemic trajectories 61 and te fture in the very process of negotiating the present” (p. 185), and thar Jearning. isan event on these trajectories. One plausible interpretation of learning trajectory in these and other passages would be: It represents a mental construc- tion that synthesizes experiences and projections from the past, the present and the future ~ as a “metascripe” (Wenger, 1998) that impacts on our perception and ‘ations in situations, and that are at the same time shaped by these instantiations. In ‘pore general terms Wenger uses the concept “trajectories” to amplify the temporal Jharacter and recursiveness of identity formation and learning which subsequently ‘Sviewed a8 aspects ofall human activity. They are conceived asa “shared repertoire Steommiunal resources” that can be used appropriately However, Wenger vacillates becween different understandings of the term “tra jectory." In the following extract itis not clear whether he refers to subjective {individual collective) patterns of identity formation or structural attributes of communities and work organizations: “Icentities are defined with respect to the interaction of multiple convergent and divergent trajectories” (1998, p. 154). The atter interpretation is strengthened by the many references that are made in his texts to different types of transitions within and across professional communities. Wenger introduced a series of so-called boundary-crossing devices that facilitate these movements, like structures for negotiation and brokering of knowledge and skills, for overlapping membership and multiple commitments, like in project organizations. At the core of these distinctions is a concern with “psychosocial ‘ontracts” of authorization, advancement, performance and so on. They seem to be institutional categories (“paradigmatic trajectories”) and do not classify patterns mn (or learning content, Eraut ¢F al, 2008). To conclude, a reference 10 “cultural learning trajectory” would take care of the subjective aspects 2s well as the objective ~ understood as cross-cultural infrastructures. Although the concept of “trajectory” summarizes some structural characteristics fexpert communities and formal institutions, its main function in the social learn 1ag theory of Wenger isto draw our attention towards a temporal order that shapes zollective interactions, which are recursively transformed through this practice. And, of course, “shared learning histories” may be at the base of identity Formation, The societal level is accounted for by tying the different contexts together (see also Dreier, 1999; Edwards, 2005), Ivis, so to speak, constructed from below. As 2 critical comment one could claim that learning trajectories in professional work may be shaped by the larger socio-economic environment and by insticutional contingencies that are not necessarily present ar the community level. For example, one important distinetion in stuclies of occupational careers is whether these are embedded in a welfare state or a market liberal system (Lahn, 2003). From the sociology of professions we also learn that strategies for competence development in professional groups are often motivated by a protection or expansion of afield of jurisdiction (MacDonald, 1995; Freidson, 2001) rather than an updating of operative skills. Without going into the debate on professionalization strategies it sulices for our discussion to point out that professional development and learn ing could be seen as boundary crossing from an interactional point of view and io human acti62 L.C.Lahn boundary demarcation from a sociologiea! position. Another transformation tharis noveasily observe elovithin the workplaces is the proxsres- don (ot regression) of knowledge domains and discipline, ‘These processes may be slow and only discernible if the researchers apply a longer timescale in their studies than what is prescribed by Wenger and others. In sum the cultural perspeetive not only decenters learning from the inside of suman minds to the socio-material contest, but also extends it to a wider spatio- temporal field called the “community of practice.” Ar the same time the symbolic processes that go into the formation of profesionals ae given greater attention ped extended into issues of motivation and social identification. ‘The pitfalls of cognitviam are avoided by reducing the subject to a mediator of broker between trajectories and specific events. Like artifacts and mental representations in gen- tral, professional knowledge is seen as 2 “structuring resource” (Lave, 1988) that ipreracts with its use ancl recursively transforms itself, whereas the learning process partly takes on the characteristics of occupational socialization, Thus it fuses some of the domain specificity that remains a hallmark of the psychological research on expertise “This approach to professional learning derives its methodological ballast from ethnographic studies of erafiwork and apprenticeship (Chaikin & Lave, 1996). As pointed out above, the mest of such a strategy 6 (0 enrich our understanding of the complex social processes that shape the inlvidual learner Is limitations are coident when we study madern working life. The learning environments are drawn ‘vith quite small circles, and systemic dislocations between professional domains end to be left out of the analytical apparatus. Likewise the more global character lf academic knowledge is rewritten as “resources” that transforin the context of tise and is shaped by it. Within such a framework one would anticipate that prac Ttioners seck new competence not because it is needed for operational reasons eeput for symbolic purposes, The latter could be illustrated by nurses adopting: more evidence-based methods to compete with other professional groups with stronger academic standing. Finally, itis justifiable to interpret the “metascripts” that Wenger equates with of practice, as collective cpresentations that are constructed from shared practices. Through a process of Intividnal sense-making, multiple passages are transformed into a more-or-less Coherent identity as professional. However, one could alternatively envisage more dispersed process where the practitioner adopts typifcations of their trade oF professions from “above” and enact these in different local contexts constructing {Dpetsonal system of multiple identities. Anyway the literature on communities Of practice is quite vague on how trajectories of participation are translate! into identities or learning, at the interactional le ajectories in conumunities Bringing back knowledge “The three types elaborated above, the educational, the lifelong and the cultural Bees cone iene traditions. They could be compared and contrasted Professional learning as epistemic trajectories 63 = slong some key dimensions, The fist revolves around the dichotomy of “subjee diye” and “objective” where trajectories are constructions ofthe individual mind, human interactions Or the cultural mind on one side and structual or systemic ‘haracteistics on the other. The second source of variation i the wife times es we reviewed. A trajectory fanges from students’ performance on school tasks to life-course transitions or altura typifiations of collective experiences. A third dimension thats related to oth analytical levels and spatio-temporal scaling is content. Do trajectories refer toes of individual problem-solving, learning processes, paths of participation, faltral institutional patterns? As pointed out several times, its far from clear what jr earned ~ and thus what is pur on a trajectory. In both the life history and the Community approach, the concept of learning is quite open ~ or diluted. Within the cognitivist tradition, i has a more circumscribed meaning: and reflects the specifies ofthe knowledge domain, However, the first part of the term “learning ‘ajectories” primarily indicates the role ofthe trajectories and nor necessarily their Content. IF this aspect should be highlighted, notably their knowledge content, it may be more useful to talk about “epistemic trajectories.” Ifwe reintroduce knowledge (Muller, 2000) into research on professional learn- ing, our understanding of the interface between schooling and work practice may have to be revised. Professionalism is often associated with expert groups being awarded the jurisdiction of an occupational field, ‘The intellectual basis for such an institutional contract could be traced back to a system of educational require: ments and certification schemes. However, the transfer of knowledge from higher ‘education to the appropriate sector of work is rarely a simple one-to-one process. Chemical engineers have a stronger foothold in their discipline than mechanical engineers, whereas the teaching and health-caring professions seem to base theit ‘occupational practice on “tact skills” (Lahn, 1995) possibly acquired outside for tal educational regimes. This variation in the interplay between formal education and professional expertise does not only determine how transitions from schoo! into work are structured, but also the extent to which a continuous training is provided. In other words, professional knowledge structures contain the “know! edge of how to acquire new knowledge” (MacDonald, 1995) ~ at an individ and communitarian level but also at an institutional level In our introductory sections we approached the term “epistemification.” It needs some further clarification and should include both the transformation of work tasks into textual processing and a larger societal complexity. In many sec tors more space is provided for the redefinition of expertise as practitioners feom different felds are brought together to discuss boundary-crossing solutions to ererget sues. In ation, higher education has become the amision ke working life, A new societal division of knowledge is put on the agenda and Shouuibes mandatary hoon ser of roton esning As thew Elrfeton on tes istora ines Knorr Cexna (1999) ls bout “pei Eile” Hernmin agnor shat cei prodcon ad oil nganizaon fe that are used within the research traditions that we , and that this trend is supported by64 LC.Lahn the ubiquitous construction of “object-cemtered relationships.” Since practice is clspersed ancl opened up for multiple participation and interdisciplinary efforts, traditional ties loose their binding force (Jensen & Lahn, 2005) and have to be reinvented, So-called epistemic objects are providing the energy and structuring resources for the vonstruction of new practices, These objects can be interpreted as both material instantiations of professional knowledge and “agents” that reshape thei epistemic inffastructure (Hakkarainen, Pelonen, Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004), For example, electronic paticat journals combine the format of medieal records, hospital routines and new media into a hybrid system that supports knowledge creation (Bruni, 2005). Thus epistemic objects redefine workers into learners and learning into a distributed process, ‘The latter must be given a very different rep resentation a8 a trajectory than the ones proposed by Wenger ~ since it does nor follow the centripedal socialization pattern suggested by the term “communities of practice.” This logic is brought one step further in the studies of Jan Nespor (1994) who observed students in physies and business as they prepare for transi tions into profession work. These movements into the disciplinary apparatus are dleseribed as an activity that not only is regulated by loca interactions, but that recruits processes and space elsewhere (op. ci, p. 10). His unit of analysis isthe system of elements where various trajectories intersect, for example the hybrid ‘construction of lectures, knowledge domain, presentations sheets, notebooks, auditoriums. and through which students have ro move to accomplish the defined identities and interests ~ as an “obligatory passage point” to use the expression of Gallon (1986). Nespor refrains from putting trajectories on different levels, for example in “personal learning trajectories” and “institutional learning tajecto- res,” and replaves it with a “network that constructs space-time relations” (1994, p11). “Learning” is segments of motion “which follow the shapes of more stable institutional or disciplinary networks” (ibid), and which is stabilized by artifacts like the ones we have fisted above. When learning and knowledge development are seen as changes in. mediated network relations, attention is directed towafds three processes. First, the ubiqui tous character of “epistemic objects.” Modern artifacts like new media and ICL are “colonializing” all life spheres. ‘They are far from transparent for the users and have to be learned. Second, these objects are representing knowledge ~ and in the context of professional work, changes of tools tend to imply thar expert knowledge is redctined and transformed. Third, complexity is amplitied by their infiltration of networks that often incluce both new technologies and institational reconfigurations. For example, the shift from doing design on drawing boards to computer-assisted design can be summarized as a radical transformation and restructuring of engineering skills, professional rankings, career trajectories, division ‘of work tasks, and interorganizational collaboration (Lahn, 1995). In this way We ‘may justify the reference to “mediated network relations” that embed and afford ‘professional resources. Ina didactical perspective the taskis literally expanded since the learning environment is distributed, and different knowledge domains ate fused in order to cope with problems that require an interprofessional response. Professional learning as epistemic trajectories 65 — uavola ant Hakkaranen (2008) have devised strategies for the redesign of suc sepstemic infrastructures.” Concluding note jn this chapter we have reviewed different understandings of “learning trajectory.” dh painted out, one of the merits ofthe cognitive approach is thatit goes deeply Jpro issues of nonsledge content, which is important when dealing with learning jn expert cultures, Researchers taking a life history and community perspective tend to eave out the specificity of professional domains of their analytical frame: ivork, Thuis, for programmatic reasons, we want to bring back knowledge into four discussion. In doing this turn we have been inspired by the research of Knorr Getins and one of her key concepts, “epistemic object.” However, there are some problems asociated with such a move that need to be commented on. Ics evieent that the concept of “knowledge” in the literature on expertise on. one side and! Knorr Cetina’s texts on the other are miles apart. Her theoretical postion has family resemblance with community approaches in underlining the pocial- constructed character of professional knowledge. She then adds the objec: tual clement in collective epistemic processing, The issue of knowledge content js taken care of by her field studies of scientists working at CERN and currency dealers in Swiss banks, In rellecting on the general validity of her conceptual frame work, Knorr Cetina (1999) suggests that it can be seen as providing “templates” “epistemic object” cannot be given a fixed definition. It has to be interpreted in relationship to a field of practice, There is a conflict between conceptual clarity and richness in her fexts, and here we follow Engestrim (2005) in pointing out the need for a historical analysis that may bridge a complex and an abstract understanding of professional learning. ‘This brings us to a related area of concern when adopting the vocabulary of Knorr Cetina and others, How do we study “trajectories” within this paradigm? ‘The most critical question is related to the issue of analytical levels. Both Knorr Cetina and Nespor are using interactional data and refrain fom doing any “cxo- genic” study of historical or other metalevel trajectories. Of course there is no clearcut answer to how these processes ate developmentally coupled (Beach, 1999), but Knorr Cetina and Nespor seem to circumvent such problems by adopt ing a flat model of “mediated network relations.” This step also represents 3 ‘conceptual deift that makes their concept of knowledge just as blurred as the ‘ones to be found in the literature on “communities of practice.” Thus the texts of Knorr Cetina and others may deliver some “templates” in our attempt to bring back knowledge in studies of professional learning. But as suggested above, other theoretical positions have to be recruited in this campaign. Scill there is a need to preserve the concept “epistemic trajectory” in order to remind ourselves that issues of knowledge content and its dynamics are important when studying expert that sensitize observations in other contexts, ‘Thus66 1 Lahn References [Achtenhagen, B, (2001). Some Mints on the Success and Failure of Self-directed Learning athe Workplace. In L. F. M. Niewenhuis and W. J. Nihof (eds) The Dynamves of VET ‘and HRD Sytems, Baschede: Twente Univesity Pres Ashley, K_ (1988). Arguing by Analogy in Law: A case-based model. In D. Helman (ed) Analogical Reasoning: Perspectvesof artificial intelligence, cognitive ence and philoso, Doréreche: Kluwer, Beach, King D. (1999). Consequential Transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond tans fer in education. Review of Rescarch i Education, 24, 124-149. Bemstein, B. (1996). Pedagoyy, Spatolic Control and Identity: Theo, research erty, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Brown, D. (ed) (2002). Career Choice an Derelopent. New York ‘ssey Bass, Bruni, A. (2005). Shadowing Software and Clinical Records: On the ethnography of on humans and heeergencous contents. Organization, 12, 357-378, Gallon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the ‘scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (ed.) Powe, Action and Belief London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Cary, Lisa J. (1999). Unexpected Stories: Life history and the limits of representation, Qnaliraive bugnirs, 5, 411-827. Chaikin, and Lave, J. (1996). Understanding Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Chamness, N., Fetovich, P.J., Hoffiman, RJ. and Ericsson, K. A. (eds) (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Espere Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press (Clements, D, H, and Sarama, J. (2004). Leaening Trajectories in Maciematies Education, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6,81-89. Deakin, J. M., C8tG, J. and Harvey, A, S. (2006), Time Budgets, Dies, and Analyses of ‘Concurrent Practice Activities, In N, Charnes, . J. Feltovich, R. J. Hoffman and K.A Ericsson (eds). Te Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Espert Perjrimance. New York Cambridge University Press Dreier, O. (1999). Personal Trajectories of Participation Across Contents of Social Practice Outlines, 1,5-32. Dreyfus, H. and Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind Over Machine. New York: 3asic Books. Edwards, A. (2005). Understanding, Mind ia World: The Vygotskian legacy. Contexts, Communities, Networks: Mobilising learners resources and relavonships in diffrent omnis Seminat one, 15-16 February 2005, Glasgow Caledoniar University Engestrm, ¥. (2005). Developmental Work Research: Expanding activity theary in practic, Berlin: Lchmanns Media, Eniut, M., Mailladet, E., Mille, C., Steadman, $, Ali, A. Blackman, C. and Burner, J (2005). What is Learned in the Workplace and How? Typologies and results fom a «ross professional longitudinal study. EARLI 11, Biannal Couforoes, Nicosia, August 23-29, 2005, Ericsson, K. A. (ed) (1997). The Road to Excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Exlbaum. Feltovieh, PJ, Spiro, R. J. and Coulson, RI. (1996). Flabilty in Contexts Characterized bby Complexity and Change. In P. J. Feltovich, KM. Ford, K Mand R. R. Hoffman (eds) Expertise in Contect. Hamman and Machine. Menlo Dat, CA:The MIT Dress Professional learning as epistemic trajectories 6/ === pai ah lg nd es Cayo el Nora aap tay apie. Lm Sp Plan Heer ee erm dcpir hes cee a ee tae ba fo anne gentUm 68 L.C.Lahn Sfard, A. (1998). On Two Metaphors for Learningand the Dangers of Choosing Just One, “Educational Rernveher, 27,413, Sternberg BJ and Horvath, A. (eds) (1999) Tacit Knwledge Profesional Practice Tosenrdhe and prncttioner perspectives. Maliwaly, NY: Lawrence Erlaum. Shite A. and Motta, E. (1998), Kaowledge Modelling: An organic technology for the nomiedge age In M. Fisenstade and T. Vincent (ods) he Kuowledge Web: Learning rand collaburation onthe net. London: Kogan Page . Wenger, E1998), Commoner ofPrneie: Learning, caning and identity. Cambri ‘Cambridge University Press Chapter § Cultivating collective expertise within innovative knowledge-practice networks Kai Hakkarainen, Jiri Lallimo, Seppo Toikka and Hal White Introduction "The present paper examined human expertise from three perspectives, i. know! edge acquisition, participation, and. knowledge creation {Psavola ct af, 2004; akkarainen ¢f al, 2004). Implications of these theoretical perspectives will be illustrated by reporting results of wo ongoing investigations of professional exper tise. Based on consideration of the latter two perspectives, itis argued that human expertise is collective in nature and cannot be understood as mere individual and mental process (knowledge-acquisition perspective). We consider the metaphors asheutistic tools that assist in examining various aspects of learning. While the ist two have been extensively examined and investigated, the third aspect is mostly ‘unknown territory. Yet, in order to have a holegraphic view of learning one needs to take al of the perspectives, simultaneously, into consideration, Knowledge-acquisition perspective on expertise Investigators have examined cognitive processes related to higher-level competen: cies since the 1970s, Expert studies revealed, contrary to rescarchers’ expectations, that domain-general reasoning processes or memory-skills did not substantially diverge bewween experts and novices. The knowledge-acquisition perspective on ‘expertise assumes that experts” exceptional performance is based on a large body of well-organized and usable erytallized knowing that asést them in separating ‘sential from unessential aspects of problem-solving (sce Baltes, Staudinger, & Lindenberg, 1999; Krampe & Baltes, 2003; and Bereiter & Scardamala, 1993) Experts on this view pursue challenging objectives by relying on limited resources 9f fluid knowing, develop new practices and procedures that transform novel Activity into routines (crystallized knowing), thereby, releasing new resources for Garying out even more challenging projeets. Activity becomes gradually easier 4 agents accumulate crystallized knowing embodying solutions to frequently gncountered problems and develop routines for dealing with initially messy and broblematic situations. According to this view, experts outperform novices because they have acquired a rich body of erystallized patterns of solving problems that