Page 165 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Cooperation Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 165
lational expertise as a prerequisite for effective multi-professional collaboration ...
key to collaboration among different practices is to understand each prac-
tice’s motivations and to direct professionals in their professional actions
(Edwards, 2010, 2011, 2012). However, it is easier to build common knowl-
edge when the new ideas are not so distant from the established specialist
knowledge in practice because, as soon as this distance grows, even great-
er effort in understanding the perspectives that shape each practice is re-
quired to build common knowledge. Edwards establishes her definition
of common knowledge on the cultural/historical framework of Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and the work of Vygotsky and Leontev
who see common knowledge as a resource mediating people’s responses
and the nature of their collaboration in inter-professional work settings
(see Edwards, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016). She argues that knowledge about
what others, namely those with whom one is working, hold as their motiva-
tions and perspectives facilitates understanding of the reasons for their ac-
tions, evaluation processes and responses in different situations (Edwards,
2012, 2016; Edwards & Daniels, 2012). Building common knowledge is evi-
dence of relational expertise and at the same time a foundation and media-
tor in the development of relational agency.
Relational agency
Relational agency is the third and final tool that completes the toolbox by
utilising resources from both of the previous tools (Edwards, 2011). It is de-
fined as the capacity to work with others to develop purposeful responses to
complex problems (Edwards, 2005, 2011). Relational agency is a two-stage
dynamic process that is co-produced in spaces between people through di-
alogue and social interaction (Chateris & Smardon, 2017). The first stage
concerns cooperation with others to expand on the problem or task related
to the work topic, entailing the recognition of the motivations and resourc-
es each participant brings to the process. The second stage involves taking
this newly acquired knowledge about the motivations and response of oth-
ers working on the same problem and aligning them with one’s own posi-
tion (Edwards, 2005, 2010). It can be said that is based on a pre-existing or
newly formed understanding of specific motivations of others and identi-
fied differences and complementary strengths that all stakeholders bring to
the table that lead to the incorporation of a wider set of interpretations of
the problem. Through cooperation with others, individuals’ ability to en-
gage with the world is enhanced (Hoopwood & Edwards, 2017). Another
manifestation of this social practice is willingness to explain the reasons
165
key to collaboration among different practices is to understand each prac-
tice’s motivations and to direct professionals in their professional actions
(Edwards, 2010, 2011, 2012). However, it is easier to build common knowl-
edge when the new ideas are not so distant from the established specialist
knowledge in practice because, as soon as this distance grows, even great-
er effort in understanding the perspectives that shape each practice is re-
quired to build common knowledge. Edwards establishes her definition
of common knowledge on the cultural/historical framework of Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and the work of Vygotsky and Leontev
who see common knowledge as a resource mediating people’s responses
and the nature of their collaboration in inter-professional work settings
(see Edwards, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016). She argues that knowledge about
what others, namely those with whom one is working, hold as their motiva-
tions and perspectives facilitates understanding of the reasons for their ac-
tions, evaluation processes and responses in different situations (Edwards,
2012, 2016; Edwards & Daniels, 2012). Building common knowledge is evi-
dence of relational expertise and at the same time a foundation and media-
tor in the development of relational agency.
Relational agency
Relational agency is the third and final tool that completes the toolbox by
utilising resources from both of the previous tools (Edwards, 2011). It is de-
fined as the capacity to work with others to develop purposeful responses to
complex problems (Edwards, 2005, 2011). Relational agency is a two-stage
dynamic process that is co-produced in spaces between people through di-
alogue and social interaction (Chateris & Smardon, 2017). The first stage
concerns cooperation with others to expand on the problem or task related
to the work topic, entailing the recognition of the motivations and resourc-
es each participant brings to the process. The second stage involves taking
this newly acquired knowledge about the motivations and response of oth-
ers working on the same problem and aligning them with one’s own posi-
tion (Edwards, 2005, 2010). It can be said that is based on a pre-existing or
newly formed understanding of specific motivations of others and identi-
fied differences and complementary strengths that all stakeholders bring to
the table that lead to the incorporation of a wider set of interpretations of
the problem. Through cooperation with others, individuals’ ability to en-
gage with the world is enhanced (Hoopwood & Edwards, 2017). Another
manifestation of this social practice is willingness to explain the reasons
165
