This thesis explores the ways in which professionals (in particular, social work professionals) define, produce, transfer, use, develop and disseminate knowledge of and for their profession and their practice. The thesis considers the issue(s) of professional knowledge from three related but distinct perspectives: philosophical, methodological and professional. From a philosophical perspective, the thesis articulates and examines the underpinning principles of epistemology and considers to what extent the professional social work knowledge debate has been informed by reference to these, and whether the application of appropriate epistemic principles has anything to offer the professions(s) in terms of its knowledge requirements. Methodologically, the thesis is informed by the history of the philosophy of science regarding the nature of inquiry. These considerations provide a clear paradigmatic rationale and context for the utilisation of a mixed-methods approach to the empirical content, with Q-Factor analysis being the quantitative method of choice, supported by semi-structured interviews. From a professional perspective, the thesis explores the views of those professionals actively engaged in those processes of defining, producing, transferring, using, developing and disseminating knowledge of and for social work. These three perspectives are here combined to provide a means by which the views and understandings of professionals can be articulated in meaningful ways and used to inform future discussion and practice regarding professional knowledge forms. The findings within this thesis reveal the differing ways professional social workers both theorise about and engage with knowledge in its many and varied forms. The findings also highlight the ways in which influences external to the individual affect how knowledge is, or is not used, and how some forms of knowledge appear to have preferential status. The conclusions suggest ways of responding to and addressing these issues by reference to a new pragmatic epistemology for the profession(s), which takes cognisance of the contemporary professional zeitgeist.

Ambiguities have long intrigued design and new product development (NPD) researchers: The fascination seems rooted in an endeavor to understand how design outcomes may be created despite the ambiguous nature of such work. There are several classic contributions on how to categorize, avoid and approach ambiguities. Some of the newer theories have also pointed to benefits arising from temporarily sustaining ambiguity. Little research has considered how ambiguities emerge, how ambiguities are sensed by practitioners, and the actions the practitioners take, either to harness or to reduce the generative and transformative power of ambiguity, however. This is unfortunate, since ambiguities are at the heart of such knowing-work. If one does not know how to sense the emergence of ambiguities and act to reduce or harness their generative and transformative power, i.e. negotiate ambiguity, the work might become unproductive, confused, uncreative, and might require more energy and attention. The purpose of this research is to portray how ambiguities emerge and are negotiated in knowing-work. This is achieved by drawing on two cases of design and NPD work, from practice epistemology. The results indicated that the emerging ambiguities changed in the ongoing work, some being reduced, others becoming obsolete or persisting. The results also included five generalized actions to negotiate ambiguity: (1) constructing points of references, (2) mediating between perspectives, (3) anchoring in expertise, (4) disarming future resistance, and (5) creating shared visions. This research has concluded that the very essence of design work concerns the emergence and fading away of ambiguity. The actions taken to negotiate ambiguity mediates the emergence of the design outcome. This research makes two contributions: first, it illustrates how ambiguities open up design work by creating a space for action; second, it illustrates how actions to negotiate ambiguity maneuver in this space for action. / Den typ av arbete som tar sig an utvecklandet av nya produkter och tjänster omges ofta av oklarhet kring vad som skall skapas, hur den framtida marknaden ser ut samt vilka utmaningar som kommer att framträda under arbetets gång. Sådana oklarheter har studerats i design- och produktutvecklingsforskning, ofta under antagandet att oklarheterna bör undvikas och minimeras. Dock finns det även nyare forskning som pekar mot att oklarheter kan vara fördelaktiga i arbetet. Forskningen är dock begränsad vad gäller hur oklarheterna framträder i arbetet, hur praktiker förnimmer dessa oklarheter, samt hur en kan ta sig an dessa oklara situationer för att söka reducera eller dra nytta av potentialen i oklara situationer. Detta är olyckligt, då oklarhet ligger i skapandearbetets kärna. En sådan begränsad kunskapsbildning leder till förenklade antaganden kring oklarhetens roll i design- och produktutvecklingsarbete. Därtill får det rent praktiska konsekvenser då designkonsulternas praktik och yrkeskunnande delvis är höljd i dunkel, genom att deras förmåga att förnimma och förhandla oklarhet tidigare förbisetts. Syftet med denna forskning är således att studera hur oklarheter framträder samt förhandlas i skapandearbete, genom att stödja sig på empiriska studier av arbetet i två designkonsultföretag, utifrån ett praktikperspektiv. Resultaten visar både att oklarheter uppkommer och försvinner kontinuerligt i arbetet, samt beskriver fem förhandlingsaktiviteter: (1) skapa referenspunkter; (2) medla mellan perspektiv; (3) förankra i expertis; (4) avväpna framtida motstånd; och (5) skapa gemensamma visioner. Slutsatserna visar på att oklarheter skapar tolkningsutrymme i arbetet: i tvetydighetens många tolkningar öppnas ett utrymme för skapande och möjlighet till omtolkning. Därtill framkommer att förhandlingsaktiviteterna manövrerar i detta tolkningsutrymme, genom att nyttja eller minska oklarhetens många tolkningar. / <p>QC 20170508</p>

This thesis is about knowing in biology in higher education and research. The gene concept is used as an example of knowledge content that is common to both biological research and education. The purpose is to study how knowing about the gene is expressed in different forms of knowledge contexts at the university. This is important to study in order to understand documented learning problems regarding the gene concept but also to better understand the relation between knowledge in research and teaching. Knowledge has to be transformed to become an educational content, a process that is of special interest within the field of Didaktik. The thesis is based on three qualitative case studies. Study I is an analysis of a textbook in biology. The purpose is to examine the content as presented to the students to see how its structure may contribute to the problems students have. How does the gene concept function as a scientific representation and at the same time as an object for learning in a biology college textbook? A phenomenographic approach is used to study implicit variation in gene concept use when the textbook treats different sub disciplines. The results show conceptual differences between them. The different categories of the gene found–as a trait, an information structure, an actor in the cell, a regulator in embryonic development or as a marker for evolutionary change–mean that we deal with different phenomena. The gene as an object is ascribed different functions and furthermore these functions are intermingled in the textbook. Since, in the textbook, these conceptual differences are not articulated, they likely are a source of confusion when learning about genes. Study II examines the gene concept use in a scientific context, as exemplified by five research articles from a scientific journal. Using an adaptation of Hirst’s criteria for forms of knowledge, the study characterizes how the scientific contexts for the gene concept use vary. What kinds of different gene concept use in these contexts can be discerned? When comparing the articles, it becomes evident that the gene concept is used to answer different kinds of questions. The meanings of the gene concept are connected to various knowledge projects, their purposes and the methods used. Shifts of methodologies and questions entail a concept that escapes single definitions and “slides around” in meanings. These contextual transformations and associated content leaps are here referred to as epistemic drift. Study III follows an integrative research project in biology.  What are the characteristic content conditions for knowledge development? What different ways in using the gene concept can be distinguished? By using the analytic methodology developed in study II, the scientific contexts are categorized according to their knowledge project, methods used and conceptual contexts. The results show that the gene concept meanings and the content vary in focus, are more or less explicitly formulated, or possible to formulate, and consist of different skills. One didactic conclusion is that by being more overt about the conditions for problem solving within a specific subdisciplin (i.e. fruitful questions to ask, knowledge needed to answer them, and methods available), students may be given opportunities to get a broader perspective on what it means to know biology. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 3: Manuscript.</p><p> </p>