Towards interprofessionality in developing family mediation in Finland

References

• Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R. J., & Niessen, T. (2006). Considering diversity: Multivoicedness in international academic collaboration. Culture & Psychology, 12, 461–485. doi:10.1177/1354067X06069947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81, 132–169. doi:10.3102/0034654311404435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alasoini, T. (2011). Learning networks as an infrastructure for the creation and dissemination of workplace innovation: An introduction. In T. Alasoini, M. Lahtonen, N. Rouhiainen, C. Sweins, K. Hulkko-Nyman, & T. Spangar (Eds.), Linking theory and practice: Learning networks at the service of workplace innovation (pp. 13–30). Helsinki: Tekes. Retrieved from http://www.tekes.fi/globalassets/julkaisut/75_linking_theory_and_practice.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bessant, J., & Tsekouras, G. (2001). Developing learning networks. AI & Society, 15, 82–98. doi:10.1007/BF01205739
   Google Scholar
• Couturier, Y., Gagnon, D., Carrier, S., & Etheridge, F. (2008). The interdisciplinary condition of work in relational professions of the health and social care field: A theoretical standpoint. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22, 341–351. doi:10.1080/13561820802190616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner. The relational turn in expertise. London: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-3969-9
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.007
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A., & Kinti, I. (2010). Working relationally at organisational boundaries: Negotiating expertise and identity. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 126–139). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, R. (2009). Who is acting in an activity-system? In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 257–273). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809989
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, R. (2014a). New forms of transformative agency. In A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan (Eds.), Technology-enhanced professional learning: Processes, practices and tools (pp. 59–70). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, R. (2014b). The interplay of developmental and dialogical epistemologies. Outlines: Critical Practice Studies, 15, 119–138. Retrieved from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/view/16834/14611
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An Activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521831040
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kerosuo, H. (2003). The discursive construction of collaborative care. Applied Linguistics, 24, 286–315. Retrieved from https://www.helsinki.fi/content/24/3/,DanaInfo=applij.oxfordjournals.org+28610.1093/applin/24.3.286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 368–387. doi:10.1108/09534811111132758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haavisto, V., Bergman-Pyykkönen, M., & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2014). Perheasioiden sovittelun uudet tuulet. Havaintoja, mallinnuksia ja arvioita Fasper-hankkeen pohjalta [Novelties in family mediation. Observations, models and evaluations from the project Fasper]. Helsinki: Suomen sovittelufoorumi.
   Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen, J. (2012). Huoltoriitojen kustannukset yhteiskunnalle: taloudellisen arvioinnin teoreettisia ja metodologisia haasteita. [Public costs of disputes over child custody: Theoretical and methodological challenges of economic valuation.] In A. Kääriäinen, J. Hämäläinen, & P. Pölkki (Eds.), Eron haasteet, väliintulot ja lapset [Challenges of divorce, interventions and children] (pp. 213–241). Helsinki: Ensi- ja turvakotienliitto.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analytic practice. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 180–196). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr, Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Julkunen, I., & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2014). Socially robust knowledge processes of local and global interest in social work. In T. Harrikari, P.-L. Rauhala, & E. Virokannas (Eds.), Social change and social work: The changing societal conditions of social work in time and place (pp. 101–120). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Kerosuo, H. (2004). Examining boundaries in health care: Outline of a method for studying organizational boundaries in interaction. Outlines, 6, 35–60. Retrieved from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/view/2149/1894
   Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Luckmann, T. (1995). Interaction planning and intersubjective adjustment of perspectives by communicative genres. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and Implications of the social bias in human intelligence (pp. 175–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621710
   Google Scholar
• Mattila-Aalto, M., Bergman-Pyykkönen, M., Haavisto, V., & Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2012). Konfliktiteoreettinen näkökulma eroihin ja palvelujen kehittämiseen. [A conflict-theoretical perspective on divorce and service development.] In A. Kääriäinen, J. Hämäläinen, & P. Pölkki (Eds.). Eron haasteet, väliintulot ja lapset [Challenges of divorce, interventions and children] (pp. 213–241). Helsinki: Ensi- ja turvakotienliitto.
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh, J. (2003). Enduring conflict in parental separation: Pathways of impact on child development. Journal of Family Studies, 9, 63–80. doi:10.5172/jfs.9.1.63
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, H. (2013). Motherhood, apple pie and interprofessional working. Social Work Education, 32, 956–963. doi:10.1080/02615479.2012.709841
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paavola, S., Engeström, R., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). The trialogical approach as a new form of mediation. In A. Moen, A. I. Mørch, & S. Paavola (Eds.), Collaborative knowledge creation: Practices, tools, concepts (pp. 1–14). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.10.1007/978-94-6209-004-0
   Google Scholar
• Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576. doi:10.3102/00346543074004557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryave, A. L. (1978). On the achievement of a series of stories. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 113–132). New York, NY: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50011-2
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stetsenko, A. (2013). The challenge of individuality in cultural-historical activity theory: ‘Collectividual’ dialectics from a transformative activist stance. Outlines: Critical Practice Studies, 14, 7–28. Retrieved from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/view/9791
   Google Scholar
• Toiviainen, H., Kerosuo, H., & Syrjälä, T. (2009). ‘Development Radar’: The co-configuration of a tool in a learning network. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 509–524. doi:10.1108/13665620910985513
   Google Scholar
• Valsiner, J. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development. Human Development, 44, 84–97. doi:10.1159/000057048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wackerhausen, S. (2009). Collaboration, professional identity and reflection across boundaries. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23, 455–473. doi:10.1080/13561820902921720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar