ResponsAbility - Dialogues on Practical Knowledge and Bildung in Professional Studies

Edited Podcast Transcript:

ResponsAbility
Dialogues on Practical Knowledge and Bildung in Professional Studies
By Michael Noah Weiss and Guro Hansen Helskog

#3 Practical Knowledge and Practice Research | Catrine Thorbjørnsen Halås

Michael:
Welcome to this episode of The ResponsAbility podcast with Guro Hansen
Helskog as co-host.

Guro:
And Michael Noah Weiss as the host.

Michael:
Today we have the pleasure to welcome Catrine Torbjørnsen Halås as our guest!
Catrine, you are professor in social work at Nord University. You were leader of the Center
for Practical Knowledge and you hold a PhD in the Science of Professions. Your research
activities focus on the development of practical knowledge as well as on interdisciplinary
work with kids and youngsters in difficult life situations. Welcome to our podcast Catrine!
Guro: We wonder, what was it that brought you into this field of research on practical
knowledge in the first place?

Catrine:
I was educated as a social worker. First I worked in the municipality with social
work, and then for many years at the County level with developing services and knowledge
together with people in the practice field in Nordland. When I heard about this new study
that was supposed to start up, the master of practical knowledge, and I was invited to a
meeting to hear more about it. When understanding how the study was built up, I thought
that this was something I myself needed to do in my work where I was responsible for
developing knowledge together with people in the practice field. Therefor I joined the study,
discovering that I could use it directly in my work from day one. It helped me see how to
develop knowledge from practice, how to put words to practice, and further how to
develop and have a critical look at our practice.

Michael:
When you say developing practical knowledge, I guess this can be connected to
research. You were one of the co-editors of an ontology with the title “Introduction to
practical knowledge. Acknowledging, critical and constructive practice research”, and in
that respect I wonder what you mean by practice research, and for which disciplines would
it be relevant and suitable?

Catrine:
I think that this is a term that is used in many different ways. I think you can do
research on practice, you can do research with practice, and you can do research in
practice, and I guess that all of these forms are in some ways practice research. However, I
think for me, practice research is a term that we use when you are interested in
understanding practice and in developing practice, thus developing knowledge that could
in some way contribute to the betterment of practice.

Michael:
You said you can do research on practice, with practice and in practice. Which of
these three do you prefer?

Catrine:
Well, I do think we need research on practice. But what my colleagues and I have
mostly been occupied with when working at the Center of Practical Knowledge, is to
develop knowledge within and in practice, and together with practice. We need to look into
the insider-perspective if we are to understand how practice is experienced. What is at
stake in the practice? What are the problems involved? Understanding practice from the
inside is not so easy if you are doing research on practice. If you want to understand what
is going on from an insider perspective, you need a dialogic way of working together with
the practitioners.
You can be an outsider doing practice research, but if you want to do research on practical
knowledge, you need to enter into dialogues, to investigate, and try to understand practice
together with practitioners. Or even also, as many of our students have done, to do
research in your own practice in order to understand it.

Guro:
You are also a co-editor together with other colleagues on an anthology focusing on
humanistic research approaches to professional studies. What would you say are the main
differences between humanistic research approaches and social science approaches to
professional studies with regards to your distinctions between research on, with and in
practice?

Catrine:
That is a question with many answers because the social sciences have grown out
of the humanities. The two research approaches started at the same place and have the
same roots. For instance, many of my colleagues at the social work department would
really say that they are not only doing social science, but that they also have this
humanistic perspective. The reason is that all of the different professions, whether a nurse,
a teacher, a social worker, a police officer or other, are based in knowledge from both
research tradition. Both humanistic and social sciences are part of the knowledge that you
are using in the profession.
This said, when we wrote this book we wanted to focus on the more humanistic
perspectives on the practices and the research. We wanted to focus on what it means to
be a human being in the world. And I think that the social sciences focus more on society.
They want to understand society and the structures and the frames we live in. However,
also many people within the social sciences are occupied with understanding human
beings and the human conditions and what it is like to be a person. But I think this is
anyhow the main difference for me. And if we are interested in understanding what it is like
to be a human being in the world, then what kind of research approaches do we need to get
knowledge about that?

Michael:
Well, I guess that we can all agree that no matter whether it's social science,
whether it's the humanities, whether it's natural science, all types of research intend to
develop knowledge. And if we can agree on that, then maybe a humanistic research
approach or humanistic practice research focuses on the development of practical
knowledge? And in that respect, what is practical knowledge? How can you characterize
this knowledge form?

Catrine:
My earlier colleague, Steen Wackerhausen, writes in this book that we were
talking about, that practical knowledge is the field of doing research in practical
knowledge. Here, we are occupied with how our whole knowledge becomes visible in the
way we carry out our practice, in what lays under this practice. So, I think our practical
knowledge is the knowledge that becomes visible in our actions, in what we are doing. And
then when we are interested in developing knowledge about our actions: What are we
doing? What are our intentions? What affects our practices, internally (for instance
motivations and intentions), and externally (for instance the structures around them)?
Hence, it is about what Anders Lindseth called answerability. To be answerable or
knowledgeable in practice implies that you have the knowledge to do something. What
kind of knowledge is this? It is not only theoretical knowledge. It is also based on the
experiences you have, and on the customs of practice field you work in. You are a part of
the values and of the habits of the community of practice – of how things usually are done
and have been done. Both what you bring with you into the practice as a beginner, and
what becomes part of your practical knowledge as you get more trained, inform you
actions along the way, is important. Polanyi has this concept of tacit knowledge that is
relevant here. The experienced practitioner knows what to do in concrete situations. But
she is not always able to put words on what she is doing, or explain why she's doing what
she's doing. She just knows it. She is able to combine different aspects of knowledge, such
as the theoretical, the technical or methodological, and also the more phronetic
knowledge, that is, you have the wisdom to know what to do and why and when to do it. So,
at the core of practical knowledge, I guess you have this pragmatic judgment to be able to
find out what is best to do in the concrete situation.
That's why you as a practice researcher need time to explore. It takes time to really go into
practice, find this one place behind your practice, find the reasons for what you are doing
and to put all this into words. It is not something you can just tell right away. Very often you
have to dig into it, question it and really reflect upon your practices. And in this you need
theoretical perspectives and concepts that can help you to find the words, but you have to
start by telling what you are doing, that is to put your actions into a story that you can use
as a starting point for developing knowledge.

Guro:
What you are saying is really that the practitioner`s experience of his or her own
practice is central. And then when doing research, also using this experience. However,
some would say that using your own experiences is not objective enough, and thus too
subjective if you want call what you do research. What would be your comment to this?

Catrine:
Well, I think that my practice is not only my practice. Of course, at some level, my
practice is informed by who I am and my values, my earlier experiences, meeting people in
similar kinds of situations, and so forth. I can recognize something as similar or different in
the situations, and in a way ,these are my experiences. But at the same time my values, my
habits, my way of doing things imprints of being part of the society, of the culture, of the
practice community that I am part of. When I do research in practical knowledge, I am thus
looking at what my practice can tell about the world, about being human, about what is
good for people, what is valuable, and so forht. It is not only about my perspective. This
perspective also tells something about the society and culture I live in. It also tells
something about the world.

Guro:
So there's something universal, so to speak, in your concrete experiences?
Something commonly human?

Catrine:
Yes. One of my colleagues, Kåre Fuglseth, says that my actions can be seen as a
fingerprint of a practice. So yes, it's unique, but at the same time it tells something about a
larger body that you belong to. By doing reflections, by digging into, by trying to understand,
you try to find something. Yes, it's unique, but at the same time in this unique you can tell
something about the world or about being human. There's something universal. Yet it is not
necessarily true in a way that it always will happen this way, but it is still something
truthful. It's something you can trust in. It's something you can recognize. I believe this
could have happened in another situation.

Michael:
In in that respect: If we assume that the experience of the practitioner plays a
central role in the development of practical knowledge, what kind of methodologies or
research approaches can be used in order to proceed in what you just described as a
movement from the concrete experience of the practitioner towards something more
universal that also other practitioners can relate to?

Catrine:
I think that before I answer that more concretely, I need to say that it is really
necessary that we have research approaches that allow us to describe what it is like being
human in a broad sense. And that is not only about our rational thinking or our arguments.
We need to capture our actions in a situation and in a bigger context. We also need to
capture the emotional aspects of being human. This means that we need research
approaches that can help us find ways to express the complexity of being a human in the
world. At Center for Practical Knowledge at Nord University we have used narrative
approaches or also stories that practitioners write down, using these as starting points in
the research process. The researchers can thus start with their own narrated experiences,
or the experiences of other practitioners. You can start asking them to tell about their
experiences if you are interviewing them, or you can ask them to write their experiences as
stories, and use these as your material. I think stories are a good way to come close to
human experiences in a wide sense.
We can also use art as a starting point. You can use pictures, films, music and poems. The
arts represent ways of expressing human experience that comes closer to different
dimensions of being a human. As such, we should become more experimental in our ways
of doing research. The important question is what kind of approaches we need in order to
develop the kind of knowledge we want to develop. If we want to develop practical
knowledge, a good starting point is to look into stories.
However, it is often not enough with the stories that people are able to tell. In addition, our
students have a lot of classes in anthropology, doing observations. Many aspects of
practice are often hidden to the practitioner. They might be able to tell stories, yet there are
many aspects that they are not able to put into words. Then maybe you can observe other
practitioners, or you can take a video of your own practice, and then you can talk about
what happens. What is inexpressable or hidden for the person who tells about his or her
practice, might be visible for the observer or the video analytic. So, a combination of
storytelling and observation could be a very good way to do research in practical
knowledge.

Guro:
And if we even go behind that, in own chapter in the book Humanistic research
approaches to professional studies, you contemplate the role of unrest or unease or what
we in Norwegian call “uro” as a starting point for doing practice research and also for the
development of practical knowledge. Can you say some more about this and your own way
into this?

Catrine:
When I did my PhD work, I did research together with practitioners and at-risk-
youths that were in a rehabilitation project. Together we researched what could be good
approaches to help young people in situations like their own. I met them for two years,
challenging dilemmas you meet when you also bring the young voices and what we
normally call service users into the research. There was a difference both in power and in
the kinds of knowledge that the professionals and that the young people had. But at the
same time we wanted to bring the different perspectives and experiences together, and
develop knowledge together from there. In the process I discovered that I really should
listen to the situations where I experienced that things did not work as expected. These
situations were really about my own ideas, values and thoughts about what a good way to
cooperate with the young people was. And when I was writing my chapter for the book, I
looked into the texts of other PhD students in the field of practical knowledge, discovering
that very many started with an experience or an idea that there is something that we don't
succeed in doing well enough. Some was informed by researchers who had claimed that
we need to do more research on this or that. But all the Phd projects I looked into had a
personal motivation as a starting point: “There is something wrong here” or “there's
something that I don't understand”. And of course, I have been a student of Anders
Lindseth, so my thinking is very much informed by his ideas and what he has taught me.
And he often said “It is something. There is something interesting you don't quite
understand”. This is also what he (Lindseth) calls experiences of discrepancy. And that is a
very good starting point to do research.
In my practice as a social worker and researcher, I very often felt this unrest or this
worrying, believing it has something to teach me. The unrest often tells us that something
ethical is at stake in our practices. And for me, the question of ethics is about what is good.
What is a good thing to do in a situation? When do they harm people? When do they
violate? And I think that is very crucial, especially in social work and in nursing. In a way,
our judgments about what we are doing is about this. When Hanna Arendt said that the
subject has to listen to her own consciousness - that there is something in the
consciousness that you need to respond to and act upon to, it is about these aspects of
practice. It is also about responsibility. That's why I also think that's a very good starting
point for doing research.

Michael:
You mentioned the term responsibility. And one of the sources of inspiration to
call this Podcast ResponsAbility is a quote of Viktor Frankl in his book “Man’s Search for
Ultimate Meaning”. There he writes: “Man is not he who poses the question, What is the
meaning of life? but he who is asked this question, for it is life itself that poses it to him.
And man has to answer to life by answering for life; he has to respond by being
responsible.” And in that respect, I would like to ask you Catrine, to what extent would you
say good practice and practical knowledge is a question of the practitioner’s responsibility,
or ResponseAbility as we call it here?

Catrine:
Responsibility is at the heart of doing research in practical knowledge, I think. The
way we have developed the professions and professional practice these days, it drives us
away from this responsibility or response-ability. We believe that by controlling our actions
through quality systems we are given evidence of best practice, which again can tell us
what to do. With this responsibility is moved away from the individual professionals to the
system. The systems are supposed to know what is best to do, not Me meeting You in the
concrete situation we find ourselves in.
In my PhD I did research with young people at risk in nine municipalities, using a cross-
disciplinary approach asking for good ways to reach out to young people that are striving in
their lives. What we learned from these young people was that most important is the
meeting between Me and You, and the experience that I can trust You. For a young person
to allow the professional into his or her life, developing trust in him or her, demands of the
professional that he or she is responsible. Likewise, in order to develop the capacity to
know what is good to do in a concrete situation, the professional needs to feel responsible
and to take responsibility.

Guro:
In relation to that: One thing is researching professional practice in a good way,
another thing is educating good professionals. How should we educate practitioners that
are able to take this kind of responsibility?

Catrine:
I think we have to teach them how to see. We need to train the students not only to
analyze with theories, to categorize and to put into boxes, even though we need that kind of
knowledge as well. We also need to train them to meet the other and to see what's going
on in a situation. To see who is this person that I am meeting? Who is this pupil? What is
her or his life conditions? What's at stake for this student? What do I need to do in this
situation? To be able to respond; to be able to answer: to have answerability, you first need
to be able to see what is going on for the Other in the situation. And that is why one of the
books you refer to about practical knowledge, we have called “Recognizing and critical,
and constructive practice research.” Because you really need to start to dwell, to try to see
the situation, to see what's going on.
So, I think we need to really train them to observe, to look, to feel. And to get a language to
describe first what's happening, what's going on here, before you start to bring in the
theoretical perspectives. So, you really need to be able to see. Claudia Giardino, an Italian
researcher, uses the term of seeing also as a sensing, as being able to capture what is in
the situation. And also, I have this philosopher that I have been very interested in - Jakob
Mailer? He is writing about how we can see what is in a situation, and about how can we
can see the Other.

Michael:
Thank you very much. I think that we are coming closer to the end of this episode.
Catrine, thank you very much for the conversation. It was very inspiring. I really appreciate
the talk.
I also would like to thank our listeners. Guro and I hope to welcome you all again in one of
our next episodes. And with that, I can only say thank you very much and goodbye.