Finding a Concept that Integrates Specialists' Know How — The Case of Special School for Handicapped and Neurologically ill Children

The integration of specialised knowledge and knowhow from many areas is needed to meet demanding challenges and a new path for development. In practice, this is, however, difficult. In the literature on collaboration between specialists representing different areas of expertise, much has been discussed about how coordination and exchange over disciplinary boundaries is possible. The development and function of integrative concepts in collaboration has been studied less. The concept of the object of an activity developed in the tradition of cultural historical activity theory can clarify the difference between the coordination of specialists' contributions and the genuine integration of know-how. One of the activities that call for the integration of knowledge and skills from several areas of expertise is the upbringing of handicapped, neurologically ill children. In this article, we will describe a developmental intervention in which a new collaborative way of working between teachers, therapists and nurses was created. Instead of coordinating their different activities, the representatives of these professions started to collaboratively design and structure individual pupils' daily activities so that they became rehabilitative.

1. Allen T. Communications, technology transfer, and the role of technical gatekeeper. R & D Management 1. 1971.
2. Allen T. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Ancona D. & Cadwell D. (1992). Democracy and design. Predictors of new product development team performance. Organization Science. 3. 1977.
3. Brown S. & Eisenhardt K. Product development. Past research, present findings, and future direction. Academy of Management Review 20 (2). 1995.
4. Dogherty D. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organiztion Science 3 (2). 1992.
5. Engestro..m Y. Learning by Expanding: An activitytheo retical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit Oy, 1987.
6. Engestro..m Y. When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artefacts in human activity. In Engestro..m Y. Learning, Working and Imagining. Helsinki, 1990.
7. Engestro..m Y. New forms of learning in coconfiguration work. Journal of Workplace Learning 16 (1/2), 2004. КУЛЬТУРНО-ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ПСИХОЛОГИЯ 4/2011 39
8. Engestro..m Y. Putting Vygotsky to Work. The Change Laboratory as an Application of Double
9. Stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole & J. V. Wertsh (Eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge, 2007.
10. Engestro..m Y. From Teams to Knots. ActivityTeoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work. Cambridge, 2008.
11. Engestro..m Y., Pasanen A., Toiviainen H. & Haavisto V. Expansive learning as collective concept formation at work. In K. Yamazumi, Y. Engestrom & H. Daniels (Eds.) New Learning Challenges. Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work. Osaka, 2006.
12. Finholt T. A., Sproull L. & Kiesler S. Outsiders on the inside: Sharing knowhow across space and time. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler. Distributed work. Cambridge Mass, 2002.
13. Foot K. A. (2002). Pursuing an evolving object: a case study in object formation and identification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9 (2).
14. Fujimura J. H. Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and «Translation». In Pickering (Ed.) Science as Practice and Culture (pp. 168—214). Chicago, 1992.
15. Galbraith J. Designing complex organizations. Reading Mass, 1973.
16. Galison P. The Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief. In P. Galison. (Ed.) Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (pp. 781—844). Chicago, 1997.
17. Hari M. & Akos K. Conductive Education. London, 1988.
18. Il'enkov E. V. The Concept of the Ideal. Philosophy in the USSR: Problems of Dialectical Materialism. Moscow, 1977.
19. Keating P., Cambrosio A. Biomedical Platforms. Reading the Normal and the Pathological in LateTwentieth Century Medicine. London: The MIT Press. Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: an activitytheoretical study of development, learning, and change in health care organization for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.
20. Leont'ev A. N. Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Englewood Cliffs, 1978.
21. Lowy I. The strength of loose concepts boundary concepts, federative experimental strategies and disciplinary growth: the case of immunology. History of Science XXX, 1992.
22. Mattila E. Questions to artificial nature: A philosophical study of interdisciplinary models and their functions in scientific practice. Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki 14. Helsinki, 2006.
23. Nelson. KSocial cognition in a script framework. In Flawell J., Ross L (Eds.). Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures. New York, 1981.
24. Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The knowledgecreating company. London, 1995.
    Star L., Griesemer J. Institutional ecology, 'translations', and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, xix. 1988.
25. Stetsenko A. P. The role of the principle of objectrelatedness in the theory of activity // Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 1995. 33 (6).
26. Victor B. & Boynton A. C. Invented Here: Maximizing Your Organization's Internal Growth and Proe tability, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 1998.
27. Wartofsky M. W. Perception, representation, and the forms of action: towards an historical epistemology. In M.W. Wartofsky: Models: Representation and scientific understanding, volume 48 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dodrecht: Reidel. 1979.