Knowledge in our hands: Analytical tools for craft knowledge communication

References

1. Almevik, G.. ( 2016;), ‘ From archive to living heritage: Participatory documentation methods in crafts. ’, in A. Palmsköld,, J. Rosenqvist, and G. Almevik. (eds), Crafting Cultural Heritage, Gothenburg:: University of Gothenburg;, pp. 77–99.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Almevik, G.,, Groth, C., and Westerlund, T.. ( 2022;), ‘ Explorations in the craft sciences. ’, in T. Westerlund,, C. Groth, and G. Almevik. (eds), Craft Sciences, Gothenburg Studies in Conservation, Gothenburg:: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis;, pp. 2–18.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Ehn, B.. ( 2014;), ‘ Komma åt detaljerna: Att intervjua, observera och skriva om traditionella hantverkskunskaper. ’ (‘Access the details: Interviewing, observing and writing about traditional craftsmanship’), in G. Almevik,, S. Höglund, and A. Winbladh. (eds), Hantverkare emellan, Mariestad:: Hantverkslaboratoriet, University of Gothenburg;, pp. 30–43.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Fourcade, M.. ( 2010;), ‘ The problem of embodiment in the sociology of knowledge: Afterword to the special issue on knowledge in practice. ’, Qualitative Sociology, 33:4, pp. 569–74.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Gherardi, S., and Perrotta, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Re-thinking induction in practice: Profession, peer group and organization in contention. ’, Society and Business Review, 11:2, pp. 193–209.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Groth, C.. ( 2022;), ‘ Video as a tool for knowing and telling in practice-led craft research. ’, in T. Westerlund,, C. Groth, and G. Almevik. (eds), Craft Sciences, Gothenburg Studies in Conservation, Gothenburg:: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis;, pp. 48–66.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Groth, C.,, Mäkelä, M., and Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P.. ( 2015;), ‘ Tactile augmentation: A multimethod for capturing experiential knowledge. ’, Craft Research, 6:1, pp. 57–81.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Ingold, T.. ( 2013), Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, London:: Routledge;.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Ingold, T.. ( 2018;), ‘ Five questions of skill. ’, Cultural Geographies, 25:1, pp. 159–63.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Kaiser, M.. ( 2000), Hva er vitenskap? (‘What is science?’), Oslo:: Universitetsforlaget;.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Källbom, A.. ( 2021;), ‘ Painting treatments of weather-exposed ferrous heritage: Exploration of oil varnish paints and painting skills. ’, Ph.D. thesis, Gothenburg:: University of Gothenburg;.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Karlsson, T.. ( 2013), Ramverksdörr: en studie i bänksnickeri (‘Framed doors: A study in carpentry’), Gothenburg:: University of Gothenburg;.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Kokko, S.,, Almevik, G.,, Bentz Høgseth, H. C., and Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P.. ( 2020;), ‘ Mapping the methodologies of the craft sciences in Finland, Sweden and Norway. ’, Craft Research, 11:2, pp. 177–209.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Lave, J.. ( 2008;), ‘ Epilogue: Situated Learning and changing practice. ’, in A. Amin, and J. Roberts. (eds), Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;, pp. 283–96.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Lave, J., and Wenger, E.. ( 1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York:: Cambridge University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Mäkelä, M., and Nimkulrat, N.. ( 2018;), ‘ Documentation as a practice-led research tool for reflection on experiential knowledge. ’, FormAkademisk: Forskningstidsskrift for Design Og Designdidaktikk, 11:2, pp. 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Merleau-Ponty, M.. ( [1945] 2012), Phénoménologie de la perception, Paris:: Gallimard;. Rpt. as Phenomenology of Perception (trans. D. A. Landes), New York: Routledge .
    [Google Scholar]
18. Molander, B.. ( 2015), The Practice of Knowing and Knowing in Practices, Frankfurt am Main:: Peter Lang Edition;.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Molander, B.. ( 2017;), ‘ Tankens frihet och längtan efter verklighet: om “teori” som begrepp och retorik. ’ (‘Freedom of thought and the longing for reality: About “theory” as an idea, a concept, and rhetoric’), in G. Almevik. (ed.), Hantverksvetenskap, Mariestad:: Hantverkslaboratoriet, University of Gothenburg;, pp. 14–36. Rpt. in English in T. Westerlund, C. Groth and G. Almevik (eds) (2022), Craft Sciences, pp. 374–96 , https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2ngx5xd. Accessed 1 August 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Molander, B.. ( 2022;), ‘ Freedom of thought and the longing for reality: About “theory” as an idea, a concept, and rhetoric. ’, in T. Westerlund,, C. Groth, and G. Almevik. (eds), Craft Sciences, Gothenburg Studies in Conservation, Gothenburg:: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis;, pp. 374–95.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Niedderer, K., and Imani, Y.. ( 2009;), ‘ Developing a framework for managing tacit knowledge in research using knowledge management models. ’, Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16–19 July 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Niedderer, K., and Reilly, L.. ( 2010;), ‘ Research practice in art and design: Experiential knowledge and organised inquiry. ’, Journal of Research Practice, 6:2, pp. 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H.. ( 1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
24. O’Connor, E.. ( 2017;), ‘ Touching tacit knowledge: Handwork as ethnographic method in a glassblowing studio. ’, Qualitative Research, 17:2, pp. 217–30.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Pink, S.. ( 2009;), Doing Sensory Ethnography. , Los Angeles, CA:: Sage;.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Polanyi, M.. ( [1966] 2009), The Tacit Dimension, Chicago, IL:: University of Chicago Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Rust, C.. ( 2004;), ‘ Design enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science. ’, Design Issues, 20:4, pp. 76–85.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Schön, D. A.. ( [1995] 2003), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Aldershot:: Arena;.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Seiler, J.,, Eriksson, L.,, Westerlund, T., and Almevik, G.. ( 2021;), ‘ Ways of tacit knowing: A film article. ’, FormAkademisk: forskningstidsskrift for design og designdidaktikk, 14:2, n.pag.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Sennett, R.. ( 2008), The Craftsman, New Haven, CT and London:: Yale University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Tanaka, S.. ( 2013;), ‘ The notion of embodied knowledge and its range. ’, Encyclopaedia, XVII:37, pp. 47–66.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Thane, G.. ( 2022;), ‘ Understanding through blacksmithing techniques. ’, in T. Westerlund,, C. Groth, and G. Almevik. (eds), Craft Sciences, Gothenburg Studies in Conservation, Gothenburg:: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis;, pp. 334–48.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Tilley, C.. ( 2006;), ‘ The sensory dimensions of gardening. ’, Science and Society, 1:3, pp. 311–30.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Tsoukas, H.. ( 2003;), ‘ Do we really understand tacit knowledge?. ’, in M. Easterby-Smith, and M. A. Lyles. (eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Knowledge Management, Oxford:: Blackwell;, pp. 410–27.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Westerlund, T.. ( 2017;), ‘ Trädgårdsmästarens förökningsmetoder: dokumentation av hantverkskunskap. ’ (‘The gardener’s propagation methods: Documentation of craft knowledge’), Ph.D. thesis, Gothenburg:: University of Gothenburg;.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Westerlund, T.. ( 2022;), ‘ Classification of plant propagation practice. ’, in T. Westerlund,, C. Groth, and G. Almevik. (eds), Craft Sciences, Gothenburg Studies in Conservation, Gothenburg:: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis;, pp. 350–70.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Wood, N.. ( 2014;), ‘ Silent witness: Using video to record and transmit tacit knowledge in creative practices. ’, in G. Almevik,, S. Höglund, and A. Winbladh. (eds), Hantverkare emellan, Mariestad:: Hantverkslaboratoriet, University of Gothenburg;, pp. 56–69.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Westerlund, Tina. ( 2022;), ‘ Knowledge in our hands: Analytical tools for craft knowledge communication. ’, Craft Research, 13:2, pp. 237–59, https://doi.org/10.1386/crre_00078_1
    [Google Scholar]