Makes me think about ”the professional domains of action and the question of neutrality”(Lang/Little/Cronen). Each professional have to navigate between the Estetical/ethical, production and explanation domains. And the notion of developing trust in your intuitive knowledge/skills (10.000 hours of practice)
Thank you for this insightful comment! You raise some fascinating points about how professionals navigate different domains of practice. The framework from Lang, Little and Cronen about aesthetic/ethical, production and explanation domains really resonates with the themes we've been exploring about balancing human judgment with systematic approaches.
The 10,000 hours concept connects beautifully with our discussion of tacit knowledge in Part 4. It highlights how expertise isn't just about accumulating information - it's about developing that deep intuitive understanding that comes through sustained practice and reflection. This kind of embodied knowledge becomes crucial when navigating between different professional domains, I reckon.
As I mentioned to you before, I am not a social worker, but one thing stands out to me as key to transformation is the access of Knowledge Data for under privileged to secure in a safe and technically affordable environment. The challenge of welfare survival should allow this access as underwritten by philanthropy and various institutions. There exist granting institutions to make this possible. But am I writing anything that this Substack owner does not already know? Who is the audience of your work? /s/
Thank you for this thoughtful observation! You raise a crucial point about knowledge access and data democratization in welfare services. The question of who has access to what knowledge, and how we can ensure equitable access in a secure and affordable way, is indeed fundamental to transforming these systems.
Your insight about philanthropy and institutions potentially underwriting this access is interesting - it points to important questions about how we fund and structure our welfare knowledge systems. This actually connects to themes I'll be exploring in later parts of this series, particularly around power dynamics and knowledge politics (Part 7).
As for your question about audience - I write primarily for welfare professionals and others involved in developing welfare services, but I deliberately try to make these discussions accessible to anyone interested in how we configure our social systems. Your perspective as someone outside the social work field is particularly valuable, as it helps ensure these conversations don't become too insular.
Would love to hear more about your thoughts on knowledge democratization in welfare systems!
Makes me think about ”the professional domains of action and the question of neutrality”(Lang/Little/Cronen). Each professional have to navigate between the Estetical/ethical, production and explanation domains. And the notion of developing trust in your intuitive knowledge/skills (10.000 hours of practice)
Thank you for this insightful comment! You raise some fascinating points about how professionals navigate different domains of practice. The framework from Lang, Little and Cronen about aesthetic/ethical, production and explanation domains really resonates with the themes we've been exploring about balancing human judgment with systematic approaches.
The 10,000 hours concept connects beautifully with our discussion of tacit knowledge in Part 4. It highlights how expertise isn't just about accumulating information - it's about developing that deep intuitive understanding that comes through sustained practice and reflection. This kind of embodied knowledge becomes crucial when navigating between different professional domains, I reckon.
As I mentioned to you before, I am not a social worker, but one thing stands out to me as key to transformation is the access of Knowledge Data for under privileged to secure in a safe and technically affordable environment. The challenge of welfare survival should allow this access as underwritten by philanthropy and various institutions. There exist granting institutions to make this possible. But am I writing anything that this Substack owner does not already know? Who is the audience of your work? /s/
Thank you for this thoughtful observation! You raise a crucial point about knowledge access and data democratization in welfare services. The question of who has access to what knowledge, and how we can ensure equitable access in a secure and affordable way, is indeed fundamental to transforming these systems.
Your insight about philanthropy and institutions potentially underwriting this access is interesting - it points to important questions about how we fund and structure our welfare knowledge systems. This actually connects to themes I'll be exploring in later parts of this series, particularly around power dynamics and knowledge politics (Part 7).
As for your question about audience - I write primarily for welfare professionals and others involved in developing welfare services, but I deliberately try to make these discussions accessible to anyone interested in how we configure our social systems. Your perspective as someone outside the social work field is particularly valuable, as it helps ensure these conversations don't become too insular.
Would love to hear more about your thoughts on knowledge democratization in welfare systems!