This is an electronic reprint of the original article.  
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. 
 

Author(s): 

 

 

Title: 

 

Year: 

Version:  

 

Please cite the original version: 

 

 

  

 

 

All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and 
duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that 
material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or 
print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be 
offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. 

 

Experiences in Sense Making: Health Science Students’ I-Positioning in an Online
Philosophy of Science Course

Arvaja, Maarit

Arvaja, M. (2015). Experiences in Sense Making: Health Science Students’ I-
Positioning in an Online Philosophy of Science Course. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 24 (1), 137-175. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.941465

2015



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

1

Running head: EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

Experiences in sense making: Health science students’ I-positioning in an online philosophy of

science course

Maarit Arvaja

Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä

This research was supported by the Finnish Academy (project no. 7121097).

Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Maarit Arvaja, Finnish

Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 University of

Jyväskylä, Finland, Email: maarit.arvaja@jyu.fi, Tel: +358 40 805 4277



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

2

Experiences in sense making: Health science students’ I-Positioning in an online philosophy

of science course

ABSTRACT

This article reports on a qualitative study on the dialogical approach to learning in the context of

higher education. The aim was to shed light on the I-Position and multivoicedness in students’

identity-building, and to provide empirical substantiation for these theoretical constructs,

focusing especially on the connection between personal knowledge and theoretical knowledge.

The study explored how health science students’ reflections on their work and discipline-related

experiences provided resources for making personal sense of and understanding the subject

studied. The students undertook an online course on the philosophy of science. To study

students’ internal and external dialogue in terms of multivoicedness in their sense-making

processes a discourse analysis combined with a dialogical approach was applied. The results

showed that in reflecting on their experiences in the light of different scientific approaches, the

students became engaged in dialogues with different voices, thereby experiencing tensions in

their professional positioning. The reasoning tasks gave rise to internal dialogue, involving

negotiation between different I-Positions of the self or heterodialogue with the texts. These

identity negotiations were manifested in refining, strengthening, and re-constructing professional

and scientific I-Positions, and in sharing and constructing a We-Position.

Keywords: Dialogical learning, Dialogical Self theory, discourse analysis, I-Position,

multivoicedness, internal dialogue, external dialogue



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

3

INTRODUCTION

Current educational policies recognize a need for continuing professional development and life-

long learning if workers are to participate effectively in society and working life (Collin, Van der

Heijden, & Lewis, 2012). Thus, in parallel with rapid changes in the contemporary knowledge

society, higher education has been required not only to produce academic knowledge and skills,

but also to prepare students for their future working life.

In the field of professional development, issues of identity and professional agency have

gained increasing attention (Vähäsantanen, Saarinen, & Eteläpelto, 2009). Consequently, the

issue of how professionals themselves make sense of their practices constitutes a starting point

for understanding and supporting professional development (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011). In this

situation, it seems essential to move towards a pedagogy that will encompass the connections

between the worlds of work and education. Attention to such links is likely to become critical for

the professional development of students and workers, whether they are novices, beginners, or

experts in their professional fields (Tynjälä & Gijbels, 2012).

The dialogical approach to learning and instruction offers a framework to conceptualize the

connections between life experiences, including work experiences and education. It stresses the

importance of acknowledging students’ personal lives as resources for sense-making in

educational contexts. Building on Dialogical Self theory (Hermans & Van Kempen, 1993),

Akkerman and van Eijck (2013) draws on the notion of I-Positions, i.e. stances that people use to

express their various voiced perspectives. I-Positions are connected to a person’s identity, in the

sense that they represent the person’s various tendencies of thinking and doing (Akkerman,

Admiraal, & Simons, 2012). These I-Positions vary within individuals and are connected to

people’s cultural and historical experiences and social relationships, including the I-positions



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

4

connected to their work. This means that the self is based on multivoicedness, a phenomenon

manifested in the expression of heterogeneous voices with different social and cultural origins

(Akkerman & van Eijck, 2013; Grossen & Salazar Orvig, 2011).

In educational contexts it is important to value the fact that students come from various

groups, communities, and social networks, all of which can be reflected in the students’ differing

voices and I-Positions. With this in mind, educators can be led to encourage students to use their

personal life experiences and prior knowledge as resources for learning (Arvaja, 2012: Ligorio,

2010; Oztok, 2013; Rajala & Sannino, forthcoming). It is true that teaching and learning in

educational contexts usually focuses on academic content knowledge, and on socially shared

(institutionalized) meanings (Oztok, 2013; Zittoun, 2011) – aspects that tend to be supported by

institutionalized resources such as textbooks. However, opportunities for personal sense-making

through people’s personal lives can help to connect different spheres of experiences, with

possibilities for linking institutionalized and personal knowledge. Furthermore, life experiences,

used as resources for learning, can be seen as promoting student identity work: they give

personal meaning to learning activities, and at the same time provide possibilities for the re-

negotiation of one’s I-Positions and “being, thinking and doing” (Akkerman et al., 2012; Gee,

2010; Ligorio, 2010; Oztok, 2013; Paakkari, Tynjälä, & Kannas, 2011). From this perspective,

an educational process can help students to make sense of cultures and communities (with their

respective practices), as well as themselves as active members of these communities (Gee, 2010;

Ligorio, 2010; Matusov, 2011; Rajala et al., 2013).

In line with these ideas, the pedagogical starting point in this study was to encourage health

science students (most of them health science professionals) undertaking an online course on the

philosophy of science, to study phenomena in the philosophy of science by reflecting on their



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

5

own prior experiences, especially in their own work and field of science. The tasks in the course

were based on “dialogical provocations” (Matusov, 2011), which in the context of this study

means that the students were provided with diverse (sometimes contradictory) perspectives from

various philosophical texts. They were encouraged to interpret these by reflecting on their own

experiences, within their written work and in discussions with others. This was intended to lead

them into negotiation with their own perspectives and the voiced perspectives of others. It was

also presumed that interpreting philosophical texts would help the students to make sense of

themselves and their experiences (i.e. their I-Positions) as professionals and as students of health

sciences, in the context of the communities in which they were working and studying.

An important feature of this study was that while the pedagogical design of the project was

constructed on the idea of collaborative learning – in the sense of involving interpersonal or

external dialogue for learning – within the actual learning tasks an equal emphasis was placed on

students’ individual reasoning activities. Thus, in addition to interactions with others, the role of

intrapersonal or internal dialogue was seen as important for promoting learning. Here it should

be noted that the dialogical nature of learning is often related to external dialogue between

individuals, with the exclusion of internal dialogue within individuals, i.e. between the I-

Positions of the self (Ligorio, 2010). As a consequence, most analyses – and most efforts to

promote learning – have typically focused on face-to-face or online interaction and on the

collaborative aspect of learning. This, in turn, has led to neglect of the role of individual

reasoning (Crook, 2011) and internal dialogue (Ligorio, 2010; Linell, 2009). As argued by Linell

(2009), human sense-making processes are profoundly interactional and contextual; moreover,

interaction comprises not only talk-in-interaction, but also interaction with the (material and

socio-cultural) world. The point to note here is that even a solitary activity such as thinking,



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

6

writing, or reading (or sense-making in general) is interactional in its nature (Linell, 2009). In

line with this view, dialogism stresses the importance of different “others” in sense-making, and

the occurrence of several voices within individual persons, whether they are thinking on their

own or engaged in an external dialogue.

Another important feature of this study was that the learning activities took place solely in

an online environment. Basically, the students used an asynchronous discussion forum to write

individual reasoning texts, based on given tasks, and to have a discussion around these writings

with other students. In investigating learning and interaction in online environments, and

particularly the learning that occurs in asynchronous discussion forums, most studies have

concentrated on analyzing how the shared construction and transmission of academic content

knowledge is supported (Oztok, 2013). Hence, as Stahl (2012, p.7) has pointed out, the most

common method has been to code discussions in terms of a “presumed hierarchy of knowledge-

building moves – a preexisting theoretical framework for measuring how students’ interactions

meet an ideal of what they ‘should’ be doing from the researcher’s perspective.” Stahl noted that

within such studies, posted descriptions of personal experience have tended to be coded as off-

topic, with consequent exclusion from the analysis. Nevertheless, in recent years there has been a

shift toward stressing the importance of participants’ perspectives, personal experiences, and

subjective meanings, viewed as a starting point for studying and supporting learning and

discourse in online environments (e.g. Arvaja, 2012; Ke et al., 2011; Oztok, 2013; Tee &

Karney, 2010). A parallel development has been an increased emphasis on identity viewed in

relation to learning (e.g. Ke et al., 2011; Leander, Phillips, Headrick Taylor, 2010).

The dialogical learning study reported here explored how health science students made

sense of philosophical knowledge through their own work and discipline-related experiences,



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

7

and how they saw themselves and their activities in the light of this knowledge. The focus was

on the I- (and We-) positions the students took and constructed, and on how different voices

appeared in the students’ internal and external dialogue during an online philosophy course.

Thus, within the study the focus was on learning as identity-building. Such an approach made it

possible to explore how different philosophical approaches – and reflections on the issues bound

up with these approaches – can become a resource for understanding oneself and one’s own

experiences, and thereby for identity construction.

Below, the dialogical approach and related concepts are discussed in more detail, with

reference to the discourse analytic approach of Gee and Green (Gee, 1999, 2010; Gee & Green,

1998). Discourse analytical and dialogical approaches are used as complementary frameworks in

analyzing I-Positioning and multivoicedness in the students’ discourse.

THE DIALOGICAL APPROACH TO LEARNING

Dialogue and identity

Building on the writings of Bakhtin, the concept of voice – and in particular

multivoicedness (polyvocality) – provides a tool for exploring how different voices or

perspectives are embedded in a person’s internal and external dialogue. As Bakhtin (1981, p.

293) puts it, “all words have the ‘taste’ of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party, a particular

work, a particular person, a generation, an age group, the day and hour.” As a consequence,

according to Akkerman and colleagues (Akkerman et al., 2012), when an utterance is spoken and

intoned with a certain taste, it is produced by a certain “voice.” They interpret Bakhtin’s notion

of voice “as a speaking personality bringing forward a particular perspective of the world” (p.

229). In the same vein, Linell (2009, p. 116) interprets Bakhtin’s notion of voice as “an



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

8

expressed opinion, view or perspective, something that the person would typically say and

presumably stand for.” The theory of the Dialogical Self (Hermans, 2001) extends the concept of

voice in arguing that voices exist not only in what we say, but also in who we take ourselves to

be (Akkerman et al., 2012). Thus, following this line of argument, the I-Position of a person is “a

particular voice that has been internalized in one’s Self presentation” (Akkerman et al., 2012, p.

230). According to Akkerman and van Eijck (2013), the I-Position links the notion of voice to a

person’s identity. The self is multiple, in the sense of having multiple I-Positions or voiced

positions that can be used in expressing a person’s self. Each position is connected to the

person’s cultural and historical experiences and social relationships, and it reflects different

cultural or social origins (for example the I-Position of a physiotherapist). The dialogical self,

then, is defined by the person’s various social experiences, memberships, and commitments.

Although different positions may merge or be hard to distinguish, there can also be different or

even conflicting positions regarding the same issue (Akkerman & van Eijck, 2013; Linell, 2009).

The consequence of this is that when people are talking or thinking, they often integrate,

contrast, and move between different I-Positions (Linell, 2009). Seen in this light, the self is in

fact a negotiated space, and the dialogue between different perspectives or positions (the self-

dialogue) can be seen as an important resource for meaning-making and development. It is

important to note that although a person’s I-Positions are socially and culturally interdependent,

they are not socially or culturally determined or stable, but negotiated and changing (Linell,

2009).

Even though identity is subject to change, people have both the desire and the capability to

maintain a coherent sense of self (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011). Continuity and coherence in

identity are maintained through narratives, since these are what enable people to connect the past



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

9

to the present (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Silseth & Arnseth, 2011). Identity can itself be seen as

a narrative about ourselves (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011). Each individual has a unique personal

narrative based on his/her life course (Linell, 2009). This means that sense-making always

involves a biographical perspective. Our personal narratives have an effect on how we attend to

events, on how we feel and think about events, and on how we see the world (Ochs & Capps,

1996). A personal narrative (or identity) is, as Ochs and Capps (1996, p. 20) put it, “born out of

experience and gives shape to experience.” In this sense, narrative and self are inseparable.

Such views of narrative and the self have implications for the participants in the study. For

example elicited reflections on participants’ own experiences in the philosophy course are

assumed to invite personal expressions concerned with “who I am and what I am doing” (Gee,

1999, 2010), and thus yielding a self-narrative. Through narration, people construct their

identity, integrating old and new experiences (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 1995). Thus,

narration can also be seen as a resource for making sense of new experiences. The new

experiences can generate tensions, and these provide a space for negotiation. As a consequence,

there can be a modification or even a complete remaking of the way we see the world and

ourselves (Gee, 2010). In view of this,  when students re-interpret their work experiences in the

light of new experiences and perspectives encountered in a philosophy course, one would expect

that this would provide resources for re-negotiating their identity and I-Positions. On these

occasions, narrative activities are likely to seek to bridge gap between the self that felt, acted,

and thought in the past, and the self that feels, acts, and thinks in the present (Ochs & Capps,

1996, p. 29). Narration is thus used as a tool for building connections between the past and the

present, and between unstable and situated selves.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

10

Wortham (2001, p. 7) emphasizes that the power of narratives lies not (only) in their ability

to represent or maintain coherent identities; narration also includes possibilities to express and

cope with fragmented and partly conflicting selves and experiences, and further, to create

multiple possibilities for the self. The dialogical approach to narrative self-construction

encompasses the notion that the self emerges through constant interactional positioning with

respect to others in everyday action (e.g. Hermans & Kempen, 1993; Wortham, 2001).

According to Wortham (2001) the self (and different I-Positions within the self) is narratively

constructed through positioning different voices in the social world with respect to each another,

and through taking a position of one’s own with respect to these voices.

Despite a certain uniqueness due to the (unique) personal combination of different

I-Positions within the self, the self is also social in its nature. According to Hermans and Van

Kempen (1993, p. 114) it is through these multivoiced positions that “the individual speaks the

words of the groups, social class, or society to which the individual belongs and reflects the unity

of the group, class or society.” Akkerman and Meijer (2011) refer to Mead (1934) who used the

concept of generalized others to reflect the fact that positions within the self are not solely

personal, but rather connected to the social groups or communities that set rules, norms, and

beliefs in the Me. Through generalized others, communities have an important role in the self,

since they provide ways of talking, thinking, and acting. In this way, communities can be seen as

becoming part of the Me. By inviting students to reflect on their work and discipline-related

experiences (as was done in the present study) attention is targeted especially at the

transpersonal dimension of the self. The transpersonal dimension highlights the role of

institutions and communities in the construction of the self (Grossen & Salazar Orvig, 2011).

According to Grossen and Salazar Orvig (2011), it is through the transpersonal dimension that



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

11

the individual is “symbolically related to broader communities and systems of values that

constitute his or her self” (p. 498).

Learning through heterogeneous voices

“The goal of education is not to make students have the same understanding as the

teacher, but rather to engage them in historically valuable discourses, to become

familiar with historically, culturally, and socially important voices, to learn how to

address these voices, and to develop responsible replies to them without an

expectation of an agreement or an emerging consensus” (Matusov, 2011, p. 115).

As envisaged by the dialogical approach, learning emerges through dialogical negotiations

between the learners and their environment, or more precisely, through the negotiation of

heterogeneous voices encountered in learning situations. Negotiation occurs between one’s I-

Positions or voices and between the “other” voices. In terms of dialogicality, the “other” is not

reducible to interpersonal relationships and external dialogue; rather, it takes the form of various

third parties (Grossen & Salazar Orvig, 2011; Linell, 2009). The third parties can be, for example

artifacts which are present in the learning situation and which frame the sense-making process

(Silseth & Arnseth, 2011). For instance, in this study the philosophical reading material for the

course can be seen as constituting “historically, culturally, and socially important voices”

(Matusov, 2011, p. 115) that provide a resource for students’ sense-making within their

discussions. The third parties can also be virtual others (persons not physically present)

(Marková, 2006), generalized others (Mead, 1934), or authoritative voices (Bakhtin, 1981;

Linell, 2009) that are implicitly or explicitly addressed in the situation. These others mediate the

voice(s) of traditions, institutions, communities, colleagues, and friends through the dialogical



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

12

participants (Marková, 2006). Thus, a person’s discourse is interdependent with other

perspectives, and also with the voices of individuals or groups in the sociocultural environment

(Linell, 2009). This implies that one does not speak or think from a single, “monolithic identity”

(Linell, 2009), but rather through various intertwined voices.

Dialogism stresses the existence of several voices within a single thinking individual

(Linell, 2009). Billig (1987) argues that a person’s thinking is largely internal dialogue and can

often be thought of in terms of arguments with oneself. Internal dialogue takes place between

voices arising either from different I-Positions of the self (auto-dialogue) or from something

other people have said or expressed (heterodialogue) (Linell, 2009). According to Marková

(2006), internal dialogue usually involves personal issues that require reflection on and

evaluation of behavior – both one’s own and that of other people, and both past and present. It

can be seen as an attempt to solve a person’s inner conflict between different voices. For

example, internal dialogue may manifest itself in a struggle between a person’s collective and

personal positions (Hermans, 2001), where the collective position represents the norms adopted

by the generalized other, while the personal position represents “true” subjective feelings

(representing the “authentic” voice, see Marková, 2006) that may contradict the collective

position. From this perspective, there may be a tension between the person’s social I-position,

outlined by societal definitions and expectations, and the person’s personal I-position.

Correspondingly, as conceived by Linell (2009), when engaging in heterodialogue a person may

quote other people’s ideas, positions, thoughts, and utterances more or less overtly, either as

support for his or her own views or as counter-positions. In addition, the person may “speak

through” the voices of other people by evaluating them, and in so doing taking up an individual

position with respect to these voices (cf. ventriloquation, Wortham, 2001). Applying a dialogical



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

13

approach to learning thus broadens attention from situated (talk-within-)interaction between

students (i.e. external dialogue) to recognition of the importance of the “other world” and of

internal dialogue in the sense-making activities that students engage in.

In their discussion of the dialogical approach to learning, Akkerman and van Eijck (2013)

speak of horizontal learning, in the course of which the learner is seen as “continuously shifting

between different worlds, hybridizing and negotiating insights from different sites” (p. 9). They

go on to argue that learning should be seen as a dialogical practice through which students’

different I-Positions are stimulated. This presupposes recognizing the simultaneity of different

positions which are part of students’ identity and which therefore are part of their sense-making

processes. Ligorio (2010) argues that in the educational context, acknowledging students’

personal perspectives by giving them a space to voice themselves and their perspectives can

enhance their identity (de-/re-)construction. This implies that learning will be facilitated by

providing opportunities to talk and reflect on personal experiences, and in the process,

stimulating different I-Positions, and negotiation between different voices.

With these notions in mind, in the present study the health science students were

encouraged to reflect on their discipline and work experiences when studying the reading

material. The texts dealing with the philosophy of science provided various perspectives –

“ideological voices” – which stimulated reflection on the students’ own multivoiced experiences.

Through the reading material and discussions with one another, the students came into contact

with several voices (multivoicedness), and these provided a context for negotiation and meaning-

making. Learning was seen as occurring when different voices (with different origins) are

negotiated in the learning situation. As argued by Tsang (2007), making learners contrast their

own voices or perspectives with several other voices promotes reflective processes that are



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

14

important for learning. Moreover, internal and external dialogue constitutes the core of the

reflective process. This in turn, enhances awareness of one’s assumptions, beliefs, and values,

and of the various voices, third parties, and others shaping these beliefs and values (Ho et al.,

2001; Tsang, 2007). Reflecting individually and together on philosophical texts from the

perspective of one’s work-related experiences may also provide opportunities for students’

identity re-negotiations. As Ligorio (2010) puts it:

“Learning is not only a cognitive and social experience, but also an identity

experience. Who we are, what we are able to do, and what we will be, based on what

we learn, are constantly challenged when we attend learning situations” (p. 97).

THE DISCOURSE ANALYTIC APPROACH IN STUDYING DIALOGICALITY

The ideas on studying and analyzing discourse proposed by Gee (1999, 2010) and by Gee

and Green (1998) can be seen as complementing the dialogical approach. The conjoining of

these differing perspectives creates resources for studying the relationships between the self and

the social that neither perspective provides alone. The basis of discourse analysis is a recognition

of the sociocultural nature of discourse, social practice, and learning (Gee, 1999, 2010; Gee &

Green, 1998). Just as the dialogical approach aims to understand the “social in the individual”,

Gee (1999) argues for the existence of the social mind. For Gee (1999, p. 52) the mind is “social

(cultural) in the sense that sociocultural practices and settings guide and norm the patterns in

terms of which the learner thinks, acts, talks, values, and interacts.” Moreover, according to Gee

(2010), one can say that in a sense it is often not humans who are talking but rather the

Discourses that we enact and represent – hence Discourses for which we are “carriers.”

Discourses (with a capital D) are enacted through ways of using language, and of thinking,



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

15

acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, and believing in a certain way as a member of a certain

social group (Gee, 2010, p. 34). Discourses are also connected to specific places, objects, and

artifacts. Just as the Dialogical Self theory (Hermans, 2001) argues for multiple identities and I-

Positions, Gee (1999, p. 39) argues that individuals have contextually shifting multiple (socially

situated) identities that “we take on in different practices and contexts” due to belonging to

different sociocultural groups. Furthermore, just as the dialogical approach highlights the

phenomenon of a unique personal narrative, in line with a biographical perspective on identity

(Linell, 2009), Gee (1999) takes the view that individuals are unique, given that each individual

belongs to multiple sociocultural groups, and that these in combination guide a person’s being

and doing in unique ways.

The discourse analytical approach makes it possible to identify different “others” and the

social world embedded in I- and We-Positions – a capability deriving from the tools it provides

for studying “saying, doing and being in language” (Gee, 2010, p. 3). This being and doing

(thinking) is connected to special “social languages” (Gee, 1999, 2010), to “cultural models”

(Gee, 1999; Gee & Green, 1998, and also to “figured worlds” Gee, 2010) and “Conversations”

(Gee, 1999, 2010). Looking at these aspects in more detail, one can say that social languages (cf.

speech genres, Bakhtin, 1984) are different “styles of languages” that we use to enact and

recognize different identities in different settings. For example, scientific language is different

from everyday language, and different professional groups use different, specialized social

languages. Cultural models, for their part (see Gee & Green, 1998), are narratives, typical stories,

storylines, or theories that are shared by people who belong to specific social or cultural groups.

These cultural models are the constructions of a group, but they become a resource for the

individual to guide her/his actions, thinking, social practices, and use of language, and to



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

16

interpret new situations. Cultural models link to each other, creating networks of cultural models

that help in organizing the thinking and social practices of groups and communities (Gee, 1999).

Cultural models are often unconscious, taken-for-granted “theories” that the individual does not

question. Finally, Conversations (with a capital C) encompass all the talking and writing around

major themes or debates that has gone on in a specific social group or society for a significant

stretch of time and across many institutions (Gee, 1999, 2010).

Bearing in mind the starting point of this study – i.e. the analysis of dialogicality in the

students’ discourse – one can see that discourse analysis provides tools for identifying different

(possibly contradictory) voices that emerge in the students’ discourse when they express and

position themselves as professionals and as students of health sciences, and at the same time as

members of different institutions and communities. The underlying claim here would be that the

discourse analytical approach provides an interpretative framework for exploring how – in

positioning themselves as being, thinking, and doing as professionals and/or as students of health

sciences – the students are discursively connected to the material, social and sociocultural world.

In summary, the aim of this study was to explore how health science students positioned

themselves as professionals and as students of health sciences when they were exploring themes

in the philosophy of science and interpreting philosophical texts in the light of their own work

and their discipline-related experiences. Furthermore, the focus was to analyze the kinds of

negotiations and tensions that occurred between different voices and perspectives in the students’

internal and external dialogue, and the kinds of sense-making processes and I-Positioning that

such negotiations yielded.

METHODS



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

17

Study participants and context of the study

The subjects of this study comprised eleven health science students (all female)

undertaking an online course on the philosophy of science in the context of higher education.

Nine of the students were in employment, for example working as physiotherapists and action

therapists. They were pursuing additional studies in health sciences, aiming for example at a

teaching qualification in health education. Thus, they were studying part-time via distance

learning while also working full-time. The other two students were engaged in their full-time

Master’s studies in health sciences. The course dealt with the basics of the philosophy of science,

and it was obligatory, preceding methodological studies in the field of sport and health sciences.

Although the course took place in an Open University context, it was nevertheless conducted in

collaboration with the Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, and according to the curriculum of

that Faculty. The students who participated in the course were located all over the country

(Finland) and they only met virtually. The course utilized a web-based learning environment

called Discendum Optima (www.discendum.com/english/), consisting of an asynchronous

discussion tool, a tool for making text documents, and folders containing course material.

The course consisted of six learning tasks, five of which dealt with historical approaches to

the philosophy of science. The time allotted for completion of each task was one week. In the

first task, there were no philosophical texts to be read; at this point the students could freely

reflect on the meaning of science and scientific knowledge in their work and discipline without

being required to anchor their ideas to any given course material. The next five tasks (tasks 2–6)

were reasoning tasks in which the students were asked to read a given text (or texts) dealing with

a particular approach within the philosophy of science, such as positivism, realism, and

constructivism. In the sixth task, the students were also supposed to reflect on the previous tasks.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

18

The texts assigned were of different types: general reviews of the philosophy of science, or

introductions to specific themes. They included thematic articles or chapters of books, or extracts

from some classical works in the field (e.g. Heikkinen & Laine, 1997; Kiikeri & Ylikoski, 2004;

Niiniluoto, 1984; Raatikainen, 2004; Varto, 1992).

The students’ reasoning concerning the task involved interpretations of the philosophical

texts. As resources for this, the students were asked to use their prior experiences or conceptions

of their own field of science, or their work. For each task the students were first supposed to

write an individual reasoning text. The tasks offered two or three options from which the

students could choose one. In the list below, one example (from four separate tasks) is presented

to illustrate the tasks. All the material (task descriptions and data samples) is translated from

Finnish. In addition, all the names in the data samples are pseudonyms.

∑ Task 2: What differentiates science from non-science? In the philosophy of science,

this question is named as a demarcation problem. […] The starting point of

scientific thinking is that the scientific method and the theory that originates from

research are based on observation, and that this connection must be proved true. In

this way, two relevant criteria are to be fulfilled: objectivity and criticalness. Are

these bases and criteria suitable for describing all kinds of scientific research? Are

the limits set by these criteria too narrow? Do they exclude other perspectives or

research methods that are reasonable? If you have examples of these other kinds of

phenomena or research perspectives, describe these, and consider whether the line

between science and non-science could be defined differently and on what grounds.

If you are familiar with qualitative research, you can also think about the theme

from that perspective: does qualitative research fulfill the basic criteria of science?



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

19

∑ Task 3: What is the view of science that emerges from the perspective of realism?

How has this realistic approach been criticized, and how can it be defended? You

can think about whether you recognize the realistic view of science and thinking in

your own science or field of work.

∑ Task 4: So far, the focus has been on the traditional view of science. What

problems are related to this approach? Why is it reasonable to think that this

approach is insufficient? Consider this from the perspective of your own science

and/or your own work practice.

∑ Task 5: Read Juha Varto’s introductory chapter. Explain how Varto differentiates

“exact” sciences (= natural sciences) and “strict” sciences (= human sciences).

What arguments does the author put forward concerning the differences between

the types of researchers in these different sciences? Do you recognize the necessity

of this division in your field of science? Is the division justifiable? Think especially

about what the knowledge of meanings consists of, and how it relates to knowledge

in natural sciences.

In the next phase, the students posted their individual writings onto a shared web-based

(asynchronous) discussion forum. Here, their task was first to read each other’s writings and

subsequently to have a shared discussion based on these. The shared asynchronous discussion

was intended to enhance collaborative exploration of the themes under study.

The role of the researcher

The researcher did not act as a teacher on the course. The collaboration between the

teacher and the researcher was part of broader collaboration between the researcher and a group



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

20

of Open University teachers aiming to develop online pedagogical activities. The teacher on the

course had many years of experience in teaching philosophy students. However, this was his first

course for health science students, and his concern was how to engage the students to explore

phenomena that are often regarded as difficult and abstract. Working collaboratively, the

researcher and the teacher developed the idea of utilizing, as resources in the course, the

students’ work or discipline-related experiences and knowledge. The pedagogical approach was

in part built on the researcher’s earlier work (e.g. Arvaja, 2007). However, the teacher planned

the reasoning tasks, and the ways of triggering students’ earlier experiences so that they could

carry out the tasks.

Data sources and analytical approach

One type of data consisted of students’ individual writings based on the six reasoning

tasks. Eleven students posted in total 61 pieces of writing across six tasks. One of the students

only posted two pieces of writing due to absence from the course for personal reasons, and one

other student posted five pieces of writing across the six tasks. All the other students posted one

initial piece of writing per task (hence six pieces of writing in total per person). These initial

writings were submitted as postings onto the shared asynchronous discussion forum. The other

data consisted of discussion postings that commented on the writings or responses of others.

Across the six tasks, there were 54 such discussion postings altogether.

The analytical framework of this study was based on a combination of (i) the dialogical

approach to communication (e.g. Linell, 2009), and (ii) the discourse analytical approach

adopted by Gee (see Gee, 1999, 2010; Gee & Green, 1998). These approaches were seen as



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

21

complementary in analyzing students’ I-Positioning and the social, socio-cultural, and material

elements embedded in their (discursive) positioning.

In analyzing the initial writings and discussion postings from the perspective of students’

personal experiences, the first step of the analysis involved extracting from the data those work-,

study-, and discipline-related experiences that emerged as discursively relevant (Linell, 1998) in

interpreting and making sense of the philosophical phenomena that the reasoning applied to.

These “tellings of personal experience” (Ochs & Capps, 1996, p. 21) were manifested in explicit

discursive references to texts, tools, artifacts, people, discourses, contexts, practices, activities,

knowledge, values, norms, beliefs, and conceptions related to the students’ work, studies, or

discipline. The episodes or thematic meaning units containing the experiences (Linell &

Korolija, 1997) were separated out for further analysis. Typically, in each initial writing task and

discussion posting, there were one or more such episodes. Because the individual writings

mostly served as “starters” for the discussion threads in the discussion forum, the writings, and

the discussion postings around these writings, were analyzed as a single dataset.

In the second step of the analysis, there was a stronger focus on those episodes in the

selected data segments in which the students expressed their I-Positioning, in terms of exhibiting

a personal tendency of being, thinking, doing, believing, or valuing (Akkerman et al., 2012; Gee,

1999, 2010) as a professional or as a student of health sciences. We-Positioning was identified

when the students assigned this tendency not only to themselves but also to the collective

(Akkerman et al., 2012). Positioning was often expressed through discursive references such as I

think, I feel, in my opinion, my work, I use, I am, I act, as an action therapist I see (I-

Positioning); or alternatively we have to, we physiotherapists, we need, we are (We-Positioning).

However, positioning was not always explicitly stated through the use of these pronouns, and the



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

22

students might well position themselves, or take a stand towards the phenomena under discussion

more implicitly. For example, they often positioned themselves as part of their communities (in

physiotherapy, in health sciences) or used a passive form (one has to measure) in expressing

their thinking, doing, and believing. The students also spoke through other characters to position

themselves. Thus, they either differentiated themselves from or identified themselves with the

voices of certain characters (in other words, they used ventriloquation or evaluation, Wortham,

2001). Examples of such phrases included an Obvious physiotherapist/sport scientist wondered,

my clients ask, As Raatikainen says.

In the third step of the analysis, the episodes with I-Positioning were read through several

times to explore the main themes, topics, or meanings that were made relevant through the I- and

We-Positionings. The themes and topics addressed, plus the web of meanings (Grossen &

Salazar Orvig, 2011) constructed through the students’ discourse, were analyzed across and

within the different tasks. The general themes and topics of the discourse were contextual and

situated (Arvaja, 2011; Arvaja et al., 2007), and hence related to the reasoning tasks and the

reading material. From the data, four general themes were identified:

1. The role of science in defining the Self (Task 1)

2. Positioning different approaches to science (Tasks 2-4)

3. Constructing a We-Position (unity-in-diversity) through heterodialogue (Task 5)

4. The (dis)continuity of I-Positions (Task 6)

In the fourth step of the analysis, the episodes containing I- and We-Positionings under

these different themes were analyzed in more detail. The analysis focused on the kinds of I- and

We-Positions that the students constructed and reflected; also on how these were related to other

positions and voices (originating from the philosophical reading material or from contributions



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

23

by students in the situated here-and-now discourse). Hence, closer examination of the students’

discourse revealed (i) how they positioned and saw themselves through and in relation to their

work, study, and scientific communities; and (ii) how they displayed the people, activities,

norms, values, and beliefs attributable to these communities and/or to their Self. The focus was

on analyzing the sociocultural nature of discourse, revealing the embeddedness of social,

sociocultural and material, and hence of different “others” in the Me/We (Akkerman, et al., 2012;

Gee, 1999, 2010; Gee & Green, 1998). The questions that guided this interpretative analysis

were as follows: (i) What I- and We-Positions – with their related personal, social, and cultural

knowledge, beliefs, values, and activities – seemed to be relevant in the situation? (ii) What

interconnections, tensions, contradictions, negotiations, and re-negotiations took place between

different voices and positions? (iii) What cultural models, social languages, and Conversations

seemed to be connected to the I- and We-Positions constructed and reflected in the course? (iv)

How were the positionings changed and (re)negotiated as the course progressed?

The examples in the Results section have been selected to represent the data, including

both the generalities and the exceptions. In addition, examples have been selected so that every

student’s voice is heard and represented, even though some of the students were more active than

others in expressing their experiences.

RESULTS

This section discusses the different I-Positionings found in the analysis of the students’ discourse

(including initial writings and subsequent discussion postings). In interpreting the findings, the

goal is to illustrate the dialogicality of the I-Positions, and the encounters between different

voices (multivoicedness) in the students’ discourse. The section covers the four general themes



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

24

that were identified in the analysis. The themes form a narrative of the course, and also serve as a

timeline that makes it possible to track possible continuities, changes, and developments in the

students’ I-Positioning.

The role of science in defining the Self

In the first task, the students were supposed to reflect on some key concepts such as theory,

scientific knowledge, and science, including their relationships with the students’ work or

discipline. The first task did not present any philosophical texts; thus students could freely reflect

on their experiences without having to anchor their ideas to the course material.

(i) Science as a generalized other; the struggle between the collective and personal

position. Through their discourse, the students defined themselves as professionals whose work

was strongly based on science and research, theories, and scientific knowledge. The following

examples represent this position:

Niina: In my own life, scientific knowledge comes up on an almost daily basis. I

work as an occupational physiotherapist and my work is largely based on research

knowledge regarding issues such as the impact of muscular strength training on

backache, for example the role of strained working positions/work practices in

causing musculoskeletal symptoms, and that of health hazards due to indoor air

problems. In my opinion, it is important to give the grounds for some action or for

the purchase of a product/piece of equipment and the consequences thereof and in

this respect research-based knowledge, in particular, brings confidence both to

myself and the client.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

25

Anni: At the moment, while I’m mainly studying, I feel that I’m working quite a lot

with scientific knowledge. Of course it’s always present in the workplace as well,

directing one’s thinking and giving a basis for practical solutions. For example, at

work I use different approaches, frames of reference based on various theories,

established facts, for example regarding the psychological, physiological, and social

development of humans.

Here, Niina and Anni describe how, within their work and studies, their actions and their

thinking are guided by scientific knowledge, theories, and research. Thus, their discourse

indicates that a scientific I-Positioning forms a strong part of their professional self. In

identifying herself as an occupational physiotherapist Niina also uses specific social language

(e.g. the impact of muscular strength training on backache) which exemplifies the scientific

knowledge utilized in occupational physiotherapy. Theories, frames of reference, and research-

based knowledge can be seen as cultural models (Gee, 1999) that play a significant role in

defining the way students think and act in their professions. Thus, being, doing, and thinking

through science (as they see it) can be viewed as a relatively stabilized perspective in their

professional selves. This position highlights the social in the Me (Akkerman et al., 2012; Gee,

2010). In other words, positions within the self are not solely personal, but are connected to the

social groups or communities (the generalized other) that set rules, norms, and beliefs in the Me.

While the discourse depicts a professional whose work is strongly defined by scientific

knowledge and theories, there are also traces of an internal dialogue that questions the

dominance of science in positioning the self. The following dialogue between Aino and Niina

exemplifies shifting positions within the participants’ internal dialogue:



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

26

Aino: We can think that in physiotherapy, for instance, the reliability of the therapies

applied needs to be proven scientifically before they can be used. This, I think, is just

for reasons of effectiveness and safety. And also so that the particular field of science

will become better known and gain credibility. I myself always try to find research-

based knowledge before therapy. But isn’t the success of a process after all

dependent on the client’s/patient’s subjective feelings rather than on a bunch of

studies? If the patient is dissatisfied and finds that the therapy was of no help, even if

it has been scientifically proven, does it then make any difference? Then again, if we

reach the desired goal, does it matter what means were used?

In her discourse, Aino first defines herself as a person whose work as a physiotherapist is

strongly based on scientific evidence. However, in her internal dialogue she presents another

perspective on success within therapy. She contrasts the patient’s perspective (“subjective

feelings”) with “a bunch of studies.” This shows how different stances struggle in Aino’s overt

talk, and how her inner dialogue seems to contain several voices (Linell, 2009). Hence, despite a

strong research-orientation in her work, Aino questions the dominant role of science in defining

the therapy process; in so doing she takes the patient’s perspective, thereby including the

patient’s personal voice. This situation illustrates how there can be two points of view (voices)

struggling within the same person.

Later in the same piece of writing Aino categorizes herself as a mathematical and

numerical type of person:

Aino: I am a mathematical and numerical type myself so that sometimes at work I

have had to consciously broaden my views from staring at instruments. Do the

degrees of an angle make any difference to the end result in terms of the patient’s



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

27

functioning? Indeed they do, but they need to be used together with a broader way of

thinking.

Through her self-categorization (Grossen & Salazar Orvig, 2011) as a recognizable type of

person (i.e. voicing, Wortham, 2001), Aino relates her activity to a one particular kind of science

(as distinct from another). However, she questions her own activity of “staring at instruments” in

her internal dialogue. Her internal dialogue reveals that she finds this positioning too narrow: “I

have had to consciously broaden my views.” The confusion manifested in Aino’s internal

dialogue is supported by Niina’s account, based on her own work:

Niina: Aino, you took up an important issue about the effectiveness of therapy. Just

how many intervening factors there are, with regard to human-related research! This

week at my work on several occasions I again happened to notice that no matter how

strictly you have worked (i.e. as a therapist) according to the rules of

science/knowledge, the human mind keeps surprising you. Indeed, what a huge

impact the psyche has on recovery! Once the “core” of a person is in order, many

other things settle down and improve. Often my clients ask about so-called

alternative treatments of different kinds (massage of the neural pathways, zonal

therapy, etc.). As you know, conventional medicine does not acknowledge these

alternative treatments, so there is not what you could call research evidence for these.

Nevertheless, some clients have got help from these, is this after all something to

take account of?

Niina understands Aino’s internal dialogue and continues her discourse within the same

frame. Thus, Niina identifies an internal dialogue in Aino’s utterances and verbalizes it further. It

seems that the external dialogue provides a space for supporting the contradiction in an inner



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

28

dialogue. Moreover, in Niina’s internal dialogue, too, there are traces of conflicting voices. She

sees a contradiction between “the rules of science” and the unpredictability of the “human

mind.” Furthermore, as in Aino’s case, in Niina’s internal dialogue there is a struggle between

her own community (that of conventional medicine) and the clients’ differing perspective (on

alternative treatments). Thus, both Aino and Niina voice the perspective of patients/clients, and

the importance of patients’ subjective meanings. Even though they position science as a strong

part of the Me, they also define themselves as practitioners whose work with patients is defined

by their interpersonal encounters with them, and not solely by the rules of science. Through their

personal accounts they define these encounters as unpredictable, subjective, and situated, and

hence contrary to what they consider science to be. In this way, the students question the

authoritative voice (that of conventional medicine, informed by the rules of science) which

dominates and defines their activity as physiotherapists. In the students’ discourse, two ways of

thinking and believing are in tension. Even though rigid scientific rules seem to form the framing

model that the students draw on to guide their activity as therapists, their internal dialogue

demonstrates that this cultural model (i.e. the guiding therapy process) is open to modification,

expansion, and re-negotiation (Gee & Green, 1998, p. 124). It seems that the rules of science are

in tension with the “practical wisdom” (Tsang, 2007) gained and constructed through the

students’ everyday work. In the examples, the students’ I-Positionings shift from a strong faith in

science to questioning the pre-eminent position of science. This aptly demonstrates the inner

struggle that can occur when one faces fundamental questions related to one’s professional

practice.

(ii) Opposing the role of science. In the next example – which is the opposite of the

“reliance on science” position that the students above took in their discourse – one can see a



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

29

position in which the emphasis on science is questioned. Nea indirectly criticizes the strong need

felt by others (physiotherapists) to define their own field as science-based. In doing this, she uses

We-Positioning, including herself within the same collective (the collective self, cf. Hermans,

2001), as if to soften her criticism, even while excludes herself from the others’ position:

Nea: I’m glad to see that there are a few other physiotherapists hanging around here

online. I wonder if we physiotherapists have a particularly strong need to prove our

field as more scientific, so that people wouldn’t just include it in what they see as

quack treatments? I haven’t heard very many physicians, nurses or, say, social

workers ponder whether such and such a treatment has been scientifically

investigated and proved effective. As far as I understand it, not many of the current

commonly used treatments/therapies/interventions have been studied exhaustively,

not more than any other – if I remember right, among medicines only penicillin has a

completely “clean record.”

In her criticism, Nea emphasizes her We-Positioning by distinguishing physiotherapists

from physicians, nurses, and social workers, who according to her observation do not speculate

about whether their treatment is based on scientific research. She also puts forward the idea that

many of the aspects that are influential in their work have not been thoroughly investigated. Aino

answers Nea’s criticism by acknowledging the role of education in defining their (the

physiotherapists’) thinking and actions as “evidence-based”:

Aino: In our training at least the evidence-based was emphasized so heavily that it

may have become an obsession for physiotherapists. I guess we are the kind of

people who must always be a little better, more efficient, and more careful.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

30

In this statement, Aino explicitly highlights the role of institutional education in the

construction of the self. Through this transpersonal dimension, Aino associates physiotherapists

with their educational community and its values and norms, i.e. the entities that define the

physiotherapists’ professional self (Grossen & Salazar Orvig, 2011). In this way of thinking, a

reliance on the evidence-based research stressed in education is regarded as culturally correct

behavior for a physiotherapist. It is a norm belonging to the generalized other, and a taken-for-

granted cultural model that guides their activity. Evidence-based research can be seen as part of a

professional genre, which consists of activities with a history in the educational and work

community in question. The term evidence-based (which is constantly used in the students’

discourse) is therefore, on the one hand, part of a social language, and on the other hand part of a

theory of action and practices (Gee, 2010) existing in the students’ educational and work

communities. Aino reinforces this positioning by voicing (and thus characterizing)

physiotherapists as people with certain characteristics (Wortham, 2001). Here, Aino seems to be

defending her science-oriented position by relating it to the generalized other, which has become

part of the Me (as a physiotherapist) or the We (as physiotherapists). Marjo (below) shares Nea’s

critical position, expressed through categorization:

Marjo: At a lecture on qualitative methods, someone who was an Obvious

Physiotherapist/Sport scientist wondered how, in general, it is possible to obtain

reliable information just by asking, “How have you experienced such and such a

thing?” or “What is your view about such and such a thing?” This guy seemed to

think that the only things that are true are those that can be measured by instruments,

like gadgets for measuring muscular strength. It got me thinking about the LIMITED

SCOPE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. In measuring the increase in muscular



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

31

strength, a researcher is measuring the effects of exercises conducted in certain ways.

Well, then another researcher measures the effects of another kind of exercise

conducted in a different way, and so on. AND THESE ARE TRUE, AS TESTED BY

SCIENTIFIC METHODS! But they are only fragments of the truth.

In recounting her prior experience Marjo voices and characterizes physiotherapists/sport

scientists as persons whose faith in science is based on quantitative methods. In using the term

obvious she reveals her general attitude toward physiotherapists and sport scientists as belonging

to a category which does not acknowledge the value of qualitative research, and which sees only

the value of instrumental measurements. Her strong stance – emphasized with capital letters in

her text– exhibits criticism of a measurement-based approach and of reliance on science as truth.

This is a good example of how one’s position can be constructed by voicing and ventriloquating

(evaluating) other characters (the “obvious” physiotherapist/sport scientist, researcher) in one’s

personal account (Wortham, 2001). Marjo is distancing her own self from the voices the

characters represent; in so doing she constructs her own critical position toward these voices.

The characterization here matches Aino’s self-categorization as a “mathematical and

numerical type” (being) and “staring at instruments” (doing) presented above. Through these

characterizations and self-categorizations, the students build their professional identity. On the

one hand, the categorizations define what they are and do (Aino, identifying), but also what they

do not want to be, do, or believe (Marjo, differentiating) (Gee, 2010; Wortham, 2001). Through

these characterizations and categorizations they also build up a certain conception, to the effect

that practices, activities, and beliefs based on quantitative research are dominant in

physiotherapists’ work and in their We-Positioning. This appears to demonstrate the social origin

of the categories in question, which can be seen as based on activities and practices in the



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

32

students’ educational and work communities. According to Grossen and Salazar Orvig (2011),

these kinds of (institutional) categories are kept alive through discourse and (inter)action, and

they contribute to the construct of a person’s identity; as a result, they lead the person to define

him/herself through these categories.

(iii) Uniting science and practice. A third type of position evident in the first task brings

together two perspectives in defining one’s professional I-Position. For example, Anita and Satu

share this positioning in their discussion:

Anita: Theory provides a basis for practical work […] if one understands and is able

to properly internalize the theory or theories of one’s own discipline, it will facilitate

one’s professionalism in many problematic situations. On the other hand, in this

connection I can’t help pointing out the significance of “tacit knowledge.” Not all

professional activity or practices are, or can be, based solely on theoretical

knowledge; we also need the ability to reflect on events and activities – for some

people it calls for a lot of practice, while others seem to have an almost innate ability

to act in the right way, even in complicated situations.

Satu: I too have found myself using the phrase “it has been scientifically proven.”

Always when I use that phrase I find that it gives more weight to what I’m saying

and supports my activities: “act in this particular way, because it has been

scientifically proven that this alternative is the better one.” […] However, research

studies and their findings are not always applicable to practice. And of course we

must also keep in mind that what could be called everyday knowledge and

experiential knowledge are very important in my own work, in particular, as it is so

practically oriented.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

33

From the students’ discourse, we can see how they construct dichotomies: scientific and

theoretical knowledge versus tacit, everyday, and experiential knowledge. In taking this position

the students draw a distinction between science and practice, but at the same time state that both

define what they do in their professions. Here, they readily include different perspectives, despite

creating a contrast through the dichotomies. This position acknowledges not only the value of

scientific knowledge, but also the fact that their own work practices are not always based on

research knowledge, being largely built on experience and everyday knowledge. Each student

includes the perspectives of both practice and science in positioning the self as a professional

self. Viewed in this light, scientific and practical knowledge can be seen as separate (cultural

models), but as complementary to each other within a person’s professional activity. Through

their discourse, the students outline the notion that they need these different guiding frameworks

in their professional activity.

Even though scientific and practice-oriented positions seem to be in harmony in the

students’ discourse, Anita’s internal dialogue subsequently brings up issues that challenge her

scientific position:

Anita: Recently, while working at the hospital, I have had to reflect on some

fundamental issues in my own field of science (how to describe the professional

foundation for new employees – how does an active rehabilitation approach differ

from that of nursing or medical science, pedagogy, or other fields of science?).

Although there is already some research-based knowledge available in my field, I

still feel I am representing a field (action therapy) that is in its infancy as seen by

representatives of other scientific fields. Sometimes even my own faith tends to wear

thin.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

34

Anita sees that her own field of science, action therapy, is in a lowly position in terms of

the dominant research practices in her work environment at the hospital, and this seems to

undermine her professional confidence. Subsequently, Satu acknowledges Anita’s position and

relates it to a working environment that both students share:

Satu: I decided to respond to your comments, because I have to ponder the same

issues as you did while I’m working at the hospital. You brought up tacit knowledge,

which I also referred to in my own commentary, though using a slightly different

term. I understand well what you mean, and tacit knowledge is really important and it

grows along with one’s years of doing the work.

In her discourse, Satu acknowledges their similar perspectives and also the shared work

environment – a hospital – as a uniting element in sharing an I-Position. This notion is also

supported in Anita’s reply:

Anita: Thanks, Satu, for your feedback – fortunately there are colleagues, other

rehabilitation professionals, who often provide support in the “hard” world of

medicine. Shared reflections and discussions give one the strength to plod on once

again – at times even to tilt at windmills.

This comment by Anita repeats the internal conflict evident in the earlier example. She

characterizes medicine and her work environment through phrases such as “hard world” and

“tilting at windmills,” thus implicitly positioning herself and other “rehabilitation professionals”

as excluded from the values represented by this “hard world” with its situated meanings (Gee,

2010). The hard world of medicine represents the dominant collective voice, and it seems that in

this world Anita’s personal voice or alternative collective voice (the field of action therapy) is in

tension with the dominant voice. Thus, in Anita’s self, various collective voices – which



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

35

represent different value systems, beliefs, norms, and places (a hospital) – seem to be in conflict.

Anita’s own idea of practicing action therapy does not fit the “hard” world of medicine and the

values connected to this world. Anita also expresses her appreciation of discussions with

colleagues and their support, including Satu’s current feedback, recognizing their shared

(identity) work which can encompass “tilting at windmills.”

Positioning different approaches to science

In the remaining tasks, the students reflected on their experiences in the light of the course

material. Hence, the philosophical reading material served as a resource for making sense of their

own experiences and defining I-Positions. In tasks 2–4 the assigned texts dealt mainly with

themes such as the essence of science, and the history of science. As a consequence, whereas the

first task had elicited general student discussion on the nature of science, in these latter three

tasks the reading material seemed to promote construction of  the dichotomies between different

approaches, and between science and pseudo-science.

(i) Against the dominance of a single position. In the following extracts, Nea and Anita are

discussing multidisciplinary research as a way to understand their field:

Nea: I think that multidisciplinary research is the only appropriate way to understand

one’s own field of science in its entirety. Segmental research is just a part of the truth

and we should therefore be careful when interpreting and applying the results of

segmental studies. In gerontology, an example of segmental research would be

biogerontology, that is, studies in which for instance various test animals are used to

examine the effects of aging on tissues. Aging is a highly individual process and



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

36

therefore tissue measurements do not tell the whole truth about functional ability and

life expectancy, for instance.

Anita: I agree with you that multidisciplinary research in health sciences

(gerontology, physiotherapy, action therapy, etc.) is called for, because cellular

research based on natural science or experiments conducted under laboratory

conditions do not give sufficient knowledge for clinical work. When today’s key

phrase in rehabilitation is “to enable participation” – in action therapy “by

meaningful activities to support participation in daily activities, playing/studying and

free time, in addition to resting” – quantitative research alone will not give us

information on how we could provide the best research- or evidence-based

rehabilitation. In addition to this we also need meaningful, qualitative information on

health promotion, good rehabilitation practices, and so on.

By taking a similar position on the need for multidisciplinary research in their respective

fields, Anita is constructing a We-Position. In addition, instead of using the pronoun I as an

indicator of the personal position in her discourse, Anita uses we as if to highlight the collective

position of action therapists and other professionals in rehabilitation. In supporting their view on

the need for multidisciplinary research, Anita and Nea are arguing against the use of one single

approach in their field of science. The words the students use, such as segmental research, test

animals, cellular research, tissue measurements, experiments, and laboratory conditions are part

of the social language of natural sciences and quantitative research. However, this approach

alone, with its related cultural models, is seen as insufficient to define or explain the processes of

aging or rehabilitation, as defined by the students through their discourse. Terms such as

individual process, meaningful activities, and meaningful, qualitative information, which belong



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

37

to the social language of human sciences and to qualitative research, are used to support the need

for another kind of view in evaluating functional ability or in establishing good rehabilitation

practices.

Within their discourse, the students thus construct dichotomies between two ways of

thinking and doing. They imply that quantitative and natural science approaches are the

dominant voices framing research and work in their fields (i.e. gerontology, rehabilitation). From

the positions of practicing their professions, the students seem to be against the dominance of

one voice, viewing qualitative research and human sciences as just as important for research and

work in their fields. This notion is explicitly supported later in Nea’s discourse:

Nea: In my own field of science, gerontology, I have perceived that quantitative

research is more highly regarded than qualitative research, due to its nature as

“strong medicine.” However, not everything can be observed or measured without

any ambiguity, and for this reason qualitative research definitely has a role to play in

the human sciences.

The students’ discourse appears to reflect a major debate (i.e. Conversation, see Gee, 2010)

between different scientific approaches. It would seem to have a history in the scientific and

work communities or institutions to which the students belong. The internal conflict evident in

the first task is at least partly externalized as a conflict between different approaches to science,

and as resistance to the dominance of voices that appeal to the natural sciences and to

quantitative research in the students’ fields of work and science.

(ii) The boundaries of (natural) sciences are too narrow. Another tension evident in the

students’ discourse is related to the boundary between science and pseudo-science. Aino, Niina,

and Tiina pay particular attention to this issue:



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

38

Aino: This week, I’ve been reading texts from Optima and on paper, and frankly

speaking I feel that my head is somewhat overloaded. Really, one no longer knows

what to think about an issue, and now one questions one’s own work, science, and

research and whatever it was, and I cannot make any sense of this, there are simply

too many ideas. So I decided to look once again at this “what is science” issue, on the

basis of Niiniluoto’s article, because it has most relevance to me personally. I have

always considered myself a type of person who is very much oriented to science and

especially to natural science, and who is somehow schematic and mathematical. For

this reason, it feels somehow overwhelming to question everything now. Admittedly,

at the same time, really interesting too. What’s hard for me is that one can keep

elaborating the idea endlessly and never reach a solution.

At  the beginning of her text, Aino explicitly describes the inner tension and confusion she

faces when she reads the philosophical course material. This leads her to question her own

“work, science, and research.” Again she voices and categorizes herself as “a type of person who

is very much oriented to science and especially to natural science,” and it seems that from that I-

Position, she finds herself facing a challenge when she is introduced to fundamental questions

concerning the essence of science. It seems that her orientation to natural science (according to

her repeated self-categorization) represents a dominant voice adopted from authorities in her

work and study environment. According to Linell (2009), an authoritarian voice often resembles

cultural assumptions that the individual does not question, with the result that once the ideas of

this voice are internalized, adherence to them often becomes a kind of self-discipline. Aino’s

repeated categorizations of herself as mathematical, numerical, and schematic can also be seen as

based on a cultural model that she constantly leans on in interpreting (new) situations (Gee &



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

39

Green, 1998). However, it seems that when Aino is introduced to texts that offer alternative

conceptions, her beliefs pertaining to her “natural science-oriented” I-Position become

questioned. Some of the presented texts violate the “typical story,” the theory, or the figured

world (Gee, 2010) of (natural) science that Aino has leant on. Later in her internal dialogue, this

tension is externalized when she juxtaposes the voices of Oriental and Western medicine and

questions the dominance of the voice of Western science:

Aino: So, what stand should we take on Oriental medicine, for example?

Acupuncture has been proven to have medical effects, but what this is based on is

unknown. Are we thus already dealing with pseudo-science, or where is the dividing

line? Oriental medicine treats a person as a whole and it takes the psyche into

account more intensely than Western medicine. The effect of the psyche cannot be

measured or questioned, yet it is a fact. To what extent is getting well based on what

our society considers appropriate treatment? In Western countries, we are used to

thinking in a different way compared to the Orient. However, along with

globalization, sciences and pseudo-sciences are mingling and changing. In my

opinion, we should also remain open to taking into consideration matters that we

regard as pseudo-science, and to looking at them with the same interest that we are

able to show towards “our own science.”

It seems that when Aino is introduced to ideas that do not support her current beliefs, these

beliefs become questioned and negotiated in her internal dialogue. Aino questions and re-

negotiates the collective voice of Western society she has adopted (“in Western countries, we are

used to thinking”) considering it to be too narrow a perspective (“Oriental medicine treats a



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

40

person as a whole…”). Niina takes a similar position in her account of a personal experience

related to her studies:

Niina: I agree with you on pseudo-sciences: whether people should begin to consider

them more widely and without much prejudice, since something new could emerge

from there to be studied and thought about. On Fri and Sat I was once again studying

in Kuopio and attending a seminar on summarized texts. I acted as an opponent to a

student whose summary concerned occupational indoor air problems and the

approach was psychosocial. We know that indoor air problems are complicated and

arouse a variety of feelings. Often measurements fail to identify anything causing the

symptoms, but people just keep having the symptoms. Often the measured targets

have been wrong, perhaps, but often in the background there are also attitudes and

experiences related to the investigation process, and these were clearly present in this

summary as well. So, what factors actually lead to a successful investigation of

indoor air problems and, then again, how do people end up with a slow and

unsuccessful process? The result was that in the process one ought to take into

account human and social factors. Are these issues science or not? I think this is the

same thing that you took up: “The effect of the psyche cannot be measured or

questioned, still it is a fact.” Isn’t it one foundation of science that “on top of, or to

replace” old knowledge, people find new knowledge and also dare to use it?

It seems that in the work, science, and study communities that the students have been

involved in mostly deal with research pertinent to natural science, and that the perspective is

mostly physiological and physical. Their discourse suggests that research dealing with “a person

as a whole” or “the psyche” (Elina) or with “human and social factors” (Anna) has a minor



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

41

position, or is even regarded as pseudo-science in their scientific positioning. For example, Anna

asks “Are these issues science or not?” The inner confusion of the students thus results from

questioning the voice of a generalized other, or an authoritative voice that they have adopted.

They see this dominant perspective (e.g. Western medicine, “our own science”) as too narrow,

and as representing “old knowledge,” when viewed from a position that makes personal sense

here-and-now, or from the position of another perspective (for example, Oriental medicine). In

her comment Tiina seems to share this position: she explicitly criticizes the dominant research

practices of the (dominant) academic community on the grounds that it suppresses a wider and

more open-minded perspective:

Tiina: I, too, have thought about the distinction between science and pseudo-science

and also about the kind of losses there might be in always choosing the investigative

method proven by studies conducted in the past. So shouldn’t we really be more

open-minded and search for new paths?... In my opinion, the problem is ultimately

that the academic community seems to regard “scientific anarchy” as less prestigious

than research that is able to point out causal relationships and statistical predictions

yielded by traditional means.

The examples show that when confronted with different ways of thinking, the students

reflect on and become aware of the cultural models and underlying voices in their (collective)

thinking and practices.

Constructing a unity-in-diversity We-Position through heterodialogue

In the fifth task, the students were introduced to two philosophical texts representing two

different points of view as regards human and natural sciences. Thus, Varto (1992) emphasizes



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

42

the radical differences in the basis and methodology between natural sciences (labeled as exact

sciences) and the human sciences (labeled as strict sciences). By contrast, Raatikainen (2004)

finds many similarities in the two scientific approaches, including similarities in research

practices. Through the texts, the students engaged in and continued the major Conversation (Gee,

2010) between different approaches to science. This is explicitly acknowledged by Nea:

Nea: I read Varto and I thought, here we are again faced with the fundamental

questions – the debate between two methodologies continues. However, the question

is apparently about two different ways of understanding the world. In the discussions

in my own field, these very same things are pondered and a division is made between

“hard” and “soft” sciences.

(i) Texts as supportive or as providing counter-positions. The students were engaged in

heterodialogue (Linell, 2009) with the ideas found in the texts. This dialogue could thus bring

forward resources for strengthening their I-Position, whether through the support provided for

their ideas, or through a willingness to contradict the notions presented in the reading material

(cf. ventriloquation, Wortham, 2001). In the next example, Anita and Anni use Varto’s basic idea

– of separating out different scientific approaches – as a counter-position to their own holistic

view (Linell, 2009). Thus, they reinforce their own position by differentiating themselves from

Varto’s position (Wortham, 2001):

Anita: I’m still thinking about Varto’s rigorous dichotomy between exact and strict

sciences. In my opinion, both “orientations” are needed in human sciences, because

for example in health sciences and social sciences one is well justified in studying

phenomena that affect the reasons for human health/illnesses and participation (from

the viewpoint of natural science), but on the other hand, it is important to pay special



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

43

attention to people’s experiences, in relation to meanings and qualities from the

viewpoint of health, illness, and participation. We need exact, technical expertise and

knowledge – not forgetting a human, nurturing, and caring approach, as well.

Anni: I’m thinking along the same lines as you in that in the human sciences, health

sciences, and action therapy, we need views and a research methodology from both

exact and strict science. For health and social sciences, for example, you gave a good

description of the kinds of matters for which we need the methods of exact science

and those where we need strict science. Both these views/research targets are

important in this field of science. I think that Varto draws too sharp a distinction

between these two types of science (as mentioned already in previous writings). So,

personally I am in favor of a more moderate view that allows for both research

orientations.

The above dialogue represents a We-Position that can be called a unity-in-diversity

position. It is one that all of the students seemed to share at the end of the course. Sharing this

position, they argued for the equal significance of human and natural sciences, and for equal

weight to be given to strict and exact sciences. This they saw as forming a basis for their

professional practice and as constituting part of how they perceived and made sense of their field

of science. In their I- and We-Positioning, they drew on different approaches with their distinct

characteristics (encompassing diversity) to create a holistic view that included both exactness

and strictness (encompassing unity).

(ii) Refining one’s position through conceptualization. In the following discourse, Tia uses

the permissive approach presented in Raatikainen’s text to support a unity-in-diversity position

(Linell, 2009). This example also highlights the role of texts as resources for refining one’s



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

44

position through conceptualization (Arvaja, 2012). The texts helped the students to conceptualize

and construct their positions through outlining definitions of different scientific approaches. Tia

uses Raatikainen’s text (its concepts and its definitions of different approaches) in constructing

her I-Position:

Tia: I can’t see physiotherapy as separate from either scientific domain, in so far as it

is important and necessary in physiotherapy to make use of research from both

disciplines. As Raatikainen says, human physiological and biological qualities set

certain preconditions and produce various general tendencies. For their part, natural

sciences, such as brain research, provide illuminating knowledge concerning humans

and they help us better understand ourselves/humans. But because a physiotherapist

works with people, it is not sufficient that we know about anatomy and physiology or

that we make use of medical research into various illnesses; in other words, that we

draw on natural science. We have to account for the whole human being, a person as

a unique being; cognition, psyche, mood, motivation, and so on. For us, it is not

enough to have knowledge and research merely on how muscular strength develops;

we also need to understand some background on how we can get a person to learn,

find motivation, or how a person’s psyche or mood or cognition comes into play.

Thus, it is necessary to draw on the human sciences. The basic idea of a sympathetic

human science is the notion that human subjects and communities need to be studied

from their own point of view. In the study of humans, one must take into

consideration the rationale for one’s activities and the actor’s own perspective. So,

depending on what is studied, it would also be useful in physiotherapeutic research to

draw increasingly on qualitative methodology beside the quantitative one.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

45

Unfortunately, at least my impression and view is that the leading journals in the

field publish qualitative studies only very rarely. People still lean on and believe in

quantitative research and in knowledge obtained only in this way.

In Tia’s discourse, the emphasis is on the We-Position, which she explicitly expresses by

using the pronoun we in her discourse. She identifies herself as part of the professional group of

physiotherapists (We) and takes a unity-in-diversity position, emphasizing the importance of

taking into account “the whole human being” including both “physiological and biological

qualities” and “cognition, psyche, mood, motivation.” She relies heavily on Raatikainen’s ideas

in supporting and constructing this position (Linell, 2009). Thus, she ventriloquates (evaluates)

the voice represented by identifying with it (Wortham, 2001). By using phrases such as we have

to account for, for us, it is not enough, and we also need to understand, she adopts the voice of

the physiotherapists (We-Positioning) and defines what they are, do, and think (Gee, 2010).

However, at the end of her discourse, Tia argues that this position is not supported in the

physiotherapists’ scientific community. In quoting Raatikainen’s text she first of all speaks in

favor of sympathetic human sciences and of the necessity of taking a participant’s perspective in

studying humans. In relation to this position, she argues in favor of qualitative research, but

critically points out that it still has a minor position within physiotherapeutic research.

(iii) The struggle between voices. In the following dialogue, Anita and Aino join in, sharing

the unity-in-diversity position:

Anita: You’re discussing the utilization of the perspectives of human and natural

sciences in your own work on the basis of Raatikainen’s article. Good reflections

from both of you [Tia and Satu]. In my own field as an action therapist, I see this

issue very largely in the same way. I think that in health and social sciences, there is



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

46

good reason to study phenomena that affect the reasons for people’s health/illnesses

and participation (from a natural science perspective), but on the other hand, it is

important to pay attention to people’s experiences, meanings, and characteristics

from the perspectives of health, illness, and participation. In one’s work one often

comes across merely what, for example the referring body (doctors) value and

appreciate (research consistent with natural science; unfortunately).

Aino: Yes, indeed, this is precisely the way I see it in physiotherapy and in my own

work. The problem just lies specifically in the fact that, for example at work people

place too high a value on the views of natural science. One has to measure mobility

and muscular strength, and so on and compare the results and assess effectiveness in

that way. […] Another issue I face at work is the compilation of statistics. If I spend

time in the ward discussing with a patient, talking about goals and motivation,

listening to the person and evaluating her emotional state, without performing actual

physiotherapy, meaning muscular or mobility or functional exercises, can I then

record the visit as a physiotherapeutic visit? Since I didn’t actually perform any

therapy, but since much time was spent and after the discussion the patient is likely

to be more motivated to engage in rehabilitation and more cooperative when we start

actual training. I look after many patients with wounds and burns, which are often

painful. A thorough discussion and program laid out for the therapy has often been a

good thing and more effective than engaging in actual therapy right away. The only

problem is that I really can’t just mark on my daily nursing record sheet “discussed

therapy.” At that point one is liable to cheat and include, say, a stretching activity or



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

47

a quick final inspection. That’s how it is; the emphasis is too much on natural

science.

The above dialogue can be seen as an example of the internal sharing of an I-Position

(Hermans, 2001). The students recognize in themselves and in others the same position in

relation to different scientific approaches and their role in their professions. Through a dialogue,

they then construct a We-Position. However, Anita and Aino also acknowledge that their unity-

in-diversity position is not supported in their work communities. In Anita’s and Aino’s

discourse, it is evident that they experience a contradiction between their own values and the

values (“what the doctors value”) and practices (“compilation of statistics”) of the work

community. Thus, Anita and Aino share a view on the dominance of natural sciences, and they

both describe work practices that reflect and support this dominance. In the same vein, Tia

mentions the dominance of quantitative research over qualitative approaches in the publications

of her field. In each case, the I-Positions (as an action therapist and as physiotherapists) are in

conflict with some of the prevailing practices, norms, and values in the respective workplace or

science communities. Thus, even though their discourse is based on agreement and shared

viewpoints in general, they share the same critical position toward the dominance of certain

voices, with their preferred practices, norms, values, activities, beliefs, and artifacts.

The students’ external dialogue reveals a struggle between their professional/personal

voice and the authoritative voice in their work community. In other words, the students are

engaged in collective criticism against the authoritative voice they recognize in their work and

related science practices. Here, others (doctors) come to function as defining positions regarding

what is not Me, and practices (such as the compilation of statistics, publishing practices) emerge

as defining the practices that I do not agree with (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Gee, 2010;



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

48

Wortham, 2001). Through the conceptions voiced by the students, one can interpret strong

support for the view that the technical-rational model (Tsang, 2007) is inappropriate (as a

cultural model) for professional practice in which there is a need to take into account the patient

as a whole person, i.e. not merely the body, the anatomy, or the physiology, but also the mind;

feelings, motives, and values in inter-personal interactions. For the students in the study, this also

meant incorporating the patient’s voice and perspective, that is, the patient’s experiences and

subjective meanings.

(Dis)continuity in the I-Positions

An interesting finding concerning Aino’s discourse was that while in the first task she

categorized herself as a natural science type of person – one who has adopted the activities,

practices, values, norms, and beliefs pertaining to the natural sciences dominant in her work and

study communities – at the end of the course she criticized those values, norms, and practices.

However, as can be seen from the examples, Aino was at various points in the course engaged in

an internal dialogue in which voices from different perspectives met. This exemplifies how –

when one engages in identity talk that includes reflecting on one’s own beliefs, values, and

practices (i.e. doing, being, and thinking) – these voices become explicit and re-negotiable. A

change in Aino’s I-Position is explicitly stated in her last written text (task 6):

Aino: At least for me this course has taught me a quite different way of thinking for

doing research and has broadened my approach to science in general. It seems that I

started from Sharply positivistic notions and ended up with a fairly broad and open

view on the importance of qualitative research and human sciences, for example. It’s

good to stop and reflect on things and their meanings every now and then. At work



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

49

one is often measuring just for the fun of it and it has no significance, in the end, for

the patient let alone for science. Actually, it may have been the most important lesson

for me in this course; to consider what truly significant science actually is. It is by no

means about angular degrees and instruments, but about consideration of causal

relationships more broadly and with consideration given to humans and interaction.

Although it sometimes feels that the thinking was really tangled, in the end one must

say that this has been a good process. Thanks for it!

Aino’s statement clearly demonstrates how the matters discussed, read, and written about

in the course had an impact on the Me. Aino implicitly gives her view that what she thinks now

is different from what she thought before, thereby indicating re-negotiation of an I-Position: “I

started… I ended up…” As previous examples have demonstrated, Aino constantly voiced and

positioned herself as being “a natural science type.” However, exposure to diversity via the

different approaches challenged and changed her scientific and professional I-Position. It seemed

that in this process she lost the “sense of dogma” that characterized her earlier conception of

science, and that she now saw science as negotiated and changeable (cf. Ligorio, 2010, p. 101).

She became aware of the cultural models and related practices (e.g. measuring) guiding her

doing and thinking. By changing her I-Position, she created new meanings and consequently

arrived at a new theory of the figured world of science (Gee, 2010) that guided her thinking and

believing.

The importance of acknowledging different perspectives and questioning the authoritative

voice (the “given from above” voice) is also highlighted in Nea’s comment:



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

50

Nea: The course awoke a desire to think about things from different perspectives without

agreeing with one correct perspective given from above. Through the course, this was

manifested in thinking about the differences between human and natural sciences.

Anita, on the other hand, is an example of a student who strengthened her I-Position during

the course. Throughout the course, Anita (like many other students) highlighted the importance

of different scientific approaches in positioning one’s Self as a professional or as a student of

health sciences – this despite the fact that her internal dialogue revealed a tension related to the

minor position of her own field in the “hard world of medicine.” Exposure to the course texts (in

which there were views consonant with those held in her own occupation, which she saw as

having a low status)  actually seemed to strengthen her position. In her writing below, she

mentions an aspect that could in the future provide a solution to the personal and collective

tension evidenced in her writings:

Anita: On the other hand, I’ve been thinking myself, having now studied philosophy

a bit, that we probably won’t benefit very much if we consider things strongly

through contradistinction – or if we can find consensus only once we examine

different fields of science as fragments, as parts, and thereby succeed in finding

pieces from which we can, by combining the best aspects, come to the conclusion

that both strict and exact sciences are needed in this world.

Anita seems here to be arguing against the mere juxtaposition and isolation of different

approaches. Ho and colleagues (2001) suggest that the self has a tendency to organize and seek

unity among different voices involving the dialectic of unity and diversity. For the dialogical

self, new meanings and possibilities emerge through achieving a dialectical synthesis, unity with

diversity. This tendency seems to be present in Anita’s discourse.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

51

Even though Aino was the only student whose scientific I-Position clearly changed during

the course, all the students seemed to refine their scientific I-Position by conceptualizing their

experiences in the light of the philosophical knowledge they were exposed to, and through

considering the various voices, and cultural models underlying their thinking. Hence, by

providing a forum for “identity talk” (Cohen, 2010), the writings, discussions, and reflections

around the learning materials gave an opportunity to refine, strengthen, and reconstruct the

students’ own I-Positions. In other words, they provided the students with a forum for the

recognition and negotiation of their disciplinary and professional identity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In accordance with the dialogical approach, a readiness to acknowledge the students’ own lives

and experiences as resources for learning can lead to a learning situation in which the

(institutional) knowledge provided by the teacher becomes a mediating tool for understanding

those lives rather than an end in itself. When the health science students were prompted to use

their professional and discipline-related experiences as a resource in interpreting different

philosophical approaches, they moved towards a discourse in which they were able to reflect on

and analyze these experiences. They engaged in reflective identity talk (Cohen, 2010) and

recognition work (Gee, 2010) through which they could reason and share beliefs, values,

activities, practices, and conceptions associated with their discipline and work. In so doing they

were able to make themselves and their actions visible to one another (Gee, 1999), and hence to

express and construct their I-Positions (Akkerman et al., 2012). Through their discourse, the

students built situated meanings of being and doing as a health science professional or as a

student of health sciences.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

52

In the students’ I-Positionings, there were struggles, integrations, and shifts between

different positions and voices. These were closely related to the tensions between different

Discourses, manifested as a debate, i.e. Conversation (Gee, 2010) in the students’ discourse.

Throughout the course, it seemed that the contrastive pattern the students used in discussing

different approaches to science served as a resource for making explicit and critically evaluating

the contradictions they perceived with regard to their work and discipline. This also facilitated

conceptualization of their professional and discipline-related experiences. By analyzing their

experiences in the light of different approaches and new perspectives, made visible through the

philosophical texts, the students became aware of different voices and value systems which

underlay their thinking and activities, and which were liable to cause tensions in their

professional and scientific positioning.

It was possible to identify multiple theories and cultural models (Gee, 1999) that the

students made visible through their discourse. The possibility to reflect on these (often taken-for-

granted) cultural models made them explicit and re-negotiable. This provided possibilities to

negotiate, strengthen, refine, and re-construct the students’ own professional and scientific I-

Positions. Here one could observe how making one’s understanding explicit and reviewing

current practices and conceptions in the light of new knowledge led to new awareness, and to

more refined or wider perspectives. For some students the process went further, leading to new

identity constructions (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011).

Through the students’ discourse, it became apparent that there were several co-existing

third parties and others that played a role in defining the students’ professional and discipline-

related identity. A number of different entities were intertwined in their sense-making processes,

including in particular study-related experiences (such as evidence-based research), general



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

53

discipline-related perceptions (such as publishing practices), work experiences (dominant

practices), and the voices of the patients, places, and institutions (such as a hospital). All of these

worked to define the students’ I-Positions and identities, i.e. they constituted “others,” which

(together with their related voices) contributed to the shaping of I-Positions.

It seemed that the world of education and institutionalized practices at work, with its

emphasis on physical activity, anatomy, biology, and physiology, did not give the students an

adequate frame to interpret their encounters with patients. The personal sense of meaning they

had derived from everyday encounters with patients – in other words their practical wisdom

(Tsang, 2007) – was in contradiction with the “official frame” (cf. Rajala & Sannino,

forthcoming) and with the authoritative voice (Linell, 2009). However, despite the conflicts and

minor positions that some students felt in their positioning, the students constructed and reflected

a unity-in-diversity We-Position, in which they stressed the equal importance of different

approaches in defining themselves as professionals and as students of health sciences. Thus, they

were able to construct a Discourse of health science professionals and students (Gee, 2010). This

was done through positioning (voicing and evaluating) different (relevant) voices in the social

world with respect to one another, and through taking their own (I-)position with respect to these

voices (Wortham, 2001).

Altogether, it seemed that the reasoning tasks were able to elicit an internal dialogue, in

other words, negotiation between different I-Positions of the self, or a heterodialogue with the

texts (Linell, 2009). This was manifested in tensions and contradictions in the students’ overt

discourse. When the students were discussing their experiences, their external dialogue was

mostly harmonious and characterized by sharing, acknowledging, and adopting a similar

position. However, even though the students were not engaged in argumentative talk (which is



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

54

often regarded as necessary for collaborative learning), it can be suggested that their external

dialogue had an important role in their discussion and learning. Tsang (2007) sees a contrast

between internal dialogue, which has a “self-generative capacity” leading to new possibilities for

thought and action, and external dialogue, which may be essential for the validation of one’s own

ideas. Phenomena of this kind emerged in the present study, in which the views of others seemed

to shed light on various inner tensions and to add weight to a particular option in settling inner

struggles. Through sharing and constructing a We-Position, the students strengthened their

professional identity. The way of defining one’s individual identity in the discussions was based

not only on identifying with similar positions, voices, or views, but also on differentiating

oneself from the voices of those who “are part of what I am not” (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011,

Wortham, 2001). This kind of contrastive discourse was targeted against the voices of different

others – other professional groups with which the students were working, and the authoritative

voice behind practices and norms in the workplace. Thus, in their shared discourse the students

questioned, criticized, and challenged various third parties, voices in the texts, and generalized

others, even though their external dialogue remained harmonious. It can be said that the students

shared a similar professional identity through recognizing the similar values, beliefs, and

practices present in each other’s discourse.

The pedagogical design of the course was such that the issues addressed were important,

meaningful, and relevant from the students’ own perspective. Within the course the students

were prompted with special “dialogic provocations” through the reasoning tasks. These

supported their “ontological engagement,” which is important for dialogical learning (Matusov,

2011, p. 115). The study demonstrated that the texts were important resources in introducing the

students to different voices, and that these voices served as sources of tension. The texts seemed



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

55

to offer the students new cultural models, which brought fresh values, perspectives, and

assumptions to the situation, and which served as tools for making sense of experiences and re-

negotiating their situated meanings.

As a general observation, the ability to reflect on fundamental questions relative to

professional practice seemed to promote new awareness and professional self-understanding

(Alsup, 2006). As far as professionals and students of health sciences are concerned, engagement

in more explicit talk on professional identity can also be seen as essential in strengthening the

voice (Cohen, 2010) and agency (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Vähäsantanen et al., 2009) of

those concerned, in the context of their respective communities.

The online environment provided an ideal context for the students’ reflective discourse,

which combined institutional and personal knowledge. Linell (2009) has argued that some

communication types favor reflective processes more than others. Reflection presupposes that

one can take an observer’s role in the flow of discussion. One advantage of an asynchronous

discussion forum was that it supported such reflective processes. It gave time to observe and

reflect on ideas – whether one’s own or expressed by others – due to the fact that these were

readily available during the entire learning process (Wegerif & De Laat, 2011). It thus appeared

that the online environment used in the course provided a supportive context for reflection and

identity discourse. It is true that reflection can, generally speaking, be enhanced merely by giving

adequate time and space for it. However, for the purposes of learning as an identity work, there

are clear advantages in providing specific opportunities for students to reflect on personal

experiences, and thus engaging them in identity discourse. Moreover, as Wortham (2001) argues,

narrative (e.g. telling one’s life experiences) embodying the process of positioning has per se the

power to transform the self. This implies that in order to support meaningful, “horizontal”



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

56

learning (Akkerman & van Eijck, 2011), the principle of personalization could well be applied to

designing learning activities and guiding pedagogical choices at all educational levels, and in

different learning contexts (e.g. Ligorio, 2010; Rajala & Sannino, forthcoming).

Even though the study demonstrated the value of “dialogical provocations” in promoting

the (re)negotiation of a professional sense of self during a single university course, one must

emphasize that  the dialogical self is negotiated in many other ways, including everyday social

and socio-cultural encounters (e.g. Mol, 2002). Hence, future studies could look closely at I-

Positioning as it occurs within the ongoing social and organizational life of professionals,

seeking to shed light on how the professional sense of self is negotiated between the individual

and the social world in everyday activity (Billett, 2006; Mol, 2002).

Acknowledgements

The study presented was supported by the Academy of Finland (Project no. 7121097). The

author would like to thank the philosophy course teacher Petri Kuhmonen for his collaboration in

conducting this research, as well as the students who participated in the study. I am also grateful

to three anonymous reviewers and the editor-in-chief Josh Radinsky for their valuable comments

and constructive criticism that helped me to revise this paper into its current form. I also express

my warmest thanks to Raija Hämäläinen and Antti Rajala for their supportive feedback

concerning my research. I also address my thanks to Donald Adamson and Tuomo Suontausta

for polishing the language of the paper.

References



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

57

Akkerman, S. F., Admiraal, W. & Simons, R. J. (2012). Unity and diversity in a collaborative

research project. Culture & Psychology, 18(2), 227-252. doi:10.1177/1354067X11434835

Akkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of

Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169. DOI:10.3102/0034654311404435

Akkerman, S. F. & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher

identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308-319. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.013

Akkerman, S. F. & Van Eijck, M. (2013). Re-theorising the student dialogically across and

between boundaries of multiple communities. British Educational Research Journal,

39(1), 60-72. DOI:10.1080/01411926.2011.613454

Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses. Negotiating personal and professional spaces.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Arvaja, M. (2012). Personal and shared experiences as resources for meaning making in a

philosophy of science course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, 7(1), 85-108. DOI 10.1007/s11412-011-9137-5

Arvaja, M. (2011). Analyzing contextual nature of collaborative activity. In S. Puntambekar, G.

Erkens & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methods, approaches

and issues (s. 25-46). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol 12. NY:

Springer.

Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of

two small groups in web-based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 133-158. DOI 10.1007/s11412-007-9013-5



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

58

Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P. & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-

level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning

and Instruction, 17(4), 448-459. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.003

Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.) The dialogical imagination,

(pp. 259-422). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Billett, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and

working life. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(1), 53-69.

DOI:10.1207/s15327884mca1301_5

Cohen, J. (2010). Getting recognized: teachers negotiating professional identities as learners

through talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 473-481.

DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.005

Collin, K., Van der Heijden, B. & Lewis, P. (2012).Continuing professional development.

International Journal of Training and Development, 16(3), 155-163. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-

2419.2012.00410.x

Crook, C. (2011). Versions of computer-supported collaborating in higher education. In

Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I. & Säljö, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites. New

tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 156-171). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J. (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. 3rd Edition. London:

Routledge.

Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.

Gee, J., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: A methodological

study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169. doi:10.3102/0091732X023001119



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

59

Grossen, M. & Salazar Orvig, A. (2011). Dialogism and dialogicality in the study of self. Culture

& Psychology, 17(4), 491-509. DOI:10.1177/1354067X11418541

Heikkinen, R-L. & Laine, T. (1997). (Eds.) Hoitava kohtaaminen. [Caring encounter] Helsinki:

Kirjayhtymä.

Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The Dialogical Self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural

positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243-281. DOI:10.1177/1354067X0173001

Hermans, H.J.M., & Hermans-Jansen, E. (1995). Self-narratives: The construction of meaning in

psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Hermans, H. J. M. & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The dialogical self: Meaning as movement. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ho, D. Y.-f., Chan, F. S.-f., Peng, S.-q. and Ng, A. K. (2001). The dialogical self: converging

East–West constructions. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), pp. 393–408.

DOI:10.1177/1354067X0173008

Ke, F., Chavez, A. F., Causarano, P.-N. L., & Causarano, A. (2011) Identity presence and

knowledge building: Joint emergence in online learning environments? International

Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 349-370. DOI:

10.1007/s11412-011-9114-z

Kiikeri, M. & Ylikoski, P. (2004). Tiede tutkimuskohteena: filosofinen johdatus

tieteentutkimukseen. [Science as a research object: philosophical introduction to science

research] Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Leander, K., Phillips, N., Headrick Taylor, K. (2010). The Changing social spaces of learning:

Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34, 329-394. DOI:

10.3102/0091732X09358129



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

60

Ligorio, B. (2010). Dialogical relationship between identity and learning. Culture & Psychology,

16(1), 93-107. DOI:10.1177/1354067X09353206

Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and

contextual theories of human sense making. Charlotte, NC: Information age publishing.

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical

perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Linell, P. & Korolija, N. (1997). Coherence in multi-party conversation: Episodes and contexts

in interaction. In T. Givón (ed.) Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social

perspectives (pp. 167-206). Typological studies in language 34. John Benjamins.

Lipponen, L. & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional

spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812-

819. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001

Marková, I. (2006). On the “inner alter” in dialogue. International Journal of Dialogical Science,

1(1), 125-147.

Matusov, E. (2011). Irreconcilable differences in Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s approaches to the

social and the individual: An educational perspective. Culture & Psychology, 17(1), 99-

119. DOI:10.1177/1354067X10388840

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.

Niiniluoto, I. (1984). Tiede, filosofia ja maailmankatsomus: filosofisia esseitä tiedosta ja sen

arvosta. [Science, philosophy and world view: philosophical essays about knowledge and

its value] Helsinki: Otava.

Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (1996). Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 19-43.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

61

Oztok, M. (2013). Tacit knowledge in online learning: community, identity, and social capital.

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 21-36. DOI:

10.1080/1475939X.2012.720414

Paakkari, L., Tynjälä, P. & Kannas, L. (2011). Critical aspects of student teachers’ conceptions

of learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 705-714. DOI:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.03.003

Raatikainen, P. (2004). Ihmistieteet ja filosofia. [Human sciences and philosophy] Helsinki:

Gaudeamus.

Rajala, A., Hilppö, J., Lipponen, L. & Kumpulainen, K. (2013). Expanding the chronotopes of

schooling for the promotion of students’ agency. In O. Erstad & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.)

Identity, community, and learning lives in the digital age (pp. 107-125). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Rajala, A. & Sannino, A. (forthcoming). Disruptive Dynamics of Students’ Interpretation of a

Learning Task: An activity-theoretical analysis.

Silseth, K. & Arnseth, H. C. (2011). Learning and identity construction across sites: A dialogical

approach to analyzing the construction of learning selves. Culture & Psychology, 17(1),

65-80. DOI:10.1177/1354067X10388842

Stahl, G. (2012). Ethnomethodologically informed. International Journal of Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning, 7 (1), 1-10. DOI:10.1007/s11412-012-9142-3

Tee, M. Y. & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning

environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4),

385-413. DOI:10.1007/s11412-010-9095-3

Tsang, N. M. (2007).Reflection as dialogue. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 681-694.



EXPERIENCES IN SENSE MAKING

62

Tynjälä, P. & Gijbels, D. (2012). Changing world – changing pedagogy. In P. Tynjälä, M-L.

Stenström & M. Saarnivaara (Eds.) Transitions and transformations in learning and

education (pp. 205-222). Dordrecht: Springer.

Varto, J. (1992). Laadullisen tutkimuksen metodologia. [Methodology of qualitative research]

Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä.

Vähäsantanen, K., Saarinen, J. & Eteläpelto, A. (2009). Between school and working life:

Vocational teachers’ agency in boundary-crossing settings. International Journal of

Educational Research, 48(6), 395-404. DOI:10.1016/j.ijer.2010.04.003

Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action. A strategy for research and analysis. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Wegerif, R. & De Laat, M. (2011). Using Bakhtin to re-think the teaching of higher-order

thinking for the network society. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I. & Säljö, R.

(Eds.), Learning across sites. New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 313-329). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Zittoun, T. (2011 August). Sense-making through and across spheres of experiences. Paper

presented in a Symposium “Learning in movement: conceptualizing in-between and across

site learning” at the 14th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction

(EARLI), Exeter, Great Britain.