In this response to Ribeiro and Lima’s paper on interactional expertise, we argue that, by not incorporating the insights of constructivist social science, their analysis goes backwards rather than advancing the debate. We show that much of the evidence they present does not lead to the conclusions they draw. We also critically examine the idea of physical contiguity, which forms a central part of Ribeiro and Lima’s position. We show that its meaning is ambiguous. We conclude by suggesting that more research on the nature and influence of physical contiguity would be interesting in its own right but that it would not bear on the notion of interactional expertise.
CollinsHM (1974) The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies4(2): 165–185.
2.
CollinsHM (1996a) Embedded or embodied? A review of Hubert Dreyfus’ what computers still can’t do. Artificial Intelligence80(1): 99–117.
3.
CollinsHM (1996b) Interaction without society? What avatars can’t do. In: StefikM (ed.) Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths, and Metaphors. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 317–326. Available at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/internet-dreams
4.
CollinsHM (2004) Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
CollinsHM (2011) Language and practice. Social Studies of Science41(2): 271–300.
6.
CollinsHM (2016) Interactional expertise and embodiment. In: SandbergJRouleauLLangleyA. (eds) Skillful Performance: Enacting Expertise, Competence, and Capabilities in Organizations, Perspectives on Process Organization Studies (P-PROS). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
CollinsHMEvansR (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
CollinsHMEvansR (2014) Quantifying the tacit: The Imitation Game and social fluency. Sociology48(1): 3–19.
9.
CollinsHMEvansR (2015) Expertise revisited, Part I – Interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 54: 113–123.
CollinsHMEvansRRibeiroR. (2006) Experiments with interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A37(4): 656–674.
12.
CollinsHMEvansRWeinelM. (2015b) The Imitation Game and the nature of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Epub ahead of print 21December. DOI: 10.1177/1558689815619824.
13.
CollinsHMHarrisonRG (1975) Building a TEA Laser: The caprices of communication. Social Studies of Science5(4): 441–450.
14.
DreyfusH (1972) What Computers Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
GoddiksenM (2014) Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A47: 111–117.
17.
PlaisanceKSKennedyEB (2014) A pluralistic approach to interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A47: 60–68.
18.
Reyes-GalindoLIDuarteTR (2015) Bringing tacit knowledge back to contributory and interactional expertise: A reply to Goddiksen. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A49: 99–102.
19.
RibeiroR (2013a) Levels of immersion, tacit knowledge and expertise. In: SelingerEFeistGStoneD (eds) Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (Special Issue: Tacit Knowledge: New Theories and Practices), vol. 12, issue 2, pp. 367–397.
20.
RibeiroR (2013b) Tacit knowledge management. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences12(2): 337–366.
21.
RibeiroRCollinsH (2007) The bread-making machine: Tacit knowledge and two types of action. Organization Studies28(9): 1417–1433.
22.
RibeiroRLimaFPA (2016) The value of practice: A critique of interactional expertise. Social Studies of Science46(2).
23.
SelingerEDreyfusHCollinsHM (2007) Interactional expertise and embodiment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A38(4): 722–740.
24.
StrongT (2004) Bodies and thinking in motion: Review of ‘Body and World’ by Samuel Todes. Janus Head7(2): 516–522.
25.
TodesS (2001) Body and World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
