Borgmann, A. (2006). Technology as a cultural force: for Alena and Griffin. I: The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 31(3), 351–360.Google Scholar

Chiong, C., Ree, J. & Takeuchi, L. (2012). Print versus e-books. Joan Ganz Cooney quick report. New York: Joan Ganz Cooney Center. Available online at www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/quickreport-print-books-vs-e-books/Google Scholar

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Derry, J. (2013). Vygotsky, Philosophy and Education. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Edwards, A, (2005). Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. (2010). Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 22–32.Google Scholar

Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J. & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving Inter-Professional Collaborations: Multi-Agency Working for Children’s Wellbeing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1999). Communication, discourse and activity. Communication Review, 3, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting activity theory to work: the change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In Daniels, H., Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y. & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fleer, M. (2014). The demands and motives afforded through digital play in early childhood activity settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(2), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flewitt, R., Messer, D. & Kucirkova, N. (2014). New directions for early literacy in a digital age: the iPad. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy (0), 1–22. Available online at eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3365/1/Flewitt_Messer_Kucirkova_2014_new_directions_for_early_literacy_the_iPad.pdfGoogle Scholar

Geertz, C. (1973/1993). The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar

Hasse, C. (2013). Artefacts that talk: mediating technologies as multistable signs and tools. Subjectivity, 6, 79–100.Google Scholar

Hasse, C. (2014). An Anthropology of Learning. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Hasse, C. & Brok, L. S. (Eds.) (2015). TEKU modellen - Teknologiforståelse i professioner [The TECS-Model – technological liteacy in professional work]. Copenhagen: U Press.Google Scholar

Hedegaard, M. (2009). A cultural-historical theory of children’s development. In Hedegaard, M. & Fleer, M. (Eds.), Studying Children: A Cultural-Historical Approach (pp. 10–29). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Kucirkova, N. (2013). Children’s interactions with iPad books. Frontiers in Psychology (4), 995. Available online at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871707/Google Scholar

Kuss, D. J. & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet gaming addiction: a systematic review of empirical research. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 278–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective types of activity. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 12(1), 70–88.Google Scholar

Stetsenko, A. (2014). Transformative activist stance for education: inventing the future in moving beyond the status quo. In Corcoran, T. (Ed.), Psychology in Education: Critical Theory~Practice (pp. 181–198). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Turkle, S. (2005). Computer games as evocative objects: from projective screens to relational artefacts. In Raessens, J. & Goldstein, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Computer Game Studies (pp. 267–279). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency and Design. State College: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (Eds. Cole, M. et al.) (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). Tool and sign in the development of the child. In Rieber, R. W. (Ed.), Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky (Scientific Legacy, Volume 6) (pp. 1–68). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Wallace, J. & Hasse, C. (2014). Situating technological literacy in the workplace. In Dakers, J. R. (Ed.), Defining Technological Literacy, 2nd ed. (pp 153–164). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Andersen, P. Ø. (2004). Daginstitutionernes indhold og pædagogik i historisk belysning. In Ellegaard, T. & Stanek, A. H. (Eds.), Læreplaner i børnehaven (pp. 76–101). Vejle, Denmark: Kroghs forlag. (76-101).Google Scholar

Boyle, T. & Petriwskyj, A. (2014). Transition to school: reframing professional relationship. Early Years: An International Reseach Journal, 34(4), 392–404.Google Scholar

Brostrøm, S. (2000). Transition to school. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Quality in Early Childhood Education (EECERA), August, London.Google Scholar

Brostrøm, S. & Wagner, T. (Eds.). (2003). Early Childhood Education in Five Nordic Countries: Perspectives on the Transition from Preschool to School. Aarhus, Denmark: Systime.Google Scholar

Cecchin, D. (2002). Den integrende pædagogik. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.Google Scholar

Chaiklin, S. (2011). Social scientific research and societal practice: action research and cultural-historical research in methodological light in Kurt Lewin & Lev S. Vygotsky. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2),129–147.Google Scholar

Chan, W. L. (2012). Expectations from kindergarten to primary school amongst teachers, parents and children. Early Childhood Development and Care, 185(5), 639–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. (2010). Being an Expert Professional Practitioner. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. Daniels, H. Gallagher, T. Leadbetter, J. & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving Inter-Professional Collaborations; Multi-Agency Working for Children’s Wellbeing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Garpelin, A. (2014). Transition to school: a rite of passage in life. In Perry, B., Dockett, S. & Petriwskyj, A. (Eds.), Transition to School – International Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 117–1289). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Gulløv, E. (2013). Den tidlige civilisering. In Gilliam, L., & Gulløv, E. (Eds.), Civiliserende Institutioner. Om idealer og distinktioner i opdragelse (63-97). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar

Hedegaard, M. (2005). Learning and Child Development. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar

Hedegaard, M. (2012). Analyzing children’s learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural-historical wholeness approach. Mind Culture and Activity, 19(2), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hedegaard, M. (2013, org. 1992). Beskrivelse af småbørn. Aarhus, Denmark: Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar

Hedegaard, M. & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, Learning and Children’s Development: Everyday Life in Families and Transition to School. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MBU (Ministry of Education). (2012a). Fremtidens dagtilbud. Pejlemærker fra task force om fremtidens dagtilbud. Ministeriet for Børn og Undervisning for Task Force for Fremtidens Dagtilbud. Hentet 27. maj 2014 fra. Available online at www.uvm.dk/Uddannelser/Dagtilbudsomraadet/Fremtidens-dagtilbud-UdviklingsprogrammemetGoogle Scholar

MBU (Ministry of Education). (2012b). Baggrundsrapport fra Task Force om Fremtidens Dagtilbud. Ministeriet for Børn og Undervisning for Task Force for Fremtidens Dagtilbud. Hentet 27. maj 2014 fra. Available online at www.uvm.dk/Uddannelser/Dagtilbudsomraadet/Fremtidens-dagtilbud-UdviklingsprogrammemetGoogle Scholar

Mål, Manifest og Dogmer for Ny Nordisk Skole. (2012). Hentet den 27. maj 2014 fra. Available online at www.nynordiskskole.dk/Om-Ny-Nordisk-Skole/Hvad-er-Ny-Nordisk-Skole/Maal-Manifest-og-Dogmer-for-Ny-Nordisk-SkoleGoogle Scholar

Peters, S. (2014). Chasms, bridges and borderlands: a transition research ‘across border’ from early childhood education to school in New Zealand. In Perry, B., Dockett, S. & Petriwskyj, A. (Eds.), Transition to School – International Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 105–116). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Pianta, R., Cox, M. Taylor, L. & Early, D. (1999). Kindergarten teachers’ practices related to the transition to school: result of a national survey. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P. & Tinkler, J. (2014). The Impact of the Social Sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Brewer, J. (2013). The Public Value of the Social Sciences. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benington, J. & Moore, M. (Eds.) (2010). Public Value: Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Cartwright, N. & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cerf, M., Jeufrroy, M-H, Prost, L. & Meynard, J-M. (2012). Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(4), 899–910.Google Scholar

Chaiklin, S. (1993). Understanding the social scientific practice of Understanding Practice. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (pp. 377–401). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davies, H., Nutley, S. & Smith, P. (Eds.) (2000). What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2010). Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at boundaries between professional practices. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, (1), 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council). (2015a). Guidance for applicants. Available online at www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/applicants/iii.aspxGoogle Scholar

ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council). (2015b). ESRC strategic plan. Available online at www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Strategic_Plan_2015_tcm8-33418.pdfGoogle Scholar

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Bristol, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hedegaard, M. (2012). The dynamic aspects in children’s learning and development. In Hedegaard, M., Edwards, A. & Fleer, M. (Eds.), Motives, Emotions and Values in the Development of Children and Young People (pp. 9–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar

Mulgan, G. (2005). Government, knowledge and the business of policy-making: the potential and limits of evidence-based policy. Evidence and Policy, 1(2), 215–226.Google Scholar

Nissen, M. (2009). Objectification and prototype. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6(1), 67–87.Google Scholar

Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156.Google Scholar

Nutley, S. (2012). Connecting evidence, policy and practice in an era of austerity, complexity and decentralised decision making. Opening Plenary at the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Copenhagen. Available online at www.sfi.dk/Default.aspx?ID=10712Google Scholar

Nutley, S., Walter, I. & Davies, H. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar

Oancea, A. (2013). Interpretations of research impact in seven disciplines. European Educational Research Journal, 12(2), 242–250.Google Scholar

PACEC .(2011). Understanding the knowledge exchange infrastructure in the English higher education sector. A report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Available online at www.pacec.co.uk/publications/Understanding_the_Knowledge_Exchange_Infrastructure_in_the_English_Higher_Education_Sector.pdfGoogle Scholar

Rickinson, M., Sebba, J. & Edwards, A. (2011). Improving User-Engagement in Educational Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shavelson, R. J. & Towne, L. (Eds.) (2002). Scientific Research in Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky (Problems of the Theory and History of Psychology, Vol. 3) (Eds. Reiber, R. & Wollock, J.). London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.Google Scholar

Beaulieu, A. (2010). Research note: From co-location to co-presence: shifts in the use of ethnography for the study of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40(3), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaulieu, A., ,Scharnhorst, A. & Wouters, P. (2007) Not another case study: a middle-range interrogation of ethnographic case studies in the exploration of e-science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32, 672–692.Google Scholar

Bell, G. (2009). Foreword. In Hey, T., Tansley, S. & Tolle, K. (Eds.), The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery (pp. ix–xv). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar

Collins, H. M. & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32( 2), 235–296.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. (2005). Peripheral vision expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies, 26(5), 779–792.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2010). Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 22–32.Google Scholar

Hatano, G. (1982). Cognitive consequences of practice in culture specific procedural skills. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 4, 15–18.Google Scholar

Hine, C. (2007). Multi-sited ethnography as a middle range methodology for contemporary STS. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(6), 652–671.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In Reisnick, L. B., Levine, & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Lintott, C. & Land, K. (2008). Eyeballing the universe. Physics World, 21, 27–30.Google Scholar

Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In Salomon, G. (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions – Psychological and Educational Considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Way, M. J., Scargle, J. D., Ali, K. M. & Srivastava, A. N. (Eds.). (2012). Advances in Machine Learning and Data Mining for Astronomy. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zooniverse. (2013). How the Zooniverse Works: The Domain Model. Available online at blog.zooniverse.org/2013/06/20/how-the-zooniverse-works-the-domain-model/Google Scholar