No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to introduce a new methodological framework for the identification and analysis of different types of discursive manifestations of contradictions.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on the dialectical tradition of cultural‐historical activity theory. The methodological framework is developed by means of analyzing the entire transcribed corpus of the discourse conducted in a change laboratory intervention consisting of eight sessions and altogether 189,398 words.FindingsFour types of discursive manifestations, namely dilemmas, conflicts, critical conflicts, and double binds, could be effectively identified in the data. Specific linguistic cues were a useful first level of approaching the different types of manifestations. Critical conflicts and double binds were found to be particularly effective lenses on systemic contradictions.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper points to the need for theoretical and conceptual rigor in studies using the notion of contradiction. Further empirical testing of the framework is needed and may lead to more refined or alternative categories.Practical implicationsDynamics of different organizational change interventions may be effectively analyzed and compared with the help of the framework.Originality/valueThe paper presents an original, empirically‐tested methodological framework that may be a valuable resource for analyzes of contradictions driving organizational change.

No abstract

The article examines formative interventions as we understand them in cultural-historical activity theory, and reflects upon key differences between this intervention research tradition and design-based research as it is conceived in the learning sciences tradition. Three projects, including two Change Laboratories (CL), are analyzed with the help of conceptual lenses derived from basic epistemological principles for intervention research in activity theory. In all three interventions, learners expansively transformed the object of their activity. The CL cases, however, show that this learning process included productive deviations from the researchers' instructional intentions, leading to significant outcomes, both practical and theoretical, that were not anticipated by the interventionists. Together, these cases illustrate that an activitytheoretical formative intervention approach differs from design based research in the following ways: 1) formative interventions are based on design done by the learners; 2) the collective design effort is seen as part of an expansive learning process, including participatory analyses and implementation phases; 3) rather than aiming at transferable and scalable solutions, formative interventions aim at generative solutions developing over lengthy periods of time in both the researched activities and in the research community.

No abstract

No abstract

This article presents arguments used in current discussions on potential shortcomings of contemporary works within activity theory concerning subjectivity and the use of conceptual models such as the triangular representation of the activity system. It documents the history of activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. It suggests that advances in activity theory depend on the ability of those within this framework to establish fruitful connections between the classic heritage and challenging possibilities of societal change. The main arguments of the critiques are examined in this historical perspective. Combined with design and implementation of material transformations, both the models and the voices of the subjects act as mediators and are embedded in collective change efforts. The article indicates a possible direction to reorient the current discussions toward interventionist methods developed within the framework of activity theory, namely the Change Laboratory, the Clinic of Activity, and the Fifth Dimension.

The article outlines four generations of theorizing and research on work and learning within the Finnish school of activity theory. The main focus of the paper is on the evolution of the unit of analysis through the four generations, from mediated action to a collective activity system, to multipleinterconnected activity systems, and most recently to heterogenous work coalitions aimed at resolving wicked societal problems. We examine how learning and agency are conceptualized in each generation, and what kinds of interventions are conducted in the projects presented as examples of the four generations. We conclude that the four generations of activitytheoretical studies of work and learning continue to co-exist. To meet the challenges of work in today's world, activity theory must seriously engage in the development of its fourth generation, building on ideas and instruments developed by the preceding generations.