From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning

Abstract

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.

How Do Organizational Capabilities Sustain Continuous Innovation in a Public Setting?

“…More recently, Torfing (2019) notes a renewed interest in the concept of collaborative innovation prompted by a growing body of literature which seeks to integrate contributions on collaborative governance (Ansell & Torfing, 2014; Bryson et al, 2014, 2015; Emerson et al, 2012; McGuire, 2006) with those that rely more generally on theories of innovation in public sector settings (Eggers & Singh, 2009; Hartley, 2005; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011). Hartley et al (2013) also note the contribution given by theories of learning that see change as occurring through interaction and collaboration among organizations (Engeström, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991). According to this literature, constructive exchange between different types of actors helps to define problems and challenges in ways that help to understand their complexity, and to develop new strategies to deal with it.…”

“…As a support to this growing interest for collaborative innovation in public settings, Sørensen and Torfing (2011) offer a model for the analysis of collaborative innovation that is based on the assumption that collaborative innovation processes occur within institutional arenas of interaction, where they are facilitated or hindered by contingent drivers and barriers (see also Torfing, 2016 for a more in-depth discussion of the model and its components). Among the features of the model that are particularly suited to our research aims, the authors further suggest that the study of collaborative innovation processes should focus on: empowered participation by actors with different identities, roles, and resources (Cruikshank, 1999; March & Olsen, 1995; Wenger, 1998); mutual learning as a means to generate and select new ideas (Engeström, 2008; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Mezirow, 2000); and the development of joint ownership , which helps to reduce implementation resistance and improve coordination (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004; Skelcher & Torfing, 2010).…”

From a Sociological Given Context to Changing Practice: Transforming Problematic Power Relations in Educational Organizations to Overcome Social Inequalities

“…Activity theory is generally presented in the form of three distinct generations ( Engeström, 2001 ; Lompscher, 2006 ). Currently, a fourth generation is emerging ( Engeström and Sannino, 2020 ; Sannino, 2020 ). The first generation of activity theory was built around Vygotsky’s notion of mediated individual action ( Vygotsky, 1978 ), commonly represented as a triad composed of a subject, an object, and a mediating artifact (see Figure 3 ).…”

“…The focus on individual activity has been criticized. Thus, Engeström and Sannino (2020) asserted that one of the limits of this first generation “ is that it does not address social relations and the organizational anchoring of work actions ” (p. 4). According to them, this limitation was overcome by Leontiev’s definition of a system of activity organized into three hierarchical levels (the levels of collective activity, the levels of individual actions, and the level of operation) that are distinct and dialectically organized ( Leontiev, 2009 ).…”

“…Various experts in activity theory have suggested the need to develop a fourth generation of theory ( Lompscher, 2006 ; Engeström, 2009 ; Spinuzzi, 2020b ). While some researchers advocate the need to consider new working conditions, especially in the era of digitization ( Lompscher, 2006 ; Rückiem, 2009 ), the path that the founders of the third generation of AT ( Engeström and Sannino, 2020 ; Sannino, 2020 ) chose to follow seems quite different. To align activity theory with current societal challenges (poverty alleviation and global warming, in particular), they broaden the notion of the object of activity through the concept of a “runaway object” borrowed from Giddens (2003) , which is not only multi-voiced and fragmented, but contains global objects emerging from multiple and heterogeneous systems of activity whose positions are ambiguous, and often seem to be subsumed by the object rather than controlling it ” ( Engeström, 2009 , p. 305).…”