Co-generation of societally impactful knowledge in Change Laboratories

Formative interventions and the specific method of the Change Laboratory (CL) are presented as examples of intervention research that generates actionable and societally impactful knowledge. In contrast with stabilization knowledge that fixates phenomena into static categories, actionable knowledge is understood here as collaborative and generative possibility knowledge intertwined with transformative action. The article asks what can be learned from the different ways the epistemological principles behind formative interventions are implemented in different CLs. Three CL interventions are analyzed. The analysis is summarized with the help of a grid covering the key characteristics of formative interventions: contradictions, conflicts of motives, double stimulation, zone of proximal development, germ cells and emerging concepts. Comparison of the three cases shows that understanding the specific historical stage of the development of contradictions in a given organization is of foundational importance. In transformations induced by CLs, contradiction and conflict may be seen as acute push and the future-oriented concept as gradually emerging pull, with the change actions of the local practitioners in the middle. Constructing a germ cell and eventually an expanded concrete concept based on it are the most demanding challenges for CL interventions.

[1]  Teresa J. Haase,et al.  When the Center Does Not Hold , 2019 .

[2]  A. Sannino.  Double Stimulation in the Waiting Experiment with Collectives: Testing a Vygotskian Model of the Emergence of Volitional Action , 2016, Integrative psychological & behavioral science.

[3]  P. Fleming,et al.  When performativity fails: Implications for Critical Management Studies , 2016 .

[4]  A. Sannino.  The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action , 2015 .

[5]  Trond Eiliv Hauge,et al.  Collaborative leadership development with ICT: experiences from three exemplary schools , 2015 .

[6]  Hannele Kerosuo,et al.  Transformative agency: The challenges of sustainability in a long chain of double stimulation , 2015 .

[7]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Double stimulation in everyday work: Critical encounters between home care workers and their elderly clients , 2015 .

[8]  A. Sannino,et al.  Double stimulation in the waiting experiment: Testing a Vygotskian model of the emergence of volitional action , 2015 .

[9]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research , 2014 .

[10]  Sarah McNicol,et al.  The Embedded Librarian: Innovative Strategies for Taking Knowledge Where It’s Needed , 2014 .

[11]  David Shumaker,et al.  The Embedded Librarian: Innovative Strategies for Taking Knowledge Where It's Needed , 2014 .

[12]  James R Cook.  Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research , 2014 .

[13]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  On the Methodological Demands of Formative Interventions , 2014 .

[14]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  The Change Laboratory: A Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education , 2013 .

[15]  Hannele Kerosuo,et al.  Expansive Learning in a Library: Actions, Cycles and Deviations from Instructional Intentions , 2013 .

[16]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  Double Stimulation in Strategic Concept Formation: An Activity-Theoretical Analysis of Business Planning in a Small Technology Firm , 2012 .

[17]  Johanna Lahikainen,et al.  Knotworking in Academic Libraries: Two Case Studies from the University of Helsinki , 2012 .

[18]  A. Sannino.  Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory , 2011 .

[19]  F. Blackler.  Power, politics, and intervention theory: Lessons from organization studies , 2011 .

[20]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  From change to development: Expanding the concept of intervention , 2011 .

[21]  Cassandra Kvenild,et al.  Embedded Librarians: Moving Beyond One-Shot Instruction , 2011 .

[22]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework , 2011 .

[23]  Hannele Kerosuo.  Caught between a rock and a hard place: From individually experienced double binds to collaborative change in surgery , 2011 .

[24]  D. Higgins,et al.  Learning in and through work practices: mediational artefacts as a process of social learning in the knowledge-based small firm , 2010 .

[25]  Ėvalʹd Vasilʹevich Ilʹenkov.  The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx's Capital , 2008 .

[26]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  From design experiments to formative interventions , 2008, ICLS.

[27]  Hannele Kerosuo,et al.  Beyond Discontinuity: Expansive Organizational Learning Remembered , 2007 .

[28]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  From Stabilization Knowledge to Possibility Knowledge in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[29]  A. Edmondson.  Three Faces of Eden: The Persistence of Competing Theories and Multiple Diagnoses in Organizational Intervention Research , 1996 .

[30]  Jeremy Kilpatrick,et al.  Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula , 1990 .

[31]  N. F. Talyzina,et al.  The Problem of Activity in the Works of A. N. Leont'ev , 1983 .

[32]  Ge Wei.  Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.) , 2017 .

[33]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  The Change Laboratory , 2013 .

[34]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Towards co-configuration in home care of the elderly: cultivating agency by designing and implementing the Mobility Agreement , 2010 .

[35]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  The history of the development of higher mental functions , 1997 .

[36]  A. N. Leont’ev,et al.  Activity, consciousness, and personality , 1978 .