233.full

7/31/2019 233.full

1/5

http://mlq.sagepub.com/Management Learning

http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1350507611433101

2012 43: 233Management LearningJuan Espinosa

reviewed by Juan Espinosaagencies Harry Daniels, Anne Edwards, Yrjo Engestrm and Tony Gallagher,

ook review: Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Management LearningAdditional services and information for

http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This? - Mar 15, 2012Version of Record>>

at University of Leicester Library on June 23, 2012mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233.refs.htmlhttp://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233.full.pdfhttp://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233.full.pdfhttp://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/43/2/233http://mlq.sagepub.com/

7/31/2019 233.full

2/5

Book reviews 233

editors of this volume are to be commended in what is an engaging, coherent and well-structured

scholarly piece that will appeal to a wide audience and might perhaps capture the imagination and

convert those who believe the organization is reducible, measurable and static. It would be nice to

see this book become part of the undergraduate/postgraduate course curriculum for studies on busi-

ness, management, strategy and economics. The measure of this books success will be its adoption

on the aforementioned courses of study.

Harry Daniels, Anne Edwards, Yrjo Engestrm and Tony Gallagher,Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning

across boundaries and agencies, Routledge: London, 2009; 256 pp.: 9780415477246, 80.75 (hbk), 9780415477253,

22.79 (pbk)

Reviewed by: Juan Espinosa, University of Leicester, UK and Universidad Santo Tomas, Philippines

As the editors of the book point out in the Introduction, the authors of the volume have common

interests in the study of practices about knowledge generation and mobilization (Daniels et al.,

2010: 1). This interest is addressed through the lens of what had been called one of the best

kept secrets of the academia (Roth and Lee, 2007: 186): activity theory, a theory that inherits

the constructivist work of Lev Vygotsky and a whole tradition of scholars that developed what

is now known as the second and third generation of the cultural historical activity theory

(Engestrm, 2001).

Interestingly, this theory developed by the Helsinki activity theory group of researchers, had been

receiving some interest in organization studies; however it is still of minor use in those academic

circles (Blackler, 2009). Nevertheless, the first three chapters of the book are focused on the poten-

tial of this framework to address relevant questions that researchers of this field of study have been

struggling with. In those chapters, the Helsinki group of researchers deals with problems about

process optimization (Kallio), the production of health care service (Nummijoki and Engestrm)

and about collaborative work between education and the workplace (Virkkunen, Makinen and

Lintula). What is interesting about the school of Helsinki, and its version of the activity theory, is the

interventional approach that this group of researchers puts into practice. This is something that

Jaakko Virkkunen had explained elsewhere as the imperative to put forward practical ideas in order

to change societal activities (Virkkunen, 2009: 146). This is a fundamental difference from other

knowledge production theories. Cultural historical activity theoretical informed studies of the

Finnish tradition look for the revelation of possibilities of emancipation (Virkkunen, 2009: 147).

The emancipation search is closely related to a fundamental aspect of the Engestrm version of

activity theory, which is the idea of the basic contradictions in the capitalism system and the social-

ization of the forces of production. Here, the work of Marx in the Introduction to the Critique of

Political Economy is a fundamental antecedent. Within this Marxist line of analysis, Virkkunen

points out that the socialization of production forces becomes increasingly complex (Virkkunen,

2006: 61) Activity theory-oriented studies are a comprehensive path to study and actively under-

stand the complexity of the actual socialization of production forces.

Studying the problem of collaboration between the workplace and professional education,

Virkkunen, Makinen and Lintula advance a robust idea of how to deal with what activity theorists

call the expansion of the object. In this case, the object is the academic activity in Finnish voca-

tional education. In activity theory the concept of the object has a very particular meaning that

evolved historically. It was Leontev who formulated the historically evolving object idea as oneof the fundamental pillars of activity. This object is the unit of analysis and over all is the

http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/

7/31/2019 233.full

3/5

234 Management Learning43(2)

illuminating model to find out the origin and constitution of the human mind (Roth and Lee, 2007:

189). The object of the activity is the raw material or problem space at which the activity is

directed and which is shaped or transformed into outcomes with the help of artefacts (Hasu and

Engestrm, 2000: 63) In Leontevs words: It is the object of the activity that endows it with a

certain orientation. The expression objectless activity has no meaning at all (Leontev, 1978: 52).

So what the Finnish authors follow is the historical change of vocational education as an object and

the correspondent interconnections of this object with practitioner activity. This provides orienta-

tion and leads to the learning process of this particular group of practitioners.

Nummijoki and Engestrm advance, in Chapter 3, a practical exploration about how care

service production is shaped by a phenomenon named co-configuration. Bart Victor and Andrew

Boynton (1998: 193297) have used the term co-configuration work for a form of production

that is characterized by the following features: (1) a customer-intelligent product that can be

continuously adapted to changing conditions and customer needs; (2) a collaborative value-cre-

ation system in which the value is not produced in the provider activity nor in the user activity

separately but in the interaction and collaboration between them; (3) reconfiguring of the prod-

uct by the client. The customer can teach the product; (4) continuous customization. The pro-

ducer does not customize the product only once but continuously and updates it continuously, for

instance through changes in the software. The product becomes increasingly well adapted to

customers needs but is never complete. The Finnish authors observe that in the health care

arena, the client is actively contributing in his or her own care at home. The authors, building on

a traditional programme of more than 20 years about care organizations advanced an approach

where the agency is considered as a quality of each individual and at the same time as a collabo-

rative effort (Engestrm, 2005)

In Chapter 3, the authors build on previous analysis of the central contradictions between the

evolution of the home care worker and the home care client; from this previous study and inter-

ventions in the care system a tool called Mobility Agreement emerged. This tool embodied the

work of researchers and practitioners and included the expanded object where the necessities of

the care givers and the care home clients have come together. The new object and the mediation

of the tool must be studied in the interaction of the care giver and the care receiver. In congruence

with the interventionist approach of the Finnish activity theory school, Nummijoki and Engestrm

designed a research methodology where they could understand this interaction and consequently

the use and deployment of the new tool. An interesting point about the study of the interaction is

the use of conversation analysis (CA) using video records of the experimental visits of the care

givers to the clients home. This chapter definitely offers interesting empirical material and some

new theoretical avenues to the so-called third generation of activity theory (Engestrm, 1999)

After the presentation of the Finnish block, the book offers four chapters developed by Britishscholars. These chapters have a common root in the Learning in and for Interagency Working

(LIW) project, a project that between 2004 and 2007 was supported by the Economic and Social

Research Council (ESRC) and the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP). This

project had the focus on examining and supporting the learning of professionals who are engaged

in the creation of new forms of multiagency practice (Learning in and for Interagency Working,

20042007). Chapter 4: Expansive learning, expansive labour (Warmington and Leadbetter);

Chapter 5: Identifying learning in interprofessional discourse: The development of an analytic

protocol (Middleton); Chapter 6: Implicit or invisible mediation in the development of intera-

gency work (Daniels) and Chapter 7: Working relationally at organizational boundaries: negotiat-

ing expertise and identity (Edwards and Kinti) are empirical and theoretically connected with the


7/31/2019 233.full

4/5

Book reviews 235

cited research project. They directly build on the analysis of data and the creation of methodologi-

cal solutions of this particular application of activity theory in the British context.

Maybe the most interesting common point of the chapters is the commitment to the expansion

of the theory and, on the other hand, the methodology. In Warmington and Leadbetters work, there

is a clear attempt to further expand the connection that activity theory has with the ideas of Marx.

This is particularly attractive for researchers that are studying the relation between the social pro-

duction of labour power and how this phenomenon is closely connected with the object of work

activities. Following the ideas of the Finnish school the LIW project engaged with an intervention-

ist methodology called developmental work research (DWR) (Engestrm, 1999; Leadbetter et al.,

2007). This intervention arranged in sessions/workshops of what the Finnish scholars called the

change laboratory is where the practices of the professionals are confronted with the theoretical

tools from activity theory, permitting the emergence of the contradictions and leading to new ways

to do the work activity (Warmington et al., 2004). What this insight offers is an improved cycle of

expansive learning (Engestrm, 1987) where the labour power is closely connected with the expan-

sion of learning within the activity and at the same time gives possibilities for further expansion of

the object and the learning process.

One of the fields where activity theory had been prominently used is that of information tech-

nology and information system research. As Kary Kuutti (1996) mentions, activity theory has

become a theoretical framework that offers some important solutions to the increasing criticism

of the information processing cognitive psychology approaches to human-computer interaction

research (HCI). In his view, activity theory succeeded in proposing solutions to this research and

practical design problem. In the book, this stream of research is presented in the practical work of

Chapter 10, where the Norwegian practice-oriented researchers (Mrch, Nygrd and Ludvigsen)

develop an important feature of the frameworkthe idea that there is an ongoing process of adap-

tation that responds to the changing nature of the activity object. This case offers some interesting

insights about a software product development process.

The last chapter by Lund, Rasmussen and Smrdal is related to a traditionally important subject

for activity theorists: education. The authors elaborate some outcomes that are closely connected with

the research work of their academic group at the Faculty of Education at the University of Oslo,

InterMedia (UiO InterMedia, 2011), research that is located in the intersection of information tech-

nology and academic activity. Following Blackler (2009) we could say that this connection between

information technology and education presents a particularly fertile place for cultural historical activ-

ity theory, because the framework developed by Engestrom makes available a useful explanation of

the relations between objects, individuals and language a strong account of agency by featuring the

dynamics of relations between individuals, language and artefacts. The study of wikis for academic

purposes is a natural topic for researchers that look for interdisciplinary studies about design of learn-

ing and virtual environments where students and educators interact and communicate each other.

Finally, a last word of caution if the reader is trying to avoid any superficial use of the insights

that cultural historical activity offers. First, as Roth and Lee (2007: 197) point out the truly difficult

aspect of the use of activity theory is the dialectical nature of activity theoretical analysis where the

categories try to be categorical universals because they assert the mutual presupposition of oppo-

sites. Without this dialectic comprehension there is no possible way to understand how organiza-

tions, classrooms and any other non-alive entities can perform outwardly acts of learning like

human beings. Second, as Engestrm (2008: 258) recently pointed out, activity theory is build on

a Marxist analysis of history and society and in a capitalist firm the motives of the alienationthat

is based in the distance/gap between the activity object and the personal object of the persons who


7/31/2019 233.full

5/5

236 Management Learning43(2)

work within the firmis not just based on the division of labour but mainly in the private owner-

ship of the object of the activity. So, activity theory always looks for a critical reflection about the

management notions regarding objects and purposes of the firm and the workers.When activities and their constituent working spheres/engagements and actions are analyzed historically,

with a keen eye on their inherent contradictions, many disturbances and dilemmas in everyday flows of

work begin to make sense, more importantly, new zones of proximal development emerge as possibilitiesof expansive transformation (Engestrm, 2008: 258).

Is within these zones of proximal development and expansive transformation that the practition-

ers experience the learning process and expand their knowledge.

References

Blackler FHM (2009) Cultural-historical activity theory and organization studies. In: Sannino A, Daniels H

and Gutierrez K (eds)Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1939.

Daniels H, Edwards A, Engestrm Y et al. (2010) Activity Theory in Practice: Promoting Learning acrossBoundaries and Agencies. London: Routledge.

Engestrm Y (1987)Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit Oy.

Engestrm Y (1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Engestrm Y, Miettinen

R, Punamaki RL (eds)Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Engestrm Y (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: Towards an Activity-Theoretical Reconceptualisation.

London: Institute of Education.

Engestrm Y (2005) Developmental Work Research: Expanding Activity Theory in Practice. Berlin:

Lehmanns Media.

Engestrm Y (2008) Enriching activity theory without shortcuts.Interacting with Computers 20(2): 256259.

Hasu M and Engestrm Y (2000) Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer

user interaction.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53(1): 6189.Kuutti K (1996) Activity theory as a potential framework for human-interaction research. In: Nardi B (ed.)

Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 1744.

Leadbetter J, Daniels H, Brown S et al. (2007) Professional learning within multi-agency childrens services:

Researching into practice.Educational Research 49(1): 8398.

Learning in and for Interagency Working (20042007) An ESRC Teaching and Learning Programme (TLRP)

Phase III funded project. Available at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/ (accessed 1 December 2011).

Leontev AN (1978)Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Roth WM and Lee YJ (2007) Vygotskys neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of

Educational Research 77(2): 21862232.

UiO InterMedia (2011) Faculty of Educational Science. Available at: http://www.uv.uio.no/intermedia/english/ (accessed 1 December 2011).

Victor B and Boynton AC (1998) Invented Here: Maximizing Your Organizations Internal Growth and

Profitability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Virkkunen J (2006) Hybrid agency in co-configuration work. Outlines 8(1): 6175.

Virkkunen J (2009) Two theories of organizational knowledge creation. In: Sannino A, Daniels H and

Gutierrez K (eds) Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1939.

Warmington P, Daniels H, Edwards A et al. (2004) Conceptualising professional learning for multi-agency

working and user engagement. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual

Conference, 1618 September, Manchester.433101MLQ

http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/http://mlq.sagepub.com/

233.full

Documents

Transcript of 233.full