Methodological challenges of investigating in-tellectual cooperation, relational expertise, and transformative agency
Ines Langemeyer: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Read article:
Full article (pdf)
No. of pages:
Publication type:

Methodological issues arise with the research of societal practices of ‘knowing’. This object of study is understood as concrete human activity that always integrates mental, communicative and practical behaviour in interaction and cooperation with others. Especially with regard to contemporary forms of labour in the high-tech-world, this issue has become a salient task. As it is explained, it implies investigation of people communicating and reasoning while developing concrete forms of activity. In particu-lar, the methodological issues concern the social and psychodynamic quality of this practice. Within the tradition of cultural-historical research and activity theory, mile-stones of this matter have already been reached. Cultural-historical concepts like the ‘motive’ of an activity as well as the ‘emotions’ that bias the ‘experience’ of ‘trans-formative engagements’ with the world show that their theoretical and methodolog-ical understanding are adept to approach the dialectics between the social and the individual quality of practice and agency in general, but also with regard to contem-porary challenges of intellectualized cooperation in particular. ‘Double stimulation’, a concept coined by Vygotsky, is relevant in this context as well. However, the paper discusses critically whether it fits with the system theoretical understanding of activi-ties and transformative agency as it can be found in Engeström’s writings. Finally, the core requirements for a VET-research methodology for intellectualized collabora-tion are resumed.
Keywords: Activity theory, critical psychology, transformative agency, relational expertise, scien-tification of work, dialectics, double stimulation

Volume 7, Issue: 2, Article 4, 2017

Ines Langemeyer
Methodological challenges of investigating in-tellectual cooperation, relational expertise, and transformative agency:

Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 18(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.003

Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmann.

Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting activity theory to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J.V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521831040.015

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y., Kajamaa, A., Lahtinen, P., & Sannino, A. (2015). Toward a grammar of collaboration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(2), 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1024326

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.002

Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868

Foucault, M. (1987). Die Frage des Subjekts: Warum ich Macht untersuche/Wie wird Macht ausgeübt? In H.L. Dreyfus, & P. Rabinow, P. (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Jenseits von Strukturalismus und Hermeneutik (pp. 243–261). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [In English: Why study power: The question of the subject. How is power exercised. In H.L. Dreyfus, & P. Rabinow (Eds.) (1982), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-228). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.]

Frey, C.B., & Osborne, M.A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Friedrich, J. (1993). Der Gehalt der Sprachform [Content and matter of the form of speech]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900168

Holzkamp, K. (2013). Psychology from the standpoint of the subject. Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp, E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Keiler, P. (1997). Feuerbach, Wygotski & Co: Studien zur Grundlegung einer Psychologie des gesellschaftlichen Menschen [Feuerbach, Vygotsky & Co: Studies for the foundation of a psychology of the societal human]. Berlin/Hamburg: Argument.

Keiler, P. (2010). „Kulturhistorische Theorie“ und „Kulturhistorische Schule“: Vom Mythos (zurück) zur Wirklichkeit [‘Cultural-historical theory’ and ‘Cultural-historical School’: Back from a myth to reality]. Retrieved 14. November, 2017, from http://www.kritische-psychologie.de/files/FKP_56_Peter_Keiler.pdf

Langemeyer, I. (2005). Kompetenzentwicklung zwischen Selbst- und Fremdbestimmung: Arbeitsprozessintegriertes Lernen in der Fachinformatik. Eine Fallstudie [Competence development between self-determination and alienation: Workplace learning of IT-specialists. A case study]. Münster: Waxmann.

Langemeyer, I. (2006). Contradictions in expansive learning: Towards a critical analysis of self-dependent forms of learning in relation to contemporary socio-technological change. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 43 paragraphs.

Langemeyer, I. (2011). Science and social practice: Activity theory and action research as socio-critical approaches. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2010.497983

Langemeyer, I. (2012). Socio-technological change of learning conditions. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 3144–3147). New York/ Heidelberg: Springer.

Langemeyer, I. (2014a). Learning in a simulation-OT in heart surgery and the challenges of the scientification of work. Journal of Education and Work, 27(3), 284–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.742182

Langemeyer, I. (2014b). Theory and praxis. In T. Thomas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1958–1965). Heidelberg u.a.: Springer Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_359

Langemeyer, I. (2015a). Das Wissen der Achtsamkeit: Kooperative Kompetenz in komplexen Arbeitsprozessen [The knowing of mindfulness: Cooperative competence in complex work processes]. Münster: Waxmann.

Langemeyer, I. (2015b). ‘The most important safety-decive is you!’ International Journal of Action Research, 11(1–2), 14–39.

Langemeyer, I. (2018). Mindfulness in cooperation and the psychodynamics in high-reliability-organizations (under review).

Langemeyer, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Is cultural-historical activity theory threatened to fall short of its own principles and possibilities as a dialectical social science? Outlines. Critical Social Studies. 8(2), 20–42.

Lehenkari, J., & Miettinen, R. (2002). Standardisation in the construction of a large technological system: The case of the Nordic mobile telephone system. Telecommunications policy, 26(3), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-5961(02)00004-6

Miettinen, R., Tuunainen, J., & Esko, T. (2015) Epistemological, artefactual and interactional–institutional foundations of social impact of academic research. Minerva, 53(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9278-1

Nerland, M., & Jensen, K. (2010). Objectual practice and learning in professional work. In S. Billett (Ed.), Learning through practice: Models, traditions, orientations and approaches (pp. 82–103). Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3939-2_5

Nissen, M. (2012). The subjectivity of participation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230367890

Nissen, M., & Langemeyer, I. (2011). Activity Theory. In B. Somekh, & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 188–195). London: Sage publications.

Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schraube, E. (2009). Technology as materialized action and its ambivalences. Theory & Psychology, 19(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309103543

Schraube, E., & Højholt, C. (2016). Toward a psychology of everyday living. In E. Schraube, & C. Højholt (Eds.), Psychology and the Conduct of Everyday Life (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.

Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance on development and learning: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) project. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9111-3

Veresov, N. (2010). Introducing cultural historical theory: Main concepts and principles of genetic research methodology. Cultural-historical psychology, 4(1), 83–90.

Vygotskij, L.S. (1992). Geschichte der höheren psychischen Funktionen. (Original in Russian 1931.) Münster: LIT Verlag. [In English: R.W. Rieber (Ed.) (1997), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 4, The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York: Plenum.]

Vygotskij, L.S. (2002). Denken und Sprechen. (Original in Russian 1931–1934.) Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. [In English: Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber, & A. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1 (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum.]

Vygotskij, L.S. (2003a). Das Bewusstsein als Problem der Psychologie des Verhaltens. In J. Lompscher (Ed.), Lev Vygotskij: Ausgewählte Schriften, Band 1 (pp. 279–308). (Original in Russian 1925.) Berlin: Lehmanns Media. [In English: Consciousness as a problem for the psychology of behavior. In R. Rieber, & A. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 3 (pp. 63–80). New York: Plenum.]

Vygotskij, L.S. (2003b). Die Krise der Psychologie in ihrer historischen Bedeutung. In J. Lompscher (Ed.), Lev Vygotskij: Ausgewählte Schriften, Band 1 (pp. 57–277). (Original in Russian 1927.) Berlin: Lehmanns Media. [In English: The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. Rieber, & A. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 3 (pp. 233–344). New York: Plenum.]

Vygotkij, L.S. (2003c). Die instrumentelle Methode in der Psychologie. In J. Lompscher (Ed.), Lev Vygotskij: Ausgewählte Schriften, Band 1 (pp. 309–318). (Original in Russian 1930.) Berlin: Lehmanns Media. [In English: The instrumental method in psychology. In R. Rieber, & A. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 3 (pp. 85–90). New York: Plenum.]

Volume 7, Issue: 2, Article 4, 2017

Ines Langemeyer
Methodological challenges of investigating in-tellectual cooperation, relational expertise, and transformative agency:
Note: the following are taken directly from CrossRef
No citations available at the moment
Export in BibTex, RIS or text