Re: [xmca] Engeström's theory of expansive learning, views appreciated!

From: Mike Cole <lchcmike who-is-at>
Date: Sun Jan 20 2008 - 21:02:49 PST

Dima-- There is a lot packed into your note including, crucially, the idea
that a lot of people on XMCA have read the article you refer to. I am
guessing this is an incorrect presupposition.
So, to start with, you might provide a reference to the article.

I do know something about Yrjo Engestrom's intervention studies and in so
far as I understand the following statement/question, I think the answer is
"no" or at least it is not necessarily
true depending upon the participation structure of those involved. You

Doesn't intervention relegate the role of the less powerfully-positioned
researchers? Does it not also define the participants as those who are
enabled to act, e.g. 'a head physician' or 'a manager'?

I am really uncertain what you mean in the first question, by the phrase
"relegate the role of the less-powerfully positioned researchers." I do not
believe that the method requires that the participants be head physicians or
managers. This is not the case in some of the research examples with which I
am familiar, but perhaps because I am not familiar enough.


On Jan 20, 2008 3:16 PM, dima dayoub <> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I am a PhD student at the University of Manchester, currently writing up
> my research. I am interested in exploring the adoption experiences of online
> education in the Syrian Virtual University, a new initiative in the region.
> I would appreciate any feedback on the following:
> I am reflecting on whether Engeström's notion of 'experiencing'
> necessarily implies intervention-mediation. I have read his 2007 article
> 'Enriching the theory of expansive learning: lessons from ourneys towards
> coconfiguration' and I have understood the occuring reflections in the
> variousorganisations studied as an outcome of intervention sessions. In my
> research, I have found that 'experiencing the future' can also be a natural
> way of mentally steering away from current tensions, triggered by great
> disparities between the rhetorical and the real, and verbalised informally
> or in the research context. Such reflections were not necessarily followed
> by action, particulary when the participants were not in a position to act,
> and tensions took the shape of external influences.
> Doesn't intervention relegate the role of the less powerfully-positioned
> researchers? Does it not also define the participants as those who are
> enabled to act, e.g. 'a head physician' or 'a manager'?
> Any 'corrective' or other interpretations of Engeström, will be truly
> appreciated.
> Many thanks in anticipation
> Dima> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:26:57 +1100> To:>
> From:> Subject: RE: [xmca] Once Again, Learning and
> Development!> > Helena,> Go to the context:>
> Marx deals with your question there, I think.> > Marx is a little ambiguous,
> across his life, on what is included under > "production," but since we are
> talking about whole social formations in > this instance, and taking into
> account other claims in this same work, I > think we can say that he is
> talking about economic production as distinct > from "superstructure".
> Personally, however, I would say that for the > purposes of psychology, it
> is questionable whether "production" can be > conceived in that limited way.
> My point only was that this general approach > to complex human forms of
> development, in the Hegelian/Marxist tradition, > has always had this idea
> about a "leading activity."> > Andy> > At 10:26 AM 20/01/2008 -0600, you
> wrote:> >Andy et al:> >> >What does Marx mean by "production"? What is
> included? Can you give some > >examples of social formations and then
> examples of "production" that are > >specific, of not unique, to each
> formation?> >> >I'm reading John Berger, especially "The Production of the
> World," his > >essay about Van Gogh, but Berger uses the phrase "production
> of the world" > >in other essays, too.> >> >Helena> >>
> >________________________________________> >From:
> [] On Behalf > >Of
> Andy Blunden []> >Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:02
> PM> >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity> >Subject: Re: [xmca] Once Again,
> Learning and Development!> >> >There is in every social formation a
> particular branch of production which> >determines the position and
> importance of all the others, and the relations> >obtaining in this branch
> accordingly determine the relations of all other> >branches as well. It is
> as though light of a particular hue were cast upon> >everything, tingeing
> all other colours and modifying their specific features.> >> >Marx,
> <../../1859/critique-pol-economy/appx1.htm#p211>Preface to the> >Critique of
> Political Economy (1859)> >> >> >> >At 08:16 AM 19/01/2008 -0800, you
> wrote:> > >... Actually, I'm not sure if this way of understanding what
> Vygotsky> > >meant by central functions and peripheral functions is right at
> all. It's> > >okay for learning, but it does seem too microgenetic to
> describe> > >development, doesn't it? Perhaps the BEST thing to do is to
> take this back> > >to XMCA and see what others think!> > >> > > David
> Kellogg> > > Seoul National University of Education> >>
> >_______________________________________________> >xmca mailing list> >
> xmca who-is-at> >>
> >_______________________________________________> >xmca mailing list> >
> xmca who-is-at> >> > Andy
> Blunden : <> tel
> (H) +61 3 9380 9435, > mobile 0409 358 651> >
> _______________________________________________> xmca mailing list>
> xmca who-is-at>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Telly addicts unite!
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
Received on Sun Jan 20 21:04 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2008 - 12:33:27 PST