Change laboratory workshops

The method that I used for data generation and also part of the data analysis in the interventionist and second phase of the research was change laboratory workshops, a method developed by Engeström based on Vygotsky‟s work on double stimulation (see Section 3.6.7). Moldashl and Brödner (2002, in Pihlaja 2005, p. 190) note that there are three models of intervention: the expertocratic which assumes that scientific knowledge is superior to practitioner‟s knowledge; the proceduralistic model which assumes that the knowledge is already available in the organisation and only needs to be mobilised; and the reflexive model which transcends the two and stimulates re-negotiation and self-reflection among both organisational members and external experts. I worked with the reflexive design, which also resonates with the thinking behind CL and is consistent with case study design as argued by Lotz-Sisitka and Raven (2004, p. 80) “In all of the cases reported above, the researchers employed a mix of pre-determined methods … but as the case study deepened, and the data were generated, most allowed the research design to emerge”. Similarly Janse van Rensburg (1995) concluded that an important feature of emergent research designs was methodological reflexivity (see Section 4.8). Wals and van der Leij (2007) also underlined the importance of reflexivity in social learning processes. Ahonen and Virkkunen (2001) noted that CL workshops are both a space and a process.

Ala-Laurinaho and Koli (2007, p. 28) noted that “the spirit of the Change [Laboratory] Workshop is to enhance the building of shared views of the changing object and activity system, in order to develop new practices, tools and models”. The method, which is based on double stimulation, supports the CHAT and critical realism objective of research that seeks to transform and improve the conditions of research participants. As Engeström (2007, p. 363) notes, “Double stimulation, is focused on making subjects masters of their own lives” (see Section 3.6.7). Ala-Laurinaho and Koli (2007, p. 26) point out that CL workshops are a place where „disturbances‟ of daily work processes are materials for analysis and interpretation as

138

well as seeds for defining the zone of proximal development of the activity. When contradictions are identified, two things should be done: their root causes need to be traced and their consequences examined in other parts of the system (see Sections 1.7.1; 2.6; 3.2 and 3.4). The CL workshop process resonates with the reasons why Wals (2007) developed a tool to develop and monitor social learning. Deframing, which is concerned with articulating and challenging each other and revealing conflicting frames (ibid., p. 41) can be associated with the process of surfacing and analysing contradictions in a CL workshop. Reframing, which follows deframing and is concerned with the co-creation and joint reconstruction of ideas (ibid.), can be linked to the solution modelling process in CL workshops (see Section 3.6.5). The other names for double stimulation are: experimental-genetic method, instrumental method and historical-genetic method (Engeström, 2007, p. 364). In CL workshops, the subject is put in a structured environment where the problem exists and the subject is provided with active guidance towards the construction of new means to develop a solution to a problem. The first stimulus is a problem that the subject cannot solve alone with the help of previously learned concepts and methods while the second stimulus is a neutral tool that the subject can make into an instrument for organising the problematic situation to develop a solution (Virkkunen & Schaupp, 2008). Through use of the cultural artefact as a tool for action, the subject gets engaged first in the process of remediation and later in the process of formative intervention (ibid., 2008). For each of the three case studies, I ran a five-session CL workshop over four days in two case studies and over two in one, which started off by sharing the concepts and then providing the double stimulation of the contradictions raised in the first phase of the research through analysis using the CHAT model, which acted as the neutral tool. In working with the CL workshops, the research participants used three main data types: mirror data which captured contradictions and past innovations; the neutral tool; and a third sheet where new ideas were captured. Figure 4.4 below shows the sitting arrangements of research participants during plenary sessions.

139

Figure 4.3: A typical sitting arrangement in a CL workshop

We also moved through the three layers of time in analysing things and developing solutions: looking at the past, present and future as recommended by Engeström (2007, p. 374-375). In each succeeding session, we viewed excerpts of the previous session for reflection which I had selected based on what I considered to be important things emerging from the discussions. The table below (Table 4.3) shows how I planned the CL workshops. I decided not to complete all the stages in one day because I felt it was important to have enough time for the research participants to internalise the process and reflect on the issues. I also needed time to watch and digest the video film on the CL workshops to be able to bring out further mirror data for subsequent workshops during the four-day period. I used the remaining time to follow up on specific issues with some individuals.

Table 4.3: Typical planned outline of CL workshops as used in the study

Thrust Main activities

Session 1:

Orientation Welcome and introductions Presentation of workshop objectives and programme

History of the Machobane Farming System in our organisation or area Presentation of the concept of activity system as a unit of analysis

Group work to develop an activity system from the perspectives of farmers, and facilitators

Presentation and discussion of the activity systems Closing remarks

Session 2: Identifying contradictions

Reflections on Day 1

Sharing insights into contradictions

Contradiction analysis and prioritisation (deframing) Presentation of results of group discussions

Closing remarks Session 3:

140

analysing contradictions, preparing solutions

Researcher presents the expansive learning system to show how the contradictions can be dealt with and links activity system to expansive learning

Solution modelling. Closing remarks Session 4: Sharing

and examining solutions

Reflect on the previous three days

Groups present model solutions (reframing) Critique each others‟ model solutions Planning the way forward8

Workshop evaluation Closing the workshop

Long (2001 in Engeström, 2008, p. 19) noted that “crucial to understanding processes of intervention is the need to identify and come to grips with the strategies that local actors devise for dealing with their new interveners so that they might appropriate, manipulate, subvert or dismember particular interventions”. This is a particularly pertinent point because I worked with the research participants not just to surface contradictions but also so that even after my departure from the field, they would be able to continue working reflexively together. The interventions involved negotiation and responding to local issues, tapping into local resources as well as providing some guidance through supplying mirror data and a systemic view of the learning activity to assist participants and more importantly, a participatory learning and action methodology. A Change Laboratory (CL) Workshop is a joint journey through the phases of expansive learning. Engeström9 (2003, p. 2) noted that the “change laboratory method focuses on historically emerging tensions and contradictions in the activity system” and the goal of the method is “to expand the understanding of practitioner‟s activity through experimenting and reflecting” as well as “promote people‟s possibilities to utilise their multiple understandings and identities”. The zone of proximal development in this method is the collective, not the individual (see Section 3.6.1).

Senteni (in Engeström, 1987) also makes the important distinction of three layers of learning that can occur through and during CL workshops:

Single-loop learning which occurs when errors are detected and corrected in a way that does not touch on the policies and goals. This kind of learning takes place in the individual when their competence is improved but does not alter the fundamental nature of the group‟s activities;

Double-loop learning when, in addition to the above kind of learning, the group also questions and addresses existing norms, procedures, policies and objectives of the group or institution. In this process of learning, the group makes sense of its

8

In the final writing up, I decided to separate the planning workshop from the sharing and examination of solutions because it was an exercise with a different (but related) purpose.

141

environment in ways that broaden the range of objects that it can pursue and resources available to pursue them; and

Deutero-loop learning which occurs when addressing the group‟s basic assumptions and core beliefs (see Section 3.6.8).

In the long term, it is double and deutero-loop learning levels that become expansive learning because they expand the group or organisation‟s capacity. This resonates with the following observations made by Warmington et al. (2005) who also identified three levels of learning, based on the work of Bateson:

Level 1: Generalizations from basic experiences leading to understanding suitable behaviours in specific contexts and results in conditioning.

Level 2: Learning through the extraction/acquisition of the implicit and deep seated rules (e.g. the hidden curriculum).

Level 3: Learning through radical questioning of the behaviour and content, offering opportunities for reconceptualization, change and development which leads to construction of a wider alternative context.

In theories of environmental education and education for sustainable development, similar levels of learning have been identified by Wals (see Section 2.6) and Glasser (2007) (see Section 3.4), with the third and highest level being co-learning. In the field of agricultural extension and facilitation, Scoones et al. (2008) developed a similar four-stage classification from technology transfer to people-centred learning and innovation (see Section 2.4, Table 2.2). What is evident from all of the above classifications is that need for reflexivity begins at level 2 and that level 3 deals with the triple factors of dialectics, agency and reflexivity, which are central to this study.

Engeström further developed five principles to guide the implementation of CLs, which are: a. An interplay between the close embeddedness in work and reflexive distance taking; b. Practical problem solving and the construction of a future vision have to be combined

which results in new kind of dialogue between solving specific problems and implementing future visions;

c. Multiple change processes with different developmental rhythms need to be managed; d. Methods and tools of everyday work and the developmental activity have to be made to support each other in a manner which creates a new dialectic between current practices and its development is needed; and

e. A new kind of interaction between innovation and tradition, where existing structures and resources are used to take up new challenges and develop new products and services (Virkkunen, Engeström, Pihlaja and Helle, 1997 in Pihlaja, 2005, p. 187-188)

142

These principles were helpful in assisting research participants to both imagine and concretise, to link their current work and their future vision. In two of the workshops more than one solution was developed and they were implemented at the same time. An attempt was made to use existing political structures in Zimbabwe in order to achieve the desired end and this was successfully achieved (see Section 7.2).

During CL workshops, we worked with Seppänen‟s model of problem solving in stages which allows for engaging with both the visible and invisible dimensions of a problematic situation (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4: Stepwise problem solving in CHAT Source: Seppänen (2002) in Hill (2005), p. 364

This research project employed double stimulation during Change Laboratory (CL) workshops, with „mirror‟ data providing the first stimulus and the expansive learning process providing the second. Altogether, 11 model solutions were developed during four-session CL workshops in the three case studies (see Sections 7.2-7.4). Details of CL workshops are captured in the table below (Table 4.4).

143

Table 4.4: How I worked with the Change Laboratory method

Session Focus/thrust Case Details

One Orientation to the workshop and tools and doing a historical timeline of the practice in the area under study.

In SCOPE this involved sharing the activity systems and the expansive learning cycle. It also involved the telling of their different histories with Permaculture (see Section 7.2).

In the MFS case study this involved talking about the expansive learning cycle. It also involved the telling of their different histories with MFS. The most important improvement was in the strong representation of government extension workers (see Section 7.3). In the Organic Farming case study this involved discussing both the activity system and the expansive learning cycle and sharing

biographies of engagement with organic farming. The most important improvement was in the inclusion of entrepreneurs (but there was no government extension worker representation because the sector is still disorganised and wanted to „put its house in order first‟ unlike in the other two case studies) (see Section 7.4).

Two Identification of contradictions by participants and presentation of mirror data (contradictions) by researcher;

In SCOPE contradictions were identified in three groups of teachers as facilitators of Permaculture, pupils and farmers. The government agriculture extension officer worked with the group of farmers. The researcher presented learning and developmental issues gathered from initial research. The workshop participants then chose ranked

contradictions and worked on five (see Case Record Section 2.6) but only the two main ones are discussed (see Section 7.2.4).

In MFS, contradictions were identified in two mixed groups. The researcher later presented learning and development contradictions identified through initial research. The participants ranked

contradictions on which to work. They settled to work on five

contradictions in two groups (see Case Record Section 4.6) but only the main one is discussed (see Section 7.3.3).

In Organic farming, contradictions were identified in the plenary but also from individual reflections and biographies. The researcher later presented mirror data and the contradictions were synthesized in the workshop before ranking was done. Three contradictions were selected but the workshop worked on one (see Case Record Section 4.6). The most important improvement was in adding the development of a shared vision at this stage ahead of analysing contradictions (see Section 7.4.2).

Three Analysing

contradictions In SCOPE contradictions were analysed in mixed groups of Permaculture facilitators, pupils and farmers to take advantage of distributed cognition. They were analysed in terms of history, causes and effects (see Section 7.2.3).

In MFS contradictions were analysed in mixed groups of MFS

facilitators, farmers and government extension worker to take advantage of distributed cognition. They were analysed in terms of history, causes and effects (see Section 7.3.3).

In the organic farming case study the contradiction was analysed in the plenary session in terms of manifestation of the contradiction; evolution and causes. Organic farmers, trainers and entrepreneurs used their distributed knowledge on the analysis (see Section 7.4.3). Four Developing model

solutions (and critiquing them)

In SCOPE participants broke into two groups, and each developed solutions to three contradictions. Each had to write a letter summarising the causes, effects and model solution being suggested. The plenary presentations served as the first stage of critiquing the adequacy and internal coherence of the model solutions. This thesis reports on two of the solutions (see Section 7.2.4).

In MFS participants remained in the two mixed groups to develop model solutions, working on three each, one of which was covered by

144

both. These presentations served as the initial test of the model

solutions. This thesis reports on two of the model solutions (see Section 7.3.4).

In the Organic Farming case study the solution was developed in the plenary first and then in two mixed groups. The two groups suggested significantly different configurations of the solution. Upon deliberation in the plenary one of the models was agreed upon (to start a forum on a clean slate, rather than as an extension of an existing organisation). The plenary then proceeded to characterise the composition of such forum. Potential implementation hurdles were identified. The most important improvement was in focusing on one contradiction (see Section 7.4.5). Five Way forward One of the most important considerations of the workshop was

concerned with how the learning from the research process could be carried forward. Each workshop therefore ended with such a plan (see Sections 7.2.5; 7.3.5 and 7.4.5.3).

Six Feedback workshop In SCOPE the feedback workshop took place seven months after the CL workshop which modelled solutions. The workshop was attended by two farmers (the other farmers were attending a funeral), four pupils and four Permaculture facilitators (teachers). I worked with a research assistant who video-recorded all proceedings. Research participants reported on the progress they had made in implementing their modelled solutions. I reported on what was emerging from the research, thanked them for participating in the research and bid them farewell as I was „leaving the field‟. The workshop lasted 2.5 hours.

In Isidore Organic Farming the planned feedback workshop did not take place. However, three feedback meetings were held with four research participants. The feedback workshop could not be held by having participants together because they were going to hold a meeting the following week and also because the gatekeeper felt that there was not enough to share at such a meeting.

In MFS the feedback workshop took place eight months after the CL workshop which modelled solutions. The workshop was attended by five farmers and two MFS facilitators and lasted about two hours. It was augmented by a feedback meeting between the researcher and two leaders of the MFS promoting organisation that lasted an hour. Research participants reported progress with regard to securing a strategic plot in the Mafeteng District to demonstrate MFS. Leaders of the MFS promoting organisation indicated their intentions for closer collaboration. In both cases I presented a summary of key findings and recommendations which were discussed before I thanked them and bid them farewell.