The Theoretical and Methodological Basis of the Change Laboratory

  • Marco Antonio Pereira Querol
  • Laura Seppänen


The aim of this chapter is to briefly introduce the most important principles and concepts used in the Change Laboratory (CL) method. First, we introduce Vygotsky’s theory of culturally mediated human actions for understanding human agency. Second, we introduce Engeström’s model of activity system as the basic unit of analysis for depicting the structure of an activity, analyzing its historical contradictions, and simulating and modeling new practices. We proceed by introducing the concept of contradictions as force of change and the theory of expansively learning for understanding the development of human activity. We continue with the principle of double stimulation and how it is applied in the CL. Finally, the variations of the method and their expected results are briefly discussed.


Expansive learning Formative interventions Activity theory 


  1. Ahonen, H., & Virkkunen, J. (2003). Shared challenge for learning: Dialogue between management and front-line workers in knowledge management. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2(1), 59–84. Scholar
  2. Ala-Laurinaho, A., Kurki, A.-L., & Simonsen Abildgaard, J. (2017). Supporting sensemaking to promote a systemic view of organizational changes – contributions from activity theory. Journal of Change Management, 17(4), 367–387. Scholar
  3. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  4. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to Work: The Change Laboratory as an Application of Double Stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–328). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628. Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387. Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe., 1(2), 10–17.Google Scholar
  13. Helle M., Töyry, M., & Ruoranen A. (2010). We all do our own thing. Proceedings of the MeCCSA10 Conference:2010 January 6–8; London, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Kerosuo, H. (2001). Boundary encounters’ as a place for learning and development at work. Outlines, 3(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  15. Kerosuo, H. (2004). Examining boundaries in health care - outline of a method for studying organizational boundaries in interaction. Outlines, 6(1), 35–60.Google Scholar
  16. Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 345–351. Scholar
  17. Launis, K., & Pihlaja, J. (2007). Changes in production concepts emphasize problems in work-related well-being. Safety Science, 45(5), 603–619. Scholar
  18. Lektorsky, V. (2009). Mediation as a means of collective activity. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  21. Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Marx, K. (1990), Capital, Vol. 1, Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Pereira-Querol, M. A. (2011). Learning challenges for sustainability: An activity theoretical study of a network from a swine industry chain [dissertation]. Helsinki:University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  24. Sannino, A. (2008). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(3), 234–257. Scholar
  25. Sannino, A. (2010). Teachers’ talk of experiencing: Conflict, resistance and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 838–844. Scholar
  26. Teräs, M. (2007). Intercultural learning and hybridity in the culture laboratory [dissertation]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  27. Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités, 3–1.
  28. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4. The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Antonio Pereira Querol
    • 1
  • Laura Seppänen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agronomic EngineeringFederal University of SergipeSão CristóvãoBrazil
  2. 2.Centre of Expertise for Development of Work and Organizations, Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations