Organisation Workshop. Beyond the Workplace: Large Groups, Activity and the Shared Object

Mind, Culture, and Activity

ISSN: 1074-9039 (Print) 1532-7884 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmca20

Gavin Andersson, Raff Carmen, Iván Labra & Howard Richards

To cite this article: Gavin Andersson, Raff Carmen, Iván Labra & Howard Richards (2017): Organisation Workshop. Beyond the Workplace: Large Groups, Activity and the Shared Object, Mind, Culture, and Activity To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1386218

Published online: 28 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmca20

Download by: [The University of Manchester Library] Date: 28 November 2017, At: 08:50 MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1386218

Organisation Workshop. Beyond the Workplace: Large Groups, Activity and the Shared Object Gavin Anderssona, Raff Carmen b, Iván Labraa, and Howard Richardsc aSeriti Institute; bUniversity of Manchester (UoM); cUniversidad de Santiago de Chile (FAE-USACH)

ABSTRACT Organisation Workshop stands for a body of practice derived from the pioneering work that Clodomir de Morais did with the Brasilian Peasant Leagues starting in the early 1960s and shown to be relevant today in situations of high unemployment. Two essential ingredients are a large group and a common resource pool. The Organisation Workshop method is illuminated by Leontiev’s “objectivised activity” concept, as well as important insights from 3 generations of activity theory (CHAT). Moraisean thought and practice are shown to open up new avenues to community development and to break new ground in the social psychology of the large group.

Introduction Organisational learning (OL), as introduced in management theory literature by Argyris and Schön (1978) and popularised by Senge (1990), is broadly understood to be the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organisation. Integral to this understanding is the fact that the learning starts from within an already existing organisation. OL is also known as “knowledge creation in organisations” (e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). These and similar OL models started to be challenged, from the late 1990s onward, from an activity theory (AT, or CHAT) perspective, in particular by Engeström’s (Finland) model of “expansive learning in work teams” (Engeström in Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki, 1999, p. 377) and Yves Clot’s (France) Activity Clinic (AC) “cross self-confrontation” OL methods (Clot, Faïta, Fernandez, & Scheller, 2000). The Organisation Workshop (OW), which we are introducing here, deviates from both standard and aforementioned AT-based world of work learning methods in that its aim is to address locally identified problems in the wider community, which can be solved only by large, collaborating groups. A large group, in the very activity of setting up an enterprise, “achieves” organisation (Andersson, 2013)and assists its members in developing organisational consciousness1 (Labra, 2012). The “object” from which the OW participants take their organisation and enterprise-creating cues is known as a common resource pool and includes the very enterprise the participants are in the process of creating during the workshop. Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 Both classical theory and AT/CHAT-based OL methods have, over the years, had a considerable exposure, including in this journal. By contrast, the OW, in spite of its long field practice record spanning several decades, is relatively little known in academic circles. The contribution the OW is making, in terms of both field practice and theoretical underpinning is, we believe, worthy of note because of its potential for wider social transformation and cultural change beyond the workplace, and because it represents a theoretical critique of the influential— since the days of Kurt Lewin—small-group social psychology theory and practice (Andersson, 2004, pp. 249–268; Labra, 2014). The OW is unabashedly about large groups and, as is explained further on, about the wider, unbounded context.

Over the years, OWs implemented on three continents2 have demonstrated that working with large groups can and does achieve dramatic results, always remembering that these should be measured not only in terms of numbers of emerging and sustainable production and social service enterprises but also socially, in terms of a culture shift, enabling—as happened, for example, in Bokfontein (Langa & von Holdt, 2011) and more recently in Westonaria (Westonaria Organization Workshop [WOW], 2015)—a move from a culture of conflict to one of mutual cooperation in the wider community. Less apparent than physical enterprises is the emergence, specifically due to the engagement in large groups with the common object, of organisational consciousness and outstanding leadership qualities in individual participants, a phenomenon observed by the young de Morais in the very earliest days following a clandestine proto-workshop in Recife (Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, p. 15; Large-group Capacitation, n.d.).

Origins and scope The OW began in the 1960s in northeast Brazil. It spread from there throughout Latin America (Carmen & Sobrado, 2000). In the 1980s, it was introduced in an anglophone environment, first in Belize and then in southern Africa. Over the years, a number of variations of the method have developed. Here we focus on the OW in southern Africa. The OW is a practical exercise in fostering organisation in a large group. The minimum, in southern African practice, is 80 participants, although 300, or more, is not unusual. The OW is practical because participants do practical work. Typical kinds of work OW participants engage in include constructing buildings, remodelling, fencing pasture land, tree planting, canal digging, poultry farming, and laying out of gardens. Social work may be child minding, repairing crèches, mitigation of alcohol abuse, HIV/AIDS prevention, teaching music, and sports coaching. OWs typically last 4 to 6 weeks. They may take place at a training centre, in a community building, in a space owned by a cooperative, or at a marquee erected especially for this purpose.3 Spatial arrangements anticipate the early formation of a Participants’ Enterprise (also known as “the Team”; WOW, 2015), which will take on the managerial control of the physical space where the OW is held, as well as most of its running. Scaffolding (footnote 7) to facilitate the generation of organisational consciousness begins early. The spatial arrangements anticipate that, as soon as the participants organise themselves as a Participants’ Enterprise (PE; also known as the Team), they will take on managerial control of the place where the OW is held. Participants learn organising by organising; they organise themselves to do the work and are remunerated for completed tasks paid at market rates, according to the terms of contracts negotiated before the work is done. The parties to the contracts are the PE and the Facilitators Enterprise (FE; also known as the Crew). Part of the money that the PE collectively earns it spends on food, fuel, and other needed inputs during the OW itself. Part of it the PE pays to its own members for their work. Sharing a commonly pooled resource base (also known as the pool or inventory), the participants create an enterprise that produces real goods and services. Organisation workshops demonstrate in action an AT principle articulated by de Morais’s partner and widow, Jacinta Correia, as follows: “For people to learn, a real object has to be present that suggests or stimulates activity” (as cited in Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, p. 46; see also Andersson, 2013, p. 5ss). Each successful OW shows that the participants are able to create new—and in many cases long- lasting—economic and social enterprises and to initiate new ways of organising in the wider community (Andersson & Richards, 2015; WOW, 2015). Individuals who were unfamiliar with how complex organisations operate experience psychological changes that enable them to work in institutions that follow formal procedures. Such individuals are commonly found among the long-term unemployed and, as much of de Morais’s original work in Brazil shows, among artisans working alone (Andersson, 2010; Carmen & Sobrado, 2000,pp.54–58, 62–67; Correia, 2004; Holdt et al., 2011;Langa,2015; Wilson, 1994). Indeed, most OW participants tend to lack the skills needed to participate in complex organisations. They are mainly the poor, the unemployed and underemployed, marginals, the excluded, and the dispossessed. OWs are usually located where opportunities for work, and workplaces, are few MIND,CULTURE,ANDACTIVITY 3

and far between. No one in the host community is excluded on principle. If more people want to participate than can be accommodated with the resources available, the host community will agree on a selection procedure.

What happens in an Organisation Workshop After a short opening ceremony, the director calls on the participants to organise themselves into a PE. The FE, from then on, will not take questions from individuals, nor will there be any further intervention in the Team’s attempts to self-organise, a process that may take several days of trial and error. Ultimately, a successful OW will see the election, by the participants, of a management team to lead their PE, followed by the negotiation of the first work contracts with the Crew. As soon as the participants have elected a management team, the PE take stewardship of a common resource pool. This will include tools, equipment, and raw materials. All these items will have to be accounted for and returned at the end of the exercise. A modest capital fund is handed over to the PE management team. The money is counted in front of a general assembly including PE and Crew. This suggests the need for accounting procedures on the part of the management committee and the corresponding expectation of transparency and accountability as both right and duty of all. In addition to the hands-on learning gained in the very process of organising themselves to do the work they contracted to do, the participants also attend daily sessions, run by the Crew, which deal with the theory of organisation, presented in Microsoft PowerPoint where available. Prior to the OW, and in association with arrangements to be made for the shared inventory (resource pool), the Crew will have visited (scoped) the area to identify, in consultation with locals, suitable work. Typically, work projects will tackle long-standing local problems. All this preparatory groundwork will be reflected in drafts for specific work assignments, which then will form the basis for offers. The latter will subsequently to be turned, after negotiation, into actual contracts signed for by the authorised representatives of the Team and the Crew. During the preparatory scoping consultations, which may take several months, the Crew tries to understand the prevailing activity system with all its strengths, weaknesses, and at times paralysing social conflicts. A definite OW design emerges after consultation with the system’s main actors, establishing the broad parameters for the emergence of a complex enterprise, that is, one that requires, in view of the large numbers involved, a division of labour, an elementary prerequisite to learn in earnest about organisation. All this amounts to the setting up of a zone of proximal development (ZPD) with scaffolding to enable learning (Andersson, 2004, p. 130; Large-group capacitation, n.d.; footnote 7; Vygotsky, 1978). The need for a division of labour will lead to a need for a complex enterprise, which in turn will set the stage for developing organisational consciousness and learning organisation. Among typical work assignments defined in the negotiated contracts there may be performance specifications for building repairs, or for livestock rearing or vegetable gardens, or for running an educational campaign on a community issue such as alcohol abuse or domestic Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 violence. The contracts further specify details of costs, completion dates, and income the completed work will earn. These earnings are paid directly to the Team’sbankaccount.Itis up to the PE to organise further disbursement from there, including individual worker pay rates. Participants engaged in supporting tasks, such as meal preparation and crèches; expenses for fuel for enterprise vehicles; and expenses for stationery or administration are paid by the PE from the same account. At first participants struggle to organise efficiently. Most OW participants are unacquainted with the discipline required by a complex enterprise, with accompanying initial confusion and search for solutions. The imperative (or “need,” in Leontievian terminology) to organise efficiently becomes ever more pressing. When this “need” combines with the insights gained from the learning sessions on theory of organisation, rapid, practical, activity-fed OL, or capacitation (see Textbox 1) ensues. 4 G. ANDERSSON ET AL.

Textbox 1. Capacitation Moraisean capacitación “. . . involves mastery of a practical experience, perhaps with some theoretical guidance but at least with some theoretical insight. It involves an objective situation where objects guide the subject’s understanding in the course of the activity. It involves a process of critical reflection on actions and their motives. Crucially, it always involves working with the whole and not just a small part of the system” (Andersson, 2004, p. 168).

Experts in particular skills, such as welding, bricklaying, bookkeeping, or adult literacy, are invited in by the Crew whenever the work requires instruction in the skills the participants do not yet possess. Typically, faced with a task they do not know to perform, the participants themselves feel a need to learn more. In keeping with Leontiev’s(1978) “The need learns to know itself, it becomes a motive” (p. 116), what once used to be experienced as a vague absence of knowledge and skills now becomes sharply delineated as actual needs. These needs subsequently guide, orient, and mobilise the search for new knowledge. Activities such as lectures and vocational training thus become part of the mediatory means (semiotic text; Engeström, 2009) allowing the participants to incrementally improve their enterprise-creating activity.

A shared theory of organisation Six hours a day are spent doing practical work with around 2 more hours set aside for the sessions on the theory of organisation, which usually stimulate extensive discussion. Thus the pool of commonly shared knowledge is continuously enriched. The first segment of the lectures deals with the history of the organisation of labour, from hunter- gatherer times to present-day social and economic systems. In Africa this becomes an occasion to reflect on the hidden and untold history of Africa before colonial times: the agricultural practices and systems that birthed empires across the continent, the technological breakthroughs and discoveries, the creation of institutions of learning and the patterns of trade, the destruction of the empires and the 300 years of slave trade before the colonial era, the intensification of the effects of the industrial revolution due to European political domination, the discarding of agricultural knowledge going back 11,000 years in favour of fossil-fuel agriculture and mono-cropping, and the start of the Anthropocene age. The second segment deals with “large-group social psychology”, explaining the causal relationship between people’s psychological characteristics, their experience of work and the popular culture associated with it, with examples drawn from participants’ behaviour as they struggle to organise themselves in a large group. A parallel is drawn between their experience and the way humans have historically related to the work process. A final segment introduces tools for the management of the enterprise, consisting of an overview of essential organisational principles, such as planning, the division of labour and control of performance, critical reflection and steady improvement of work, specific procedures to run meetings, and appropriate structures to enable management of complex4 enterprises (Andersson, 2013; Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 Labra & Labra, 2012; WOW, 2015).

Historical origins of the OW approach His experience during a course on land reform for 60 political activists in a residential house in Recife in the 1950s suggested to de Morais the basic idea of working with large groups with a common resource pool and an associated division of labour, which was de facto forced on the group because of the clandestine nature of the gathering (Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, p. 15). Thus began what de Morais first called Laboratorios Organizacionales applied subsequently on a larger scale among Brazil’s Nordeste’s Peasant Leagues from the 1960s (Moraes, 1970; de Morais, 1979;de Morais, n.d.). MIND,CULTURE,ANDACTIVITY 5

After being forced into exile after the 1964 military coup, de Morais was hired by the Food and Agriculture Organisation with other United Nations agencies, government and nongovernment organisations also acting as sponsors. Under his leadership his Método de Capacitación Masiva spread widely through Central and South America (Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, Chapters 5 and 6). Especially in Honduras (de Morais, 1976) the approach acquired the form that was subsequently documented in English in the 1980s and implemented in predominantly English-speaking southern Africa, as well as in Portuguese-speaking Mozambique and Angola. Clodomir de Morais’s work has been replicated and extended over a period of more than 30 years since then, by other southern practitioners (in Latin America and Africa). There has been significant methodological variation across countries. Some variants (e.g., the MCM method used in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Mexico) resemble closely the OW described in these pages, whereas others may be only tangentially related to it. In Africa, after initially being introduced in Zimbabwe as the Experimental Workshop on Theory of Organization, it has come to be known as the Organisation Workshop. The OW is also sometimes known under the name of Laboratories on Objectivised Activity (Labra & Labra, 2012). In the early years, de Morais, always working with large groups sharing a common resource base, and always with a broadly Marxist orientation, developed his method, learning mainly from his experience. At a later stage—principally in his 1987 doctoral thesis—the creator of the OW method came to acknowledge that what he had been doing could be described to a large extent as an application of the ideas of the Russian activity theorist A.N. Leontiev.5 Subsequent theoretical work done in particular by Iván Labra (1992, 2014; Labra & Labra, 2012) and by Andersson (2004, Chapters 3, 4, and 5; 2013) in the light of practical OW experience from the mid-1980s onward, refined theoretical insights and sharpened field practice. Thus, the combination of theory and practical experience gradually brought into focus the theoretical underpinnings and rationale for OW practice as it is today. Clodomir de Morais’s original laboratorios organizacionales could subsequently be analysed in AT and in large-group psychology terms, partly because de Morais’s broadly Marxist thinking always tended to see the psychological attributes of individuals in a wide cultural and historical context and as largely determined by work activity. And yet de Morais departed from Marxist orthodoxy in his core insights. For him, the work process, and the culture around it, were the keys to explaining psychological functioning, where more doctrinaire views would stress the importance of class. Clodomir de Morais categorised people’s characteristic psychological attributes in terms of the different social strata of, first, workers (i.e., those of people accustomed to the social and technical division of labour); second, artisans (i.e., those accustomed to making a product themselves from start to finish); third, semiworkers (those straddling the worlds of artisan and worker); and finally, lumpens (or “freeriders”—individuals of any class parasiting on the work of others), a meaning different from the lumpen conventionally referred to by Marxists.6 He developed these categories reflecting on his own experience in the Brazil of the 1960s. Another feature of de Morais’s early work that would, later on, lend itself to refinement in terms of AT analysis (Andersson), as well as for providing clearer insights into the social psychology of the large group (Labra), was the fact that de Morais’s Organisational Laboratory was specifically Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 designed to change people’s behaviour, building on the needs thrown up by organised action. This change, in turn—and here it is less a matter of the OW learning from AT and more a matter of the OW contributing something new to the field—was inextricably linked to the availability to the group of a common resource pool under conditions of freedom of organisation.

Theoretical foundations of the Organisation Workshop: Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) The OW methodology as it has developed in southern Africa over the past three decades draws important insights from three generations of CHAT, a term coined by Cole (1996, p. 105) and popularised by Yrjö Engeström (1987; Foot, 2014, Introduction). The term denotes a theoretical 6 G. ANDERSSON ET AL.

framework that helps to understand and analyse the relationship between the human mind (what people think and feel) and activity (what people do; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006; Nardi, 1996, p. 8; Roth & Lee, 2007, p. 192). It stems from the intellectual tradition that started with the work of L.S. Vygotsky and A.N. Leontiev and affirms the philosophical premise that physical and mental activity are integrally connected to large cultural and historical processes. From the early, first-generation work of Vygotsky, OW draws the key ideas of ZPD, scaffolding, and semiotic mediation.7 As for the development of the OW’s central idea of objectivised activity (see Textbox 2), it draws particularly on the work and insights of Leontiev (1978) said to belong to the second generation of CHAT (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 13). From third-generation CHAT it draws on and expands the concept of activity system, one of Yrjö Engeström’s seminal contributions.8,9

Textbox 2. The Object of Activity Objectivised Activity There has been a recurring debate (re: Kaptelinin, 2005) around A.N. Leontiev’s ‘Object of Activity’ concept (see: Леонтьев, A.H., 1975, Chapter III, 2. О категории предметной деятельности – The Category of ‘Predmetnaya Dyaetel’nost’–For the English version, see Leontiev, A.N. 1978). IntheprocessoftheOW’s contextualisation from its original latino base to English-speaking Southern Africa in the mid-1980s, OW practitioners took as their base text, not Mary Hall’s 1978 English, but the 1977 (Moscú) Spanish translation of Leontiev’s seminal work. Here Leontiev’s Predmetnaya Dyaetel’nost is translated as Actividad Objetivada. The difference between the English Objective Activity and the latino (Sp./Port) Actividad Objetivada (literally “Objectivised” Activity) is linguistically subtle but, conceptually, and in its application, significant. The common English Objective Activity translation—as compared to, for example, the German way of translating Predmetnaya Dyaetel’nost (below)—may be traced to the fact that, unlike other languages, English has no means of differentiating between, respectively, “Objektive Aktivität” (German), “объективный активность”/ “objektivenye aktivinost” (Russian), on one hand, and “Gegenständliche Tätigkeit” (German), “predmetnaya dyaetel’nost”“Предметная деятельность” (Russian), on the other. Less frequently (but not so in the early English translations of Leontiev), one will find “object-oriented,”“object- directed,” or “object-related” alternatives to Objective Activity. This lack of differentiation (between, e.g., “objektiv” and “Gegenstand,” in German) may give rise to loss of, or blindness to, important conceptual distinctions and practical applications that may flow from it. Theoretical work carried out long after the OW had proved its mettle in English-speaking countries of southern Africa revealed that translating “predmetnaya dyaetel’nost” the “latino” (objectivised), rather than the “English” (objective) way, had effectively removed, in one stroke, the uncertainties and ambiguities that were inherent to the common English translation. “Objectivised” also maintains a closer relationship to both the letter and the spirit of the original Russian’s dynamic, interactive, dialectical, systemic predmetnaya dyaetel’nost.(*) ——— (*)ThedifferencebetweentheSpanish/Portugueseobjetiva, on one hand, and objetivada, on the other, is that objetivada is derived from Spanish/Portuguese transitive verb “objetivar” (objectify/vise). This in contrast to “objective”/“objetivo/a,” which is a merely descriptive, passive, nontransitive adjective (in both English and latino languages).

In line with the leontievian objectivised activity, or the object teaches principle (Andersson, 2010; Andersson, 2013; Correia, 2007,p.6),itis“the Object” that, in the OW, suggests the work to be done. Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 Once the ZPD is established and the inventory handed over, the Crew (FE), rather than making suggestions about the nature or execution of subsequent work, concentrates on responding to proposals coming from the participants’ collective bodies. As it happens, the PE has been known to come forward with contract proposal ideas that had never occurred to the Crew but that, given the common resource pool, prove to be not only feasible but also likely to bring significant benefits to the wider community, be it in infrastructural terms or in the launching of new repertoires of organisation. This allowing space for full freedom of organisation is not simply a nod toward grassroots democracy; if the Crew were to suggest what should be done, and how, the potential for learning would evaporate as following instructions would be all the PE would be doing, or expected to do. The common resource pool, then, is the initial “object” that prompts activity, and it is the learning in the ZPD that improves competence in this objectivised activity. But the initial forms MIND,CULTURE,ANDACTIVITY 7

of organisation set up by the participants are seldom adequate for managing the enterprise. Within days, frustrations set in as the initial leadership—invariably elected in a participants’ initial General Assembly—fails to come to terms with the complexity of managing up to a dozen workteams it may be faced with, each with its own technical and practical challenges, with different work rhythms, with different team sizes and varying levels of skill and expertise required. This in addition to the need to manage the “common” functions that are necessary for the OW enterprise to thrive. Two weeks into the OW, at the latest, pressure to improve management, or “the need” for effective management, starts building up. But already by this stage, and increasingly as the OW progresses, another factor comes into play: the daily lectures (on theory of organisation) provide a semiotic text; shared facts and insights about behaviour, common concepts, and methods of organisation all become topics of discussion. At this point, with the participants moving to the reframing and restructuring of their organisation, the enterprise itself comes into its own as the new object: Objectivised activity is, precisely, all about the effort of systematically improving organisation toward greater productivity and, hence, increased benefit for participants and the wider activity system surrounding the OW.

Contrast with other activity-based, world of work laboratory OL methods The two approaches with which we compare the OW are Finland’s Change Laboratory (CL) and France’s Clinique de l’Activité/AC, both laboratory interventions in the world of work that are AT based. These Finnish and French approaches have been collaborating for some time (Clot, 2009). The CL, led by Yrjö Engeström, is an activity-based formative intervention laboratory method, designed specifically for the world of work (CRADLE, n.d.). The AC, led by Yves Clot, is also a laboratory method10 specifically designed for the world of work (Clot, 2009). The OW, in contrast with these two European experiences, was born and raised in the rough and tumble of peasant struggles and the multiple travails of national and community development in the global south. We suggest that the distinctiveness of the OW as an AT praxis, stems in part from its radically different environments. However, the OW method is sometimes applicable in “southern situations in the North” as is demonstrated by a recent OW pilot project in a socially deprived housing estate in postindustrial 21st-century Britain (Imagine, 2016). Finland’s CL is a formative research intervention laboratory method based largely on Vygotsky’s principle of double stimulation and on Engeström’s theory of expansive learning (Engeström in Daniels, Cole, & Wertsch, 2007, p. 364; Sannino, 2015). It helps participants work out contradictions in their own practices. CL’s ultimate aim is to promote change, which takes the form of cultivating a sense of agency in alienated modern European workers in their workplaces (Engeström & Glăveanu, 2012). CL is a forum for cooperation between expert interventionists and local practitioners. A concept of double stimulation, derived from Vygotsky, shapes both the initial problem situation (first stimulus) and the mediating conceptual tool (second stimulus; Sannino, 2015). In CL interventions, these are refor- mulated and enriched in successive steps, opening new avenues for autonomous agency. Its principal areas of application are healthcare, social services, education, and professional organisational settings. Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 The AC, like CL, is an AT-based laboratory method (Filliettaz & Billett, 2015). It was launched in the mid-1990s by Professor Yves Clot of the Conservatoire National des Arts et des Métiers (Clot, 2005, 2009). The AC team responds to requests for intervention at private and public service workplaces, dealing with private business factory personnel, as well as with workplaces in the public services sector, such as the French postal services, the French railways, schools, the courts, and hospitals. AC defines itself as a developmental11 research method aimed at transforming work. At the core of the method are the cross self-confrontation interviews that feature videotapes of workers’ performance that are examined in the company of a colleague who knows and understands the work (Filliettaz & Billett, 2015, p. 51ss). The “worker” may range from the relatively less educated, as in the case of an assembly line worker, to highly educated specialists such as airline pilots, or anything in between. 8 G. ANDERSSON ET AL.

We use these very brief sketches of two kindred world of work AT-based laboratory methods as a preface to pointing out some distinctive features of the OW. The OW is distinctive, if for no other reasons than the participants’ social characteristics, the group’s size, and the context in which it takes place. In the OW, participants typically come from among the workless; workshops address the needs of the chronically unemployed or underemployed. Frequently, but not always, the “locus” of the OW is wherever “there is no workplace” (Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, p. 10). To a greater extent than in the case of CL or AC, an OW is embedded in the wider local community (see footnote 3). It is common that the community setting is one in which there is ongoing trauma, or where recent history has left deep scars. One such case was the Bokfontein OW. Bokfontein, a settlement north of Johannesburg (South Africa), was born in social conflict. Its first settlers were evicted from where they had been squatting in order to clear space for developers, and they were dumped on bare land that did not even have a supply of water. Just as they were learning to cope, they were joined by a second wave of poor people who had been expelled from a private estate nearby and forcibly relocated to Bokfontein. Given the struggle for resources, specifically land and water, it is perhaps inevitable that there was strife between the first and second waves of settlers, as well as conflict between South Africans and immigrants (many of them illegal immigrants) from neighbouring countries. The houses were makeshift shacks. Water was trucked in by the municipality on an irregular and unreliable schedule. There were virtually no opportunities for employ- ment. In these circumstances—not unlike many other OW settings—Seriti Institute began to lay the groundwork for an OW late in 2007.12 The OW that resulted featured the drilling of a bore hole for a community that previously had had no reliable water supply, a new layout for the settlement around an access road, and the establishment of recreation areas, as well as a cooperative. The OW can also claim to be innovative in its use of Leontievian second-generation CHAT and in its elaboration in the Engeströmian Activity System model: Leontiev (1978) expressed the germ of the activity system idea when he situated the individual in functional relationships to the collective object. Engeström’s(1987, p. 78) now classic third-generation CHAT triangular diagramme, or Activity Triangle, is “a depiction of an activity system.” In his doctoral thesis, Gavin Andersson goes to some length in applying activity system analysis to development practitioners’ practice in general and the OW in particular (Andersson, 2004, p. 235ss). We can contrast the use CRADLE makes of such an analysis with the expanded use of the activity framework proposed in Andersson’s thesis, taking as an example the scoping done in preparing for the aforementioned Bokfontein OW (Langa & von Holdt, 2011). This example illustrates our claim that the OW applies CHAT in third-world work environments differently from its first-world applications, as well as our claim that OW practice expands the notion of an activity system. In Bokfontein, Crew facilitators applied CHAT in a drawn-out process involving an entire community, in which the actual 4-week OW follow-up was a key element. The OW’s starting and end points are not an organisation or institution in particular (e.g., the Finnish Post Office; Engeström et al., 1996). Instead, the OW’s starting point is the whole activity system, including the larger community. The outcomes are intended to directly change the way of life in a specific Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 community, but also contribute to wider societal change, a process referred to as unbounded organisation (Andersson, 2004, p. 276; 2012; Andersson & Richards, 2015; Unbounded Organization, n.d.). Andersson (2015, p. 91) recounts how the facilitators preparing for the Bokfontein OW started their cultural-historical analysis of the activity system with talking and listening to a selective sample of all those who were part of the system, including mining houses, municipality, political parties, local churches, and charities. They joined a community meeting every Tuesday for 3 months. There were formal meetings, as well as informal interviews and gatherings rich in stories, jokes, and talks. “Scoping walks” brought out what was locally available and could be brought to bear in an OW. They heard of the local weaknesses and strengths, the dreams and the complaints. They floated ideas, as well as questions, talked to people who had lost loved ones, all in the pursuit of involving as many MIND,CULTURE,ANDACTIVITY 9

as possible who were part of the activity system. Plans for an OW were made in sustained consultation with the community concerned and in-depth discussions with key parties. Key to the OW design was the creation of conditions for the emergence of a new activity system. Potential work activities were analysed and the required raw materials, tools, and equipment identified. A common resource pool was assembled and detailed in a meticulous inventory list in preparation for the OW opening day. As several observers have documented, the Bokfontein OW, as happened in other OWs, was a long-term intervention in the activity system, encompassing the entire community. It was preceded by 3 months of scoping and was succeeded by several years of follow-up community development, resulting in substantial changes in the character of the community. As it happened, the closing ceremony of the OW itself coincided with one of a number of waves of communal violence that have swept through South African townships in recent years. At that point in time,

While many communities throughout South Africa were caught up in the violence that flared up during this time, the Bokfontein community emerged unscathed. Though coming from different backgrounds, they have accepted and learned to live together through realising that they are one people striving for a common goal—a better life for themselves and their children. (Andersson & Richards, 2015, p. 94; see also Holdt et al., 2011; Langa & von Holdt, 2011; Langa, 2015; Seriti Institute [seriti.org.za])

Since then, and down to the time of the present writing, Bokfontein has continued to be immune to the communal violence affecting similar communities, which was not the case prior to the 2008 OW. Comparing OW with CL and AC with respect to the use of an activity system concept, we find both similarities and differences. In the case of the CL, conducted in professional environments, the completion of the “expanded learning cycle,” which may last up to 6 months, may be followed, as in the case of CL work with the Finnish Post Office, by a subsequent setting up of a number of pilot projects (Engeström et al., 1996). In the case of Clot’s AC, the rounding off of the cycle of crossed self-confrontation interviews will have resulted in a “percolation of professional experience.” It will have equipped the work collectives with pouvoir d’agir (power to act), to “transform the goals, the motives and the knowledge of their professional activity” (Clot et al., 2000,p.16–17). One of AT’s primary propositions is that changes in activity change both subjects and objects. In OW terminology, the shared object suggests to the participants a necessary division of labour resulting in the formation of organisational consciousness (footnote 1) and capacitation (Textbox 1). De Morais defined large as at least 40 participants, whereas in African practice, a minimum of 80 (in reality the average participant number is 150) are required. Although in principle there is no upper limit to numbers,13 the constraints are local facilities and resources (Seriti Institute [seriti.org.za]). OW practitioners contrast large-group social psychology with the more conventional “small- group” psychology practice, the latter notably identified with the seminal work of Kurt Lewin (1947).14 Labra, and other OW practitioners after him, argued that trying to understand human behaviour by focusing on individuals within small groups is intellectually inadequate and politically conservative (Andersson, 2004, pp. 249–268; Labra, 1992, 2014). Key to any forthrightly social or social scale psychology15 is meticulous attention to the very issues that conventional psychology has Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 tended to avoid, issues such as work activity, class interests, racial and gender prejudice, cultural and historical grounding. CL formative intervention practice and AC methods, by contrast, tend to work with small groups, and in this respect are different from the large-group approach integral to the OW. Commenting on a CL that was about to take place in a big school in Moscow, for example, Engeström stated that the only way to “keep things manageable” is to have “smaller groups” (Lemos, Pereira-Querol, & Muniz De Almeida, 2013). We suggest that a contribution of the OW tradition is to demonstrate the potential, the benefits, and the feasibility of working with large groups, specifically for the purpose of motivating the achievement of organisational consciousness and organisational capacity by the participants. Nevertheless, to say that CL and AC work with relatively small groups is not the same as saying that they do not pay attention to larger issues, and in this respect they are at one with 10 G. ANDERSSON ET AL.

the OW. Indeed, an explicit premise of CRADLE’s interventions and of Yves Clot’s efforts to humanise work situations is the fundamental contradiction between use value and exchange value inherent in capitalism.

The OW as cultural-historically situated OL event Resolving the Cartesian dualism between mind and matter, AT, as understood in OW practice, bridges the gap between subject and social reality by mediating, reality-transforming activity. This is so because it takes proper account of the entire work/activity system encompassing environment, history, culture, tools, motivations, in other words, the entire complexity of activity taking place in real life situations. In the numerous CHAT applications—including in classroom and human–computer interaction AT-inspired practice—history may well be one of the lesser emphasised entry points. Or, at the very least, it may be safe to say that the OW uses history in ways that these and other CHAT applications, to our knowledge, have not. The OW situates participants full-square in their historical context: they attend learning sessions on the history of the organisation of labour, especially in Africa, learning about the emergence of African civilisation starting in prehistoric and precolonial times to the present. They learn about, and may actually go and visit, as happened in some OWs run in Gauteng Province, an archaeological site like the one known as the Cradle of Humankind (Hilton-Barber & Berger, 2002). Attention to culture, too, and societal cultural change—beyond mere internal organisational culture— may be more vivid in the OW tradition than in other AT applications. The lectures on history of labour, among others, provided by the Crew during the length of the workshop, generate lively discussions, for example, regarding the role of women in the origins of agriculture. The message that, the way things are, is not the way things have to be, is driven home by discussing in detail previous ways of organising society— and how they offer lessons for today. Creative imagination is unleashed in a context where it may well be needed to solve a practical problem the very same day. As the participants struggle to craft effective rules for their enterprise, and an appropriate division of labour, the lectures provide a semiotic text mediating their decisions and enabling them to set course to achieve their objectives. They become, as their ancestors were, creators of ways to organise labour and therefore, also, creators of culture. As Andersson (2012) noted in “Kwanda: The Praxis of Cultural Change,” about the way an OW- enabled community-wide learning in 2009 when it was incorporated into a part SABC-sponsored reality TV show, called Kwanda, that attracted close to 2 million viewers on late-night TV in South Africa:

Kwanda is about nothing less than cultural change; if we understand culture to be “designs for living that are based on the accumulated knowledge of a people, encoded in their language, and embodied in the physical artefacts, beliefs, values, customs and activities [emphasis added]. (Cole and Cole Development of Children, 2001, p. 36) What Kwanda is about is a change in activity by not only the 100 people in each team, but also those in their communities, and the birthing of new customs and social practices. In a country like South Africa where people Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 have become accustomed to wait for the State to deliver services, houses and jobs, it is nothing less than a cultural transformation. (Andersson, 2012, p. 39)

A concluding remark In the preceding pages we have suggested that the OW, when compared to the other two laboratory interventions, manifests several significant innovations. On top of this and as a closing remark, we suggest one more. As in OW, workers derive therapeutic benefits and achieve a degree of autonomous agency (pouvoir d’agir: Clot, 2008) as a practical outcome of CHAT-based laboratory formative interventions in the CL and AC moulds. Subjects become “masters of their own lives” (Engeström as cited in Daniels et al., 2007, p. 364). Double stimulation exercises and cross self-confrontation MIND,CULTURE,ANDACTIVITY 11

exercises defend and enhance the dignity and autonomy of the worker under adverse circumstances. In the AT-based OW, thanks to the large group, common resource pool, learning sessions on the theory of organization, and freedom of organisation, participants themselves change adverse circumstances and create enterprises.

Notes

1. Organisatixonal Consciousness is the capacity of the individual to break down a task into its component parts; to imagine the level of organisation needed to accomplish each task; to spell out the steps needed to carry it out; to allocate required operations among team members, taking into account their individual abilities; to coordinate and assess the execution of these operations and the performance of the whole team as well as being able, on that basis, to suggest the introduction of corrective measures aimed to continuously improving the results of the organisation’s activity (Labra, 2012). 2. Three continents: South America (Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, pp. 51–90); Africa (Andersson, 2010; Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, pp. 92–144; WOW, 2015); Europe (Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, pp. 145–172; Imagine, 2016). 3. Community, as the OW sees it, could therefore be characterised as “community of place”, where everyone living in a specific area is seen as part of “the community” (see also “community of interest” and “community of practice”; Andersson & Richards, 2015, p. 12). 4. Given, as frequently is the case, the artisan/semiworker background of many, and sometimes the majority of participants, this transition from “simple” to “complex” production process, amounts to a form of entre- preneurial literacy, on par with the transition from “simple/natural” three-dimensional communication to the complex, two-dimensional mode of communication of symbols, letters, and digits in the case of alphabetic literacy (Carmen, 2008, p. 435). What makes this transition possible is the opportunity to get to grips with a real complex enterprise re: “for a large group to learn how to manage a complex enterprise, it has to have a complex enterprise to manage” (Andersson, 2013; Correia as cited in Carmen & Sobrado, 2000, p. 46; Correia, 1994). 5. See de Morais (1987, pp. 19–23; 1997, p. 50, notes 24 and 25; de Morais as cited in Carmen & Sobrado, 2000,p. 32). These clear references to Leontiev’s actvidad objetivada (objectivised activity), however, did not primarily refer to (the theoretical basis of) the OW method itself, but rather to the activity of the grassroots organiser in their efforts to set up social movements. It was only in the latter part of last century that the linkages between the OW and AT became abundantly clear and explicit. 6. Lumpens, originated by Marx, was originally used by de Morais. In the OW it has a social psychological, rather than Marxist, sociological bearing. 7. Vygotsky ’s theory of cultural mediation was a response to behaviourism’s prior assumption of a direct relationship between stimulus and response. Vygotsky argued that the relationship between a human subject and an object is never direct but always mediated by artifacts, tools, signs, and social others. The ZPD is “the gap between what an individual learner, or group of learners, has already mastered without assistance (the actual level of development) and what they potentially can achieve with the guidance of an experienced assistant or peer” (e.g., Andersson, 2013, p. 24). It should perhaps be noted that some scholars, unlike ourselves, regard the idea of “scaffolding” as merely implicit in Vygotsky’s work. 8. According to Engeström, third-generation AT refers to theorising and empirical studies that expand the unit of analysis from a single activity system to multiple, minimally two, interacting activity systems. In such a framework, for example, schooling is analysed as dynamics within and interplay between the activity systems of the student and the teacher, possibly also including other relevant activity systems. This expansion is accompanied with increased attention to the dynamics of the subject, with new important openings into the analysis of agency, experiencing, and emotion (Engeström & Glăveanu, 2012).

Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 9. It should be made clear, here, that the Moraisean OW was not originally a direct application of AT. As a practice dating from the 1960s, it is older than kindred AT-based world of work methods. AT was largely unknown outside Russia until at least the mid-1970s. Much of the theoretical work informing it, notably Vygotsky’s writings, had been suppressed in Russia itself until the 1960s. It was only very gradually that Soviet- era AT came to be known, appreciated, and applied in the West (Wertsch, 1981). De Morais only started making explicit references to Leontiev in his 1987 Rostock Doctoral thesis (de Morais, 1987, pp. 19–23). 10. The word Clinique (French) can refer to a diagnostic by direct observation or to the room where such a method is practiced. 11. Developmental methodologies share a critical focus on development in social and work practices and features, such as mediation by signs and tools and transformation of social practices (Engeström 1993; Filliettaz & Billett, 2015, p. 28). 12. See the more complete account given in Andersson and Richards (2015, p. 91). The Bokfontein OW is also documented in the previously cited work of Holdt et al. (2011), Langa and von Holdt (2011), and in several 12 G. ANDERSSON ET AL.

unpublished reports. These sources often mix reports on the Community Work Programme, the principal government sponsor, and other activities that continued the community development process initiated by the OW with reports on the OW itself and its immediate antecedents and results. The relationship between OW and Community Work Programme is explained in Andersson and Richards (2015). See also the discussion of Engeström´s activity triangle in Chapter 5 of Andersson’s 2004 doctoral thesis. 13. In 1992, 850 participated in the Matzinho OW, in war-torn Mozambique (Organization Workshop, n.d.). 14. T-Groups, pioneered, in 1947, by the Bethel Training Laboratories Institute, and widely influential ever since, typically consist of 8 to 15 people. 15. That is, a social scale psychology open to the communality of psychological reflection within the wider society beyond “the workplace” and applicable to situations where large numbers of people work.

ORCID Raff Carmen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6054-9028

References

Andersson, G. (2004). Unbounded governance: A study of popular development organization (PhD Thesis). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University. Andersson, G. (2010). Community work programme. Evaluation of the OW Process, Singizi. Retrieved from http:// unboundedorganization.org Andersson, G. (2012). Kwanda, the praxis of cultural change. In Discussies over de stad (pp. 38–47). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kennisnetwerk Amsterdam. Andersson, G. (2013). The activity theory approach. Pre-booklaunch chapter VII. Retrieved from Seriti.org.za Andersson, G., & Richards, H. (2015). Unbounded organizing in community. Lake Oswego, OR, USA: World Dignity University Press. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA, USA: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co. Carmen, R. (2008). “Literacy for All”: From ILY90 to MDG2015. In V. Desai & R. Potter (Eds), The companion to development studies. London, UK: Hodder Education, Routledge. Carmen, R., & Sobrado, M. (2000). A future for the excluded. Job creation and income generation by the poor. Clodomir Santos de Morais and the Organization Workshop. London, UK: ZED Books. Clot, Y., Faïta, D., Fernandez, G., & Scheller, L. (2000). Entretiens en autoconfrontation croisée: Une méthode en cliniques de l’activité (Interviews in Crossed Self-confrontation: An Activity Clinic Method). Montréal, Canada: PISTES 2-1. Retrieved from http://pistes.revues.org/3833 Clot, Y. (2005) Pourquoi et comment s’occuper du développement en clinique de l’activité ? (Why and How Deal with Development Issues in the Activity Clinic) ARTCO, 1. July, 2005. Clot, Y. (2008). Travail et pouvoir d´agir. (Work and Power to Act) Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France. Clot, Y. (2009). Clinic of activity: The dialogue as instrument. Chapter 18. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez, (Eds), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. Cole, M., & Cole, S. (2001). The development of children. New York, USA: Worth Publishers. Correia, J. C. B. (1994). Comunicação e Capacitação (Communication and capacitation). Brasilia, Brazil: IATTERMUND. Correia, J. C. B (2004). Avaliação Final do Projeto de Desenvolvimento do Distrito de Chiúta - 1993-2002, APN, Tete, Moçambique. (Final Evaluation of the Development Project Chiuta District 1993-2002). Maputo, Mozambique: ’

Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 Norwegian People s Aid (NPA), Maputo Office. Correia, J. C. B (2007). Learning with Africa: The case of Mozambique. Paper Presentated at the African Diaspora in India ‘TADIA’ Meeting, Goa, India (translated from the Portuguese). Retrieved from http://unboundedorganiza tion.org webpage. CRADLE. n.d. Center for research on activity development and learning. Retrieved from helsinki.fi Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (Eds). (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (PDF). Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The Change Laboratory as a tool for 565 transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe. 1(2), 10–17. Retrieved from helsinki.fiCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. MIND,CULTURE,ANDACTIVITY 13

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L.. (Eds). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.. 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. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2009). Expansive learning: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Educação & Tecnologia, 2009,2. Engeström, Y., & Glăveanu, V. (2012). On third generation activity theory: Interview with Yrjö Engeström. EJOP Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8. doi:10.5964/ejop.v8i4.555 Filliettaz, L., & Billett, S. (Eds). (2015). Francophone perspectives of learning through work. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International. Foot, K. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research (PDF). Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington. Hilton-Barber, B., & Lee Berger, R., (2002). The official field guide to the cradle of humankind. Cape Town, South Africa: Struik Publishers. von Holdt, K., Langa, M., Sepetla, M., Magapi, N., Ngubeni, K., Dlamini, J., & Kirsten, A. (2011). The smoke that calls: Insurgent citizenship, collective violence, and the struggle for a place in the new South Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, and Society, Work and Development Institute. Imagine. (2016). Marsh Farm Organisation Workshop. Evaluation Report. Commissioned by the UK Office for Civil Society in Cabinet Office, UK. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity. Making sense of the sensemaker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1201_2 Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. Labra, I. (1992). Psicología social: Responsabilidad y Necesidad – Social psychology. Responsibility and need (in Spanish). Santiago, Chile: LOM Ediciones. Labra, I. (2012). Consciousness is in the Act. Centro para el Desarrollo Alternativo. (Centre for Alternative Development) Limache, Chile. (Transcript in Unboundedorganization.org). Labra, I. (2014). A critique of the social psychology of small groups & an introduction to a social psychology of the large group. Pre-Publication Bookchapter. Retrieved from http://www.unboundedorganization.org Labra, I., & Labra, I. (2012). The Organization Workshop method. Laboratories on Objectivized Activity (PDF). Integra Terra Network. Retrieved from http://seriti.org.za. South Africa: Seriti Institute. Langa, M., & von Holdt, K. (2011). Bokfontein amazes the nations Community Work Program (CWP), poverty alleviation and collective trauma healing in a marginal community. In J. Daniel, P. Naidoo, D. Pillay, & R. Southall (Eds.), New South African review two. Johannesburg, South Africa: Wits University Press. Langa, M. (2015). A follow-up report on the community work programme in Bokfontein. Johannesburg, South Africa: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Wits University. Large-group Capacitation. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Lemos, M., Pereira-Querol, M. A., & Muniz de Almeida, I. (2013). The historical-cultural activity theory and its contributions to education. Health and Communication: Interview with Yrjö Engeström’ Interface (Botucatu), 17, 46. Brazil. Леонтьев, A. H. (1975). ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ. СОЗНАНИЕ. ЛИЧНОСТЬ. (transcription: Leont’ev, A.N. DEJaTEL’NOST. SOZNANIE. LIChNOST – (Activity, Consciousness, Personality) Moscow, Russia (Former USSR): Politizdat. Leontiev, A. N. (1977). Actividad, Conciencia, Personalidad (Activity, Consciousness, Personality) (Spanish). Editorial de la Literatura Política Moscú (Political Literature Publisher. Moscow): Moscow, Russia. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Translated by Marie J. Hall. OCLC 3770804. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USA: Prentice-Hall. Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017 Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Concept, method and reality in social science. Human Relations, 1,5– 41. doi:10.1177/001872674700100103 Moraes, C. (1970). Peasant leagues in Brazil. In R. Stavenhagen (Ed.), Agrarian problems and peasant movements in Latin America. New York, USA: Anchor. de Morais, C., Torres-Rivas, E., & Gomes, G. (1976). The Honduran model of agrarian development (in Spanish). Tegucigalpa, Honduras: National Government Publication. de Morais, C. S. (1979). Apuntes de teoría de la organización – Notes on theory of Organization (in Spanish). Managua, Nicaragua: PNUD, OIT-NIC/79/010, COPERA Project. de Morais, C. S. (1987). Objective conditions and subjective factors (PhD Thesis) (in Spanish). Rostock (former GDR), Germany: University of Rostock. de Morais, C. (1997). Elementos de teoria da Organização (in Portuguese) (Elements of a Theory of Organisation). Brasilia. Brazil: Pronager Amazônia. IATTERMUND. de Morais, C. S. (n.d.). Wikipedia. 14 G. ANDERSSON ET AL.

Nardi, B. A. (ed) (1996). Context and consciousness : Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Organization Workshop. (n.d.) Wikipedia. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-L. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. doi:10.3102/0034654306298273 Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 4,1–14. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.07.001 Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, USA: Doubleday/Currency. Unbounded Organization (UO). (n.d.) Webpage Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. (1981). The concept of activity in soviet psychology. Armonk, New York, USA: M.E.Sharpe, Inc. Wilson, J. (1994) Diary of a resource person participant at the Organisation Workshop held at Munguine, Maputo Province, Mozambique, Janiary 1994 Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association Zimbabwe. Integraterra Doc Repository, Harare Zimbabwe. Westonaria Organization Workshop (WOW). (2015, October–December). Report of the Westonaria Organization Workshop (W.O.W.) In Unbounded Organization, n.d. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods. Understanding complex learning environments. Springer eBooks online. Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:50 28 November 2017