Technology foresight and organizational change: A CHAT perspective

This is part one of a two-part article. See the second part, Hypothetica does foresight – an illustrative hypothetical case of CHAT analysis, here.

Foresight researchers and evaluators tell us that technology foresight programs (TFP) produce outcomes in three stages: the immediate; the intermediate; and the ultimate. The problem is that they don’t have much to say about how we transition from one stage to another. Almost all studies of TFPs focus only on the immediate outcomes, i.e. those that occur during and directly following program implementation. It’s clear, though, that if we want TFPs to contribute to lasting change over significant periods of time, which is a stated goal, then we need to know more about how we get from the immediate outcomes to the intermediate and, finally, the ultimate.

The intermediate outcomes of TFPs involve the transfer of knowledge, values, connections, etc. gained from TFPs, to organizational contexts, where they are institutionalized in the form of new practices and new ways to address issues. Although there have been many studies focusing on immediate outcomes, there have, to my knowledge, been no systematic studies of intermediate outcomes, at least not in cases involving educational policy (please correct me if I’m wrong). Therefore, we have no clear examples of applicable frameworks to use. Frameworks are important because they indicate what we can expect to happen in certain types of situations. Without them, we’re looking at something with no context; no way to make sense of how the various things we see happening work together. It’s sort of like if we were reading a text and could understand individual words, but couldn’t make sense of the sentences that they form. Now, we can’t just pick a random framework. We need to choose one that fits the context such that it provides a way of making sense of how the pieces in our analysis fit together. I have come to the conclusion that Engeström’s analytical framework based on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) is a very good fit for our purposes. I describe the framework below and discuss why I think it will be useful.

In the final section of the article (which might end up as a seperate article if this gets too long), I’m going to illustrate how the CHAT framework can be applied to the study of intermediate outcomes of TFPs with a hypothetical case. The case involves an individual who participated in the OECD’s well-known and well-documented Schooling for Tomorrow (SfT) foresight program. We’ll call our main character Hypothetica. To give substance to the case we’ll say that Hypothetica works for a Dutch teachers’ union (just a random choice) whom she was privileged to represent in the program. Having participated in the SfT program, Hypothetica has returned to her organization, brimming with new knowledge, ideas, and plans for the future, which she now has to tranfer to the Dutch teachers’ union such that the organization becomes actively involved, and invested, in pursuing the long-term goals that were formulated in the SfT program. As most readers (especially those familiar with literature on organizational change) will see already, there’s a lot of room for error here. The illustrative case will demonstrate how the CHAT framework can help us see where the potential pitfalls are and why they might disrupt Hypothetica’s efforts.

Intermediate outcomes of TFPs
The purpose of TFPs is to set in motion change processes that are expected to take place over 10 to 15 years or more. A primary concern is how we get from program implementation to full realization of long-term goals that are formulated in the context of a one-off TFP. One of the difficulties we face is sustaining the change-momentum that is initiated during program implementation once the program itself (i.e. the actual foresight activities) is over (I’ve described this issue in more detail elsewhere). According to research literature, what has to happen is that the individuals who participate in TFPs transfer the knowledge, values, visions, and strategies gained from the program to their organizational contexts. This knowledge transfer process is critical for ensuring continued stakeholder engagement in the change process. Schartinger et al. (2012) refer to this transfer process as “intermediate outcomes” because they bridge the gap between program implementation and long-term outcomes in which new policies are implemented and policymaking systems reconfigured. This stage in the foresight process intrigues me, partly because of the complexities involved, partly because it is a problematic stage that I have had to deal with, and partly because there has been no published research on it, as yet. So the first step is to determine how it is best studied – what suitable theoretical frameworks can be applied to the issue to generate useful knowledge that will help us to better plan and implement TFPs?

Applying theory to the study of intermediate outcomes
Some time ago I wrote a piece here on Education4site about suitable theoretical frameworks for the study of TFPs. In this previous posting I discussed Mazzoni’s “arena model” of policymaking as a viable framework for looking at the role that TFPs play in relation to policymaking systems, and in particular, agenda-setting. Since then, my own interest in TFPs has shifted from implications for policy- and decision-making to issues relating to intermediate outcomes and organizational change.

Intermediate outcomes raise questions that Mazzoni’s model doesn’t address. In particular, the unit of analysis shifts from the dialogical spaces that TFPs create (which can be, and have been referred to as “arenas” – see for ex. several chapters in The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice) to organizational contexts that connect to TFPs through the participation of organizations’ representatives. Because the organizations, as such, are not directly involved with the TFPs, they rely on participating representatives to transfer new knowledge, experience and values gained from TFPs to the organizational contexts. Knowledge transfer issues like these call for very different theoretical approaches than studies of politically driven decision-making systems. A suitable framework for studying intermediate outcomes in organizational settings needs to be able to address the following, at least:

• organizational contexts as units of analysis;
• transfer of knowledge from one context to another;
• outcomes of TFPs as motivation for change in organizational contexts;
• construction of new knowledge and new meaning within organizational contexts.

Mazzoni’s framework, and others dealing with policymaking systems, do not meet these criteria. In particular, they don’t address the knowledge-transfer component as a specific goal oriented activity, which is a defining aspect of intermediate outcomes. We need a framework that allows us to consider how knowledge and meaning that are constructed in one context are made to affect change in a different context. Note that I do not use “made to” lightly here because I want to highlight, and avoid, the common mistake of assuming that information/knowledge/meaning that is constructed in one context will somehow auto-magically make its way to other contexts. What is important here is the question of what individuals and organizations do to facilitate, or hinder, the transfer and internalization of immediate outcomes of TFPs. Put more precisely, the important question here is, what actions within the organizational context influence the knowledge-transfer process?

Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)
In discussions about my thoughts on this matter, it was suggested that I look at Engström’s analytical framework that he bases on CHAT. It is surprisingly well-suited to the task, as I will describe below. Furthermore, it aligns very well with my own epistemological and ontological convictions regarding the construction of knowledge and meaning, which are pretty firmly rooted in the relativist/constructivist tradition. However, as with any theoretical framework, no matter how well suited, the CHAT framework does have its problems, which I will touch on after describing its key components and processes.

The foundations for the CHAT framework were laid by Russian developmental psychologists in the early 20th century; in particular Vygotsky, Leontiev, and Luria. Vygotsky and his colleagues sought to develop a framework of human consciousness that describes how individuals come to relate to their environment. Their view was that individuals (“organisms” in their parlance) are parts of a system in which they interact with their surroundings and other individuals to construct shared meaning. Shared meaning is negotiated through goal-oriented actions, i.e. getting stuff done – not just “moving my mouth” but “moving my mouth to accomplish something”. All such actions are mediated through constructed artifacts that lend meaning to the activity and make it possible for individuals to relate to one another and their surroundings. These artifacts can include such things as, language, signs, tools, art, technology, etc.. Importantly, meaning-making activities are rooted in social or cultural contexts so that a symbol specific to one context may mean something very different in another. Here we see the relation between CHAT and Vygotsky’s well-known social constructivism, according to which meaning and knowledge are constructed in, and specific to, social contexts.

The basic CHAT framework is described with a simple diagram (often referred to as “Vygotsky’s mediated action triangle”) that I’ve included below. The triangle illustrates how each activity is seen as a process involving a subject (S), an object (O), and artifacts (A) through which an activity is mediated. In this process the subject is the individual, or individuals, who are engaged in the activity; the object is the intended outcome of the activity; and the artifacts include the socially constructed tools which lend meaning to the activity. By engaging in the activity, individuals deepen their relationship to their environment as they negotiate meaning in their given cultural/social context.

Mediating artifacts can be construed as “carriers” of meaning and knowledge, both within and between activity systems. As such, there is an evolutionary dimension in the process as artifacts convey the history of meaning-making activities within and between systems. An artifact resulting from a given activity goes on to become the mediating artifact in later activities where it can undergo transformation through renegotiated meaning, producing yet another artifact that will mediate later actions.

CHAT’s weak spot
One of reasons that Vygotsky and his colleagues developed CHAT was to overcome the dualistic language that pervaded discourse on matters having to do with human consciousness and the mind, i.e. the notion that the human mind is somehow seperate from the environment. This is essentially the problem of solipsism; the philosophical idea that the human mind can only know itself and, thus, everything else is unknowable in an epistemological sense. If that is the case, then we have a hard time explaining how humans are able to relate to others around them. If “reality” resides only in the human mind which is seperate from the environment, then there is no common reference for shared meaning and knowledge. The consequence is that each individual relies on their own personal sense of reality when relating to their surroundings and individuals in it. The worst case scenario is that we’re all always talking at cross-purposes, at least to some extent.

As I said, Vygotsky and his colleagues’ goal was not necessarily to resolve this issue, but rather to avoid it by changing the lingo. So, for example, instead of talking about a mindful individual making sense of her experience of reality, we get the “organism” interacting with its “environment”. Thus, there is no “mind” to worry about, only the social context that the individual inhabits and in which meaning is constructed in collaboration with others. Gone is the dualistic “mind” vs. external “reality” distinction that so troubled our eminent scholars. However, they may have gotten rid of the problematic language, but did they get rid of the problem? The fact of the matter is that this notion that there is a very personal dimension to our conceptualization of “reality” has a lot of credence. In fact, it’s something that we run into quite regularly. Remember all those times that someone said something that you thought you understood only to later realize that you understood it entirely differently than the speaker intended? How can that happen? You are both inhabiting the same “reality”, are you not?

Even though Vygotsky and his colleagues managed to avoid much of the dualistic mind vs. reality language, as they intended, the persistence of the underlying world-view (which is just a layman’s term for “metaphysics”) proved more problematic. Vygotsky, himself, used the term “internalization” in his later writings to describe how children appropriate knowledge, i.e. make it their own. That’s a dualistic way of describing learning if I ever heard one.

Although CHAT is purported to avoid the dualistic divide seperating the individual from the environment, researchers need to be aware that it does not resolve the issue. Even when viewing activities within social contexts through the CHAT lens we need to be aware, just as Vygotsky, himself, was, that individuals will bring their own personal experiential reality to bear on the interpretation of the significance and meaning of the mediating artifacts. CHAT helps us to focus on constructions of shared meaning in social contexts, but we need to also allow for multiple interpretations at a personal level and consider how these affect the activity being studied.

CHAT as an analytical framework
The basic CHAT framework developed by Vygotsky and colleagues is a descriptive framwork intended to illustrate their basic theory of activity systems. However, it lacks the sophistication needed to be useful as an analytical framework. Engeström has addressed these limitations and developed CHAT as an analytical tool for studying collective activity involving mediating artifacts. His primary contribution is the addition of the “community” as a key component of the activity system alongside the individual and the object of the activity. This brings the socio-cultural dimensions that define and regulate activity within the context being studied into the framework; in particular the rules, norms and divisions of labor that govern activity in a given context. Engeström’s extended CHAT framework is illustrated below. The upper part of the triangle is the same as Vygotsky’s basic triangle. The lower part includes Engeström’s additions to the model.

Engeström’s addition of the community to the CHAT framework allows us to examine how activity is mediated through artifacts while being facilitated or constrained by social norms and roles. Thus, using the extended CHAT framework, researchers can identify contradictions within the activity system that can be resolved to improve outcomes.

Researchers using the CHAT framework have published numerous studies that demonstrate its analytical validity and practicality. To name just a few examples:

• Cole & Engeström (1993) describe the application of the extended CHAT framework to a reading acquisition activity and to a study of medical work in a Finnish health center. In both studies, the CHAT analytical framework helped to identify systemic contradictions which, once addressed, led to significant improvements.
• Brown & Cole (2008) applied the CHAT framework to the implementation of the “Fifth Dimension” after-school program in multiple contexts. They found that very different tensions affected implementation in the contexts studied, demonstrating the importance of the community dimension in regards to activity systems.
• Engeström (1994) describes a study involving a team of teachers who were tasked with the development of an innovative global-education program. Using the CHAT framework, the researcher was able to demonstrate how team-members’ limited use of mediating artifacts hampered progress.

What these (and many more examples that I’ve not included here) show is the flexibility of the CHAT analytical framework. Since the framework builds on a comprehensive systematic overview of complex activities it helps researchers to zoom in on specific dimensions of an activity to identify opportunities or weaknesses and to assess them in relation to the activity as a whole and the context in which it occurs.

CHAT and intermediate outcomes of technology foresight programs
The intermediate outcomes of TFPs are realized in organizational contexts which do not directly interface with the programs themselves. For these outcomes to occur there needs to be a transfer of new knowledge and meaning from the context of the programs themselves to organizational contexts. Using the CHAT framework we can diagram the transfer process as a social activity in which the immediate outcomes of the program are the mediating artifacts, individual program participants are the subjects, and the object is to produce organizational change. Using Engeström’s extended activity triangle to account for the rules, norms, and divisions of labor within the organization in which the activity occurs, the diagrammed activity looks like this:

Here, then, we have the basic diagram of what we expect to happen. The individual that participated in the TFP initiates the activity and presents the mediating artifacts. The mediating artifacts include all of the immediate outcomes of the TFP: the substantive, communicative, and subjective. The question is then, what processes are initiated in this activity system to facilitate the realization of the the object? Also, what conflicts in the organizational context (the extended “community” part of the triangle) hinder the activity? On the whole, what we are looking for is evidence of dialogical activities in which the meanings represented by the mediating artifacts are considered, negotiated, and reframed to suit the organizational context. Rules, norms, and divisions of labor should be carefully coordinated to not work against the objective. The extended triangle shows quite clearly what sorts of things we have to consider, for example:

• What opportunities does the subject have to introduce the mediating artifacts to the organizational context?
• By what authority will changes in organizational practice be implemented?
• How are the mediating artifacts used to facilitate dialogue?
• How is new meaning and knowledge constructed and communicated throughout the organization?

In the answers to these types of questions we should be able to identify strengths and weaknesses within the organizational context that facilitate or hinder the realization of intermediate outcomes of TFPs. A better understanding of how immediate outcomes are transferred to organizational contexts can be very helpful for planning and implementing TFPs. Armed with this knowledge, program planners can lay the groundwork for successful knowledge-transfers in the initial program implementation. Without successful knowledge-transfer to organizational contexts, change processes are likely to be disrupted, which can jeopardize the realization of the long-term goals of the program.

Go to part two, Hypothetica does foresight – an illustrative hypothetical case of CHAT analysis.