Learning Across Sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices - Earli

For EARLI members only.
Not for onward distribution.
46 Y. Engeström and H. Toiviainen
From episode 6
1 Sof1: I think this is now (.) a phase where – So is there a kind of core
on which it is every time done, is it this “wall table” or this one
including the “past present future,” around which every time,
kind of, that could be if we think about the tool, [Res: Yes] so
a kind of the core of the tool
2 Res: Yes, ri- right actually you could say it is [Tec1: Okay.] it is right
in the focus of use and it is elaborated [Tec1: Mm.] all the time
so yes it is . . .
3 Sof1: . . . So it would be somehow on the screen if it’s now on the
wall it would then be on the screen, and around it, it is filled in
with these other tools or somehow . . .
This suggestion by the software designer (turns 1 and 3) gained support from an
in- house developer, from the researcher, and from others as well. It was followed
by approving words “yes,” “right,” “that’s what I mean.” The software designer
was elaborating the idea of putting the 3 × 3 wall table (see Figure 3.1) into the
center of the design by arguing that it would integrate both the structure and
the process of the Change Laboratory into the design (which was the idea of the
matrix tool as well). The object of collaborative design began to take shape and,
simultaneously, seemed to provide a model for the design procedure. A sense
of shared understanding and innovation was expressed in overlapping talk in an
enthusiastic tone.
From episode 6
25 Dev1: (-–) one could say that once it is clear [what is done in each
CL- phase], then ask what are the tools [Tec1: Yeah!], yes, [Res:
Mm.] and then we could think a little bit what are the future
tools. [Tec1: Yes. Yes (–)] Something. [Res: Yeah.] And then
return to this #
[A lot of overlapping talk]
This is not “coming downwards” as was phrased in episode 3.1 when the team was
dealing with the design dilemma, but “returning” to the 3 × 3 table after discussing
the learning tools connected to each phase of the CL process. This episode was a
breakthrough in defining at least tentatively the core of the design, the object of
collaboration beyond the design deadlock resulting from the dichotomy between
innovative and existing tools. At least in this case, an expansion of the object of
design involved crossing the boundary between the languages of technology and
research.
The participants agreed on a two- step procedure: (1) studying the Change
Laboratory process step by step and deciding which tools are needed in each phase;