Reconsidering Y. Engeström's Methodology of Formative Intervention from the Perspective of the Formative Relationship between Practice and Research
- Other Title
- Y. エンゲストロームの形成的介入の方法論 : 教育実践と調査・研究の形成的関係に向けて
- Y.エンゲストローム ノ ケイセイテキ カイニュウ ノ ホウホウロン : キョウイク ジッセン ト チョウサ ・ ケンキュウ ノ ケイセイテキ カンケイ ニ ムケテ
Search this article
Education researchers have long been interested in the relationship between practice and research. The purpose of this paper was to reconsider this relationship through a critical review of cultural historical activity theory, especially focusing on the works of Y. Engeström. First, I present an overview of the history of cultural historical activity theory. This is followed by a discussion of "developmental work research" and the method (change laboratory) used in Engeström's project. Third, I discuss the methodology of formative intervention adopted by Engeström and that of double stimulation by Vygotsky in laboratory experiments, which is the source of formative intervention. Engeström himself considered the methodology of double stimulation and reactivated it as that of formative intervention. The practices engaged by Engeström, however, were not laboratory experiments but collaborative practice with practitioners. This study indicated that Engeström had not developed his methodology fully because he underestimated the role of the researcher. Engeström actually pointed out that researchers could aim "at provoking and sustaining an expansive transformation process led and owned by the practitioners, " but this was meant as an in-practice role, not an out-of-practice role that could open up practices to society, make them accountable, and share responsibility among them. In conclusion, for the construction of a formative relationship between practice and research, it is important for practitioners and researchers to consider both in-practice and out-of-practice roles of researchers.
- Kyoto University Research Studies in Education
Kyoto University Research Studies in Education 58 453-465, 2012-04-27