What can be achieved from a Change Laboratory?

 Potential outcomes and learning from a Change Laboratory

by Marco Antonio Pereira Querol

 mapquero@gmail.com

Some of the first questions a person might ask when encountering the Change Lab (CL) method for the first time—whether during the planning stage or when considering participation in an intervention—are: Why implement or take part in a CL? What outcomes can we expect? What can we learn from it?

The purpose of this post is to discuss what can be gained and learned from a Change Lab intervention. To answer this question, I draw on my own experiences in conducting, supervising and/or monitoring more than two dozen formative interventions at workplaces, both in Brazil and in Finland.

Obviously, there are personal reasons that can lead a person to conduct or participate in an CL, such as curiosity, career advancement, social pressure, need for research, among others. However, here we are interested in the collective and social motivations of the intervention.

The results of a CL can be related to at least three aspects: transformations in activity systems, conceptual learning, and formation of transformative agency. Here I will focus on the first two.

To illustrate the results, I will present an intervention conducted by a colleague, Morgado (2018) in a reintegration center for young people in conflict with the law. In this intervention, carried out in one of the units of the Casa Foundation, in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, the initial problematic situation involved recurrent cases of violence between the center's security workers and adolescents. Faced with this scenario – and knowing the work developed by the research group of the School of Public Health of USP – the Public Ministry of Labor suggested the conduction of a Change Laboratory in one of the units that, at the time, was considered the most problematic: the Campinas unit.

For didactic reasons, I will present the definition of learning used here at the end of the post.

Learnings in the preparation of an intervention

The first learning takes place during the preparation of the intervention. Generally, the starting point of a training intervention is a problematic situation – a problem that does not have an easy or immediate solution. The initial problems that usually motivate the implementation of an CL are situations marked by lack of clarity or by previous attempts at solution that have had little success. Such problems can be of a technical, social or environmental nature.

After the negotiation of an intervention — which, in a very summarized way, involves the explanation and construction, through dialogue with the management, of the object of the intervention — the first stage consists of the collection of the "mirror data" (data that mirror the practices from the activity). This stage aims to gather materials that will be used during the sessions to promote learning and, at the same time, to assist the interventionist-researchers in understanding the history of the organization, its contradictions, its functioning, the actors involved, and in the formulation of hypotheses about possible development paths. This does not mean that these hypotheses will necessarily be presented or will prevail, but rather that they will serve as a preparatory basis to guide the learning process.

After — or even during — the collection of mirror data, the team of researchers meets to discuss the data and perform a pre-analysis. This phase, which can be associated with ethnography or phenomenology, already involves a learning process on the part of researchers. By analyzing the data, the researcher begins to understand the functioning of the activity, its structure, contradictions and possible solutions.

In the case of the intervention described by Morgado (2018), during the collection of mirror data, the interventionist team was able to observe internal incompatibility in terms of infrastructure and contradictory practices. For example, the use of bars and certain procedures contradicted the principles of rehabilitation and education. A conflict between the security team and the social service team was also identified, in addition to complaints by workers about interference by regulatory agencies. According to the reports, these bodies made decisions based only on the point of view of the adolescents, without considering the practical conditions and places of work, nor listening to the professionals of the center.

This learning on the part of the researchers — in which the interventionist team expands its understanding of the problem, the system, the functioning of the activities, their contradictions and possibilities for development — begins, but does not end, during the intervention preparation phase. At this stage, it is predominantly a conceptual learning, still partial and biased. Interventions that, for different reasons, are interrupted in this phase — for example, due to difficulties in negotiation — tend to be limited to the production of publications and the presentation of results at academic events and, at best, to a restricted group of working professionals. Despite its limited impact, the in-depth understanding of the problem by researchers is already a relevant result.

Learning during sessions

The second learning take place during the sessions. The content and sequence of learnings during the sessions vary significantly from one intervention to another. This variation depends on several factors, such as the degree of severity of the problem, its nature, the presence (or not) of conflicts among the participants, the time in which the problem persists, the extent to which the actors have already discussed or tried to solve it, the level of acceptance of the intervention, the current way of conceptualizing the problem, the affinity between the members of the group,  their capacity for reflection and how much they are used to discussing together, among other aspects.

Despite these differences between participants and the variation in the time in which learning occurs, some learning patterns seem to be repeated. Below, I present these learnings in a general logical order, aligned with the typical phases of a CL. However, it is important to highlight that this does not imply that such learning will necessarily occur, nor that they will follow this exact sequence.

The learning during the sessions are:

1) Conceptual Learning

1A. Recognition that there is no silver bullet and that  it is the participants who need to solve the problem — not an outside expert who will come up with a ready-made solution.

1B.  Expansion* of the understanding of the problem, through the formulation of hypotheses about contradictions that can explain the observed manifestations.

1C. Understanding of the current activity system and definition of the activity object**.

1D. Recognition that participants are capable of bringing about change—that is, strengthening collective agency.

1E. Formulation of concrete solutions, including the design of a new object and a new model of the activity system.

2) Structural Transformational Learning

2A. Implementation of solutions, which may involve the introduction of new elements into the activity system or the definition of a new activity object.

2B. Reflection and consolidation of the implemented solutions, evaluating their effectiveness and adjusting the model as necessary.

2C. Dissemination of solutions to other locations or similar contexts, promoting the expansion of the impact of the transformation.

*Expansion is understood as a qualitative change, in which an element acquires new desirable qualities that make it possible to resolve contradictions.

**The object of the activity is, at the same time, what is being transformed – the raw material or initial problem-situation – and the expected result, which aims to satisfy one or more social needs. It is the true social motive to which the actions of the collective are directed. In the example of the intervention presented by Morgado (2018), the object is the adolescent in conflict with the law, who is being transformed into an adolescent reintegrated into society.

---

During the sessions, the participants change the way they understand the elements of the system. Perhaps one of the first reconceptions are related to the problem and to oneself. Through the presentation and discussion of the problems, they can become aware of the seriousness of the problems they face, realizing that there are no ready-made solutions and that it will be up to them to build viable ways to solve them. This learning "learning that there is no ready-made solution and that it is up to us to solve the problem" can generate a cognitive discomfort, because people are used to receiving ready-made solutions developed by an external agent, a consultant, a doctor, a teacher, a priest, a psychologist.  Having to develop a new solution generates cognitive dissonance and consumes time and energy. That's why this learning and commitment is so important during the first few sessions. 

Then, with historical analysis and the exchange of opinions and perspectives during the following sessions, an expansion usually occurs—that is, a qualitative change in the understanding of the roots and causes that generate the challenges faced in the activity. From the understanding of the historical changes in their system, the participants arrive at the second conceptual learning formulation of hypotheses of contradictions that explain the problems observed.

Returning to the example of the intervention conducted by Morgado (2018) in the center for the reintegration of young people in conflict with the law, the Casa Foundation, the participants, during the sessions, began to realize that the way social workers and security guards defined the object (the young person) — and, consequently, their practices and approaches — was contradictory. Although they dealt with the same object, the purposes were different: for the security guards, the objective was contingency, in order to prevent events of violence. To do this, they used practices of intimidation, control and, in some cases, violence. For social workers, the object was education, resocialization and empowerment of young people.

Image: Participants in the intervention of the Change Laboratory at the Casa Foundation (Morgado, 2018).

The participants realized that one group ended up getting in the way of the other's work. The situation was conceptualized by the group through the model of two partially shared activity systems, in which although the object is physically the same (the young person), the teams focus on different aspects and aim for contradictory results.

The example shows another learning—perhaps one of the most important: figuring out what the object is and modeling the activity's system. Often, the subjects involved in an activity perform tasks without being fully aware of why they are doing it, what the social purpose of the actions is, what they are collectively building — that is, the object. In addition, often the activity system as a whole is not clear to the participants. They do not have an explicit vision of what their colleagues do, what actions they take, what tools and practices they use, with what objectives, what rules they follow, among other aspects.

Becoming aware of the object and the system of activity is something revealing — and necessary — in order to formulate hypotheses of contradictions and then design meaningful solutions. Without a clear conception of the object and the system, it is unlikely that the root of the problems will be understood; Consequently, the solutions will tend to be superficial.

Continuing the example, based on the conception of contradictions, the participants redesigned the way they elaborated the Individual Care Plan (IAP) — an interdisciplinary technical institutional instrument that, in principle, should be built by the team collaboratively when the adolescent enters the institution. However, alleging lack of time or opportunity for collaboration, the plan was prepared in a protocol manner only by the technical team, as a necessary bureaucratic document. With the intervention, the IAP was reconceptualized by the participants as a means of collaboration, following the new fundamental principle: listening to the adolescent. From the intervention, the elaboration began to be carried out not only in conjunction with the technical team (educators, social workers and psychologists) and the security guards, but, above all — and more importantly — with the active participation of the young person. The example of the intervention at Fundação Casa illustrates the fifth conceptual lesson: the design of solutions.

In the case of this intervention, the workers had the support of the local management and the concrete possibility of testing and implementing the idealized solutions. This enabled transformational learning, with structural changes in the activity system. In this case, the transformation was in the object, which became in fact shared, in the tool, the PIA, which started to follow a new principle: listening to the young person. This implied a new form of organization and cooperation among professionals.

This new conception of the object, articulated with the artifacts (such as the PIA) and with a new division of labor, led to a significant reduction in episodes of violence in the unit, which was precisely the starting point of the intervention. As a result, the unit — previously considered one of the most problematic — came to be seen as a model within the system.

After the end of the intervention, a co-evaluation and reflection session was organized together with the management, with the aim of systematizing and discussing the possibility of disseminating the pilot created in the intervention. To do this, we adapted the method called Human-Centered Co-evaluation, proposed by Hyytinen, Saari and Elg (2019).

This method is premised on the active participation of the workers who developed the innovation: they present the results obtained to management, which, in turn, evaluates the relevance and feasibility of the proposal, making decisions about its support, continuity or expansion. The methodology seeks to balance the practical knowledge of workers with the strategic requirements of management, promoting a constructive dialogue between different levels of the organization. It is a collaborative evaluation process guided by human values and supported by concrete evidence of practice.

During the co-evaluation session, senior management recognized that the pilot was interesting and the idea promising. However, he pointed out that the diffusion to other units would depend on broader factors, especially legal issues, which would require changes in the current legislation. In addition, it was highlighted that it would be necessary to articulate collaboration with other systems of activity, such as the judicial system and municipal governments, which are responsible for the individual plans of young people in assisted freedom.

Faced with these complexities, interventionist researchers concluded that it would be necessary to carry out a new Laboratory of Change, now involving multiple actors and multiple institutional levels. This approach is characterized as a fourth-generation CL, whose emphasis is precisely on intersectoriality and the transformation of broad socio-technical systems, through collaboration between different organizations for the joint construction of more sustainable solutions.

The evaluation and reflection on the learning, with the objective of disseminating the new model to other locations, also represent important results of the learning process that can occur from a Change Lab. However, as the intervention described above shows, it is a challenging process, as it involves external activity systems that did not participate directly in the initial process.

Scaling up outcomes requires changes at other levels, i.e., the continuity and dissemination of learning within a wider network of activity systems. This shows that the expansive learning process, in order to go through the entire expansive cycle, needs to be sustainable over time. A single intervention is rarely enough. Therefore, researchers must anticipate and plan strategies to ensure continuity, whether through new intervention cycles, inter-institutional articulations, or structural and political support.

Two analytical concepts to understand the results of CL

Learning is a topic discussed at least since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, and I intend to make a post just about the topic. However, here, in order to keep the focus on the changes that can be achieved in a CL, and not on the concept of learning, I limit myself to presenting only the analytical concept that will be used in this analysis.

I anticipate the reader that I will intentionally make a "sin" against dialectics, a philosophical approach that I presented in the previous post about what the CL is. I propose a differentiation between two types or levels of learning that can be observed: conceptual learning (related to knowledge) and structural transformative learning (related to consequential actions to transform the system). 

Conceptual learning refers to a change in how a phenomenon is conceptualized—that is, how something is understood, explained, represented, or categorized. This aspect is sometimes called knowledge, generalization or cognition, and can be expressed discursively and observed in discourses and graphic representations. Although such concepts may appear to be individual or collective, I will not make this differentiation here, because these domains are deeply intertwined: the social is embedded in the individual, just as the individual is embedded in the collective. Language and knowledge themselves are social constructions, although they also have individual origins and manifestations. Conceptual learning, therefore, can refer to any element of the system—subject, object, rules, division of labor, community, expected outcomes, or tools. 

Structural transformative learning refers to changes external to individuals, i.e., in the product or mediating structure of the activity system. Obviously, a concept understood as knowledge about something, can be and is materialized and externalized in shared representations (e.g. models), but here I refer to predominantly material, external/shared and consequential changes. This does not mean that they do not also involve conceptual, internal and cognitive aspects. Structural transformative learning is about the implementation, the application of an idea in practice, involving not only discourse but also consequential actions.

Although they have similarities with the concepts of remediation and expansive learning from Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), I choose to use other terms, as they are distinct phenomena and, thus, avoid confusion for the reader. These CHAT concepts are closer to what I call structural transformational learning. Perhaps the main difference between these two concepts of CHAT, and the two analytical concepts of learning adopted here, is that, in CHAT, learning is simultaneously conceptual and structural, without an explicit separation between these levels.

I recognize — and anticipate criticism — that the two levels of learning are not independent. On the contrary, they are dialectically constituted: they are one and the same thing. There is no concept or knowledge about something without the material and sociocultural structure to which it refers. The abstraction that I propose in separating these two phenomena is necessary for analytical and didactic purposes. This abstraction aims to break down the transformation process to better understand it, identifying intermediate results and allowing reference to what can be directly and empirically observed.

 

References

Hyytinen, K., Saari, E., & Elg, M. (2019). Human-centered co-evaluation method as a means for sustainable service innovations. In M. Toivonen & E. Saari (eds.), Human-Centered Digitalization and Services (pp. 57–75). Springer.

MORGADO, Luciana Pena. Imprisoned violence: contradictions and challenges in the reintegration activity of adolescents in conflict with the law. 2018. 203 f. Thesis (Doctorate in Public Health) – School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2018.