What is the Change Lab?
Text by Marco Querol
The purpose of this chapter is to explain what the
Change Lab method is, how it differs from other methods, and what is the
philosophical basis?
First, for someone who has never heard about the
method, the very words "Lab" and "Change" already offer
some clues. "Laboratory" is generally understood as a protected
environment where scientists conduct experiments and research.
"Change" can be understood as the alteration of something. These two
words, which suggest a space where research and transformation are combined,
give clues, but require some clarification.
As a method, CL offers a set of analytical
instruments, concepts, theories and models that help both the
researcher/interventionist and the participants to develop agency and transform
their activity. Here it is interesting to differentiate between CL and the
Historical-cultural Theory of Activity (CHAT). CL uses concepts, theories,
models, principles of Activity Theory (CHAT), but it is a method that combines
research and development of one or more activity systems.
It is important to emphasize that, although it was
used for organizational development, CL is originally a research method, aimed
at producing knowledge about a specific activity. Unlike conventional
laboratories, in CL knowledge is carried out collaboratively with participants,
where participants act simultaneously to generate knowledge and promote
transformation.
To understand the CL, I find it interesting to refer
to Karl Marx's second thesis from 1845, in the publication Theses on
Feuerbach: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in
different ways; what matters is to transform it." The idea of an CL is
precisely to combine two objects: to produce knowledge and solve social
problems.
Definition of an CL
From a practical point of view, a Change Lab can also
be understood as a physical and social space where an analysis, modeling and
development of work takes place. Physically, CL usually happens close to the shop
floor or work environment. This space should be located in a way that is
accessible to the participants, so that they feel part of the intervention and
perceive its relevance in relation to their own work. However, it is essential
that this space is protected — in order to ensure a safe environment where
people can express themselves freely, without fear of reprisals. It is also a
social space, where individuals gather to collectively analyze their activity.
The physical configuration of these spaces, as well as their social composition
(who participates, how they organize), is an important issue and will be
addressed later.
For someone who is just passing by and sees a meeting
of an CL, or for those who participate for the first time, the initial
impression may be that it is just another meeting, or perhaps a sequence of
meetings or workshops. However, something different is soon noticed: the use of
representational models, such as triangles, schemes and conceptual graphics.
These models are not there by chance — they play a central role in the process,
helping participants to represent, analyze, and transform the activity in question.
CL is based on the Historical-Cultural Theory of
Activity, a theoretical approach originated in Russian psychology, which began
with Lev Vygotsky in the 1930s and spread in the West from the 1980s onwards.
Initially, this theory was used to understand psychological phenomena, such as
the formation of so-called higher psychological processes, such as memory and
consciousness. At the end of the last century, the theory began to
be used not only to understand, but also to transform collective human
activities. Currently, Activity Theory is applied not only in the area of
education — where it has great influence — but also in fields such as
administration, health and engineering. I will present the theory in more
depth in the next chapter on the theoretical basis of CL. For now, suffice it
to say that the more the researcher-interventionist understands this
theoretical basis, the greater his ability to guide the learning process
towards deeper and more transformative solutions. The paradox, however, is that
theory is truly learned, in practice, both by interpreting the world and by
transforming it.
My definition is that CL is a production activity of
another activity. In other words, it is an activity whose object is another
activity. It is considered an activity because it is composed of learning
actions (e.g., questioning, analysis, modeling, examination, implementation,
evaluation, and consolidation) carried out by a collective, with the aim of
transforming the object of an existing activity. Being an activity, it involves
people who act according to rules and a division of tasks, takes place in a physical
and social space and is mediated by tools integrated with the
Historical-Cultural Theory of Activity. This conception encompasses all the
previous definitions: CL as a method, as a physical space, and as a social
space.
Differences
between an CL and linear interventional methods
A deeper look at the method reveals two important
differences from other methods that make it both especially powerful and
challenging to implement. These differences are related to their theoretical
basis and the principles of a formative intervention. To understand these differences, let's
compare CL with a linear intervention method called experiments, design, and
the notion of action research.
An interventional research approach is the so-called
design experiments (design experiments in English). This approach adopts
as a unit of analysis dynamic learning environments. These environments are
defined as systems composed of components such as students, teachers,
resources, and class activities that interact in ways that lead to both stabilization
and destabilization of the system . As pointed
out by Engeström, this unit of analysis remains vague because the relationship
between the components is not defined. Another characteristic of design
experiments is that the experiment is designed by the researcher, and
implemented by the teachers. The context is not questioned by teachers and
students, and it is up to them to implement what was designed. These
interventions are based on closure and control. In this approach, researchers
determine the principles and objectives that must be followed to achieve
perfection. This view ignores the agency of professionals, students, and users.
Norman Long: Based on a reflection on the failure of
developmental interventions in poor countries, it led to the emergence of
criticism in the 1980s. Krippendorff (1999) draws our attention to the fact
that social theories can and usually do serve the purpose of social control,
eroding human agency has been lost due to what the author calls oppressive
theories. Against this backdrop, new
research and intervention approaches have emerged based on the learning process
approach that assume that neither the end nor the means of social
interventions can be known in advance, and that understanding and consensus
about them must be built from practical experience. This approach assumes that
mistakes are made and failures often occur, and therefore constant evaluation
is needed to improve the outcomes of interventions.
The CL follows the logic of what is called formative
interventions, where the starting point is open. It is the participants who
define and analyze the problem and create the solutions. Engeström (2011) presents four points that
differentiate formative interventions from linear interventional research. They
are:
1.
The starting
point. In linear interventions, the contents and objectives of the intervention
are known in advance by the researchers. In contrast, in formative
interventions, the participants are the ones who analyze the problems, define
the contradictions, and construct a new object that is not known beforehand
either by the participants or by the researchers.
2.
Process. In
linear interventions, the process is already predefined in advance, and it is
up to the participants to execute without resistance. In a formative intervention, the idea is the
opposite, that the participants take the reins and take over the process of
change. Despite having a plan, it is not rigid, but open to negotiation and
change, according to the participants.
3.
The result. In
linear interventions, the result is predefined that is achieved from the
implementation of a plan that must be followed without deviations. In training
interventions, the result is open. It is not known in advance what will be
produced, the general idea is only to analyze contradictions and generate
solutions to solve them. To this end, the empowerment of the participants is
promoted so that they themselves become agents of change.
4.
The role of the
researcher. In linear interventions, the researcher controls so that there are
no deviations from the plans or the results. In formative interventions, the
researcher is a mediator or facilitator, who seeks to provoke the participants
so that they are agents of transformation.
Following the four points of differentiation of a
linear intervention and a formative intervention presented above, we note that
an action research shares many similarities with methodologies called formative
intervention. For comparison purposes I will briefly bring up the 'training
groups', which was the first action research, conducted by Kurt Lewin and
colleagues in the 1940s.
The training group intervention is very interesting and deserves to be read,
as it brings several ideas and innovations regarding how to conduct and
stimulate learning in groups. Implemented in Connecticut, in the United States,
it had the general objective of developing the capacity of community
representatives to deal with issues of racial inclusion. The participants,
using psychodrama techniques, defined their problems, and collectively built
and implemented solutions. As in CL, in Training groups, the problem was
not given but developed by the participants. By applying psychodrama as a tool
to stimulate discussions and analyses, although not explicit or conscious, in
my view the participants used the double stimulation method. In this case, one
of the biggest differences with CL is in the second stimuli. In training
groups there is no explicit theoretical unit of analysis that allows
participants to conceptualize and analyze the elements of their system. There
is also a lack of a concept or theory that explains the changes. Problems and
practices are seen as if they had always existed. Without these tools, there is
a risk of not addressing the historical roots of the problem, and not seeing
them as systemic and historical. Both the object of analysis and the problems
are understood as data, as if they had always existed. Therefore, in summary, training groups,
despite being open, multivocal, participatory and using double stimulation in a
certain way (see chapter 3), they lack tools that allow a historical and
systemic analysis, and consequently, it is more difficult to arrive at
expansive solutions.
The term action research is broad and refers to the
idea of combining research and social transformation, and not particularly to a
specific method. In order to
differentiate formative interventions such as CL from linear interventions and
participatory interventions that lack a theoretical unit of analysis and do not
offer tools to promote expansive learning, Engeström (2011) proposes four
principles that, according to him, define what a formative intervention is.
These are: (a) the activity system as a unit of analysis, (b) contradictions as
a source of change and development, (c) agency as a layer of causality, and (d)
transformation as expansion. These principles will be dealt with in the next
chapter in which I present the theoretical basis.
In addition to CL, there are other methods of
formative intervention (Sannino, 2011). Among these we can highlight Yves Clot's Activity
Clinic, Michael Cole's Fifth Dimension, Aydin Bal's Learning Lab, among others.
References
ENGESTRÖM,
Y. From design
experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, vol.
21, no. 5, p. 598–628, 2011.
ENGESTRÖM,
Y.; PIHLAJA, J.; VIRKKUNEN, J.; HELLE, M.; POIKELA, R. The Change Laboratory as a tool for
transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, v. 1, n. 2, p. 10–17,
1996.
Magee,
B. História da
Filosofia. 5.
ed. São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 1999.
QUEROL,
M. A. P.; JACKSON FILHO, J. M.; CASSANDRE, M. P. Change Laboratory: a methodological proposal
for research and development of organizational learning. Administration:
Teaching and Research, v. 12, n. 4, p. 609–640, 2011.
SCHÜLER,
Márcia Elizabéte. Laboratory
of Change in the Military Police of Santa Catarina: mapping and facing
contradictions in the activity and its manifestations in the workplaces. 2024. Thesis (Doctorate in Public
Health) – School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2024.
TOLMAN,
C. The metaphysic
of relations in Klaus Riegel's 'Dialectics' of human development. Human
Development, v. 24, n. 1, p. 33–51, 1981.
Virkkunen,
J. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of
work and education. Springer Science & Business Media.
ZANOTTI,
F. Mental
suffering in military police work: a formative intervention research. 2024. Thesis (Doctorate in Public
Health) – School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo.
Available at:
https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/6/6143/tde-02122024-134031/. Accessed
on: 24 jul. 2025.
Comentários
Postar um comentário