This paper contributes to the study of residents’ and civil servants’ transformative agency in urban development with the aid of the framework of cultural-historical activity theory. The aim is to investigate the emergence of transformative agency in five workshops, based on the method of Change Laboratory <sup>®</sup> , in the city of Espoo, Finland. The formative intervention focused on exploring the collaboration of residents and actors in urban development. The workshop discussions were analysed with the help of the manifestations of contradictions in neighbourhood development connected to the expression of the types of transformative agency and elements of the human activity system. This enabled the identification of the topics of the discussions and the development of transformative agency through envisioning the developmental potential of the activity and taking action to transform it. The findings call attention to creating the tools and means to facilitate the participation and building the transformative agency through time.
KeywordsActivity TheoryChange LaboratoryCollaborationTransformative AgencyUrban Development
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Baynes, T. (2009). Complexity in Urban Development and Management. Historical Overview and Opportunities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13, 214-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00123.x
City of Espoo. (2013). Espoolaisten Hyvinvoinnin Tila 2013. [Residents’ Welfare in Espoo 2013]. (Last Checked 9 July 2021) http://www.espoo.fi/download/noname/%7B9E12E7E2-7102-41BB-AFDA-7F58676952D5%7D/40374
Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, Working and Imagining. Twelve Studies in Activity Theory. Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Activity Theory to Work: The Change Laboratory as an Application of Double Stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Company to Vygotsky (pp. 363-382). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521831040.015
Engeström, Y. (2009). The Future of Activity Theory: A Rough Draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 303-338). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809989.020
Engeström, Y. (2011). From Design Experiments to Formative Interventions. Theory and Psychology, 21, 598-628. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959354311419252
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by Expanding. An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814744
Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in Expansive Learning: Learning What Is Not yet There. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316225363
Engeström, Y., & Sannino A. (2010). Studies on Expansive Learning. Foundations, Findings and Future Challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2013). La Volition et l’Agentivite Transformatrice: Perspective Theorique de l’Activite [Volition and Transformative Agency: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective]. Revue Internationale du CRIRES: Innover dans la Tradition de Vygotsky, 1, 4-19. https://doi.org/10.51657/ric.v1i1.41017 https://revues.ulaval.ca/ojs/index.php/RIC/article/view/41017
Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the Methodological Demands of Formative Interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21, 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868
Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). Change Laboratory as a Tool for Transforming Work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1, 10-17.
Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976167
Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The Emergence of Learner’s Transformative Agency in a Change Laboratory Intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29, 232-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900168
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Town Planning Review, 63, 143. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821
Hirvonen, J. (2011). Suvela Tilastoissa ja Asukkaiden Kokemana. [Suvela in Statistics and Residents’ Experiences]. Aalto University Publications TIEDE + TEKNOLOGIA 17/2011. Aalto University. (Last Checked 9 July 2021) https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/5122/isbn9789526042510.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Karaminejad, Z. (2021). The Relationship between Pre-Collaboration and Community Resiliency: A Case of Housing Renewal Project in New Zealand. Current Urban Studies, 9, 279-298. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2021.92018
Lehtinen, T. (2016). Espoo Alueittain 2015: Analyysit Teemoittain ja Suuralueittain. [Espoo in Districts 2015]. Tietoisku 7/2016. City of Espoo. (Last Checked 9 July 2021) http://www.espoo.fi/download/noname/%7B498E81B4-92B3-4A69-808A-DDDD33470E7D%7D/73080
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Prentice Hall.
Local Government Act (410/2015). (Last Checked 9 July 2021) https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2015/en20150410.pdf/
Lund, V., & Juujärvi, S. (2018). Residents’ Agency Makes a Difference in Volunteering in an Urban Neighbourhood. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organization, 29, 756-769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9955-4
Lund, V., & Kerosuo, H. (2019). The Reciprocal Development of the Object of Common Space and the Emergence of the Collective Agency in Residents’ Workshops. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, Article ID: 100327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100327
Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. J. Wiley.
Sannino, A. (2008). From Talk to Action: Experiencing Interlocuting in Developmental Interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 234-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030802186769
Sannino, A. (2015). The Principle of double Stimulation: A Path to Volitional Action. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 6, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.01.001
Steen, T., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). The Dark Side of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Seven Evils. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen and B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-Production and Co-Creation (pp. 284-293). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204956-45
Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in Building Shared Transformative Agency. Activites Revue Electornique, 3, 43-66. https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1850
Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. (2013). The Change Laboratory. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-326-3
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Vänninen, I., Pereira-Querol, M., & Engeström, Y. (2015). Generating Transformative Agency among Horticultural Producers: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Transforming Integrated Pest Management. Agricultural Systems, 139, 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.003