BCL logo

Technical Reports

Vol. 2

A historical analysis method for studies based on the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory

Submitted
October 9, 2025
Published
2025-10-09

Abstract

This study presents a historical analysis method grounded in the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), developed to reconstruct the developmental trajectory of an activity system. The method integrates the principle of historicity to identify critical events and phases of development. Based on the case of the Sustainable Swine Production Program (3S Program), the study demonstrates how historical events can be interpreted through analytical concepts such as period, historical events, critical events, phases of development, and the model of an activity system, revealing transformations in its object and structure. The theoretical contribution of the method lies in the operationalization of the principle of historicity in empirical research and in providing analytical tools to understand long-term changes in work activities. From a methodological perspective, the historical analysis method proposed herein offers researchers a systematic approach for examining data generated through formative interventions, such as those conducted within the Change Laboratory. From a practical standpoint, the method offers a framework for researchers and practitioners to analyze and support transformative processes in various contexts for the development of work and the resolution of social problems.

References

  1. Cambridge Dictionary. (2025, outubro 1). History. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/history
  2. Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula. Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education. Volume 2. ERIC.
  3. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Devel-opmental Research. (V. 1). Orienta-Konsultit.
  4. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Em R.-L. Punamäki, R. Miettinen, & Y. Engeström (Org.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (p. 19–38). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003
  5. Engeström, Y. (2008). Disturbance Management and Masking in a Television Production Team. In: From Teams to Knots: Activity-Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. https://resolve.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/from-teams-to-knots/disturbance-management-and-masking-in-a-television-production-team/7637C90803D362A4F84862BD3C494FE7
  6. Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (2005). Putting activity theory to work: Con-tributions from developmental work research (V. 13). Lehmanns Media.
  7. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
  8. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organ-izational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of organizational change management, 24(3), 368–387.
  9. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change la-boratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.
  10. Helle, M. (2000). Disturbances and contradictions as tools for understanding work in the newsroom. Scandinavian journal of information systems, 12(1), 7.
  11. Kajamaa, A. (2012). Enriching action research with the narrative approach and activity theory: Analyzing the consequences of an intervention in a public sector hospital in Finland. Educational Action Research, 20(1), 75–93.
  12. Mäkitalo, J. (2005). Work-related well-being in the transformation of nursing home work. University of Oulu.
  13. Miranda, C. R. de. (2005). Avaliação de estratégias para sustentabilidade da suinocultura [Tese de Doutorado]. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
  14. Poole, M. S., Ven, A. H. V. de, Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational Change and Innovation Processes: Theory and Methods for Research. Oxford University Press.
  15. Querol, M. A. P. (2011). Learning Challenges in Biogas Production for Sustainability: An activity theoretical study of a network from a swine industry chain. University of Helsinki, Institute of Behavioural Sciences.
  16. Querol, M. A. P., & Seppänen, L. (2009). Learning as changes in activity systems: The emergence of on-farm biogas production for carbon credits. Outlook on AGRICULTURE, 38(2), 147–155.
  17. Querol, M. A. P., & Seppänen, L. (2012). Finding disturbances in on-farm biogas production. WORK, 41(S1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0139-81
  18. Querol, M. A. P., Suutari, T., & Seppänen, L. (2010). Learning as the construction and re-mediation of activity systems: Environmental management in biogas production. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 16(4), 373–384.
  19. Sannino, A., & Engeström, Y. (2018). Cultural-historical activity theory: Founding insights and new challenges. Cultural-historical psychology, 14(3), 43–56.
  20. Scribner, S. (1985). Vygotsky’s uses of history. Em In Wertch, J. V. (Eds.) Culture, commu-nication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (p. 119–145). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Sewell Jr, W. H. (1996). Historical events as transformations of structures: Inventing revo-lution at the Bastille. Theory and society, 25(6), 841–881.
  22. Toiviainen, H. (2003). Learning across levels: Challenges of collaboration in a small-firm network.
  23. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative de-velopment of work and education. Springer Science & Business Media.