Expansive Learning Process (ELP)

Borrowing from Sannino et al. (2009), expansion relates to the transitional process from individual action(s) to new collective activity(ies). If these transitions happen with an objective

transformation intent in the actions/activities and the subjects become aware of and respond to the contradictions in their current activity(ies) in respect to the new form of activity, then it is expansive learning. Engeström (1999: 90) argues that in the process of expansive learning activity systems undergo movement through zones of proximal development which he further described as “…a terrain of constant ambivalence, struggle and surprise…the space for expansive transition from actions to activity”(Engeström, 2000).

The interplay between an individual and society give rise to two manifestations of expansive learning. First and foremost, learning becomes expansive when it contributes to an enlarged room to manoeuvre for the individual whereby new learning possibilities are formed. Lastly, when it is mediated by a division of labour in collaboration, which inherently leads to learning outcomes and forms of societal activity (Donato, 2004; Guberman & Saxe, 2000; Tolman, 1999). In essence, learning occurs whenever a novel practice, artefact, tool, or division of labour at the level of the individual or group within an activity system constitutes a new possibility for others leading to an increase in generalized action possibilities and therefore to collective (organizational, societal, cultural) learning (Putney, Green, Dixon, Durán, & Yeager, 2000; Raeithel, 1996; Roth, 2003b).

Therefore, individual and collective learning are linked by

“transgressing the boundaries of individual subjectivity through immediate cooperation toward the realization of common interests of collective self-determination against dominant partial interests, intersubjective relations in a definite sense reflect collective or rather societal subjectivity” (Holzkamp, 1983: 373).

In this study, the ELP (see Figure 2.7) was used as both a methodological and analytical tool to surface (Learning Action 1-2) and engage with (Learning Action 3-7 in the ELP model) the multidimensional complexities faced by the farmers’ activity systems towards household food security. According to Engeström (2009a) the core idea of expansive learning lies in the fact that learners collectively learn something that is not yet there, model and experiment with the new practice. The expansive learning process was employed using change laboratory workshops which broadly follow Engeström and Sannino’s Expansive Learning Cycle presented in Figure 2.7. One advantage of the change laboratories as noted by Sannino, Engeström, and Lemos (2016) is the idea of productive deviations from the interventionist anticipations which yields both significant

practical and theoretical outcomes.

Figure. 2.7: Expansive Learning Process

Source: Adopted from Engeström and Sannino (2010: 2)

As shown in Figure 2.7, Expansive Learning Process (ELP) is a cycle and as highlighted in the grey shade, the cycle is not linear but repetitively move forth and back until a common understanding and collective action is achieved. Engeström (2010: 7) explains that,

“the process of expansive learning should be understood as construction and resolution of successively evolving contradictions….The cycle of expansive learning is not a universal formula of phases or stages. In fact, one probably never finds a concrete collective learning process which would cleanly follow the ideal-typical model. The model is a heuristic conceptual device derived from the logic of ascending from the abstract to the concrete.”

As such, ELP is concerned with the learning of new forms of activity as they are created, rather than the mastery of putative stable, well-defined, existing knowledge and skill (Engeström (1987).

In essence, in ELP there is no competent teacher, transformations of individual and collective lives and organizational practices are created and new forms of activity are learned as they are being created (Engeström, 2001: 137-138). Henceforth, there is a strong notion of discovery and implementation of novel solutions (Engeström, 2000b: 526). The derived understanding here is that, learning is not limited to processes of acquisition of skills, knowledge, and behaviours but rather open to the collective finding and implementing future-oriented novel solutions to pressing societal problems. In this study, a historically new form of learning, namely expansive learning of cultural patterns of irrigation that were not yet there, was important (Engeström, 1987: 526).

Secondly, ELP is concerned with collective transformation and transformation itself manifest as a change in the collective system. The object of expansive learning activity is the entire activity system (irrigation system) in which the participants are engaged. Therefore, expansive learning in such collective activity systems such as irrigation schemes happens through relatively long cycles of qualitative transformations as reflected by the grey shading in Figure 2.7. As the inner contradictions of an activity system are aggravated, some individual participants begin to question and deviate from its established norms. This may escalate into “collaborative envisioning and a deliberate collective change effort from below” (Engeström, 2000b: 526).

Thirdly, ELP collective activities reformulates Vygotsky’s conception of zone of proximal development (Engeström, 1987: 27). Vygotsky (1978: 86) defined the zone of proximal development as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” In essence,

“it is the distance between the present everyday actions of the individuals and the historically new

form of the societal activity that can be collectively generated as a solution to the double bind potentially embedded in the everyday actions.” (Engeström, 1987: 174). In essence, ELP focuses on horizontal development rather than vertical development which normally aims at elevating humans upward, to higher levels of competence and commonly understood as learning and development. Engeström (2000b: 533) denounces vertical development as “an outdated relic of enlightenment,” and suggested “constructing a complementary perspective, that of horizontal or sideways learning and development.”

The impetus for change or expansion in the zone of proximal development in the ELP is attributed to inner contradictions from within an activity or between two activities. Here, contradictions are not just inevitable features of activity rather “the principle of its self-movement and (…) the form in which the development is cast” (Ilyenkov 1977: 330). This means that new qualitative stages and forms of activity emerge as solutions to the contradictions of the preceding stage of form in what Engeström (1987: 45) term “invisible breakthroughs”. Engeström described four levels of contradictions as follows:

Level 1: Primary inner contradiction (double nature) within each constituent component of the central activity.

Level 2: Secondary contradictions between the constituents of the central activity.

Level 3: Tertiary contradiction between the objective/motive of the dominant form of the central activity and the object/motive of a culturally more advanced form of the central activity.

Level 4: Quaternary contradictions between the central activity and its neighbour activities (Engeström, 1987: 43-45).

Engeström (1987) explains that redefining of the zone of proximal development occurs in long cycles of qualitative transformations, driven by the above-mentioned inner contradictions of the activity system, which causes individual participants to question established norms as they collectively generate solutions to the double bind. Furthermore, as the

“collective activity systems move through relatively long cycles of qualitative transformations, the inner contradictions of an activity system are aggravated, some individual participants may begin to question and deviate from its established norms and this can escalate into collaborative envisioning and a deliberate collective change effort from below” (Engeström, 2000b: 526).

The derived understanding is that, repeated iterations of the seven steps (see Figure. 2.7: Expansive Learning Process) form an “expansive cycle or spiral” (Engeström, 2000b: 7), and facilitate the ascension of the activity patterns from the abstract to the concrete. According to Engeström (2010:

5) this “method of grasping the essence of an object by tracing and reproducing theoretically the logic of its development, of its historical formation through the emergence and resolution of its inner contradictions” is abstraction by nature and the “abstraction is step-by-step enriched and transformed into a concrete system of multiple, constantly developing manifestations.”

For instance, in this case of irrigation farmers learning to produce crops, the initial simple idea is then transformed into a complex object, into a new form of practice and via the Expansive Learning Cycle, the object and motive of the activity are reconceptualized to allow for greater possibility and flexibility than in the previous pattern of activity. As the expansive transformation is being accomplished the “object and motive of the activity are reconceptualized to embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities” (Engeström, 2000b: 526). Engeström (2001: 137) suggests that, the full cycle of expansive transformation must be understood as a “collective journey through the zone of proximal development of the activity”.

2.4 EXPLICATING THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL NATURE OF FOOD SECURITY AND