Cultural historical activity and expansive learning theories were employed in a retrospective case study to investigate implementer learning and how knowledge is co-created in the early stage of an inter-agency partnership supported with developmental evaluation. Data collection methods were semi-structured qualitative interviews, evaluator field notes of implementer discursive interactions, evaluator log, and ethnographic program observations. Activity system analyses revealed a primary contraction between organizational independence and interdependence, which inhibited program implementation. Learning as negotiated work with conflicts manifesting from this contradiction evolved implementer perspectives and created a new model of interdependent implementer leadership practice. The mediating role of the developmental evaluator involved both reality testing and serving as a neutral mediating presence that supported implementers importing their resources for problem-solving as expansive learning.
ArgyrisCSchönD (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
BaldwinCKLanderR (2019) Developmental evaluator functional role activities and programmatic developments: A case study analysis. American Journal of Evaluation40: 35–54.
3.
CousinsJBChouinardJA (2012) Participatory Evaluation Up Close: An Integration of Research-Based Knowledge. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
4.
DozoisELangloisMBlanchet-CohenN (2010) DE 201: A Practitioner’s Guide to Developmental Evaluation. Montreal, QC, Canada: J. W. McConnell Family Foundation and the International Institute for Child Rights and Development.
5.
EdwardsA (2009) From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In:SanninoADanielsHGutiérrezKD (eds) Learning and Expanding With Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197–211.
6.
EngeströmY (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In:EngeströmYMiettinenRPunamäkiR-L (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 377–404.
7.
EngeströmY (2004) New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning16(1–2): 11–21.
8.
EngeströmY (2005) Developmental Work Research: Expanding Activity Theory in Practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
9.
EngeströmY (2008) From Teams to Knots: Activity-Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
EngeströmY (2011) Activity theory and learning at work. In:MallochMCairnsLEvansK, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning. London: SAGE, 86–104.
11.
EngeströmY (2015) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, 2nd edn.New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
EngeströmYSanninoA (2010) Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review5: 1–24.
13.
EngeströmYEngeströmRKärkkäinenM (1995) Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction5(4): 319–36.
14.
EngeströmYNummijokiJSanninoA (2012) Embodied germ cell at work: Building an expansive concept of physical mobility in home care. Mind, Culture, and Activity19: 287–309.
15.
EngeströmYRantavuoriJKerosuoH (2013) Expansive learning in a library: Actions, cycles and deviations from instructional intentions. Vocations and Learning6: 81–106.
16.
FalmagneRJ (1995) The abstract and the concrete. In: MartinLMNelsonKTobachE (eds) Sociocultural Psychology: Theory and Practice of Doing and Knowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205–28.
17.
FenwickT (2007) Organisational learning in the “knots”: Discursive capacities emerging in a school-university collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration45(2): 138–53.
18.
FenwickTEdwardsRSawchuckP (2011) Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the Socio-Material. London: Routledge.
19.
GambleJAA (2008) A Developmental Evaluation Primer. Montreal, QC, Canada: J. W. McConnell Family Foundation.
20.
HaaspasaariAEngestromYKerosuoH (2016) The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work29(2): 232–62.
21.
IlyenkovEV (2008 [1982]) The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s Capital. Delhi, India: Aakar Books.
22.
IvaldiSScarattiG (2016) The formation of germ cell for organizational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning28(4): 224–44.
23.
IvaldiSScarattiGNutiG (2015) The practice of evaluation as an evaluation of practices. Evaluation21(4): 497–512.
24.
LabinSNDuffyJLMeyersDC (2012) A research synthesis of the evaluation capacity building literature. American Journal of Evaluation33(3): 307–38.
25.
LamCYShulhaLM (2015) Insights on using developmental evaluation for innovating: A case study on the cocreation of an innovative program. American Journal of Evaluation36(3): 358–74.
26.
LangloisMBlanchet-CohenNBeerT (2013) The art of the nudge: Five practices for developmental evaluators. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation27(2): 39–59.
27.
LaveJWengerE (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LawrenceRBRallisSFDavisLC, et al. (2018) Developmental evaluation: Bridging the gaps between proposal, program, and practice. Evaluation24(1): 69–83.
LingT (2012) Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time. Evaluation18(1): 79–91.
31.
MillerPH (1993) Theories of Developmental Psychology, 3rd edn.New York: W. H. Freeman.
32.
MilnerHR (2012) But what is urban education?Urban Education47(3): 556–61.
33.
PattonMQ (2011a) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: Guilford Press.
34.
PattonMQ (2011b) Essentials of Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35.
PattonMQ (2016a) State of the art and practice of developmental evaluation: Answers to common and recurring questions. In:PattonMQMcKeggKWehipeihanaN (eds) Developmental Evaluation Exemplars: Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 1–24.
36.
PattonMQ (2016b) The developmental evaluation mindset: Eight guiding principles. In:PattonMQMcKeggKWehipeihanaN (eds) Developmental Evaluation Exemplars: Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 289–312.
37.
PattonMQMcKeggKWehipeihanaN (eds) (2016) Developmental Evaluation Exemplars: Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press.
38.
PothCHoweryKPintoD (2011) Addressing the challenges encountered during a developmental evaluation: Implications for evaluation practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation26(1): 39–48.
39.
RallisSFRossmanGB (2000) Dialogue for learning: Evaluator as critical friend. New Directions for Evaluation2000(88): 55–69.
40.
SanninoA (2008a) Experiencing conversations: Bridging the gap between discourse and activity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour38(3): 267–91.
41.
SanninoA (2008b) From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity15: 234–57.
42.
SanninoADanielsHGutiérrezKD (2009) Activity theory between historical engagement and future-making practice. In:SanninoADanielsHGutierrezKD (eds) Learning and Expanding With Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–15.
43.
StetsenkoA (2005) Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity12(1): 70–88.
44.
SzijartoBCousinsJB (2019a) Making space for adaptive learning. American Journal of Evaluation40(2): 160–76.
45.
SzijartoBCousinsJB (2019b) Mapping the practice of developmental evaluation: Insights from a concept mapping study. Evaluation and Program Planning76: 101666.
46.
VenneboKFOttesenE (2015) The emergence of innovative work in school development. Journal of Educational Change16: 197–216.
47.
VirkkunenJNewnhamDD (2013) The Change Laboratory: A Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education. Rotterdam: Sense.
48.
VygotskyLS (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
Yamagata-LynchLC (2010) Activity Systems Analysis Methods: Understanding Complex Learning Environments. New York: Springer.
