Sustainable development requires learning, but the contents of learning are often complex and ambiguous. This requires new integrated approaches from research. It is argued that investigation of people’s learning challenges in every-day work is beneficial for research on sustainable development.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of the paper is to describe a research method for examining learning challenges in promoting sustainable development. This method is illustrated with a case example from organic vegetable farming in Finland.
METHODS:
The method, based on Activity Theory, combines historical analysis with qualitative analysis of need expressions in discourse data.
RESULTS:
The method linking local and subjective need expressions with general historical analysis is a promising way to overcome the gap between the individual and society, so much needed in research for sustainable development.
CONCLUSIONS:
Dialectically informed historical frameworks have practical value as tools in collaborative negotiations and participatory designs for sustainable development. The simultaneous use of systemic and subjective perspectives allows researchers to manage the complexity of practical work activities and to avoid too simplistic presumptions about sustainable development.
BéguinP, DuarteF, LimaF, PueyoV. Activity at work, innovation and sustainable development. Work2012;41(2012):89–94.
2.
HasuM, LeitnerK-H, SolitanderN, VarblaneU. Accelerating the innovation race: Do we need reflexive brakes? In: SveibyK-E, GripenbergP, SegercrantzB, editors. Challenging the Innovation Paradigm. New York and London: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. pp. 87–112.
3.
LoeberA, van MierloB, GrinJ, LeeuwisC. The practical value of theory:conceptualising learning in the pursuit of sustainable development. In: WalsAEJ, editor. Social learning towards a sustainable world. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2007. pp. 83–97.
4.
Pereira-QuerolM. Learning challenges in biogas production for sustainability. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2011.
5.
ToiviainenH. Learning across levels: Challenges of collaboration in a small-firm network. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2003.
6.
SeppänenL. Multiple aspects of sustainability: Exploring societal integration in organic vegetable farming. EGOS [European Group for Organizational Studies] Colloquium, July 2-4, 2000, Helsinki, Finland, 2000.
7.
SeppänenL. Learning challenges in organic vegetable farming. An activity theoretical study of on-farm practices: University of Helsinki, 2004.
8.
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1987.
9.
DochertyP, KiraM, ShaniABR. Sustainable work systems. In: DochertyP, KiraM, ShaniABR, editors. Creating sustainable work systems. London: Routledge, 2009.
10.
FischerK, ZinkK. Defining elements of sustainable work systems – a system-oriented approach. Work: A Journal for Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation2012; 41(2012):3900–5.
11.
AlrøeHF, KristensenES. Sustainability and organic farming. In: ZanoliR, KrellR, editors. Research methodologies in organic farming Proceedings. FiBL, Switzerland: FAO of the UN, Regional Office for Europe, 1998.
12.
EngeströmY, MiettinenR. Introduction. In: EngeströmY, MiettinenR, PunamäkiR-L, editors. Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
13.
Pereira-QuerolMA, SeppänenL, VirkkunenJ. Exploring the developmental possibilities of environmental activities: On-farm biogas production. Environmental Science and Policy2014;37(2014):134–41.
ColeM. Cultural Psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1996.
16.
BaranskiM, Srednicka-ToberD, VolakakisN, SealC, SandersonR, StewardGB, BendbrookC, BiavatiB, MarkellouE, GiotisC, Gromadzka-OstrowskaJ, RembialkowskaE, Skwarlo-SontaK, TahvonenR, JanovskaD, NiggliU, NicotP, LeifertC. Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: A systematic literature review and meta-analyses. British Journal of Nutrition2014;(112):794–811.
17.
MondelaersK, AertsensJ, Van HuylenbroeckG. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. British Food Journal2009;111(10):1098–112.
18.
SeppänenL, HeleniusJ. Do inspection practices in organic agriculture serve organic values? A case study from Finland. Agriculture and Human Values2004;21(1):1–13.
19.
EngeströmY, SanninoA. Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts. A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management2011;24(3):368–87.
20.
SeppänenL, FrancisC. Design of farmer education and training in organic agriculture. In: KristansenP, TajiA, ReganoldJ, editors. Organic agriculture: A global perspective: CSIRO Publishing, 2006. pp. 407–19.
21.
KaltoftP. Values about nature in organic farming practice and knowledge. Sociologia Ruralis2001;39(1):39–53.
22.
KatajamäkiH, KaikkonenR. Maaseudun kolmas tie. [The third path of the countryside]. Seinäjoki: Maaseudun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskus A: 1; 1991.
23.
RoutamaaV, VesalainenJ. Farmers and their entrepreneurial potential. Prodceedings of the University of Vaasa, 1992, Discussion papers151.
24.
EngeströmY. Learning, working and imagining. Twelve studies in activity theory. Jyväskylä: Orienta-Konstultit Oy, 1990.
25.
SanninoA. From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture and Activity2008;15:234–57.
26.
KuismaJ. Talonpojan etiikka. [The peasant ethics]. In: KuismaJ. editor. Maaseutu Euroopan kulttuurievoluutiossa [Countryside in the cultural evolution of Europe]. Raahe: MTK & Talonpoikaiskulttuurisäätiö, 1992.
27.
Leont’evAN. Activity, consciousness, and personality: Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, 1978.
28.
BilligM, CondorS, EdwardsD, GaneM, MiddletonD, ReadleyA. Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. Sage publications, 1988.
29.
EngeströmY. Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical aproach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit, 1987.
30.
Pereira-QuerolM, SeppänenL. Finding disturbances in on-farm biogas production. Work2012;41(2012):81–8.
VesalaKM, RantanenT. Pelkkä puhe ei riitä. Maanviljelijän yrittäjäidentiteetin rakentumisen sosiaalipsykologisia ehtoja. [Mere talk is not enough. Social psychological conditions in construction of entrepreneurship identity of farmers]. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino1999.
34.
Pereira-QuerolM, SeppänenL, Jackson FilhoJM. Understanding the motivational perspectives of sustainability: A case of biogas production. Production2015;25(2):266–77.
35.
MiettinenR. Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture and Activity2005;12(1):52–69.
36.
SeppänenL. Societal integration in organic vegetable farming: Exploring the learning challenges. The Journal of Agricultural Extension and Education2002;8(2):87–100.
37.
SeppänenL, Ala-LaurinahoA, LaunisK, SchauppM. Representing changes in work in and for developmental interventions. 17th World Congress on Ergonomics: Changes, Challenges and Opportunities; August 2009; Beijing, China: Conference Proceedings.
