Learning for the complex object of work in a digital printing network

Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2018, vol. 23, iss. 2, pp. [25]-42
Extent
[25]-42
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type
Article
Language
English
License: Not specified license
Abstract(s)
This article investigates the learning of a digital printing network that was seeking sustainable collaboration in the textile, clothing, and interior printing industry. Digitalization is transforming work, giving rise to new types of networks and creating learning challenges for participants. The object of digital printing activity becomes heterogeneous, open-ended, and indefinite. The concept of the complex object of work, which is based on cultural-historical activity theory, is introduced to examine the dynamics between the digitalization of work and network learning. Data were collected at the starting phase of the network collaboration, when participants discussed the future object of the digital printing activity. The participants were involved in design, textile manufacturing, digital printing, vocational education, and research, and consumer-customers were also represented. The authors argue that revealing the complexity of the object of work on multiple levels of learning is crucial to enhancing innovation in the networks of the digital age.
Note
  • The research for this paper was financially supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation (TEKES grant number 40318/14).
Document
References:
[1] Alasoini, T., Lahtonen, M., Rouhiainen, N., Sweins, C., Hulkko-Nyman, K., & Spangar, T. (Eds.). (2011). Linking theory and practice: Learning networks at the service of workplace innovation . Report 75, TYKES. Helsinki: Tekes. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/gfbertini/docs/linking_theory_and_practice_-_learning_networks_at

[2] Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis . In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 222–248). London: Sage.

[3] Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Engeström, Y. (2016). Foreword . In Gedera, D. & Williams, P. J. (Eds.), Activity theory in education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

[5] Engeström, Y., & Blackler, F. (2005). On the life of the object. Introduction . Organization, 12(3), 307–330.

[6] Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[7] Engeström, Y., Puonti, A., & Seppänen, L. (2003). Spatial and temporal expansion of the object as a challenge for reorganizing work . In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach, (pp. 151–186). New York: ME Sharpe.

[8] Fenton, H. M., & Romano, F. J. (1997). On-demand printing: The revolution in digital and customized printing . Pittsburgh: GATF Press.

[9] Fletcher, K. (2014). Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys (2nd ed.) . New York: Routledge.

[10] Fragidis, G., Tarabanis, K., Koumpis, A. (2007). Conceptual and business models for customer-centric business ecosystems . In Hussain, F. K. & Chang, E., Proceedings of Digital EcoSystems and Technologies Conference DEST ‘07 (pp. 94–99). Cairns: IEEE.

[11] Gebler, M., Uiterkamp, A. J. S., & Visser, C. (2014). A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies . Energy Policy, 74, 158–167. | DOI 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.033

[12] Gold, R., & Bode, E. (2017). Adult training in the digital age . Economics Discussion Papers, No. 2017-54. Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/167687

[13] Gustavsen, B. (2011). The Nordic model of work organization . Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(4), 463–480. | DOI 10.1007/s13132-011-0064-5

[14] Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives . Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[15] Harteis, C. (Ed.). (2017). The impact of digitalization in the workplace: An educational view . Cham: Springer.

[16] Hirscher, A.-L., Niinimäki, K., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2017). Social manufacturing in the fashion sector: New value creation through alternative design strategies? Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4544–4554. | DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.020

[17] Jalonen, M., Ristimäki, P., Toiviainen, H., Pulkkis, A., & Lohtander, M. (2016). Between product development and mass production: Tensions as triggers for concept-level learning . Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(1), 33–48. | DOI 10.1108/JWL-04-2014-0027

[18] Knorr Cetina, K. (2016). Objectual practice . In M. Mazzotti (Ed.), Knowledge as social order: Rethinking the sociology of Barry Barnes, (pp. 97–112). New York: Routledge.

[19] Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

[20] Marx, K. (1986). Capital: A critique of political economy. The process of production of capital (Vol. 1) . Moscow: Progress Publishers.

[21] Miettinen, R., & Paavola, S. (2018). Beyond the distinction between tool and sign: Objects and artefacts in human activity . In A. Rosa & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 148–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[22] Nelson, S. B., Jarrahi, M. H., & Thomson, L. (2017). Mobility of knowledge work and affordances of digital technologies . International Journal of Information Management, 37(2), 54–62. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.11.008

[23] Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in crossdisciplinary collaboration . Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. | DOI 10.1287/orsc.1110.0664

[24] OECD. (2016). Automation and independent work in digital economy. Policy brief on the future of work . Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/Policy%20brief%20-%20Automation%20and%20Independent%20Work%20in%20a%20Digital%20Economy.pdf

[25] Paavola, S., & Miettinen, R. (in press). Dynamics of design collaboration: BIM models as intermediary digital objects . Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[26] Parsons, J. L., & Campbell, J. R. (2004). Digital apparel design process: Placing a new technology into a framework for the creative design process . Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22(1–2), 88–98. | DOI 10.1177/0887302X0402200111

[27] Toiviainen, H. (2003). Learning across levels: Challenges of collaboration in a small-firm network . Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

[28] Toiviainen, H. (2007). Interorganizational learning across levels – An object-oriented approach . Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(4), 343–358. | DOI 10.1108/13665620710777093

[29] Tyler, D. J. (2005). Textile digital printing technologies . Textile Progress, 37(4), 1–65. | DOI 10.1533/tepr.2005.0004

[30] Welford, R. (2013). Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development . New York: Routledge.

[31] Whelan, E., Teigland, R., Donnellan, B., & Golden, W. (2010). How Internet technologies impact information flows in R&D: Reconsidering the technological gatekeeper . R&D Management, 40(4), 400–413. | DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00610.x

[32] Whitbread, D. (2009). The design manual . Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.