Contradictions as Opportunities for Innovation in the Case of TAVI

  • Bjørn Erik Mørk
  • Jasmina Masovic
  • Gail Greig
  • Davide Nicolini
  • Ole Hanseth
Chapter

Abstract

In Chapter 4, Mørk et al. explore the intrinsically contested, negotiated and contradictory nature of collective work through the case of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). TAVI represents one of a range of new therapies replacing traditional surgery, thus producing tensions between old and new ways of practising. The authors draw upon Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), which views such tensions as potential generators of new forms of practice. The authors suggest that this dialectical view offers a useful counterpoint to approaches to practice where collective activities unfold harmoniously around a common telos, and where learning occurs unproblematically. By exploring the way multiple actors, mediators and activity systems involved in the process converge at some points and diverge at others, contradictions can be considered as signs of development.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This chapter is based on a study funded by the Research Council of Norway (grant no. 210511) and Fulbright Norway. We would also like to express our gratitude to our informants for generously allowing us to closely follow your activities over several years, and to the editors for constructive feedback on how to improve the chapter.

References

  1. Andersen, H. R., Knudsen, L. L., & Hasenkam, J. M. (1992). Transluminal implantation of artificial heart valves. Description of new expandable aortic valve and initial results with implantation by catheter technique in closed chest pigs. European Heart Journal, 13, 704–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axel, E. (1997). One developmental line in European activity theories. In M. Cole, Y. Engeström, & O. Vasquez (Eds.) Mind, culture and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates J. (2012). Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work. Organization Science, 23, 1448–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blackler, F. H. M. (2009). Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.Google Scholar
  6. Blackler, F. H. M., & Regan, S. (2006). Institutional reform and the reorganisation of family support services. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1843–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackler, F., & Regan, S. (2009). Intentionality, agency, change: Practice theory and management. Management Learning, 40(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackler, F., Crump, N., & McDonald, S. (2000). Organizing processes in complex activity networks. Organization, 7(2), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaus, B. (2016). Blausen 0196 Catheter Right Heart Body [Digital image]. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons website: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blausen_0196_Catheter_RightHeart_Body.png? uselang=en-gb
  10. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coopey, J. (1995). The learning organization, power, politics and ideology introduction. Management Learning, 26(2), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaboration in medical cognition: An activity-theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7, 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (2007). From stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38(3), 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding (2nd edition): An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y., & Blackler. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12(3), 307–330.Google Scholar
  18. 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. Armonk: Sharp.Google Scholar
  19. Feldman, M. S. (1995). Strategies for interpreting qualitative data (Vol. 33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M. and Hawkins, C. (2005). The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greig, G., & Nicolini, D. (2015). Managing Artistic Work in the Real World. In N. Beech, & C. Gilmore (Eds.), Organizing Music: Theory, practice, performance. Cambridge, MA: University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Greig, G., Beech, N., & Entwistle, V. (2012). Addressing complex healthcare problems in diverse settings: Insights from activity theory. Social Science and Medicine, 74, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heart-lung bypass: By National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH) (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH)) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. (2013).Google Scholar
  25. Hvid, M. (2003). The Andersen Patent. Retrieved from (http://www.au.dk/en/about/profile/publications/ordogbilleder/2003/chapter12/).
  26. Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kvidal, P., Bergström, R., & Hörte, L. G. E. A. (2000). Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 35, 747–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Miettinen, R. (2009). Contradictions of high-technology capitalism and the emergence of new forms of work. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 160–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mikailova, O., & Olsen, P. I. (2017). The role of controversy in medical innovation and adoption processes. In T. Hoholm & A. Laa Rocca, &, M. Aanestad (Eds.) Controversies in health care innovation – Service, technology and organization. Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Mørk, B. E., Aanestad, M., Grisot, M., & Hanseth, O. (2008).Conflicting epistemic cultures and obstacles for learning across communities of practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 15 (1), 12–23, Wiley Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mørk, B. E., Hoholm, T., Aanestad, M., Edwin, B., & Ellingsen, G. (2010). Challenging expertise: On power relations within and across communities of practice in medical innovation. Management Learning, November 41, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mørk, B. E., Hoholm, T., Manninen-Olsson, E., & Aanestad, M. (2012). Changing practice through boundary organising: A case from medical R&D. Human Relations, 65(2), 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge Mass., London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30, 1391–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work and organization. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., Yanow, D. (2003). Knowing in organizations. A Practice-Based Approach. M. E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Nicolini, D., Mørk, B. E., Masovic, J., & Hanseth, O. (2017). Expertise as trans-situated: The case of TAVI. In J. Sandberg, L. Rouleau, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.) Skillful performance: Enacting expertise, competence, and capabilities in organizations ((In press)). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rud Andersen, H., Hasenkam, J. M., & Knudsen, L. L. (1995). U.S. Patent No. 5,411,552. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar
  42. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwarz, F., Baumann, P., Manthey, J. et al. (1982). The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation, 66, 1105–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steigen, T.K.,Schive, B.,Næsheim, T., & Busund, R. (2011). Transkateter aorta-ventilimplantasjon ved aortastenose. Tidsskrift Norske Legeforening, 131, 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Swan, J., Scarbrough, H. and Robertson, M. (2002). The construction of ‘communities of practice’ in the management of innovation. Management Learning, 33(4), 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bjørn Erik Mørk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jasmina Masovic
    • 3
  • Gail Greig
    • 4
  • Davide Nicolini
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ole Hanseth
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of StrategyBI Norwegian Business SchoolOsloNorway
  2. 2.IKON, Warwick Business SchoolCoventryUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  4. 4.School of ManagementUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations