An innovative aspect of this research is the use of activity theory as a theoretical lens to analyse the wider context of the microfinance dialogue and exchanges. Microfinance impact has over the years been a subject of many studies, with preponderance of quantitative methods. This is demonstrated by the fact that Stewart et al were able to conduct their impact study by mining data from as much as 35 separate impact studies conducted in 10 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (Stewart et al 2010). These studies focused on the impact that microfinance had and not so much on how the socio- cultural and historical context of poor people could be a critical factor in enabling or impinging mutual engagements that would inform appropriate responses in the provision of financial services. In the absence of that level of engagement, microfinance claims for any kind of impact stand to fall short of the assumptions and realities embodied in the
voices of poor people. A literature search for examples of studies that draw on an understanding of the cultural and socio-historical context of microfinance clients did not yield any results. To that extent, this is a first of the kind of research that includes an understanding of cultural and socio-historic context in creating dialogue space that enables poor people to articulate their livelihood needs with the aim of influencing microfinance services for its and their benefit.
Activity theory is a tool that enables an analysis of human activity within the context of their socio-cultural and socio-historical environment on the basis of consciousness and intentionality (Nardi 1996). Activity theory as a concept was started by Leo Vygotsky in the 1920s and developed further by Alexei Leont’ev (Engeström 2001). Vygotsky was concerned about how people bring about change in their lives through their own activities. He developed the concept of mediation that connects the development of human consciousness “through interaction with artefacts, tools and social others in an environment … to find new meanings in their world.” (Yamagata-Lynch 2010: 13). In the mediation concept, he associates human consciousness with the use of “psychological tools or signs” as a means through which individuals indirectly interact with the world. Among the signs and tools Vygotsky had in mind are the use of language, mnemonic techniques and other forms of conventional tools. He also built a link between social and historical processes, and an individual’s mental processes. Wertsch explicates that forms of mediation provided by particular cultural, historical and institutional forces become the basis for human mental functioning (Wertsch 2013). Vygotsky reckoned that with the right stimulus, mediation could result in qualitative transformation. He represented the
idea of mediation using a triad of subject, object and mediating artefacts, in an effort to demonstrate the relationship between human agency and action in using artefacts within its environment to meet human need. The following diagram is representative of that: Figure 2.2- Basic Vygotskian Triad
Vygotsky’s basic mediated action triangle (Yamagata-Lynch 2010:17)
In this triad, the subject has a motive to reach defined outcomes and interacts with particular mediating artefact to attain that outcome. Thus a farmer (subject) in a village desiring the outcome of a crop yield would use mediating artifacts like speech in communicating his plan, a piece of land, spades and hoes, seeds, etc. to arrive at a crop he can harvest. Vygotsky’s model focused on the individual action and mediation. Leont’ev expanded this thinking by highlighting the difference between individual action and collective activity. He also moved the focus to the object and the motive for working on that object. Engeström provides a graphic depiction of Leont’ev’s expanded model and calls it the second generation of activity theory. He elaborated on Leont’ev’s thinking to recognise “individual and group actions embedded in a collective activity system” (Engeström 2001:135). This diagram represents the expanded model:
Figure 2.3- A Human Activity System
Engeström 2001
The outcome is the reason for the activity. Engeström depicts the object with the oval shape “indicating that object-oriented actions are always, explicitly or implicitly, characterised by ambiguity, surprise, interpretation, sense-making and potential for change” (Engeström 2001:134). The expanded model enables an all-encompassing examination that includes the community environment, its rules and how the individual actors cohere within the collective. Human need motivates the activity. In the example of the farmer, his need for food from the harvest will motivate his desire to farm. The farmer is the subject interacting with artifacts to get to the harvest which is his desired outcome reflected in the top triad. The expanded model recognises that the farmer has to also interact with his environment. He has to observe the rules and customs in his milieu. This brings in the historic and cultural aspects that affect his activities. The farmer would most likely be located within a community, whether it is a community of practice or merely neighbourhoods. The relationship with the community is analysed to reflect its impact on
the activity. The analysis also includes how the labour is divided, whether others do part of the work beyond the farmer and how that works out.
The analysis draws the examination at three levels: activity, actions and operations. Within the farming activity will be a series of actions like acquiring land, ensuring appropriate tools, preparing for planting, tending the field until harvest time, etc. These actions become part of an operational system, in this case, the farming operation. The analysis of an activity system therefore focuses on that system as a unit of analysis and recognises the multiple points of view, traditions and interests within the system. The historicity of the activity system provides the context for understanding how the system has taken shape over a period of time and how that relates with similar systems. Engeström argues that because systems are open, they become prone to structural tensions or contradictions that generate disturbances and conflicts and may very well lead to change and development (Engeström 2001). In the example of the farmer, a drought might bring a disturbance that will negate the outcomes of the existing system and will require a new way of achieving the same goal. This new way of achieving the same goal will inadvertently be an improvement to the old way of knowing. In the final analysis, Engeström argues that contradictions that lead to change can also bring about expansive transformation as individual participants begin to question and deviate from established norms.
As systems develop, they engage with multiple other systems to ensure desired outcomes. When the farmer is hit by a drought, that problem might move him to seek a solution that
identifies growing drought resistant crops. He might need to acquire that knowledge by engaging a training school that has the knowledge. The training school is in itself an activity system. Thus the farmer’s system interacting with the school system for expansive knowing towards a desired outcome, is what Engeström describes as the third generation of activity theory. The third generation of activity theory recognises the engagement of multiple activity systems and therefore aims “to develop conceptual tools to understand dialogue, multiple perspectives, and networks of interacting activity systems” (Engeström 2001:135).
Figure 2.4- Third Generation Activity System