Using formative interventions to study emerging technologies in construction practices: the case of the Ground Penetrating Radar

Abstract

The potential impact of emerging technologies is challenging for construction management researchers to study, as these technologies have yet to become embedded in current organisational practices. Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) offers a method called formative interventions that may assist in this challenge. However, existing formative intervention methods are not adequately tailored to the study of emerging technologies, necessitating a more immersive engagement of the researcher-interventionist. This article proposes a renewed participatory take on the role of the researcher-interventionist and outlines the actions that researchers can undertake to investigate the future impacts of emerging technology. Specifically, we describe the interventionist role through a study of utility detection activities in which we intervened with emerging Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) technology at twelve construction sites. We analysed our role through an inductive coding approach using interviews and field visit data. Our findings reveal five interventionist action types for intervention studies with emerging technology. These include shaping conditions, exposing tensions, supporting problem resolution, operating tools, and facilitating reflection. The action types prompted subjects to reevaluate elements of the activity system and helped describe three potential future activity systems that integrated GPR as a new tool. These findings demonstrate that a participatory take on formative interventions provides a potent means to unveil possible activity systems incorporating emerging technologies. We contribute five formal intervention action types to the literature that equip interventionist researchers with methodological tools to use CHAT in a practice-based study of emerging technologies on construction sites.

Keywords:

• Activity theory
• emerging technology
• formative interventions
• Ground Penetrating Radar

SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION CODES:

• Activity Theory
• Construction Management
• Construction Technology
• Technological Innovation

Introduction

Introducing technological innovations in construction aims to enhance efficiency, productivity, and profitability (Terzis 2022). This process often leads to changes within the organisational context and the technology itself (Shibeika and Harty 2015). To better understand how technology and context evolve together, the construction management literature advocates for context-rich, practice-based studies of innovation (Shibeika and Harty 2015, Çıdık et al. 2017, Lundberg et al. 2019). Commonly, these studies focus on stages of implementation. Implementation studies offer valuable insights into the impact and value of technology already widely used by people in an organisation.

One perspective that has supported scholars in developing a holistic and contextual understanding of technology implementation processes is the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). CHAT is a theoretical framework that supports exploring how the interplay of social, cultural, and historical factors shapes human activities (Engeström 2015). It helps examine complex interactions between individuals, tools, rules, and their broader context to understand how activities are situated within specific socio-cultural contexts. Within CHAT, contradictions play a central role (Engeström and Sannino 2011). Contradictions are historically aggravated systemic tensions or conflicts within or between different elements within an activity system. They serve as stimuli for transformative processes and provide a focal point to study change in activities.

In the study of innovation in construction, recent applications of CHAT have used the concept of contradictions to clarify and map the transformation of activity systems – often visually represented through Engeström’s triangular activity system framework (2015). Such studies analyse the implementation of widespread technological innovations like Building Information Modelling (BIM) (e.g., Mäki and Kerosuo 2015, Nørkjaer Gade et al. 2019, Akintola et al. 2020, Zomer et al. 2020). They rely on observational research, document analysis, and interviews for data collection on contradictions. So far, the researchers in these studies have not ‘actively’ intervened in the studied activity systems to explore possible future transformations. The nature and advancement of widespread technologies allowed them to follow technology and activities less intrusively, observing and comprehending the natural transformation of technology and activities within their respective contexts.

While previous approaches work for technologies that are adopted and implemented more widely in construction, such as BIM, exploring the possible future impacts of emerging technology on activity systems in construction requires a different approach. For one, emerging technologies present a different adoption context as they have yet to become embedded in current organisational practices. Unlike widespread technologies, emerging technologies – such as the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), as we elaborate below – represent novel innovations with uncertain future impacts (Rotolo et al. 2015, Pink 2022). Organisations may not have considered or often hesitate to adopt them due to their inherent uncertainties. This, in turn, limits the possibility for researchers to observe their impacts on construction activity systems. In the case of emerging technology, interviewing and observatory approaches may yield limited or unreliable insights, given that informants lack knowledge and firsthand experience with the innovative technology. Consequently, collecting detailed empirical insights that help reveal contradictions and map the transformations in activity systems becomes particularly challenging.

To address this challenge, researchers can employ one of the methods CHAT literature offers: formative interventions (Sannino 2011, Sannino et al. 2016). Using formative interventions, the researcher’s ‘role is to intervene by provoking and supporting the [transformation] process led and owned by the learner’ (Sannino et al. 2016). In other words, formative interventions involve the deliberate activity researchers conduct to drive practitioners to transform their activity system. The potential benefit of driving such transformations is that they can make the future impacts and value of emerging technology on construction sites more explicit. This insight, in turn, could facilitate more mindful innovation-adoption processes within the construction sector (Swanson and Ramiller 2004).

Despite this potential, existing formative intervention methods are not adequately tailored to the study of emerging technologies in construction. Formative interventions propose that researchers operate ‘outside’ the concrete practice as facilitators of change, ensuring that the practitioners lead and own the transformation process (Sannino et al. 2016). This assumed role of the researcher restricts the researcher’s capacity for immersive engagement ‘inside’ the practice. However, an immersive engagement of the researcher-interventionist is necessary when aiming to understand the transformative potential of emerging technology in construction. The lack of knowledge and firsthand experience among organisations and practitioners with the innovative technology means they require external support during practice transformation. While researcher-interventionists could offer such support from within the practice as integral participants, it requires them to navigate the assumed ‘boundary’ between an outsider’s facilitating role and an insider’s participating role. Essentially, this necessitates an amended perspective on the researcher-interventionist’s proposed and traditionally assumed role during formative interventions. Consequently, the specific actions available to researcher-interventionists from an immersive and participatory role remain unclear.

This study explores how a researcher-interventionist, operating from this amended perspective, can employ the method of formative interventions to gain insights into possible future impacts of emerging technologies on construction activity systems. To achieve this, we analysed data from an interventionist study where we actively introduced and participated in the use of GPR. GPR is an emerging technology capable of non-intrusive detection of buried utilities that potentially supports the current ‘utility detection activity system’. In this study, we analysed how we conducted interventions on twelve construction sites in the Netherlands to explore our role as interventionists in activity system transformations. First, we revisited the field data and employed an inductive coding approach to identify contradictions that triggered activity system transformations. Second, based on these transformations, we delved back into the data to extract descriptions of our interventionist actions that contributed to them. We subsequently classified our actions into five formal intervention action types.

The five action types we found researcher-interventionists can employ in studies of emerging technologies include: (1) shape conditions for emerging technology to be considered by subjects as a meaningful tool solution in the activity system; (2) expose tensions deliberately within the activity system to support subjects in identifying manifestations of contradictions; (3) assist subjects with emerging technology to support them in resolving contradictions; (4) operate as tool operator in the activity system to support subjects in exploring emerging technology; and (5) facilitate subjects’ reflection on existing activity system elements. These action types led to manifestations of contradictions that made practitioners reevaluate their tools, objects, and roles. It allowed the researcher to describe three potential activity system transformations that integrated GPR as a new tool.

In the following sections, we introduce CHAT and the theoretical framework, provide an overview of the utility construction activity under study and explain our research approach. Before we explain the action types, we describe the identified contradictions and the utility detection activity system transformations. We conclude by discussing how the findings support utilising our amended formative intervention method in emerging technology studies for construction management research.

Theory and background

The following three sections sequentially describe the rationale for conducting emerging technology studies in construction, the interventionist approach in our research from an activity theoretical perspective, and the utility detection activity system as our case.

Studying emerging technologies in construction

A spectrum of emerging technologies holds promise to enhance efficiency, productivity, and profitability in construction practices (Ozorhon et al. 2016, Terzis 2022). Examples include maintenance robots (Koh et al. 2023), virtual reality applications for safety and education (Bao et al. 2022), 3D concrete printers (Chung et al. 2021), and as-built laser scanning techniques (Chen et al. 2022). These emerging technologies are in the initial stages of the product life cycle, meaning they have yet to be standardised in construction practices. This surrounds these and other emerging technologies with uncertainty regarding their future impacts and value (Rotolo et al. 2015, Pink 2022). Such uncertainty often results in construction organisations hesitating to adopt them. Therefore, studying their potential is difficult for construction management researchers because these technologies still need to be embedded into current organisational practices.

However, construction organisations can make better-informed decisions about technology adoption by developing an early understanding of the potential impact of emerging technology. This, in turn, enhances their ability to adapt better to a rapidly evolving technological landscape. Considering the construction industry’s assumed conservative stance on innovation and innovative technology (Winch 1998), which appears to be increasingly lagging behind other sectors (McKinsey Global Institute 2017), a context-rich, practice-based perspective on emerging technology and its possible future impact thus has the potential to expedite technology’s adoption in construction. CHAT literature introduces an interventionist approach that may benefit such studies, as explained in the next section.

Interventions from an activity-theoretical perspective

Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) originates from the Soviet school of psychology, primarily rooted in the ideas of Vygotsky (1978) and Leont’ev (1978). Their ideas helped to understand how cultural-historical tools or means mediate human action and interaction in the context of other individuals and activities. Engeström expanded upon the theoretical foundation of Vygotsky and Leont’ev by introducing the concept of an ‘activity system’ (Engeström 2015). This activity system represents complex, goal-oriented, socially mediated processes where individuals or groups interact with tools, objects, and others in specific socio-cultural contexts. These dynamic systems can be analysed to understand how people engage in various activities and the factors influencing them. Engeström’s expansion towards this model of activity systems has contributed significantly to what is now known as CHAT.

In particular, Engeström (2015) developed his ideas into a conceptual activity system framework for studying the evolution and development of collective work activities. Figure 1 illustrates this activity system framework and its elements. The framework facilitates the visualisation of activities, demonstrating how individuals collaborate in socio-cultural and complex environments with dynamically interacting elements. Engeström’s framework captures these elements as the actions of subjects (the actors involved in the activity) using tools (both tangible and intangible mediating tools) to transform an object (the central focal point of the activity) into a desired and shared outcome (the realisation of the object). The actor’s actions part of such transformations are driven by personal sense-making (i.e., sense) and a broader socio-cultural significance (i.e., meaning). Altogether, actors form a community to represent the activity. They take roles through a division of labour, establishing a relational and hierarchical structure within the activity. This system operates within a framework of rules, including regulations, norms, and conventions.

Figure 1. Activity system, recreated from Engeström (2015).

Triangular activity system framework and its elements, recreated from Engeström (2015).

CHAT identifies contradictions in or between system elements as the driving force behind transformations of activities (Engeström 2015). A contradiction can be defined as a fundamental conflict or tension within an activity system. Contradictions are considered historically aggravated and systemic aspects of an activity system. Because they are inherent to the activity system and not something external or easily observable, researchers do not directly have access to contradictions in empirical studies of change. Instead, they approach them through their manifestations, such as observable dilemmas or conflicts (Engeström and Sannino 2011). These manifestations can help researchers explore change dynamics within activity system transformations.

Researchers can identify four types of contradictions (Engeström 2015). Primary contradictions take place within an individual element. Such a contradiction arises when a system element faces an internal conflict. In the construction context, this occurs, for example, when a contractor develops a technical solution (i.e., a tool) to solve a construction problem, which may not be the optimal solution since he also cannot exceed a budgetary constraint to still gain revenue from his project. Secondary contradictions take place between elements of an activity. Such a contradiction arises when, for example, conventional two-dimensional design tools used by a contractor may be inadequate to visualise spatially complex three-dimensional structures. Tertiary contradictions occur between the dominant activity systems and an emerging, more advanced form. Such a contradiction arises when, for example, three-dimensional design tools lead to new procedures that do not fit with the existing processes from the dominant activity system that the contractor uses. Quaternary contradictions occur between the dominant activity and an existing neighbouring activity system. This contradiction arises when, for example, clients demand a contractor to work with three-dimensional design tools, requiring the very contractor to change his design. This, in turn, may cause resistance within the contractor’s activity system.

CHAT provides two fundamental and complementary principles to understand how contradictions drive activity system transformations: double stimulation and ascending from the abstract to the concrete (Engeström et al. 2014). Sannino (2011) characterises double stimulation as ‘the mechanism with which human beings can intentionally break out of a conflicting situation and change their circumstances or solve difficult problems.’ Within the mechanism of double stimulation, the first stimulus for change is a problematic situation. These problematic situations could arise as manifestations of contradictions. The second stimulus involves using auxiliary tools or artefacts to gain control of and transform the problematic situation. The principle of ascending from the abstract to the concrete emphasises individuals’ learning process to move from an abstract understanding of these problematic situations towards specific, practical, and concrete actions within the activity system to resolve them. Essentially, this learning process, which can be seen as an application of ‘expansive learning’, stems from contradictions that must be resolved (Engeström 2015). Both principles give rise to the phenomenon called transformative agency. Transformative agency emphasises the capacity of individuals or groups within an activity system to actively drive change when undergoing processes of double stimulation and ascending from the abstract to the concrete (Engeström et al. 2014).

The concept of contradictions and the fundamental principles of CHAT have guided two approaches of studies to change. In the first approach, researchers employ the idea of contradictions to gain insight into why and how work activity systems naturally evolve within their context, as seen in studies on the introduction of widespread technologies in construction (e.g., Mäki and Kerosuo 2015, Nørkjaer Gade et al. 2019, Akintola et al. 2020, Zomer et al. 2020). In this approach, researchers do not ‘actively’ intervene to trigger contradictions and produce change. Instead, they rely on observations, interviews, and documents for data collection. Conversely, the second approach involves researchers intervening to produce change. They often do so through the method of formative interventions (Sannino 2011). Researchers use formative interventions to provoke and sustain a transformation process among practitioners (Sannino et al. 2016). By driving these transformation processes, researchers could use formative interventions to make the future impacts and value of emerging technologies on construction sites more explicit.

Various formative intervention methods exist, including the Genetic Modelling Experiment (Zuckerman 2011), the Clinic of Activity (Clot 2009), the Fifth Dimension (Cole and The Distributed Literacy Consortium 2006), and the Change Laboratory (Engeström 2007, Virkkunen and Newnham 2013). From these, the Genetic Modelling Experiment models and examines an activity system’s change over time. It analyses how the activity has developed to identify critical stages of change. The Clinic of Activity is used to understand and transform work activities. Researchers engage in dialogues with practitioners to understand their experiences and challenges, aiming to unravel the contradictions and tensions in the work process. The Fifth Dimension method creates a collaborative learning environment where learners are guided by more knowledgeable individuals (e.g., teachers or peers) to reach a higher level of understanding and competence, thereby producing change. Finally, the Change Laboratory involves a structured, collaborative process where participants from different levels and roles within an organisation work together to identify and resolve contradictions and challenges in their practices. Through this process, innovative solutions and changes are developed to improve the organisation’s performance and outcomes.

The four interventionist methods have found applications across diverse fields ranging from healthcare and education to psychology, research, software development, social services, and community development. In these established formative intervention methods, researchers typically assume the role of facilitators of change from a somewhat external standpoint, ‘outside’ the concrete practice. Their primary responsibility is to create a supportive environment for participants, enabling them to analyse their activities, identify contradictions, and implement changes while ensuring that practitioners lead and own the transformation process (Sannino et al. 2016). This means the researcher never imposes transformations on the practitioners but instead aims to stimulate them to engage in transformation processes that are meaningful to them. For instance, in a Change Laboratory setting, a researcher-interventionist collects empirical material (such as video recordings, observational notes, and conversations with workers) from authentic workplace contexts. This material includes critical incidents, disturbances, and problems, from which the researcher selects and provides extracts for a ‘mirror’. This mirror serves to stimulate involvement, analysis, and collaborative efforts among participants during Change Laboratory sessions, fostering the exploration and design of new patterns of activity (Engeström 2007, Virkkunen and Newnham 2013).

However, assigning researchers to an ‘outside’ facilitating role may hinder the effective use of formative interventions in studying emerging technologies in construction. Since these technologies are not yet integrated into current organisational practices, practitioners lack firsthand experience and require external support. Building on the work of Postholm (2020) on using formative interventions in contexts necessitating external support, researcher-interventionists could play a crucial role in providing practitioners with the essential backing to develop knowledge about emerging technology and its application within the practice. Specifically, researchers can offer practitioners firsthand experiences of the technology by participating, potentially fostering their exploration of new perspectives, and facilitating the emergence of contradictions that drive transformations.

While this participating role may challenge the prevailing assumption that practitioners should lead and own the transformation process (Sannino et al. 2016), we hold scepticism towards this assumption. From a cultural-historical perspective, an individual’s actions are inherently influenced by external factors (Vygotsky 1978), whether they originate from the researcher-interventionist as an outsider, insider, or from prior experiences. Instead, we align with Van Oers (2013) in emphasising that practitioners’ autonomy during formative interventions should be regarded as their freedom to make sense of their actions and envision new ways of acting. Essentially, practitioners must have the freedom to develop solutions that are meaningful to them and steer transformations according to their views on the purpose of the activity. Hence, we advocate that researchers could act as integral participants within the methodological principles of formative interventions (Engeström et al. 2014), provided they respect this freedom and refrain from imposing transformations.

In other words, we propose that the researcher-interventionist should be allowed to navigate the ‘boundary’ between their typical facilitating role as outsiders and a new participating role as insiders. Embedding this form of ‘boundary crossing’ – a concept used by Engeström (1995) to refer to the process by which individuals step outside of their usual roles or domains of activity to engage with unfamiliar territories or practices – in formative intervention studies opens possibilities for active support and intervention by the researcher in addition to the traditional facilitating role. This broadened perspective provides researchers with a more diverse set of tools to provoke and support the practice’s transformation process from both the ‘outside’ and ‘inside’.

Since this amended formative intervention approach is underexplored in the literature, this study aims to fill that gap by exploring the necessary actions to fulfil this immersive and participatory interventionist role in studying emerging technology in construction. Before delving into our study of the interventionist role, we provide background information on our research setting, focusing on utility detection.

Emerging technology in the activity system case of utility detection

This section introduces the emerging Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) technology and the utility detection activity system explored in our study. Detecting buried utilities is a crucial task in construction projects, especially in densely populated urban areas, as it helps reduce the risk of damaging existing infrastructure during excavation (Metje et al. 2007, 2020, ter Huurne et al. 2020). In the Netherlands, there are rules in place that require organisations to accurately verify the location of utilities before digging. To achieve this, construction companies have access to various tools. Access to statutory utility records is a standard practice through a centralised platform. Additionally, adhering to a code of conduct, organisations perform trial trenches, involving the physical excavation of an area to inspect and record utility locations visually (Lai et al. 2018, ter Huurne et al. 2020).

However, there are limitations to these methods. Statutory utility records are frequently inaccurate, outdated, or incomplete, and they often lack information about the depth of utilities. Trial trenching is disruptive, expensive, labour-intensive, and provides localised information (Costello et al. 2007, Metje et al. 2007). GPR is emerging as a promising alternative, being a geophysical technology that offers a rapid, cost-effective, and non-destructive way to detect utilities, regardless of their type or material (Lai et al. 2018). The technology works by sending an electromagnetic signal into the subsurface. Changing electric and dielectric properties of the subsurface medium cause the signal to scatter and reflect to the GPR’s receiver (Figure 2a). These reflections – for utilities typically visible in hyperbolic shapes – provide the basis for imaging a ‘radargram’ (Figure 2b). From this radargram, utility depth and, to a lesser extent, size and material can be inferred.

Figure 2. Flowchart Ground Penetrating Radar: (a) process and components of a generic radar system, (b) radargram example displaying hyperbolic shapes (own creation).

Schematic of Ground Penetrating Radar technology components, consisting of a transmitting and receiving antenna whose output is processed through a control unit and visible on a data display. The figure shows how an example of a radargram displaying a hyperbolic shape would be visible on such a display during the operationalisation of the GPR.

While GPR holds promise for utility detection, it faces limited adoption in the construction sector for two primary reasons. First, GPR is a specialised technology with inherent limitations and uncertainties. Factors like soil type, moisture content, and density can disrupt its performance, leading to signal issues (Costello et al. 2007, Metje 2007, Jol 2009). Additionally, when multiple buried utilities are close to each other, GPR images can become cluttered with overlapping hyperbolic signatures (Costello et al. 2007). These uncertainties have raised doubts about its reliability and suitability for utility detection. Second, in the Dutch context, geophysical methods, including GPR, receive limited promotion in legislation and directives (ter Huurne et al. 2020). Moreover, the centralised statutory records platform and the legal obligation to precisely determine utility locations before excavation contribute to a hesitancy to incorporate geophysical methods (ibid). As a result, many construction organisations have hesitated to depart from their common surveying methods. Consequently, most organisations lack the experience and expertise to utilise GPR technology effectively.

Essentially, GPR serves as a typical example of an emerging technology. It stands out as significantly novel compared to the common utility detection tools. While it is poised to enter construction sites, its adoption faces challenges. The case of GPR in utility detection activity systems offers a suitable opportunity to study the researcher’s role as an interventionist in emerging technology studies.

Research methodology

This study employed a participatory, interventionist research approach to identify actions that fulfil the interventionist’s role in determining the future impacts and value of emerging GPR technology in utility detection activity systems. This involved the first author intervening in twelve utility detection projects in the Netherlands, each with unique site characteristics regarding utilities, ground conditions, and land use. The participants in the activities studied had experience using common utility detection tools but were new to GPR and represented different construction project organisations. The research followed a structured process for our interventions consisting of three phases. These collectively helped identify the action types the researcher-interventionist employed in the GPR case.

In the first phase, we conducted exploratory interviews with key actors from the utility detection projects, including supervisors, project managers, and project clients. These interviews, approximately one hour in duration, served the dual purpose of gaining initial insights into the existing activity system and its socio-cultural aspects while also seeking permission for the first author to intervene with GPR on the construction site. Based on a semi-structured protocol, our questions were aligned with Engeström’s activity system framework (2015). We inquired about the common utility detection procedures, the tools in use, reasons behind the hesitance to adopt GPR, objectives in utility detection, expected outcomes, the typical work environment, and any potential constraints imposed by rules like contractual agreements or organisational procedures that might hinder the introduction of GPR. We analysed the interview transcripts in an open coding round by extracting those quotes that captured instances of activity system elements. In the following coding iteration, we organised these elements within the context of the activity system, considering the elements of the division of labour, subjects, objects, and tools and their interactions primarily.

In the second phase, we obtained on-site access for one to two days to intervene in utility detection activity systems. Having secured permission from supervisors, project managers, or project owners, the first author brought the GPR to twelve construction sites. While the practitioners on-site started their day using their common tools of statutory records and trial trench digging, the researcher simultaneously conducted GPR surveys close to the practitioners (including radar data collection and processing) to identify utility locations. Although this parallel process initially did not spatially interfere with the practitioners’ actions, it allowed the researcher to engage in ongoing interactions and spontaneous conversations with the practitioners about the activity and emerging GPR technology, fostering a closer connection between them. Throughout this process, the researcher collected empirical material (i.e., observational notes, pictures, occasional videos, and conversations with workers) about the utility detection activity. This enabled him to explain problem situations to the practitioners, identify manifestations of contradictions in the activity system, and provoke transformation of the activity system.

After the site visits, we revisited the field data and employed an inductive coding approach to identify contradictions that triggered activity system transformations. We first extracted the activity system elements from our field notes using a round of open coding and matched these in the following coding iteration with the elements of the activity system. We then categorised manifestations of contradictions using Engeström’s taxonomy (2015) as primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary and attributed them to their corresponding activity system elements. Using CHAT’s fundamental principles of double stimulation and ascending from the abstract to the concrete, we conceptualised how these manifestations had led to processes of first (learning about and recognising a problem situation) and second (using an auxiliary artefact to solve it) stimulation among practitioners.

As a third step, we shared our conceptualisations of the identified contradictions in the activity systems by conducting discussions with the same subjects as those interviewed in the first phase. These discussions, lasting approximately 90 minutes, resembled the ‘mirror’ concept in Change Laboratory sessions. We presented empirical material of problem situations, explained whether GPR had contributed to resolving them, and clarified how those situations had impacted the further continuation of the utility detection project. These discussions stimulated participants’ analysis of their activity, enabling them to recognise contradictions and envision future utility detection activity systems, including the potential role of GPR within them. To structure these future visions of the transformed activity system, we used Engeström’s activity system framework (2015). This process led to the identification of three potential future activity systems incorporating GPR technology in utility detection activities.

Following these discussions, we revisited the discussion and field data to extract descriptions of our interventionist actions that contributed to the identified transformations in the activity system. We employed an inductive coding approach and extracted our actions from the field notes and discussion transcripts during a first open coding iteration. This process involved identifying instances where our actions had triggered processes of double stimulation and ascending from the abstract to the concrete. By doing so, we linked our actions to the previously identified contradictions that drove the transformations. Subsequently, we organised and classified all actions into formal formative intervention action types during an axial coding iteration. This second coding iteration revealed that in our interventionist role, we fulfilled five action types to produce change. The following section outlines this analysis through the empirical findings from two utility detection projects.

Findings

The interventions, focusing on introducing and supporting emerging GPR technology in twelve utility detection projects, unveiled formal intervention action types conducted by the researcher-interventionist. This section describes how our interventions triggered contradictions and drove the transformation of utility detection activity systems, employing two cases as illustrative examples. These cases were chosen for their coverage of the three potential integrations of GPR that we identified and their clear examples of the action types associated with the interventionist’s role. Additionally, we utilise the empirical insights from these two cases to analyse the interventionist role and actions in facilitating the transformations within the activity systems. We present five formal action types for the interventionist role in emerging technology studies.

Case I: GPR as a complementing, supporting and substituting tool

Case I illustrates the researcher’s role as an interventionist in a utility detection project on inner-city sewage rehabilitation. The project’s objectives were to (1) identify connection points for the new sewer to the existing sewer pumping station to specify engineering parameters and (2) verify the statutory records to facilitate mindful excavation during construction. The project manager designated eight locations on the construction site map to dig trial trenches to achieve these. Some of these locations were situated along the sewer line to identify potential connection points, while others were chosen to assess the accuracy of the statutory records. The earlier pre-site visit interview revealed that trial trenches were a standard and common tool for the organisation. Neither the project manager nor the organisation had prior experience using GPR.

This case demonstrates the transformation of the utility detection activity system towards a collective of activity systems. Together, these transform a set of newly specified objects into the shared and desired outcome of mindful excavation during construction. The objects include the existing object (i.e., documented utilities on statutory records) and two new ones (i.e., anomalies, and undocumented and crossing utilities). GPR plays a role in transforming these objects into a desired and shared outcome (i.e., mindful excavating during construction) in a complementing, supporting, and substituting means to the existing tools. This transformation is illustrated in Figure 3. Three contradictions drove this transformation: a primary contradiction within the existing tools, a secondary contradiction between the existing tools and the existing object, and a primary contradiction within the existing object. We break our role as interventionists down by focussing on the actions that manifested these three contradictions.

Figure 3. Contradictions and transformations within Case I: (a) resolved tool versus tool (primary contradiction); (b) tool versus object (secondary contradiction); (c) resolved object versus object (primary contradiction).

A visual representation illustrating the contradictions that drove the transformation of the activity system in Case I. This transformation led to a collective of activity systems incorporating Ground Penetrating Radar as a new tool, serving as a complementary, supporting, or substituting means to existing tools.

The researcher’s actions started with his arrival at the construction site with GPR. Upon this arrival, the project manager introduced the practitioners to the researcher and informed them that they could discuss with the researcher and ask for the use of GPR to achieve the project’s objectives during the day. Being aware of the practitioners’ unfamiliarity with the GPR, the researcher subsequently conducted an impromptu GPR demonstration to familiarise and educate the practitioners with the GPR’s technical features. Sharing the findings of this demonstration with the project team, the manager responded with interest in GPR’s potential use for mapping underground utility lines, albeit with uncertainties: ‘[GPR may be] Applicable, yet with uncertainties. I believe many [of the underground utility lines] can be mapped, but our detailed engineering requires an extremely reliable map as input. I guess trial trench excavations remain necessary to achieve this output. For the verification of cables and pipes [and their locations] in general, I have high expectations for GPR, though.’ This response indicated that the manager started recognising the sense of utilising GPR for the project. Subsequently, the practitioners commenced utility detection tasks while the researcher stayed close, conducting GPR surveys and observing for manifestations of contradictions.

The activities continued until the researcher exposed tensions between the existing tools and GPR as a more time and cost-efficient alternative. The researcher did so by engaging the manager in GPR findings from a survey conducted near a trench dug to verify sewer lines. The radargrams showed that GPR had been similarly successful compared to trial trenches in identifying two sewer lines, as illustrated on the right side of Figure 4. Consequently, the manager emphasised GPR’s effectiveness, seeing it as a meaningful alternative to trial trenches for rapidly mapping utility locations without road closure constraints as had been necessary for the trial trench. The researcher’s engagement enabled a direct GPR and trial trenching comparison within the activity system, exposing the limitations of existing tools and demonstrating GPR’s superior time and cost efficiency. In this case, the manager’s realisation manifested as a primary contradiction within the existing tools and served as a first stimulus for change.

Figure 4. Successful detection of two sewer pipes under a street using Ground Penetrating Radar.

Photograph of the use of Ground Penetrating Radar on a brickwork street. Three radargrams next to it demonstrate the clear presence of two sewer pipes in this street.

We found that this first stimulus prompted the manager to discuss the value GPR could provide as an alternative tool. To ensure that the project would not encounter delays caused by utility damage or construction issues, the project manager stressed the importance of obtaining more accurate and reliable information about the location of the two sewer pipes. He emphasised this by citing that the inaccurate location of utilities had led to costly return visits in previous projects: ‘I want to know where the cables and pipes are as best as possible. We have come back up to three times on previous projects as they (i.e. utilities) were not accurately or fully mapped. That should be avoided [for this project].’ Essentially, the emergence of the primary contradiction prompted the manager to question the effectiveness of the existing tools in achieving the utility verification objective. This situation presented a dilemma between, on the one hand, the financial concern related to the possibility of expensive return visits due to inadequate surveying and, on the other hand, the necessity of using trial trenches with no other tools at their disposal. This dilemma manifested as a secondary contradiction between the existing tools and the activity’s object, serving as another first stimulus to change.

In response to both first stimuli, the researcher proposed to the manager that he could conduct additional GPR surveys reaching beyond the original eight trial trench locations. Essentially, the researcher suggested actively participating in the activity as the GPR operator. The manager approved, and the researcher proceeded with these additional surveys to verify the positions of the two sewer pipes. Witnessing the successful performance of GPR firsthand prompted the manager to reflect on his previous experiences with common detection tools. He noted: ‘Sometimes you find things (i.e. anomalies) during construction that were not on the statutory records. The project must stop, and additional trial trenches are necessary to discover what they are.’ He believed that GPR could help prevent such issues, stating: ‘We do not plan to locate all cables and pipes within the project. However, it may be important for the preparation of the construction works to locate them. So, while you are here, can you use the GPR to find these quickly?’ Experiencing the GPR firsthand led the manager to recognise the sense of using it to detect anomalies and prepare more effectively for careful excavation during construction.

This learning process emphasised the manager’s deepened understanding of the secondary contradiction between tools and objects. It gave rise to a new objective focused on identifying anomalies and locating undocumented and crossing utilities. The manager’s realisation that transforming the existing object was not always sufficient for realising an adequate preparation for the organisation for later construction phases made him request additional GPR surveys and pre-scanning of trial trench locations. This notion shows the manifestation of primary contradiction within the existing object and a first stimulus for change. The request to use GPR as a solution serves as a second stimulus.

Following the manager’s request, the researcher continued his role as a GPR operator and conducted surveys at five additional locations. The researcher engaged the manager in interpreting the radargrams, which led the manager to reflect on the new GPR tool. He stated: ‘Although you can say very well that there is something (i.e. underground utilities), it shows it is not always possible to pinpoint each cable or pipe on an individual level. Verifying radar [outcomes] with trial trenches remains important.’ This quote emphasises the manager learning about the limitations in GPR's utility detection capabilities, particularly regarding the project’s objective of utility verification. Making sense of this, the manager realised that using trial trenches complementary to GPR was likely necessary.

A week after the site visit, a discussion with the project team helped them envision a future utility detection activity system. The researcher presented his GPR findings, clarifying how GPR had impacted the project. This led to a discussion with the project manager about the technology’s value and role in shaping the future of the activity system. The researcher asked the manager to envision the GPR’s role as part of this discussion, to which the manager responded that he saw GPR as a tool that could complement, support, or even replace common methods within a collective system of activities. He explained: ‘You can effectively demonstrate whether something is present (i.e. with GPR) and use that to dig more targeted test trenches where you encounter something unusual. Based on the radar data, one can decide the interesting locations for test trenches.’ He added: ‘GPR certainly also offers value on projects where longer utility routes are dug. The radar helps to map such routes more quickly [compared to trial trenches].’ These outcomes of Case I demonstrate that the researcher’s actions helped participants develop a meaningful understanding of the potential benefits of GPR for their activity system.

Case II: GPR as a substituting tool

Case II illustrates the researcher’s role as an interventionist in a utility detection project on the installation of electricity cables in the inner city. The project’s objectives were to (1) verify the statutory records to engineer the routing of nine new electricity cables and (2) locate the water pipeline as the new cables needed to be installed at a safe distance. Eight specific locations on the construction site map were selected for digging trial trenches to achieve these. Some locations were near the waterline, while others were along potential routes for the new electricity cables. The earlier pre-site visit interview with the project manager revealed that trial trenches were a standard and common tool, and their locations were strategically chosen to balance the need for accurate utility information with a budgetary-constrained approach in mind: ‘The goal is to complete the trace as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.’ Neither the project manager nor the organisation had prior experience with GPR and were largely unaware of its potential for their activities.

This case demonstrates the transformation of the activity system into a substituting activity system that incorporates GPR to transform a new object of subsoil-free space into a set of engineering parameters, as illustrated in Figure 5. Two contradictions drove this transformation: a secondary contradiction between the existing tools used and the existing object and a primary contradiction within the existing object. We break our role as interventionists down by focussing on the actions that manifested these two contradictions.

Figure 5. Contradictions and transformations within Case II: (a) tool versus object (secondary contradiction); (b) resolved object versus object (primary contradiction).

A visual representation illustrating the contradictions that drove the transformation of the activity system in Case II. This transformation led to a substituting activity system mobilising GPR to realise a new object of determining subsoil-free space.

Like Case I, the researcher’s actions started with his arrival at the construction site with the GPR. Following this, the practitioners were informed they had permission to use the GPR that day. The researcher then conducted a GPR demonstration to address the project team’s unfamiliarity with the technology. This demonstration piqued the foreman’s interest in exploring GPR for verification purposes. He explained: ‘I do not really know radar, but I expect it to help predict the location and size of utilities. However, while I definitely see an added value, this stands or falls on the reliability and price [of GPR] compared to test trenches.’ As in Case I, this response indicated the manager’s recognition of the sense of utilising GPR for the project. Subsequently, the practitioners initiated their utility detection tasks while the researcher remained close, conducting GPR surveys and observing for any manifestations of contradictions.

Following a similar pattern to Case I, the activities continued until the researcher exposed tensions between the existing tools and GPR as a more rapid alternative for assessing available space for the nine electricity cables. The researcher achieved this by engaging the foreman in the findings from GPR measurements conducted near an excavated trench. The GPR radargram data revealed densely packed utilities, depicted by hyperbolic shapes, as shown on the right side of Figure 6. While this discovery raised concerns about the effectiveness of GPR for verifying utility locations, it also highlighted challenges related to accommodating nine electricity cables due to limited space. The researcher explained to the foreman that despite the pattern similarity across the radargrams, the hyperbolic shapes were so closely packed that they were challenging to differentiate.

Figure 6. Trial trenches and Ground Penetrating Radar demonstrating a ‘full’ underground, leaving no free space for nine electricity cables.

Photograph of a trial trench showing the crowded subsurface in a sidewalk. Four radargrams are next to it, demonstrating many hyperbolas in close proximity that also cross each other.

The foreman acknowledged this outcome but identified an alternative use for GPR within the activity. He said: ‘I can already see from these [GPR] outcomes that it (i.e. the subsoil space) is full. Digging the other trial trenches seems unnecessary because we also already see [based on GPR outcomes that] the cable route will not fit.’ The researcher’s actions led the foreman to recognise that GPR had successfully identified insufficient free space for the electricity cables. Recognising the sense of utilising GPR prompted the foreman to question whether to employ the more accurate yet costly, potentially redundant, and time-consuming trial trenches or use GPR alone to identify free space. This revealed a secondary contradiction between the existing tools and the object. This dilemma served as the first stimulus for change in this case.

Recognising that the first stimulus could lead to considering GPR as a second stimulus, the researcher proposed to the foreman that GPR could likely assess the availability of subsoil-free space in the other trial trench areas, given their similar utility patterns. This proposal led the foreman to request the researcher to use GPR in addition to digging trial trenches at the remaining locations. Subsequently, the researcher took on an active role as a GPR operator in the activity. In this capacity, the researcher conducted GPR scans at five sites and presented his findings to the foreman and the project manager, who had also arrived on-site. The results demonstrated that GPR was as effective as trial trenches in revealing insufficient free space at these locations.

The firsthand exploration of GPR alongside existing tools enabled the foreman and project manager to compare the two directly. This experience prompted them to discuss the project’s tool usage with the researcher. The manager commented: ‘The radar would have been a proper substitution on all locations where we have dug trial trenches. Your scans quickly make it clear that the underground is full. Especially where digging trial trenches is extra difficult, the radar would have been worth it. This particularly mattered for the very costly trenches where we had to dig in polluted soil.’ In agreement with the foreman, the manager’s statement indicated that he also considered GPR an equally effective alternative to trial trench tools for this project. He confirmed that GPR was more cost- and time-efficient, especially in areas with polluted soil. This realisation emphasises a learning process that deepened the practitioners’ understanding of the dilemma they faced when choosing between these tools, previously identified as the primary contradiction in their existing tool usage. It demonstrates that by experiencing GPR firsthand, the practitioners recognised the sense of using it as an alternative to trial trenches.

Similar to Case I, a post-site visit discussion with the project team assisted them in envisioning a future utility detection activity system. The researcher shared his GPR findings, clarified how GPR had impacted the project, discussed with the project team how they perceived the technology’s value and role, and asked them to envision this future role in the utility detection activity. In response, the manager stated: ‘There are limitations to using the GPR technology, but there are many situations where highly accurate information about the utilities is unnecessary. The findings on-site show that GPR works well in appointing the free space.’ In the current activity system, trial trenches were used to verify statutory records and locate the water pipeline, a level of detail that GPR could not provide. However, exploring GPR firsthand helped the manager recognise its value in determining free space availability. The manager’s realisation that transforming the existing object of the activity was not essential for the desired outcome signalled the manifestation of a primary contradiction within the object. This prompted him to envision a future activity system with a transformed object and GPR as an integral tool. The outcomes of Case II hence demonstrate that the researcher’s actions facilitated the participants’ development of a meaningful understanding of the purpose of their activity and the potential benefits of GPR in supporting it.

Five action types for researcher-interventionists in emerging technology studies

The findings from Cases I and II outline the potential transformations of the utility detection activity systems towards three future activity systems incorporating GPR as a new tool: a complementary system integrating GPR as a tool for transforming the original detection object, a supporting system using GPR before pursuing transformation of the original detection object, and a substituting system using GPR for transforming a new detection object. We identified five formal action types the researcher-interventionist can employ to identify such future impacts: (1) shape conditions for emerging technology to be considered by subjects as a meaningful tool solution in the activity system; (2) expose tensions deliberately within the activity system to support subjects in identifying manifestations of contradictions; (3) assist subjects with emerging technology to support them in resolving contradictions; (4) operate as tool operator in the activity system to support subjects in exploring emerging technology; and (5) facilitate subjects’ reflection on existing activity system elements. Table 1 presents these types and provides examples from the two cases to illustrate how they were operationalised in the study.

Table 1. Five action types for researcher-interventionists in emerging technology studies, exemplified through the case of GPR.

Action type	Example actions from the GPR case
Shape conditions for subjects to consider emerging technology as a meaningful tool solution when contradictions manifest.	Ask permission to intervene with GPR on the construction site.
	Educate practitioners about the features and components of emerging GPR technology.
	Engage practitioners in the survey outcomes of the emerging GPR technology.
Expose tensions deliberately to support subjects in identifying and learning about contradictions within the activity system.	Inform practitioners about anomalies between the utility locations on the statutory records and findings from the emerging GPR technology.
	Enable practitioners to compare the outcomes of existing tools with those from the emerging GPR tool.
Assist practitioners with emerging technology to support them in resolving contradictions.	Conduct additional GPR surveys in response to a request to resolve a primary contradiction within the existing objectives.
	Propose emerging GPR technology as an alternative means of utility surveying to resolve a secondary contradiction between tools and objectives.
Operate as a tool operator in the activity system to support subjects in exploring emerging technology.	Provide practitioners firsthand experiences of the emerging GPR technology by operating and moderating its use as an alternative to existing tools.
Facilitate subjects’ reflection on existing activity system elements and encourage them to envision future developments.	Share conceptualisations of the identified contradictions with the practitioners.
	Clarify how the emerging GPR technology has impacted the further continuation of activities.
	Ask practitioners to envision the emerging GPR technology’s role in future systems.

The first action type focuses on shaping conditions for subjects to consider emerging technology as a meaningful tool solution when contradictions manifest. Through active engagement and education about the innovative technology, researchers can instil an understanding of its value among subjects. This newfound knowledge leads them to view GPR as a meaningful and practical problem-solving tool when facing problematic situations. Both cases follow a similar sequence of actions for this first type: subjects are informed that they can include GPR as an option in their toolbox, followed by an impromptu demonstration by the researcher where findings are shared with the project teams. In Case I, this sequence prompted the manager to express interest in further exploring GPR's utility detection abilities that day for verification purposes. Case II mirrored this outcome, with the foreman expressing interest in GPR. Essentially, the first action type creates an environment conducive for subjects to consider emerging technology in their actions as a second stimulus for resolving contradictions.

To enable emerging technology to serve as a second stimulus, researchers can expose tensions deliberately to support subjects in identifying and learning about contradictions within the activity system. This second action type guides subjects in recognising and learning about the systemic contradictions in their activity system. For example, in Case I, the researcher supported subjects in unveiling primary contradictions in the use of existing tools by showcasing GPR’s success compared to trial trenches. This prompted the project manager to compare GPR with the common use of trial trenches, revealing to him the limitations of existing tools while learning that GPR surpassed these tools in both time and cost efficiency. Hence, researchers can deliberately trigger a first stimulus for change through this second action type.

When subjects identify contradictions independently or through tensions the researcher exposes, researchers can assist subjects with emerging technology to resolve them. This third action type opens up possibilities for the active support of the researcher, creating a setting where practitioners can experience the innovative technology firsthand. For example, in Case I, the researcher responded to the project manager’s request by using GPR at five additional surveying locations to resolve a primary contradiction within the existing object. In Case II, the researcher proposed using GPR to resolve a secondary contradiction between the existing tools and the object.

The third action type introduced a fourth and highly participatory action type: operating as a tool operator in the activity system to support subjects in exploring emerging technology. The researcher’s firsthand guidance in operating and moderating GPR proved essential for the identified activity system transformations as subjects lacked prior experience with the innovative technology. In the capacity of the GPR operator, the researcher facilitated the integration of the technology into the activity. This fourth action type empowered the subjects to embed GPR in the activity system as a second stimulus for change.

Through this immersive fourth action type, the researcher facilitated practical exploration and learning about the value of emerging technology for the subjects’ practice. This immersive learning process encouraged the exploration of new perspectives, ideas, or approaches among practitioners, fostering a context for contradictions to manifest and resolve. For example, in Case II, exploring GPR alongside existing tools allowed subjects to directly compare the value of these tools in transforming the activity’s object into the desired outcome. This comparison prompted them to question the specification of the existing object, serving as a first stimulus for change and revealing a primary contradiction in the activity’s object. Similarly, witnessing the successful use of GPR in Case I, after being asked to resolve a contradiction between existing tools and the activity’s object, led the project manager to recognise a primary contradiction in the object. In other words, the firsthand learning through the fourth action type enabled practitioners to acknowledge the practical sense of using GPR in their activity as a problem-solving tool, akin to a second stimulus for change. This use of GPR in the concrete practice by the researcher hence initiated multiple cycles of double stimulation. Within these cycles, subjects transitioned from abstractly understanding contradictions to engaging in specific, practical, and concrete actions within the activity system to comprehend and address them with GPR technology.

Finally, we discovered that facilitating subjects’ reflection on existing activity system elements and encouraging them to envision the future enables researchers to capitalise on the firsthand experiences of subjects with emerging technology. This process of reflection helps individuals transition from understanding the theoretical potential impact of a technology, which was initially introduced by the researcher with the first action type, to considering how it affects their day-to-day work environment. By drawing on their practical experiences, introduced by the researcher through action types three and four, researchers can guide subjects in envisioning future activity systems by stimulating practitioners to recognise emerging technology as a meaningful tool for resolving problem situations and by prompting purposeful inquiries about their vision for the activity system’s future and the technology’s potential role. Essentially, this fifth action empowers subjects with transformative agency to shape and steer the future of their activity system based on their reflections and views. It stimulates practitioners to ask themselves, ‘What does the use of the technology mean for me and the activity?’ This study’s reflective processes contributed to conceptualising three potential futures for using GPR. The subsequent section delves into the implications of our findings and the five action types for construction management literature and CHAT.

Discussion

This interventionist study revealed potential transformations of utility detection activity systems towards future systems incorporating emerging GPR technology as a tool. We found potential changes to activity system elements (e.g., tools, objects, subjects) due to manifestations of contradictions. While learning about these contradictions, practitioners were prompted to reconsider activity system elements and envision future change. In the role of researcher-interventionist, five action types supported these transformations. This contributes to the literature as follows.

First, we provide evidence that interventionist approaches support the construction management literature by providing a methodology to study future impacts of emerging technologies on construction sites. Our specific focus centres on the method of formative interventions, which involves the deliberate activity by researchers within an activity system to provoke and drive a transformation process among practitioners (Sannino 2011, Sannino et al. 2016). In contrast to the prevailing observational CHAT applications in construction management literature, often focussing on widespread technologies like BIM (e.g. Mäki and Kerosuo 2015, Akintola et al. 2020), we show that amending formative interventions with a participatory perspective offers a powerful combination for researchers to trigger transformative processes and reveal future activity systems for emerging technologies. This combination allows them to cross the boundary of the concrete practice and become active participants in the activity system. Our study demonstrates how researchers can use this renewed take on formative interventions to develop theories of change using the methodological principles underpinning the CHAT interventionist approach: double stimulation and moving from the abstract to the concrete (Engeström et al. 2014).

Essentially, our findings reveal that our amended take on formative interventions enables researchers to initiate processes of double stimulation among practitioners. This involves guiding them through a transition from theoretical understandings of their system’s contradictions to practical and concrete insights about actions to resolve these contradictions with emerging technology. Considering the ongoing proliferation of various emerging technologies in the construction industry, including maintenance robots (Koh et al. 2023), virtual reality applications for safety and education (Bao et al. 2022), 3D concrete printers (Chung et al. 2021), and as-built laser scanning techniques (Chen et al. 2022), we advocate that our study and this amended take on the formative interventions method provides valuable methodological insights for construction management research. It supports researchers seeking context-rich, practice-based perspectives on the future impacts of emerging technology in construction activity systems.

Second, we flesh out our interventionist role by introducing five formal intervention action types that researchers can employ when conducting studies on emerging technologies in construction. These five action types include: (1) shaping conditions for emerging technology to be considered by subjects as a meaningful tool solution in the activity system; (2) exposing tensions deliberately within the activity system to support subjects in identifying manifestations of contradictions; (3) assisting subjects with emerging technology to support them in resolving contradictions; (4) operating as tool operator in the activity system to support subjects in exploring emerging technology; and (5) facilitating subjects’ reflection on existing activity system elements. This study illustrates how the researcher-interventionist applied these five action types to identify three potential transformations within the activity systems for the GPR case. Each of these transformations represents a distinct ‘use case’ for this emerging technology.

This ‘phronetic’ type of knowledge follows from a close understanding of our empirical findings from practice rather than being considered a universal rationality (Petersén and Olsson 2015). Specifically, we identified uses for GPR in utility detection activities as a complementary, supporting, or substituting tool for the existing tools, exceeding its conventual use of utility verification. Therefore, the five action types introduced in our study offer methodological tools for researchers to uncover such future uses. We advocate that the insights gained from employing our approach could facilitate more mindful innovation-adoption processes (Swanson and Ramiller 2004). In particular, construction organisations can engage in more informed decision-making when equipped with a meaningful understanding of the innovative technology during adoption decision-making and implementation processes. In the case of GPR, this enhanced understanding may stimulate higher adoption rates (Lai et al. 2018), supporting the increasingly complex construction projects in urban areas (Metje et al. 2020).

Third, our interventionist approach and action types enrich the current CHAT toolbox of formative interventions by proposing a renewed participatory take on the role of the researcher-interventionist. This approach stands apart from established methodologies like Fifth Dimension (Cole and The Distributed Literacy Consortium 2006), Change Laboratory (Engeström 2007, Virkkunen and Newnham 2013), Clinic of Activity (Clot 2009), and Genetic Modeling Experiment (Zuckerman 2011) by actively immersing the researcher in practice. By doing so, we challenge the conventional assumption that transformation processes must be led and owned by practitioners (Sannino et al. 2016) and propose that the researcher crosses the ‘boundary’ of concrete practice – an idea articulated by Engeström (1995) to describe individuals stepping outside their usual roles.

Our findings demonstrate that researchers can directly engage with practitioners’ activities through this boundary crossing. Through our five action types, we provide methodological insights on how researchers, as integral participants of an activity system, can foster tensions that lead to contradictions while respecting practitioners’ freedom to interpret their actions and envision new ways of acting (Van Oers 2013). We argue that ‘participating’ does not necessarily entail participating in how the transformation unfolds. Instead, we demonstrate that researchers enhance their ability to stimulate practitioners’ engagement in learning and transformation processes by actively participating in the actual activities. Therefore, we propose that adopting a participatory role as outlined in this study enhances researchers’ facilitating capabilities while preserving practitioners’ transformative agency (Engeström et al. 2014). We articulate that this broadened role of the researcher is particularly beneficial in contexts requiring external support, aligning with previous applications of formative interventions in the context of education (Postholm 2020).

This departure from established formative intervention methods proved essential in our study of the emerging GPR technology. Since the practitioners had limited to no experience with the technology, our support provided practitioners with the essential backing to develop knowledge about GPR and its application within the practice. Through our participatory role, we found that providing the practitioners with firsthand experiences of the GPR technology enabled them to develop a meaningful understanding of its potential benefits. The researcher’s active involvement in using GPR within the practice led practitioners to recognise the sense of utilising this technology, ultimately facilitating its practical application and allowing them to continue exploring its benefits. Had the researcher not participated, the activities under investigation likely would have continued as usual, with subjects potentially failing to recognise or learn about contradictions. This limited learning could have diminished their incentives to change, maintaining the status quo of the activity, as seen in our earlier work (ter Huurne et al. 2022). Instead, by immersing a researcher-interventionist in the studied activity from a participatory research perspective, our research highlights how we enabled practitioners to understand the contradictions within their activity system and consider emerging technology as a meaningful tool solution to resolve them.

The proposed interventionist approach also brings forward limitations and recommendations for future research. For one, our participatory role comes with responsibilities and challenges. Becoming an integral part of the activity system means researchers must maintain transparency about their role and objectives, reflect on their impact on the system, and consider how they influence the changes that practitioners produce. Failure to do so could result in the ‘Hawthorne effect’ (Oswald et al. 2014). Furthermore, researchers should avoid imposing transformations on practitioners during formative interventions. Instead, they should ensure practitioners’ autonomy by allowing them the freedom to interpret their actions and envision new ways of acting (Van Oers 2013), in line with CHAT’s principle of transformative agency (Engeström et al. 2014). This means researchers must engage in a manner that supports the transformation process without overshadowing the participants’ agency for change and, thus, their views on how to transform the activity system. This especially asks researchers to be considerate in using the proposed action types [2], [3], and [4] of this study.

Additionally, our study predominantly focused on the activity itself, with a specific emphasis on how we, as researcher-interventionists, could facilitate the transformation of this activity to uncover the future impacts of emerging technology. In doing so, we paid less attention to the learning processes that participants engaged in as we triggered the processes of double stimulation and ascending from the abstract to the concrete through our actions. CHAT offers the model of ‘expansive learning’ by Engeström (2015), which can help uncover the underlying dynamics of learning when practitioners are exposed to formative interventions. This model applies the principle of ascending from the abstract to the concrete and highlights how individuals progress from understanding abstract concepts to implementing them in concrete situations (Engeström 2020). It could be valuable to employ the cycles of expansive learning to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of our interventionist role on the innovative actions taken by practitioners and their role in driving transformations within the activity system.

The outcomes of our interventions are also limited to locally generated transformations (Sannino et al. 2016). While this approach is valuable for capturing the complexity and dynamics of construction practices, as illustrated in our GPR case, the outcomes of this approach are often challenging to reproduce and generalise across the entire domain. Thus, while our case demonstrates how various empirical landscapes influenced the utility detection activity system transformation process, we also observed that the chain of events creating transformation processes and the final identification of system transformation occurred differently among the cases. Future studies should, therefore, explore how locally identified contextual knowledge can be transformed into domain-appropriate knowledge for emerging technologies. This might be achievable by connecting insights from local activity system studies with frameworks that offer a more systemic perspective, such as Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA), which helps anticipate technology’s impact in terms of its legitimacy, acceptance, and adoption (Schot and Rip 1997).

Finally, during our study, we identified the need for new skill roles to bring about change. For example, the researcher acted as the GPR operator in our research, as construction practitioners lacked the experience or skills to use the technology. Our presence helped avoid a secondary contradiction between the subject and the tools, which might have emerged if the practitioners had attempted to use the technology themselves without support. Although our primary purpose was not to resolve all contradictions in our study but to explore the interventionist role in uncovering activity system transformations, it is crucial to acknowledge that introducing emerging technologies will likely create contradictions requiring resolution in subsequent adoption stages. Practitioners should carefully consider these contradictions to ensure the successful transformation of the activity and implementation of the emerging technology.

Conclusion

This study explored how researchers, as interventionists, can employ the method of formative interventions with a broadened participatory positioning of the researcher to gain insights into possible future impacts of emerging technologies on construction activity systems. We focused on the emerging Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) technology and actively introduced and supported practitioners in its use in utility detection activity systems across twelve construction sites. Our analysis involved scrutinising the actions required to fulfil the interventionist role through an inductive coding approach, utilising data collected from interviews, field visits and discussions. This analytical process included identifying contradictions that triggered transformations in the activity system, matching them with our specific interventionist actions, and categorising these actions into distinct action types. The process revealed five formal intervention action types, contributing to the literature as follows.

First, we provide evidence that interventionist approaches support the construction management literature by offering a methodology for studying the potential future impacts of emerging technologies on construction sites. In contrast to the prevailing applications of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) in construction management literature that often focus on widely adopted technologies like Building Information Modeling (BIM), we demonstrate that participatory, interventionist approaches offer a potent means to unveil possible activity systems incorporating emerging technologies.

Second, our study introduces five action types that researchers, in their role as interventionists, can employ when exploring potential future impacts of emerging technologies: (1) shape conditions for emerging technology to be considered by subjects as a meaningful tool solution in the activity system; (2) expose tensions deliberately within the activity system to support subjects in identifying manifestations of contradictions; (3) assist subjects with emerging technology to support them in resolving contradictions; (4) operate as tool operator in the activity system to support subjects in exploring emerging technology; and (5) facilitate subjects’ reflection on existing activity system elements. These action types led to manifestations of contradictions, prompting practitioners to reevaluate their tools, objects, and roles. It led to the identification of three potential activity system transformations that integrated GPR as a new tool.

Third, our interventionist approach and action types broaden the current CHAT toolbox of formative interventions by proposing a participatory role for the researcher-interventionist. This study illustrates how tensions arise and contradictions manifest when the researcher directly engages with practitioners’ activities. Our approach challenges the assumption that practitioners must lead and own transformation processes. This perspective can restrict the utility of formative interventions in contexts requiring active support, such as implementing emerging technologies unfamiliar to practitioners. Instead, we demonstrate that a participatory positioning can coexist with the sense and meanings attributed by practitioners to the activity’s purpose, enabling the researcher to assist practitioners in developing meaningful solutions to the contradictions that manifest. Our findings show that this approach does not undermine practitioners’ transformative agency but rather respects their perspectives on how to transform the activity system.

To deepen our understanding of the interventionist role and action types, we recommend further exploration of the underlying learning processes driving innovative actions by subjects. Engeström’s expansive learning model (2015) could be valuable in this regard. Furthermore, we suggest that future research explores systemic perspectives guiding the evolution of locally identified solutions through the lens of CHAT, aiming at domain-appropriate knowledge. This approach could support harnessing the three ‘use cases’ identified in our GPR study, shaping adoption decisions, and facilitating the future implementation of the emerging technology on a systemic level.

Disclosure statement

The author(s) report that there are no competing interests to declare.

Data availability statement

Some or all data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. These include the notes, pictures and GPR data from the construction site visits and the interview data. Some or all data used during the study are proprietary or confidential and may only be provided in anonymised form.