Béguin, P. & Rabardel, P. (2000). Designing for instrument-mediated activity. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 173–190.Google Scholar

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: relational agency and activity theory. In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 197–211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. (2010). Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, R. (2009). Who is acting in an activity system? In Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutierrez, K. D. (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 257–273). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Engeström, Y., Kajamaa, A., Lahtinen, P. & Sannino, A. (2015). Toward a grammar of collaboration. Mind, Culture and Activity, 22(2), 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practical theory: illuminating the development of a conflict monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marková, I. (2000). Amédée and how to get rid of it: social representations from a dialogical perspective. Culture and Psychology, 6(4), 419–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miettinen, R. (1998). Object construction and networks in research work: the case of research on cellulose-degrading enzymes. Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 423–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nummijoki, J. & Engeström, Y. (2010). Towards co-configuration in home care of the elderly: cultivating agency by designing and implementing the mobility agreement. In Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T. & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.), Activity Theory in Practice: Promoting Learning across Boundaries and Agencies (pp. 49–71). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Paasivaara, M. & Lassenius, C. (2003). Collaboration practices in global inter-organizational software development projects. Software Process Improvement and Practice 8, 183–199. doi: 10.1002/spip.187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruotsala, R. (2014). Developing a tool for cross-functional collaboration: the trajectory of an annual clock. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies, 15(2), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seppänen, L., Ala-Laurinaho, A. & Piispanen, P. (2015). Logics of fluency in the transformation of the Finnish rail traffic control network. Production, 25(2), 278–288. www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S010365132015000200278&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=enCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seppänen, L., Cerf, M. & Toiviainen, H. (2013). Multi-voiced customer understanding in the zone of proximal development of public service networks. Paper presented at the EGOS conference 2013, Montreal.Google Scholar

Seppänen, L., Heikkilä, H., Kira, M., Lallimo, J., Ruotsala, R., Schaupp, M., Toiviainen, H., Uusitalo, H. & Ala-Laurinaho, A. (2014). Palveluverkostojen muuttuvat toimintakonseptit. Asiakasymmärrys, välineet ja työhyvinvointi verkostoyhteistyössä. Series “Tietoa työstä” edited by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. www.ttl.fi/fi/verkkokirjat/Documents/Palveluverkostojen%20muuttuvat%20toimintakonseptit.pdfGoogle Scholar

Seppänen, L. & Kloetzer, L. (2014). A micro-analysis of concepts for developing networking in social work. In Hansson, T. (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Activity Theory: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Human Behavior (pp. 162–181). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toiviainen, H. (2007). Interorganizational learning across levels – an object-oriented approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(4), 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toiviainen, H. (2015). Interventions for learning at global workplaces. In Hansson, T. (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Activity Theory: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Human Behavior (pp. 214–227). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toiviainen, H., Lallimo, J. & Hong, J. (2012). Emergent learning practices in globalizing work – the case of a Finnish-Chinese project in a Finnish technology consulting firm. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(7/8), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar