First of all, thank you! for pointing out the weaknesses in my =
description. When I started writing this email, I immediately =
concluded that it would take at least an article or perhaps a full =
book to do the problem justice. Oversimplication is a always a peril =
of compression. So thank you for keeping me honest!!
Yrj=F6 writes:
>--If Edouard is trying to say that activity theory asks you to "sit atop
>your activity system,=B2 he has a very strange reading of activity =
theory. At
>least in my version of AT, the researcher needs to alternate between the
>involved position of ethnographically "riding the community of practice"
>and the distanced position of trying to make theoretical sense of the
>practice. There is nothing particularly impossible about that - we do it
>every day (never perfectly).
I see your point, but I disagree with your methodology for describing =
communities. Yes an activity system isn't a static thing; otherwise =
we could just collect the products at the end and analyze that. In =
my research, I problematized the existence of communities. Even Lave =
and Wenger never point to a single community and show that it exists. =
Instead they point to classes of objects that seem intuitively clear =
and never even address the question: "Are communities of practice =
analytical categories (i.e. they only exist in the minds of =
researchers,) or are communities of practice actually =
beings-in-the-world? (i.e. they exist whether or not us tin-plated =
researchers are around to observe them.)"
Activity systems it seems to me pose the same dilemma. Are they =
analytical structures that researchers impose upon the world, or are =
they existential objects? My feeling is that the literature tries to =
eat its cake and have it too. Now I'm betting that activity systems =
do exist in the world, because I'm proposing to build some and launch =
them into the world far from any analyst. But I have to admit to a =
certain amount of worry. I don't know where activity systems "live." =
In my own research, the best answer I can give is they are "knots" =
of socio-cultural-historical constraint systems. A scuba-diving shop =
is "the bones" of layer upon layer of congealed human labor. The =
other sites that I've studied software companies and classroom also =
have that character. A very puzzling example that I recall from my =
software house ethnography was the complete lack of programmers =
working collaboratively. To work together, they had to leave the =
"walls" (in this case literal) of their cubical and enter another =
social space called "a meeting." It was so absurd that programmers =
working next to each other would never move a chair over to work at =
the same computer; instead they would appropriate space in an empty =
hallway and have an impromptu "meeting."
So I return to my original question: in what way does an activity =
system "exist?" When does it come into existence? What are its =
space-time boundaries? Do activity systems go out of existence? if =
so how? Can I point to causal mechanisms that create activity =
systems, and if so, how do I assign "blame/credit" to those systems? =
When I "throw" my distance learning system into the world, I will be =
clearly in some role of causation, but how much? Am I, as analyst, =
simply "bracketing" socio-cultural fossils that extend well beyond my =
vision, or do the fossils themselves define the boundaries of the =
activity system.
>
>Edouard continued:
>
>
>>If researchers were cheap, you could I suppose try to combine both types
>>of analysis: <><><><> Bytes saved <><><><><>
>
>--This statement seems to indicate that Edouard equates activity system
>with a fixed "site". That would be a misunderstanding. An activity (in the
>sense Leont'ev wrote about it) is not defined by its location but by its
>object. Thus, I am certainly a member of the activity system called LCHC =
in
>that I am involved in constructing its object - even though I am =
physically
>thousands of miles away from San Diego.
Yep, here I screw up. There is a sub-issue that I failed to mention =
that explains my problem. As noted above I don't see the activity =
system as static, instead, I am simply hoping that it isn't so =
dynamic as to overwhelm the analyst! Here is the problem: suppose, =
as I believe, that communities of practice are far more shadowy =
existential objects than first thought. So that LCHC is an activity =
system that serves as host of a myriad of ghostly communities of =
practice. Yesterday, we held a meeting on a NSF request for grant =
proposals - it is conceivable to me that for that 1+ hour a tiny =
community of practice formed. If it did, I can just about assure you =
that it vanished at the end of the meeting. Yet it may spawn other =
communities with longer duration. Yrj=F6, you were not a part of =
that community of practice, but you may well play an important role =
in the communities that are spawned from that meeting. If =
communities of practice as fleeting as that, I dare you to capture =
all that detail with one ethnographer trying to "inhabit" an activity =
system like LCHC! :-)
>
>Edouard continued:
>
>
>>Also the project could be impossible due to the sheer number of possible
>>communities. My analysis of communities of practice suggests that there
>>are many "micro-communities" that are born, exist for as little as 1/2
>>hour, and disappear - their "project" accomplished. Even a hardcore
>>Ethnomethodology approach might not detect such existential "ripples," =
and
>>such a project would require 3 to 5 researchers per participant!
>
>--I cannot help feeling that we have a severe inflation of the concept of
>community here. For me, community is a theoretical concept that has to be
>problematized, not taken for granted and attached to any arbitrary group =
or
>interaction. For activity theory, the emergence of a shared object and
>motive is the key to community formation. In other words, WHY would
>Edouard's students want to work or study in the first place? What would be
>their object(s) and motive(s)? The fact 150 students are taking the same
>course is no indication of community formation to me. Each student is
>probably taking the course simply for his or her individual credit and
>couldn't care less about "community" in the course. As long as object and
>motive are not problematized, talk about community seems rather empty to =
me.
Ah, but here is where the "magic" of my distance learning system will =
lie. I'll be a little cryptic here because there may be a patent =
lurking in these ideas. As I originally argued, there is something =
fundamentally different about taking an instructor, 15 TAs, and 300 =
students and putting them in a box. The results of taking the box =
away and simply moving the class online are quite disappointing - =
why? This is I suppose fertile ground for a compare/contrast =
analysis of two activity systems. I have a guess, and it has to do =
with the "rubbing together" of beings that happens inside a box, but =
doesn't happen when the box is "exploded."
Yrj=F6, I'll be happy to send you a copy of my dissertation if you =
like. In my existential analysis of communities of practice a =
*GREATLY* problematize the business of identifying communities of =
practice, and in so doing extract some rather unusual properties. I =
think that analytical stance offers some insight into the effects of =
"rubbing people together." Wish me luck! I'm betting the store on =
it! :-)
Peace, Edouard
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . =
: Edouard Lagache, Lecturer :
: Department of Communication (0503) :
: University of California, San Diego :
: 9500 Gilman Drive :
: La Jolla, CA, 92093-0503 Voice: (619) 534-7192 :
: elagache who-is-at netcom.com FAX: (619) 534-7315 :
: http://members.aol.com/EdLagache/home_page.html :
:...................................................................:
: Man is a knot, a web, a mesh into which relationships are tied. :
: =
Saint=ADExup=E9ry :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .