Bill,
Thanks for the intersting messages.
Is the activity system necessarily a stable one, and this is off the top of
my head. But, if we take Leontiev's food gathering example would not it
depend on what we want to study. Would not its apparent stability say more
about our interests, rather than the activity system itself. When Engestrom
discusses knot working the activity system/s seem to become a little more
complicated along the lines you described.
In reading your messages I was given the impression you were attempting to
find / describe the boundries of the activity system (or system) that would
address your concerns as a researcher, but doesn't it work the other way
around. To take Mike's work on the 5th D as an example, the activity system
seems very much linked with his interests on sustainability. If his
interests were different, I would assume so would the activity system. Or
take Engestrom and his concept of knotworking in which various activity
systems are linked with the object of meeting the healthcare needs of a
particular patient (Activity Theory and Social Practice 1999).
I would tend to see the activity system more of a perspective as when Eva
describes cascading activity systems which are not concentric circles but
almost like a 3d way of looking at the same system. I agree with you that it
is easy to think of or talk about an activity setting as if it was some sort
of "context", but I think that might say more about ourselves and how time
and space is usually thought about than the activity system itself. From
what you have shared it seems Engestrom's concept of knot working would be
useful to consider. Also, Activity Theory and Social Practice is organized
around the theme of addressing Activity Theory as an explanatory tool on the
one hand, and a tool to change the system on the other. While the book is
more focused on the social practice end, it seems to address some of the
concerns you expressed.
Also, and this is in the context of recently watching the Matrix (the truth
has been told), but how would one decide what is not in the system. I don't
think there is an inside-outside which is where I find Activity Theory the
most useful. We could think of an inside or outside in a context sort a way
as in a 5th D at a particular site, but things outside get in and things
inside get out. Even the whole notion of learning, no matter how hard we
try stuff goes in and out that we don't plan on even though we try damn
hard. On the more political end a while ago you shared about how the
politics of integegration-segregation affected one of the sites. This could
be seen as something from the outside coming in or a challenge to the whole
division of outside-inside. The Matix comes back to my end, in which it
ends with a comment about a world without boundries. I guess what I'm trying
to say is that rather than the activity system being a theoretical model for
stability, it can also be a very useful model for choas and a world in which
boundries are making less and less sense.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 4:03 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: connecting and co-construction part 2
I had left off at -- "especially when one of the goals is learning."
This gets to the very heart of the one of the issues of ecological
validity, that is getting involved with the activity with the intention of
changing it. My work is in several ways aligned with the form of Ann
Browns design experiment, and influenced by Yrjö's work with the change
laboratory. The work is intended towards inducing change in the system(s),
in direct contradiction with bronfenbrenners first guideline of
"maintaining the integrity of the situation being investigated" (cole,
hood, mcdermott 1997). So how can we approach ecological validity? Ahh...
Well, partially its a matter of drawing the boundaries, of what you
consider 'the situation' or 'the system'. I have to be careful with words,
because 'activity system' is what I've heard is taken traditionally to be
something that is stable and what I am studying is quite unstable.
Maturana and Varela treat the issue of drawing boundaries around the
'system' by stating this -- i'll paraphrase -- if you have to include
influences outside the system, then redraw the boundaries of your system to
include those influences. It gets to be quite a mess for me. At present
I can trace influences to the state of massachusetts doe, with it's testing
of both children and teachers, and the curriculum frameworks that it
developed, through our subsequent re-action to align to those frameworks
and standards, and can include at least one other organization that has
come into the spotlight to influence what we are doing with our
partnership. Oh yeah -- and as investigator/interventioner I am also within
the boundaries of this 'grand system'.
The insight I took away from Yrjö's change laboratory work was to begin
giving people access to the theoretical tools. This changes a lot -- it
develops a synergy between striving for ecological validity and inducing
change in the system. I'm tempted to scan in a drawing of triangles that
my collaborator drew for me (as recounted at the earli conference, she
grabbed my notebook away from me during an interview and began drawing!) .
My take on the idea is that people will begin using the theoretical tools
to re-shape their work -- learning takes place -- and observing the uptake
of the tools provides one with some clues to what is happening.
There is an unresolvable tension between ecological validity and
investigation that is similar to trying to pin down where an electron is --
there is an uncertainty principle -- one cannot pin down where the thing is
at any point because in doing so one also influences where it is going --
the act of developing one perturbs the other. I think making the
investigation into an intervention by nature just makes this relationship
between validity and investigation/intervention more explicit, more open
for examination.
At EARLI, I some interest in design experiment related approaches -- but
the actual studies presented (by US folks) seemed to be those of
passive-researcher-observing-other-people re-designing their systems. And
this falls short of 'being there' and 'getting into it'. The
contradictions that exist in the systems under study can remain hidden
until you are one of the people trying to make a change. I guess this is
where the 'bricks on the head' come in.
gotta get in a run before dinner...
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:08 PST