>Why aren't Yrjo's change lab workshops activity systems?
Uhh... since the claim Mike questions relates to something I wrote, I feel
some responsibility to address it. It would be a lot better if Yrjö
addressed this issue, but I'll give it a shot. The question is really not
so much whether some situations we encounter are or are not activity
systems. As Jay, and I think Naoki, among others, have mentioned before,
theoretical categories are often rather fuzzy -- my take is that like so
many other theoretical categories, for us to be rigid in a definition of
activity system, when one of our goals as researchers is to address human
interactivity across complex situations is... well... contradictory. We
have these terms that we throw out there from time to time -- settings,
episodes, activity systems, situations, institutions, universities,
colleges, schools, clubs, classrooms, workplaces, etc., each varied in its
theoretical generalizability and ecological validity.
The things I find most interesting happen with such fluidity across these
categories, that at any time any of them can appear wanting. So,
personally, my preference is not to participate in an 'armchair'
discussion / argument over what 'really' constitutes an activity system,
but rather to ask how can we use this framework to help guide the work that
we do. Grounded in such a discussion of these applications, it is highly
probably that reconsideration of the question, situatedly transformed, will
yield some benefits. eh?
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:10 PST