[Xmca-l] Re: Wikipedia CHAT entry

[Huw Lloyd]

Anyone who has carefully studied the historical works of AT, which are
psychological, would know that it is nonsense to call this a "third
generation". Calling it a "third generation" is a political manoeuvre.

Best,
Huw

On 28 January 2018 at 01:56, Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Huw,
>
> I had worked on those ideas as well:
>
> Roth, W.-M. (2007). The ethico-moral nature of identity: Prolegomena to the
> development of third-generation cultural-historical activity theory.
> International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 83-93
> Roth, W.-M. (2007). Emotion at work: A contribution to third-generation
> cultural historical activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14, 40-63.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Is anyone other than Engestrom claiming that their work is 3rd generation
> > AT? Are there any Russian psychologists clamouring to understand what
> > improvements have been made to their system in this "3rd generation"? It
> > doesn't seem like a careful depiction to me.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > On 27 January 2018 at 18:49, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I just stumbled across the wikipedia page. Someone put a lot of work
> into
> > > that entry. It would be
> > > interesting to discuss with whose who put it together so carefully.
> > >
> > > Check it out.
> > > mike
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural-
> > > historical_activity_theory&action=history
> > >
> >
>