I cannot post directly to xmca because of mail service problems again at my=
end - would you forward this to the list?
TIA,
BB
At 4:32 PM -0800 5/24/99, Yrjo Engestrom wrote:
>So let's not inflate activity theory into an unrecognizable balloon of
>everything interesting. Let's discuss different approaches acknowledging
>their own frameworks and roots.
>
Thank you for the invitation, Yrjo. I have been looking for a way to enter=
the discussion again and I also need a distraction from the bushels of=
grading tasks that have been accumulating.
I have the impression that activity theory is content-free. In other words,=
it is applicable to a wide variety of human interactions, from schools to=
courtrooms, designing technology, piloting aircraft, scientists doing=
science, internet communications, and even people walking through airports.=
Many other, but not all, theories are much more narrow in the range of=
phenomena they address. Senge's Fifth Discipline, for example, (it's not=
clear that it IS a theory) only addresses how people work together in=
organizations. Norman's work also seems to have a lesser range of human=
interaction to which it is applicable.
Content free? That first thought at 36,000 feet bothered me, but not so=
much now that I am back at sea level. In activity theory, the content is=
embedded in the physical and social contexts, and in the interactions. For=
example, scientists' activity is different from grocery shopping, for one,=
because of the different ensemble of artifacts that science has from=
grocery shopping. Even though one might make a discovery in either=
activity (I discovered a new elementary particle! vs. I discovered a new=
fruit!) the object of each activity and the rules for participation are=
also different. And the scientist might call a colleague to verify his=
result theoretically or experimentally, while the grocery shopper might=
just buy the new discovery. You can see, however, that the framework of=
subject, object, rules, etc. apply in either case, yet those theoretical=
constructs alone and in their general meanings do not facilitate designing=
interventions as strongly as more narrow-in-focus, content sensitive theori=
es.
Does that leave one to be an eclectic? No. Rather, activity theory is so=
broadly applicable across diverse settings because it is content free, that=
it has become my theory of first choice, as a sort of a swiss army knife. =
Other theories, that carry domain and interaction sensitive knowledge are=
things that I can position activity theory against, and these contrasts=
help me to fill up the framework with content. For example Senge includes=
shared vision, that may roughly translate to CHAT's shared object (in=
simplest form two triangles intersecting at the object), but then Senge=
insists on wide application of system dynamics as what I interpret is a=
means to enforce people's realization of their interdependence on each=
other. Of course, CHAT could be used in a similar way, using the triangles=
with people to help people realize certain aspects of their interactions=
with each other (As Engestrom's knotworking does). But then system=
dynamics has quantitative power and a collection of computer tools (like=
one to construct a visual re-presentation of a system of differential=
equations) to enable modeling and simulation.
Sidebar: Theories about people's interaction can form a queer mix. While=
CHAT can be used to understand the interactions of people in a learning=
organization, Senge could have also chosen it, instead of system dynamics,=
as a tool to mediate interaction. Thus CHAT can recursively become an=
artifact in its theory of activity. =20
This brings me to the epistemological foundation issue. Yrjo raises the=
point that these different theoretical frameworks often have different=
epistemological assumptions as their foundation. I worry about that=
becoming a hobgoblin as it does for so many radical constructivists. =20
I have this other perspective as a prior physicist and seeing many physical=
theories being used in the contexts in which they are powerful. Although a=
great deal of work has gone on in attempting unification of physical=
theories, all this effort happens at a highly abstract level. Many=
practicing physicists conducting 'normal science', especially=
experimentalists, rely upon the collection of theories, from quantum=
mechanics, to electromagnetic field theory, to special relativity, etc. to=
do their work. The mix of theories seems to depend upon their particular=
speciality, whether they are an atomic and molecular physicist or a=
condensed matter physicist. There are some general rules that my collegues=
apply such as "high speeds or reference frame problems? - better make sure=
to include special relativity" or "better check to see if quantization=
makes a difference". A theoretical calculation of Rydberg atoms may=
include quantum and relativistic effects, while a calculation of crystal=
properties may include quantum and field effects. =20
Quantum mechanics upset Einstein greatly because of the fundamental=
assumptions that it required of reality, different from his own. And much=
work has been conducted in investigating the foundations of quantum=
mechanics, while, as a theory, it simultaneously went on to become very=
successful across a wide variety of phenomena. That perspective leaves me=
wondering about the viability of asserting epistemological constraints on=
the use and integration of human theories of interaction. Human=
interactions are far more complex that atomic interactions, and it is just=
my instinct that we will need a greater and more powerful collection of=
theoretical tools, than what physicists use, to understand them.
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Technology in Education
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790=20
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."]