Apologies for being behind the times. Here are some quick thoughts about "practical AT", a redundant term, imho.
The theory applied solely to guiding one's interactions among others is worthwhile. The limitation to this strategy is that the coordination of actions with activity theory occurs, in any reliable way, only with the individual who is chat-cognizant. With any activity system, the work being done, including decision making, is distributed among many people. The individual investigator/instigator has only so much influence. In the pursuit of systemic change, I have found this strategy useful, but insufficient for building the 'capacities' for 1) making changes sustainable, and 2) making possible further changes in the system.
Another strategy is the Change Lab that Yrjö and colleagues have developed -- directly introducing the expanded model as instrumental to the work to be done.
A strategy that I have started to apply is to identify situations in which activity theoretical ideas/language/products/tools may be injected into the ongoing practical work, encouraging the uptake of these things with the other people around me. This approach is often less 'in your face' than the change lab, and so it has its tradeoffs. At my institution of higher-ed, I am applying this strategy currently through the traditional practices of faculty review (my own), committee work, a case study involving the interaction of one of the institutions program with the systemic change of a school/community, and to program planning.
gotta run,
-- Bill Barowy, Associate Professor Lesley University 29 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 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:01:00 PST