Steve,
I think this is a very important distinction, and yes, I think the
article was much more about conceptions and perceptions *of* the
object than about the activity-directing qualities of the object
itself. Conceptions of the object are an important part of the big
picture, of course, but I think it's important to recognize that there
should be a great deal more to say about the EAWARN system and about
the way the activity created and was created by the multifaceted and
dynamically changing object (which is dynamically changing at least in
part as a consequence of the conceptions, which are changing as a
consequence of the changes in the object, which is ......)
One limitation of this article is, of course, its interview method.
That will always introduce the filter of "conceptions and perceptions
of" the object. An important addition to that has to be a study of
the activity system itself. Has Foote written anything along those
lines? I did feel like this article alone was only a teaser.
dale
> Very helpful discussion! I am struggling with several ideas here
regarding
> the activity system object. Here's a big one for me. Kirsten's
paper
> contains numerous statements about researching activity system
objects and
> about properties of activity system objects, creating intriguing
insights
> for the reader to consider (they requires careful observation over
time,
> are constantly in transition, are evolving, multi-faceted, slippery,
etc.).
> But the bulk of her paper seems to focus
on "conceptions," "perceptions"
> and "constructions" or "constructs" of activity system objects - on
the
> part of the participants - particularly when analyzing the
> ethnic-monitoring network EAWARN. So here is a line of questioning:
> regarding the central focus of activity theory's inquiry into the
object of
> an activity system ... is the focus the activity system object
itself ...
> or is it the participant's **conceptions** of it? There can be no
doubt
> that the perceptions and conceptions on the part of the participants
> regarding the object of an activity system will be crucial to the
evolution
> of that object, and should be of central concern in any analysis of
an
> activity system. But how critical is the partcipant's perceptions
of an
> object at any point to the effort of pursuing an understanding of the
> activity system object itself? (For example, suppose many
participant's
> don't yet know much about the activity system object, such as the
> mathematicians in the calculations department on the Manhattan
Project
> before Feynman had them told it was for an atom bomb? Did that
change the
> actual activity system object? (see Engestom 1987 Expanded
Learning)).
> I am thinking a distinction between an activity system object and the
> conceptions of the participant's about it is a very important
distinction,
> and may be blurred by a strong focus on "conceptions"
and "constructs"
> without a parallel emphasis on the activity system object as an
objective
> social reality (something more than a "construct"). Am I on or off
the
> right track here?
>
> - Steve
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT