[Xmca-l] Re: Activity Setting

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

You're most welcome, Lubomir.

A few more books off the top of my head:

I assume you have read LSV's The Psychology of Art?

And if you know about Alexander's QWAN/Zen, then Bateson's ecological
writings may be good. (Steps to An Ecology of Mind).

Wertsch's book on Mediation is nice too.  Though if you read Derry there
are reasonable objects to the use of "affordance".

If you do the mental work on inferentialism/representation (see Derry
again) then Beer's notion of variety may be very powerful too (e.g. see
Designing Freedom).

Oh, and Seymour Papert's general notions about readable artefacts is nice
too.

David Pye, Nature of Art and Workmanship.

C.H. Waddington, Tools for Thought.

I could give you plenty of software design environment examples.  Perhaps
that's too specialised.

Best,
Huw

On 12 August 2013 20:51, Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu> wrote:

> Dear Huw,
>
> What a wonderful collection of sources! I will go through them. Alexander
> is an old "acquaintance." I mean I started with him as soon as he published
> his Pattern Language books and followed his work thereafter.
>
> Best,
>
> Lubomir
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 3:02 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Cc: Cliff O'Donnell; Roland Tharp
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Activity Setting
>
> On 12 August 2013 18:12, Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > I am also interested to find the term "activity setting" in Vigotsky's
> > writings or those of his followers, including everyone in the East
> > European activity theory tradition. I would appreciate articles or
> > specific references and page numbers. I need this to anchor some ideas
> > and to pay tribute to earlier theorists if they have worked on this.
> >
> > I am also interested if there are people on this list who work on the
> > development of the concept of activity setting or on activity theory
> > in relation to the planning and design of built environment. They can
> > contact me at the e-mail below my signature or via this list,
> > whichever is more convenient. I was going to make such a request on
> > this list some time ago, but now is a good occasion for this.
> >
>
> Hi Lubomier
>
> Jan Derry's philosophical work on educational design, e.g.
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00246.x/abstract
>
> Harry Daniels<
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4fKt9MU9w_cC&pg=PT4&dq=Harry+Daniels+2010&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-C8JUtz2NKya1AXk04H4Dw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Daniels%202010&f=false
> >&
> James
> Wertsch<
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pn3S9TEjvUAC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=implicit+mediation+companion+to+vygotsky&source=bl&ots=CMtGYR6cDR&sig=rwVa0RCxGXg6uvgU08WaVHbs8VI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eC8JUt6lCOWI0AXG34HYBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=implicit%20mediation%20companion%20to%20vygotsky&f=false
> >on
> implicit mediation is relevant.
>
> A popular historical on buildings (Stuart Brand):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0
>
> My personal favourite (for buildings) is Christopher Alexander's original
> works: A synthesis of form and the 3 volume pattern language (life
> affirming architecture).
>
> If one subscribes to the notions of Conway's law<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law> then one should also be
> studying the activity of the designers and the influence of the environment.
>
> I have more design centric references (without reference to Activity
> theory) if want them.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
> >
> > To my knowledge, no one in the East European activity theory tradition
> > has used the term "activity setting," at least till the late 1980s. If
> > I have missed something, it is good to catch up.
> >
> > I personally work (on and off) on the concept of activity setting
> > since the early 1980s. However, I develop it as a methodological
> > category for the study of built environment. I have to acknowledge
> > that I got the idea for activity setting from Roger Barker's "behavior
> > setting." At that time, in East Europe, the concept of behavior was
> > considered one-sided and with less explanatory power than the concept
> > of activity. There was no way to introduce the behavior setting
> > concept without setting the reaction of mainstream social scientists.
> > Even if someone dared to suggest the behavior setting concept in an
> > article, the reviewers will automatically recommend to rework it as
> > "activity setting." In East European social science of that time,
> > behavior referred mostly to the visible, mechanistic aspects of activity
> or in the sense of "demeanor."
> >
> > Bob Bechtel has done a good work in the early 1980 expanding on
> > Barker's behavior setting, operationalizing his ideas for the field of
> > Environment and Behavior (Architecture and Human Behavior;
> Man-Environment Systems).
> >  However, this work didn't continue. On the other hand, at that time,
> > it was too early to talk about activity settings in the USA. It is
> > early even now, in particular in the field of Environment and
> > Behavior. Many people in that field resent the idea of ditching
> > behavior for activity. They believe that the concept of behavior
> > setting is good enough and there is no need to introduce one more
> concept of similar kind.
> >
> > In relation to the field of Environment and Behavior, I personally
> > believe that Barker has offered very useful ideas and they can become
> > a stepping stone for developing the concept of activity setting. The
> > activity setting concept will allow us to use the apparatus of
> > activity theory which is more powerful than the concept of behavior. I
> > also believe that the development of the activity setting theory for
> > the fields of teaching or management or social work and community
> > building will be somewhat different. Their focus will be different and
> > this will lead to working on different details. As usual, it is not
> > possible to study everything about one object of study. We have to
> > make difficult choices regarding aspects and depth: what to study first,
> what to defer, and what to skip.
> >
> > Barker had a lot of conflicts with main stream psychologists (not
> > activity theorists). I have heard from Bob Bechtel (a student of
> > Barker) that psychologists were telling Barker: Roger, you think just
> > like a sociologist, which in psychological parlance meant Roger, you are
> a SOB.
> > This illustrates the disciplinary biases and divisions.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Lubomir
> >
> > Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
> > School of Family and Consumer Sciences American Culture Studies
> > Affiliated Faculty Bowling Green State University
> > 309 Johnston Hall,
> > Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0059
> > Lspopov@bgsu.edu
> > 419.372.7835
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:55 AM
> > To: Roland Tharp; Cliff O'Donnell
> > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHAT and Community Psychology
> >
> > Thank you very much for your considered response, Roland and Cliff.
> >
> > Just a couple of follow ups, because I think healing an
> > interdisciplinary gap requires the maximum possible clarity over shared
> concepts.
> >
> > (1) I am still not clear about the meaning of "acitivity setting." I
> > have read Wertsch, and I have nothing at all against him, but I am
> > just not as familiar with his work as I would like to be. But I have
> > read a lot of Vygotsky and never came across the term "activity
> > setting" in Vygotsky's writing. There may be an issue of different
> > translations possibly. I wonder if you could perhaps scan a page of a
> > book where Vygotsky explains his meaning or at least uses the term.
> > I have generally come across the term used to indicate, for example,
> > the school, or family or a specific workplace, and the norms and rules
> > and expectations prevailing in those settings. I gather you take
> "setting"
> > to refer to a particular, rather than a general, such as "family" or
> > "school." So "Sandy Bay Elementary" would be an activity setting, but
> > not "school," which would be just a type of activity setting. I see
> > that "activity setting" is an activity, but includes the particulars,
> > such as the participating individuals and the physical surroundings.
> > It seems such an important concept for you, as Community
> > Psychologists, I would appreciate more specification.
> >
> > (2) By me taking an extreme example (slavery) we quickly achieved
> > agreement that further specification of "shared activities" is needed
> > for an understanding of how mutual understanding arises. (Of course it
> > did to an extent under slavery too). I categorise forms of
> > collaboration into 3
> > modes: direction (line management, command-and-obey, as pertains in
> > the normal capitalist firm or public service department), exchange
> > (purchase and sale, customer-service provider, as pertains in the
> > market
> > place) and collaboration as such (mutual criticism, shared attribution
> > and decision-making). It seems to me that distinctions like these are
> > important. Being a teacher or boss in a community, especially if you
> > are otherwise an outsider, can be problematic, even though you are
> > engaged in a "shared activity" with the locals. I was really impressed
> > by the examples you cited, so obviously you have thought these issues
> through.
> > What is the anatomy of an "activity setting" then?
> >
> > (3) What other ways do you conceptualise "context"?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> > (and please not "Professor," I am an independent scholar, retired.)
> >
> >
> > Roland Tharp wrote:
> > > Professor Blunden,
> > >
> > > Please find our responses to your questions attached.  Thank you for
> > > your interest.
> > >
> > > Roland Tharp
> > > Cliff O'Donnell
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > > <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Thanks for sharing that very interesting paper, Mike. From what I
> > >     see, there is little justification for the dislocation between
> > >     these two research communities - CHAT and Community Psychology.
> > >     Their aims, sources and methods seem so similar and compatible.
> > >
> > >     I would just like to ask the authors a couple of questions.
> > >
> > >     * Do you take "activity setting" to be the optimal conception of
> > >     "context"?
> > >
> > >     * What exactly do they understand by "activity setting"? You cite
> > >     Vygotsky in a book edited by Wertsch, but I do not have that book.
> > >     I associate "activity setting" with the current of CHAT around
> > >     Mariane Hedegaard. It seems to me to be similar in meaning to
> > >     "institution". Thus I quetion the efficacy of this concept for
> > >     grasping social change, as opposed to just child development.
> > >
> > >     * Is "mutual understanding" is what you mean by
> "intersubjectivity"?
> > >
> > >     * I agree that participation in shared activities is the necessary
> > >     condition for peope to achieve mutual understanding. But this is
> > >     not necessarily the outcome, is it? It depends on the type of
> > >     collaboration within the activity. EG White slaveowners and black
> > >     slaves collaborated in the production of cotton in the Confederate
> > >     States of America for many years, but this did not result in
> > >     mutual understanding. So it seems that the notion of "shared
> > >     actvities" needs further specification. Yes?
> > >
> > >     thanks
> > >     Andy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>