Thanks for the posting of the blurb from Bill Blanton's discussion of
"Engestrom's trajectory."
I have returned to xmca after 2 years during which I worked as education
director for a small labor union of clothing and textile workers in eastern
Pennsylvania. I am looking for theoretical tools by which I can both
interpret my experience there and explain it to other people in my field,
which is now Industrial Relations. Activity theory, as an interpretive
framework, has a ring of truth to me -- when I cast it around the notes and
photographs I gathered during that time, it illuminates that experience and
points in all the right directions.
But how deep does one go, explaining the theory, in using it to interpret an
activity system when the primary focus of what one is writing has to be NOT
on showing that the theory works, but on bringing the activity system into
the light?
Helena Worthen
Chicago Labor Education Program
University of Illinois, Chicago
hworthen@uic.edu
Rosa Graciela Montes wrote:
> The following is a blurb from a discussion by Bill Blanton of "Engestrom's
> trajectory". Originally posted on xpractice (1995), now obtainable
> through ftp at the following site:
>
> ftp://weber.ucsd.edu/pub/lchc/chapters/engestrom
>
> The paper discusses among other things, the four fundational
> principles of activity theory ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:11 PST