Elizabeth writes
----------------------
It seems that Wenger's community of practice is another way of looking at
the same thing that the activity system looks at. Charles Nelson wrote,
"the community in an activity are those subjects motivated towards the same
object, whereas in other perspectives, it's often the people engaged in the
same actions, whether or not they are working towards the same object." I
would argue that's true. So isn't this a question about unit of analysis?
And couldn't you conduct an AT analysis of a COP, in Wenger's sense of the
term? For example, to examine whether or not people engaged in the same
activity are or are not working toward the same object? If we find that
they are working toward the same object, perhaps we are seeing a clear
activity system. If we find they are not working toward the same object,
perhaps we have something else, like Wenger's "boundary practice" or
members of different activity systems who just happen to be in close
physical proximity. Am I dreadfully confused?
----------------------
Elizabeth
I think activity aimed at the same object is a central difference. I
don't have my Wenger text available to look at "boundary
practice." However, same or different activity toward different objects
would make it difficult to account for an outcome, probably multiple
outcomes. The activity-object relationship suggests what kind of activity
there is. If there are multiple objects of activity, which object partly
defines the main activity? Each unity of analysis provides different
information. I don't see how a CoP analysis would provide the information
needed for re-mediation of the activity system.
Bill Blanton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:41 PDT