Re: [xmca] Unit of analysis (an activity or an activity system)?

Welcome to XMCA, Yanjie.
I am sure others will know better than me, but I go to Leontyev, especially
http://marx.org/archive/leontev/works/1977/leon1977.htm where he
distinguishes between "activity" (which I think is the same as "system of
activity"), "action" and "operation". AN Leontyev does not necessarily
have the last word on this and he has been subject to criticism, but so far
as I know he created the concepts referred to by the other writers. The
article at that link is a good place to start, I think.

Andy

At 04:08 AM 10/01/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear All,
>
> I'm currently a PhD student in information technology division, busy in
> consolidating the theoretical framework of the dissertation. I am using
> activity theory basically in the framework. The more I read activity
> theory, the more I felt a bit at a loss. In terms of the basic unit of
> analysis:
> Kutti (1996) states:
> .. actions are always situated into a context, and they are impossible
> to understand without that context (e.g., Suchman 1987). The solution
> offered by activity theory is that a minimal meaningful context for
> individual actions must be included in the basic unit of analysis. This
> unit is called an activity. Because the context is included in the unit
> of analysis, the object of our research is always essentially collective
> even if our main interest is in individual actions. An individual can and
> usually does participate in several activities simultaneously. (p26).
>
> However, Engestrom (1999, p.9) noted:
> Activity theory has a strong candidate for such as a unit of analysis
> in the concept of object-oriented, collective, and culturally mediated
> human activity, or activity system...
>
> I was wondering: Does an 'activity' equal to an 'activity system',
> which is the minimal unit of analysis?
>
> I was wondering whether an activity system consists of a series of
> activities? For example, students use PDAs in the univeristy, at home,
> and in the street for their learning, Is the use of the PDA for learning
> in different commnities one activity, or one activity system or what?
>
> It would be greatly appreciated if I can get any responses from you -
> established scholars in this field. Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yanjie Song
> Division of Information Technology Studies
> Faculty of Education
> The University of Hong Kong
> Email: songyj@hku.hk
>
>
>
>
>
>"Worthen, Helena Harlow" <hworthen@ad.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I think Elinami's explanation is consistent with the middle and third
> term of Andy's three-part "subject": first being the individual, second
> the ensemble of social relations and activities, and third the material
> products of culture.
>
>
>Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
>Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
>University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
>504 E. Armory, Room 227
>Champaign, IL 61821
>Phone: 217-244-4095
>hworthen@uiuc.edu
>http://lep.ilir.uiuc.edu
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>Behalf Of Elinami Swai
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:15 PM
>To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>Subject: Re: [xmca] artefacts
>
>Let me dare to continue. I entertain an idea that when we say
>artifacts, we mean cultural productions, and tools, to mean material
>objects. While cultural productions --language, technology, etc. in
>the name of artifacts mediate our thinking, material objects--pens,
>computers, etc. in the name of tools mediate our behavior. These are
>my thoughts, but I'm still trying to make sense of all these.
>
>Elinami.
>
>On 1/9/08, Mike Cole wrote:
> > Believing as I do that the terms tool and sign are subordinate to the more
> > general category
> > of artifact I am having a little difficulty understanding what is at issue
> > here. In what follows
> > distinctions appear or disappear that I personally find useful. So, for
> > example, I am really
> > unclear about the difference between a social and a cultural artifact. Is
> > language, to take
> > an example from below, a material artifact? An ideal artifact? Doesn't
> > qualification of a
> > toothbrush rather than an artifact qualify its function in the activity of
> > which is a part?
> >
> > Is there a message in this stream I am missing that blinds me to the
> purport
> > of these
> > recent messages? Could you point me to it if so?
> > mike
> >
> > On Jan 9, 2008 7:45 AM, Elinami Swai wrote:
> >
> > > I completely agree with this observation Andy, for when we think of
> > > learning as a social activity, or the formation of one's identity as
> > > originating from society, we come to see that what one learns, how one
> > > learns, and why one learns something, is mediated by his/her social
> > > and cultural artifacts. These can be anything from individual's own
> > > disposition, the material culture in which he/she finds
> > > himself/herself in. In this sense, things like language, computer,
> > > one's interests, abilities, etc. are important mediators of that
> > > learning activity. Of course some are termed artifacts and others
> > > tools, but this separation is secondary, for it does not change
> > > (qualify/disqualify) their function towards the activity
> > > system--learning.
> > >
> > > Elinami.
> > >
> > > On 1/9/08, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > > > One of the implications of my paper is that from the point of view of
> > > > psychology, it is a secondary question whether an artefact is
> > > categorised
> > > > by someone as tool, sign or part of the human body.
> > > >
> > > > I think of the example of a person logging into their computer by (a)
> > > > entering their password (b) swiping a card or (c) having their iris
> > > scanned
> > > > by the computer. You get access to the computer much the same any way.
> > > >
> > > > Does everyone agree with this? And is there any problem with
> calling the
> > > > mass of such artefacts used by a group of people to access their
> > > collective
> > > > activity, "culture"?
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > At 06:35 AM 8/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > >Hi -- So it actually looks as if we have an instance here where Andy's
> > > > >"subjectivity" fits a real case and illuminates it. Two cases,
> > > actually!
> > > > >
> > > > >Regarding nurses, we definitely "get into the logic of the court
> > > decision"
> > > > >and also we (they) addresses it through organization. (Not me
> > > personally
> > > > >-- a labor educator teaches HOW to do it but doesn't actually do
> it, at
> > > > >least not in the sense the union leadership would do it).
> > > > >
> > > > >Your advice to Brian in Arizona regarding "acting like a union" is
> > > exactly
> > > > >what seems to be working among day laborers in the US, various
> > > community
> > > > >groups/workers' centers, and among contingent faculty especially, many
> > > of
> > > > >whom are excluded from full-time/tenure/tenure track bargaining units.
> > > > >It's the consciousness first, the institution second -- but the
> > > > >institution is the tool.
> > > > >
> > > > >Helena
> > > > >
> > > > >________________________________________
> > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > >Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:20 AM
> > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > >
> > > > >Of course my thinking is at a very basic level and we don't expect
> much
> > > in
> > > > >terms of practical cases.
> > > > >But a number of points strike me: the supervisor/nurses retain the
> > > > >consciousness of union-members/carers not employer-agents/managers,
> > > even
> > > > >though the legal decision tries to take this away from them. But the
> > > court
> > > > >decision has to be justified in some way. "All that is real is
> rational
> > > .."
> > > > >but also "deserves to perish" (according to Goethe). So you have
> to get
> > > > >into the logic of the court's decision, and not only defeat it by an
> > > > >immanent critique but also in practice though organisation. You
> > > rehearse
> > > > >the legal argument in the ranks, don't you?
> > > > >.
> > > > >
> > > > >You know, my friend Brian that I introduced you to, Helena, is facing
> > > the
> > > > >same problem in the college he works in in Arizona, where a group of
> > > staff
> > > > >have been "ruled out" of the union bargaining unit. My advice to him
> > > was
> > > > >that the group had to organise themselves as if they were a union
> > > branch,
> > > > >and the legitimate union local had to assist them. Because only the
> > > > >mobilised employees can ultimately prove the truth of their claim
> to be
> > > > >unionists not employer-agents, and prove it to the satisfaction of
> > > othes.
> > > > >So, as Steve Gabosch correctly pointed out, you have a multiplicity of
> > > > >"subjectivities" (including the contradiction that you have
> referred to
> > > > >Helena, about being both a carer and an employee, etc) and you have to
> > > run
> > > > >the argument in and through the human existence of the logic of each
> > > > >argument, the organised workers and the various state and employer
> > > > >organisations. The court agrees with the employer that a certain group
> > > of
> > > > >workers are its agents not its employees. (BTW, this crap is only now
> > > > >beginning to show itself in Australia, but only for those earning like
> > > more
> > > > >than $100,000 pa) So you have a number of subjects overlapping
> here and
> > > > >they hinge around self-concepts of whole extended groups of people who
> > > > >probably only partially identify with the concept, and also negatively
> > > by
> > > > >exclusion, of course.
> > > > >
> > > > >Andy
> > > > >At 05:56 AM 8/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > > >But now that I think about it, isn't the example I give (of a nurse
> > > whose
> > > > > >relationship to her employer, her work and the way she earns a
> > > living) has
> > > > > >suddenly changed because of a decision that came out of a court
> case)
> > > the
> > > > > >very thing that Andy was talking about in his paper, the
> "subject" as
> > > the
> > > > > >unit of analysis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena
> > > > > >________________________________________
> > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > >Of Worthen, Helena Harlow [hworthen@ad.uiuc.edu]
> > > > > >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:31 PM
> > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Andy --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You're probably right about Winnicott, and I was using the term with
> > > a bit
> > > > > >of tongue in cheek -- but I did mean that as far as my work
> goes, the
> > > > > >theory has to work as a tool for getting the job done. Even if it's
> > > not
> > > > > >the perfect tool, if it gets the job done, that's OK (and the tool
> > > will
> > > > > >get refined by doing the job, too).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"And in those terms your problem with the reclassified nurses is a
> > > classic
> > > > > >case of the contradiction between
> > > > > >concept (definition of a nurse) and intuition (the immediate
> > > > > >self-perception of a nurse). That is the terms in which I took
> it. Do
> > > the
> > > > > >nurses need to change the law or should they get used to it?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The plane on which that contradiction might get resolved would
> not be
> > > the
> > > > > >plane with the most material consequences. It would be a plane that
> > > > > >involves an individual adjusting to being defined as something other
> > > than
> > > > > >what he or she thought she was. But on a different plane, there
> > > > > >are tremendous material consequences. The contradiction that frames
> > > that
> > > > > >plane is the contradiction between healthcare as a profit-making
> > > private
> > > > > >business and healthcare as a public good. On that plane, the
> > > > > >reclassification of nurses as supervisors (if they do a certain
> > > number of
> > > > > >a certain kind of task) tries to resolve that contradiction by
> > > checkmating
> > > > > >the power of nurses to collectively resist the devolution of the
> > > > > >healthcare system into maximizing profit. By reclassifying them as
> > > > > >supervisors, they are stripped out of the bargaining unit and lose
> > > their
> > > > > >protections -- they can get fired at will, forced to work overtime,
> > > they
> > > > > >lose the advocacy of their union if they need to speak out, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >As you probably know, the healthcare system in the US is an
> > > incredible
> > > > > >mess. (After budget cuts this time last year, the waiting time for
> > > > > >patients in the Cook County Hospital emergency room was FOUR DAYS).
> > > Nurses
> > > > > >are organizing into unions in many places, and one of the issues
> they
> > > > > >organize around is patient-staff ratios, which has behind it a major
> > > > > >health and safety agenda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >First envisage the activity system of a hospital ward in which
> nurses
> > > have
> > > > > >union protections and can, for example, refuse an assignment to a
> > > ward
> > > > > >where they do not have the proper training (to take an example from
> > > the
> > > > > >experience of a nurse I've worked with -- an oncology nurse getting
> > > > > >assigned to a pre-natal ward). The tools which mediate the
> > > relationship
> > > > > >between the nurses and the hospital system include employment laws
> > > and the
> > > > > >contract, among other things. Then, flip the law -- whoops, some of
> > > the
> > > > > >nurses are no longer in the bargaining unit. For them, their whole
> > > > > >relationship to their work has changed. Should they get used to it?
> > > This
> > > > > >is not a trivial thing. Can they change the law? Not directly --
> it's
> > > a
> > > > > >court case. Actually, it's a Supreme Court decision called "Kentucky
> > > > > >River," after the nursing home the case came out of. Getting used to
> > > it
> > > > > >versus changing the law are not the relevant questions. The relevant
> > > > > >questions are more like, "What is the whole unit of analysis? What
> > > are the
> > > > > >tools? What are the rules? What is the motivation? What's going on
> > > here?"
> > > > > >This may seem like a pretty nuts-and-bolts use of the CHAT framework
> > > but I
> > > > > >haven't found anythign else that is as comprehensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >________________________________________
> > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > >Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
> > > > > >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:29 PM
> > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena,
> > > > > >I just wanted to respond to your off-hand reference to the
> > > "good-enough
> > > > > >mother."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does this mean I'm sloppy and content with any
> > > "good
> > > > > enough"
> > > > > > theory that will fry eggs for me? You know, like
> > > the
> > > > > concept
> > > > > > of a "good enough" mother?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Now, as a non-professional I am quite unaware of debate there may
> > > have been
> > > > > >about this term over the past 30 or 40 years, I only know what I
> read
> > > in
> > > > > >Donald Winnicott's "Playing and Reality" which I thought was the
> > > origin of
> > > > > >this phrase. I took his meaning quite differently. I took it that he
> > > meant
> > > > > >that if the child is to be weaned and become a person in their own
> > > right,
> > > > > >then the requirement on the mother is *not* to perfectly meet the
> > > infant's
> > > > > >needs, but on the contrary to be just "good enough" so that the
> > > frustration
> > > > > >which arises from the non-perfect meeting of her needs is the
> > > beginning of
> > > > > >a process in which the infant begins to work out the nature of
> > > objective
> > > > > >reality for itself. I really liked the idea. And surely it is very
> > > very
> > > > > >relevant to your work as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Just a note on ideographic and nomographic. I responded to Mike on
> > > this in
> > > > > >terms of how Hegel responded to Kant. And in those terms your
> problem
> > > with
> > > > > >the reclassified nurses is a classic case of the contradiction
> > > between
> > > > > >concept (definition of a nurse) and intuition (the immediate
> > > > > >self-perception of a nurse). That is the terms in which I took
> it. Do
> > > the
> > > > > >nurses need to change the law or should they get used to it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Andy
> > > > > >At 09:54 AM 6/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > > > >Eric:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I did not come out of a educational background that immersed me in
> > > the
> > > > > > >kind of theory. My work is very practical. However, I have to use
> > > theories
> > > > > > >in order to get anything done, and CHAT and Activity Theory
> and the
> > > > > > >sociocultural approach generally work for me in ways that other
> > > > > > >theoretical approaches simply do not. I look around in these
> > > theoretical
> > > > > > >discussions like someone who is cooking looks for utensils or
> > > someone who
> > > > > > >is preparing a legal brief looks for precedents and arguments. The
> > > > > > >question of what the unit of analysis is is very important to me,
> > > for
> > > > > > >example -- because when I encounter a complex situation, for
> > > example, a
> > > > > > >group of nurses who have, as a result of a bad decision by the
> > > National
> > > > > > >Labor Relations Board, have been re-classified as supervisors and
> > > lost
> > > > > > >their memberhsip in a bargaining unit with the union protections
> > > that go
> > > > > > >along with that, and therefore become "at will" employees -- I
> need
> > > to be
> > > > > > >able to discern what is going on. What is the unit of analysis
> > > there? What
> > > > > > >is the activity system?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Note that I said "group." The collective subject is important to
> > > me, too,
> > > > > > >since workers' rights are collective rights. This means I'm not so
> > > > > > >interested in figuring out a way to envision an individual as a
> > > unit of
> > > > > > >analysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >There has to be something like a rubber band between the actions I
> > > take
> > > > > > >while doing labor education (whether it's teaching classes, doing
> > > research
> > > > > > >or helping someone one-on-one who is in a bad employment situation
> > > or in a
> > > > > > >bad union) and the theory that I go to to use for doing something.
> > > I go
> > > > > > >back and forth, back and forth,with the reality testing the theory
> > > and the
> > > > > > >theory testing the reality, all the time.If the theory doesn't
> > > help, I
> > > > > > >don't use it. If the theory doesn't help, (if the rubber band
> > > snaps) I
> > > > > > >don't use it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Given the extreme practicality of what I need theories for, there
> > > are some
> > > > > > >concepts that just don't help me much. Idiographic/nomothetic is
> > > one. I
> > > > > > >have no idea what that means. I know there was some discussion on
> > > xmca
> > > > > > >about it, but I skimmed it. Also, purely theoretical discussion
> > > that
> > > > > > >appears to swim deeper and deeper into theory rather than
> > > connecting back
> > > > > > >across the wall between theory and everyday reality does not help
> > > me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does this mean I'm sloppy and content with any "good enough"
> theory
> > > that
> > > > > > >will fry eggs for me? You know, like the concept of a "good
> enough"
> > > > > > >mother? I don't think so. I think the test of a good theory is its
> > > use as
> > > > > > >a tool -- as part of an activity system, maybe one of the cultural
> > > > > > >artefacts that Andy talks about.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Helena
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >________________________________________
> > > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > > >Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org [ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]
> > > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:04 PM
> > > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > >Subject: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Very thoughtful post Helena:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >You have provided me with great understanding of what andy's
> thesis
> > > > > > >represents. I agree his thinking enriches CHAT but I too get lost
> > > in the
> > > > > > >ethereal of his musings : ) My critique of his theory not
> > > presenting
> > > > > > >both an idiographic/nomothetic methodology of psychological
> > > investigation
> > > > > > >has been stymied by Andy claiming such a critique is a dichotomy
> > > and that
> > > > > > >he disavows dichotomies. Any thoughts on this issue?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >eric
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Worthen, Helena
> > > > > > > Harlow" To:
> > > > > > > "mcole@weber.ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > c.edu> cc:
> > > > > > > Sent by: Subject: RE: [xmca]
> > > > > > > Subject: Verb, Object
> > > > > > > xmca-bounces@web
> > > > > > > er.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 12/29/2007 07:37
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > Please respond
> > > > > > > to "eXtended
> > > > > > > Mind, Culture,
> > > > > > > Activity"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Hello --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I want to join in with some thoughts on Andy's paper. I've
> actually
> > > > > read it
> > > > > > >about 3 times and came away with such different thoughts each time
> > > that I
> > > > > > >kept losing confidence that I understood what he was getting at.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I really need some empirical content in a paper like this. When a
> > > paper is
> > > > > > >entirely theoretical, I am always asking what a real-life example
> > > of
> > > > > > >something would be. This slows me down and distracts me and I'm
> > > always
> > > > > > >having to correct myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But here is what I see, on the third try:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The actual problem is the postmodern condition, which Andy
> > > describes (p.
> > > > > > >262) as "There is no identification of the person with the state,
> > > or with
> > > > > > >society as a whole or even a class...The endpoint of
> development is
> > > an
> > > > > > >anomic individual who does not see in any institution a
> > > representation of
> > > > > > >their own identity and aspiration."
> > > > > > >
>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>---------------------------------
> Sent from Yahoo! &#45; a smarter inbox.
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

  Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Jan 9 20:53 PST 2008