Thank you for your response, Lubomir. Roger Barker was an important
influence on my thinking earlier in my career. His work is highly
respected
in community psychology. Quoting from our article, here is the
distinction
we see between behavior setting and activity setting:
"The subjective focus of activity settings distinguishes
them from the behavior settings developed by Barker
(1960 , 1968 ). In behavior settings, the focus is on objective
molar behavior specified by time and place. Behaviors are
defined by the roles or positions of people in the setting and
activity is used to coordinate their behaviors. Suggestions
have been made to alter behavior setting theory to include a
wider range of individual behaviors, cognitions, and
interventions in the setting (e.g., Luke et al. 1991 ; Schoggen
1989 ; Wicker 1987 ). In contrast, activity setting theory
unifies the objective and subjective by showing how
activity is influenced and intersubjectivity developed.
Rather than a collection of individual behaviors and cognitions,
intersubjectivity develops as a setting characteristic
that becomes the shared meanings of culture and provides
the basis for cultural community psychology." (p. 24)
For a more thorough presentation of our use of the concept of
activity
setting, please see:
O'Donnell, C. R. & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Community intervention
guided by
theoretical developments. In A. S. Bellack, M. Hersen, & A. E. Kazdin
(Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and
therapy, 2nd
Edition (pp. 251-266). New York: Plenum Press.
Cliff
Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA
Division 27)
University of Hawai'i
Department of Psychology
2530 Dole Street
Honolulu, HI 96822
On Aug 12, 2013, at 7:12 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov 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.
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