|
Activity theory
Activity theory is a Soviet psychological theory invented by Alexei Nikolaevich
Leontyev, which became one of the major psychological theories in that
country, being used widely in areas such as the education of disabled
children and the design of equipment control panels.
The history of activity theory
Activity theory originated from the Moscow Institute of Psychology and
in particular the troika of young and gifted researchers, Lev Semyonovich
Vygotsky (1896–1934), Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902–77)
and Alexei Nikolaevich Leontyev (1903–79). Vygotsky's contribution
was rich and diverse, but here we only refer to the parts relevant to
activity theory.
Vygotsky
Verenikina discusses Vygotsky's contribution, beginning with the remark
that "Vygotsky's life goal was to create a psychology adequate for
the investigation of consciousness. He stated that consciousness is constructed
through a subject's interactions with the world and is an attribute of
the relationship between subject and object." Vygotsky also provided
a "concept of the mediation of elementary (natural) mental processes
by psychological tools (artificial devices for mastering mental processes)
and internalisation." Vygotsky provided the initial impetus towards
activity theory by introducing the notion of tool as a form of "mediated
action" which "is externally oriented [and] must lead to changes
in objects". Luria explains this: "Vygotsky supposed that higher
mental processes are of a social origin... he suggested that the simplest
form of [human conscious] behaviour can be found in tool- or sign-using,
where a tool (or sign) can be used to reach a certain goal. Instead of
the elementary scheme S?R (‘S’ for stimulus, ‘R’
for reflex), he proposed a new scheme S? x? R) where S stands for stimulus,
x for means (tool or sign), and R for reflex."
Thus, Luria goes on to argue, explanation of complex phenomena such as
human activity "is supposed to lie not in its reduction to single
elements but rather in its inclusion in a rich net of essential relations."
Leontiev
After Vygotsky's early death, Leontiev became the leader of the activity
theory research group and extended the framework in significantly new
ways. This article can only briefly review Leontiev's contributions. Many
of the specifics of activity theory set out below derive, at least in
their original form, from Leontiev's work. Leontiev first examined the
psychology of animals, looking at the different degrees to which animals
can be said to have mental processes. He concluded that Pavlov's reflexionism
was not a sufficient explanation of animal behaviour and that animals
have an active relation to reality, which he called activity. In particular,
the behaviour of higher primates such as chimpanzees could only be explained
by the ape's formation of multi-phase plans using tools.
Leontiev then progressed to humans and pointed out that people engage
in "actions" that do not in themselves satisfy a need, but contribute
towards the eventual satisfaction of a need. Often, these actions only
make sense in a social context of a shared work activity. This lead him
to a distinction between activities, which satisfy a need, and the actions
that constitute the activities.
Leontiev also argued that the activity in which a person is involved
is reflected in their mental activity, that is (as he puts it) material
reality is "presented" to consciousness, but only in its vital
meaning or significance.
The West
Activity theory, except for a few publications in western journals, remained
unknown outside the Soviet Union until the mid-1980s, when it was picked
up by Scandinavian researchers. (The first international conference on
activity theory was not held until 1986. The earliest non-Soviet paper
cited by Nardi is a 1987 paper by Yrjö Engeström : "Learning
by expanding"). This resulted in a reformulation of activity theory.
Kuutti notes that the term activity theory "can be used in two senses:
referring to the original Soviet tradition... or referring to the international,
multi-voiced community applying the original ideas and developing them
further."
Some of the changes are a systematisation of Leontiev's work. Although
Leontiev's exposition is clear and well structured, it is not as well-structured
as the formulation by Yrjö Engeström. Kaptelinin remarks that
Engestrøm "proposed a scheme of activity different from that
by [Leontiev]; it contains three interacting entities—the individual,
the object and the community—instead of the two components—the
individual and the object—in [Leontiev]'s original scheme."
Some changes were introduced, apparently by importing notions from Human-Computer
Interaction theory. For instance, the notion of rules, which is not found
in Leontiev, was introduced. Also, the notion of collective subject was
introduced in the 1970s and 1980s (Leontiev refers to "joint labour
activity", but only has individuals, not groups, as activity subjects).
Activity theory and information systems
The application of activity theory to information systems derives from
the work of Bonnie Nardi and Kari Kuutti. Kuutti's work is addressed below.
Nardi's approach is, briefly, as follows: Nardi saw activity theory as
"...a powerful and clarifying descriptive tool rather than a strongly
predictive theory. The object of activity theory is to understand the
unity of consciousness and activity... Activity theorists argue that consciousness
is not a set of discrete disembodied cognitive acts (decision making,
classification, remembering), and certainly it is not the brain; rather,
consciousness is located in everyday practice: you are what you do."
Nardi also argued that "activity theory proposes a strong notion
of mediation—all human experience is shaped by the tools and sign
systems we use." Furthermore, she identifies "some of the main
concerns of activity theory: [as] consciousness, the asymmetrical relation
between people and things, and the role of artefacts in everyday life."
She explained that "a basic tenet of activity theory is that a notion
of consciousness is central to a depiction of activity. Vygotsky described
consciousness as a phenomenon that unifies attention, intention, memory,
reasoning, and speech..." and "Activity theory, with its emphasis
on the importance of motive and consciousness—which belongs only
to humans—sees people and things as fundamentally different. People
are not reduced to 'nodes' or 'agents' in a system; 'information processing'
is not seen as something to be modelled in the same way for people and
machines."
Nardi argued that the field of Human-Computer Interaction has "largely
ignored the study of artefacts, insisting on mental representations as
the proper locus of study" and activity theory is seen as a way of
addressing this deficit.
In a later work, Nardi et al in comparing activity theory with cognitive
science, argue that "activity theory is above all a social theory
of consciousness” and therefore “... activity theory wants
to define consciousness, that is, all the mental functioning including
remembering, deciding, classifying, generalising, abstracting and so forth,
as a product of our social interactions with other people and of our use
of tools." For Activity Theorists "consciousness" seems
to refer to any mental functioning, whereas most other approaches to psychology
distinquish conscious from unconscious functions.
An explanation of activity theory
This section presents a short introduction to activity theory, and some
brief comments on human creativity in activity theory and the implications
of activity theory for tacit knowledge and learning.
Activities
Activity theory begins with the notion of activity. An activity is seen
as a system of human "doing" whereby a subject works on an object
in order to obtain a desired outcome. In order to do this, the subject
employs tools, which may be external (eg an axe, a computer) or internal
(eg a plan). As an illustration, an activity might be the operation of
an automated call centre. As we shall see later, many subjects may be
involved in the activity and each subject may have one or more motives
(e.g. improved supply management, career advancement or gaining control
over a vital organisational power source). A simple example of an activity
within a call centre might be a telephone operator (subject) who is modifying
a customer's billing record (object) so that the billing data is correct
(outcome) using a graphical front end to a database (tool).
Kuutti formulates activity theory in terms of the structure of an activity.
“An activity is a form of doing directed to an object, and activities
are distinguished from each other according to their objects. Transforming
the object into an outcome motivates the existence of an activity. An
object can be a material thing, but it can also be less tangible.”
Kuutti then adds a third term, the tool, which ‘mediates’
between the activity and the object. “The tool is at the same time
both enabling and limiting: it empowers the subject in the transformation
process with the historically collected experience and skill ‘crystallised’
to it, but it also restricts the interaction to be from the perspective
of that particular tool or instrument; other potential features of an
object remain invisible to the subject...”.
As Verenikina remarks, tools are “social objects with certain modes
of operation developed socially in the course of labour and are only possible
because they correspond to the objectives of a practical action.”
The levels of activity theory
An activity is modelled as a three-level hierarchy. Kuutti schematises
processes in activity theory as a three-level system.
Verenikina paraphrases Leontiev as explaining that “the non-coincidence
of action and operations... appears in actions with tools, that is, material
objects which are crystallised operations, not actions nor goals. If a
person is confronted with a specific goal of, say, dismantling a machine,
then they must make use of a variety of operations; it makes no difference
how the individual operations were learned because the formulation of
the operation proceeds differently to the formulation of the goal that
initiated the action.”
The levels of activity are also characterised by their purposes: “Activities
are oriented to motives, that is, the objects that are impelling by themselves.
Each motive is an object, material or ideal, that satisfies a need. Actions
are the processes functionally subordinated to activities; they are directed
at specific conscious goals... Actions are realised through operations
that are determined by the actual conditions of activity.”
Engestrøm developed an extended model of an activity, which adds
another component, community (“those who share the same object”),
and then adds rules to mediate between subject and community, and the
division of labour to mediate between object and community.
Kuutti asserts that “These three classes should be understood broadly.
A tool can be anything used in the transformation process, including both
material tools and tools for thinking. Rules cover both explicit and implicit
norms, conventions, and social relations within a community. Division
of labour refers to the explicit and implicit organisation of the community
as related to the transformation process of the object into the outcome.”
Activity theory therefore includes the notion that an activity is carried
out within a social context, or specifically in a community. The way in
which the activity fits into the context is thus established by two resulting
concepts:
rules: these are both explicit and implicit and define how subjects must
fit into the community;
division of labour: this describes how the object of the activity relates
to the community.
The internal plane of action
Activity theory provides a number of useful concepts that can be used
to address the lack of expression for ‘soft’ factors which
are inadequately represented by most process modelling frameworks. One
such concept is the internal plane of action. Activity theory recognises
that each activity takes place in two planes: the external plane and the
internal plane. The external plane represents the objective components
of the action while the internal plane represents the subjective components
of the action. Kaptelinin defines the internal plane of actions as “The
human ability to perform manipulations on an internal representation of
external objects before starting actions with these objects in reality.”
For a more detailed explanation, see Verenikina.
The concepts of motives, goals and conditions discussed above also contribute
to the modelling of soft factors. One principle of activity theory is
that many activities have multiple motivation (‘polymotivation’).
For instance, a programmer in writing a program may address goals aligned
towards multiple motives such as increasing his or her annual bonus, obtaining
relevant career experience and contributing to organisational objectives.
Activity theory further argues that subjects are grouped into communities,
with rules mediating between subject and community and a division of labour
mediating between object and community. A subject may be part of several
communities and a community, itself, may be part of other communities.
Human creativity
Human creativity plays an important role in activity theory, that “human
beings... are essentially creative beings” in “the creative,
non-predictable character”. Tikhomirov also analyses the importance
of creative activity, contrasting it to routine activity, and notes the
important shift brought about by computerisation in the balance towards
creative activity.
Learning and tacit knowledge
Activity theory has an interesting approach to the difficult problems
of learning and, in particular, tacit knowledge. Learning has been a favourite
subject of management theorists, but it has often been presented in an
abstract way separated from the work processes to which the learning should
apply. Activity theory provides a potential corrective to this tendency.
For instance, Engestrøm's review of Nonaka's work on knowledge
creation suggests enhancements based on activity theory, in particular
suggesting that the organisational learning process includes preliminary
stages of goal and problem formation not found in Nonaka. Lompscher, rather
than seeing learning as transmission, sees the formation of learning goals
and the student's understanding of which things they need to acquire as
the key to the formation of the learning activity.
Of particular importance to the study of learning in organisations is
the problem of tacit knowledge, which according to Nonaka, “is highly
personal and hard to formalise, making it difficult to communicate to
others or to share with others”. Leontiev's concept of operation
provides an important insight into this problem. In addition, the key
idea of internalisation was originally introduced by Vygotsky as “the
internal reconstruction of an external operation”. Internalisation
has subsequently become a key term of the theory of tacit knowledge and
has been defined as “a process of embodying explicit knowledge into
tacit knowledge”. Internalisation has been described by Engestrøm
as the “key psychological mechanism” discovered by Vygotsky
and is further discussed by Verenikina.
| 
