Transcript EL 2000
– The user as a competent actor Activity theory Activity theory: The user as a competent actor Daniel Pargman: Computer and systems sciences, Uppsala University (1987-1992) Dept. of Communication Studies, Linköping University (1995-2000) HCI specialist, Carlstedt Research & Technology, CR&T Ph.D. Thesis: “Code begets community: On social and technical aspects of managing a virtual community” – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Daniel and Activity theory • Ph.D. Course with Yrjö Engeström in Linköping 1996. Result = confusion. • Five (5) years of thinking and struggle with activity theory. Result = avoided to use activity theory in my Ph.D. thesis. • Ph.D. Course with Yrjö Engeström in Ronneby 2000. Result = much less confusion. – The user as a competent actor Activity theory The basic mediational triangle The basic mediational triangle from culturalhistorical psychology (Russia, 20’s and 30’s) “Tools” are both physical/technical tools and psychological/mental tools (Vygotsky). – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Cultural-historical (sociocultural) psychology • Social, cultural, historical and institutional factors play large role in human cognition and communication • All higher mental functions have a social origin (Vygotsky). • Action (both social and individual), can not be separated from the social, cultural, historical and institutional context in which it is carried out – The user as a competent actor Activity theory From cultural-historical psychology to activity theory From individuals to collective activities/activity systems (Leontiev, 1930’s) From theories of collective activities (Leontiev) to Developmental Work Research, i.e. studies of concrete work activities (Engeström) From text to graphics (Engeström) From verbose to minimalist structure (Engeström) – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Activity theory in context Psychology Activity theory Social sciences – The user as a competent actor Activity theory The general structure of the animal form of activity Natural environment Individual Subject Object Community Population – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Mediation between subject and object The relation between the subject and the objects is regulated/mediated by tools – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Mediation between subject and community The relation between the subject and the community is regulated/mediated by rules – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Mediation between community and object The relation between the community and the object is regulated/mediated by a division of labor – The user as a competent actor Activity theory The structure of human activity (Engeström 1987) Unit of analysis = activity – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Terms Subject: the individual/subgroup chosen as the point of view in the analysis. Tools: physical or psychological. Community: individuals/subgroups who share the same general object. Division of labor: division of tasks between members of the community. Rules: explicit/implicit regulations, norms, conventions that constrains action/interaction Object: “the ‘raw material’ or ‘problem space’ at which the activity is directed and which is molded or transformed into outcomes” – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Contradictions, tensions, conflicts, breakdowns – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Contradictions, tensions, conflicts, breakdowns • Primary contradictions are dilemmas within components of the activity system. • Secondary contradictions are dilemmas between components of the activity system. • Tertiary contradictions are dilemmas between different activity system. – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Contradictions, tensions, conflicts, breakdowns “When a strong novel factor is “injected” into one of the components and it thus acquires a new quality, pressing secondary contradictions appear between that component and some other components of the system. For example, when new types of patients begin to enter a medical activity system, the doctors’ material and conceptual tools for diagnosis and treatment may become inadequate Engeström, 1993, p.72 – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Contradictions, tensions, conflicts, breakdowns • Indicators of “problems” within activity systems. • However, only when problems make themselves known that are they possible to “treat”. • Only by innovative solutions to surfacing systematic problems can an activity develop. – The user as a competent actor Activity theory Managing a virtual community as an activity system - Shared values, concerns, routines, procedures, practices, symbols and history - The handbook for magicians, - E-mail, real-time communication ”channels” (synchronous CMC), telephones, - Programming skills, programming tools etc. Mediating artifacts - To offer an alternative to the Englishspeaking American-influence Internet culture and to create and offer a creative and inviting environment for magicians. - Everyday object = to manage the system (on a variety of levels). SvenskMud magician Subject Object Outcome The outcome is alive and changes over time. The issue is obviously very complex. Rules - Formal rules on paper - Informal rules of conduct - ”Unbreakable laws of nature/computation”) embedded in the technical system. Community - God - Arch - Senor - ”Ordinary” magician Division of labour Different roles, rights and responsibilities of magicians – The user as a competent actor Activity theory The user as a competent actor • AT/DWR analyzes structural factors • Thus, users are “always” competent and problems are “never” the fault of users. • Problems instead depend on other factors, like systemic contradictions or mismatches between objects and artifacts etc. • Problems that appear contain possibilities for their own solution.