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.