From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Social constructivism (learning theory) and Critical psychology.

Activity theory is a psychological meta-theory, paradigm, or framework, with its roots in Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology. Its founders were Alexei N. Leont'ev (1903-1979), and Sergei Rubinshtein (1889-1960) who sought to understand human activities as complex, socially situated phenomena and go beyond paradigms of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. It became one of the major psychological approaches in the former USSR, being widely used in both theoretical and applied psychology, in areas such as education, training, ergonomics, and work psychology ^[1]. Activity theory theorizes that when individuals engage and interact with their environment, production of tools results. These tools are "exteriorized" forms of mental processes, and as these mental processes are manifested in tools, they become more readily accessible and communicable to other people, thereafter becoming useful for social interaction.^[2]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_theory"

Categories: Educational psychology

 

I have been attempting to write an article for Archival Science which introduces a particular model I developed on 2008. The model is based on the Information Continuum Processes model, developed by Frank Upward, Don Schauder and Barbara Reed in the late 1990s.

I used the ICM model to develop my own model which can be used in approaching research design, particularly choice of method and philosophical tradition. The model situates the research in time and place, performing the conceptual actions of provenance, a concept in archival science linked to context of a record in time and space. The purpose of the model is to promote and build transparency, and almost create inbuilt emulation, so that a better understanding of the research outcomes and research process can be made so that future research in the same and similar areas have a rich picture upon which to build the same or new methods.

However, in doing the research for this paper I have come across 'activity theory'. Now, the ICM is described as being an activity based model, but my questions are, what is the relationship, if any, between the ICM and in particular the continuum, and activity theory? Are they complementary, or the same or what?

Of course I turned to wikipedia first to suss out a general overview of activity theory and find where the actual information is that will be helpful. Taking on board the definition above, where activity theory is about the results of action, I think there are some linkages between the ICM - namely the dimensions of create, capture, organise and pluralise. These are all actions and they refer to activities that have particular outcomes. In the case of my model, the outcome is a research thesis or report. I am guessing that within the report the activities that have taken place. This relates directly to the understandings I have about implicit and explicit knowledge and that recorded information contributes to explicit knowledge. However, activity theory talks about tools - what exactly are tools? 

I notice that in the wikipedia article there is mention about user design processes and the role activity theory can have in designing processes. This reminds me of functional classification wherein the outcomes are classified into functions (groups of activities) and the lower level activities related to these functions and even further into transactions. I wonder what the theoretical base to functional classification has come from? 

Again referring to the Wikipedia article, the relationship between activities and actions is described as being interdependent, in a way. Actions do not necessarily contribute to a specific activity. The explicit focus of an activity is to address a need and actions are taken to achieve that activity. Again this seems like functional classification and workflow. 

In the ICM activity is based on Giddens' Structuration Theory and are conceptualised as create - capture - organise - pluralise. I can see similarities between Structuration Theory and Activity Theory. Simplified, I can see:

• Both have concepts of structures that impact on action. 
• Activity Theory focusses on individual processes and mediated object, whereas Structuration theory focuses on systems and concepts of actions and change over spacetime. 
• Structuration theory is focussed on social processes
• Activity theory is focussed on individual processing

I think that Structuration Theory, although as far as I recall, does not have anything explicit about mediated outcomes, has a more situated approach that can provide greater complexity - particularly over time. 

So to answer my question, I do not think that there is an explicit relationship between the ICM and activity theory as understood above. However, I also think that there may be a role for Activity theory within the ICM, particularly related to my research model and also in particular situations, such as user testing.