Understanding work units and activities–A perspective from general psychsology
A Aboulafia - Interacting with computers, 2008 - academic.oup.com
A Aboulafia
Interacting with computers, 2008•academic.oup.comGonzález (2006) proposes a novel conceptual contribution to a general psychological
framework concerning activity commonly, if somewhat inappropriately, termed in
English,'activity theory'. 1 González argues for this extension to the general framework
based on a set of empirical studies outlined in his dissertation. While aspects of these
observations are indeed of interest, they will not be discussed further here, as the focus of
this commentary is on the claims being put forward concerning the need for a new …
framework concerning activity commonly, if somewhat inappropriately, termed in
English,'activity theory'. 1 González argues for this extension to the general framework
based on a set of empirical studies outlined in his dissertation. While aspects of these
observations are indeed of interest, they will not be discussed further here, as the focus of
this commentary is on the claims being put forward concerning the need for a new …
González (2006) proposes a novel conceptual contribution to a general psychological framework concerning activity commonly, if somewhat inappropriately, termed in English,‘activity theory’. 1 González argues for this extension to the general framework based on a set of empirical studies outlined in his dissertation. While aspects of these observations are indeed of interest, they will not be discussed further here, as the focus of this commentary is on the claims being put forward concerning the need for a new conceptual level in the activity system. This commentary will take issue with a number of the González’s arguments concerning this enterprise, and raises some questions as to the status of the proposed new level of ‘working spheres’ or ‘engagements’. The argumentation that follows may appear somewhat recondite for an article in a general HCI journal such as Interacting with Computers, but given the popularity of ‘activity theory’recently in HCI, perhaps it is now necessary to become more involved in the genesis of this approach and its theoretical implications. In González (2006), AN Leontjev’s general structure of activity is applied both as an explanatory principle and as a subject of investigation in itself. As a point of reference, the dissertation shows that actions are clustered in ‘themes’, which correspond to Leontjev’s ‘series of actions’. But in addition, it is claimed that the general structure of activity needs to be modified in order to fit these findings. It is argued that there is a conceptual gulf in Leontjev’s framework–between actions and activities, and that this gulf can be closed with the concept of ‘working sphere/engagement’–referring to chains or clusters of actions. The dissertation thus posits a new theoretical construct, working sphere/engagement, which the author believes is required to extend Leontjev’s existing general structure of activity. Theories are navigation tools to support research work. If such tools cannot be followed they are of no practical use and thus rather unimportant. The importance of theories is what they make the reader see–what the author had in mind is less important (Engelsted, 2002). Does the proposed notion of working sphere/engagement make one see something one did not see before? This is the question to be addressed here, and obviously the reader’s theoretical, disciplinary and practical background needs to be made evident. The comments provided here are made from a theoretical point of view located in the discipline of psychology–others will have to judge whether the distinctions are relevant for more applied areas, eg HCI. So, does the proposed idea provide an important step in the evolution of the psychological theory of activity, and furthermore is it appropriate to situate this idea inside AN Leontjev’s general structure of activity? Being critical without providing solutions is not very helpful. Thus, the paper introduces an empirical framework involving clusters of motives–partly based on Leontjev’s work, partly on the work of another general psychologist, Engelsted–in which the proposed novelty of the authors’ concept of working sphere/engagement might be situated. The arguments presented refer mainly to the original work of Leontjev, and use the method of research within this general psychological framework. Before presenting these issues a few words on the discipline of general psychology might be useful.
0953-5438/$-see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier BV All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. intcom. 2007.07. 002
Oxford University Press