DESCRIPTIVE & META THEORIES

ACTIVITY THEORY
Summary: Activity Theory is a framework or descriptive tool for a system. People are
socio-culturally embedded actors (not processors or system components). There
exists a hierarchical analysis of motivated human action (levels of activity analysis).

Originator: Vygotsky, Leont’ev, Luria, and others starting in the 1920s.

Key terms: Activity, action, operation, object-orientedness,

internalization/externalization, mediation, development.

Activity Theory

Activity Theory is more of a descriptive meta-theory or framework than a predictive

theory. Considers entire work/activity system (including teams, organizations, etc.)
beyond just one actor or user. Accounts for environment, history of the person,
culture, role of the artifact, motivations, complexity of real life action, etc[1].

The unit of analysis is motivated activity directed at an object (goal). Includes

cultural and technical mediation of human activity, artifacts in use (and not in
isolation). Activities consist of goal-directed actions that are conscious. Constituents
of activity are not fixed; they can dynamically change.

Engestrom’s model above is useful for understanding how a wide range factors work
together to impact an activity. In order to reach an outcome it is necessary to produce
certain objects (e.g. experiences, knowledge, and physical products) Human activity
is mediated by artefacts (e.g. tools used, documents, recipes, etc.) Activity is also
mediated by an organization or community. Also, the community may impose rules
 that affect activity. The subject works as part of the community to achieve the object.
An activity normally also features a division of labour.

Three levels of activity:

 Activity towards an objective (goal) carried out by a community. A result of a motive (need)
that may not be conscious social and personal meaning of activity (Answers the Why?
question)
 Action towards a specific goal (conscious), carried out by an individual or a group possible
goals and subgoals, critical goals (Answers the What? question)
 Operation structure of activity typically automated and not conscious concrete way of
executing an action in according with the specific conditions surrounding the goal (Answers
the How? question)

Principles:

1. Object-orientedness. (this is not to be confused with object-oriented programming) People

live in a reality that is objective in a broad sense: the things that constitute this reality have
not only the properties that are considered objective according to natural sciences but
socially/culturally defined properties as well.
2. Internalization/externalization. Distinction between internal and external activities. Internal
activities cannot be understood if they are analyzed separately from external activities,
because they transform into each other. Internalization is the transformation of external
activities into internal ones. Internalization provides a means for people to try potential
interactions with reality without performing actual manipulation with real objects (mental
simulations, imaginings, considering alternative plans, etc.). Externalization transforms
internal activities into external ones. Externalization is often necessary when an internalized
action needs to be “repaired,” or scaled. It is also important when a collaboration between
several people requires their activities to be performed externally in order to be coordinated.
3. Mediation. Activity Theory emphasizes that human activity is mediated by tools in a broad
sense. Tools are created and transformed during the development of the activity itself and
carry with them a particular culture – historical remains from their development. So, the use
of tools is an accumulation and transmission of social knowledge. Tool use influences the
nature of external behavior and also the mental functioning of individuals.
4. Development. In Activity Theory development is not only an object of study, it is also a
general research methodology. The basic research method in Activity Theory is not
traditional laboratory experiments but the formative experiment which combines active
participation with monitoring of the developmental changes of the study participants.
Ethnographic methods that track the history and development of a practice have also
become important in recent work.

All four of the above basic principles should be considered as an integrated system,
because they are associated with various aspects of the whole activity[2].

For more information, see:

 Yrjö Engeström’s book: Perspectives on Activity Theory (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive
and Computational Perspectives)
 Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design

References

1. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory.
Cambridge University Press.
2. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and
interaction design. MIT press.

ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY (ANT)

Summary: Actor-Network Theory is a framework and systematic way to consider the
infrastructure surrounding technological achievements. Assigns agency to both
human and non-human actors (e.g. artifacts)

Originator: Michel Callon[1] (1991) and Bruno Latour[2] (1992); John Law[3]; others.

Key Terms: actor, network, generalized symmetry, equal agency

Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

Originally created by French scholars Latour and Callon as an attempt to understand

processes of technological innovation and scientific knowledge-creation, Actor-
Network Theory (ANT) can be contrasted with “heroic” accounts of scientific
advance. For example, rather than saying Newton “founded” the theory of gravitation
seemingly as though he were alone in a vacuum, Actor-Network Theory emphasizes
and considers all surrounding factors — no one acts alone[4]. Galileo’s past
experiences, his colleagues, his connections with the Astronomer Royal, John
Flamsteed, his use of Euclidean geometry, Kepler’s astronomy, Galileo’s mechanics,
his tools, the details of his lab, cultural factors and restrictions placed upon him in
his environment, and various other technical and non-technical elements would all
be described and considered in his actor-network.
 Actor-Network Theory does not typically attempt to explain why a network exists; it
is more interested in the infrastructure of actor-networks, how they are formed, how
they can fall apart, etc.

Actor-Network Theory incorporates what is known as a principle of generalized

symmetry; that is, what is human and non-human (e.g. artifacts, organization
structures) should be integrated into the same conceptual framework and assigned
equal amounts of agency. In this way, one gains a detailed description of the concrete
mechanisms at work that hold the network together, while allowing an impartial
treatment of the actors.

Criticism

There are various criticisms held regarding ANT. These include: (1) the absurdity of
assigning agency to nonhuman actors; (2) that ANT is amoral; (3) that because it
assumes all actors are equal within the network, no accomodations for power
imbalances can be made; and (4) that ANT leads to useless descriptions that seem
pointless.

References

1. Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the

Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In John Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A
New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
2. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through
Society (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
3. Law, J. (1987). Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese
Expansion. In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch (eds.), The Social Construction of
Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY (BLOOM)

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a model that is a hierarchy — a way to classify thinking
according to six cognitive levels of complexity.

CONTENTS
Contributors
Key Concepts
Resources and References
 CONTRIBUTORS
 Benjamin S. Bloom (1913-1999)

KEY CONCEPTS
Bloom’s model consists of six levels, with the three lower levels (knowledge,
comprehension, and application) being more basic than the higher levels (analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation)[1]. Some think of the levels as a stairway, in which
learners are encouraged to achieve a higher level of thinking. If a student has
mastered a higher level, then he or she is considered to have mastered the levels
below.
Bloom’s model has been updated to account for 21st century needs[2]. The old model
and new model are depicted below.
OLD MODEL
 NEW MODEL

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND

REFERENCES
REFERENCES
1. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals.
2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
 DISTRIBUTED COGNITION (DCOG)
Summary: Distributed cognition is a branch of cognitive science that proposes
cognition and knowledge are not confined to an individual; rather, it is distributed
across objects, individuals, artefacts, and tools in the environment.

Originators: Edwin Hutchins in the 1990s.

Key Terms: Cognition in the Wild, mind in the world, artefacts, environment,
representational media

Distributed Cognition (DCog)

Edwin Hutchins, a cognitive psychologist and anthropologist, studied how navigation

is coordinated on US navy ships around San Diego[1]. From his observations, he
posited that the mind is in the world (as opposed to the world being in the mind).
That is, the necessary knowledge and cognition to operate a naval vessel do not exist
solely within one’s head; knowledge and cognition is distributed across objects,
individuals, artifacts, and tools in the environment[2][3][4]. The goal of Distributed
Cognition is to describe how distributed units are coordinated by analyzing the
interactions between individuals, the representational media used, and the
environment within which the activity takes place[1]. The unit of analysis can
therefore be described as systems that dynamically reconfigure their sub-systems to
accomplish functions individuals, artifacts, their relations to each other (e.g. bridge
of a ship, airplane cockpit, air traffic control). Distributed Cognition is about defining
mechanisms of cognitive processes: e.g. memory in a cockpit encompasses internal
processes, physical manipulation of objects, and the creation/exchange of external
representations.

Distributed Cognition, which often makes use of ethnographically collected data, is

not so much a method; more accurately, it is a useful descriptive framework that
describes human work systems in informational and computational terms. It is
useful for analyzing situations that involve problem-solving. As it helps provide an
understanding of the role and function of representational media, it has implications
for the design of technology in the mediation of the activity, because the system
designers will have a stronger, clearer model of the work. Thus, it is an important
theory for such fields as CSCL, CSCW, HCI, instructional design, and distance
learning[5].

References

1. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.

2. Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition.
3. Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit.Cognition and
communication at work, 15-34.
4. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.
5. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation
for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction (TOCHI), 7(2), 174-196.
 SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS (SCOTT,
PRELL)
Summary: Social Network Analysis looks at how people within social networks (for
example: families, clubs, Facebook groups) relate to each other and what these
interactions say about both the individual actors and the entire social network.

Originators & Proponents: John Scott, Christina Prell, Stephen P. Borgatti, Martin G.
Everett, Jeffrey C. Johnson

Keywords: actors, bonds, clustering, cohesion, communication, community,

connection, interaction, mapping, modeling, network theory, nodes, social network
diagrams, social relationships, ties, visualizations

Social Network Analysis (Scott, Prell)

Social network analysis looks at how people (actors) relate to each other across their
social networks[1]. It is based on network theory (from computer science), which
explains that certain behaviors can be better understood by diagramming or
mapping how people or groups share information, talk, or interact in other ways[2].

A social network can be a variety of sizes: from small (e.g., two-generational

immediate family), to more mid-sized (e.g., school class, sports team, or club), to
quite large (e.g., Facebook group, college/university alumni group).

Social network analysis can include looking at people’s actions in online social
networks (e.g., Facebook, Google+, MySpace), in addition to the more traditional
social networks that exist off of the Web, like families, clubs, hobby groups, political
parties, and friend/acquaintance groups[3].

Social network analysis is useful in any research field which looks at how people
relate to each other. These fields can span from anthropology to communications to
sociology. There are mapping and visualization software available which can help
researchers understand social networks from a more objective basis and explain their
findings to others.

For more information, we recommend:

 Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson’s recent book: Analyzing Social Networks

 Prell’s book: Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology

 Scott’s book: Social Network Analysis: A Handbook

References

1. Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Sage.

2. Prell, C. (2012). Social network analysis: History, theory and methodology. Sage.
3. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. SAGE
Publications Limited.