Mark,
There is not a short answer to your question. But below is a list of resources that might be helpful. If you haven't read Cole's book or Engestrom's book, that is the place to start. Also, there is a lot of stuff from the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) that explains AT much more clearly than anything in our own field and I would encourage you to seek that out. Specifically, Kaptelinin, V; Nardi, Bonnie and Macaulay, C . The Activity Checklist: A Tool for Representing the "Space" of Context. Interactions 6. This article is specifically intended for people who need some guidance in using AT in their own work. Also, Bodker is someone who explains things pretty clearly for the HCI audience. I also find Stephen Witte to be extremely clear on this topic. Really my best advice is to find people outside our field who have been using AT as a methodology rather than a theory; they explain it the best. HCI wins the prize in my book for explaining AT so well that lots of people in the field actually started to use it.

David Russell has just written a paper that attempts to clearly outline the terms for our field, but it's not published yet. I've written an article trying to do a similar thing that is under consideration. We both feel that there is really nothing in OUR field that is clear enough to get people on board. Until Russell's new article comes out, though, I'd suggest you read some of the things in the list below. Engestrom's triangle, explained by Engestrom and then Cole is the absolutely crucial thing to try to get.

Basically, I would have to say that it took me about 2 years of mentoring with David Russell to get a grasp on AT. I think that without that face to face help I would not have really ever known what I was talking about. If you all are loving AT but finding no one there to guide you in it, you might put AT aside for a while and read Etienne Wenger's Communities of Practice. It is a lot clearer and really makes many of the same points as AT.

To your particular question I will just say that the primary unit of analysis is the ACTIVITY SYSTEM. Within that Engestrom has outlined six components than can be helpful in mapping out what is happening within the activity system that you as the researcher have decided to examine. Keep in mind that YOU, the researcher, decide to look at a particular activity system but that decision is really rather arbitrary. My classroom might be an activity system, but my dept might be also, and maybe my college. Maybe even the university. There are systems within systems and lots of activities within those systems and lots of overlapping systems; as a researcher you just have to decide what you are focusing on and remember not to be too structuralist about it. Within that system you can pick any activity to focus on, also keeping in mind that it is not THE only activity you could be focusing on. What is important is the object of the activity and the tools people use in common to accomplish the activity.

Hope this helps some.
Elizabeth

Engestrom, Yrgo. Learning By Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach To Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit, 1987.

Cole, Michael. Cultural Psychology. Harvard University Press, 1996.

Witte, Stephen. Literate Communication Within Professional Work Activity: Toward An Activity Theoretic Perspective On Expertise, Unit Of Analysis, And Methodology In Advanced Workplaces. CRWL Technical Report. Kent, OH: Kent State University, Center for Research on Workplace Literacy, 1998.

Witte, Stephen. The Advanced Workplace Ensemble (AWE): An Introduction to a Unit of Analysis for Studying Literacy in Advanced or Professional Workplaces.

Russell, David. Looking Beyond the Interface. Forthcoming.

Prior, Paul. Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.

Hasu, Mervi and Yrgo Engestrom. Measurement In Action: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective On Producer-User Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 2000. 61-89.

Decortis, Francoise; Samuel Noirfalise and Berthe Saudelli. Activity Theory, Cognitive Ergonomics And Distributed Cognition: Three Views Of A Transport Company. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 2000. 5-33.

Cole, Michael and Yrgo Engeström. A Cultural-Historical Approach To Distributed Cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological And Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 1-46.





At 02:26 PM 10/2/2001 -0400, you wrote:

Hello.

This is Mark Crane from your former place of education. We have a problem that we are too embarassed to ask about.

Various individuals who remain nameless start playing with activity theory around here. At some point they start designing a study, and start asking the question,

"So what's the unit of activity? The student text? The classroom? The Department?"

After about three days of this they start badmouthing AT and just steal key terms and use them out of context.

So, my question is, how would you answer the above question about context? Given that you are closer to Mecca than we are, we thought you could help us out here.