Third generation of Activity Theory and interacting activity systems

The researcher uses the third generation of Activity Theory, which involves interacting activity systems. These activity systems are overlapping and shed light onto the collective and collaborative actions of the organisational members, institutions and departments.

The first generation of Activity Theory is developed in the work of Vygotsky (1978). In his work, the system demarcated individual actions and the model is composed of three items (mediating artefacts, subject and object).

The second generation of Activity Theory is represented by Engeström (1987), who based his work on Leont’ev’s discussions. Leont’ev discusses mediation from a broader scope than Vygotsky, but he has not provided diagrammatic representation. Engeström (1999a) criticised the traditional representation of the theory, since it was explicating the activity from the individual side and concerned with the development of the individual from the individual’s cultural-historical side. He stated that the traditional version does not embrace societal and collaborative actions or the interactions between the elements; hence, he expanded the model by adding new components (division of labor, community and rules) (Figure 7).

Figure 7 The structure of a human activity system

Additionally, he mentioned contradictions as stimulators of development and change in the model.

The third generation of the model indicates the overlapping and interacting activity systems. In this model, both activity systems have a shared objective but their functioning is different regarding the elements operating in their own system. The main purpose of this model is to identify the dialogues, networks and multiple perspectives between activity systems (Engeström, 2001). This research put the interaction between the neighbor acivity systems at centre stage. The activities of different divisions are discussed in terms of the Activity Theory. The collaboration among organisational members and ogranisations make the overlapping of activity systems apparent. All members and organisations in the system have the same objective; however, they are operating within different mediating artefacts.

3.3.1 Components of an activity system

After a brief elaboration of the three generations of Activity Theory, we can briefly describe the components of the activity systems.

a. Object: individual or collective activities are constructed to solve the current problem. In these cases the object of the activity system is the

TOOLS OBJECT SUBJECT COMMUNITY DIVISION OF LABOR RULES AND NORMS

purpose of the act of the humans. It is also the motive for the activity system.

b. Subject: the individual or collective component of the activity system. The individual uses the tool to fulfill his or her needs. In terms of the collective, division of labor, rules and the community play a role in achieving the goals of the activity system.

c. Tools: these elements have a mediating role between the subject and the object of the activity system. These tools can be signs, concrete materials, computer programs or language.

d. Rules: these are explicit or implicit elements such as regulations, conventions, norms or sanctions. They can inhibit or facilitate the system. They govern the community and how the collective work will be divided among different actors.

e. Community: it reveals the collective group which is affected by the object or the outcome of the activity. All members of the communities carry shared interests. This component is the contribution of Engeström to the collective perspective.

f. Division of labor: this component represents the distribution of tasks in the system that reveals the roles and the responsibility areas of the subjects,participating in the activity.

Mwanza’s (2002) Eight Step Model (Table 6) translates the triangulation of the activity system and comprises open-ended questions to investigate the situation under scrutiny. This model simplifies the original triangle model and helps the researcher to interpret the situation more easily. During data analysis, this model has facilitated to comprehend the mediating artefacts and enabled the researcher to code more effectively.

Table 6 Example Eight Step Model presenting the organisational activity system, which emerges from the above discussion.

Table 6 Example Eight Step Model Activity System of

interest

Work Area (e.g. emergency response, breaking news production)

Objective To complete the work tasks Subjects Individuals, decision makers

Tools Language, physical and non-physical elements Rules and

Regulations

Organisations’ procedures and rules are specific to organisations’ operating sector and context

Division of labour Departmentalisation enables division of labour and division of the responsibilities while performing the activities Community People who are influenced by the system

Outcome To respond quickly or to reach quality decisions (according to context)

Actions Work Task and related information behaviour

3.3.2 Tensions and contradictions in the activity system

Activities cannot be assumed to be isolated units. They are open to the spatio- temporal alterations of the external environment and also to other activity systems, which can change some elements of the activities by creating tensions between the elements (Kuutti, 1996). In other words, activity systems are complex and equilibrium is an exceptional case for the systems. Therefore, tensions and contradictions occur in the system, which drive innovations and transformations (Cole and Engeström, 2001). Contradictions can be classified as the breakdowns, ruptures and clashes that inhibit the functioning of the system; therefore, these obstacles need to be eliminated by the changes and developments of the cultural mediators of the system (Virkkunen and Kuutti, 2000).

Engeström (1987) categorises the contradictions in the activity systems in four levels. Primary contradictions are represented as inner contradictions within each aspect of the activity system (aspects are located at each corner of the triangle). For instance, each individual may have a distinguishing goal from the overall activity system; norms and values which govern the functioning of the activity system may be confusing; the system may be

constructed by the unobvious division of labour that constrains the effective allocation of tasks and responsibility. Secondary contradictions appear betweeen the aspects of the activity system, which is indicated as conflict between the corners of the triangle. For instance, flexibility or strictness of the rules to achieve the objective, the capabilities of the subject to use the tools or the features of the tools to achieve the objective. Tertiary contradictions are the tensions between two emerging interpretations. In this situation, there may exist two unoverlapping motives in the central activity due to the different interpretations of the subjects in the system. This can be explained by the tension between culturally advanced motive and dominant motive. Quaternary contradictions represent the tensions between the neighbour activity systems and the central activity system. Here, neighbor activity systems are the instrument products for the central activity.