Several Different Definitions of the Activity Theory - Article Example

Several Different Definitions of the Activity Theory The literature on the applications and conceptualizations of the Activity theory is non-exhaustive. Scholars, academics and researchers have shown great interest over understanding the fundamental concepts of the Activity Theory and constructing a practical framework within which the specific theoretical perspective can generate efficient understanding of the human behaviour and the interactivities between different constituents as well as forces that eventually contribute to the relationship built among individuals and their social environment (Foot, 2001; Johnson et al., 2003). Yagamata - Lynch and Smaldino (2007) define Activity theory as an interdisciplinary framework (combining and integrating psychological, philosophical and organizational fields) which attempts to study the individuals’ behaviors and practices within the context of exploring the interactivities of humans with their social and cultural environments. Diaper (2008) states that the Activity Theory is a systematic study of the way in which the different components or factors that intervene in the decision making process and the planning procedure gradually interact with each other under the scope of influencing human behaviour and human ‘placement’ within the social environment. Under a slightly different perspective, Hasan (2002) posits that the Activity Theory is a general framework that is drawn from multiple disciplines and focuses on the study of people’s actions within the context of the influential forces stemming from a number of different aspects such as the individuals’ perspectives, the interaction with other humans, the cultural and social infrastructure of the site in which actions take place and the goals or targets that each activity is directed to. Although there are several different definitions of the Activity Theory available in literature, the underpinning conceptual basis remains the same as initially introduced by Vygotsky in the early 1920s and further developed by Leontiev and Engestrom; human activity, learning and the social environment in which individuals interact are highly interrelated and need to be studied in conjunction in an attempt to understand human behaviour (Diaper, 2008; Yamagata-Lynch and Smaldino, 2007). Vygotsky, drawing from the philosophical perspectives and the political theory developed by Marx, conceptualized the importance of exploring the contribution of the environment in shaping both learning and produced activities (Foot, 2001). Nevertheless, the complete Activity Theory as it is known today was generated by Leontiev who expanded the theoretical view into the interactivities between individuals as well in the effort to understand ‘shared activities’ (Yamagata – Lynch and Smaldino, 2007). According to Leontiev the critical assumption in the entire theory lies in the fact that the ‘activity’ is not a sole and distinct product of human behaviour, but it is structured (consists of multiple interactive structures) and therefore becomes subject to transformation, transition and development (Hasan, 2002). In that respect, the study over activities is substantiated by the fact that they are complex systems of interactive factors and not just mere reactions to either external or internal stimuli (Johnson et al., 2003). Furthermore, as Canary (2010) an activity is differentiated from the action (perceived as the system of produced activities) in that it is a process and not a simple response on the part of individuals. Engestrom further proceeded into exploring applications of the Activity theory and concluded in a conceptual model which analyzes the activity systems and integrates three important constructs: the individual factors or forces, the collective structures and the final practical activities which are produced (Cruz-Neto et al., 2005; Jarzabkowski, 2003). The fundamental principles in the Activity theory are explained by Cruz – Neto et al. (2005) as the underlining assumptions that describe the individuals’ activities in terms of structure and development within the social framework. “An activity is the way a subject (either an individual or a group) moves towards an object with the purpose of attaining certain results or certain objectives” (Cruz – Neto et al., 2005, p. 58). The overall Activity theory places emphasis on the interactions between subjects, objects, tools, communities, rules, division (distribution) of labor and outcomes (as shown in Figure 1.0) (Canary, 2010; Hasan, 2002; Johnson et al., 2003; Yamagata-Lynch and Smaldino, 2007). The subjects are the individuals that perform the activity; the objects are the goals or the targets that the activity is directed towards and which the subjects wish to obtain; the tools are mediating artefacts or the resources that the subjects leverage and employ in their attempt to achieve their goals; the communities are the social environment infrastructures and the social groups in which the individuals belong to; the rules are social, cultural or other relevant policies (either formal or informal) that principally influence the behaviour of the subjects (the individuals); the distribution of labour predominantly refers to the allocation of responsibilities to each individual within the communities; and finally the outcomes are the end products of the particular activities implemented and performed by the subjects always with regards to the objects targeted (Cruz – Neto et al., 2005; Diaper, 2008; Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009; Yamagata – Lynch and Smaldino, 2007). Figure 1.0: Engestroms’ Activity Systems’ Model (Source: Yamagata – Lynch and Smaldino, 2007) Jarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) state that one of the most critical elements in the Activity Theory is that the tools apart from being considered as mediating artifacts they also constitute the partial relationship with individuals which is also perceived as a mediation to the obtaining of the objects. This is an important construct in the particular theory as it views communications (being tools) and human interactions as mediators to the end goals as well (Hasan, 2002). Within the framework of organizational fields and business studies, literature suggests that there are several applications of the Activity Theory. Foot (2001) indicates that despite the fact that the applicability of the theory becomes questionable in that it offers essentially a theoretical and not a practical context, there are indeed successful and effective levers of the Activity Theory especially in the study of the micro strategic level. Johnson et al. (2003) argue that there are actually many benefits attached to employing the particular theory in understanding strategic planning at the micro level. The authors suggest that although research on the macro effects of the strategy offers substantial analysis for the development and formulation of strategies (with regards to practitioners), a micro perspective on the activities of management can provide more consistent and integrated understanding of the practices that are embedded within the strategy. Similarly, Hasan (2002) explains that in strategic planning the essential aspect is to understand the interactivities between the different actors that eventually shape behaviour and result in the particular activities that gradually sum up to the development of strategies. Johnson et al. (2003), commenting on the benefits of using the Activity Theory in the study of micro strategic planning, state that the ‘activities’ are actually the every day engagements of managers and therefore it is these activities that are necessary to investigate, given the fact that research can more easily provide evidence and suggestions at the micro level rather than at the macro level (which is targeted through studies on the strategic planning as an input to strategy formulation). This view is also shared by Canary (2010) who argues that the Activity Theory allows researchers to undertake a more focused perspective on strategy planning because the emphasis is placed on the interactions which influence the activities and which in turn have an impact on the decision making. Yamagata – Lynch and Smaldino (2007) add that the Activity theory provides the opportunities to grasp the dynamic nature of the collective action in terms of individual action and the transformation or development of the activities throughout the time. In that respect, the Activity Theory becomes a useful framework for analyzing strategic planning under the scope of understanding the contribution of the different actors and factors which underpin the social environments (the organizations) with which the managers interact (Hasan, 2002). After all, as Johnson et al. (2003) argue, activities, individuals and strategies are inseparable and thus studies on the micro – organization level becomes central in understanding the macro – organization as well. Jarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) study the degree of integration and communication within the framework of business and strategic planning through the Activity Theory perspective. The authors suggest that the Activity theory is an effective and efficient model that allows the in – depth understanding of the process by which strategic planning eventually fosters both communication and integration under the scope of achieving a unified activity as a constituent of the entire strategy planning procedure. One of the main benefits identified for the suitability of the Activity Theory in business and organizational contexts is the fact that the particular theoretical underpinning provides a consistent approach to evaluating, assessing and analyzing the interactivities between the different actors within the process of planning and formulation of the strategy. In a similar manner, Johnson et al. (2003) explain that at the top of the strategic planning process lies the management’s decision making process. Foot (2001) further states that the decision making process is a product of interactivities and interrelationships amongst agents and actors of learning which constitute the overall sphere of knowledge management. In that extend, the study over both learning and interactivities becomes feasible with the use and application of the Activity Theory. According to Jarzabkowski (2003) understanding and realizing that the object (which is translated as the goal) is drawn from complex and perplex interactive forces is critical in conceptualizing and contextualizing the strategy planning approach on the part of organizations. All these studies engage into leveraging theoretical frameworks and constructs of the Activity Theory in order to draw conclusions on the realization of the different forces that interact with the ‘activities’ that constitute the strategic planning process. The Activity theory is a very useful framework in understanding strategic planning not as a system of organizational goals and objectives but predominantly as a process activated by the interactions of different actors that engage to the activities, are enhanced by the mediation of tools, belonging to communities and governed by principles and rules (Jarzabowski and Balogun, 2009). The advantages and benefits sought to be gained through the use of the Activity theory in the micro strategic level are evidenced by the in – depth understanding of how individuals interact and which structures or inputs eventually affect their activities in the onset of providing empirical data on the processes towards achieving common goals within the context of organizational and business studies. References Canary, H.E. (2010). Structurating Activity Theory: An Integrative Approach to Policy Knowledge. Communication Theory, 20(1), pp. 21-49 Cruz – Neto, G.G., Gomes, A.S. and de Castro, J.B. (2005). Mapping Activity Theory Diagrams into I* Organizational Models. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 5(2), pp. 57 - 63 Diaper, D. (2008). Reactionary reactions to altering activity theory. Interacting with Computers, 20(4), pp. 260–266 Foot, K.A. (2001). Cultural-Historical Activity Theory as Practical Theory: Illuminating the Development of a Conflict Monitoring Network. Communication Theory, 11(1), pp. 56-83 Hasan, H. (2002). Relating knowledge management to business strategy by means of an activity theory framework, University of Wollongong, Australia. Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic Practices: An Activity Theory Perspective on Continuity and Change. Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 23-55 Jarzabkowski, P. and Balogun, J. (2009). The Practice and Process of Delivering Integration through Strategic Planning. Journal of Management Studies 46(8), pp. 1255-1288 Johnson, G., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2003). Micro Strategy and Strategizing: Towards an Activity Based View. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 3-23 Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. and Smaldino, S. (2007). Using activity theory to evaluate and improve K-12 school and university partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), pp. 364-380 Read More