Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Andy Coverdale
The unit of analysis is the activity system. This is defined by its object, which Engeström (1995)
describes as representing a horizon of possible actions. Leont’ev’s activity system (Fig.1) extends
Vygotsky’s notion of tool mediation, to include social and cultural components. Engeström’s (1987)
‘third generation’ of activity theory develops this further by recognising multiple and interrelated
activity systems, in which emergent objects can be partly shared, fragmented and contested.
Figure 1: Based on Engeström (1987)
For Engeström (1983), activity theory does not offer ready-made procedures for research, but rather
provides a conceptual framework for developing an ecological perspective on human activity,
providing the means of studying human actions and interactions with artefacts within a historical,
cultural and environmental context. In contrast to the largely interventionist and collaborative
approaches associated with Engeström’s work, this study adopts a largely descriptive approach,
developing activity systems as a heuristic to facilitate understanding of the activities enacted by a
cohort of participants.
Activity theory provides a procedural and systematic method for revealing and examining interrelated
incentives, disincentives, opportunities and barriers through identifying systemic contradictions and
tensions rooted in the socio-cultural components of specific activity systems (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).
Contradictions are systemic sources of influence that exist outside of, and across, multiple activities
within the subject’s context. These influence the tensions that subjects encounter while participating in
an activity, stimulating or disrupting their abilities to attain the object.
Using activity theory requires a commitment to understanding things from the learner’s viewpoint.
Activity includes both observable experiences and cognitive actions, and is best explored through a
qualitative research design using mixed methods associated with naturalistic inquiry; observations,
interviews and collecting of artefacts. Nardi (1996) advocates a prolonged engagement with
participants to determine broad longitudinal patterns of activity rather than narrow episodic actions
with which to reveal the individual trajectories. The twelve-month observational period, alongside
historical accounts of participants’ prior experience and intended future use of social media, ensured
a sufficient timeframe to identify key changes within multiple interrelated object-oriented activities.
Six participants were selected from sampling various traditional school-based and departmental
research communities, and doctoral training centres at a number of universities. The following profiles
present a summary of the participants. In accordance with ethical procedures, participant anonymity is
assured by using aliases.
911