Originator: Michel Callon (1991) and Bruno Latour (1992); John Law; 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. 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.

For more information, see:

• 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.
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
• 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.
• Actor-Network Theory entry on Wikipedia
• Bruno Latour discusses common misunderstandings related to Actor-Network Theory

Share This

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. 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, artefacts, and tools in the environment. 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. 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.

For more information, see:

• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
• Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.
• Norman, D. A. (1993) Things that make us smart. Addison-Wesley.
• Perry, M. (2003). Distributed Cognition. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.) HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward an Interdisciplinary Science. Morgan Kaufmann. pp. 193-223.
  

Share This

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.

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.

For more information, see:

• Bertelsen, O. W. and S. Bodker. (2003) “Activity theory.” In J.M. Carroll, ed., HCI models theories, and frameworks: toward a multidisciplinary science. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, p. 291-324.
• Bodker, S. (1991). Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kaptelinin, V., Kuutti, K., Bannon, L. (1995). Activity Theory: Basic Concepts and Applications. In Blumenthal et al. (Eds.) Human-Computer Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
• Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
• Nardi, B., Ed. (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Share This