Activity Theory

So, whilst struggling once again with the broadness of my questions,  I've just discovered activity theory which starts to make sense in relation to this idea of having a conceptual framework.

I like the idea that it  is  a  meta-theory or framework rather  than being a  theory that sets out to predict what will happen and why. I also like the idea that it stems from Vygotsky whose theories relate very much to informal education: ideas of a cultural psychology. It enables the researcher to consider the entire work or activity system within the chosen context, from the micro to the macro (including teams, organizations, etc.) which is particularly important in my case, since the motivations of the youth workers that I am researching are inevitably impacted by the organisation, policy or instruction from management, of which I was once a part. The idea that the totality of what is accomplished is beyond just one person gives permission to the researcher to take account of the environment, personal histories, culture, role of the 'artifact', motivations, complexity of real life action, etc.

The  analysis is  directed towards the subject's motivation for performing an activity, which in turn is directed at an object or goal. Activities are defined as conscious actions directed at specific goals, but the elements that make up the activity  are not fixed and  can  change.

Engestrom (1991, 1990) is known for developing the activity triangle that looks at how individuals, artifacts and systems  engage in purposeful activities :

 Breaking down barriers, innovation, and participation in a youth work sense often involves practitioners in the creation of new rules, structures and roles, something that is evident in the practice of the 2 youth workers that I have interviewed, They were chosen because they are at the forefront of this work within their local context, often battling with attitudes and motivations from colleagues that have not moved towards the usage of digital media in the same way.

Somekh (2001) states that "activity theory  not only explains the link between radical societal changes and new technology tools, it also provides a model for how similar changes could occur in schools". Her discourse relates this to a need for radical curriculum change in schools to something that looks familiar! More of an emphasis on informal education, in fact, youth and community tutors are even mentioned as are the words 'groupwork' and 'ownership'!.

Engestrom gives me the possibility of analysing what I'm interested in as follows :

• a collective activity system can be taken as a unit of analysis, giving context and meaning to seemingly random individual events
• the activity system and its components can be understood historically
• inner contradictions of the activity system can be analysed as the source of disruption, innovation, change, and development of that system, including its individual participants (1996:65)

I'm reminded of one of the quotes that I used in a previous post about constuctionism:
“Truth or meaning comes into existence in and out of our engagement with the realities of the world. There is no meaning without a mind. Meaning is not discovered, but constructed.” (Crotty, 1998 ). 

Is it starting to come together? 

The Fifth Discipline, revised edition (2006) - peter Senge.pdf

Haven't been blogging for a while but have now got 'head space' to really think about what I've been researching and what that might relate to...

Strangely enough, my thoughts have been taken into a realm of Eraut and Senge in relation to how practitioners or professionals make decisions about their intervention tools or methodology. Not sure how this might relate at the moment to digital literacy or how individuals become pre-disposed to explore the 'new' in relation to practice or not...

Eraut (2001: 2009) looks at how knowledge contributes to professional performance and has examined the processes for acquiring and interpreting information which by his analysis, means that we have a tendency to see what we want and expect to see.. I'm not sure in relation to the usage of social media in informal education contexts: as with the nature of social media itself , I see a lot of practitioners 'playing' with tools, sometimes with young people, sometimes not. The 'playing' is about experimentation: the basis of what informal educators term, experiential learning - the bedrock of youth work. Eraut's description of meta-processes or meta-cognition does fit here: the continuous evaluation of what works, what is possible, and the tweaking and adapting of ideas and tools to meet need.

One of the questions that pops up here in relation to the usage of social media is about how youth workers work with this meta-processing to enable them to think differently and to question assumptions?

Peter Senge (2006) in the Fifth Disciple however, talks about 'personal mastery': living life creativily rather than reactively. He states that we need creative tension to learn and develop as it is this that enables us to be curious and to question what we think we already know. A constant reappraisal of one's personal vision is one of the features of 'personal mastery': does this relate to those who are constantly seeking to improve or be engaging, 'playing' with new tools in order to work with young people on their level rather than their own?

Decision-making and the processes involved is an interesting area: maybe a focus for the next research assignment ....?

Am I a constructionist?

" When faced with the challenge of studying a world to which we are linked by all sorts of specific investments, inextricably intellectual and ‘temporal’, our first automatic thought is to escape; our concern to escape any suspicion of prejudice leads us to attempt to negate ourselves  as ‘biased’ or ‘informed’ subjects automatically suspected of using the weapons of science in the pursuit of personal interests, to abolish the self even as knowing subject, by resorting to the most impersonal and automatic procedures, those, at least in this perspective (which is that of ‘normal science’), which are the least questionable.”(Bourdieu, 1984 )

Starting to slowly get my head around epistemology - theoretical perspective - methodology - methods and how all these might link together to frame my work. Came across the above quote from Bourdieu which basically give permission for us to claim our 'vested interest' I guess.

I feel that I want to research this area of interest not only because I am interested in it, but because I also feel that I have the experience to have an opinion. Not exactly an unbiased position! This gives me the reassurance that I can imprint something of me in all of this.

I like the idea of being a constructionist although am yet to understand the finer points of the difference between constructinism and constructivism.  That means
“Truth or meaning comes into existence in and out of our engagement with the realities of the world. There is no meaning without a mind. Meaning is not discovered, but constructed.” (Crotty, 1998 ).

As I understand it , this allows me to build by understanding block by block, and it also allows me to demolish structures along the way too, as I perhaps find out new things that add to my understanding or to the meaning that I give to certain things. The giving of meaning is also key, since this will inevitably be influenced by what has gone before, what I think now, and what I might think in the future, dependent on research.