computers and composition volume 14 issue 2 1997 [doi 10.1016%2fs8755-4615%2897%2990030-x] clay i....

7/27/2019 Computers and Composition Volume 14 Issue 2 1997 [Doi 10.1016%2Fs8755-4615%2897%2990030-x] Clay I. Spi…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/computers-and-composition-volume-14-issue-2-1997-doi-1010162fs8755-461528972990030-x 1/4

Computers and Composition 14, 301-304 (1997) ISSN 8765-4615

@1997 Ablex Publishing Corporation All rights of reproduction reserved

Context and Consciousness:

Activity Theory and

Human-Computer Interaction.

Nardi, Bonnie (Ed.). (1996).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 400 pp.

REVIEWED BY CLAY I. SPINUZZI

Iowa State University

Mention human-computer interaction studies, and many people think of information-

processing cognitive psychology (IPCP) and all it entails: elaborate diagrams of how our

minds “process” information, protocol analyses to make those processes transparent, care-

fully recorded metrics to measure how quickly those processes run, and rigid large-scale

experiments with elaborate statistical analyses to help generalize those findings. Computer

science and IPCP are so tightly linked that IPCP’s dominant metaphor is that of the mind

as computer-a computer that processes data with help of “peripherals” such as memory

and the senses. In human-computer interaction studies based on this strand of psychology,

users are often discussed as if they were computers: Researchers talk about how many

“items” of data a user can process, how a user’s “internal memory” can be “loaded’ from

“external memory,” and so forth. Indeed, even the term human-computer interaction

(HCI) implies that human and computer are essentially equivalent beings and that interac-

tion entails connecting one’s output to the other’s input in a closed system that shuts out

any other interactants or events.

The IPCP approach has dominated human-computer interaction studies for a long time.

But its shortcomings are becoming evident as HCI researchers dig deeper into the

complex social, cultural, and historical influences affecting how humans use computers.

HCI, like composition, has become a disciplinary crossroads: In addition to cognitivepsychology, it borrows from cultural psychology, anthropology, sociology, semiotics, and

rhetoric (among others). In fact, the last ten years in particular have seen an enormous

shift from the ergonomics-based HCI of information-processing cognitive psychology to a

more social perspective.

Sound familiar? It should. In many ways, HCI studies parallel composition studies.

Both are intimately interested in what we in composition call audience analysis: the act of

figuring out how to help readers or users interpret our “text” (in the broadest sense). Both

use a variety of methodologies to investigate that interpretation: ethnography and

ethnomethodology, stimulated recall, retrospective interviews, and experimentation, to

Direct all correspondence to: Clay Spinuzzi, 206 Ross Hall, Department of English, Iowa State University,

Ames, IA. E-mail: <spinuzzi@ iastate.edu>.

301



302 SPINUZZI

name a few. Finally, both borrow from social and cognitive theories to explain how read-

ers or users interact with their “texts.”

With these parallels of motive, methodology, and theory, it would be surprising if wecould not find something to learn from those conducting HCI studies. One of the most

exciting developments in the last few years is that a significant and growing minority of

HCI researchers are turning to a social-cultural-historical approach to human interaction

based on the work of Soviet psychologist Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. This approach,

termed LK%~Q theory, has significant advantages to offer both HCI researchers (who have

been quick to run with it) and writing researchers (who, alas, have not-but see Berken-

kotter & Huckin, 1995; Russell, 1995; and Russell, in press).

According to activity theory, the basic unit of analysis is the activity, in which one or

more participants (subjects) use mediational means (in the form of a physical tool or a

semiotic one) to transform raw material (an object) in some way in order to reach a certain

outcome. For instance, in writing this book review I am using a variety of mediational

means (a word-processing program, my notes, my unwritten thoughts about the book, the

book itself, and so forth) to transform my understanding of the book into a review. The

outcome, I hope, will be a text that readers of Computers and Composition can use when

deciding whether to spend $40 for this book.

Yet activity theory, unlike information processing cognitive psychology, does not

merely focus on the individual. Rather, the individual is seen as intimately tied to her

culture and history: Activity theory is always aware that the activity’s visible elements

(subject, tool, object, and outcome) are underpinned by, for instance, the subject’s

community or communities, the explicit and tacit rules the community has historically

evolved, and the division of labor among community members. Activity theory empha-sizes that humans’ actions have meaning only in community labor (as opposed to IPCP,

which typically attempts to reduce the number of variables in a study by investigating

humans’ actions apart from both their community and their labor). Activity theory recog-

nizes human activity as both individual and social and, in doing so, calls those very cate-

gories into question. In short, activity theory is resolutely anti-Cartesian, refusing to draw

a distinction between mind and body, self and world, text and context.

But activity theory is not simple enough to explain in a few paragraphs. In fact. those

new to it should probably read a book on it, and that book should be Context and

Con.sc,iou.sne.s.s: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, an extraordinary

collection of essays edited by Bonnie Nardi. Contex-t and Consciousnrss consists of 14

chapters covering activity theory basics, empirical studies using activity theory for inter-

face design and evaluation, and advances in the theory as they apply to HCI.

The book starts out with five essays that together provide sort of an activity theory

primer-one of the best, in fact, that I have seen. The first chapter, Nardi’s “Activity

Theory and Human-Computer Interaction,” argues for activity theory as a useful way to

study HCI-but might as well be directed to writing researchers. Nardi avoids the trap of

embracing activity theory as an accurate depiction of reality, cautioning us instead to

approach it as one particularly useful theoretical lens with which to study phenomena.

This lens is particularly useful, she argues, because it provides an established. common set

of terms and ideas for describing activity-something HCI sorely needs.

The other chapters in this section situate activity theory with respect to otherapproaches to HCI, approaches that are also used in composition studies. For instance,



Book Review: Context and Consciousness 303

Kari Kuutti’s “Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interac-

tion Research’ is a detailed proposal arguing for activity theory as an alternative frame-

work to IPCP in HCI studies. Victor Kaptelinin’s chapters “Computer-Mediated Activity:Functional Organs in Social and Developmental Contexts” and “Activity Theory: Implica-

tions for Human-Computer Interaction” similarly tackle IPCP, but from different direc-

tions. These authors provide thoughtful critiques of the current state of HCI studies and

argue lucidly that activity theory can provide a more useful way to understand HCI.

Whereas Kuutti and Kaptelinin contrast activity theory with IPCP, Nardi’s “Studying

Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed

Cognition” compares activity theory to other sociocultural approaches that have recently

become more popular in HCI research. I found this chapter especially valuable: It’s easy

to tell the difference between the asocial, acultural notions of IPCP and a social, cultural

theory, but it’s harder and potentially more instructive to compare among different socio-

cultural theories.

The second section focuses on activity theory in practical design. These five chapters

include a wealth of information on conducting empirical studies using activity theory.

Two chapters, R. K. E. Bellamy’s “Designing Educational Technology: Computer-Medi-

ated Change” and Ellen Christiansen’s “Tamed by a Rose: Computers as Tools in Human

Activity,” use empirical studies to gain insights into the activities of users; these chapters

are especially valuable as models for those who wish to conduct their own studies. Both

do what activity theory does best: They identify an activity, then analyze it to tease out its

social, cultural, and historical dimensions. These chapters particularly focus on interface

design and evaluation. A third, Susanne Bodker’s “Applying Activity Theory to Video

Analysis: How to Make Sense of Video Data in HCI,” focuses instead on a particular datacollection method; an empirical study provides plenty of illustration as Bodker explains

how activity theory can help us to avoid the data overload that so often threatens research-

ers who use recorded data. In Nardi’s contribution to this section, “Some Reflections on

the Application of Activity Theory,” she revisits one of her previous studies to demon-

strate how activity theory can provide an investigative framework for ethnomethodologi-

cal research.

Most empirical studies described in this collection are ethnographic or ethnomethod-

ological. But Ame Raeithel and Boris M. Velichkovsky’s “Joint Attention and Co-

Construction: New Ways to Foster User-Designer Collaboration” demonstrates that activ-

ity theory can also be applied to the design and use of metrics. Raeithel and Velichkovsky

use the repertory grid technique to map out users’ goals and subgoals, demonstrating

through their research of communication practices that such grids can turn up differences

in how groups of people approach various actions.

The third and final section is devoted to the theoretical development of activity theory.

At this point, I should complement Nardi on her introduction to this section. Nardi’s intro-

ductions to all the sections are quite helpful in pulling these diverse essays together, but

this introduction is particularly instructive, especially her lengthy discussion of Vladimir

Zinchenko’s “Developing Activity Theory: The Zone of Proximal Development and

Beyond.” Zinchenko’s piece is fascinating, complex, and esoteric, drawing on sources as

diverse as M. M. Bakhtin, William Blake, Jean Piaget, and even the Christian apocrypha.

It’s a difficult piece. Nardi recognizes this and has written an introduction that will set uson the right path to understanding this complex but rewarding essay.

computers and composition volume 14 issue 2 1997 [doi 10.1016%2fs8755-4615%2897%2990030-x] clay i....

Documents