I/O Psychology and the bridging of A. N. Leont'ev's activity theory.

Abstract

Soviet activity theory, largely developed by A. N. Leont'ev, can be seen as a European complement of American I/O psychology and an important current of action theories in general. This paper identifies the major strength of Leont'ev's theory as the bridging potential it achieves by situating activity between each of several major pairs of opposite poles: mind and matter or body (exemplified by thinking workers and their work tasks), subject and object, understanding and explanation, theory and practice, humanist psychology and behaviourism. Some implications of activity theory and its bridging potential are pursued in the contexts of I/O theory-construction and research methods, and in the substantive problem areas of job design, job analysis, organization development, and personnel training. An Overview of Activity TheoryTHE PRIMACY OF ACTIVITY "Die Tat ist alles -The deed is everything," wrote Johann Wolfgang Goethe in Faust, Part 2. For Martin Heidegger, the major problem of Western philosophy since Plato seems to have been the exclusive focus on abstractions and theory which obscure the practical activity and pre-theoretical knowledge out of which concepts and categories really evolve in the first place. G. W. F. Hegel moved away from static essences to dynamic processes, an orientation which greatly influenced die action-and revolution-oriented Karl Marx. In America, pragmatism is the philosophical school of diought most immediately associated with a focus on "the deed," on the Greek pragma ("act," "business"). Skinner (1989) reminded us that "to define" once meant "to mark the bounds or ends," dial "to distinguish" was originally "to mark something by pricking it," and that "to determine" meant "to locate die end of somediing." On die level of Canadian Psychology/Psychologic canadienne, 41:2

“Vygotsky’s Neglected Legacy”: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory

“…A strand of action research, practiced at the Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, made thematic tool mediation by subjects interacting with objects in activity within nonschool contexts. Subsequently, designers of computer systems and software for collaboration (e.g., Nardi, 1996;Redmiles, 2002), information systems designers and managers (e.g., Hasan, Gould, & Hyland, 1998;Kuutti, 1999), and organizational and workplace theorists (e.g., Blackler, Crump, & McDonald, 2000;Morf & Weber, 2000;Thompson, 2004) found much in CHAT that was congenial to their work. Others adopted this theoretical framework primarily for its overt articulation as a theory for praxis and practical action, which assisted researchers and practitioners in remedying contradictions that interfered with everyday learning (Daniels, 2004b;Sawchuk, 2003).…”

An Investigation into Tenacity Levels at CoderDojos1

“…Absorption in learning can happen as a result of participation in learning which aligns with the cultural-historical activity theory (Morf and Weber, 2000). The theory suggests that what we know evolves out of participation in activities within the community.…”

A Framework for Improving Business Intelligence through Master Data Management

“…This paper argues that Master Data Management as an activity may improve business intelligence in banks; therefore, Activity Theory (AT) was seen as an appropriate theoretical framework to underpin the study. Morf and Weber (2000) posit that AT is a conceptual framework based on the idea that activity is primary, that doing precedes thinking and that goals, images, cognitive models, intentions and abstract notions like 'definition' and 'determinant' grow out of people doing things'. Activity Theory has four elements which helped guide the study: tools in use, subject of study, objective of study and the outcome.…”