ACSPRI Paper
Problematic Activity in Educational Research
Introduction
This paper will examine the application of activity theory to educational research and some
of the theoretical and methodological issues that confront novice researchers. That is, while
using the activity theory framework may provide a useful heuristic through which to collect
and analyse data, the novice researcher faces multiple challenges in the appropriate
application of activity systems to complex social situations. In particular, theoretical
concerns about the definition of activity and scope of the theory as well as methodological
issues about guidelines and maintaining multiple perspectives make this a challenging
theoretical framework to apply. In order to do this, the paper will firstly outlines the activity
theory framework and current critiques of activity theory from both a theoretical and
methodological perspective. Following this, the research project that forms the basis of the
paper will be described and the issues that arose in the activity theory analysis will be
examined. Overall, this paper will argue that a more robust theoretical and clearer
methodological basis of activity theory needs to be developed by practitioners to both guide
novice researcher and address current critiques of the theory.
Activity theory
Activity theory is a sociocultural theory that originated in the work of Soviet psychologists
Vygotsky, Leont’ev and Luria. There theories were then further developed and refined by
Engeström into what is now commonly referred to as activity theory or cultural historical
activity theory (CHAT). While there is some debate about the unity and theoretical
coherence of this theory, it is generally accepted that activity theory has gone through three
generations (Sannino, Daniels & Gutierrez 2009, p. 1; Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild 2009,
pp. 508-509). While it is not possible to detail the development of the three generations of
activity theory in this paper, useful summaries can be found in Barab, Evans and Baek
(2004), Igira and Gregory (2009), and Roth and Lee (2007).
Importantly, in terms of understanding the concepts in this paper, second generation
activity theory resulted in Leont’ev’s hierarchy of activity and Engeström’s activity system
1
schema. Briefly, Leont’ev argued that all human activity can be organised into a hierarchy of
activity, actions and operations. The highest level is that of activity, which is related to often
unconscious motivations at the social and cultural level. Each activity can then be broken
down into a series of actions, which are conscious needs based goals determined by the
person doing the activity, and then further into operations, which again occur at the
unconscious level and depend on the conditions in which the activity takes place (Barab,
Evans & Baek 2004, pp. 202-203).
However, it was Engeström who developed the activity system schema that is the basis for
much of the research that uses second generation activity theory. Utilising the work of both
Leont’ev and Vygotsky, Engeström was able to incorporate both the collective and
contextual aspects of activity into a unit of analysis that could then be used to describe
human activity (Engeström 2015, pp. xiv-xv). This schema is known as the activity systems
triangle and is represented in the diagram below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Second generation activity theory: the activity system as the unit of analysis
(Engeström & Sannino 2010, p. 6)
Importantly, he provided a clear distinction between activity and action:
In activity theory, the distinction between short-lived goal-directed action and
durable, object-oriented activity is of central importance. A historically evolving
collective activity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems, is
taken as the prime unit of analysis. Goal-directed actions, as well as automatic
operations, are relatively independent but subordinate units of analysis, eventually
2
understandable only when interpreted against the background of entire activity
systems. Activity systems realise and reproduce themselves by generating actions
and operations. (Engeström 2000, p. 964)
In other words, activity is differentiated from action in that it is durable and that it creates
actions in order to meet the motive or object of the activity.
Critiques of activity theory and methodological implications
However, the critics of activity theory, in particular the version attributed to Engeström,
argue that there are fundamental theoretical and methodological issues with the
framework. For instance, in terms of theory, critics point to the problematic nature of
activity and the ‘radical localism’ of Engeström’s approach as important aspects of the
theory that need to be addressed in order for activity theory to develop. Also, in terms of
methodology, the lack of guidelines in terms of using activity theory can mean that the
activity system schema can be misapplied or misunderstood by those new to the theory.
Firstly, Bakhurst (2009) argues that Engeström’s version of activity theory has failed to deal
with the problematic nature of activity. That is, it is argued that the concept of activity was
problematic at the time of Vygotsky and remains so to this day. Moreover, the formulation
of object-oriented activity theory deliberately used ambiguous terminology that could be
construed as both a “material interaction with objects” and “the engagement of an
enculturated subject with a conceptualized object situated in a socio-historical context”
(Bakhurst 2009, p. 202). In other words, object-oriented activity did not differentiate
between the practical, material and concrete nature of activity, such as doing a drawing,
and the social, historical and abstract concept of activity, such as artistic expression. This can
also be seen in Engeström and Sannino’s (2010) definition of the object element of the
activity system schema:
The circle around the object [see the diagram in the above section on second
generation activity theory] indicates at the same time the focal role and inherent
ambiguity of the object of activity. The object is an invitation to interpretation,
personal sense making and societal transformation. One needs to distinguish
between the generalized object of the historically evolving activity system and the
specific object as it appears to a particular subject, at a given moment, in a given
3
action. The generalized object is connected to societal meaning, the specific object is
connected to personal sense. For example, in medical work, the generalized object
may be health and illness as societal challenges, whereas the specific object may be
a particular condition or complaint of a particular patient” (Engeström & Sannino
2010, p.6)
As a result of this ambiguity, Bakhurst (2009) argues it is therefore “pretty much impossible
to find something recognizable as an activity that does not fit the model” resulting in the
activity system schema being useful for activities such as educational contexts but having
“no explanatory value” for activities such as writing a classical symphony (Bakhurst 2009, p.
206). Furthermore, the ambiguity means that researchers can be in two minds about what
they are looking for when they seek the object of activity. That is, the researcher could be
asking either ‘what is the subject doing?’ or ‘what is the subject acting on?’
Secondly, other critics have argued that Engeström’s version of activity theory fails to
address issues at the societal and cultural level. For instance, Avis (2009) is critical of third
generation activity theory as this this approach “leads to analysis that leaves these wider
relations [social structures] in place and fails to interrogate the manner in which they shape
the terrain on which an activity system or cluster is set” (Avis 2009, p. 156). Moreover, he
argues that conflicts in activity systems become “domesticated” and developments are seen
as “straightforward” and serving the interests of all involved (Avis 2009, p. 159). Therefore,
he argues that activity theory has “radical potential” to transform society but it has been
appropriated by capital (Avis 2009, p. 162). Similarly, Peim (2009) argues that Engeström’s
focus on the local nature of activity systems “means that questions about social systems –
and about the relations between local practices and larger social systems – are not, and
cannot be, addressed” (Peim 2009, p. 168). Overall then, this suggests that the current
version of activity theory may limit a researcher’s ability to fully capture the cultural and
historical context of the activity systems under investigation.
Lastly, these theoretical issues are also echoed in the methodological criticisms of activity
theory. Specifically, the theoretical complexity of activity theory combined with a lack of
clear methodological guidance means that the framework can be misapplied or
misunderstood by novice researchers. For instance, multiple researchers have argued that
methodology in activity theory is under-researched and under-specified (Postholm 2015;
4
Seaman 2008). In addition, it is argued that the focus on the activity system schema in
activity theory research is problematic because it requires a nuanced appreciation of the
dialectic nature of the theory (Bakhurst 2007, pp. 206-208; Roth & Lee 2007, p. 195). That is,
researchers need to be aware that they treat the elements of the activity system schema as
transactional and ensure they do not see the entire activity system as static in time or
structure (Barab, Evans & Baek 2004, pp. 207-210). Of particular difficulty is the need to
switch between multiple levels of analysis when analysing activity systems. In other words,
researchers need to be able to see the activity system both from the analysts position, a top
down or system view point, as well as from the research participants position, a bottom up
or subjective view point (Engeström & Sannino 2010, p. 6; Seaman 2008, pp. 6-7). Lastly and
most disturbingly, Langemeyer and Roth (2006, pp. 38-39) demonstrate how the work of
Engeström himself can be interpreted as failing to do these things in that he appears to reify
the elements of the activity system as well as ignore the impact of social relations and
structures.
In summary, the critique of the theoretical and methodological aspects of activity theory
highlight a number of potential hazards for novice researchers. Firstly, the theoretical
critique suggests that the generality of the theory means it can be broadly applied but will
subsequently lack explanatory power. Moreover, there are also concerns that the dual
nature of object-oriented activity, both as a concrete and abstract concept, make identifying
activity difficult. In addition, there is a concern that activity theory is unable to engage
sufficiently with the broader social structures and systems that influence local activity
systems. Secondly, the methodological critique highlights the lack of guidance in the use of
activity and the practical difficulties in applying this complex theory. Specifically, the
dialectical nature means that researchers need to be able to maintain multiple points of
view on individual elements of the activity systems as well as the activity systems
themselves in order to avoid presenting the activity systems under investigation as static,
reified systems.
Issues in applying activity theory
Having briefly outlined the basis of activity theory and some critiques of this approach, this
section will show how these issues were problematic in a novice researcher’s use of activity
theory as a theoretical framework. In particular, the application of activity theory to the
5
complex social interactions of a teenager that occurred between school and home
demonstrated the difficulty in applying the definitions of activity and maintaining multiple
perspectives on activity systems. Furthermore, it illustrated the limitations of activity theory
to address issues of power and influence that occur in local activity systems due to broader
social systems. However, before this is explained, there will be a brief description of the
research project that formed the basis for these observations.
The data for this paper came from a research project that is focusing on four to six individual
secondary students and capturing data about their use of digital technology in the
classroom setting and non-school settings. This data is being collected using a range of
methods: classroom observations, student focus groups, document analysis, individual
interviews (teacher, parents and students), and getting students to photograph their use of
digital technology outside of school. Once this has been collected, the data will be analysed
using the activity theory framework to determine the school and out-of-school activity
systems for each individual student. These will then be developed as individual case studies
before a cross-case analysis procedure will be used to determine similarities and differences
between the students (Yin 2009, pp. 170-172).
Importantly, as part of the research project, the researcher conducted a pilot study to test
the interview schedules and photo elicitation technique to be used in the main study. This
was done by recruiting a mother and daughter through professional contacts of the
researcher and interviewing them separately. The daughter was interviewed three weeks
apart, the second interview utilising a photo elicitation technique based on images provided
to the researcher, while the mother was interviewed once. The data was then transcribed
using Windows Media Player and Microsoft Word. This involved listening to the digital audio
files of the interview recordings on half speed and typing the conversation verbatim into a
Word document. The recordings were listened to at least twice with the initial playing of the
audio used to type up a draft transcript which was then edited to ensure accuracy during
the second playing of the audio. Any sections that were unclear were listened to again to
ensure that the most accurate transcript of the interview was produced. The transcripts
were then printed off for coding.
Initially, the data was coded using the activity system elements as is suggested by Barab,
Evans and Baek (2004, pp. 207-210). In conjunction with the coding process, activity system
6
models were also developed based on the different activities noted in coding memos from
the initial reading of the transcripts. This simultaneous process of coding and creating
activity systems resulted in activity systems being developed for the activities of drawing,
reading, playing computer games and completing school work. Of interest is the playing
computer games activity system shown below in Figure 2:
Figure 2. Playing games in the initial analysis of the data
As the diagram illustrates, there was a single subject of the activity, the participant, and the
object of the activity was to win the game. In terms of Engeström’s (2000, p. 964) definition
of activity, the playing computer games activity system appeared suitable as the act of
gaming was durable, the participant regularly played these games, and it also had repetitive
and reproducible actions, the act of finding and playing the games again and again.
Moreover, it could be argued that the participant was taking part in the ‘historically evolving
collective activity’ of gaming that has become part of youth culture with the development of
digital technology.
7
However, the coding memos reveal an immediate tension in terms of the object of activity.
That is, based on Engeström and Sannino’s (2010, p.6) definition of the object in the activity
system, there was a tension between modelling the specific and generalizable object of the
activity. In other words, the coding memo showed that there was two possibilities of
modelling the activity:

Option 1: The object as winning the game and the outcome as enjoyment

Option 2: The object as enjoyment and the outcome as time consuming
The first of these could be argued to represent the specific object as it appeared to the
participant as she played the game. For example, she would have been consciously aware of
the goals of the game in the moment and would try to achieve this goal in order to win.
Therefore, this is operating at Leont’ev’s level of action (Barab, Evans & Baek 2004, pp. 202203). Alternatively, the second option could be argued to represent the generalized object
of enjoyment. That is, it could be argued that the ‘societal meaning’ of playing games is
enjoyment rather than the specific goals of a given game but the participant would not be
consciously aware of this as she played the game. As such, this is operating at the activity
level of Leont’ev’s hierarchy of activity (Barab, Evans & Baek 2004, pp. 202-203). Therefore,
this illustrates a problem created by the deliberately ambiguous definition of object in
activity theory. Furthermore, a consequence of the choice of the specific object as the basis
for the activity system meant that further analysis of the contradictions revealed only a
secondary contradiction between the object and outcome. That is, there was tension
created by the time consuming nature of gaming that restricted the participant’s ability to
participate in this activity at certain times, such as on weeknights when homework had to
be done.
Importantly, in revising the initial analysis of the activity systems, questions were raised
about the level of generalizability of the modelled activity systems. Specifically, it was
suggested that the initial analysis, relating specifically to the gaming activity system but also
to other activity systems, was too concrete and did not have a broad enough perspective on
the participants. Therefore, the researcher revised the coding process to ensure that more
generalizable activity systems were formed in the analysis process. In particular, the
researcher adopted Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy’s (1999) approach of focusing on “broad
8
patterns of activity before considering narrow episodic fragments which don’t reveal the
overall direction and importance of the activity” (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy 1999, p. 68).
Primarily this involved separating the coding and activity system modelling processes thus
allowing the researcher to move between systematic and subjective perspectives in order to
see the relationships between activity systems.
As a result of this different approach, playing computer games was subsequently part of the
broader ‘Out-of-school use of digital technology’ activity system shown below in Figure 3:
Figure 3. Playing games in the revised analysis of the data
As can be seen, the broader approach to activity system modelling expanded the number of
subjects, showing the different people involved in the activity, and incorporated both the
specific and generalizable object of activity. Most importantly, the broader approach also
revealed more contradictions within the activity system. That is, rather than a single
secondary contradiction, the more abstract activity system allowed the researcher to see
9
the connections with the school context. Specifically, the communication via newsletter
between school and home resulted the participant’s parents checking the digital devices in
the home thus resulting in the detection of inappropriate behaviour during gaming at night.
Consequently, stricter rules were enforced at home about the use of digital technology and
the access to internet at night. Therefore, it was shown that these resulted in primary,
secondary, tertiary and quaternary contradictions within both the out-of-school use of
digital technology activity system and the school use of digital technology activity system. A
diagram showing these contradictions and interactions between the activity systems is
shown below in Figure 4:
10
11
Figure 4. Interactions between activity systems in the revised analysis of the data
In summary, the separating of the coding from the activity system modelling process
allowed the researcher to more effectively maintain multiple perspective of the activity
systems and therefore create more generalizable activity system models. This also resulted
in the identification of more contradictions and tensions within and between the activity
systems thus demonstrating the analytical benefit of using more abstract activity systems.
Also of importance is that neither approach was able to illuminate the power and influence
of broader social systems on the localised activity systems. That is, broader cultural issues
around the playing of computer games, such as impacts on health and the influence of
gaming companies, as well as the power of the media and the internet to encourage game
playing were not evident through the activity theory analysis. While Engeström and Sannino
(2010, p. 19) would argue that this is due to a lack of historical analysis of the activity
system, it could equally be argued that a further historical analysis of the participant would
not reveal such influences except in tangential and oblique ways. Therefore, Avis (2009) and
Peim’s (2009) claims about the limitations of activity theory to ask “questions about social
systems – and about the relations between local practices and larger social systems” (Peim
2009, p. 168) can be argued to be merited.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has shown that the theoretical and methodological critiques of
activity theory are problematic for novice researchers applying activity theory for the first
time in complex social situations. After briefly outlining the theoretical basis of activity
theory, the critiques of activity theory in regards to the definition of activity and limited
ability to address broader social issues as well as methodological concerns around a lack of
guidelines and the need to maintain multiple points of view were explored. A brief overview
of the research project that formed the basis for this paper was then given before a snap
shot of the theoretical and methodological issues associated with activity theory was
demonstrated through the analysis of the playing computer games activity of the pilot test
participant. In particular, this demonstrated that adopting a narrow, concrete perspective
on activity limits the analytical benefits of using activity theory and that a broader,
generalizable approach to activity is needed to reveal the full extent of interactions within
12
and between activity systems. Therefore, it is hard to disagree with Nussbaumer’s (2012)
sentiments that “[a]lthough initially appearing straightforward, the complexity of the
framework in application of CHAT can be perplexing to the uninitiated” (Nussbaumer 2012,
p. 46). As such, there is a need for practitioners using activity theory to develop clearer and
more theoretically consistent guidelines in the application of activity theory as both a theory
and a methodology. This would not only allow novice researchers to be guided in the use of
this ultimately useful but complex theoretical framework but help develop a more robust
theory that is responds to some of the current critiques of activity theory.
References
Avis, J. 2009, ‘Transformation or transformism: Engeström’s version of activity theory?’,
Educational Review, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 151-165.
Bakhurst, D. 2009, ‘Reflections on activity theory’, Educational Review, vol. 61, no. 2, pp.
197-210.
Barab, S., Evans, M. & Baek, E. 2004, ‘Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the
participatory unit’, in D. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology, 2nd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
Engeström, Y. 2000, ‘Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work’,
Ergonomics, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 960-974.
Engeström, Y. 2015, Learning by expanding, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. 2010, ‘Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and
future challenges’, Educational Research Review, vol. 5, pp. 1-24.
Igira, F. T., & Gregory, J. 2009, ‘Cultural Historical Activity Theory’, in Y. K. Dwivedi, B. Lal, M.
D. Williams, S.L., Schneberger, S. L. & M. Wade (eds), Handbook of research on
contemporary theoretical models in information systems, IGI Global.
Jonassen, D. & Rohrer-Murphy, L. 1999, ‘Activity theory as a framework for designing
constructivist learning environments’, Educational Technology, Research and Development
Review, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 61-79.
13
Langemeyer, I. & Roth, W. 2006, ‘Is cultural-historical activity theory threatened to fall short
of its own principles and possibilities as a dialectical social science?’, Outlines, vol. 2, pp. 2042.
Nussbaumer, D. 2012. ‘An overview of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) use in
classroom research 2000 to 2009’, Educational Review, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 37-55.
Peim, N. 2009, ‘Activity theory and ontology’, Educational Review, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 167180.
Postholm, M. 2015, ‘Methodologies in cultural-historical activity theory: the example of
school-based development’, Educational Research, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 43-58.
Roth, W. & Lee, Y. 2007, ‘Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: cultural-historical activity theory’,
Review of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 186-232.
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutierrez, K. 2009, ‘Activity theory between historical
engagement and future-making practice’, in A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. Gutierrez (eds),
Learning and expanding with activity theory, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Seaman, J. 2008, ‘Adopting a grounded theory approach to cultural-historical research:
conflicting methodologies or complementary methods?’, International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-17.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. & Haudenschild, M. 2009, ‘Using activity systems analysis to identify
inner contradictions in teacher professional development’, Teaching and Teacher Education,
vol. 25, pp. 507-517.
Yin, R 2009, Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn, SAGE, London.
14