Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
activity theory approach and in particular, on his first book publication [9]. This is
because it incorporates a hierarchical framework and powerful concepts that define
activity, and as described in the following sections, provide the means to reason about
engagement in interaction and gameplay for the user experience of entertainment.
In activity theory, the smallest unit of analysis is activity. However, identification
of activity and associated processes, which is crucial for analysis, has been a major
hurdle and stumbling block for analysis that has arguably constrained its wider
adoption and use. In his psychology and framework, Leontiev (1959/1981) elegantly
captured one of the central ideas in Marxist philosophy on the alienation of worker in
capitalist production, while at the same time helping to demonstrate the contented (or
self-actualized) worker in the Soviet Union (USSR/CCCP) through consideration of
the defining concepts of activity, “motive” and “object” (or “objective”). Motive is
the intention driving an activity and objective characterizers the activity as a whole
and includes all actions or processes carried out toward the fulfillment of motive. By
using the original version of activity theory proposed by Leontiev (1981), the
problems of identification are minimized. In addition, the same concepts to identify
and understand activity provide a means to reason about engagement in interaction
and gameplay. While in his second book, Leontiev (1978) joined “motive” with
“object” by stating that object of activity is “its true motive”, like Kaptelinin (2005),
we also find the coupling of “motive” with “object” problematic and argue for
considering them as separate, but related concepts. Given that “motive”, one the
defining concepts of activity, was joined with object (Leontiev 1978), it seems
unsurprising then that dealing with, and identifying where activity starts and ends is
“notoriously difficult” for researchers and academics who exclusively refer to
Leontiev's (1978) second book. While Engestrom's expanded version of activity
theory provides a framework to reason about people's collective activity towards an
object, because there is no equivalent to the concept motive, we have no explicitly
named concept or means to reason about people's level of interest or engagement in
activity. Hence, using Engestrom's expanded version of activity theory may be
carrying out analysis on people who may be disinterested or unengaged in the
collective activity under observation. So in the words of Marx, they are alienated from
their work.
Mediating artifact
a.
Activity
objective
motive
f
b.
Actions
Object—
Outcome
Subject
e
goals
c.
Operations
Community
Rules
Division
of labor
d
Fig. 3.
Two Versions of Activity theory: Engeström's (1987; 1990) expanded triangle (left) and
A. N. Leontiev's (1978; 1981) original hierarchical framework of activity (right)
