The epistemology of Activity theory Engeström, Y.: “Comment on Blackler et al.: Activity Theory and Social Knowledge: A Story of Four Umpires”, pp , In special issue of Organizations, 2000, 7(2)

Content The epistemology of activity theory, described by the story of the four umpires Three methodological issues

The three umpires Three umpires disagreed about the task of calling balls and strikes: –1 st umpire: “I calls them as they is” – realism, it is possible to objectively describe the world –2 nd umpire: “I calls them as I sees them” – constructivism, knowledge is dependent on the observer and the instrument –3 rd umpire: “They ain’t nothing till I calls them” – socially constructed

The 4 th umpire We need a forth umpire in order to characterize activity theory’s approach to knowledge! Shared problem: Individuals is the centre of construction of knowledge and reality in the epistemologies: –We have to acknowledge that baseball have been constructed, historically and collectively, by collaboration between human and artifacts –Construction of “foul ball” happens collectively – pitcher, hitter, other players, umpires, bat, ball etc. –The activity is related to other activities. The pulsation between activities: Pitch, hit and then the umpires decision But where is learning in this picture?

The 4 th umpire Example: –Disturbed by protests from the audience – a deviation from the standard script of the game – but the attention is on the hitter who hit a foul ball to easy –Deliberately hitting foul balls in critical situations –Fixed games for betting profits Did not stick to the routine script – focused on disturbances Engaged in reflection and action’s together with colleagues and partners Crosses the boundaries of given role and involves in the initiation of a historical reorganization of the entire game of baseball – not the self, but the activity of baseball Construction of knowledge from a temporal and developmental perspective as well as a systemic and collective perspective

Three methodological issues Units of analysis: Not one single activity system, but nested and overlapping activity systems –Moving between collective, long term activity, individual and short term action, and automatic operation –But what about the relations between systems and their concrete actions? Perspectives used to capture heterogeneity of orientations among participants in an activity system –But what is a perspective: A cognitive structure, a discursive achievement or a cultural artifact? How to distinguish, delineate and name? Activity theory is at is best at analyzing contradictions within and between activity systems: Learning facilitated by accumulated contradictions leads to redefinition of the object of the activity