Kaptelinin et al. (1999) give synoptic definitions of what Activity theory is and how it can be applied. In common with Disruptive Technology and Disruptive Innovation (1997, 2003), Activity theory is not predictive (1999, p. 28).
Kaptelinin et al. assert the dynamic role of tools in activity systems, as tools acquire usage through meaning ,and influence the thought and conduct of users: ‘… a tool comes fully into being when it is used and… knowing how to use it is a crucial part of the tool. So, the use of tools is an evolutionary accumulation and transmission of social knowledge, which influences the nature of not only external behaviour but also the mental functioning of individuals’ (p.32).
Moreover, as meaning evolves from usage it is relevant to observe usage over time and thus observe the construction of meaning within an activity system; ‘It is important to understand how tools are not used in a single instant of trying them out in a laboratory (for example) but as usage unfolds over time. In that time, development may occur making the tool more useful and efficient than might be seen in a single observation’ (1999, p. 32).
Whitworth (2005) argues that ‘Conflict within organisations is inevitable, but without conflict there would be no creativity, and hence no innovation’ (p. 690). However, Benson and Whitworth (2007) challenge an understanding of activity systems, namely that all contradictions therein need to be removed. Instead, they argue, ‘… tensions within activity systems are not inherently divisive… “best practice” may entail understanding the tensions within activity systems, rather than believing them to be troublesome variables, better eradicated’ (2007, p.79). Subsequently, Benson et al. (2008) draw attention to nodes within Engestrom’s (1987) representation of the activity system, arguing that ‘Rules, roles and tools are as much the territory of centralised economic and political forces as they are for learning and teaching’ (2008, p.466). Hence, activity systems are not hermetic, as individual nodes within the activity system are shaped by wider economic, political and social factors.
References
Benson, A. D., and Whitworth, A. (2007) ‘Technology at the planning table: Activity theory, negotiation and course management systems,’ Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 75-92.
Benson, A., Lawler, C. And Whitworth, A. (2008) ‘Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning,’ British journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 456-467.
Christensen, C. M. (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M. and Raynor, M. E. (2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.
Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B., and Macaulay, C. (1999) ‘the Activity Checklist: A Tool for Representing the “Space” of Context,’ Interaction, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 27-39.
Whitworth, A. (2005) ‘Colloqium’ British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 685-691.
Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning 