Mind, Culture, and Activity

ISSN: 1074-9039 (Print) 1532-7884 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmca20

Activity Theory as a Framework for Human-

Technology Interaction Research

Victor Kaptelinin & Bonnie Nardi

To cite this article: Victor Kaptelinin & Bonnie Nardi (2018) Activity Theory as a Framework
for Human-Technology Interaction Research, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25:1, 3-5, DOI:
10.1080/10749039.2017.1393089

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1393089

Published online: 07 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 16635

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmca20
MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY
2018, VOL. 25, NO. 1, 3–5
https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1393089

EDITORIAL

Activity Theory as a Framework for Human-Technology Interaction

Research
The human relationship with technology has always been of special interest to activity theory, which
is hardly surprising given the focus of the theory on mediation and tools. Numerous references to
various types of technology, from the stone axe and potter’s wheel to the most advanced computing
devices of the time, can be found in Alexey Leontiev’s (1959/1981, 1975/1978) exposition of the main
concepts and principles of the approach. In Russia, the very emergence of ergonomics and human
factors as a separate discipline was markedly influenced by activity theory (Leontiev, Zinchenko, &
Panov, 1964; Zinchenko & Munipov, 1979).
An important development in the application of the theory in studies of human uses of
technology took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when activity theory started to be employed
internationally to address new challenges associated with computers and information systems. A
number of researchers, especially in Scandinavia and the United States, pointed out that by framing
human–technology interaction within a larger context of purposeful human activities, the theory
makes it possible to reach a deeper understanding of technology and its meaning for people. Most
notably, Bødker (1989) and Kuutti (1991) argued for adopting activity theory as a theoretical
foundation for, respectively, human–computer interaction and information systems research.
Engeström (1990) presented an insightful analysis of how the adoption of an information system
transformed the entire system of activities at a hospital.
These works and other subsequent work helped to establish activity theory as a key theoretical
approach in human–computer interaction and introduce it to some other areas of study within the
general field of “people and technology” (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2012; Nardi, 1996). Five papers
composing this special issue continue this development and reflect the current state of human–
technology interaction research, informed by activity theory.
The issue opens with an article by Anita Woll and Tone Bratteteig, which presents a study of the
use of assistive technologies in an eldercare setting in Norway. The setting analyzed in the study
features a wide range of smart home technologies for supporting safety and security, energy saving,
and communication (e.g., motion sensors, guards and alarms, tablet computers). The article iden-
tifies various problems and tensions associated with technology-enabled care services by applying
Leontiev’s notion of levels of activity and Engeström’s activity system model. The authors argue that
in the context of their study activity theory can be usefully complemented by Strauss’s theory of
action.
Victor Cornet, Stephen Voida, and Richard Holden report an analysis of complex self-care
practices of people with chronic heart failure. The authors use activity theory as an analytical lens
and apply Mwanza’s (2001) activity-oriented design method to investigate networks of individuals
and artifacts that support the difficult work of chronic disease management. The article identifies
eight recurrent patterns of roles and activities in the sociotechnical networks of heart failure
management and outlines design opportunities for future supporting technologies.
The article by Yong Ming Kow deals with electronic sports (esports) and aims to understand how
StarCraft players develop their gaming skills to become experts. The ethnographic study reveals the
central role of self-learning and, in particular, self-examination and critique of personal practices
based on the use of digital archives. The author employs activity theory to provide an account of self-
learning and what he calls “digitally mediated introspection” as embedded in the social and cultural
context of players’ individual and collective activities.

© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

4 EDITORIAL

The use of Facebook to support student protests in Brazilian schools is analyzed in the article by
Monica Lemos and Fernando Cunha. This work focuses on the role played by social media within
and between four separate but related “movements” in mobilizing the students for fighting together
for better educational opportunities and improved everyday life conditions. The theoretical back-
ground of the article is a combination of Engeström’s expansive learning approach and Freirean
critical pedagogy.
The special issue concludes with an article by Leena Norros, in which she suggests that it is of
benefit to the field of human factors and ergonomics to combine several theoretical approaches in
the development of its theory and methods. In particular, the article argues that cultural-historical
activity theory, Peircean semiotics, and “ecofunctionalism” (which understands human beings as a
part of the natural world; Del Río & Álvarez, 2007) can complement one another to exploit the
synergy between the framework and provide a thorough and useful account of human activities in
modern complex work environments. Building on these arguments, the article presents an activity
analysis method that combines elements of cultural-historical activity theory, Peircean semiotics, and
ecofunctionalism.
Taken together, the articles composing the special issue indicate that activity theory, after being
employed in studies of human–technology interaction for almost three decades (Clemmensen,
Kaptelinin, & Nardi, 2016), still offers researchers useful insights and guidance. While continuing
the tradition, the articles also appear to point to two trends that characterize current uses of activity
theory in human–technology interaction research. First, the studies reported in the special issue
specifically focus on the use of technology in relation to central, essential human concerns, such as
supporting independence and dignity of the elderly, helping people with a chronic health condition
to live enjoyable and fulfilling lives, mobilizing people for collective action, and for personal and
professional development. Second, activity theory is used in flexible and creative ways. The studies
employ the theory as a conceptual tool, which is used only if it is considered useful, and can be
combined with other theories if it is justified by theoretical arguments and the needs of the particular
study.
The practice of combining activity theory with other theories appears to be common in studies of
technology that use activity theory. Clemmensen et al. (2016) analyzed the literature and found that
activity theory was often combined with other less sweeping theories for precision or specificity (e.g.,
with small-group theory or cognitive load theory). Although such combinations pose risks of
conceptual fuzziness, they can work well, as evidenced in the articles in this special issue and
those analyzed in Clemmensen et al. (2016).

References
Bødker, S. (1989). A human activity approach to user interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(3), 171–195.
doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0403_1
Clemmensen, T., Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2016). Making HCI theory work: An analysis of the use of activity theory
in HCI research. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(8), 608–627. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2016.1175507
Del Río, P., & Álvarez, A. (2007). Inside and outside the zone of proximal development: An ecofunctional reading of
Vygotsky. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 259–287).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working, and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-
Konsultit Oy.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and reflections. San Rafael, California:
Morgan and Claypool.
Kuutti, K. (1991). Activity theory and its applications to information systems research and development. In H.-E.
Nissen, H. K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (eds.), Information systems research Arena of the 90’s (pp. 525–549).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North Holland.
Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Originally work
published 1975)
Leontiev, A. (1981). Problems in the development of the mind. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers (Originally work
published 1959)
 MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY 5

Leontiev, A., Zinchenko, V., & Panov, D. (1964). Engineering psychology. Moscow, Russia: Moscow State University
Press.
Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an activity theory based methodology to guide
computer system design. Proceedings of INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction.
Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: activity theory and human–computer interaction. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Zinchenko, V., & Munipov, V. (1979). The foundations of ergonomics. Moscow, Russia: Moscow State University Press.

Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie Nardi