Problems I have at the moment with convincing myself that AT is a good framework for my study:
- Studies explore the "developing" feature of activity theory from an education perspective: how users acquire knowledge about the technology they use, how they go from being novices to being experts, how their actions evolve into (automatic ) operations and how design can support this transition. Mainly derived from Engërstrom line of thought in AT. THIS IS NOT MY CASE, there is no new technology being introduced at the moment at The Newspaper.
- Studies that focus on AT as a framework to inform design by providing a structure of analysis. THIS IS NOT MY CASE EITHER, because I am not designing anything for The Newspaper at the moment, no NEED for a new system was expressed. This could change as I get in there, I might realize that there is space for a new system and the company is interested, for example, in unifying the content management systems. I have been relying secretly on this possibility, so I decided to make explicit, because it is an enormous bias I can get myself into. Don't think like this!
-I am not studying how artifacts change with activity, nor how can activity change with the introduction of new artefacts. Does this tell me something?
- I wrote to Kari Kuutti in a desperate attempt to find light.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment