Knowledge Engagement: The Concept of “Activity”

A case study of the “Universal Reference” diagram

The above diagram uses the “Universal Reference” diagram, the “Kinds of Actors” framework, and a sub-framework of “Ecological Formism” to explore a thematic network around “Activity”.

This diagram goes beyond the original “Universal Reference” diagram and offers us a new creative space for discussing the Concept — Theory Transformation which is part of “the Territory of Concepts”.

On Sept 9, 2023, I applied the same method to discuss the concept of Mindset. You can find more details about the method in Knowledge Engagement: The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration.

This post is just a short note about the diagram. We can also see it as a case study of the “Universal Reference” diagram.

The Landscape of “Activity”

Yesterday I published a note about a new meaning of “Activity Analysis”. See the original post: Situational Note-taking: First-order Analysis and Second-order Analysis.

After publishing the post, I reflected on the idea and realized I could test it with the “Universal Reference” diagram. See the diagram below.

The above diagram represents four views of “Activity” from different perspectives of four types of actors.

• Researcher 1 (Theoretical Psychologists): Activity-as-Knowledge
• Researcher 2 (Empirical Psychologists): Activity-as-Process
• Actor 1 (Intervenors): Activity-as-Project
• Actor 2 (Actors): Activity-as-Situation

Activity-as-Knowledge

The “Activity-as-Knowledge” view sees the concept of “Activity” as a General Term, an Invariant Set that refers to a set of Invariants.

Activity-as-Process

The “Activity-as-Process” view sees the concept of “Activity” as different theoretical concepts such as “Activity Circle” and other theoretical approaches to understanding Activity Theory. Each particular “Activity-as-Process” view aims to offer an Invariant of Activity.

For example, The Activity Circle focuses on “Self, Other, Thing, and Think”. It is perfect for discussing a special object which has double properties: material property and mental property. This idea was inspired by cultural-historical psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s two types of mediating tools: technological tools and psychological tools.

The original idea of the Activity Circle is called the “Activity — Relationship” perspective which was developed in 2017. In 2021, I used it to connect Activity Theory with Relevance Theory. The model was named The Relevance of Zone. In 2022, I rediscovered it with several new triggers and decided to rename it Activity Circle.

The Activity Circle is a new diagram and an abstract model. You have to turn it into a concrete model for your projects. You can find more details about it in The Activity Circle (Oliver Ding, 2017).

You can also find more theoretical approaches to Activity Theory. In 2020, I worked on the Activity U project which curated several approaches together. See the diagram below.

You can find more details in The Landscape of Activity Theory and CHAT.

Activity-as-Project

The “Activity-as-Process” view sees “Activity” as real projects in the real world.

On Dec 26, 2020, I wrote an article titled Activity U (VIII): Project as a Unit of Activity which introduced Andy Blunden’s project-oriented theoretical approach to Activity Theory. There are two ways to use the concept of “Project”: the theoretical approach and the practical phenomena.

I consider Andy Blunden’s Project-oriented Activity Theory as a Meta-theory (mTheory). His view is a “Activity-as-Process” view.

We can also use the concept of “Project” to refer to real projects in the real world.

In the past years, I worked on Project-oriented Activity Theory and the Project Engagement approach. From my real experiences of using the term “Project”, I found that both ways are useful. When I talked about theoretical knowledge of Project-oriented approaches, I used it as a theoretical concept. When I talked about concrete projects, I used it as a normal word.

In Feb 2023, I worked on developing a concrete framework called Product Engagement. I used three types of Projects for the framework. See the diagram below.

The above diagram is based on the Project Engagement approach which curates the Activity System model and Andy Blunden’s Project-centered Activity Theory together.

In the field of Business Development, I used the Project Engagement approach to define three types of Projects. See more details in A Possible Theme called “Business as Engagement”.

The Activity System model has been orienting much empirical research since 1987. Clay Spinuzzi’s book All Edge is a great example. Spinuzzi adopts the term “adhocracies” from Alvin Toffler to describe the trend of projectification of works and organizations: “rotating teams of specialists who could come together to swarm a project, disperse at the end of it, and re-form in a different configuration for the next project.” (2015, p.1). Spinuzzi highlights a key organizational principle for differing all-edge adhocracies from bureaucracies: projectification.

The term “projectification” was coined by Christophe Midler who is a management professor in 1995. Midler uses the term to refer to the trend of transformation from hierarchical function-centered organization to cross-functional project-centered organization. According to Spinuzzi, “Projectification is the organizing principle of adhocracies: the organization of work around project teams oriented to defined projects, as opposed to departments oriented to narrow functions (the organizing principle of bureaucracies). The adhocracy is organized around a specific, defined project objective with a specific endpoint.” (2015, p.32)

Spinuzzi also identifies two types of projects. He points out, “…networks are well suited to unique projects that require innovation, flexibility, and creativity, particularly if these projects involve the inexpensive, rapid communication that is necessary for supporting constant mutual adjustment. But they’re not well suited for projects that require repeatability, operating efficiency, or control; those requirements are better fulfilled by an institutional hierarchy.” (2015, p.69)

Andy Blunden’s approach offers a third type of project: a project about the formation of a concept. In other words, the project is a social movement.

If we put these ideas together and connect them with business development, we can roughly define three types of projects. See the diagram below.

• Project 1: the project that aims to discover new ideas for business development.
• Project 2: the project that belongs to daily work activities of the Business Value Chain.
• Project 3: the project that aims to turn ideas behind business into concepts for the development of culture and society.

In my opinion, Project-oriented Activity Theory can be adopted as a theory of radical innovation since the approach covers the whole developmental process of a brand-new concept. Organizational scholars use “Radical innovation — Incremental innovation” to discuss organizational innovation, “While incremental innovations are typically extensions to current product offerings or logical and relatively minor extensions to existing processes, radical product innovations involve the development or application of significantly new technologies or ideas into markets that are either nonexistent or require dramatic behavior changes to existing markets.” (McDermott and O’Connor, 2002)

I’d like to use “Radical innovation — Incremental Innovation” in a broader sense. From the perspective of Project-oriented Activity Theory, “Radical Innovation” can be definitely defined as a project with a brand-new concept while “Incremental Innovation” can be understood as a project with a good idea that is not ready for proposing as a brand-new concept.

Now we can use the three types of projects for Business Development. In this way, we build a framework of Business as Project Engagement.

We can use both Michael E. Porter’s Activity-based view and Yrjö Engeström’s Activity System Model for Project 2, we can use Andy Blunden’s Project-oriented Activity Theory for Project 3.

Finally, we can use “Strategic Discovery” to name Project 1. Moreover, we can use the concept of “Second-order Activity” to understand “Strategic Discovery”. You can find more details about “Second-order Activity” in A Typology for Anticipatory Activity System.

Activity-as-Situation

The “Activity-as-Situation” view refers to actors’ subjective experiences of activities or projects.

This view is not part of the tradition of Activity Theory, but related to a theory of sociology called Thomas Theorem which was formulated in 1928 by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas:

If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

Thomas Theorem is similar to what psychologists call Perceived Situations or Psychological Situations. You can find more details in The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations.

Activity Theorists tend to focus on “Activity” and ignore “Actor”, especially their subjective experiences such as motivation, emotion, and mental activities.

In 2022, I worked on the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework and developed a new typology of Activity. See the diagram below.

The AAS framework was born on September 15, 2022. Initially, it was developed for thinking about the complex of “Self, Other, Present, and Future”. My first article about the AAS framework is about applying it to Strategy, you can find more details in Strategy as Anticipatory Activity System.

In the past year, I worked on testing the AAS framework by conducting empirical research. You can find more details about the journey in Slow Cognition: The Development of AAS (August 21, 2021 — August 26, 2022).

A primary pair of concepts of AAS are First-order Activity and Second-order Activity. While First-order Activity refers to goal-directed Activity, Second-order Activity refers to discovering a goal for First-order Activity.

From my empirical research, I also discovered three types of Second-order Activity:

• Artificial (Explicit Second-order Activity)
• Natural (Explicit Second-order Activity)
• Tacit Second-order Activity

These three types of Second-order Activity are highlighted from the perspective of Subjective Experience.

1. Artificial (Explicit Second-order Activity)

For example, a person joins an adult development program to run a Life Discovery Activity. The program is an artificial setting.

2. Natual (Explicit Second-order Activity)

For example, a person runs a podcast and considers it as a Life Discovery Activity.

3. Tacit Second-order Activity

A person doesn’t know there is a Life Discovery Activity in his life. However, he perceives a significant insight about something. He reflects on the journey which leads to the significant insight and recognizes that the journey is an Activity.

This journey is a Tacit Second-order Activity.

Now we see this typology as a solution for using the concept of “Situation” for Activity Analysis, and the field of Activity Theory in general.

Activity Theorists could make a distinction between Objective Situations (such as material settings and social settings) and Subjective Situations (such as perceived situations and psychological situations in general).

We could also learn some ideas from phenomenological sociology which belongs to the tradition of Verstehende Soziologie (Interpretative Sociology).

The Concept of “Activity”

Now we can return to the diagram about the Concept of “Activity”.

Activity-as-Knowledge: “Activity”

Theoretical Psychologists could ask a question:

Should we use the term “Activity” as a primary concept for a theory?

Activity Theorists’ answer is Yes. This basic assumption led to a large knowledge enterprise about Activity Theory.

However, many psychologists don’t use the term “Activity” as a theoretical concept for developing psychological theories. They tend to use other terms such as “Action” and “Behavior”.

Activity-as-Process: “Activity Circle”

While Activity Theorists develop various theoretical approaches to Activity Theory, they accept a basic worldview: Activity is a dynamic and developmental process.

In order to understand the complexity of the process, each Activity Theorist tends to emphasize a particular aspect or a specific structure of the process.

• Lev Vygotsky: the “Mediation” aspect
• A.N.Leontiev: the “Hierarchy” structure
• Yrjö Engeström: the “System” structure
• Andy Blunden: the “Concept” aspect
• Benny Karpatschof: the “Meaning” aspect
• Clay Spinuzzi: the “Network” structure

The Activity Circle belongs to Benny Karpatschof’s theoretical approach which emphasizes the process of Sign/Meaning/Concept.

The AAS framework emphasizes the “Anticipation” aspect of Activity.

Activity-as-Project: “Projects”

In 2022, I worked on some empirical research projects about Life Discovery Activity which is defined as a special type of Second-order Activity.

From the perspective of the AAS framework, the Creative Life can be understood as a World of Activity which are formed with two types of activities:

• First-order Activity: Life Performance Activity
• Second-order Activity: Life Discovery Activity

See the diagram below.

During the process of research including thinking, writing, and talking with my friends, I found I often used “Life Discovery Projects” for normal communication.

It’s clear that the term “Project” is an easy-to-understand term for ordinary people. Intervenors could use “Project” to communicate with ordinary actors while they keep using “Project” to refer to the theoretical concept of “Activity”.

Activity-as-Situation: Experience

As mentioned above, the “Activity-as-Situation” view emphasizes the Actor’s subjective experience.

Now we can connect the concept of “Activity” with the concept of “Theme(Concept)”. See the diagram below.

What’s the relationship between “Activity” and “Theme(Concept)”?

I have developed a model called the “Developmental Project Model” for understanding the dynamics of Projects. One element of the model is “Theme”. You can find more details in Developmental Project Model.

I also made a distinction between Creative Themes and Situational Themes because there are two types of actors. Professionals tend to turn life experiences into life achievements by developing creative themes while ordinary actors tend to reflect on life experiences and develop situational themes.

If an actor doesn’t have a motivation to the development of public knowledge or private knowledge, he/she wouldn’t need to think about turning situational themes into creative themes.

Moving between Situational Themes and Creative Themes requires what Howard Gruber called “the abstract purposefulness”.

According to Gruber, Purpose refers to a person’s ability to imagine himself outside the perspective of the moment, to see each sub-task in its place as part of the larger task he has set himself. He said, “This abstract purposefulness and perspective, this standing outside, is an activity undertaken in quite a different spirit from that in which the creative person immerses himself, lose himself in the material of nature. To accomplish his great synthesis Darwin had to be able to alternate between these two attitudes. To see more deeply into nature, he needed the perceptual, intuitive direct contact with the material. To understand what he had seen, and to construct a theory that would do it new justice, he had to re-examine everything incessantly from the varied perspectives of his diverse enterprises.” (1974, p.113)

Gruber’s Purpose is different from other scholars’ definitions. For example, Angela Duckworth writes a chapter about Purpose in her 2016 book Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. She defines Purpose as “the intention to contribute to the well-being of others” in her “grit lexicon” (p.146)

If we connect Gruber’s approach with my work, Curativity Theory, then we can use Life Curation to discuss “the abstract purposefulness”:

• a person’s ability to imagine himself outside the perspective of the moment,
• to see each sub-task in its place as part of the larger task he has set himself.

The concept of Curativity refers to turning pieces into a meaningful whole. The Life Curation Framework is an application of Curativity Theory. From the perspective of Life Curation, a person tends to curate his or her pieces of life experience into a meaningful whole such as an insight, a project, a creative work, etc.

You can find more details about Gruber’s approach in Life Discovery: Mapping Networks of Enterprise. For my “Creative Life Curation” approach, you can see this introduction to a possible book: Creative Life Curation: Turning Experiences into Meaningful Achievements.

You can also find a real example of connecting Situational Themes with Creative Themes in The ECHO Trip: A 10-day Road Trip and Creative Life Curation.

The above picture is the overview of the project.

• Project (Actions) → Stories (Notes) → Model → Creative Work

The 10-day road trip was a project that included a series of actions. After the project was completed, it became my life Experience.

As a “Creative Life Curation” project, The ECHO Trip used thematic analysis and thematic mapping to represent a thematic dialogue between Individual Situational Themes and Individual Life Themes.

I use “life as continuous flow” as a metaphor to describe Life and Experience. This metaphor is inspired by William James’ metaphor “Stream of Thought.” You can’t use a knife to cut a stream, you only can use a container to contain it.

If I do nothing with my subjective experiences of the 10-day road trip. It is only my memory. If I want to share it with others, I have to write notes, take pictures, record the trip, etc. In this way, I made Stories of the trip for social communicative context.

Though I didn’t write notes with details, I made 21 situational themes of the trip. These themes are Personal Signs which refer to my Subjective Meanings of the trip. These themes can be seen as micro-stories.

Four Types of Actors

Now we see a clear path between Activity and Theme.

Project (Actions) > Experience > Situational Themes > Creative Themes > Knowledge of Activity

This path also echoes four types of actors:

You can find more details in Creative Life Curation: Kinds of Actors.

Activity, Themes, and Concepts

On September 21, 2023, I wrote a long article titled Themes of Practice: Concept, Activity, and Cognition.

Activity and Concept are two major aspects of social life and social cognition. Andy Blunden’s approach to Activity Theory and Concept Theory has offered us a great solution to connect Activity and Concept.

From the perspective of the Ecological Practice Approach, I’d like to work in this direction with the concept of “Thematic Space”.

In July 2022, I wrote a thesis titled Project Engagement: Life, History, and Multiverse. Part 5 of the thesis is the outcome of re-learning Activity Theory. I discovered the following pairs of keywords for discussions:

• Concepts and Themes
• Project and Platform
• Culture and History
• Context and Settings

Finally, I made a “meta-framework” for the Project Engagement approach (v2.0). See the picture below.

The meta-framework is formed with two sets of keywords:

• Activity, Concept, Culture: this set of keywords is discovered from Andy Blunden’s approach.
• Actor, Settings, Society: this set of keywords is discovered from the Project Engagement approach.

This meta-framework considers Thematic Spaces as the primary concept. It also has a slogan:

Life = Projects = Thematic Spaces = Events = History

Moreover, this new approach emphasizes “Moving between Thematic Spaces”, not the definition of Thematic Spaces.

According to the tradition of Activity Theory, there are three-level of Activity:

• Activity
• Action
• Operation

We can roughly understand “Moving between Thematic Space” as a specific type of “Operation” of Activity.

Reference

I have reflected on Activity Theory many times. On April 22, 2022, I used a technique called “Deep Analogy” to reflect on the historical development of Activity Theory.

You can find more details in TALE: The Deep Analogy Technique for Strategic Thematic Exploration.

I used “Challenge — Solution” as a deep structure to reflect on the historical development of Activity Theory.

Activity Theorists tend to use a dual structure to describe the original challenge and use a new concept to expand the original structure into a triadic structure.

For example, Lev Vygotsky’s challenge is the “Stimulus-Response” dualism which refers to behaviorism. His solution is adding the third element “Mediation” to turn the “S-R” into a triad of “S-X-R”. For Vygotsky, the Mediating Action is a whole that includes Stimulus, Mediation, and Response. In this way, Vygotsky established a new approach to psychological science: Cultural-historical psychology.

You can find more details on this board on Milanote.

You can also find more stories about “Deep Analogy” in Knowledge Discovery: The “Heuristics — Skills” Mapping.