Constructive activity and expansion of the object: cross-fertilization between activity theories

ABSTRACT

In activity-oriented ergonomics, developmental issues are discussed in terms of ”constructive activity.” Understanding the link between constructive and productive activities is a considerable challenge. Using two versions of activity theories, we hypothesized that constructive activity is characterized by the expansion of the object of activity within productive activity. An empirical study conducted in anesthesia produced results that describe this expansion during the preparation of anesthesia. Over half of the anesthetists selected a solution they viewed as riskier. Their object was expanded from the situated care production to include their own selves as subjects in development and a form of generalization.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my gratitude to Pierre Falzon, who supervised this research, and to the C3U Paragraph team at Paris 8 University, who introduced me to CHAT. I am particularly thankful to Françoise Decortis for her valuable advice. I also extend my thanks to the colleagues with whom I collaborated on the NaRé (PHC Germaine de Stael) and ITaPar (ANR-19-CE26-0021-01) projects. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the reviewers and editors of the journal MCA for their insightful feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. This formulation echoes Leontiev’s words : « the activity characteristic of man is productive, constructive activity » (Leontyev, 1981, p. 116).

2. Some go as far as to say that “productive activity ends with the end of the action, regardless of its outcome” (Delgoulet & Vidal-Gomel, 2014, p. 4). This is questionable: Is it not the nature of instrumented human activity to be extended, through tools or instruments produced by productive activity, beyond the task and outcomes? Can we really say that the productive activity ends if instruments are transmitted or used by others? (Béguin & Rabardel, 2000; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2018; Leontiev, 1972). For us, productive activity does not end but transforms and shapes the object (which renews the motive of the activity).

3. All translations from French sources by the author.

4. This does not prevent situated activity from being potentially collaborative and encompassing the past and the future that the people are committed to creating together.

5. For Pastré, as for Vygotsky, learning sustains and precede development: within learning processes, which are rather cumulative, there are “trigger experiences,” which appear in “sensitive periods” and which “touch on the very evolution of the psychic functions of humans,” in other words which are “development” (Pastré, 2011, p. 111).

6. The theory of this Russian author – rarely translated (Leplat, 2008)—differs from those of other great Russian psychologists such as Vygotski and Leontiev in its emphasis on the role of the subject in activity and on its creative dimensions (Aboulkhanova, 2007). Of course, Rubinstein also recognizes the object orientation of activity (predmetnost) as well as the role of the social, but above all, he gives, in an original way, a great place to “man [sic] as a subject of life,” in a conception that clearly opposes the cognitive, rationalist, or utilitarian model of the subject (Rubinstein, 2007 (1940), p. 263).

7. All approaches to activity theory, including the French-speaking ones, promote the collective dimension of human activity, not only because all activities are social (even those carried out in apparent isolation), but also because it is simplistic to understand the social dimension only as an external factor or as a context. In opposition with the cognitivist paradigm, activity theory is based on the following fundamental Vygotskian principle (Vygotski, 2014): psychological development does not go from the subject to the social, but conversely, from the social to the subject (Blunden, 2009; Clot, 2009; Engeström, 1987; Hardman, 2007; Kaptelinin, 2012). The difference within this common frame is that, depending on the authors, the developing subject is modeled individually or collectively, so the term subject can refer to one or more individuals.

8. “Third-person perspective” means observations based exclusively upon the observable behaviors of the anesthetists (e.g., spontaneous speech, handwritten notes in the patients’ file, communication with the patients) (Vermersch, 1994).

9. Further investigations would be needed to understand why two anesthetists actually made this choice, and one of them selected it as the first option. These investigations were not carried out here because of time concerns and issues of anonymity. This do not limit the enquiry regarding the 12 one who chose the laryngoscopy.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the “Haute Autorite de Sante” (French National Authority for Health).