Of course!! The activity is the unit of analysis…now what?
So as I thought more about my post yesterday, I realized that the unit of analysis is the activity. And for my study, this unit of analysis fits perfectly…well, at least I see how it fits. My unit of analysis is the activity: mentoring. Then I am looking at all the patterns and interactions that occur within this activity.
However, in my study that studies mentoring, I also act as a sort of mentor. Is this a metadiscussion about mentoring? How do I sort out what data fits with the activity and what data does not…or is all data gathered in this larger discussion relevant to mentoring?
Where do the limits of activity theory lie? If externalization (production of completely new cultural artifacts that are transformative in nature) does not occur, what does this mean? Is it possible to even really create artifacts that are transformative in their substance, or is the real power in the transformative process of creating new meaning for oneself. Ie, won´t all objects and mediating artifacts be rooted in culture and thus…even if they are contemplative and critical…they cannot exist outside of a culture….Anyone who is not on summer vacation…feel free to respond!!!
Technorati Tags: Activity Theory
