23
3

Computer-Mediated Activity: Functional Organs in Social and
Developmental Contexts
Victor Kaptelinin
The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) presents an enormous theoretical challenge to researchers
trying to establish it as an integrated field of studies. To become such a field, HCI should be based on a
conceptual scheme powerful enough to incorporate both human beings and computer technology within a
coherent theoretical framework. One possible solution is based on the cognitive approach, according to
which both human beings and computers can be considered as information processing units.
1
If the basic
mechanisms underlying human cognition and those underlying the functioning of computer systems are
essentially the same, it is possible to use the same concepts and methods to analyze both entities and
eventually to build a general theory that explains the functioning of higher-level systems composed of both
human beings and computers.
Another broad approach, which is becoming more popular, is based on a radically different
assumption. It assumes that what is needed to make HCI a conceptually integrated field is a theory that
describes and explains the larger context of human interaction with computers. This second approach
employs another feature human beings and computers have in common: both are involved in real-life
activities of computer use. If we can provide an account of the general context of computer use and identify
the place of human beings and computers within this overarching scheme, we can understand interaction
between them without assuming that they are basically the same kinds of entities.
There are several versions of the contextual approach to HCI (see Nardi, chapter 4, this volume),
which are almost unrelated to each other. What they have in common is their opposition to the currently
dominant cognitive approach and related methodology and the more or less explicitly formulated idea that
both human beings and computers develop in the process of cultural history and can be understood only
within a social context.
Activity theory is one of the concrete versions of the contextual approach. The theory is becoming
more talked about in the field of HCI, but is still ``opaque'' for most researchers (Brusilovsky, Burmistrov,
and Kaptelinin 1993). This chapter discusses the potential advantages and limitations of activity theory as a
conceptual framework for HCI. It is not intended to present the basic ideas and principles of activity theory
in relation to HCI (for such an introduction, see Bødker 1989, 1991; Kaptelinin 1992, this volume; Kuutti
1992, this volume; Zinchenko 1992, this volume) but instead attempts to put the theory into the context of
the problems that researchers in the field are currently encountering.
EXPANSION OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
One of the most important claims of activity theory is that the nature of any artifact can be understood only
within the context of human activity—by identifying the ways people use this artifact, the needs it serves,
and the history of its development. Activity theory itself is a special kind of artifact. That is why it is
important to understand the motivation behind the actual and potential use of this theory as a conceptual
tool in the field of HCI. It can be useful in developing realistic expectations about the scope and potential
outcomes of the theory.
Considering activity theory as a special kind of tool implies that accepting this perspective does
not exclude other approaches and does not reject the usefulness of other conceptual schemes (because no
tool, no matter how powerful it is, can serve all needs and help to solve all problems). In particular, activity
theory does not reject the value of cognitive studies. However, the general conceptual position of activity
theory is radically different from that of the cognitive approach. Specifically, activity theory does not allow
for an equal status of human beings and computer technology in a theoretical framework of HCI. The

24
relations between agents and tools cannot be symmetrical, and this fundamental fact should be taken into
account in developing a theory of HCI.
The history of studies in HCI clearly demonstrates the tendency of ever-extending units of
analysis (Grudin 1990). While the early attempts to understand the factors influencing human-computer
interaction concentrated on low-level input-output processes, the current focus is on long-term events and
large-scale aspects of HCI, such as the software development life cycle, computer-supported cooperative
work (CSCW), and the implementation of information technologies at the organizational level. The reasons
behind this tendency are not only theoretical; they also include practical considerations. It has turned out
that the quality of the user interface and of interactive systems in general depends on factors that are in no
way limited to the sensorimotor level of interaction (although the latter is still important).
The challenge of increasing units of analysis is faced by any theory of HCI. The solution offered
by both the cognitive approach and activity theory is to consider human interaction with computers as a
multilevel hierarchical structure. According to both the cognitive approach and activity theory, the
tendency to focus on the higher-level HCI events is related to taking into consideration the higher levels of
the hierarchical structure of computer use. However, as we will see, the meaning of hierarchical
organization is different within these two approaches. According to the cognitive approach, the major
theoretical task is to develop a conceptual scheme that can give a coordinated description of multilevel
information processing in both human beings and computers. According to activity theory, the hierarchical
organization of human-computer interaction is determined by its embeddedness into the hierarchical
structure of human activity that mediates the user's interaction with reality.
The current expansion of the subject matter of HCI can be described as a three-dimensional
``explosion'' of the traditional paradigm, with ``levels of interaction'' being only one of these dimensions.
Other dimensions, difficult to account for within the cognitive approach, are set out in figure 3.1.
First, there is a shift of focus from interaction between the user and the computer to a larger
context of interaction of human beings with their environment, that is, transcending the user interface to
reality beyond the ``human-computer system.'' Computer tools are used by people to reach meaningful
goals that usually exist beyond the situation of human-computer interaction, and, moreover, often serve as
intermediate steps to higher-level goals that can be even more remotely related to the situation of computer
use. This aspect was described in some ethnographic studies of the use of technology (Suchman 1993). It
was shown that interactions with information technology are embedded into logically structured sequences
of interaction with other objects and with people.
The next dimension is that of development. The components of human-computer interaction are
not static. The user begins as a novice and often ends up an expert; assimilation of new artifacts can solve
old problems, but changing the nature of the tasks performed by the user, it creates new problems that
require still new artifacts to be used (Carroll, Kellogg, and Rosson 1991). An understanding of a particular
case of computer use includes an analysis of its history and its potential developmental transformations.
Finally, there is the individual/social dimension. The current meaning of the word user now
includes not only individuals but also groups and organizations.
The discovery of the rich, multifaceted, and multidimensional reality of human-computer
interaction is probably one of the most salient features of the current situation in the HCI community
(Bowers and Rodden 1993; Kuutti and Bannon 1993; Russell et al. 1993). The powerful expansion of the
object of study opens important new horizons—and at the same time, creates a feeling of confusion. The
field of HCI seems to be a collection of loosely related subfields; familiar concepts suddenly turn out not to
be so simple anymore. (This feeling of confusion is evident in, for example, Bowers and Rodden 1993 and
Monk et al. 1993.)
This situation in the HCI community constitutes the context that can explain the growing interest
in activity theory. The new reality of human-computer interaction requires new theoretical tools to help
overcome the ``explosion'' of the subject matter of HCI, to coordinate the efforts of the increasing number
of researchers working in this interdisciplinary field, and to find a way to make the outcomes of the studies
more relevant to practice. It is natural and logical to try various theoretical approaches that can potentially
provide a consistent picture of the field, and activity theory seems to be one of the most promising
candidate approaches. It is true that activity theory is not a ready-made universal solution to all the
problems of human-computer interaction, but it is also true that the general vector of the current
development in the field of HCI (Bannon 1991) is directly related to the very essence of this theoretical
approach.