Editing Activity theory (section)

==History==
The origins of activity theory can be traced to several sources, which have subsequently given rise to various complementary and intertwined strands of development. This account will focus on three of the most important of these strands. The first is associated with the [[Moscow Institute of Psychology]] and in particular the "troika" of young Russian researchers, [[Vygotsky Circle|Vygotsky, Leont'ev and Luria]]. Vygotsky founded [[cultural-historical psychology]], a field that became the basis for modern AT; Leont'ev, one of the principal founders of activity theory, both developed and reacted against Vygotsky's work. Leont'ev's formulation of general activity theory is currently a strong influence in post-Soviet developments in AT, which have largely been in social-scientific, organizational, and writing-studies rather than psychological research and organization.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Morf |first1=Martin E. |last2=Weber |first2=Wolfgang G. |date=May 2000 |title=I/O Psychology and the bridging of A. N. Leont'ev's activity theory. |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0088234 |journal=Canadian Psychology |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=81–93 |doi=10.1037/h0088234 |issn=1878-7304}}</ref>

The second major line of development within activity theory involves Russian scientists, such as [[P. K. Anokhin]] and [[Nikolai Bernstein]], more directly concerned with the neurophysiological basis of activity; its foundation is associated with the Soviet philosopher of psychology [[Sergei Rubinstein]]. This work was subsequently developed by researchers such as Pushkin, Zinchenko & Gordeeva, Ponomarenko, Zarakovsky and others, and is currently most well-known through the work on systemic-structural activity theory being carried out by [[Gregory Bedny|G. Z. Bedny]] and his associates, including a focus on the application of this theory as well as other related theories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Debreczeny |first=Paul |date=1999 |title=Pushkin on Literature. Selected, trans., and ed. Tatiana Wolff. Rev. ed., with an introductory essay, John Bayley. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1998. xxxviii, 554 pp. Plates. $24.95, paper. |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2673091 |journal=Slavic Review |volume=58 |issue=2 |pages=459–460 |doi=10.2307/2673091 |jstor=2673091 |s2cid=164569093 |issn=0037-6779}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Karwowski |first=Waldemar |editor-first1=Gregory Z |editor-first2=Inna |editor-last1=Bedny |editor-last2=Bedny |title=Applied and Systemic-Structural Activity Theories |date=2019-06-11 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780429466311-1 |work=Applied and Systemic-Structural Activity Theory |pages=3–26 |place=Boca Raton, FL |series=Human activity: Efficiency, safety, complexity, and reliability of performance |publisher=CRC Press |doi=10.1201/9780429466311-1 |isbn=9780429466311 |s2cid=197981576 |access-date=2022-09-28}}</ref>

Finally, in the Western world, discussions and use of AT are primarily framed within the Scandinavian activity theory strand, developed by [[Yrjö Engeström]].

===Russian===
After Vygotsky's early death, Leont'ev became the leader of the research group nowadays known as the [[Kharkov School of Psychology]] and extended Vygotsky's research framework in significantly new ways. Leont'ev first examined the [[comparative psychology|psychology of animals]], looking at the different degrees to which animals can be said to have mental processes. He concluded that Pavlov's reflexionism was not a sufficient explanation of animal behaviour and that animals have an active relation to reality, which he called "activity". In particular, the behaviour of higher primates such as chimpanzees could only be explained by the ape's formation of multi-phase plans using tools.{{Citation needed|date=March 2012}}

Leont'ev then progressed to humans and pointed out that people engage in "actions" that do not in themselves satisfy a need, but contribute towards the eventual satisfaction of a need. Often, these actions only make sense in a social context of a shared work activity. This led him to a distinction between "activities", which satisfy a need, and the "actions" that constitute the activities. Leont'ev also argued that the activity in which a person is involved is reflected in their mental activity, that is (as he puts it) material reality is "presented" to consciousness, but only in its vital meaning or significance.{{Citation needed|date=March 2012}}

Activity theory also influenced the development of [[organizational-activity game]] as developed by [[Georgy Shchedrovitsky]].<ref name=Kerr>{{cite web|last=Kerr|first=Stephen|title=Why Vygotsky?|url=http://faculty.washington.edu/stkerr/whylsv.html |date=November 22, 1997 |publisher=[[University of Washington]]|access-date=5 November 2013}}</ref>

===Scandinavian===
AT remained virtually unknown outside the Soviet Union until the mid-1980s, when it was picked up by Scandinavian researchers. The first international conference on activity theory was not held until 1986. The earliest non-Soviet paper cited by Nardi is a 1987 paper by [[Yrjö Engeström]]: "Learning by expanding". This resulted in a reformulation of AT. Kuutti notes that the term "activity theory" "can be used in two senses: referring to the original Soviet tradition or referring to the international, multi-voiced community applying the original ideas and developing them further."<ref name="Perspectives on Activity Theory"/>

The Scandinavian AT school of thought seeks to integrate and develop concepts from [[Vygotsky]]'s [[Cultural-historical psychology]] and Leont'ev's activity theory with Western intellectual developments such as [[Cognitive Science]], [[American Pragmatism]], [[Constructivism (psychological school)|Constructivism]], and [[Actor-Network Theory]]. It is known as Scandinavian activity theory. Work in the systems-structural theory of activity is also being carried on by researchers in the US and UK.

Some of the changes are a systematisation of Leont'ev's work. Although Leont'ev's exposition is clear and well structured, it is not as well-structured as the formulation by Yrjö Engeström. Kaptelinin remarks that Engeström "proposed a scheme of activity different from that by Leont'ev; it contains three interacting entities—the individual, the object and the community—instead of the two components—the individual and the object—in Leont'ev's original scheme."<ref>Kaptelinin 1996, p. 57</ref>

Some changes were introduced, apparently by importing notions from [[human–computer interaction]] theory. For instance, the notion of ''rules'', which is not found in Leont'ev, was introduced. Also, the notion of collective subject was introduced in the 1970s and 1980s (Leont'ev refers to "joint labour activity", but only has individuals, not groups, as activity subjects).