Inrecenttimes,activitytheory(AT)hasincreasinglyattractedtheattentionof

scientistsandpractitionersinvariouscountries.Numerousarticlesandbooksin
theeldinEnglish,publishedintheWestincludingtheUnitedStates,arebased
primarilyontheworksoftheRussianscholarsVygotskyandLeontev.However,
thesepublicationsdonotreectanyimportantdatafromtheappliedactivitytheory
(AAT).Furthermore,amajorityofthescientistsfromtheformerSovietUnion
whohavecontributedtothiseldareunknownintheWest.
Thereisafundamentaldifcultyinthetranslationoftextscontainingthedata
obtainedintheeldofATfromRussianintoEnglish.Thus,inadequate
translationshaveledtoincorrectdescriptionsandinterpretationsoftheoriginal
meaningofthebasictermsandconceptsfromtheperspectiveofgeneralAT.In
addition,theterminologiesandbasicprinciplesofAATarepracticallyunknown
intheWest.ContradictionsbetweengeneralATandAAT,inadditiontothe
existenceofdifferentschoolsofpsychology,createadditionaldifcultyinthe
interpretationoftheterminologiesandprinciplesofbothgeneralATandAAT.
ThewordsandtechnicaltermsusedinAAThavedifferentmeaningsand
interpretationsinWesternpsychology.Inthiscontext,thisbookprovidesreaders
withnewandimportanttheoreticalandappliedconceptsinthestudyofhuman
workfromtheperspectiveofAT.TheconceptualapparatusofAATandits
relationshipwithsystemicstructuralactivitytheory(SSAT)arediscussedinthis
book.
AccordingtoAT,humanmentaldevelopmentistheresultoftheacquisitionof
sociohistoricalexperience.Humanbeingsarebornintoasocialworldwherethey
interactwithotherhumansandartifacts.InAT,artifactsarephysicaltools,usedas
bothmeansofworkandsignsystems.Together,artifactsandculturehaveshaped
mentaldevelopmentandthenatureofhumanthought.Workisacriticalformof
humanactivity,whereastechnology(means,toolsofwork,andsignsystems)is
animportantclassofartifactsthatinuencesthestructureofhumanthought.
Technologicalprogressdriveshumanhistoryanddeterminesitsprogress.The
natureoftechnologyinuencesthetypesofactivitythathumansengagein.For
example,anaverageAmericancurrentlyspendshourseverydayusingthe
Internet,whichonlybecamepopularinthe1990s.Technologythusinuences
humanactivity,andconversely,humanactivityinuencestechnology.This
interdependenceoftechnologyandhumanworkactivitywasthedeparturepoint
forthedevelopmentofgeneralandappliedATinRussianpsychology.
Vygotsky(1978),thefounderoftheculturalhistoricaltheoryofhumanmental
development,wasthersttointroducetheconceptoftoolsandsignsinpsychology
asanimportantsourceofmentaldevelopment.Heusedthesenotionstoexplain

theoriginsofconsciousnessandcognitioningeneral.
vii

viiiPreface
Vygotskystrovetounderstandhumanbehaviorandconsciousnessthrougha
historicalanalysisofhumanlabor.Technologyandhumanlaborareconsidered
thebasisforthedevelopmentofATanditsapplications.Therelationship
betweentechnologyandhumanactivityisamajorobjectofstudyinergonomics
andworkpsychology.
BecauseATisspecicallysuitedtotheunderstandingoftheinteractionofhuman
activityandtechnology,thereisaneverincreasinginterestintheapplicationof
ATtothestudyofhumanwork(Engestrom2000;KaptelininandNardi2006;and
others).FortheEnglishspeakingworld,accesstoimportantworksinAAThas
beenrelativelyfragmentaluntilnow.TheRussianscholarsRubinshtein(1957,
1959)andLeontev(1978)developedgeneralAT.Thepartsoftheworkof
Leontevarerelativelywellknownthroughthecollectionofworkseditedby
Wertschin1981andthelatertranslationofhiswork.However,animportant
branchofgeneralATfoundedbyRubinshteinispracticallyunknownintheWest.
AlthoughLeontevsandRubinshteinsschoolssharesomesimilarities,theydiffer
signicantly.Leontevemphasizedtheimportanceoftheinternalizationprocess
inmentaldevelopment,whereasRubinshteinarguedthatapersondoesnotsimply
internalizereadymadestandards.AccordingtoRubinshtein,apersonsexternal
worldactsonthemindthroughthemindsowninternalconditions.Externalinu
encesonmentaldevelopmentalwaysactthroughinternalconditions
(Rubinshtein1959).SomeofthedatafromRubinshteinsworksandacom
parisonofhisworkwiththoseofVygotsky(1978)andLeontev(1978)canbe
foundintheworksofBednyandKarwowski(2007)andChebykin,Bedny,and
Karwowski(2008).
GeneralAT,asdevelopedbyLeontevandRubenshtein,isnoteasilyapplicable
tothestudyofhumanwork.ThisfacthasmotivatedthedevelopmentofAATor
operationalizedAT(Zarakovsky2004).UnlikegeneralAT,AAThasvarious
methodsfordescribingthestructureofworkactivityandutilizesnotonly
qualitative,butalsoquantitativemethodsofanalysis.(Foroverviewsofthelatter
inEnglish,refertoLomov1969;Landa1976;BednyandMeister1997;
Ponomarenko2004;andZarakovsy2004.)
Duringthelasttwodecades,anewapproachwithinAThasbeendeveloped

(BednyandKarwowski2007).Thisapproachiscalledsystemicstructural
activitytheoryandisderivedfromgeneralATandAAT(Bedny1987).SSAT
viewsactivityasagoaldirectedsystem,wherecognition,behavior,andmoti
vationareintegratedandorganizedbythemechanismsofselfregulationtoward
achievingaconsciousgoal.Cognitiveandbehavioralactions,operations,
functionblocks,andmembersofhumanalgorithmsareconsideredthebasicunits
ofactivityanalysis.SSATclassies,describes,andextractstheunitsofactivity
analysisfromtheprocessesofactivity.Italsoproposesstagesandlevelsofwork
activityanalysis,inadditiontoqualitativeandquantitativemethodsofstudy.
SSATstudiesworkactivityatvariouslevelsofdetail,dependingonthepurposeof
study.Itproposessimpliedmethodsofanalysiswhentheyareappropriatetothe
purposeoftheanalyses.SSATis
Prefaceix
ageneralpsychologicaltheoryorframeworkthatistheoreticallyarticulatedand
hasbeensuccessfullyappliedinawiderangeofsituations,inadditionto
examininghumanworkataverydetailedlevel.
AATrepresentsitselfinanumberofrelativelyindependenttheoreticalconcepts.
Insomecases,theterminologyandthetheoreticalprinciplesarenotsufciently
coordinatedandarenotinagreementwitheachother.Allthesefactorscreate
considerabledifcultiesindescribingtheoriginalmeaningofdataobtainedin
AAT.
Inthiscontext,itshouldbenotedthatthedatainsomearticleshavebeenobtained
fromtheAATeldandinterpretedfromanSSATperspective.Thelatter(SSAT)
allowsthepresentationofamoreaccuratedescriptionofexperimentaldata.
AnotherimportantfactorforusingSSATisthatEnglishspeakingreaderscan
moreeasilyovercometerminologybarriersandcontradictionsthatexistbetween
thedifferentschoolsofpsychologyofATusedintheformerSovietUnion.The
termsystemicstructuralanalysisoftenutilizesbothgeneralATandAAT.
Nevertheless,thereisaconsiderabledivergencebetweenthegeneral
philosophicaldiscourseonthesystemicstructuralanalysisofactivityandits
implementation.
Atpresent,withjustafewnotableexceptions(Galaktionov1978;Konopkin1980;
Kotik1978;Ponomarenko2004,2006;ZarakovskyandPavlov1978,2004),we
candiscernonlygeneralphilosophicaldiscussionsaboutthesystemicstructural
analysisofactivity,ratherthanitsrealdevelopmentinthestudyofworkactivity.
Moreover,theauthorsmentionedabove(asexceptions)havedescribedonlysome

aspectsofsystemicstructuralanalysisofactivity.Underthesystemicstructural
analysisofactivity,weunderstandtheprinciplesandmethodsthatallowus(1)to
createastandardizedlanguagefordescribingthestructureandmeasurementsof
activityandtheunitsofanalysisand(2)todevelopvariousmethodsofcreating
mutuallyinterdependentmodelsofactivity.Suchanapproachshouldprovide
clearlydescribedstagesandlevelsofanalysisofactivity,methodsofqualitative
andquantitativeanalysis,andsoon.Itseemstousthatatpresent,suchan
approachhasbeendevelopedonlyinSSAT.Specically,theSSATapproach
allowstheuniedtranslationandinterpretationofdataintheeldofAAT.SSAT
musthencebeconsideredanewtheoreticalandpracticaldirectionorframework,
whichiscloselylinkedtogeneralATandAAT.ThebasicideasinSSATshould
notbeconfusedwiththesystemconceptinergonomics,whichstudiesman
machinesystems.Here,wediscussactivityasastructurallyorganizedsystemthat
interactswithamachinesystem.Thereareprobabilisticinterrelationshipsbetween
thestructureofthetechnicalcomponentsandthestructureofactivity.
Inthisvolume,wepresenttheworksofdifferentauthorsdescribingnewdata
obtainedinrelationtogeneralAT,AAT,andSSAT.However,theterminology
usedinthisvolumeisuniedandstandardizedfromtheSSATperspective(Bedny
andKarwowski2007).