The unit of analysis in IS theory: The case for activity

In the field of IS, researchers use and adapt existing theories to make sense of their data. They also build new theory from their research findings. The way theory is used, adapted or created usually assumes a certain unit of analysis, which could be the artefact, the system, the organisation, the user, the developer, the team or something else. In this paper we propose that ‘activity’ should also be considered as a suitable unit of analysis for theory in IS since the purpose of any information systems is to facilitate activities of use. To support this proposition, we describe tenets of Activity Theory and how they can be used to underpin IS research. We illustrate these with the interpretation, through Activity Theory, of a study of health information systems development aimed at identifying and meeting the needs of various users’ activities. We make the claim for activity as an appropriate unit of analysis in the use of existing theory in IS research and when building new theory for IS.

[1]  S. L. Star,et al.  Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems , 1996 .

[2]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[3]  M. Bunge.  Mind and Society , 2010 .

[4]  Helen Hasan.  Integrating IS and HCI Using Activity Theory as a Philosophical and Theoretical Basis , 1999, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Michael Cole,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Cultural psychology: Some general principles and a concrete example , 1999 .

[6]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Expansive Visibilization of Work: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective , 1999, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[7]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Support for the sense-making activity of managers , 2001, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  T. Brooks.  Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart , 1999 .

[9]  Y. Engeström.  Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. , 2001 .

[10]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Cognition and communication at work: Users and designers in mutual activity: An analysis of cooperative activities in systems design , 1996 .

[11]  Y. Engeström,et al.  From workplace learning to inter‐organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory , 2007 .

[12]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction , 1997 .

[13]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice , 1999 .

[14]  M. Kyng,et al.  Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge , 1987 .

[15]  Ellen Tove Christiansen,et al.  Tamed by a rose: computers as tools in human activity , 1995 .

[16]  V. Kaptelinin.  Activity theory: implications for human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[17]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Learning, working and imagining : twelve studies in activity theory , 1990 .

[18]  Rjö,et al.  Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization , 2001 .

[19]  M. Cole,et al.  Beyond the Individual-Social Antinomy in Discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky , 1996 .

[20]  H. Klein,et al.  Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions , 1991 .

[21]  M. Cole,et al.  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. L. S. Vygotsky. , 1978 .

[22]  Susanne Bødker.  Activity Theory as a Challenge to Systems Design , 1990 .

[23]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Demonstrations of the Activity Theory Framework for Research in Information Systems , 2007, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[24]  Alekseĭ Nikolaevich Leontʹev.  Problems of the development of the mind , 1981 .

[25]  K. Kuutti.  Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[26]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach To User Interface Design , 1990 .

[27]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  Organisational memory and learning network organisation: the case of Finnish labour protection inspectors , 1995, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[28]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Making Use of Social Thinking: The Challenge of Bridging Activity Systems , 2002, Social Thinking - Software Practice.

[29]  Helen Hasan,et al.  A Subjective Evaluation of Attitudes towards E-health , 2010 .

[30]  M. Cole.  Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline? , 1996, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[31]  David Meister,et al.  Performance Measurement : Current Perspectives and Future Challenges , 2006 .

[32]  Toomas Timpka,et al.  Third generation participatory design in health informatics - Making user participation applicable to large-scale information system projects , 2008, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[33]  Olav W. Bertelsen,et al.  Design Artefacts: Towards a design-oriented epistemology , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Mikko Korpela,et al.  Activity Analysis as a Method for Information Systems Development: General Introduction and Experiments from Nigeria and Finland , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[35]  J. Offer.  Mind and Society , 1988, Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind.