Application of the Basic Terminology in Activity Theory

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS This article presents a comparative analysis of the basic terminology of activity theory. This terminology has its roots in Russian activity theory, and some translations failed to capture the original meaning of its basic concepts. The same terminology is utilized in other fields of psychology where it has a totally different meaning. Analysis of basic terminology of general, applied, and systemic-structural activity theory presented in this article will have value for ergonomists and engineers who utilize activity theory in practice. Without a clear understanding of basic activity theory terminology, its application by practitioners will be difficult. TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Background: Activity theory, and particularly its applied branches, can be very useful in designing equipment and software and in developing efficient methods of human performance. Applied activity theory and systemic-structural activity theory are especially valuable for ergonomic design, where cognitive aspects of work dominate. Cognitively and analytically oriented viewpoints on design require clearly developed terminology and a standardized language of human activity description. Much misunderstanding between practitioners and researchers in different areas of specialization derive from terminological issues. A clear understanding of activity theory basic terminology is particularly important for ergonomists with an engineering background. Purpose: The aim of this article is clarification of basic terminology in general, applied, and systemic-structural activity theory for specialists with an engineering background. Method: Comparative analysis of basic terminology in such areas as activity theory, cognitive psychology, action theory, and praxiology was conducted. Particular attention was paid to similar terms that have totally different meanings in these areas of study. Results: The meanings of basic terms in different branches of activity theory, their specifics, and the possibility of utilizing them by ergonomists in practice are provided. Knowledge of basic activity theory terminology makes it possible to utilize analytical procedures in ergonomic design that concentrate on cognitive components of work. Conclusions: Basic terminology of activity theory is very often used incorrectly. The same terms in different areas of study have totally different meanings. When professionals describe and evaluate task performance, which includes both physical and mental components, knowledge of terminology and its standardized description become a critical factor in design.