1. The ecology of two theories: activity theory
and distributed cognition in practices
HCDE 501 | Ru-ping Kuo
Introduction
Halverson (2002) asks: “What does CSCW1 need to DO with theories?” in her
study. In order to answer the question, she first claims that CSCW has adopted and
even mixed many different theories, conceptual frameworks, and methods for
different purpose. And then she chooses two theories: activity theory and distributed
cognition theory which are frequently used in CSCW studies and closely examines
them with four requisite of a successful theory. Unfortunately, she concludes that
although theoretical strength of both theories could direct researchers’ focus and
benefit their analysis and communication, neither one will satisfy all needs of CSCW
because the complexity of each theory’s conceptual framework, difficult to apply,
and the lack of prediction power. Yet the status of theoretical “grab bag” in CSCW
cannot be overcome with either activity theory or distributed cognition theory. My
study is inspired by this conclusion.
Although my empirical study intend to continue Halverson’s research, I will
neither derive nor invent any new theory, and nor will I promote or against any
particular theory. Instead, my research interest is to discover the recent
movement of activity theory and distributed cognition theory in practice in CSCW. I
anticipate an ecological picture about how these two theories are used in CSCW will
be drawn by describing a deeper practical understanding of the similarities,
differences, and relationships among them.
Literature Review
Cognition in the wild
CSCW moves the study of HCI from a focus on individual user’s desktop toward
multiuser environment, which requires a close examination of work and the context
that such work is performed within. (Perry, 2003) The study of such systems is part of
a new multidisciplinary field (C. A. ElliS, S.J. GibbS, and G.L. Rein, 1991), and,
1
Using terms such as “computer- supported cooperative work (CSCW)” and “groupware,” these systems perform functions such
as helping people collaborate on writing the same document, managing projects, keeping track of tasks, and finding, sorting, and
prioritizing electronic messages. Other systems in this category help people display and manipulate information more effectively
in face-to-face meetings and represent and share the rationales for group decisions. (THOMAS W. MALONE, & KEVIN
CROWSTON, 1994)
1
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

2. according to Rogers (2004), it is a “turn to the social”. Sociologists, anthropologists
and others in the social sciences came into HCI while bringing new frameworks,
theories and ideas about technology use and system design.
Meanwhile, a new and hybrid approach of cognitive theory was developed by
Edwin Hutchins and his colleagues (Roger, 1997). This approach stresses the
cognition “in the wild” instead of “in the mind”. Hutchins claims that cognition is
better understood as a distributed phenomenon compared to the traditional view of
cognition and is best explained in terms of information processing at the individual
level (Roger, 1997). To Hutchins, a human cognitive process is the process in which
our everyday cultural practices are enacted. Culture is not any collection of things,
but it is rather an adaptive process that accumulates partial solutions to frequently
encountered problems (Hutchins, 1995). Similarly, activity theory in its original Soviet
context was used to explain cultural practices (e.g. work, school) in the
developmental, cultural and historical context in which they occur (Roger, 2004).
Both activity theory and distributed cognition theory are named as “post-
cognitivist” theory because “they have been brought into interaction design (HCI) to
remedy perceived shortcomings of cognitivist theory” (Victor Kaptelinin, & Bonnie A.
Nardi, 2006). Moreover, Halverson (2002) claims two theories’ similarities are:
emphasize cognition; include the social and cultural context of cognition; and share a
commitment to ethnographically collected data. Although these two theories share
some significant commonness, they also diverge in critical ways (Victor Kaptelinin, &
Bonnie A. Nardi, 2006). In the following section, I will give a summarized introduction
of these two theories in order to provide a better distinct understanding of them.
Distributed cognition theory
Distributed cognition theory dissolves the traditional divisions between the
inside and outside boundary of the individuals, and focuses on the interactions
between the distributed structures of the phenomena (Rogers, 1997). Moreover,
the symmetry between humans and nonhumans is evident characteristic of
distributed cognition theory. In this point of view, both humans and nonhumans
can be components carrying out various processes in the system, and both can be
media in which representational states are created or through which they are
propagated (Eric P.S. Baumer, Bill Tomlinson, 2011).
According to Nardi’s (1996) study, Distributed cognition asserts as a unit of
analysis on a cognitive system composed of individuals and the artifacts they use.
Therefore, one of the main outcomes of the distributed cognition approach is an
explication of the complex interdependencies between people and artifacts in their
2
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

3. work activities (Rogers, 2004). In other words, in distribution cognition theory,
process(ing) is so central to the analysis that it may be less obvious to the uninitiated.
Unlike activity theory there is no clear structure applied to each situation. Instead, it
is built into the process of analysis, and may or may not be represented in the
products of that analysis (Halverson, 2002). This approach of theoretical framework
makes distributed cognition theory’s power lies in its flexible unit of analysis (Rogers,
1997; Halverson, 2002). Researchers can adopt different units of analysis, to describe
a range of cognitive systems, whereby some subsume others (Hutchins, 1995).
Activity theory
Activity theory focuses on the interaction between human activities and
consciousness within its relevant environmental context. Human activities are driven
by certain needs (objectives). Therefore, in activity theory, human activity is the base
unit of analysis. The relationship between subjects and objects of activity is mediated
by a tool. Continuous construction is going on between the components of an
activity system. Humans not only use tools, they also continuously renew and
develop them either consciously or unconsciously. (Uden, L., Valderas, P & Pastor, O.,
2008).
There are different interpretations of activity theory and different facets to it (e.g.
development of personality, structure of consciousness, and hierarchical structure of
activity) (Mathew, 2010). The most cited application of activity theory is Engestrøm’s
(1990) activity system model (Rogers, 2004), which includes a community, social
rules, and division of labour in the analytic framework. Rogers (2004) claims that the
main role of this approach is analytic, a set of interconnected concepts which provide
by activity theory that can be used to identify and explore interesting problems in
field data.
Activity theory is a broadly applied theory in CSCW (Halverson, 2002), some
researchers use it for meta-level analyses, some develop models to extend the
theory or to define new phenomena, and some use it to assist the design. Many
researchers adopt activity theory because of its adaptability, Rogers (2008) describes
the advantage of a customized activity theory framework is that it can be mapped
more easily and obviously onto the problem domain, and enabling the researcher or
designer to explicitly identify problems and solutions. Because activity theory gives
a relatively specific structure into which observations are fit, it tends to led to higher
level of analysis while distributed cognition theory led to a lower level of analysis,
focusing on the ways that individual actions change the state of the cognitive system
(Eric P.S. Baumer, Bill Tomlinson, 2011).
3
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

4. Methodology
This empirical study presents and discusses findings from a review of recent
publications (published after 2007) related to two postcogintivist theories: activity
theory and distributed cognition in practice. The publications take account of these
resources: research journals,
Approach
conference and workshop
proceedings and book sections.
Based on my research goal, the
selection of publications for the
Focus review was search with the key
words “CSCW” and “activity
theory” or “CSCW” and
“distributed cognition” from
Group ACM digital library.
CSCW is a subfield of
human-computer interaction
Figure 1 Research Framework
(HCI). Figure1 shows a variety of
(The conceptual map of CSCW research)
research issues related to this
Created by Kraut, 2003
topic (Kraut, 2003). There are
three dimensions in this conceptual map, and an overall introduction is given at next
paragraph.
According to Kraut (2003), CSCW researchers differ in their approaches because
of their different backgrounds and disciplines. Some researchers who “build” systems
to support small group work are typically from the computer science or engineering.
Others focus on empirical “study” such as describing a social phenomenon or
identifying causal relation and influential factors; and these researchers are usually
from the social science disciplines of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
Therefore, their studies often describe how applications were used and the
consequences of their use. Group size and focus are the other two dimensions. In the
dimension of focus, from top to bottom are five different topics:” infrastructures,
architectures, application, task, and people”. The first two usually related to system
or software building, and they are more engineering oriented. On the contrary,
researchers from social science disciplines are more likely focus on topics like “people”
and ”task”. Meanwhile, concern of “application” is a more neutral topic. Kraut
(2003) claims that the typical size or scope of the social collective treated in most
CSCW researches is “small groups” or “teams” of members between three and a
dozen people. However, based on Kraut’s study, the scope of group can range from
4
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

5. “dyads” to “organizations”, communities and the “society”.
Kraut’s conceptual map provides a throughout and integrated view of CSCW
research and practice; I adopt it as my study and analysis framework to help me
analysis and categorize the finding. By reviewing with the systematical framework,
this empirical study could discover patterns from all publications and possibly
illustrate the ecology of these two theories in practice.
Finding
The publications’ select and review process is conducted in following steps:
1. First, review all publications that meet my key words requirements; screen
and withhold repeated and unrelated articles. A total of 25 articles are
sustained after this step.
2. Secondly, look over every article and identify each paper’s approach, focus,
and group size based on the definition of the research framework.
Through this analysis and coding process, I discover that a research paper
may study a phenomenon and then use the finding to improve or create a
design. Similarly, a study could have more than one focus and several types
of subject. Thus, I choose to count the frequency and compute the ratio
to portray my finding in discussion section.
3. Moreover, a “selected coding” process is used in my study, too. 25
publications are coded and categorized with three additional labels:
application field, creation or output, study and data collect methods which
are not defined in the research framework but related to my research goals.
And Table 1 (pp. 6-7) is the summary of my finding.
Discussion
Overview
As show in table 1, 25 publications are selected in this empirical study. Table 2 is
the summary of every year’s number of publications based on researchers’
background.
Table 2 the summary of number of publications (by year and by disciplines)
After 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Total
Activity Socio- 4 0 1 0 3 8
Theory Engine. 3 1 0 2 0 6
Distributed Socio- 4 0 1 2 2 9
Cognition Engine. 1 1 0 0 0 2
5
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

6. Table 1 Summary of empirical studies on Dcog and AT (2007~)
Year Type* Researchers Theory Application Creation Methods (Data collect) Focus Group size
education
2012 C Michael Yacci, & Evelyn P. Rozanski DCog (Google effect on reviews current research findings experiment (qualitative & people individual
&offers societal implications quantitative) task
learning)
Syavash Nobarany, Mona Haraty, & engineering/HCI applying Dcog to the design of case studies (qualitative & people
2012 C Brian Fisher
Dcog
(system design) CSCW systems quantitative)
task small group
application
education empirical papers review & case individual
2011 J B.R. Belland Dcog (computer-based scaffold a conceptual framework
studies (qualitative)
application
organization
design)
Zachary O. Toups, Andruid Kerne, education & training experiment (qualitative & people
2011 C William A. Hamilton, & Nabeel Dcog (system design) a reusable simulation games quantitative) task small group
Shahzad application
social / culture a framework for the description and observation & interview people individual
2011 C Roger Haigh Mills Dcog (music technology & analysis of networked intercultural (qualitative) task small group
improvisation) improvisation
improve the understanding of PLEs
Ilona Buchem, Graham Attwell, & personal Learning by providing an overview of key people individual
2011 C Ricardo Torres
AT
Environments issues addressed in selected
literatures review (qualitative) application organization
publications architecture society
medical/ hospital people individual
2011 C Jakob Bardram, & Afsaneh Doryab AT (activity-based present a method “Activity Analysis” Ethnomethodology (qualitative) task dyad
computing for medical & design guidelines
work) architecture small group
emergency services- people individual
2011 C Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., & Pearman, AT Silver Commanders a methodological and analytical observation & interview task dyad
A. D. framework (qualitative) small group
(system evaluation) application organization
Benbunan-Fich, R., Adler, R. & engineering/HCI interview & log analysis people
2011 J Mavlanova, T.
AT
(IT usage analysis)
Activity-Based Metrics
(qualitative & quantitative)
task individual
application
2011 C Laha, A AT engineering/HCI a software-agent based architecture interactive design infrastructure small group
(system design) for knowledge based computing architecture organization
social open-ended questionnaires, people
2011 C Ray Kekwaletswe, & Thuli Bobela AT (knowledge management why and how employees resist the interviews and direct observations task individual
adoption and use of KM system organization
system usage) (qualitative) application
2011 C Pooya Jaferian, et.al. AT engineering/HCI develop and evaluate a new set of experts assessment/heuristics application organization
(system design) heuristics (ITSM tools) (qualitative)
Ahmed Kharrufa, David Leat, & education design guidelines for tabletop observation & interactive design people individual
2010 C Patrick Olivier Dcog (collaborative learning collaborative learning applications (qualitative) task small group
application) application
6
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

7. (Continue)
Year Type* Researchers Theory Application Creation Methods (Data collect) Focus Group size
examine the current state of architecture
2010 C Jeffrey Guenther, Fred Volk, & Mark AT engineering (network visualization techniques and identify Ethnomethodology (qualitative) application Organization
Shaneck security analysts)
some key limitations task
psychology (methodology A theoretical framework for data people individual
2009 B James D. Hollan & Edwin L. Hutchins Dcog
development) analysis (human behavior)
five case studies (qualitative) task small group
application organization
2009 C Slattery S.P. AT CSCW/HCI the socio-technological case study (qualitative) task organization
(system analysis) infrastructure of Wikipedia application
explore the possibilities for future
Aleksandra Sarcevic, Ivan Marsic, CSCW/HCI design and development of ethnographic study (qualitative & people
2008 C Michael E. Lesk, & Randall S. Burd
Dcog (group-decision support
technological support for trauma quantitative)
task small group
system) teams application
social/ culture provides several insights for future Long-termed ethnographic study people
2008 C Ellie Harmon, & Nancy J. Nersessian Dcog (daily technology design (qualitative) task individual
practices in the lab)
engineering/HCI architecture
2008 J Uden, L., Valderas, P & Pastor, O. AT (web application requirements engineering activities observation & case study application organization
extend traditional task analysis (qualitative)
requirement gathering) task
Stephen Voida, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, CSCW/HCI (system activity-based model architecture
2008 C & W. Keith Edwards AT analysis & design) high-level system requirements prototype (qualitative) application organization
Terence Blackburn, Paul Swatman,& CSCW/HCI a conceptual framework (Cognitive people
2007 J Rudi Vernik Dcog (human communication Dust) observation (qualitative) task small group
in small work groups) application
Nallini Selvaraj, Bob Fields, & Paola CSCW/HCI a model (a work process determine observation, note-taking, and people
2007 C Amaldi-Trillo Dcog (decision making system) the association of people, tasks, and semi-structured interviews task small group
actions) (qualitative)
individual
2007 C Sherlock L.M. AT social/CHI Game FAQ and Message boards case study (qualitative) people small group
(system analysis) design application
organization
social/CHI (system design a practical framework for guiding
2007 C Ashok, A., & Beck, C. AT & evaluation) future HCI-design case study (qualitative) application society
Christina Brodersen, Susanne CSCW/HCI develop concepts to understand and people
2007 C Bødker, & Clemens Nylandsted AT (system design) design for learning in ubiquitous case study (qualitative) task individual
Klokmose settings application
Type*: C: Conference proceeding J: Journal article B: book section
7
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

8. Researchers who have sociology background conduct more CSCW studies with
distributed cognition theory than researchers who have computer science or
engineering background. However, the difference is smaller for studies using
activity theory. And overall, there are more CSCW research papers using activity
theory than distributed cognition theory between 2007 and today, especially after
year 2011.
As I describe in methodology section, Kraut’s conceptual map of CSCW is used
as a research framework in my study. Table 3 gives a clear picture of how are these
two theories used in practice. Activity theory has been applied to a wide variety of
settings in HCI research and design (Eric P.S. Baumer, Bill Tomlinson, 2011). My study
result supports this assumption. Compared to distributed cognition theory, activity
theory applied to all topics and all scope of groups. In addition, about 88% of
distributed cognition studies concentrate on either individuals or small groups. And
they also focus on topics like people and task mostly. 40% of activity theory studies
focus on organization.
Table 3 the summary of two theories in practice (based on research framework)
Distributed Cognition Activity Theory
study 46.2% 47.1%
Approach
build 53.8% 52.9%
Infrastructure 0.0% 2.9%
Architecture 0.0% 14.7%
Engineering/ application 7.4% 14.7%
Focus
Social / application 18.5% 23.5%
Task 37.0% 23.5%
people 37.0% 20.6%
Individual 41.2% 28.0%
dyad 0.0% 8.0%
Group size Small group/team 47.1% 16.0%
organization 11.8% 40.0%
society 0.0% 8.0%
Although researchers with computer science and engineering background tend
to focus their studies on topics like infrastructure, architecture, and application
(Kraut, 2003), my finding shows differently (e.g. Syavash Nobarany, Mona Haraty, &
Brian Fisher, 2012; Jeffrey Guenther, Fred Volk, & Mark Shaneck, 2010; Uden, L.,
Valderas, P & Pastor, O., 2008)
8
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

9. Application
The purpose of CSCW is to build tools that will help groups of people do their
work more efficiently. Therefore, one important goal of CSCW researches is to
develop technology that would allow distributed teams to work as if they were
collocated (Kraut, 2003). Based on my analysis, large amount of researches agree
that either activity theory or distributed cognition theory could bring advantages to
CSCW related design as well as evaluation. And as Table 1 shows, there are very
board applications for these two theories. They are included but not limited to the
following.
1. Education and training, from creating personal learning environment (e.g.
Ilona Buchem, Graham Attwell, &Ricardo Torres, 2011), collaborative
learning application (e.g. Ahmed Kharrufa, David Leat, & Patrick Olivier,
2010), to Google effect on learning (e.g. Michael Yacci, & Evelyn P. Rozanski,
2012).
2. Medical, hospital, and research lab. For example, activity-based
computing(e.g. Jakob Bardram, & Afsaneh Doryab, 2011), emergency
services (e.t. Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., & Pearman,A. D., 2011), daily
technology practices in the lab (e.g. Ellie Harmon, & Nancy J. Nersessian,
2008).
3. Group works, virtual teams, and management. For example, decision
making system (e.g. Nallini Selvaraj, Bob Fields, & Paola, Amaldi-Trillo,
2007), network security analysis (e.g. Jeffrey Guenther, Fred Volk, & Mark
Shaneck, 2010), and knowledge management system (e.g. Ray
Kekwaletswe, & Thuli Bobela, 2011).
4. Web development, such as web application requirement gathering (e.g.
Uden, L., Valderas, P., & Pastor, O., 2008), and FAQ and message board
design (e.g. Sherlock, 2007)
Creation & outputs
According to Kraut’s conceptual map, there are two approaches of CSCW
researches: “build” and “study”. My study discovers that these two approaches are
not necessarily isolated. Butler, Esposito, & Herbon (1999) describe the two
objectives of analysis: to understand the current situation and to produce
requirements for improvement. I also notice that these two objectives sometime are
sequent or interactive with each other when I review the publications.
Furthermore, by applying either one of these two poscognitivist theories in studies,
researchers can gain valuable insights or create various outputs. The benefits range
from abstract concepts to concrete prototypes or products. For example, conceptual
frameworks (e.g. BR Belland, 2011; Terence Blackburn, Paul Swatman,& Rudi Vernik,
9
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

10. 2007), analysis frameworks (e.g. Roger Haigh Mills, 2011; Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., &
Pearman, A. D., 2011; James D. Hollan & Edwin L. Hutchins, 2009), practical
frameworks (e.g. Ashok, A., & Beck, C., 2007), models (e.g. Nallini Selvaraj, Bob Fields,
& Paola Amaldi-Trillo, 2007), and design guidelines (e.g. Jakob Bardram, & Afsaneh
Doryab, 2011; Ahmed Kharrufa, David Leat, & Patrick Olivier, 2010) or heuristics (e.g.
Pooya Jaferian, et.al., 2011).
Generally speaking, if we just Table 4 ratio of two approaches based on the creations
compare creations (outputs) among Build Study
these publications, researchers use Dcog 8 67% 4 33%
both theories to “build something” AT 11 69% 5 31%
more than to “study something”.
And the Table 4 shows the ratios of two theories are both about 70% to 30%.
Data collection and analysis methods
Although anthropography is a significant approach to both activity theory and
distributed cognition theory in practice, there are multiple research methods used
among these 25 publications (show as table 5). Some of the studies collect both
qualitative and quantitative data (e.g. Michael Yacci, & Evelyn P. Rozanski, 2012;
Syavash Nobarany, Mona Haraty, & Brian Fisher, 2012; Benbunan-Fich, R., Adler, R. &
Mavlanova, T., 2011) no matter which theory is used in the studies. There are
totally 5 papers collecting both quantitative and qualitative data compared to the
other 20 papers which are only collected qualitative data. However, there is not
any study relying on quantitative data only.
Table 5 ratio of research methods used among publications
Moreover, the variety of Dcog AT total
research methods is different Ethnomethodology 2 13% 2 11% 4
between studies using activity Observation 4 27% 3 11% 7
theory and studies using Interview 2 13% 3 16% 5
distributed cognition theory. For Questionnaire 0 1 5% 1
the researchers who apply activity Experiment 2 13% 0 2
theory in their studies, they tend to Case study 3 20% 5 26% 8
use multiple methods to collect literature review 1 7% 1 5% 2
data, and they also use some Log analysis 0 1 5% 1
design methods like interactive Expert assessment 0 1 5% 1
design, expert review and
Interactive design 1 7% 1 5% 2
prototype in order to satisfy their
prototype 0 1 5% 1
study purposes. In contrast with
studies using activity theory, the experiment method is only used in the studies that
10
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

11. apply distributed cognition theory. Three three most frequently used methods
among these 25 publications are case study, observation, and interview.
Motivations behind the theory in practice
Every researcher justify why they use one theory over another. Therefore, I will
summarize the motivations which I learned from the 25 publications. I also believe
that we can gain some insights of the practical issues of theories chosen by
comparing these reasons to two theories’ advantages or disadvantages.
Why distributed cognition theory?
1. Inspiration of belief, anthropology approach, or related studies’ successful
experiences (e.g. Nallini Selvaraj, Bob Fields, & Paola Amaldi-Trillo, 2007;
Michael Yacci, Evelyn P. Rozanski, 2012; Ellie Harmon, Nancy J. Nersessian,
2008; James D. Hollan, Edwin L. Hutchins, 2009 )
2. “A mind in the world”. The need to analyze working environments and
describe cognitive processes spreading among mutual interactions of
humans and artifacts over time (e.g. Michael Yacci, Evelyn P. Rozanski, 2012;
Syavash Nobarany, Mona Haraty, Brian Fisher, 2012; Zachary O. Toups,
Andruid Kerne, William A. Hamilton, Nabeel Shahzad, 2011; Terence
Blackburn, Paul Swatman and Rudi Vernik, 2007; Ellie Harmon, Nancy J.
Nersessian, 2008)
3. Contextual oriented, task relevant information is stored in multiple forms:
mental models, embedded in the environment (including culture), and
derived via formulae (e.g. Zachary O. Toups, Andruid Kerne, William A.
Hamilton, Nabeel Shahzad, 2011; Mills, 2011)
4. Team cognition gets distributed across individuals, artifacts, and the setting.
It is used to design a system that can help users reduce cognitive effort
needed. (e.g. Aleksandra Sarcevic, Ivan Marsic, Michael E. Lesk, Randall S.
Burd, 2008)
5. Provide situated support for human activities analysis framework (e.g. Ellie
Harmon, Nancy J. Nersessian, 2008; Terence Blackburn, Paul Swatman and
Rudi Vernik, 2007)
Why activity theory?
1. Activity Theory is a descriptive and analysis tool, and it provides a
framework of six interrelated components: subject, object, tools, rules,
community and division of labor. (e.g. Ilona Buchem, Graham Attwell, &
Ricardo Torres, 2011; Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., & Pearman, A. D., 2011;
Jeffrey Guenther, Fred Volk, & Mark Shaneck, 2010)
2. Activity Theory is a theoretical framework which can be used to study,
11
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

12. analyze, describe, and understand or predict human activity, including
collaborative activities and the use of technology (e.g. Jakob Bardram, &
Afsaneh Doryab, 2011; Uden, L., Valderas, P & Pastor, O., 2008; Jakob
Bardram, & Afsaneh Doryab, 2011; Ashok, A., & Beck, C., 2007; Laha, 2011)
3. Activity theory focus on activities and goals rather than digital artifacts
(Ashok, A., & Beck, C., 2007)
4. Activity theory provides a broad theoretical framework for describing the
structure, development and context of human activities (e.g. Uden, L.,
Valderas, P & Pastor, O., 2008; Uden, L., Valderas, P & Pastor, O., 2008;
Ashok, A., & Beck, C., 2007; Laha, 2011; Sherlock, 2007)
Summary
Conforming to my anticipation, by carefully review and analysis 25 publications
with Kraut‘s (2003) conceptual map, I portray an ecological picture of these two
postcognitivist theories in practice. My empirical findings also vary some attributes of
Kraut’s model. For example, in the approach dimension, “build” and “study” are not
necessary exclusive, moreover, the relationship between researchers’ disciplines and
the research focus are not as clear and absolute as Kraut’s suggestion.
However, the differences between activity theory and distributed cognition
theory in practice are perceptible from prior discussion. Baumer, & Tomlinson (2011)
claims that “The choice of evaluation methodology – if any – must arise from and be
appropriate for the actual problem or research question under consideration”.
Although it seems that activity theory can adopted in broader setting, such as topics
of focus, type of group size, and the research and data collect methods, my study
cannot provide true explanations about it. Regarding the vantages of the two
theories, motivations that proposed by these 25 studies’ researchers reflect the
promise of the two theories. The diversity of activity theory and distributed
cognition theory’s theoretical framework are also distinct from the findings of these
publications. For example, just like Rogers suggest (2008), most of papers that
using activity theory will create their own research or analysis frameworks based on
modifications on Engestrøm’s (1990) activity system model.
At last, because of the research time and resource limitation, my study only
review publications published between 2007 and 2012 which can be found in ACM
digital library with two set of key words “CSCW” and “activity theory” or “CSCW” and
“distributed cognition theory”. Therefore, I believe that the pattern of these two
theories in practice will be more fertile and clear if the research scope and timeframe
can be expanded.
12
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

13. Reference
Ahmed Kharrufa, David Leat, Patrick Olivier. (2010). Digital Mysteries: Designing for Learning at the
Tabletop. ACM Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2010, (pp. 197-206). Saarbrücken.
Aleksandra Sarcevic, Ivan Marsic, Michael E. Lesk, Randall S. Burd. (2008). Transactive Memory in
Trauma Resuscitation. CSCW '08, (pp. 215-224). San Diego.
Ashok, A., & Beck, C. (2007). Using Activity Theory to Develop a Design Framework for Rural
Development. CHI '07.
Belland, B. R. (2011). Distributed Cognition as a Lens to Understand the Effects of Scaffolds: The Role
of Transfer of Responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 577-600.
Benbunan-Fich, R., Adler, R. & Mavlanova, T. (2011). Measuring multitasking behavior with
activity-based metrics. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction.
C. A. ElliS, S.J. GibbS, and G.L. Rein. (1991). Groupware: some issues and experiences.
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM.
Christina Brodersen, Susanne Bødker, & Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose. (2007). Quality of Learning in
Ubiquitous Interaction. ECCE '07.
Ellie Harmon, Nancy J. Nersessian. (2008). Cognitive partnerships on the bench top: designing to
support scientific researchers. 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems, (pp.
119-128). Cape Town.
Eric P.S. Baumer, Bill Tomlinson. (2011). Comparing activity theory with distributed cognition for video
analysis: beyond "kicking the tires". CHI '11, (pp. 133-142). Vancouver.
Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition: Or What Does CSCW Need to DO
with Theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11, 243–267.
Hutchin, Edwins (1995). Cultural Cognition. In E. Hutchins, Cognition in the Wild. The MIT Press.
Ilona Buchem, Graham Attwell, & Ricardo Torres. (2011). Understanding Personal Learning
Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. The PLE
Conference 2011, (pp. 1-33). Southampton.
Jakob Bardram, & Afsaneh Doryab. (2011). Activity analysis: applying activity theory to analyze
complex work in hospitals. CSCW '11, (pp. 455-464). Hangzhou.
James D. Hollan, Edwin L. Hutchins. (2009). Opportunities and Challenges for Augmented
Environments: A Distributed Cognition Perspective. In S. Lahlou, Designing User Friendly
Augmented Work Environments, Computer Supported Cooperative Work,.
Jeffrey Guenther, Fred Volk, & Mark Shaneck. (2010). Proposing a Multi-touch Interface for Intrusion
Detection Environments. VizSec '10.
Keith A. Butler, Chris Esposito, & Ron Hebron. (1999). Connecting the design of software to the design
of work. Communications of the ACM, 38-46.
Kraut, R. E. (2003). Applying social psychological theory to the problems of group work. In J. Carroll,
HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks: Toward a Multi-Disciplinary Science (pp. 325-356).
Laha, A. (2011). An Agent-based Architecture for a Knowledge-work Support System. the Fourth
13
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

14. Annual ACM Bangalore Conference . Bangalore.
Mathew, G. (2010). A Comparison of Four Post-Cognitive Theories in Collaboration Context. Eighth
International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing.
Michael Yacci, Evelyn P. Rozanski. (2012). Student Information Consumption Strategies: Implications of
the Google Effect. iConference 2012, (pp. 248-253). Toronto.
Mills, R. H. (2011). Tele-Improvisation: Cross-Cultural Creativity in Networked Improvisation. C&C '11,
(pp. 465-466). Atlanta.
Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., & Pearman, A. D. (2011). Activity Theory as a Methodological and Analytical
Framework for Information Practices in Emergency Management. the 8th International
ISCRAM Conference, (pp. 1-9). Lisbon.
Nallini Selvaraj, Bob Fields, & Paola Amaldi-Trillo. (2007). Decisions and Collaborative Work:A Different
Perspective. ECCE '07, (pp. 243-246). London.
Perry, M. (2003). Distributed Cognition. In J. M. Carroll, HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks toward
an multidisciplinary science.
Pooya Jaferian, Kirstie Hawkey, Andreas Sotirakopoulos, Maria Velez-Rojas, & Konstantin Beznosov.
(2011). Heuristics for Evaluating IT Security Management Tools. Symposium on Usable Privacy
and Security (SOUPS) 2011,. Pittsburgh.
Ray Kekwaletswe, & Thuli Bobela. (2011). Activity analysis of a knowledge management system:
adoption and usage case study. SAICSIT '11 , (pp. 287-289). Cape Town.
Rogers, Y. (1997). A Brief Introduction to Distributed Cognition. Retrieved from School of Cognitive and
Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.
Rogers, Y. (2004). New Theoretical Approaches for Human-Computer Interaction. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 87-143.
Rogers, Y. (2008). 57 varieties of Activity Theory . Interacting with Computers.
Sherlock, L. M. (2007). When social networking meets online games: the activity system of grouping in
world of warcraft. SIGDOC '07, (pp. 14-20).
Slattery, S. P. (2009). "edit this page": the socio-technological infrastructure of a wikipedia article.
SIGDOC '09, (pp. 289-296). Bloomington.
Stephen Voida, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, & W. Keith Edwards. (2008). Re-framing the Desktop Interface
Around the Activities of Knowledge Work. UIST '08. Monterey.
Syavash Nobarany, Mona Haraty, Brian Fisher. (2012). Facilitating the Reuse Process in Distributed
Collaboration: A Distributed Cognition Approach. CSCW '12, (pp. 1223-1232). Seattle.
Terence Blackburn, Paul Swatman and Rudi Vernik. (2007). Cognitive Dust: A Framework That Builds
from CSCW Concepts to Provide Situated Support for Small Group Work . Computer
Supported Cooperative Work in Design III, 1-12.
Thomas W. Malone, & Kevin Crowston. (1994). The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM
Computing Surveys.
Uden, L., Valderas, P & Pastor, O. (2008). An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application
14
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13

15. requirements. Information Research.
Victor Kaptelinin, & Bonnie A. Nardi. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction
Design. The MIT Press.
Zachary O. Toups, Andruid Kerne, William A. Hamilton, Nabeel Shahzad. (2011). Zero-Fidelity
Simulation of Fire Emergency Response: Improving Team Coordination Learning. CHI '11, (pp.
1959-1968). Vancouver.
15
Ru-ping Kuo, 2012/3/13