Object of activity and individual motivation

Mind, Culture, and Activity

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 52-69

  Miettinen, Reijo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250213189     PISSN: 10749039     EISSN: 15327884     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327884mca1201_5     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Allport, G. (1961). Patterns and growth of personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
2. Axel, E., & Nissen, M. (1993). Relating subject and societal in activity-A critical appraisal. In N. Engelsted, M. Hedegaard, B. Karpatschof,& A. Mortensen (Eds.), The societal subject (pp. 67-79). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press
3. Bordieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. On the theory of action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
4. Bowker, G. C.,& Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress
5. Brannigan, A. (1981). The social basis of scientific discoveries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
6. Bratus, B. S., & Lishin, O. V. (1983). Laws of development of activity and problems in the psychological and pedagogical shaping of the personality. Soviet Psychology, XXV(2), 91-103
7. Brentano, F. (1902). The origins of knowledge of right and wrong. London: Constable
8. Burkitt, I. (1991). Social self. Theories of the social formation of personality. London: Sage
9. Callon, M. (2002). Writing and (re) writing devices as tools for managing complexity. In J. Law,& A.-M. Mol (Eds.), Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices (pp. 191-217). London: Duke University Press
10. Constant, E.W. (1984). Communities and hierarchies: Structure in the practice of science and technology. In R. Laudan (Ed.), The nature of technological knowledge. Are models of scientific change relevant? Sociology of Sciences Monographs(pp. 27-46). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel
11. Crossley, N. (2001). The social body. Habit, identity and desire. London: Sage
12. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implication of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
13. Daston, L. (Ed.) (2000). Biographies of scientific objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
14. Davydov, V. V. (1981). The category of activity and mental reflection in the theory of A. N. Leontiev. Soviet Psychology, XIX(4), 3-29
15. Dewey, J. (1972). Interest in relation to the training of the will. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), Early works of John Dewey, Vol. 5 (pp. 111-130). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1896)
16. Dewey, J. (1985). Democracy and education. The Middle Works of John Dewey (J. Boydston, Ed.; Vol. 9). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1916)
17. Dewey, J. (1988). Human nature and conduct. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey, Vol. 14. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1922)
18. Eklund, E., Hatakka, M., Linko, M., Markkanen, A.. Mustranta, A., Nybergh, P., et al. (1974). Sellulaasit ja niiden hyväksikäyttö selluloos amitoisten jätteiden käsittelyssä [Cellulases and their utilization in the treatment of cellulolytic wastes]. Helsinki, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Biotechnology Laboratory, Research Notes no 6
19. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta Konsultit
20. Engeström, Y. (1991). Developmental work research; Reconstructing expertise through expansive learning. In M. I. Nurminen & G. R. S. Weir (Eds.), Human jobs and computer interfaces (pp. 265-290). The Netherlands, Amsterdam: Elsevier
21. Engeström, Y. (1995). Objects, contradictions and collaborations in medical cognition: An activity theoretical perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7, 395-412
22. Engeström, Y., & Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane tool or object affection? The rise and fall of postal buddy. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 325- 373). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
23. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R.,& Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the centre does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U.-J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 345-374). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press
24. Engeström, Y., Puonti, A., & Seppänen, L. (2003). Spatial and temporal expansion of the object as a challenge for reorganizing work. In S. Gerardi, D. Niccolini, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations. A practice-based approach(pp. 151-186). New York: M. E. Sharp
25. Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M.,& Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world. A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger
26. Foucault, M. (1983). Afterword: The subject and power. In H. L. Deyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michael Focault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-226). Chicago: Chicago University Press
27. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M.,& Livingston, E. (1981). The work of discovering science constructed with the materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131-158
28. Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man.Apsychological study of scientific creativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
29. Gruber, H. E. (1989). Networks of enterprise in creative scientific work. In B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, R. A. Neimeyer,& A. C. Houts (Eds.), Psychology of Science. Contributions to metascience (pp. 246-263). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
30. Hegel, J, W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit (A.V. Miller, Trans. ). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
31. Hegel, J, W. F. (1983). Jena Lectures on the Philosophy of Spirit. In Hegel and the Human Spirit: A Translation of the Jena Lectures of the Philosophy of Spirit (1805-6) (L. Rauch, Ed. & Trans.). Detroit, MI: Wayne University Press
32. Heller, A. (1976). The theory of need in Marx. London: Allison & Busby
33. Holzkamp-Osterkamp, U. (1981). Grundlagen der psychologischen motivationsforchung 1 [Foundations of the psychological studies of motivation 1]. Frankfurt and New York: Campus
34. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition. The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
35. Honneth, A. (2002). Grounding recognition. A rejoinder to critical questions. Inquiry, 45, 499- 520
36. Honneth, A., & Joas, H. (1988). Social action and human nature. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
37. Hughes, T. P. (1978). Inventors: The problems they choose, the ideas they have, and the inventions they make. In P. Kelly & M. Kransberg (Eds.), Technological innovation: A critical view of current knowledge (pp. 166-182). San Francisco: San Francisco Press
38. Hughes, T. P. (1988). Networks of power. Electrification of western world. 1880-1930. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press
39. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
40. Joas, H. (1996). The creativity of action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
41. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1983). Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science, 12, 101-130
42. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects. Social relation in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture and Society, 14(4), 1-31
43. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina,& E. V. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175-188). London: Routledge
44. Kojève, A. (1969). Introduction to the reading of Hegel. Lectures on the phenomenology of spirit. London: Cornell University Press
45. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of Monster: Essays on power, technology and domination. The Sociological Review Monograph, 38, 103-132
46. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Hertfordshire, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf
47. Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back:Apossible contribution of "science studies" to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 107-123
48. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
49. Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch, (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 111-134). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
50. Law, J. (1988). The anatomy of a socio-technical struggle: The design of TSR2. In B. Elliot (Ed.), Technology and social process (pp. 44-69). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press
51. Law, J. (2002a). Aircraft stories. Decentering the object in technoscience. London: Duke University Press
52. Law, J. (2002b). On hidden heterogeneities: Complexity, formalism, and aircraft design. In J. Law & A.-M. Mol (Eds.), Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices (pp. 116-1412). London: Duke University Press
53. Leiman, M. (1999). The concept of sign in the work of Vygotsky, Winnicot, and Bahtin. Further integration of object relation theory and activity theory. In Y. Engeström & R. Miettinen (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 419-434). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
54. Lenoir, T. (1992). Practical reason and the construction of knowledge. The lifeworld of Haber-Bosch. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 159-197). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press
55. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
56. Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers
57. Lerner, J.,& Tirole, J. (2001) Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 197-234
58. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw Hill
59. Lynch, M. (1992). Extending Wittgenstein: The pivotal move from epistemology to the sociology of science. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 215-265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
60. Maslow, A. (1951). Higher needs and personality. Dialectica, 5, 257-265
61. Marx, K. (1964). The economic & philosophic manuscripts of 1844. New York: International Publishers
62. Marx, K. (1984). Thesis on Feuerbach. In K.Marx& F. Engels (Eds.), The individual and society (pp. 125-127).Moscow:Progress
63. Marx, K. (1990). Capital (Vol. 1). London: Penguin Books
64. Marx, K. (1993). Grundrisse. London: Penguin Books
65. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1968). The German ideology. Moscow: Progress Publishers
66. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: Chicago University Press
67. Miettinen, R. (1996). Theories of invention and an industrial innovation. Science Studies, 9(2), 34-48
68. Miettinen, R. (1998). Object construction and networks in research work: The case of research on cellulose degrading enzymes. Social Studies of Science, 38, 423-463
69. Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things. Activity theory and actor network theory as approaches of studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 170-195
70. Miettinen, R. (2000). The problem of creativity in technology studies: Invention as artifact construction and culturally distributed work (Working Paper No. 23/2000). Helsinki, Finland: Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research
71. Miettinen, R.,& Virkkunen, J. (in press). Learning in and for work and the joint construction of mediational artefacts; an activity theoretical view. In E. Antonacopoulou, V. Anderson, B. Elkjaer& S. Hoeyrup (Eds.), Learning, working and living. Mapping the terrain of working life learning. Palgrave, UK: Routledge
72. Pels, D., Hetherington, K.,& Vaddenberghe, F. (2002). The status of object. Performances, mediators, and techniques. Theory, Culture & Society 19(5/6), 1-21
73. Pickering, A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
74. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: Chicago University Press
75. Preda, A. (1999). The turn to things: Arguments for a sociological theory of things. Sociological Quarterly, 40(2), 237-257
76. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
77. Saari, E. (2003). Pulse of change in research work. A study of learning and development in a research group. Helsinki, Finland: Department of Education
78. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge
79. Séve, L. (1978). Man in the Marxist theory and the psychology of personality. Sussex, UK: Harvester
80. Silvonen, J. (1988). Kriittisen subjektitieteen luonnos. Klaus Holzkampin Grundlegung der Psychologien tarkastelua [An outline for a critical science of individual subjectivity. An examination of Klaus Holzkamp's Grundlegung der psycholgie]. Psychology Discussion papers N:0 10. University of Joensuu, Finland
81. Suchman, L. (2002). Working artefacts: Ethnomethods of the prototype. British Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 163-179
82. Tolman, E. C. (1935). Psychology versus immediate experience. Philosophy of Science, 2, 365-380
83. Van Loon, J. (2002). A contagious living fluid. Objectification and assemblage in the history of virology. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5), 107-124
84. Vygotsky, L. (1979). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
85. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology(pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe
86. Winnicot, D. W. (1974). Playing and reality. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books
87. Woodwoth, R. S. (1918). Dynamic psychology. New York: Columbia University Press
88. Yar, M. (2001). Beyond Nancy Frazer's perspectival dualism. Economy and Society, 30(3), 288- 303