Losing by expanding: Corralling the runaway object

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 449-486

  Spinuzzi, Clay ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

activity theory; object; research methodology

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053139358     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: 15524574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651911411040     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Adler, P. S., & Heckscher, C. (2007). Towards collaborative community. In C. Heckscher, & P. S. Adler (Eds.), The firm as a collaborative community: Reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy (pp. 11-105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Artemeva, N. (2008). Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 160-185.
3. Artemeva, N., & Freedman, A. (2001). "Just the boys playing on computers": An activity theory analysis of differences in the cultures of two engineering firms. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 164-194.
4. Avis, J. (2009). Transformation or transformism: Engestrom's version of activity theory? Educational Review, 61, 151-165.
5. Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review, 61, 197-210.
6. Beniger, J. (1989). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., & Parolin, L. L. (2007). Knowing in a system of fragmented knowledge. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 83-102.
9. Christiansen, E. (1996). Tamed by a rose: Computers as tools in human activity. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness (pp. 175-198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2010). Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. New York, NY: Routledge.
11. Ding, H. (2008). The use of cognitive and social apprenticeship to teach a disciplinary genre: Initiation of graduate students into NIH grant writing. Written Communication, 25, 3-52.
12. Drucker, P. F. (1994). Post-capitalist society. New York, NY: Harper Paperbacks.
13. Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational theory and activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 197-211). New York, NY: Cambridge.
14. Engeström, R. (1995). Voice as communicative action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 192-214.
15. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.
16. Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working, and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
17. Engeström, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
18. Engeström, Y. (1996). Developmental work research as educational research: Looking ten years back and into the zone of proximal development. Nordisk Pedagogik, 16, 131-143.
19. Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93.
21. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
22. Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Retrieved from http://is.lse.ac.uk/events/ESRCseminars/engestrom.pdf
23. Engeström, Y. (2005). Knotworking to create collaborative intentionality capital in fluid organizational fields. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, & F. A. Kennedy (Eds.), Collaborative capital Vol.11: Creating intangible value (pp. 307-336). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
24. Engeström, Y. (2006). From well-bounded ethnographies to intervening in mycorrhizae activities. Organization Studies, 27, 1783-1793.
25. Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 23-39.
26. Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Studies of collaboration and learning at work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303-328). New York, NY: Cambridge.
28. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Karkkainen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319-336.
29. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähääho, T. (1999). When the center 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: Aarhus University Press.
30. Engeström, Y., & Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the postal buddy. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 325-374). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Engeström, Y., Puonti, A., & Seppänen, L. (2003). Spatial and temporal expansion of the object as a challenge for reorganizing work. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach (pp. 151-186). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
32. Foot, K. A. (2002). Pursuing an evolving object: A case study in object formation and identification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9, 132-149.
33. Furstenau, B. (2003). Exploration of an industrial enterprise as a method of boundary crossing in vocational education. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 85-118). Boston, MA: Pergamon.
34. Geisler, C. (2003). When management becomes personal: An activity-theoretic analysis of Palm technologies. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies
35. Gygi, K., & Zachry, M. (2010). Productive tensions and the regulatory work of genres in the development of an engineering communication workshop in a transnational corporation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 358-381.
36. Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Holland, D., & Reeves, J. R. (1996). Activity theory and the view from somewhere: Team perspectives on the intellectual work of programming. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness (pp. 257-282). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Hyysalo, S. (2005). Objects and motives in a product design process. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12, 19-36.
39. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays on its history and theory. Moscow, Russia: Progress.
40. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's capital. Moscow, Russia: Progress.
41. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12, 4-18.
42. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Karlsson, A. -M. (2009). Positioned by reading and writing: Literacy practices, roles, and genres in common occupations. Written Communication, 26, 53-76.
44. Le Maistre, C., & Paré, A (2004). Learning in two communities: The challenge for universities and workplaces. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 44-52.
45. Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
46. Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). New York, NY: Sharpe.
47. Lompscher, J. (2006). The cultural-historical development of activity theory: Some aspects of development. In P. Sawchuk, N. Duarte, & M. Elhammoumi (Eds.), Critical perspectives on activity: Explorations across education, work, and everyday life (pp. 35-51). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48. Ludvigsen, S. R., Havnes, A., & Lahn, L. C. (2003). Workplace learning across activity systems: A case study of sales engineers. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 291-310). Boston, MA: Pergamon.
49. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development, its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Martin, D., & Peim, N. (2009). Critical perspectives on activity theory. Educational Review, 61, 131-138.
51. Marx, K. (1990). Capital: Volume 1. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
52. McNair, L. D., & Paretti, M. C. (2010). Activity theory, speech acts, and the "doctrine of infelicity": Connecting language and technology in globally networked learning environments. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 323-357.
53. Mehlenbacher, B. (2007). Triangulating communication design: Emerging models for theory and practice. In D. Novick & C. Spinuzzi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (p. 94). New York, NY: ACM.
54. Miettinen, R. (1998). Object construction and networks in research work: The case of research on cellulose-degrading enzymes. Social Studies of Science, 28, 423-463.
55. Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 170-195.
56. Miettinen, R. (2005). Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12, 52-69.
57. Miettinen, R. (2008). Contradictions of high-technology capitalism and the emergence of new forms of work. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 160-175). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58. Miettinen, R., & Hasu, M. (2002). Articulating user needs in collaborative design: Towards an activity-theoretical approach. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 129-151.
59. Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12, 437-456.
60. Mirel, B. (1998). "Applied constructivism" for user documentation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12, 7-49.
61. Mirel, B. (2004). Interaction design for complex problem solving: Developing usable and useful software. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kauffman.
62. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
63. Nardi, B. A. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12, 37-51.
64. Nardi, B. A. (2007). Placeless organizations: Collaborating for transformation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 5-22.
65. Nardi, B. A. (2010). My life as a night elf priest: An anthropological account of World of Warcraft. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
66. Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2002). NetWORKers and their activity in intensional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 205-242.
67. Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D., & Holloway-Attaway, L. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish Students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, 327-352.
68. Peim, N. (2009). Activity theory and ontology. Educational Review, 61, 167-180.
69. Pickering, K. W. (2009). Student ethos in the online technical communication classroom: Diverse voices. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18, 166-187.
70. Propen, A. D., & Schuster, M. L. (2009). Understanding genre through the lens of advocacy: The rhetorical work of the victim impact statement. Written Communication, 27, 3-35.
71. Ruckriem, G. (2009). Digital technology and mediation: A challenge to activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 88-111). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
72. Russell, D. R. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Russell, D. R. (1997a). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
74. Russell, D. R. (1997b). Writing and genre in higher education and workplaces: A review of studies that use cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 224-237.
75. Russell, D. R. (2009). Uses of activity theory in written communication research. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 40-52). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76. Russell, D. R. (2010). Writing in multiple contexts: Vygotskian CHAT meets the phenomenology of genre. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 353-364). New York, NY: Routledge.
77. Russell, D. R., & Yañez, A. (2003). "Big picture people rarely become historians": Genre systems and the contradictions of general education. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Ft. Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/
78. Saarelma, O. (1993). Descriptions of subjective networks as a mediator of developmental dialogue. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 15, 102-112.
79. Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutierrez, K. D. (Eds.). (2009). Learning and expanding with activity theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
80. Sawchuk, P., Duarte, N., & Elhammoumi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Critical perspectives on activity: Explorations across education, work, and everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
81. Sherlock, L. (2009). Genre, activity, and collaborative work and play in World of Warcraft: Places and problems of open systems in online gaming. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23, 263-293.
82. Spafford, M. M., Schryer, C. F., Mian, M., & Lingard, L. (2006). Look who's talking: Teaching and learning using the genre of medical case presentations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20, 121-158.
83. Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5, 295-308.
84. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
85. Spinuzzi, C. (2007). Guest editor's introduction: Technical communication in the age of distributed work. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, 265-277.
86. Spinuzzi, C. (2008). Network: Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
87. Spinuzzi, C. (2010). Secret sauce and snake oil: Writing monthly reports in a highly contingent environment. Written Communication, 27, 363-409.
88. Spinuzzi, C., Hart-Davidson, W., & Zachry, M. (2006). Chains and ecologies: Methodological notes toward a communicative-mediational model of technologically mediated writing. SIGDOC'06: Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 43-50). New York, NY: ACM Press.
89. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, "translations" and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
90. Sun, H. (2006). The triumph of users: Achieving cultural usability goals with user localization. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 457-481.
91. Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York, NY: Random House.
92. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
93. Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
94. Tuomi-Gröhn, T. (2003). Developmental transfer as a goal of internship in practical nursing. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 199-232). Boston, MA: Pergamon.
95. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary crossing. Boston, MA: Pergamon.
96. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundarycrossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: An introduction. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 1-15). Boston, MA: Pergamon.
97. Varpio, L. (2006). Mapping the genres of healthcare information work: An interdisciplinary study of the interactions between oral, paper, and electronic forms of communication (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Waterloo, ON, Canada.
98. Varpio, L., Hall, P., Lingard, L., & Schryer, C. F. (2008). Interprofessional communication and medical error: A reframing of research questions and approaches. Academic Medicine, 83, S76-S81.
99. Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization's internal growth and profitability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
100. Walker, K. (2004). Activity systems and conflict resolution in an online professional communication course. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 182-197.
101. Walsh, L. (2010). Constructive interference: Wikis and service learning in the technical communication classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19, 184-211.
102. Weber, S. (2003). Boundary-crossing in the context of intercultural learning. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 157-178). Boston, MA: Pergamon.
103. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
104. Witte, S. P. (2005). Research in activity: An analysis of speed bumps as meditational means. Written Communication, 22, 127-165.
105. Yamazumi, K. (2009). Expansive agency in multi-activity collaboration. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 212-227). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
106. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.