Introduction

I find myself these days as a point in a dialogue between three voices: activity theory, American symbolic interactionism (pragmatism), and the development of large-scale information systems. I write this chapter in order to enliven that dialogue. It might simply be a Whiggish exercise or a history of ideas-in-common, such are the density of the threads that unite their founders and practitioners. But my concern here is not whether both Mead and Vygotsky both read Pavlov (of course they did), or whether their students read and taught each other (some did and do), nor simply about drawing structural analogies between lines of inquiry (although they are striking).

I'm more concerned here to make a tool that will extend the usefulness of symbolic interactionism to the communities of practice (Wenger, 1990; Lave & Wenger, 1992) of activity theory and information-systems research. The three approaches afford each other–a word used mostly in this context by activity theorists, drawn from Gibson's ecological psychology (Gibson, 1979). Symbolic interactionism affords information-systems research a body of empirical studies of work and interaction, in the context of an elaborated philosophical framework that emphasizes collectivities and consequences. For activity theory, it is rich in understanding the subtle differences between types of work and practice, and how those are realized within and between communities.