research paper for class HCDE501

1. The ecology of two theories:
Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition in practices
HCDE 501 | Ruping Kuo
2012/3/9
The conceptual map of CSCW research (Kraut, 2003)

2. Motivation
• The variety of HCI theory is
both a blessing and a curse
Baumer & Tomlinson, 2012
• The practical issue of choosing and applying a theory
• A comparison of theories also contextual oriented
• Any given theory will draw attention to some issues while
downplaying others,
• Rather, the purpose here…

3. • A empirical study presents and discusses findings from a
review of publications related to two postcogintivist
theories: activity theory and distributed cognition.
• Adopt Kraut’s conceptual map as a research framework
to analysis and categorize my finding.
• Discover patterns from all publications and possibly
illustrate the ecology of these two theories in practice.

4. Research framework
ACM Digital Library
Select publications Between 2007~ now
journal articles “CSCW” + “Activity theory” or
conference proceedings “CSCW” + “distributed cognition”
book section
Review and Screening A total of 25 articles
publications sustained after this step
Analysis and Coding identify each paper’s
Based on Kraut’s model approach, focus, and
group size based
application field
Selective Coding creation or output
data collect method
Etc.

5. Anticipated finding
• A overview (with Kraut’s conceptual map)
the similarities, differences, and relationships
• Study or analysis what subjects
• What are the outputs? e.g. a list of requirements, a
conceptual framework, an analysis framework, a model, a set of
guidelines, a prototype, a system.
• What type of research or data collect methods?
• Qualitative or quantitative approach?
• Reasons behind the theory are chosen and in
used

6. Finding

7. Distributed Activity
Cognition Theory
study 46.2% 47.1%
Approach
build 52.9% 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%