Fig. 1 Seale (2008) chapter 12 on activity systems in relation to accessibility in e-learning as an Activity System
The six potential areas of conflict Seal identifies occur, from the Activity System, between:
- Objects and tools – if we agree that the tools currently available are weak (or too many of them, or too specialist or too expensive)
- Objects and division of labour – a fragmented division of labour that is pulling the different stakeholders apart and preventing them from working together to meet the objective.
- Community and division of labour – a contradiction could be perceived to exist between community and division of labour if the rules that the community develop divide labour in such a way as to mitigate against the objective of the activity being achieved
- Community and rules – a conflict with the community whether guidelines are seen as tools or rules. A contradiction may be perceived to occur between community and rules where the community cannot agree on the rules and how they should be applied
- Rules and subject – where the rules or guidelines are not specific to the object, or difficulties in interpreting the results having used tools. A contradiction may be perceived to occur between the rules and the subject where the rules are non-existent, weak or inconsistent and so not good enough to enable the users of the rules (subjects) to meet the objective of the activity.
- Tools and subject – If the subjects of an activity system are unable to use the tools in the way they were intended, then conflict or contradiction may occur.
There are a further 8 discussed tangentially in relation to the Activity System, some within individual nodes. In total the full list looks like this:
- The array of design and evaluation software applications
- The mastery of external devices and tools of labour activity (Naardi 1996)
- No rules of practice for use of that tool (Iscorft and Scanlon)
- Tools that are overly prescriptive (Phipps et al 2005)
- How do you choose a tool?
- The context in which tools are introduced (Seale, 2006:160)
- The array of guidelines and standards and lack of information on how to use these.
- Constraints caused by formal, informal and technical rules and conceptions of community (Seale, 2006:161)
- A framework for describing current practice both individual and social (Seale, 2006:160)
- More than one object (Kuutti, 1996)
- When different but connected activities are an object or an artefact but place a very different emphasis on it (McAviia and Oliver, 2004)
- Conflict over who does what within ‘Divisions of Labour’
- Novice or expert … good thing or bad? The novice is more likely to be the innovator – if brought in from outside the system, while the expert in the system may be too set in the ways of the ‘community’.
- Excuses about the lack of information. Steyaert (2005)
I like Seale’s concluding remarks – Subject and object, object and community, subject and community – Contradiction in any or all of the relationships described in the previous section has the potential to threaten the central relationships between object and community, subject and object and subject and community.
And the over all thought:
‘Design for all’ probably requires a commitment to ‘design by all’.
According to Activity Theory, any or all of the contradictions will prevent accessible e-learning practice from developing and therefore accessible e-learning will not develop or progress unless these contradictions are resolved.