ACM SIGCHI General Interest Announcements (Mailing List)


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Stan Karanasios <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Stan Karanasios <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 6 May 2015 09:29:51 +0100
text/plain (80 lines)
Over the last three decades Activity Theory has become increasingly internationalised and emerged as a founding theory for understanding change and development in work and social activity. In the fields of organisation (Engeström, 2000), management (Jarzabkowski, 2003), social psychology (Blunden, 2010), education (Roth & Lee, 2007) and Human Computer Interaction and IS design (Kuutti, 1999) it has become particularly accepted as a contemporary social theory for framing studies and generating insights.

Mirroring its use and acceptance in other social science fields, there has been some development and exploration of Activity Theory in IS (Karanasios & Allen, 2013; Ryu et al., 2005). The context of its use has transcended public sector organisations, complex organisational contexts, disaster response, education, health and ICT for development. Scholars have also aligned Activity Theory alongside other philosophical perspectives and theories such as critical realism (Allen et al., 2013), institutional theory (Ogawa et al., 2008), complexity theory (Hasan et al. 2010) and structuration theory (Canary & McPhee, 2009) in order to generate novel insights.
This Special Issue aims to act as a compendium of outstanding research, focusing on the use, development and contribution of Activity Theory in IS research. It also aims to stimulate discourse and advance the use of Activity Theory in IS research. We seek relevant and rigorous submissions which address a combination of the following criterion.

1.      Apply and develop Activity Theory in IS research, by demonstrating the empirical and theoretical contributions it offers.

2.      Offer new contributions to Activity Theory, for instance extending Activity Theory or signalling how the IS field can offer a fertile landscape for expanding Activity Theory.

3.      Offer in depth comparison of Activity Theory with other contemporary social frameworks.

4.      Blend Activity Theory with complimentary contemporary social theories.

5.      Expand research design to include mixed and multi-method studies.

6.      Critical studies on Activity Theory and papers that illuminate on the difficulties of applying Activity Theory.

7.      Consider the origins of Activity Theory and the interpretation and misinterpretations of it in current research.

8.      The application of Activity Theory in novel contexts, such as online and digital environments.

Submissions should broadly address or relate to the aforementioned aspects in their contribution to theory and practice. Submissions which merely employ Activity Theory for descriptive analysis and offer no contribution will be not be considered for review. Ideally, submissions will provide new understandings of IS in work and social settings. Submissions will be evaluated using rigorous criteria associated with high quality academic research.

Submission of extended abstract (optional): April 30, 2015
Full initial paper submission deadline: September 1, 2015
First review deadline: December 1, 2015
Revised paper submission deadline: June 1, 2016
Second review deadline: September 1, 2016

Stan Karanasios, AIMTech Research Centre, Leeds University Business School, UK
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
David Allen, AIMTech Research Centre, Leeds University Business School, UK
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Patrick Finnegan, UNSW Australia Business School, Australia
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Prof. Yrjo Engestrom: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (Helsinki University, Finland)
Associate Prof. Julien Malaurent [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>  (Essec, France)
Prof. Mary Beth Watson-Manheim: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (University of Illinois at Chicago, USA)
Dr. Sabine Matook: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (University of Queensland, Australia)
Dr Joseph Feller: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (University College, Ireland)
Prof. Rui Chen: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (Ball State University, USA)
Dr Alistair Norman: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (University of Leeds, UK)
Prof. Clay Spinuzzi: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (University of Texas, USA)
Dr Natalie Pang: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)
Prof. Matthew Jones: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (Cambridge University, UK)

For full Special Issue submission details please see:

Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). How should technology-mediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 835-854.
Blunden, A. (2010). An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity. Leiden: Brill.
Canary, H. E., & McPhee, R. D. (2009). The Mediation of Policy Knowledge: An Interpretive Analysis of Intersecting Activity Systems. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 147-187.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity Theory and the Social Construction of Knowledge: A Story of Four Umpires. Organization, 7(2), 301-310.
Hasan, H, Kazlauskas, A. & Crawford, K (2010) Blending Complexity and Activity Frameworks for a Broader and Deeper Understanding of IS. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, St Louis, Missouri Dec 13-15th.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic practices: An activity theory perspective on continuity and change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 23-56.
Karanasios, S., & Allen, D. (2013). ICT for development in the context of the closure of Chernobyl nuclear power plant: an activity theory perspective. Information Systems Journal, 23(4), 287-306. doi: 10.1111/isj.12011
Kuutti, K. (1999). Activity theory, transformation of work, and information systems design. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Learning in doing : social, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 360-376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ogawa, R. T., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward Conceptualizing Learning in the Context of Formal Organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 83-95.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). "Vygotsky's Neglected Legacy": Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Ryu, C., Yong Jin, K., Chaudhury, A., & Rao, H. R. (2005). Knowledge acquisition via three learning processes in enterprise information portals: learning-by-investment, learning-by-doing, and learning-from-others. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 245-278.

    For news of CHI books, courses & software, join CHI-RESOURCES
     mailto: [log in to unmask]

    To unsubscribe from CHI-ANNOUNCEMENTS send an email to
     mailto:[log in to unmask]

    For further details of CHI lists see