AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE Date: 7th March 2014

ARTIFACTS, PRACTICE AND KNOWLEDGE ELABORATION:
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE
Date: 7th March 2014.
Location: Rm # 028-029 (Saint Jean d’Angély 3, Bâtiment de l’horloge, First floor).
Abstract
This workshop aims at considering how Humanities and Social Sciences (Psychology,
Linguistics, Economics, Law and Management, etc.) define human action and the role of artifacts in
designing, elaborating, implementing, changing, developing and evaluating practices in the social
sphere. From the late 19th century onwards, a series of different approaches have highlighted, recorded
and refuted historical dichotomies such as theory vs. practice and subject vs. object. These eclectic
theories have focused on the consequences of human actions and have questioned how tools and
cultural artifacts help humans simultaneously to create both themselves and their culture.
This workshop aims at discussing partial and fragmentary knowledge underlying different
theoretical, epistemological, methodological and disciplinary approaches called “practices” for human
action, including pragmatic, ‘design science’, and cultural-historical approaches. Ultimately, the goal
is first to initiate a common understanding of human action, conceived in terms of action mediated by
artifacts and focused on certain objects and goals, and second, to question the archetype of science that
could be adapted to the study of human action.
Key words: human action, practice, activity, artifact, instrument, sign, language, technology,
cognition, mediation, genealogy, agency, education, and organization.
Résumé
Cette manifestation vise à réfléchir sur les façons dont les différentes sciences sociales et
humaines (psychologie, linguistique, économie, droit et gestion, etc.) tentent de définir l’action
humaine et le rôle des artefacts dans l’élaboration, la mise en œuvre, le développement et l’évolution
des pratiques dans la sphère sociale. Depuis la fin du dix-neuvième siècle, ont émergé de nombreuses
approches visant à mettre en lumière, acter ou réfuter les dichotomies historiques qui perdurent entre
théorie et pratique, sujet et objet, agent et « monde extérieur », etc. Ces théories éclectiques portent sur
les conséquences des actions humaines et discutent la manière dont les outils et les artefacts aident les
humains à se construire et à construire leur culture.
Cette manifestation scientifique vise à discuter la connaissance partielle et fragmentaire des
différentes approches théoriques, épistémologiques, méthodologiques et disciplinaires dites
« pratiques » concernant l’action humaine, parmi lesquelles les approches historico-culturelles,
pragmatiques et en termes de science de conception. En définitive, le but est d’une part, celui d’initier
une compréhension commune de l’action humaine, conçue en termes d’action médiatisée par des
artefacts et axée sur certains objets et buts ; et d’autre part, celui de questionner l’archétype de science
qui pourrait être consacré à l’étude de l’action humaine.
Mots-clés : action humaine, pratique, activité, artefact, instrument, signes, langage, technologie,
cognition, médiation, généalogie, agence, éducation, organisation.
Resumen
Este workshop pretende reflexionar sobre las formas en que diferentes ciencias sociales y
humanas (psicología, lingüística, economía, derecho y gestión, etc.) han intentado definir la
agencialidad humana y el rol de los artefactos en la elaboración, desarrollo y evolución de prácticas en
el ámbito social. Desde finales del siglo XIX, ha habido múltiples enfoques que han tratado de discutir
y superar dicotomías históricas clásicas como las siguientes: teoría versus práctica y sujeto versus
objeto. Estas teorías eclécticas se han centrado en las consecuencias de la acción humana y han
discutido cómo las herramientas y los artefactos culturales ayudan a los seres humanos a crear su
cultura e incluso a crearse ellos mismos.
Este workshop tiene como objetivo discutir el conocimiento parcial y fragmentario que
subyace a los diferentes enfoques teóricos, epistemológicos, metodológicos y disciplinarios
denominados “prácticos” para la acción humana, fundamentalmente los enfoques pragmáticos e
histórico-culturales y las aproximaciones al diseño de investigación. En última instancia, el objetivo
es, por un lado, iniciar un entendimiento común de la acción humana, concebida en términos de acción
mediada por artefactos y centrada en determinados objetos y metas, y, por otro lado, cuestionar el
arquetipo de ciencia que podría aplicarse al estudio de la acción humana.
Palabras clave: acción humana, práctica, actividad, artefacto, instrumento, signos, lengua, tecnología,
cognición, mediación, genealogía, agencia, educación, organización.
Convenors
Organizers
Laboratory
e-Mail
JIMÉNEZ, Belén
UMR 7320 « Bases, Corpus, Langage »
(BCL)
[email protected]
PARMENTIER, Aura
UMR 7321 « Groupe de Recherche en
Droit, Économie, Gestion » (GREDEG)
[email protected]
Program
08h30 - 09h15:
09h00 – 09h15:
09h15 – 10h45:
10h45 – 11h00:
11h00 – 12h30:
12h30 – 14h00:
14h00 – 16h00:
16h00 – 16h15:
16h15 – 17h30:
Welcome of participants.
Presentation.
Keynote speakers.
Coffee break.
Keynote speakers.
Buffet Lunch.
Communications (20 to 30 minutes each)
Coffee break.
Final discussion.
Fees: None.
To attend the workshop without presenting a paper, please register by sending an e-mail
to Sylvie Grenard: [email protected]. 1. THEME OF THE WORKSHOP
Today several research approaches claim a “re-turn to practice” (Bernstein, 2010; Miettinen,
Samra-Fredericks and Yanow, 2009). These publications question the classic model for understanding
human agency in terms of rational choice and to develop empirical approaches that take practice and
its consequences as the only real criterion for “truth”. Put differently, these approaches claim to
overcome the classical opposition between subject and object, and between theory and practice.
Although based on some common grounds, they also include various eclectic perspectives: the
pragmatist tradition, the actor-network theory, ethnomethodology, activity theory, etc. and do not
always share mutually consistent theoretical, epistemological and methodological principles.
In line with these recent developments, this workshop aims at reviewing the different
approaches generally called practice theories –including cultural-historical, pragmatic and ‘design
sciences’ approaches– and tries to examine whether and how they can be integrated. The aim is
twofold: first, the discussion seeks to highlight differences and similarities between approaches, and
second, it aims at presenting the shared current issues despite the existence of disciplinary
specificities. Finally, the notion of “referential,” adopted by different disciplines that share similar
research objects, will also be discussed. Aside from addressing classical problems concerning e.g. the
locus of human agency beyond the individual level or the importance of the historical evolution for
understanding human action, this workshop also addresses other issues, such as the located
employment of artifacts, the interaction of epistemic objects in a given network, the importance of
contradictions for change and learning and the generalization of local and/or cultural knowledge.
The workshop will focus on the following themes regarding the understanding of the
interaction between human action and artifact: a) The role of artifacts in a broad sense as a means of
mediation; b) The practice associated with them; c) The historical and developmental approaches; d)
The epistemological discussion on the construction of knowledge. Beyond these theoretical themes,
we welcome empirical studies and/or research-interventions. The multidisciplinary nature of these
contributions will be valued.
Some key questions:
ARTIFACT:
-
Is the notion of “artifact” essential to (human) cognition? What kind of artifacts (physical,
psychological, tools, signs, etc.)? Is language a privileged artifact (compared to other
artifacts? compared to action?).
Teleological dimension of the use of artifacts?
What do artifacts help to coordinate? How to coordinate with artifacts?
PRACTICE:
-
Why consider “activity” as the unit of analysis for studying cognition, decision making, etc.?
To what extent “practice” allows to overcome the distinction between agency and structure,
and subject and object?
What are the epistemological and / or ontological underpinnings of practice theories?
AGENCY:
-
What is agency (individual and collective)?
Can it be identified empirically?
References
Arena, R., Conein, B. (2008). On virtual communities: individual motivations, reciprocity and werationality. International Review of Economics, 55(1-2), pp. 185-208.
Avenier, M.-J. (2010). Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science. Organization
Studies, 31, 1229-1255.
Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The pragmatic turn. Cambridge: Polity.
Blanco, F. (1995). Cognition as a Black Box: The Blind Date of Mind and Culture. Culture &
Psychology, 1, 203-213.
Cole, M., Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural-Historical Approaches to Designing for Development. In J.
Valsiner and A. Rosa (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 484-507.
Conein, B. (2004). Cognition distribuée, groupe social et technologie cognitive. Réseaux, 2(124), 5379.
Corradi G., Gherardi S., Verzelloni L., (2010). Through the practice lens: where the bandwagon of
practice-base studies heading? Management Learning, 41(3), pp 265-283
Dewey, J. (1908/1977). What pragmatism means by practical: The middle works of John Dewey,
Volume 4 (pp. 98-115). Edited by Jo Ann Boydston.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.) (1999a). Perspectives on activity theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gherardi S., (2001). From organizational learning to practice-base knowing, Human Relations, 54(1),
pp 131-139
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management
research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534-546.
Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, A. P., Smets, M. (2012). Material artefacts: Practices for doing strategy with
“stuff”.
European
Management
Journal.
Accès
online
(13
décembre
2013) :
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.09.001
Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in Management research is
unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516-533.
Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation. Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge
3(2), 29-64.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, A. M. J., Mohrman, S. A., Ledford, G. E. J., & Cummings, T. G. (1985).
Doing research that is useful for theory and practice. New York: Lexington Books.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Miettinen, R. (2006). Epistemology of Transformative Material Activity: John Dewey’s Pragmatism
and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(4), 389-408.
Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., Yanow, D. (2009). Re-Turn to Practice: An introductory Essay.
Organisation Studies, 30, 1309-1327.
Nardi, B. A. (2006). Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer interaction.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rosa, A. (2007). Acts of Psyche: Actuations as Synthesis of Semiosis and Action. In J. Valsiner and
A. Rosa (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 205-237.
Simon S.H, (1996), The Science of the Artificial, MIT press (3rd Ed)
Valsiner, J., Rosa, A. (2007). The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1985). Pensée et Langage. Paris: Éditions Sociales.
2. INVITED PARTICIPANTS
Marie-José AVENIER
Marie-José Avenier is a senior researcher at CERAG, a research institute affiliated with the
CNRS and the University of Grenoble. She is in charge of CERAG’s cross-disciplinary seminars.
After completing a graduate program in mathematics at the University of Paris, she obtained an MA in
economics and a PhD in applied mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley. She also
holds a doctorate in economics from the University of Aix-en-Provence. She has a longstanding
research interest in the areas of management and complexity, and the epistemology and methodology
of management science.
Reijo MIETTINEN
Reijo Miettinen is Professor of Adult Education at the Centre for Research on Activity,
Development and Learning in the Institute of Behavioural Sciences at University of Helsinki. He has
been Director of the Finnish Graduate School in Science and Technology Studies and has served as
Associate Director of the Centre for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research (now
CRADLE) at University of Helsinki. He has directed a multidisciplinary research group focused on
innovation networks, designer-user interaction, and the work of research groups since 1995. Lately,
Miettinen has conducted research on Internet-mediated distributed creation and the commodification
of knowledge.
Alberto ROSA
Alberto Rosa is Professor of Psychology at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, where he
lectures on History of Psychology and Cultural Psychology. He has also carried out research on
developmental psychology of the physically challenged and on the influence of culture in the shaping
of identity and citizenship. He is currently interested in the semiotic analysis of action and experience
as mediated by cultural artifacts.