World of Activity (v1, 2024)
The House of Project Engagement and Featured Models
The diagram above illustrates a curated overview of my creations related to Activity-focused frameworks.
- Left side: It highlights six book drafts I authored between 2021 and 2024.
- Middle part: It showcases the House of Project Engagement, which serves as a map for exploration, curation, and narrative.
- Right side: It features five knowledge frameworks I developed between 2017 and 2021.
The core concept behind this curation is to use "World" as a metaphor to frame a theoretical toolkit centered on the Project Engagement approach.
Activity as Project Engagement
The concept of Project Engagement was first introduced in my 2021 book titled Project-oriented Activity Theory (draft).
The book is inspired by Andy Blunden's approach to the interdisciplinary Theory of Activity. To establish the notion of “Project as a Unit of Activity” as a theoretical foundation of the new interdisciplinary theory of Activity, Blunden adopts Hegel’s logic and Vygotsky’s theories on “Unit of Analysis” and “Concept” as key theoretical resources. The process is documented in four books: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010), Concepts: A Critical Approach (2012), Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study (2014), and Hegel for Social Movements (2019).
In my book, I introduced the model below to integrate Andy Blunden's approach and Yrjö Engeström's Activity System Model.
More details can be found in the Project Engagement Toolkit (v1, 2022).
While the concept of "Project Engagement" aligns with Andy Blunden' notion of "Project as a Unit of Activity," I also developed the idea of "Engagement as Projection" in 2022. This notion refers to refer to "Projectivity - Projecting - Projection."
In April 2022, I used a “Challenge—Solution” framework as a deep structure to reflect on the historical development of Activity Theory. Activity Theorists often describe an initial challenge using a dual structure, then introduce a new concept to expand it into a triadic structure.
For example, Lev Vygotsky addressed the “Stimulus-Response” dualism inherent in behaviorism. His solution was to introduce the third element, Mediation, transforming the dualism into the triadic structure S-X-R. For Vygotsky, the mediating action integrates Stimulus, Mediation, and Response, establishing a new approach to psychological science: Cultural-historical psychology.
Using this analogy, I see Andy Blunden’s challenge as the dual structure of “Practice—Sign,” with the solution being Concept, which embodies the idea of “Activity as the Formation of Concept.”
Reflecting on this framework, I applied it to my work on Project Engagement. I recognized that my approach to Activity Theory should be described as Activity as Project Engagement. The challenge I address is the “Outside—inside” dualism of social spaces.
The principle of Engagement as Projection echoes the Internalization—Externalization principle of Activity Theory. Additionally, this principle provides a framework to resolve the “Outside—Inside” dualism of social spaces, emphasizing the mutual shaping of individuals and the projects they engage with.
More details can be found in The Genidentity of Activity Theory.
The Project Engagement Approach (v3.1)
In May 2024, I developed version 3.1 of the Project Engagement approach. While version 1.0 focused on the Developmental Project Model, version 3.0 expanded on this by curating a range of knowledge frameworks to explore project-oriented social ecology.
This is a comprehensive theoretical toolkit, as illustrated in the diagram below.
The diagram consists of two key components:
- The top section represents a Map.
- The bottom section showcases several knowledge frameworks.
Between May and June, I collaborated with friends to test this theoretical toolkit in various fields, including higher education teaching, life narrative practices, and youth developmental discovery.
In June 2024, to support a friend’s workshop, I simplified the Project Engagement approach (v3.1) by selecting only its Map component. This led to the creation of the House of Project Engagement.
The House of Project Engagement
Designed as a Map, the House of Project Engagement uses a “Museum” metaphor to represent space. The House is organized into 12 thematic rooms, with each room representing a distinct type of social landscape.
Together, these rooms depict the following themes:
- Before
- Role Models
- Ideas
- Possible Project
- Meet with Others
- Actual Project
- Settings
- Supportive Platform
- Public Square
- Network of Project
- Conflict
- After
In June and July, I spent about four weeks in China, caring for a family member who underwent surgery. During this time, I reflected on the healthcare system using the House of Project Engagement.
While in China, I also dedicated time to designing, discussing, and testing the House of Project Engagement. Eventually, I created a physical version of the House as a prototype for a tabletop game focused on life narrative practices.
Upon returning to the U.S., I developed an English version of the House of Project Engagement and renamed it Social Landscape: The House of Project Engagement.
The Mapping Strategic Moves Method
In September and October, I used the House of Project Engagement to develop the Mapping Strategic Moves Method.
For example, the diagram below shows 17 moves of my journey of Engaging with Activity Theory.
I began studying Activity Theory around 2015. In 2020, I worked on the Activity U project, resulting in two book drafts and the initial development of the Project Engagement approach. From 2021 to 2022, I created the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework and applied it to explore life strategy. In 2023, I designed the Activity Analysis & Intervention (AAI) Program. By 2024, I revisited and refined the Project Engagement approach, developing its v3.0. Recently, I launched Applied Activity Theory, a tool for selecting activity-theoretical frameworks.
The journey has led to many creations, including book drafts, knowledge frameworks, diagrams, digital boards, and more.
By using the House of Project Engagement as a Map, I reflected on the journey and selected 17 strategic moves.
1
In 2014, I reflected on my career development and began studying various theories, including Activity Theory.
2
As a digital interaction researcher and designer, I found Bonnie A. Nardi’s books particularly relevant, as she serves as a key bridge between Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI).
3
I soon realized that engaging with Activity Theory required an additional step: applying it to conduct a case study.
4
In 2018, I applied Activity Theory to reflect on my work with the BagTheWeb project.
5
By September 2018, I revisited the “Activity Theory — BagTheWeb” project. This exploration eventually led me to transition from Activity Theory to Ecological Psychology. The outcome was my first theoretical book, Curativity.
6
In 2019, I began blogging on Medium.com, writing articles on Action-based Creativity and other related topics.
7
In August 2020, I launched the Activity U project as a knowledge curation initiative.
8
While working on the Activity U project, I discovered Clay Spinuzzi’s blog and Andy Blunden’s books on Activity Theory, which deepened my understanding of the field.
9
Andy Blunden’s theoretical approach provided a strong foundation for exploring new possibilities within Activity Theory.
10
In August 2021, a friend supported me in studying a life discovery program, where the early concept of the “Anticipatory Activity System” (AAS) framework emerged.
11
By the end of 2021, I chose “Strategy” and the AAS framework as the central theme for my work in 2022.
12
In September 2022, I turned the apparent conflict between Activity Theory and Ecological Psychology into a productive, creative dialogue.
13
In May 2024, while following discussions among professionals on LinkedIn, I developed a framework called Public Square.
14
Between May and August 2024, I explored the application of the Project Engagement (v3.1) theoretical toolkit across various practical fields, which resulted in the creation of a new network encompassing several related projects.
15
In August 2024, I revisited the theory-practice gap and reconsidered the role of Activity Theory in Transdisciplinary Thinking.
16
In June 2024, I began thinking about the Genidentity of Activity Theory.
17
In August 2024, I introduced a new tool for selecting frameworks called Applied Activity Theory.
More details can be found in Mapping Strategic Moves #2: Engaging with Activity Theory and The Mapping Strategic Moves Method (v1, 2024).
Knowledge Frameworks as Models
I distinguish between maps and models: Maps represent the social landscape and situational contexts within the World of Activity, and Models represent predictive models made by actors. In some cases, actors use specific knowledge frameworks as their predictive models to guide their projects.
Moves metaphorically describe real actions taken by actors within these contexts.
However, the Mapping Strategic Moves method goes beyond using the House of Project Engagement and other thematic maps to narrate events. To dive deeper into the complexity of the Moves, various knowledge frameworks are adopted as Models.
The World of Activity Toolkit (v1, 2024) featured the following four knowledge frameworks:
- The Activity Circle Model
- The SET Framework
- The Developmental Project Model
- The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework
The following sections will offer more details.
The Activity Circle Model
The Project Engagement approach (v3.1) is grounded in an activity-based perspective, where I emphasize activity, practice, context, and situation as crucial elements for discussing topics and issues. The “Activity Circle” model exemplifies this approach.
My approach to improving communication and enhancing understanding centers around two key concepts: Activity and Relevance.
- Activity: What are people doing? What tools are they using?
- Relevance: What is the relationship between these people? What are their motivations and abilities?
Activity Theory introduces the important concept of Mediation, which involves both psychological and technical tools. In the Activity Circle model, I refer to this concept as “Thing,” representing both types of tools.
The Activity Circle model emphasizes the relationships between Self, Other, Thing, and Think, making it ideal for discussing objects with dual properties — both material and mental. This idea is inspired by cultural-historical psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s distinction between two types of mediating tools: technological and psychological.
More details can be found in The Activity Circle (Oliver Ding, 2017).
The SET Framework
The SET Framework was initially called the Ecological-Activity Hybrid Approach and was developed between 2017 and 2020 during my work on various projects centered around a new type of social action platform.
Traditionally, Activity Theory uses the “Subject — Mediation — Object” model as the fundamental unit of analysis. This was later expanded in the Activity System model to include “Subject — Mediation — Object — Rules — Community — Division of Labor.” However, I noticed a gap between Activity Theory and the design of intersubjective social systems.
For example, from 2017 to 2018, I worked on a one-to-one video talk product, followed by other projects that utilized Structured Engagement as a design pattern. These projects had several common characteristics:
- Host: A distinct type of actor responsible for hosting the overall activity.
- Structured Engagement: Human-to-human interactions following a clearly defined, structured process.
- Environment: The environment plays an integral role in shaping the design and execution of the activity.
Through these projects, I realized that the Activity System model, widely used in Activity Theory, was not ideal for capturing the dynamics of intersubjective social actions. In 2019, I developed the Ecological-Activity Hybrid Approach by integrating concepts from Activity Theory and Ecological Psychology. In 2020, I renamed this approach SET, which stands for Structured Engagement Theory.
More details can be found in The SET Framework [Hybrid Approach].
The Developmental Project Model
The Developmental Project Model is a core component of the Project Engagement approach. The diagram below illustrates the standard Developmental Project Model, which outlines eight elements that describe a developmental project:
- Purpose: Why do you want to initiate or join the project?
- Position: What is the social structure of the project?
- Program: Does the project follow formal organizational processes?
- Social: How do you connect with others through your participation?
- Content: What new information and knowledge do you acquire by joining the project?
- Action: What concrete actions do you take in the project?
- Theme: Do you discover new and interesting themes for your life development?
- Identity: How does your perception of your identity change before and after joining the project?
“Theme” and “Identity” are two key elements of the Developmental Project Model. Between 2021 and 2024, I developed several knowledge frameworks focused on themes, identity, and related concepts.
Your identity is shaped by how others view “what you do” and “who you are,” but it’s also a part of your self-knowledge. From the perspective of the Project Engagement approach, identity is a core element of the Developmental Project Model and is deeply interconnected with the other elements.
Every time you join or leave a project, your identity evolves. This ongoing evolution is what I refer to as the Microdynamics of Identity.
Life is a chain of projects, it is also a projection of social life. By adopting the Developmental Project Model, we gain a structured way to reflect on the development of both personal and social life, allowing us to connect psychology, sociology, and other disciplines in a single unit of analysis.
More details can be found in the Developmental Project Model and The Thematic Identity Curation Toolkit (v1, 2024).
The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework
The Developmental Project Model is about the "Project" level. At the higher level of multiple projects, we can use different models to explain the complexity, such as Chain, Network, System, etc.
The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework is inspired by Activity Theory, Anticipatory System theory, Relevance theory, and other theoretical resources. The framework models a specific structure: “Self, Other, Present, Future.”
An Anticipatory Activity System is composed of two parts: First-order Activity and Second-order Activity.
At a lower level, both First-order Activity and Second-order Activity can be understood as Projects. In this way, the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework integrates with the Project Engagement approach as a hierarchical system.
On September 29, 2020, I published an article titled Activity U (VI): The Hierarchy of Human Activity and Social Practice. The article is part of the Activity U project. A side product of the article is a universal hierarchy of activity and practice.
Human activity and social practice are extremely complex, the hierarchy serves as a useful thinking tool for understanding them. Based on perspectives from activity theorists and other researchers, I found an eight-level hierarchy of activity and practice. The six middle levels are adapted from activity theorists, the top level is adopted from anthropologist Morris Opler (1945), and the low level is adopted from ecological psychologist James J. Gibson (1979).
This hierarchy places the Activity System model at Level 5 and the Activity Network at Level 6.
The Project Engagement approach’s Developmental Project Model fits into Level 4. In fact, it aligns with the Activity System Model at the same level, as seen in the Project Engagement toolkit. Therefore, we should merge Level 4 and Level 5.
The “Project Network” Model belongs to Level 6.
Where should the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework be placed?
It should also be placed in Level 6 because its sub-level consists of Projects.
In other words, both the “Project Network” Model and the AAS Framework operate at a higher level and can be used to organize multiple projects.