These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Huw, I dont know how literally you're using the term, but the notion of "operational definition" is very much part of theory of science of logical positivism. I don't think you're going to find much of that in Leontyev. Martin On Aug 8, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for these. They're interesting but I don't think they quite answer > the question about operational definitions -- i.e. the experimental > paradigms used to establish and measure the unit. > > On p. 364 Leontiev elaborates on an example with a student, in which he > states that psychological testing needs to be done in order to find out > what the current activity is for the subject. > > But this does not really bring any bearing onto "the very complex > cross-links" (1977) between the individual and society. > > I am guessing that he uses leading activity as the means for setting the > scope of societal practices for revealing the formation of new motives etc. > > I am partially interested in this for observing how the object is > demonstrated objectively, and the relation of complex motives (e.g. doing > work in an ethical way) to notions of a "single basis of development". > > Best, > Huw > > On 7 August 2013 22:14, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > >> Leontyev says that an activity is defined by its motive. >> See "The Development of Mind," Leontyev 2009, p. 28-29 >> http://www.erythrospress.com/**store/leontyev.html<http://www.erythrospress.com/store/leontyev.html> >> >> But Leontyev, in my opinion, does not adequately distinguish between "an >> activity" and "a type of activity," leading to confusion on this point. >> Plus the fact that the object or motive is given externally to the >> activity, underming his claim to have created an activity theory, rather >> than a theory of human needs. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------**- >> >> The specific processes that realise some vital, i.e. active, relation of >> the subject to reality we shall term processes of /activity/, in >> distinction to other processes.