Advertisement

Activity Theory and the Surgical Workplace

  • Edward F. IbrahimEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Innovation and Change in Professional Education book series (ICPE, volume 17)

Overview

This chapter explores the importance of the surgical workplace as a centre of learning. A sociocultural learning theory known as activity theory will be described and related to the field of surgery to help illuminate this multifaceted and complicated environment. Comparisons will be made with the theory of situated learning and communities of practice. Newer developments on activity theory such as knot-working and actor-network theory will be discussed. As a defining feature of activity theory, the prominent position of culturally mediated artefacts will be argued as both promoter and hinderer of expansive learning. Two published case studies of the surgical workplace will be critically considered to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of an activity theory-based approach. Case study one examines the reality of collaborative multidisciplinary learning in practice, specifically the relationship across different specialities involved in the treatment of patients with suspected breast cancer. Case study two concerns what we can learn from how expert surgeons go about preparing to lead a theatre team towards excellent performance and how this knowledge is passed on to trainees.

Keywords

Activity theory Situated learning Actor-network theory Communities of practice Artefacts Yrjo Engeström Sfard Multidisciplinary learning Workplace Informal learning Surgical team Surgical firm Apprenticeship Cognitive Acquisition Participation Davydov Reflection Zone of proximal development Performance Theatre Know working Ontologies Expansive learning Alan Bleakley Connections Situate learning Sociomaterial Jean Lave Etienne Wenger Operation Boundary object Artefacts Latour Social system Double stimulation Metaphor Lev Vygotsky Alex Leont’ev 

References

  1. 1.
    Swanwick, T. (2005). Informal learning in postgraduate medical education: From cognitivism to ‘culturism’. Medical Education, 39(8), 859–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wright, S. M., Kern, D. E., Kolodner, K., Howard, D. M., & Brancati, F. L. (1998). Attributes of excellent attending-physician role models. New England Journal of Medicine, 339(27), 1986–1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engeström, Y. (2010). Activity theory and learning at work. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning (p. 86). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bleakley, A. (2006). Broadening conceptions of learning in medical education: The message from teamworking. Medical Education, 40(2), 150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leont’ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engeström, Y., & Blackler, F. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12(3), 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1–2), 63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuutti, K. (1991). Activity theory and its applications to information systems research and development. Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 529–549).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Latour, B. (2005). Foreword by Bruno Latour. In B. Latour (Ed.), Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory (p. 316). Oxford: Oxford University Press Sep 2005 ISBN-10: 0199256047 ISBN-13: 9780199256044. 2005; 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge university press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies. Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waltz, S. B. (2006). Nonhumans unbound: Actor-network theory and the reconsideration of “Things” in educational foundations. Educational Foundations, 20(3), 51–68.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bleakley, A. (2012). The proof is in the pudding: Putting actor-network-theory to work in medical education. Medical Teacher, 34(6), 462–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heldal, F. (2010). Multidisciplinary collaboration as a loosely coupled system: Integrating and blocking professional boundaries with objects. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 345–374). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Varpio, L., Hall, P., Lingard, L., & Schryer, C. F. (2008). Interprofessional communication and medical error: A reframing of research questions and approaches. Academic Medicine, 83(10), S76–S81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibrahim, E. F., Richardson, M. D., & Nestel, D. (2015). Mental imagery and learning: A qualitative study in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Medical Education, 49(9), 888–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davydov, V. V. (1988). Problems of developmental teaching: The experience of theoretical and experimental psychological research. Soviet Education, 30(8), 6–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryWest Middlesex University HospitalIsleworthUK
  2. 2.Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations