Ackroyd, S., Batt, R., Thompson, P., & Tolbert, P. (Eds.) (2005). The Oxford handbook of work and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Adler, P. S., & Hecksher, C. (2006). Towards collaborative community. In Hecksher, C. & Adler, P. S. (Eds.), The firm as collaborative community (pp. 11–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ahonen, H., Engeström, Y., & Virkkunen, J. (2000). Knowledge management – second generation: Creating competencies within and between work communities in the Competence Laboratory. In Malhotra, Y. (Ed.), Knowledge management and virtual organizations (pp. 282–305). London: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-projects: The changing politics of urban public investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.) (1992). Critical management studies. London: Sage.

Arendt, H. (1961). Between past and future. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. (2005). Organization in the mind: Psychodynamics, group relations and organizational consultancy. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar

Atlan, H. (1979). Entre la crystal et la fumée [Between the crystal and the smoke]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrect: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Avis, J. (2007). Engeström's version of activity theory: A conservative praxis? Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 161–177.CrossRef

Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1987). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhurst, D. (1990). Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Balibar, E. (1994). Spinoza, the anti-Orwell: The fear of the masses. In Balibar, E., Masses, classes, ideas: Studies on politics and philosophy before and after Marx (pp. 9–38). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human–computer interaction studies in system design. In Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bannon, L., & Bødker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In Carroll, J. M. (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human–computer interface (pp. 227–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barash, D. P. (1986). The hare and the tortoise: Culture, behavior, and human nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar

Barker, J. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.CrossRef

Barker, J., & Cheney, G. (1994). The concept and the practice of discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication Monographs, 21, 19–43.CrossRef

Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1954). Midwest and its children: The psychological ecology of an American town. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barley, S., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 76–95.CrossRef

Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man's understanding of himself. New York: Chandler.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In Freedman, A. & Medway, P. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (1997). Discursively structures activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(4), 296–308.CrossRef

Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison's light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (2000). Singular utterances: Realizing local activities through typified forms in typified circumstances. In Trosberg, A. (Ed.), Analysing the discourses of professional genres (pp. 25–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309–339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (2006). The writing of social organization and the literate situating of cognition: Extending Goody's social implications of writing. In Olson, D. & Cole, M. (Eds.), Technology, literacy and the evolution of society: Implications of the work of Jack Goody (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C., Little, J., & Chavkin, T. (2003). The production of information for genred activity spaces. Written Communication, 20(4), 455–477.CrossRef

Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.

Beach, K. (2003). Consequential transitions: A developmental view of knowledge propagation through social organizations. In Tuomi-Gröhn, T. & Engeström, Y. (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 39–62). New York: Earli.Google Scholar

Beck, E. E. (2002). P for political: Participation is not enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), pp. 77–92.

Beck, U. (1992). The risk society. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Bedny, G. Z., & Karwowski, W. (2004a). Activity theory as a basis for the study of work. Ergonomics, 47(2), 134–153.CrossRef

Bedny, G. Z., & Karwowski, W. (2004b). Meaning and sense in activity theory and their role in the study of human performance. Ergonomia IJE&HF, 26(2), 121–140.

Bedny, G. Z., & Meister, D. (1997) The Russian theory of activity: Current applications to design and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bedny, G. Z., Seglin, M., & Meister, D. (2000). Activity theory: History, research and application. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1(2), 168–206.CrossRef

Béguin, P., & Clot, Y. (2004). Situated action in the development of activity. @ctivité, 1(2), http://www.activites.org.

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bertelsen, O. W., & Bødker, S. (2002a). Activity theory. In Carroll, J. (Ed.), HCI models, theories and frameworks (pp. 291–324). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Bertelsen, O. W., & Bødker, S. (2002b). Discontinuities. In Floyd, C., Dittrich, Y., & Klischewski, R. (Eds.), Social thinking: Software practice (pp. 409–424). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Best, J. (1987). Rhetoric in claims-making: Constructing the missing children problem. Social Problems, 34(2), 101–121.CrossRef

Bhaskar, R. (1977). A realist theory of science. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Billett, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 53–69.CrossRef

Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical view of social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1987). Florence in wonderland: Systems development with nurses. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 279–296). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar

Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1988). The memoirs of two survivors – or evaluation of a computer system for cooperative work. In Tatar, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 167–177). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar

Blackler, F., Crump, N., & MacDonald, S. (1999). Managing experts and competing through innovation: An activity theoretical analysis. Organization, 6(1), 5–31.CrossRef

Blackler, F., & McDonald, S. (2000). Power, mastery and organisational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 833–851.CrossRef

Blackler, F., & Regan, S. (2006). Institutional reform and the reorganisation of family support services. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1843–1862.CrossRef

Blau, P. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Bødker, S. (1991). Through the interface. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems design. Human–Computer Interaction, 11, 215–236.CrossRef

Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges, NordiCHI keynote. In Mørch, A., Morgan, K., Bratteteig, T., Ghosh, G., & Svanæs, D. (Eds.), NordiCHI 2006: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 1–8). Oslo: Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., & Christiansen, E. (1997). Scenarios as springboards in design. In Bowker, G., Gasser, L., Star, S. L., & Turner, W. (Eds.), Social science research, technical systems and cooperative work (pp. 217–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., & Christiansen, E. (2004). Designing for ephemerality and prototypicality. In Benyon, D., Moody, P., Gruen, D., & McAra-McWilliam, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 255–260). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., & Christiansen, E. (2006). Computer support for social awareness in flexible work. Journal of CSCW, 15(1), 1–28.

Bødker, S., Christiansen, E., Ehn, P., Markussen, R., Mogensen, P., & Trigg, R. (1991). Computers in context: Report from the AT-project. Arbejdets Udvikling: NES/SAM.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., & Sundblad, Y. (1987). A utopian experience. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 251–278). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Knudsen, J. L., Kyng, M., & Madsen, K. H. (1988). Computer support for cooperative design. In Grief, I. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 377–394). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., & Grønbæk, K. (1991). Design in action: From prototyping by demonstration to cooperative prototyping. In Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 197–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., Grønbæk, K., & Kyng, M. (1993). Cooperative design: Techniques and experiences from the Scandinavian scene. In Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 157–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bødker, S., & Iversen, O. (2002). Staging a professional participatory design practice: Moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. In Bertelsen, O., Bødker, S., & Kuutti, K. (Eds.), NordiCHI 2002: Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic conference on human–computer interaction (pp. 11–18). Aarhus: Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar

Böhme, G. (1998). The structures and prospects of knowledge society. Social Science Information, 37(1), 447–468.

Bolz, N. (1993). Am Ende der Gutenberg-Galaxis: Die neuen Kommunikationsverhältnisse [At the end of the Gutenberg galaxy: The new conditions of communication]. Padeborn: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar

Bouvin, N. O., Nielsen, A. C., & Sejersen, C. M. (1991). Spirits in a material world: An activity theory based evaluation of Ariel, a demonstrator in the EuroCODE CSCW project, aimed at supporting inspection work at the Great Belt bridge. DAIMI/Eurocode. Unpublished master thesis. University of Aarhus.

Boyle, J. (2003). The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 33–74.

Bujarski, M, Hildebrand-Nilshon, M., & Kordt, J. (1999). Psychomotor and socioemotional processes in literacy acquisition: Results of an ongoing case study involving a nonvocal cerebral palsic young man. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 206–227). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bülow, P. (2004). Sharing experiences of contested illness by storytelling. Discourse & Society, 15(1), 33–53.CrossRef

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caplow, T. (1968). Two against one. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Carter, M. (2004). Teaching genre to English first-language adults: A study of the laboratory report. Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 395–413.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an explanatory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5–24.CrossRef

Chaiklin, S. (1993). Understanding the social scientific practice of Understanding Practice. In Chaiklin &, S.Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 379–402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cherns, A. (1979). Using the social sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Child, J., & Smith, C. (1987). The context and process of organizational transformation: Cadbury Ltd. in its sector. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 656–594.CrossRef

Christensen, M., & Kirby, S. (2003). Language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, A. (1998). Embodiment and the philosophy of mind. In O'Hear, A. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in the philosophy of mind (pp. 35–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 10–23.CrossRef

Clot, Y. (1999). La fonction psychologique du travail [The psychological function of work]. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Clot, Y. (2005a, July). Pourquoi et comment s'occuper du développement en clinique de l'activité? [Why and how to focus on development in the Clinic of Activity]. Paper presented at the international symposium Artefacts and collectives: Situated action and activity theory (ARTCO), Lyon, http://sites.univ-lyon2.fr/artco/home.html.

Clot, Y. (2005b). L'auto-confrontation croisée en analyse du travail: L'apport de la théorie bakhtinienne du dialogue [Crossed self-confrontation in the analysis of work: The contribution of Bakhtin's theory of dialogue]. In Filliettaz, L. & Bronckart, J. P. (Eds.), L'analyse des actionss et des discourse en situation de travail: Concepts, méthodes et applications (pp. 37–55). Louvaine-La-Neuve: Peters.Google Scholar

Clot, Y., Fernandez, G., & Carles, L. (2002). Crossed self-confrontation in the “Clinic of Activity.” In Bagnara, S., Pozzi, S., Rizzo, A., & Wright, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, ECCE 11 (pp. 13–18). Rome, Italy: Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione.Google Scholar

Clot, Y., Prot, B., & Werthe, C. (2001). Clinique de l'activité et pouvoir d'agir [Clinic of Activity and power to act]. Éducation Permanente, 146, 12–37.

Clot, Y., & Scheller, L. (2006). La “clinica dell'attività.” Analizzare il lavoro per trasformarlo [The Clinic of Activity: Analyzing work for transforming it]. In Zucchermaglio, C. & Alby, F. (Eds.), Psicologia culturale delle organizzazioni. Rome: Carocci editore.Google Scholar

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.CrossRef

Cohen, J. E. (2006). Copyright, commodification, and culture: Locating the public domain. In Guibault, L. & Hugenholz, P. B. (Eds.), The future of public domain (pp. 121–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 146–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.CrossRef

Comte, A. (2004). The catechism of positive religion. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar

Cooren, F. (2006). The organizational world as a plenum of agencies. In Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Every, E. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical explorations into the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 81–100). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cussins, A. (1992). Content, embodiment and objectivity: The theory of cognitive trails. Mind, 101, 651–688.CrossRef

Czarniawska, B. (2003). The styles and stylists of organization theory. In Tsoukas, H. & Knudsen, C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational theory (pp. 237–261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dalton, M. (1950). Men who manage. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Damasio, A. R. (2000). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

D'Andrade, R. (1996). Culture. In Kuper, A. & Kuper, J. (Eds.), Social science encyclopedia (pp. 161–163). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar

Daniels, H., Brown, S., Edwards, A., Leadbetter, J., Martin, D., Middleton, D., Parsons, S., Popova, A., & Warmington, P. (2005). Studying professional learning for inclusion. In Yamazumi, K., Engeström, Y., & Daniels, H. (Eds.), New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work (pp. 79–101). Osaka: Kansai University Press.Google Scholar

Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Daniels, H., Leadbetter, J., Warmington, P., Edwards, A., Martin, D., Popova, A., Apostolov, A., Middleton, D., & Brown, S. (2007). Learning in and for multi-agency working. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 521–538.CrossRef

Dartington, T. (1998). From altruism to action: Primary task and the not-for-profit organization. Human Relations, 51, 1495–1508.

Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar

Davydov, V. V. (1982). The psychological structure and contents of the learning activity in school children. In Glaser, R. & Lompscher, J. (Eds.), Cognitive and motivational aspects of instruction (pp. 37–44). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar

Davydov, V. V. (1988). Problems of developmental teaching. Soviet Education, 30(9), 3–83.

Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

Davydov, V.V. (1996). The theory of developmental teaching. Moscow: In-Tor Publishers (in Russian).Google Scholar

Davydov, V. V. (1999a). A new approach to the interpretation of activity structure and content. In Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., & Jensen, U. J. (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 39–50). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar

Davydov, V. V. (1999b). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 39–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davydov, V. V., & Radikhovskii, L. A. (1985). Vygotsky's theory and activity-oriented approach in psychology. In Wertsch, J. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 35–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dawydow, W. W. (1977). Arten des Verallgemeinerung im unterricht [Types of generalizations in instruction]. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Google Scholar

Deibel, E. (2006). Open source in biotechnology and return of common property. Tailoring Biotechnologies, 2(2), 49–84.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Derry, J. (2004). The unity of intellect and will: Vygotsky and Spinoza. Educational Review, 56(2), 113–120.CrossRef

Vries, M. W. (1987). Cry babies, culture, and catastrophe: Infant temperament in the Masai. In Scheper-Hughes, N. (Ed.), Child survival: Anthropological approaches to the treatment and maltreatment of children (pp. 165–186). Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's minds. London: Fontana.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. D. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Glasgow: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar

Dyer-Witheford, N. (1999). Cyber-Marx: Cycles and circuits of struggle in high-technology capitalism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. (2004). The new multi-agency working: Collaborating to prevent the social exclusion of children and families. Journal of Integrated Care, 12(5), 3–9.CrossRef

Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.CrossRef

Edwards, A. (in press). Learning how to know who: Professional learning for expansive practice between organisations. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. London: Pergamon.

Edwards, A., Barnes, M., Plewis, I., & Morris, K. (2006). Working to prevent the social exclusion of children and young people: Final lessons from the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund. Research Report 734. London: DfES.

Edwards, A., & D'Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56(2), 147–155.CrossRef

Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1984). A tool perspective on design of interactive computer support for skilled workers. In Sääksjärvi, M. (Ed.), Proceedings from the 7th Scandinavian research seminar on systemeering (pp. 211–242). Helsinki: Helsinki Business School.Google Scholar

Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1987). The collective resource approach to systems design. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 17–58). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar

Engels, F. (1925/1978). Dialektik der Natur [Dialectics of nature]. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar

Engeström, R. (1991). Reconstructing organizational memory in a health center. Multidisciplinary Newsletter for Activity Theory, 9/10, 20–26.

Engeström, R. (1995). Voice as communicative action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 192–215.CrossRef

Engeström, R. (1999). Imagine the world you want to live in: A study on developmental change in doctor–patient interaction. Outlines: Critical Social Theory, 1(1), 33–50.

Engeström, R. (2005). Polyphony of activity. In Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (Eds.), Putting activity theory to work (pp. 49–74). Berlin: ICHS.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1970). Koulutus luokkayhteiskunnassa: Johdatus kapitalistisen yhteiskunnan koulutusongelmiin [Education in class society: Introduction to the educational problems of capitalism]. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1979). Koululaisten mielikuvitus ja käyttäytyminen rauhankasvatuksen kannalta tarkasteltuna [The imagination and behavior of school students analyzed from the viewpoint of education for peace]. Tampere: Institute of Peace and Conflict Research.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1982). Teoreettisen yleistämisen kehittäminen opetuksessa: Esimerkki historianopetuksesta [Developing theoretical generalization in instruction: An example from history teaching]. In Hakkarainen, P. (Ed.), Opetuksen ja sen evaluoinnin tutkiminen (pp. 43–64). Jyväskylä: Kasvatustieteiden tutkimuslaitos.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1983). Oppimistoiminta ja opetustyö [Learning activity and instructional work]. Helsinki: Tutkijaliitto.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1991a). Developmental work research: Reconstructing expertise through expansive learning. In Nurminen, M.I. & Weir, G. R. S. (Eds.), Human jobs and computer interfaces (pp. 265–290). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1991b). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction: An International Journal, 1, 243–259.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (1996a). Development as breaking away and opening up: A challenge to Vygotsky and Piaget. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55(2/3), 126–132.

Engeström, Y. (1996b). Developmental work research as educational research: Looking ten years back and into the zone of proximal development. Nordisk Pedagogik: Journal of Nordic Educational Research, 16, 131–143.

Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1999b). Communication, discourse and activity. Communication Review, 3, 165–185.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (1999c). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63–93.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (1999d). From iron cages to webs on the wind: Three theses on teams and learning at work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 4(2), 101–110.

Engeström, Y. (1999e). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1999f). Learning by expanding: Ten years after. Foreword to the Japanese edition of Learning by Expanding. Tokyo: Shin-yo-sha (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2000a). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2000b). Comment on Blackler et al., activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: A story of four umpires. Organization, 7(2), 301–310.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2000c). From individual action to collective activity and back: Developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. In Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds.), Workplace studies (pp. 150–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning 16(1/2), 11–21.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2005a). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2005b). Introduction. In Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (Eds.), Putting activity theory to work: Contributions from developmental work research (pp. 11–17). Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2005c). Knotworking to create collaborative intentionality capital in fluid organizational fields. In Beyerlein, M. M., Beyerlein, S. T., & Kennedy, F. A. (Eds.), Collaborative capital: Creating intangible value (pp. 307–336). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2006a). Activity theory and expansive design. In Bagnara, S. & Smith, G. Crampton (Eds.), Theories and practice of interaction design (pp. 3–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2006b). Development, movement and agency: Breaking away into mycorrhizae activities. In Yamazumi, K. (Ed.), Building activity theory in practice: Toward the next generation (Vol. 1, pp. 1–43). Osaka: Center for Human Activity Theory (CHAT), Kansai University.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2006c). From well-bounded ethnographies to intervening in mycorrhizae activities. Organization Studies, 27(2), 1783–1793.CrossRef

Engeström, Y, (2006d). Triangles, strands, objects, and contradictions: A commentary on Bakhurst. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2007a). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward co-configuration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2007b). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In Hughes, J., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 41–54). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2007c). From stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38, 271–275.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2007d). Putting activity theory to work: The Change Laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2007e). Putting Vygotsky to work: The Change Laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole. & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (2008a). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers, 20, 256–259.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2008b). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engeström, Y., & Blackler, F. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12(3), 307–330.CrossRef

Engeström, Y., & Engeström, R. (1984). Siivoustyön hallinta ja työntekijöiden laadullinen koulutustarve [The mastery of janitorial cleaning work and the workers' qualitative need for training]. Helsinki: ServiSystems.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., & Engeström, R. (1986). Developmental work research: The approach and the application of cleaning work. Nordisk Pedagogik, 6, 2–15.

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., Helenius, J., & Koistinen, K. (1989). Tereyskeskuslääkärien työn kehittämistutkimus [Developmental study of the work of health center physicians: Third interim report]. Espoo: Espoon kaupungin terveyskeskus.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction: An International Journal, 5, 319–336.CrossRef

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kerosuo, H. (2003). The discursive construction of collaborative care. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 286–315.CrossRef

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the centre does not hold: The importance of knotworking. In Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., & Jensen, U. J. (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 345–374). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., Hakkarainen, P., & Hedegaard, M. (1984). On the methodological basis of research in teaching and learning. In Hedegaard, M., Hakkarainen, P., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.), Learning and teaching on a scientific basis: Methodological and epistemological aspects of the activity theory of learning and teaching (pp. 119–189). Aarhus: University of Aarhus.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., Kerosuo, H., & Kajamaa, A. (2007). Beyond discontinuity: Expansive organizational learning remembered. Management Learning, 38(3), 319–336.CrossRef

Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (Eds.) (1996). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Engeström, Y., Pasanen, A., Toiviainen, H., & Haavisto, V. (2005). Expansive learning as concept formation at work. In Yamazumi, K., Engeström, Y., & Daniels, H. (Eds.), New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work (pp. 47–77). Osaka: Kansai University Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., Puonti, A., & Seppänen, L. (2003). Spatial and temporal expansion of the object as a challenge for reorganizing work. In Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach (pp. 151–186). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., & Toiviainen, H. (in press). Co-configurational design of learning instrumentalities: An activity-theoretical perspective. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. London: Pergamon.

Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). Change Laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17.

Etzkowitz, H., & Webster, A. (1995). Science as intellectual property. In Jasanoff, S.. Mankle, G., Peterson, S.,. & Pinch, T. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 480–505). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Featherstone, M., & Lash, S. (Eds.) (1999). Spaces of culture. London: Sage.

Field, J. (2002). Social capital. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Firth, A. (1995). Introduction and overview. In Firth, A. (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 3–39). Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Floyd, C. (1987). Outline of a paradigm change in software engineering. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 191–212). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar

Flusser, V. (1998). Kommunikologie [Communicology]. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social enquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7–32.CrossRef

Freeman, C., & Louça, F. (2000). As time goes by: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Friebe, H., & Lobo, S. (2006). Wir nennen es Arbeit. Die digitale Bohème oder intelligentes Leben jenseits der Festanstellung [We call it work: The digital bohemian or life beyond permanent jobs]. Munich: Heyne.Google Scholar

Friedland, R., & Boden, D. (Eds.) (1994). NowHere: Space, time and modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fuyuno, I. (2007). Brain craze. Nature, 447(3), 18–20.CrossRef

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Giesecke, M. (1998). Sinnenwandel, Sprachwandel, Kulturwandel: Studien zur Vorgeschichte der Informationsgesellschaft [Transformation of sense, language and culture: Studies on the prehistory of the information society]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Giesecke, M. (2002). Von den Mythen der Buchkultur zu den Visionen der Informationsgesellschaft [From myths of the book culture to visions of information society]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Giesecke, M. (2006). Die Eentdeckung der kommunikativen Welt [The discovery of the communicative world]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2002). Constructing communication by hand. Cognitive Development, 17(3–4), 1385–1405.CrossRef

Goodwin, R. (2005). Why I study relationships and culture. Psychologist, 18(10), 614–615.

Gould, S. J. (2007). A tale of two work sites. In Gould, S. J., Rose, S., & McGarr, P. (Eds.), The richness of life: The essential Stephen J. Gould (pp. 546–563). London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar

Gouldner, A. (1954). Industrial bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.) (1991). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenfield, P. M. (1999). Historical change and cognitive change: A two-decade follow-up study in Zinacantan, a Mayan community in Chiapas, Mexico. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(2), 92–108.CrossRef

Greenfield, P. M. (2004). Weaving generations together: Evolving creativity in the Maya of Chiapis. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.Google Scholar

Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.

Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537–547.CrossRef

Greimas, A. J. (1987). On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future. In Rogoff, B. & Wertsch, J. (Eds.), Children's learning in the “zone of proximal development”: New directions for child development (pp. 45–64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Groleau, C. (2006). One phenomenon, two lenses: Understanding collective action from the perspectives of coorientation and activity theories. In Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Every, E. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 157–180). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Grønbæk, K., Grudin, J., Bødker, S., & Bannon, L. (1993). Achieving cooperative system design: Shifting from product to process focus. In Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (Eds.), Participatory design: Perspectives of systems design (pp. 79–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M., & Mogensen, P. (1993). CSCW challenges: Cooperative design in engineering projects. CACM, 36(4), 67–77.CrossRef

Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M., & Mogensen, P. (1997). Toward a cooperative experimental system development approach. In Kyng, M. & Mathiassen, L. (Eds.), Computers and design in context (pp. 201–238). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 99–119). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Guile, D. (2007). Moebius strip enterprises and expertise in the creative industries: New challenges for lifelong learning? International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 23(3), 241–261.CrossRef

Güney, S. (2006). Making sense of a conflict as the (missing) link between collaborating actors. In Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Every, E. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversations (pp. 19–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.CrossRef

Hacking, I. (1995). Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the science of memory. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Haenen, J. (1995). Pjotr Gal'perin: Psychologist in Vygotsky's footsteps. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Hall, C., Slembrouck, S., & Sarangi, S. (2006). Language practices in social work: Categorisation and accountability in child welfare. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Halskov, K., & Dalsgård, P. (2006). Inspiration card workshops. In Carroll, J. M., Bødker, S., & Coughlin, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 2–11). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harré, R. (1984). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Harré, R. (1986). Varieties of realism: A rationale for the natural sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Haug, W. F. (2003). High-tech-capitalismus. Hamburg: Argument Verlag.Google Scholar

Heaton, L., & Taylor, J. R. (2002). Knowledge management and professional work: A communication perspective on the knowledge-based organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 210–236.CrossRef

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698–701.CrossRef

Helmuth, L. (2001). From the mouths (and hands) of babes. Science, 293, 1758–1759.CrossRef

Hicks, D. (2000). Self and other in Bakhtin's early philosophical essays: Prelude to prose consciousness. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(3), 227–242.CrossRef

Hinings, C., & Greenwood, R. (1988). The dynamics of strategic change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The primary risk. Human Relations, 52(1), 5–23.

Hobbes, T. (Ed.). (1996). Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hobsbawm, E. (1995). Age of extremes: The short twentieth century 1914–1991. London: Abacus.Google Scholar

Holland, D., & Lave, J. (Eds.) (2001). History in person. Oxford: James Currey.

Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York: Dell.Google Scholar

Holzkamp, K. (1983). Grundlegung der psychologie [Foundations of psychology]. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar

Holzkamp, K. (1995). Lernen: Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung [Learning: Subject-scientific foundation]. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar

Holzman, L. (2006). What kind of theory is activity theory? Theory & Psychology, 16, 1, 5–11.CrossRef

Hopwood, A., & Miller, P. (Eds.) (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. In Grinter, R., Rodden, T., Aoki, P., Cutrell, E., Jeffries, R., & Olson, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 437–446). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar

Iljenkow, E. W. (1975). Die dialektik von abstraktem und konkretem [The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete]. In Rosental, M. M. (Ed.), Geschichte der marxistichen dialektik (pp. 211–233). Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar

Il'enkov, E. (1977a). Dialectical logic: Essays on its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar

Il'enkov, E. V. (1977b). The problem of the ideal. In Philosophy in the USSR: Problems of dialectical materialism. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar

Il'enkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's “Capital.”Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israel, J. (1979). The language of dialectics and the dialectics of language. London: Harvester Press.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovations and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Jensen, K. (2007). The desire to learn: An analysis of knowledge-seeking practices among professionals.Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 489–502.CrossRef

Johnson, S. C., Dweck, C. S., & Chen, F.S. (2007). Evidence for infants' internal working models of attachment. Psychological Science, 18(6), 501–502.CrossRef

Johnstone, T., & Scherer, K. R. (2000). Vocal communication of emotion. In Lewis, M. & Haviland, J. (Eds.), Handbook of emotion (pp. 220–235). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Judin, E. G. (1984). Das Problem der Tätigkeit in Philosophie und Wissenschaft [The problem of activity in philosophy of science]. In Viehweger, D. (Ed.), Grundfragen einer Theorie der sprachlichen Tätigkeit (pp. 216–270). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1987). Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.Google Scholar

Kagawa, S., & Moro, Y. (2006). Student nurses' experiencing and construction of “heterochrony”: Learning process in the classroom–practicum transition. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(2), 346–360 (in Japanese).CrossRef

Kain, D., & Wardle, E. (2005). Building context: Using activity theory to teach about genre in multi-major professional communication courses. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(2), 113–139.CrossRef

Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18.CrossRef

Kasavin, I. T. (1990). Activity and rationality. In Lektorsky, V. A. (Ed.), Activity: Theories, methodology, and problems (pp. 93–98). Orlando, FL: Paul M. Deutsch.Google Scholar

Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A. (2003). Biomedical platforms. Realigning the normal and the pathological in late-twentieth-century medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Keiler, P. (2002). Lev Vygotskij: Ein leben für die psychologie [Lev Vygotsky: A life for psychology]. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar

Kelly, K. (2005). We are the web. Wired, 13, 8.

Kensing, F., & Madsen, K. H. (1991). Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphorical design. In Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 155–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kensing, F., Simonsen, J., & Bødker, S. (1998). MUST: A method for participatory design.Human–computer interaction, 13(2), 167–198.CrossRef

Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: An activity-theoretical study of development, learning and change in health care for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How sciences make knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Knorr Cetina, K., & Bruggar, U. (2002). Traders' engagement with markets. Theory Culture and Society, 19(5–6), 161–185.CrossRef

Konkola, R., Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 3(20), 211–228.CrossRef

Kostulski, K. (2005). Activité conversationnelle et activité d'analyse. L'interlocution en situation de co-analyse du travail [Conversational activity and activity of analysis: Interlocution in the context of co-analysis of work]. In Filliettaz, L. & Bronckart, J. P. (Eds.), L'analyse des actions et des discours en situation de travail. Concepts, méthodes et applications (pp. 57–75). Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar

Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264–275.CrossRef

Kvale, S. (1997). Research apprenticeship. Nordisk Pedagogik, 17(3), 186–194.

Kyng, M. (1995). Creating contexts for design. In Carroll, J. M. (Ed.), Scenario-based design: Envisioning work and technology in system development (pp. 85–108). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Kyvik, S., & Sivertsen, G. (2005). Vitenskapelig publisering [Scientific publication]. In Gulbrandsen, M & Smeby, J. C. (Eds.), Forskning ved Universitetene. Rammebetingelser, relevans og resultater (pp. 149–163). Oslo: Cappelen Academic Press.Google Scholar

Langemeyer, I. (2006). Contradictions in expansive learning: Towards a critical analysis of self-dependent forms of learning in relation to contemporary socio-technological change. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1). http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1–06/06–1–12-e.htm.

Langemeyer, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Is cultural-historical activity theory threatened to fall short of its own principles and possibilities as a dialectical social science? Outlines, 2, 20–42.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Law, J., & Mol, A. (1998). Metrics and fluids: Notes on otherness. In Chia, R. (Ed.), Organised worlds: Explorations in technology, organisation and modernity (pp. 20–38). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lawrence, W., & Robinson, P. (1975). An innovation and its implementation: Issues of evaluation. London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.Google Scholar

Learmonth, M., & Harding, N. (2006). Evidence-based management: The very idea. Public Administration, 84(2), 245–266.CrossRef

Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.) (2000). Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, G. K., & Cole, R. C. (2003). From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of Linux kernel development. Organization Science, 14(6), 633–649.CrossRef

Lektorsky, V. A. (1999). Historical changes of the notion of activity: Philosophical presuppositions. In Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., & Jensen, U. J. (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 100–113). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. A. (2005). The life and creative path of A. N. Leontiev. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(3), 8–69.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1932). The development of voluntary attention in the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 40, 52–81.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1964). Problemy inzhenernoy psikhologii [Problems of engineering psychology]. In Leont'ev, A. N., Zinchenko, V. P., & Panov, D. J. (Eds.), Inchenernaya psikhologiya (pp. 5–23). Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk.Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (1966). Automatization and control. In Leont'ev, A. N., Yeremenko, I., Zinchenko, V. P., Lomov, B. F., & Rubakhin, V. (Eds.), Technique and equipment (pp. 36–43). Publisher unknown (in Russian).

Leont'ev, A. N. (1968). On the issue of tension/extension, caused by the supplementary stress of operators in follow up systems. In Problems of engineering psychology (pp. 36–322). Moscow: Unknown publisher (in Russian).Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (1970). Automation and the human being. In Psychological studies (Vol. 2, pp. 3–12). Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk (in Russian).Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (1977). Automation and the human being. In Scientific-technical revolution and the human being (pp. 172–181). Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (1980). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Tokyo: Meijitosyo (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (2001). Lectures on general psychology. Moscow: Smysl (in Russian).Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (2005). Frühe Schriften [Early works], Vol. 2. Berlin: Lehmann's Media.Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N., & Lomov, B. F. (1963). The human being and technology. Voprosy psikhologii, 5, 29–37 (in Russian).

Leont'ev, A. N., & Panov, D. J. (1963). The psychology of the human being in the technological process. In Filosofskie voprosy fiziologii vysshey nervnoy deyatelnosti i psykhologii (pp. 393–424). Moscow: Izd-vo AN CCCR (in Russian).Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N., & Zaporozhets, A. V. (1960). Rehabilitation of hand function. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Leont'ev, A. N. (1990). Notes on consciousness. Part 2. Translation of an unknown manuscript from 1933. Multidisciplinary Newsletter for Activity Theory, 5/6, 1–8.

Leontjew, A. N. (1973). Probleme des entwicklung des psychschen [Problems of the development of the mind]. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Google Scholar

Levi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind: Nature of human society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levitin, K. (1982). One is not born a personality: Profiles of Soviet education psychologists. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar

Linde, C. (1988). Who's in charge here? Cooperative work and authority negotiation in police helicopter missions. In Grief, I. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 52–64). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.Google Scholar

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lompscher, J. (1999). Learning activity and its formation: Ascending from the abstract to the concrete. In Hedegaard, M. & Lompscher, J. (Eds.), Learning activity and development (pp. 139–166). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar

Lompscher, J. (2004). Lernkultur und Kompetenzentwicklung aus kulturhistorischer Sicht [Learning culture and competence development in cultural-historical perspective]. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar

Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lotman, Y. M. (1988). The semiotics of culture and the concept of a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 52–58.

Ludvigsen, S., Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., Moen, A., & Middleton, D. (in press). Intersecting trajectories of participation: Temporality and learning. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. London: Pergamon.

Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (1983). Promethean fire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lundvall, B.-A. (1996). The social dimension of the learning economy. DRUID Working Paper 96–1. Aalborg: Aalborg University.Google Scholar

Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind: A personal account of Soviet psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Luria, A. R. (2005). The making of mind: A personal account of Soviet psychology. In Cole, M., Levitin, K., & Luria, A. R. (Eds.), The autobiography of Alexander Luria: A dialogue with “The Making of Mind.” Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mäkitalo, J. (2005). An analysis of the employees' work-related emotions in two homes for the elderly. In Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (Eds.), Putting activity theory to work: Contributions from developmental work research (pp. 495–600). Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar

Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2002a). Invisible people: Institutional reasoning and reflexivity in the production of services and “social facts” in public employment agencies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 160–178.CrossRef

Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2002b). Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices. TEXT, 22(1), 57–82.CrossRef

Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Introduction to the “Critique of Political Economy.”Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Marx, K. (1976). Theses on Feuerbach. In Marx, K. & Engels, F., Collected works, Vol. 5. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar

Marx, K. (1977). Capital, Vol.1. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

McLuhan, H. M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Mehan, H. (2007). Inter-organizational collaboration: A strategy to improve diversity and college access for underrepresented minority students. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 63–91.

Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free PressGoogle Scholar

Meshcheryakov, A. (1979). Awakening to life. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar

Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miettinen, R. (2005). Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture, and Activity 12(1), 52–69.CrossRef

Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12, 437–456.CrossRef

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167.CrossRef

Miller, C. R. (1994). Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre. In Freedman, A. & Medway, P. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 67–78). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Miller, E. (1993). From dependency to autonomy: Studies in organization and change. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar

Miller, E., & Gwynne, G. (1974). A life apart: A pilot study of residential institutions for the physically handicapped and young chronically sick. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Miller, E., & Rice, A. (1967). Systems of organization: Task and sentient systems and the boundary control. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Minnis, M., & John-Steiner, V. P. (2001). Are we ready for a single, integrated theory? Human Development, 44(5), 296–310.CrossRef

Mogensen, P. (1992). Towards a provotyping approach in systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 4, 31–53.

Moon, J. Y., & Sproul, L. (2002). Essence of distributed work: The case of the Linux kernel. In Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 381–404). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Morson, G. S., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a prosaics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Avermaet, E. (Eds.) (2008). Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muller, M. J., Haslwanter, H., & Dayton, J. (1997). Participatory practices in the software lifecycle. In Helander, M., Landauer, T., & Prabhu, P. (Eds.). Handbook of human–computer interaction (pp. 255–298). Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nardi, B. A. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 37–51.CrossRef

Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2002). NetWORKers and their activity in intensional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1–2), 205–242.CrossRef

Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13–19.CrossRef

Nerlove, S., Munroe, R. H., & Munroe, R. (1971). Effect of environmental experience on spatial ability: A replication. Journal of Social Psychology, 84(1), 3–10.CrossRef

New, T. L., Foo, S. W., & Silva, L. C. (2003). Emotion recognition using hidden Markov models. Speech Communication, 41, 603–623.

Newcomb, T. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393–404.CrossRef

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, N. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In Carroll, J. M. (Ed.), Designing interaction (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion and design: Attractive things work better. Interactions Magazine, 9(4), 36–42.CrossRef

Obholzer, A. (2001). The leader, the unconscious, and the management of the organization. In Gould, L., Stapley, L., & Stein, M. (Eds.), The systems psychodynamics of organizations: Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems. London: Karnac.Google Scholar

Oddone, I. (1981). Redécouvrir l'expérience ouvrière [Rediscovering workers' experience]. Paris: Éditions sociales.Google Scholar

Olsen, J. P., & Maassen, P. (2007). European debates on the knowledge institution: The modernization of the university at the European level. In Maassen, P. & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olson, D. R. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 33, 24–26.CrossRef

Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (2005). Inside deaf culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pape, T. C., & Thoresen, K. (1987). Development of common systems by prototyping. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 297–314). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar

Park, D., & Moro, Y. (2006). Dynamics of situation definition. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(2), 100–128.CrossRef

Pettigrew, A. (1985). The awakening giant. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organization science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.CrossRef

Pfeffer, J. (1995). Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science, 6(6), 681–686.CrossRef

Pfeffer, J. (2007). Testimony submitted to the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms, March 8. Available from http://www.evidence-basedmanagement.com(accessed June 2007).

Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–589.CrossRef

Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pihlaja, J. (2005). Learning in and for production: An activity-theoretical study of the historical development of distributed systems of generalizing. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1975). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Postman, N. (1988). Wir amüsieren uns zu tode [Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.

Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 199–220.CrossRef

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

Putnam, L. (1994). Challenging the assumptions of traditional approaches to negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 10, 337–346.CrossRef

Rafael, V. L. (2003). The cell phone and the crowd: Messianic politics in the contemporary Philippines. Public Culture, 15, 399–425.CrossRef

Ravier-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., & Kuhl, P. K. (2005). Brain potentials to native and non-native speech contrasts in 7- and 11-month-old American infants. Developmental Science, 8(2), 162–172.CrossRef

Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral & the bazaar. Beijing: O'Really.Google Scholar

Reed, J. (1935). Ten days that shook the world. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar

Rice, A. (1958). Productivity and social organization: The Ahmedabad experiment. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Rice, A. (1965). Learning for leadership. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Rist, G. (2006). The history of development: From Western origins to global faith. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar

Robbins, D. (2001). Vygotsky's psychology-philosophy: A metaphor for language theory and learning. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robichaud, D. (2006). Steps toward a relational view of agency. In Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Every, E. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical explorations into the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 101–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rogoff, B., Correa-Chávez, M., & Cotuc, M. N. (2005). A cultural/historical view of schooling in human development. In Pillemer, D. B. & White, S. H. (Eds.), Developmental psychology and social change: Research, history and policy (pp. 225–263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roth, W.-M. (2007a). Emotion at work: A contribution to third-generation cultural historical activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14, 40–63.CrossRef

Roth, W.-M. (2007b). Identity in scientific literacy: Emotional-volitional and ethico-moral dimensions. In Roth, W.-M. & Tobin, K. (Eds.), Science, learning, and identity: Sociocultural and cultural historical perspectives (pp. 153–184). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky's neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 76, 186–232.CrossRef

Rotkirch, A. (1996). The playing 80s: Russian activity games. In Saunders, D., Percival, F., & Vartiainen, M. (Eds.), The simulation and gaming yearbook: Games and simulations to enhance quality learning (Vol. 4, pp. 34–40). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rozov, M. A. (1981). The ways of scientific discoveries. Voprosi Filosofii, 8, 143–154 (in Russian).

Rubtsov, V. V. (1991). Learning in children: Organization and development of cooperative actions. Happauge, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar

Russell, D.R. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In Petraglia, J. (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51–77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Russell, D. R. (1997a). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554.CrossRef

Russell, D. R. (1997b. Writing and genre in higher education and workplaces: A review of studies that use cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(4), 224–237.CrossRef

Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Russell, D. R. (2007). Rethinking the articulation between business and technical communication and writing in the disciplines: Useful avenues for teaching and research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 248–278.CrossRef

Russell, D. R., & Bazerman, C. (Eds.) (1997). The activity of writing: The writing of activity. Mind, Culture, Activity,special issue, 4(4), 223–308.CrossRef

Russell, D. R., & Yañez, A. (2003). “Big picture people rarely become historians”: Genre systems and the contradictions of general education. In Bazerman, C. & Russell, D. R. (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 331–362). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.Google Scholar

Saarelma, O. (Ed.) (2003). Työtulvan hallinta terveysasemalla. [To manage work flood in health care clinic]. Espoo: STAKES/Publications 271.

Saaren-Seppälä, T. (2004). Yhteisen potilaan hoito. [The care of a shared patient]. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar

Saari, E. (2003). The pulse of change in research work. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Sahlins, M. (1976). Culture and practical reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Sannino, A. (2005). Cultural-historical and discursive tools for analyzing critical conflicts in students' development. In Yamazumi, K.Engeström, Y., & Daniels, H. (Eds.), New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work (pp. 165–196). Osaka: Kansai University Press.Google Scholar

Sannino, A. (2008). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 3, 234–257.CrossRef

Säljö, R. (2003). Epilogue: From transfer to boundary-crossing. In Tuomi-Gröhn, T. & Engeström, Y. (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 311–321). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Sartre, J.-P. (2000). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology. Moscow: Republic (in Russian).Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. (2000). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Schryer, C. F. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10(2), 200–234.CrossRef

Schryer, C. F., Lingard, L., & Spatford, M. M. (2003). Structure and agency in medical case presentations. In Bazerman, C. & Russell, D. R. (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 62–96). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.Google Scholar

Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Scott, W. (2001). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Scribner, S. (1997). Three developmental paradigms. In Tobach, E., Falmagne, R. Joffe, Parlee, M. Brown, Martin, L. M. W., & Kapelman, A. Scribner (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp. 281–288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Searle, J. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. E. (Eds.). Intentions in communication (pp. 401–416). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Senghas, R. J., Senghas, A., & Pyers, E. (2005). The emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language: Questions of development, acquisition, and evolution. In Langer, J., Parker, S. T., & Milbrath, C. (Eds.), Biology and knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 287–306). Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Sennett, R. (1980). Authority. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Sennett, R. (1999a). Growth and failure: The new political economy and culture. In Featherstone, M. & Lash, S. (Eds.), Spaces of culture (pp. 14–26). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Sennett, R. (1999b). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Sennett, R. (2003). Respect: The formation of character in an age of inequality. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar

Shchedrovitsky, G. P. (1995). Selected works. Moscow: School of Cultural Politics Publishers (in Russian).Google Scholar

Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C., Kassimir, R., & Syvertsen, A. (2006). Youth activism: An international encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar