What’s wrong with CHAT?

Clay Spinuzzi, clay.spinuzzi@utexas.edu

Part I: Why writing studies embraced CHAT

Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing

instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3),

295–308.

Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of

discourse. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretice-Hall, Inc.

Hairston, M. (1985). Breaking our bonds and reaffirming our

connections. College Composition and

Communication, 36(3), 272–282.

Rhetoric and writing

studies didn’t have...

A paradigmA set of methodologiesA set of methodsA set of research techniques

Faigley, L. (1986). Competing Theories of Process: A Critique

and a Proposal. College English, 48(6), 527-542.

Charney, D. (1998). From logocentrism to ethnocentrism: Historicizing critiques of writing

research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(1),

9–32.

social cognitive

sociocognitive

Part II: Why CHAT was a good fit

1GAT

2GAT3GAT

mediation, internalization, proximal development

activity system, structure of activity

activity networks, contradictions, rules

Part III: CHAT’s methodological problems

3GAT was applied to

design research

And consequently changed in fundamental ways

From research subjects to participants

From individual to collective subjects

From prediction to description (and deliberation)

From individual activities to networked activities

Problem 1: Application

socio

cognitive

Problem 2: Theory

objectobjectobjectobject

Problem 3: Phenomenon

objectobjectobjectobject

Problem 4: Development

objectobject

object

object

object

1GAT2GAT

3GAT

4GAT

Part IV: How can we iterate CHAT?

Solution 1: Apply AT to sociocognitive, not just social, research into writing

sociocognitive

Solution 2: Rebuild activity theory around dialogism

Solution 3: Understand the object(ive) as multiple

objectobjectobjectobject

Solution 4: Theorize interfering cycles of development

Pivot it again