Thanks, a great inspirations! This year I am reading Schutz.
I wrote an article about Goffman two years ago:
Frame Analysis in Context
https://medium.com/call4/frame-a4bfc8dcf19d?sk=8b3f7aaa1bd249da26c8d84a7c4b2499
This is a pretty great insight. It's a promising direction. I have touched a similar topic in 2019 when I wrote a research report about a social action platform. I used G.H. Mead's ideas such as "social act", "social positions", and "perspective taking" to reflect on the design of the platform. An insight I learned from the report is the distinction between "social positions" and "platform positions".
While "Social positions" refers to real social life, the "platform positions" only refers to the small world of a particular platform.
Moreover, I realized that the distinction indicate a knowledge creation opportunity because digital platforms create a new type of social reality, and we can expand or modify tradtioanl social theories to explain and design the new social reality.
This is the cost of adopting theoretical approaches for connecting Theory and Practice.
My strategy is selecting one theoretical approach as the primary approach and adopt their terms. My primary approach is Activity Theory.
Activity Theory has a hierarcy as its uniqueness: operations - actions - activity.
The term of "Object" is a major issue of Activity Theory.
Check out my new website:
Activity Analysis
https://www.activityanalysis.net/
The Hierarchy of Human Activity [Activity Theory]
https://www.activityanalysis.net/the-hierarchy-of-human-activity/
The Concept of Object [Activity Theory]
Here is an article about Engagement Design:
Applying the Engagement Design model
https://medium.com/@nzagalo/applying-the-engagement-design-model-7fdef64007b0
Thanks for highlighting this challenge.
