Objects in the Writing Center

In “Losing by Expanding: Corralling the Runaway Object,” author Clay Spinuzzi analyzes how a sample of papers reflects third-generation activity theory (3GAT), which he states identifies “an object, a material or problem that is cyclically transformed by collective activity” (449). This object is the center of the analysis. Spinuzzi provides a few examples of such objects, such as iron for a blacksmith and the field for a farmer (453), which are easily identified because of their direct relationships to these “identifiable people.” However, in a world that is constantly changing and forging connections amongst people whose activities utilize less tangible objects than those previously mentioned, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand exactly what objects with which we are dealing in any given analysis. When reading the sample papers, Spinuzzi found that some authors presented an unclear relationship between their activities and objects, while a few could not even accurately identify the object. Only one found a way to connect the object to the activity. 

This ambiguity helps to show how much the object has expanded over the years. While many were (and some still are) concrete, most are now abstract. Many involve activity networks that share numerous different people, activities, locations and objectives. Activities Spunizzi calls “knowledge work” uses objects that are more abstract and multiperspectival than material (464). I tend to think of knowledge work as the substance of white-collar jobs, such as medical knowledge for a doctor or legal law for a lawyer. In the example of a lawyer, he or she is just one player in the activity network of a legal case. The defendant, plaintiff, judge, jury, other lawyer, and countless others are involved. Some have similar goals, such as winning the case, but people have different reasons for doing so. The lawyer wants to win in order to get more money and a good reputation, while his or her client wants to win because personal matters are at stake. 

Spinuzzi suggests that we analyze more studies based in activity theory so that we may limit the object. His methodological approach includes working to bound the case, identify the text used within the boundaries we have made, identify outcomes, re-bound the case, and then describe the activity. Too often do people try to expand the object. This approach is complicated because too many factors get involved, and the object takes on a mind of its own. If we narrow down the object instead, in a way we are simplifying the process and breaking down all the parts that go along with it.

This article reminded me of my work in the Writing Center. Oftentimes, students come in looking for help organizing their papers and making sure they provide enough support for their arguments. When I ask them what exactly their arguments are, many provide a long verbal explanation that seems pretty complicated, rather than pointing to their thesis. I see the object Spinuzzi talks about as the thesis in a common academic paper. The thesis is the true heart of the matter in the paper, much like how an object is the heart of the activity. When students cannot accurately point out their theses and provide specific arguments, I find that their papers have less direction than those that do have strong arguments. After working with them on narrowing down their subjects they want to write about, they usually have a clearer idea of what their paper is trying to prove.