An Extended Framework for Context Modeling

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1206)


This paper proposes an extended framework to describe a context for a human work environment. The framework consists of human and nonhuman elements, their inner states, and the interactions among them, with all these elements physically distributed in time and space. Moreover, it is noted that descriptive, normative, prescriptive, and formative representations of contexts should be distinguished. This enables us to use the proposed framework to describe past and future contexts in a standardized way so that we can share our contextual knowledge and design a context.


Context modeling Working context Experimental design Meso-cognition Macro-cognition 



This work was partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19H02384. We would like to thank Editage ( for English language editing.


  1. 1.
    Mathieu, J.E., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R.: A century of work teams in the journal of applied psychology. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 452–467 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein, G., Ross, K.G., Moon, B.M., Klein, D.E., Hoffman, R.R., Hollnagel, E.: Macrocognition. IEEE Intell. Syst. 18, 81–85 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, T.F., Waterman, M.S.: Identification of common molecular subsequences. J. Mol. Biol. 147, 195–197 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanno, T., Inoue, S., Karikawa, D., Chao, D.: Modeling framework of team contexts for the design of laboratory experiments and team training. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 155–161. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nardi, B.A.: Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In: Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 69–102. MIT Press (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leont’ev, A.: The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychol. 13(2), 4–33 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lave, J.: Cognition in Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moran, S., Nakata, K., Inoue, S.: Bridging the analytical gap between distributed cognition and actor network theory using a tool for information trajectory analysis. In: ACM International Conference on Proceeding Series, pp. 72–77 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., Kirsh, D.: Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 7, 174–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latour, B.: The powers of association. Sociol. Rev. 32(1_suppl), 264–280 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shepherd, A.: Hierarchical Task Analysis. Taylor and Francis, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hollenbeck, J.R., Beersma, B., Schouten, M.E.: Beyond team types and taxonomies: a dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Acad. Manag. Rev. 37, 82–106 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzale-Mulé, E., S. Cockburn, B., W. McCormick, B., Zhao, P.: Team tenure and team performance: a meta-analysis and process model. Pers. Psychol. 73, 1–48 (2019)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitsuhashi, D., Kanno, T., Inoue, S., Karikawa, D., Nonose, K., Furuta, K.: Prescriptive and descriptive similarity of team contexts. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 185–193. Springer, Cham (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of TokyoBunkyo-kuJapan
  2. 2.Electronic Navigation Research InstituteChofuJapan
  3. 3.Tohoku UniversitySendaiJapan
  4. 4.Central Research Institute of Electric Power IndustryYokosuka-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations