D as Diagramming: Knowledge Building and Academic Creativity

Published in

CALL4

11 min readSep 23, 2021

Diagramming for Academic Creativity

The previous article D as Diagramming: The NEST Way and Knowledge Frameworks talks about meta-diagrams and how to develop a knowledge framework with a meta-diagram. The discussion is only about meta-diagram and concept development.

Today I’d like to expand the discussion to its context: academic creativity. In this manner, we can consider concept development and knowledge framework development as parts of the academic knowledge building activity.

1. A Framework for Knowledge Heroes
2. Diagramming for Knowledge Building
3. Phase 1: Curating for Understanding
4. Phase 2: Creating for Sensemaking
5. Phase 3: Improving for Communicating
6. More about Academic Creativity

1. A Framework for Knowledge Heroes

Last year, I developed a framework called HERO U for knowledge heroes. I used the framework to guide my own knowledge curation projects. For example, the Activity U project.

The HERO U framework uses the diagram below to display six types of “objective of knowing”.

mTheory: Meta-theory
sTheory: Specific Theory
aModel: Abstract Model
cModel: Concrete Model
dPractice: Domain Practice
gPractice: General Practice

The other half of the framework is Personal Conditions of Knowing which suggests seven elements: Domain, Resource, Tools, Method, Problem, Diagram, and Concept.

The above left diagram is the complete HERO U framework. The seven red balls refers to Personal Conditions of Knowing. The first group are Domain, Resource and Tools, they define the outside setting of the knowing activity. The second group are Method and Problem, they define the source of competence and solution. The third group are Diagram and Concept, they define the represent format of outcome of knowing. These three groups form a process of knowing.

The above right diagram is a canvas version of the seven elements. I used this canvas to visualize Yrjö Engeström’s thoughts of the process of developing the Activity System model. In order to develop a mode about learning in the work setting, Engeström decided to develop a mode about “learning activity”. In order to understand the “learning activity”, he chose to trace back to two lines. One line is about “activity” while another line is about “learning”. During the process, he had to develop a collective level version of “activity theory” for his research. This process is clearly displayed in the Chapter 2 of Learning by Expanding is An Activity-theoretical Approach to Developmental Research.

2. Diagramming for Knowledge Building

What I learned from Engeström’ work is that we should consider the value of diagrams and diagramming within the whole process of knowledge building activity.

I used two diagrams together to guide my thought about academic creativity and diagramming. The outcome is the diagram below:

The above diagram highlight three phases and three functions of diagramming for academic knowledge building:

Phase 1: Curating for Understanding
Phase 2: Creating for Sensemaking
Phase 3: Improving for Communicating

At different phases, creators act with diagrams for different purposes.

3. Phase 1: Curating for Understanding

At Phase 1, creators tend to curate existing public knowledge from published papers and books. By acting with existing diagrams, creators turn public explicit knowledge into personal tacit knowledge.

Engeström considered the use of graphic models as an important part of his method of theory building. He said, “There are further two specific features of presenting and processing data in this book. The first one is the extensive use of quotations from the theoretical sources discussed and analyzed. The second one is the almost equally extensive use of graphic models.”

In order to find an ideal model of human activity, Engeström adopted the following three lines of theoretical traditions as his resources.

The first one is the theorizing on signs, meanings and knowledge, beginning with Peirce and extending through Ogden and Richards all the way to Popper’s evolutionary epistemology.
The second one is the study of the genesis of intersubjectivity, founded by G. H. Mead and finding continuity in studies of infant communication and language development.
And the third one is the cultural-historical school of psychology, starting with Vygotsky and maturing in Leont’ev.

I have presented three lines with their diagrams in the above picture. I think this is a great inspiration for Engeström. He confirmed, “In all these theories, the concept of mediation, of thirdness or triangularity, is seen as the constitutive feature of human activity. This idea is frequently expressed, developed and applied in the form of graphic models.” (p.62)

However, this is just an inspiration. Engeström didn’t directly jump to his final diagram from this inspiration. In contrast, he adopted another method called genetic analysis for generating the final graphic model.

4. Phase 2: Creating for Sensemaking

At Phase 2, creators work hard for solving theoretical problems and discovering new insights. By creating diagrams, creators turn personal tacit knowledge into personal explicit knowledge.

How many diagrams did Engeström use for chapter 2? The answer is not 1, it is 12. And these 12 diagrams are published within the book. We can imagine that there are more than 12 diagrams in his personal archive.

In the past few years, I have had a keen interest in the intellectual biographies of academic creators. Authors of these biographies often collect private notes and personal letters in order to explore creators’ thought development deeply. I often saw some amazing diagrams from these books.

Darwin’s second attempt to sketch the idea of the irregularly branching tree of nature. (Darwin on Man, by Howard E. Gruber, p.143)

For example, the above picture is Darwin’s second attempt to sketch the idea of the irregularly branching tree of nature. I saw this diagram in Howard E. Gruber’s 1974 book Darwin on Man. Let me quote what Gruber described about Darwin’s thought behind the diagram.

Soon he realizes that the coupling of monadism and the branching model requires the simultaneous extinction of many related species, not as an occasional event but as a regularly recurring phenomenon. The evidence patently does not support this deduction. (B 35) But he does not immediately abandon either idea. Instead, he goes on to develop the branching model with much greater precision and detail, stresses the point that conserving the numbers of species requires extinction, and explores in a quasi-mathematical form the amount of divergence that the branching model can permit him to imagine.
He redraws his sketch of a tree; where the first two sketches were rough, mainly intended to show the idea of a dead base and consequent discontinuities, the second sketch is cleanly drawn and more abstract, with a definite symbol used to distinguish between extinct and living forms, so that the number of each is actually countable.
Almost immediately Darwin reformulates the branching model in terms of human survival and descent, as though the ordinary form of a genealogical family tree were inherent in his idea from its conception (B 40–41) in this early treatment of the subject, the idea of selective survival in order to keep the number of species constant is clearly stated. But at this time he applies the idea only to extinction, not to the production of new species. (Darwin on Man, p.143–144)

Such sketches and diagrams are private tools for sensemaking. Creators rely on these tools to turn their ideas (personal tacit knowledge) into unshared drafts and notes (personal explicit knowledge). Sometimes, new ideas are born from the process of diagramming.

5. Phase 3: Improving for Communicating

At Phase 3, creators tend to share the personal explicit knowledge with friends or the community and expect feedback from others. The focus of knowledge building activity moves from sensemaking to communicating in order to produce the final outcome such as published papers or books.

For Phase 3, diagrams become containers of knowledge and a mediation of communication. Creators work on improving the knowledge product with and revise diagrams. This process means the transformation from personal explicit knowledge into public explicit knowledge.

Engeström considered graphic models as both representation and instrument which invites readers to build their own version of diagram. He said, “My extensive use of graphic models serves a twofold purpose. For the first thing, it aims at making the central categories found transparent and compact. This is the representation function of the models. But I use the graphic models in a series of successive variations, not just as singular representations. The series of successive variations serve the instrumental or processual function of the models. With the help of such variations, I try to demonstrate how the models can depict movement and change. The reader is invited to formulate and test his own variations.” (1987, p.47)

A tricky thing of knowledge building is the boundary of Phase 3 in the age of social platforms. Now creators can share their personal explicit knowledge on their personal websites and social media platforms. Knowledge Creators have more feedback channels than ever before. However, when can creators share publicly? What can creators share publicly? These two questions are hard to answer.

6. More about Academic Creativity

The term “Academic Creativity” refers to Creative Actions for knowledge building, especially knowledge framework development.

Last year, I did a rough literature review of creativity research and proposed a new approach called “Process as Product” for creativity studies. I pointed out that there are two critical theoretical issues of creativity research. First, we need a theoretical approach which puts action first and doesn’t consider action as “creating process” of “creative product.” Second, there is a need to develop a new framework which can help us connect individual daily experience of Action-based Creativity at the micro level with dynamic historical development of collective culture at the macro level.

From this new perspective, “Academic Creativity” refers to “Creative Products” and “Creative Life” of knowledge heroes. For example, the Austrian philosopher and social phenomenologist Alfred Schutz is a creative theorist whose work applied phenomenology to sociology. His works are recognized as creative products.

However, his life can be considered a creative life too. Though Schutz had a very short teaching career at the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research, he was not a formal scholar who has a job in a research university during most time of his intellectual career. We can say that he was an extremely excellent independent researcher.

According to Helmut R. Wagner who is the author of Alfred Schutz: An Intellectual Biography, “In organizing his time, Schutz gave priority to four sets of relevant interests. Each of them belonged to a different area of concern, each had its own primary relevance, and each formed a relatively self-contained sphere of life. ” Schutz’s four life spheres are family life, business activities, theoretical-philosophical activities, and music.

Schutz’s life is a creative life of intellectuals. I’d like to point out that there are many kinds of creative lives. For example, Steve Jobs, Neil Alden Armstrong, Martin Luther King, and Malala Yousafzai. Moreover, we should notice that there are many creative lives that are not “Big-C” such as famous figures. Scholars have offered us a 4C model of creativity.

Big-C: famous creative achievements such as music, paints, inventions, theories, etc.
little-c: creative behavior in everyday life. For example, making waffle art, using cardboard boxes for sliding, decorating a place for a birthday party, etc.
Mini-c: the novel and personally meaningful interpretation of experience, actions, and events.
Pro-c: “amateur” creators and professional creators who are successful, but have not reached a level of prominence as eminent creators achieved.

The Four C model of Creativity (Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009)

The Four C model is not a simple typology of creativity. Instead, Beghetto and Kaufman offered a framework for conceptualizing and classifying various levels of creative expression and pointed to potential paths of creative maturation. The above diagram presents detailed relations between different development levels. Beghetto and Kaufman described a creative landscape of daily life: “As part of this process of enjoying creativity in everyday life, the creator may stumble upon the domain that he or she feels an initial pull of passion. With years of acquired expertise and advanced schooling, the creator may move onto the stage of Pro-c. Although he or she will still have mini-c insights, the creator has now achieved professional-level status and is capable of working on problems, projects, and ideas that affect the field as a whole. The creator may continue to create at the Pro-c level throughout her or his entire life, with specific peaks occurring at different ages based on the domain. After many years have come and gone, the creator may achieve a lasting Big-C contribution to a field or the creator may have passed away, and history will make the final judgement as to whether he or she has entered the pantheon of Big-C or is long-forgotten.”

From the perspective of “Academic Creativity”, we can pay attention to Pro-c and Big-C. Moreover, we have to encourage formal apprenticeship and informal apprenticeship and build a community of academic creativity for knowledge heroes which include professors, teachers, researchers at universities and other higher education institution, and independent researchers who work outside of academia.

In order to explain the Action-based Creativity, I developed the following framework to connect individual daily experience at micro level and collective culture at the macro level. I call it the N.I.C.E. framework. N stands for normal actions, I stands for Imagined actions, C stands for creative actions, and E stands for exemplary actions.

I also identified four types of transformation processes within Action-based creativity.

Variate: from normal actions to creative actions
Inspire: from normal actions to imagined actions
Actualize: from imagined actions to creative actions
Curate: from creative actions to exemplary actions

I have provided details about these four types of processes. You can read the original article here. Now we can consider them as four strategies of “Academic Creativity” and apply them to diagramming, concept development, knowledge framework development, knowledge community building, etc.

You are most welcome to connect via the following social platforms:

Polywork: https://www.polywork.com/oliverding
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oliverding
Boardle: https://www.boardle.io/users/oliver-ding
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverding