Open in app

Sign in

Write

Sign in

Mastodon

Mapping Strategic Moves #7: Public Square, Meet with Others, and Settings

Oliver Ding
CALL4
Published in
30 min read1 day ago

--

Using the House of Project Engagement as a Strategic Map

This is part of the series of Mapping Strategic Moves.

The previous articles explored my four creative journeys from 2019 to 2024, using the House of Project Engagement as a strategic map. In Article #5, I return to the Map to examine three thematic rooms in more detail.

Today, I will focus on the thematic rooms of “Public Square,” “Meet with Other,” and “Settings.”

In addition, this article will discuss the theme of Finding Relevant Meaning by introducing three knowledge frameworks as Models.

Contents

1. Social Landscape: The House of Project Engagement

1.1 Thematic Room: Boundary, Symbol, and Key Term
1.2 The “Public Square” Thematic Room
1.3 The “Meet with Others” Thematic Room
1.4 The “Settings” Thematic Room

2. Finding Relevant Meaning

2.1 Two people working together
2.2 Collaborative Project Engagement
2.3 Slow Talk
2.4 Three Models

3. A Typology of Relevance

3.1 Alfred Schutz on Relevance
3.2 A Typology of Relevance

4. The Activity Circle Model

4.1 Relevance and Diagramming
4.2 Art as Activity
4.3 The Thematic Zones of Knowledge Engagement
4.4 The Knowledge Circle Framework

5. The SET Framework

5.1 Seven Basic Concepts
5.2 SET for Digital Platform Research
5.3 Zone of Penetration

6. The “Public Square — Meet with Others — Settings” Path

1. Social Landscape: The House of Project Engagement

In May, I developed version 3.0 of the Project Engagement approach. While version 1.0 focused on the Developmental Project Model, version 3.0 expanded on this by curating a range of knowledge frameworks to explore project-oriented social ecology.

This is a comprehensive theoretical toolkit, as illustrated in the diagram below.

The diagram consists of two key components:

  • The top section represents a Map.
  • The bottom section showcases several knowledge frameworks.

Between May and June, I collaborated with friends to test this theoretical toolkit in various fields, including higher education teaching, life narrative practices, and youth developmental discovery.

To support a friend’s workshop in June, I simplified the Project Engagement approach (v3.0) by selecting only its Map component. This led to the creation of the House of Project Engagement.

Designed as a Map, the House of Project Engagement uses a “Museum” metaphor to represent space. The House is organized into 12 thematic rooms, each representing a distinct type of social landscape. Together, these rooms depict the following themes:

  • Before
  • Role Models
  • Ideas
  • Possible Project
  • Meet with Others
  • Actual Project
  • Settings
  • Supportive Platform
  • Public Square
  • Network of Project
  • Conflict
  • After

In the last article, I discussed three thematic rooms: Before, Role Models, and After. This time, I will concentrate on Public Square, Meet with Others, and Settings.

1.1 Thematic Room: Boundary, Symbol, and Key Term

Each thematic room is constructed around three key elements: Boundary, Symbol, and Key Term.

The seed of this idea is the sign of Creative Life Theory, illustrated below.

The above image was designed with three components: a square, a circle, and a sandglass. Each of these elements represents a key aspect of the Creative Life Theory.

The Square is used to design 12 thematic rooms for the House of Project Engagement. To reflect additional aspects of human life and the social landscape, I introduced various symbols inspired by the Developmental Project Model diagram.

As a Map for strategic narratives and life narrative practices, I use simple words as Key Terms to highlight the uniqueness of each thematic room. There are no strict rules for interpreting these key terms; they are meant to trigger recall, association, and discussion.

1.2 The “Public Square” Thematic Room

The key term Public Square refers to public spaces, both physical and virtual, where individuals — often strangers — engage in social interactions. These spaces, such as parks, social media, and forums, serve as arenas for exchanging ideas, building connections, and shaping public discourse.

In the House of Project Engagement, the Public Square symbolizes an open space for dialogue and the sharing of diverse perspectives.

The above picture presents relevant data from the previous four case studies.

A10

As an active LinkedIn user, I frequently engaged in discussions and built meaningful connections. One day, I realized that each LinkedIn post serves as a public square where strangers meet and exchange ideas.

B13

In May 2024, while following discussions among professionals on LinkedIn, I developed a framework called Public Square.

C4

From 2017 to 2018, I studied social practice theory and learned about different approaches within the field. For example, Theodore R. Schatzki’s work on developing a Wittgensteinian approach to human activity greatly influenced my thinking.

C10

In 2022, I connected with a group of professionals on LinkedIn, many of whom became close friends. Their encouragement motivated me to push forward with the Slow Cognition Project.

D5

While working on the Activity U project, I discovered that Activity Theory is not one theory, but a group of theories, sharing a set of fundamental principles. My writing featured notable Activity Theorists as knowledge heroes, each uniquely engaging with the theoretical tradition, offering insights into how they found their knowledge niches in a competitive field.

D8

In April 2021, my friends organized a two-month online discussion program about The Whole Earth Catalog (W.E.C.). I was invited as a guest and researcher, contributing to discussions across Milanote, WeChat, and various video platforms.

The items listed above illustrate the diversity within the theme of the Public Square:

  • A10=B13=C10, Linkedin, digital face-to-face interaction, single platform
  • C4, An academic field, without direct interaction
  • D5, An academic field, with direct interaction
  • D8, A social learning program, digital fact-to-face interaction, cross-platform

As noted earlier, “…There are no strict rules for interpreting these key terms; they are meant to trigger recall, association, and discussion.”

Feel free to interpret these terms loosely, as they serve primarily as a backdrop for mapping your journey.

1.3 The “Meet with Others” Thematic Room

The key term Meet with Others refers to encounters with Significant Others in social life, focusing on meaningful interpersonal interactions that shape our relationships and social experiences.

At a more abstract level, it relates to Intersubjectivity, the shared understanding and mutual awareness that arise during communication, enabling deeper connections and collective meaning-making.

The above picture presents relevant data from the previous four case studies.

A5

In April 2022, I contacted theoretical sociologist Ping-keung Lui and began studying his theoretical sociology.

B8

While working on the Activity U project, I discovered Clay Spinuzzi’s blog and Andy Blunden’s books on Activity Theory, which deepened my understanding of the field.

C8

In December 2021, I began exploring Peter Gärdenfors’ theory of Conceptual Spaces. Although I initially adopted his ideas, I eventually realized they didn’t fully align with my thinking. I then coined the term “Thematic Space” to represent my own approach.

C15

In April 2022, I contacted Mr. Ping-keung Lui, a theoretical sociologist, who encouraged me to further explore the pair of concepts “Event — Project”. This insight led to a bold theoretical statement in Project Engagement (v2.1): Life = Projects = Thematic Spaces = Events = History. This statement set the direction for my creative journey in 2023.

D12

During the D as Diagramming project, I connected with creative professionals on LinkedIn who created knowledge diagrams and canvases, which inspired my work.

D15

From January to June 2022, I worked on a network of projects centered around the Life-as-Project approach. During this time, I connected with professionals on Linkedin. While my focus was on individual tacit knowledge, personal innovation, and adult development, many of these professionals encouraged me to explore broader social contexts, such as innovation ecosystems.

The word “Meet” is used metaphorically in the theme of “Meet with Others.”

In the examples above, I consider both “with direct interaction” and “without direct interaction” as forms of Meetings. Furthermore, “Others” may refer to living people or historical figures.

In 2020, while reflecting on my experience of reading Erving Goffman’s Frame Analysis, I highlighted the challenge of understanding interactions between people and historical figures. I view this as a form of Quasi-social Interaction — though historical figures are people, they cannot respond to us. For more on this, see Frame Analysis in Context.

1.4 The “Settings” Thematic Room

The key term Settings refers to the environments where individuals act, including both physical spaces and the tools or objects they use. These settings shape behavior by providing context and influencing how people interact with their surroundings and each other.

In the House of Project Engagement, Settings represent the backdrop that frames social actions and collaborations.

The above picture presents relevant data from the previous four case studies.

A7

I maintained regular communication with Mr. Lui, learning from his theoretical ideas and using his creative life as an example of Slow Cognition. Eventually, this exchange became a setting of my routine from April 2022 to April 2023.

B6

In 2019, I began blogging on Medium.com, writing articles on Action-based Creativity and other related topics.

C17

In the second half of 2022, I transitioned my primary writing platform from Medium.com to the Activity Analysis Site due to changes in Medium’s features. My work often requires diagrams in full-width display, a feature Medium had removed.

D10

In March 2021, I completed Platform for Development: The Ecology of Adult Development in the 21st Century and introduced the concept of Supportance. To test this framework, I conducted empirical research on virtual whiteboards, resulting in the Once Upon A Whiteboard project in April 2022.

D22

In Jan 2023, I launched Thematic Analysis Learning Engagement (TALE) as a new knowledge center to host the Thematic Engagement framework. Initially, the primary activity of TALE was creating thematic cards to encourage creative projects. Later, it became a creative accelerator, inspiring knowledge projects around Early Discovery and Concept Development.

B6, C17, and D10 are clearly digital platforms and are easily understood as Settings.

However, why did I also consider A7 and D22 as Settings?

The term Settings is inspired by Ecological Psychologist Roger Barker’s Behavior Settings Theory, which integrates human behavior patterns with physical places.

In the House of Project Engagement, the Settings thematic room covers not only pure physical environments but also settings of routine and organizational contexts.

2. Finding Relevant Meaning

By integrating the themes of Public Square, Meet with Others, and Settings, we can outline a foundational pathway for developing collaboration, which is inherently tied to relationship-building, communication, and trust.

The process begins with meeting strangers in public spaces, followed by building trust through ongoing communication and meaningful interactions. Finally, collaborative projects take shape within the defined settings that frame and guide them.

To deepen the understanding of interpersonal interactions and collaborative project engagement, I developed the ARCH framework — a visual language designed to curate relevant knowledge frameworks. It has now become a key component of the Project Engagement approach (v3.1).

2.1 Two People Working Together

In January 2021, I drafted a book titled Project-oriented Activity Theory, where I introduced Andy Blunden’s approach to “An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity”.

Blunden develops the concept of Project as a unit of Activity as the foundation for his interdisciplinary theory. Drawing on Hegel’s logic and Vygotsky’s theories on the Unit of Analysis and Concept, Blunden documents this process across four key works:

  • An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010)
  • Concepts: A Critical Approach (2012)
  • Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study (2014)
  • Hegel for Social Movements (2019)

Blunden also gives an archetypal unit of a project in his 2010 book:

“Two people working together on a common project”

Source: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010, p.315)

He explains, “The rich context of the notion of collaboration also brings to light more complex relationships. The notions of hierarchy, command, division of labor, cooperation, exchange, service, attribution, exploitation, dependence, solidarity, and more can all be studied in the context of just two individuals working together on a common project. And yet almost all the mysteries of social science as well as a good part of psychology are contained in this archetypal unit: two people working together in a common project.” (2010, p.315)

How do two people work together on a common project?

How does it happen?

Exploring this question inspired me to develop the ARCH framework.

2.2 Collaborative Project Engagement

The notion of Collaborative Project Engagement was developed to answer this question. Later, it led to a five-stage model and a series of diagrams for curating knowledge frameworks.

The first stage is Stay Together with a Shared Place and its keyword is Openness.

The second stage is See Together with a Shared View and its keyword is Opportunity.

The third stage is Think Together with a Shared Theme and its keyword is Relevance.

The fourth stage is Work Together with a Shared Object and its keyword is Activity.

The fifth stage is Change Together with a Shared Impact and its keyword is Achievement.

I envision the ARCH Framework as a new visual language for discussing interpersonal interactions and intersubjective design. In the Collaborative Project Engagement Toolkit, I utilize this five-stage schema to curate several frameworks. Additionally, for broader topics related to interpersonal interactions and intersubjectivity, we can apply other schemas as meta-frameworks. For further details, see ARCH: A Visual Language of Interpersonal Interactions and Collaborative Project Engagement.

2.3 Slow Talk

Conversely, activities within the Public Square can sometimes lead to controversy rather than collaboration. In 2022, I observed a recurring pattern in many discussions on LinkedIn, which often revolve around theme-centered conversations or controversies. To address this, I selected two knowledge frameworks to construct the Thematic Controversy framework.

In January 2023, the ARCH framework and the Thematic Controversy framework converged to create the Slow Talk framework. Some models are represented in the following diagrams.

For more details, see How to develop a framework for a possible theme called “Slow Talk”?.

2.4 Three Models

The path of Public Square — Meet with Others — Settings encapsulates a key theme: Finding Relevant Meaning. This theme encompasses both controversy and collaboration.

How do we navigate the complexity and dynamics underlying this theme?

To explore this, I selected three knowledge frameworks as the Models for the Mapping Strategic Moves method.

  • A Typology of Relevance
  • The Activity Circle Model
  • The SET Framework

In the following sections, I will introduce the Typology of Relevance to understand interpersonal relationships as the starting point, followed by the Activity Circle, which explains the “Self, Other, Thing, Think” structure. Finally, the SET framework will be used to examine both situational and collective environments.

3. A Typology of Relevance

The concept of Relevance can be understood and used in numerous ways from an interdisciplinary tradition. However, there is an essential notion behind Relevance, it is a relational concept that is about a state between two entities and is influenced by specific contexts such as time and space.

Both scholars and consultants have shown a keen interest in Relevance , recognizing it as a key idea for researching intersubjectivity, communication, information, marketing, and culture. For instance, the phenomenological sociological theorist Alfred Schutz developed a systemic theory of relevance within a phenomenological framework, focusing on subjective experience and the lifeworld. Schutz’s relevance theory has inspired many later works on relevance in information science and other fields.

3.1 Alfred Schutz on Relevance

The problem of relevance is an important issue of Alfred Schutz’s intellectual enterprise. In his early writings, Schutz made a distinction between imposed relevance and volitional (or “intrinsic”) relevance. In the final years of his life, he proposed a new typology of relevances:

  • Motivational relevance
  • Thematic relevance
  • Interpretational relevance

Motivational relevance refers to the “meaningful ground” of human behavior. It is governed by a person’s interest, prevailing at a particular time in a specific situation. Schutz identified two types of motives: “in-order-to-motives,” which relate to future intentions, and “because-from-motives,” which are informed by past experiences.

He noted, “Motive may have a subjective and an objective meaning. Subjectively it refers to the experience of the actor who lives in his ongoing process of activity. To him, motive means what he has actually in view as bestowing meaning upon his ongoing action, and this is always the in-order-to motive, the intention to bring about a projected state of affairs, to attain a pre-conceived goal. As long as the actor lives in his ongoing action, he does not have in view its because motives. Only when the action has been accomplished, when in the suggested terminology it has become an act, he may turn back to his past action as an observer of himself and investigate by what circumstances he has been determined to do what he did” (1970, p.127). In essence, “in-order-to motives” highlight a subjective perspective, while “because-from motives” emphasize an objective perspective.

Thematic relevance is about perceiving something that is problematic in a particular situation. A person must define what the problem is and he must turn from a potential actor into a potential problem solver. Helmut R. Wagner notes, “Schutz designated the relevance of the problem as thematic relevance. Of course, what elements in which situation produce a problem for a specific individual, depends on his pre-given interests. The unknown or problematic in a situation becomes relevant only insofar as it blocks the forming of a definition of the situation in accordance with the person’s present intentions and plans” (1970, p.22).

Interpretational relevance occurs as an extension of thematic relevance. Wagner explains, “The recognition of the problem itself, its formulation as a problem on hand, necessitates further interpretation. A new interpretation, however, can only be accomplished by putting the problem itself in the larger context of the frustrated actor’s knowledge, which, he surmises, has a bearing on the understanding of the problem” (1970, p.23).

Schutz also introduced the Zones of Relevance, which relate to an individual’s existing knowledge for navigating various situations in everyday life:

  • Zone of Primary Relevance
  • Zone of Minor Relevance
  • Zone of Relatively Irrelevant
  • Zone of Absolutely Irrelevant

So far, we have learned Schutz’s relevance theory from an individual perspective. If we want to understand interpersonal relevance, we should consider both Self and Other and put their relevances together.

Schutz further provided a framework addressing the social domains of relevance and typification. He asserted that “A system of relevances and typifications as it exists at any historical moment, is itself a part of the social heritage and as such is handed down in the educational process to the members of the in-group.” The functions of social domains of relevance include (1970, pp.120–121):

  • It determines which facts or events have to be treated as substantially — that, is, typically — equal (homogeneous) for the purpose of solving in a typical manner typical problems that emerge or might emerge in situations typified as being equal (homogeneous).
  • It transforms unique individual actions of unique human beings into typical functions of typical social roles, originating in typical motives aimed at bringing about typical ends.
  • It functions as both a scheme of interpretation and as a scheme of orientation for each member of the in-group and constitutes therewith a universe of discourse among them.
  • The changes of success of human interaction, that is, the establishment of a congruency between the typified scheme used by the actor as a scheme of orientation and by his fellow men as a scheme of interpretation, is enhanced if the scheme of typification is standardized, and the system of pertinent relevances institutionalized. The various means of social control (mores, morals, laws, rules, rituals) serve this purpose.
  • The socially approved system of typifications and relevances is the common field within which the private typifications and relevance structures of the individual members of the group originate. This is so, because the private situation of the individual as defined by him is always a situation within the group, his private interests are interests with reference to those of the group (whether by way of particularization or antagonism), his private problems are necessarily in a context with the group problems.
  • Again, this private system of domains of relevance might be inconsistent in itself; it might also be incompatible with the socially approved one. (1970, pp.120–122)

Two key concepts are crucial for understanding Schutz’s social domains of relevance: scheme of orientation and scheme of interpretation. The concept of orientation refers to an individual’s inclination to become a member of a social group, while interpretation pertains to how others perceive and make sense of that individual’s actions.

In this framework, an individual’s socialization process can be viewed as a journey through different Zones of Relevance associated with others who belong to specific social groups. This perspective resonates with Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger’s notion of Legitimate Peripheral Participation within the contexts of Situated Learning and Communities of Practice. It also connects to Roger Barker’s concept of Zone of Penetration from the perspective of ecological psychology and Behavior Settings theory.

3.2 A Typology of Relevance

Inspired by Szhutz’s relevance theory, I developed a typology of relevance in 2021.

This typology employs four units of analysis:

  • Intrapersonal Relevance: The Other is perceived as potential rather than actual.
  • Interpersonal Relevance: The Other is actual, but the relationship between “Self” and “Other” is not viewed as a whole.
  • Transactional Relevance: The Other is actual, and the relationship between “Self” and “Other” is considered as a whole.
  • Collective Relevance: The Other is seen as pervasive rather than proximal, framing the “Self — Other” relationship as “Self — Group.”

At the core of this framework are three dimensions of the Other:

  • Potential vs. Actual
  • Independent vs. Dependent
  • Proximal vs. Pervasive

In situations where a person does not have direct interaction with actual others, they may reflect on whether their work or actions hold relevance to predecessors or others in general. This scenario exemplifies Intrapersonal Relevance. For instance, while writing this article, I am comparing my typology with Schutz’s. Since he is a predecessor, I cannot engage directly with him. However, the Potential aspect also encompasses contemporaries. There are numerous researchers studying Schutz’s theories today; while I currently lack direct communication with them, such interactions could occur in the future.

Interpersonal Relevance refers to direct interactions aimed at getting feedback from others. Here, the Other is actual, but the “Self — Other” relationship is not considered as a whole, as there is no shared reciprocity of motives. The quality of feedback one receives hinges on its relevance from the Other’s perspective. Applying Schutz’s typology can help clarify this concept. For example, to receive constructive feedback on my work related to the Mapping Strategic Moves project, I must consider my writing style and its appropriateness for my audience. If I share an article on LinkedIn and tag certain contacts, I should evaluate the relevance of those contacts in relation to the content of the article.

Transactional Relevance involves dependent relationships and interactions, where the Other is actual and the “Self — Other” relationship is considered as a whole, characterized by shared reciprocity of motives. In this situation, both the individual and the Others involved share common motives, challenges, and background knowledge. When applying Schutz’s typology of relevance here, it encompasses all three types: Motivational relevance, Thematic relevance, and Interpretational relevance.

Collective Relevance views Others as part of a pervasive group rather than focusing on specific individuals. In this case, the “Self — Other” relationship transitions into a “Self — Group” dynamic, aligning with Schutz’s concept of social domains of relevance.

In 2022, this typology of relevance was curated as a component of the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework.

4. The Activity Circle Model

The Project Engagement approach (v3.1) is grounded in an activity-based perspective, where I emphasize activity, practice, context, and situation as crucial elements for discussing topics and issues. The “Activity Circle” model exemplifies this approach.

My approach to improving communication and enhancing understanding centers around two key concepts: Activity and Relevance.

  • Activity: What are people doing? What tools are they using?
  • Relevance: What is the relationship between these people? What are their motivations and abilities?

Activity Theory introduces the important concept of Mediation, which involves both psychological and technical tools. In the Activity Circle model, I refer to this concept as “Thing,” representing both types of tools.

The Activity Circle model emphasizes the relationships between Self, Other, Thing, and Think, making it ideal for discussing objects with dual properties — both material and mental. This idea is inspired by cultural-historical psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s distinction between two types of mediating tools: technological and psychological.

The Activity Circle model, along with earlier versions, has been applied in several case studies.

4.1 Relevance and Diagramming

In November 2021, I worked on closing phase I of the D as Diagramming project. To develop an integrated framework that summarized the project’s insights, I focused on four themes, one of which was Relevance and Diagramming (see diagram below).

How to read the “Relevance and Diagramming” model?

We can pay attention to two red words:

  • Visualization
  • Conceptualization

The relationship between Self and Diagram highlights Visualization, while the relationship between Self and Thought refers to Conceptualization. Knowledge diagrams, as a specific type of cognitive representation, blend both visualization and conceptualization. This leads to the classical challenge of achieving a seamless Form and Content fit. To create an effective knowledge diagram, one must address three critical questions:

  • How to develop a unique conceptualization?
  • How to develop a unique visualization?
  • How to align visualization with conceptualization?

For further details, see D as Diagramming: An Integrated Framework for Studying Knowledge Diagrams (Part 1).

In this model, the red term Curation represents the relationship between Diagram and Thought because aligning visualization with conceptualization is fundamentally a curatorial process.

The relationship between Self and Other embodies the concept of Relevance. Since “Other” can be defined in four different ways, there are four corresponding types of relevance.

The Other and Diagram relationship pertains to Perception, as diagrams are visual graphics, and perception plays a key role in how others comprehend the meaning of a diagram.

The Other and Thought relationship involves Interpretation, reflecting a dynamic, interactive process between Self and Other. If others do not fully understand the meaning of a diagram, they can seek clarification from the author. Alternatively, they can share the diagram with others, offering their own interpretations.

For more details, see An Integrated Framework for Studying Knowledge Diagrams (Part 2).

4.2 Art as Activity

In November 2021, I collaborated with a startup founder to develop a digital Art Inventory platform. To design a user research plan, I utilized the Activity Circle model to create a Concrete Model for understanding Art Inventory as a Social Practice.

This new model, called Art as Activity, addresses the unique nature of art. In the context of Art Inventory, it’s essential to consider both the content of art (what the artist created) and the form of art (the material object). For example, a painting encompasses both a material aspect (the physical artwork) and a mental aspect (the idea or concept it represents).

The model also emphasizes the importance of Self–Other Relevance, providing a creative space to explore various social roles and relationships surrounding art.

In the Art as Activity model, I identified four key roles, using paintings as an example:

  • Creators: They create paintings.
  • Curators: They acquire paintings to exhibit or sell.
  • Collectors: They purchase paintings for personal use or collection.
  • Commenters: They view and engage with paintings through discussions or critiques.

To represent the interactions between these roles, I introduced the concept of Zones, which signifies long-term social interactions between two actors centered around a particular theme or object. More details about the concept of Zones can be found in Activity U (XI): Process, Position, and Zone of Project.

The three Zones between these roles are:

  • Creator — Curator Zone
  • Curator — Collector Zone
  • Collector — Commenter Zone

To explain the model, I use REMO Jr and his artwork Ballet Dancer CCVII as an example. The first diagram illustrates the interactions within the Creator — Curator Zone.

The second Zone, the Curator — Collector Zone, involves the interactions between curators and collectors. For instance, a gallery curator or a digital platform might invite REMO Jr to exhibit his artworks. A collector could then purchase Ballet Dancer CCVII from the gallery or platform.

The third Zone, the Collector–Commenter Zone, focuses on how collectors and commenters interact. For example, if a collector displays Ballet Dancer CCVII in their home, office, or museum collection, commenters — whether professional critics or friends — might view the painting and share their impressions.

The above diagrams represent a Concrete Model for understanding the social practice of Art as Activity. This model provides a solid foundation for developing a user research project.

4.3 The Thematic Zones of Knowledge Engagement

As previously mentioned, the ARCH framework outlines five stages for understanding the development of interpersonal relationships. The third stage, Think Together, emphasizes Relevance and Themes. The diagram below illustrates this stage.

In November 2023, I coined the term Thematic Zones to describe the interpersonal, interactive spaces at this stage. Drawing from the Knowledge Discovery Canvas, I identified ten Thematic Zones of Knowledge Engagement on November 30, 2023. See the diagram below.

The Knowledge Discovery Canvas defines four thematic areas:

  • THEORY thematic area
  • END thematic space
  • MEANS thematic space
  • PRACTICE thematic space

If two members of a Thematic Zone are from the same thematic area, then the thematic zone is an In-area Thematic Zone.

  • A1: The “THEORY — THEORY” Thematic Zone
  • A2: The “END — END” Thematic Zone
  • A3: The “PRACTICE — PRACTICE” Thematic Zone
  • A4: The “MEANS — MEANS” Thematic Zone

If two members are from different thematic areas, it becomes a Cross-area Thematic Zone. I have identified six cross-area Thematic Zones.

  • Z1: The “THEORY — END” Thematic Zone
  • Z2: The “END — PRACTICE” Thematic Zone
  • Z3: The “THEORY — PRACTICE” Thematic Zone
  • Z4: The “END — MEANS” Thematic Zone
  • Z5: The “THEORY — MEANS” Thematic Zone
  • Z6: The “PRACTICE — MEANS” Thematic Zone

When considering interactions involving three or more members from different thematic areas, additional thematic spaces can be explored. However, so far, I have focused on these ten zones.

From September to November 2023, I collaborated on a project exploring the concept of Mindset. A friend and I engaged in thematic conversations to develop a new theoretical framework for Mindset.

In phase 1, we operated within the Z1 Thematic Zone (“THEORY — END”), resulting in the creation of the Mental Tuning Framework.

In Phase 2, we shifted to the Z4 Thematic Zone (“END — MEANS”), leading to the development of the Mindset Activation Framework.

In Dec 2023, I had a thematic conversation with my friend, Tony, a C-suite executive of a publicly traded company. Recently, he worked on a side project called Likert 7 (LKT7) Project, a ranking system that allows people to rank anything on a 7-point scale. His goal is to help people practice the value of pursuing excellence through this tool.

Our thematic conversation took place in the Z5 Thematic Zone (“THEORY–MEANS”). While I approached the conversation from the THEORY thematic area, Tony came from the MEANS thematic area. See the diagram below.

As an Intervenor, Tony’s primary objective was to develop and promote a simple yet effective heuristic tool without delving into systematic theoretical study.

Our thematic conversation unfolded as follows:

From my perspective, the Likert 7 Project is interesting because it exemplifies the “Core Value–Heuristic Operational Tools” schema. While the Pursuit of Excellence represents a core value, the Likert 7 tool acts as a heuristic operational tool that embodies this value in practice.

I am curious if Tony could apply this schema to other core values.

From Tony’s perspective, he only wants to focus on the development of the Likert 7 tool. My theoretical resources may be valuable in the future, but currently, they do not provide much assistance to his project.

The concept of a Thematic Zone highlights interpersonal social interaction. By linking Thematic Zones with the Knowledge Discovery Canvas, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge-related dialogue in everyday life.

4.4 The Knowledge Circle Framework

In 2023, I developed Creative Life Theory (v2.0), with its core framework known as the Creative Course Framework. See the diagram below.

The diagram above represents the basic structure of the Creative Course Framework. To expand its scope, I integrated it with other models such as the Value Circle and the Anticipatory Activity System. The result is an extended version of the framework. See the diagram below.

The lower portion of the diagram refers to the Knowledge Circle Framework, which was inspired by the Activity Circle model. This framework emerged from a research project focused on Lui’s knowledge center.

To visualize Lui’s knowledge center, I adapted a version of the Activity Circle model.

Since the publication of Gaze, Actions, and the Social World in 2007, Lui has continuously refined his work on Theoretical Sociology. His efforts can be viewed as the ongoing development of a Knowledge Center for building Theoretical Sociology.

From 2012 to 2017, Lui facilitated discussions on his Theoretical Sociology through email and WeChat, hosting a small academic group. After reviewing the archives of these discussions, I used double activity circles to represent the typical interaction patterns within the group.

I later coined the term Knowledge Circle to describe this model. More details about this model can be found in Knowledge Engagement: The Expanded Creative Course Framework.

5. The SET Framework

The SET Framework was initially called the Ecological-Activity Hybrid Approach and was developed between 2017 and 2020 during my work on various projects centered around a new type of social action platform.

Traditionally, Activity Theory uses the “Subject — Mediation — Object” model as the fundamental unit of analysis. This was later expanded in the Activity System model to include “Subject — Mediation — Object — Rules — Community — Division of Labor.” However, I noticed a gap between Activity Theory and the design of intersubjective social systems.

For example, from 2017 to 2018, I worked on a one-to-one video talk product, followed by other projects that utilized Structured Engagement as a design pattern. These projects had several common characteristics:

  • Host: A distinct type of actor responsible for hosting the overall activity.
  • Structured Engagement: Human-to-human interactions following a clearly defined, structured process.
  • Environment: The environment plays an integral role in shaping the design and execution of the activity.

Through these projects, I realized that the Activity System model, widely used in Activity Theory, was not ideal for capturing the dynamics of intersubjective social actions. In 2019, I developed the Ecological-Activity Hybrid Approach by integrating concepts from Activity Theory and Ecological Psychology. In 2020, I renamed this approach SET, which stands for Structured Engagement Theory.

5.1 Seven Basic Concepts

In the SET Framework, I conceptualized the environment as a Double Environment. The primary environment, known as the “Situational Environment,” is shaped by the Host, while the secondary environment, called the “Social Environment,” is formed by the platform, encompassing all users and activities.

The SET framework incorporates several key theoretical concepts from Activity Theory, such as:

  • Activity
  • Mediation

It also draws on ideas from Ecological Psychology, including:

  • Environment
  • Zone of Penetration

Additionally, I developed several original concepts to address the needs of empirical research within the framework:

  • Forms of Activity
  • Hostness
  • Curativity

The name “SET” was inspired by Behavior Settings Theory, one of the foundational approaches within Ecological Psychology.

5.2 SET for Digital Platform Research

In 2021, I applied the SET framework to study digital whiteboard platforms like Miro and Milanote. For this research, I expanded the framework to include three distinct types of environments:

  • Situational Environment: For example, a specific Miro board and related events.
  • Organizational Environment: For example, the team behind the Miro board.
  • Technological Environment: For example, Miro and other related digital platforms.

The concept of “Activity” is borrowed from Activity Theory. In Activity Theory, “Activity” is generally understood as a relationship between the Subject (an actor) and the Object (an entity that objectively exists in the world), mediated by tools, both psychological and material.

To tailor this to my research on Miro and similar platforms, I introduced the working concept of Creative Work Communication Activity (CWCA). In CWCA, the Subject is the team members, and the Object is the creative solution they are developing.

Since Activity Theory does not address the concept of the Environment, I adopted this idea from Ecological Psychology. In the SET framework, I distinguish between two types of environments:

  • Situational Environment: The settings where intersubjective social actions take place.
  • Collective Environment: Larger, non-immediate social contexts or extended environments.

For my research on CWCA, I operationalize the following concepts:

  • Situational Environment: The space where the Host and Subject interact. For example, a specific Miro board for a particular event.
  • Technological Environment: The digital platform itself, such as Miro.
  • Organizational Environment: The team and organization behind the Host.

Activity Theory does not have concepts like Host or Hostness. In 2019, I introduced the term Hostness as part of the SET framework. It is developed as a three-dimensional construct to capture the role and influence of the Host within these environments.

5.3 Zone of Penetration

The SET framework incorporates an essential concept from Roger Barker’s Behavior Settings Theory: the “Zone of Penetration.”

Barker developed a systematic method for analyzing behavior settings, and one key aspect of his approach is the “Zone of Penetration,” which refers to the degree to which different participants interact with and influence various dimensions of a behavior setting. Barker identified seven distinct Zones of Penetration (1989, p. 127–128).

Although the SET framework does not adopt Behavior Settings Theory in its entirety, it draws on the concept of the Zone of Penetration as a useful tool for examining the different environmental layers within structured engagement activities.

6. The “Public Square — Meet with Others — Settings” Path

In this article, we explored three key thematic spaces: Public Square, Meet with Others, and Settings. Together, these spaces form a circular path for Finding Relevant Meaning. This journey addresses core issues related to the micro-social context, including interpersonal interactions, relationships, communication, trust, and the potential for both controversy and collaboration.

To better understand Interpersonal Interactions and Collaborative Project Engagement, I developed the ARCH framework, which serves as a visual language for curating relevant knowledge frameworks. However, activities within the “Public Square” can also lead to controversy rather than collaboration. To address this, I introduced the Thematic Controversy framework in 2022. In 2023, these two frameworks — ARCH and Thematic Controversy — were integrated to create the Slow Talk framework, which now plays a key role in Project Engagement (v3.1).

To further explore the complexity and dynamics involved in Finding Relevant Meaning, I also introduced three additional knowledge frameworks as part of the Mapping Strategic Moves method.

  1. The Typology of Relevance helps to understand interpersonal relationships as the foundation for meaning-making.
  2. The Activity Circle explains the “Self, Other, Thing, Think” structure, focusing on how Activity and Relevance interact, with practical examples.
  3. The SET framework examines interpersonal interactions within both situational and collective environments, providing insight into how context shapes social dynamics.

By integrating these frameworks, the path from Public Square to collaborative settings becomes clearer, providing a comprehensive understanding of how meaning is formed and negotiated in social interactions.

How You Can Support the Strategic Moves Project?

As an independent researcher and creator, my work is driven by curiosity, creativity, and a desire to explore new ideas. Projects like Strategic Moves, as well as others focused on creativity, social cognition, and knowledge engagement, require time, dedication, and resources.

If my work resonates with you and you find value in the ideas I’m exploring, there are several ways you can support it:

  • Visit my Ko-fi page: Your contributions help sustain ongoing research and creative development. Even small donations make a significant impact and enable me to focus on producing high-quality work.

https://ko-fi.com/oliverding

  • Engage with the content: Share my projects with your network or provide feedback. Engagement from a community of like-minded individuals helps spread the word and adds new perspectives to the work.
  • Collaborate: If you’re interested in collaboration, whether through joint projects, research, or workshops, feel free to reach out. Creative synergy can expand the scope and reach of these projects in exciting ways.

Your support, whether financial or in the form of engagement, is invaluable in helping me continue to explore and map creative landscapes, develop new frameworks, and share meaningful insights with the world.

Thank you for being part of this journey!

References

Strategy
Strategic Cognition
Mapping
Strategic Thinking
Strategy Thinking

--

--

Oliver Ding
CALL4

881 Followers
Editor for

Founder of CALL(Creative Action Learning Lab), information architect, knowledge curator.

Help

Status

About

Careers

Press

Blog

Privacy

Terms

Text to speech

Teams