Mapping Thematic Spaces #1: OS Card and Mapping Clues
Introducing OS Card for the Objective — Subjective Knowledge Curation
The previous article introduced the notion of Thematic Spaces and a canvas for understanding its structure and dynamics. I consider the notion as a newest concept for Curativity Theory and a practical instrument for Developing Tacit Knowledge.
Today I designed the above OS Card for Objective — Subjective Knowledge Curation. The name “OS” stands for Objective — Subjective.
My notion of Thematic Spaces is for building Personal Epistemological Frameworks and personal epistemic development in order to support the long term development of thoughts and knowledge curation/creation.
This article will use my own “Activity” thematic space as an example to discuss Mapping Thematic Spaces.
The Canvas of Thematic Spaces
As discussed in the previous article, I consider two subspaces for a Thematic Space: inner space and outer space. We can adopt the metaphor of City to understand these two sub-spaces. While a city is a whole, we can clearly identify its inner space and its outer space. For Developing Tacit Knowledge, the inner space is all about personal knowing activities while the outer space is related to social interactions and public knowledge.
There are eight dimensions of mapping between outer space and inner space:
- Approaches — Tastes
- Concepts — Notions
- Events — Projects
- Domains — Works
- Perspectives — Views
- Frameworks — Insights
- Methods — Guides
- Heuristics — Skills
The above OS Card is designed as a tool for mapping thematic spaces. Each OS Card only records one mapping clue. The picture below is an example of a mapping clue.
A mapping clue is a connection between a fact inside the outer space and a fact inside the inner space. The connection could be strong or weak. The above example “Object — Objective/Object” is a really strong connection.
An Example of Mapping Clues
The concept of “Object” is the foundational concept of Activity Theory. According to the founder of Activity Theory A. N. Leontiev, “Separate concrete types of activity may differ among themselves according to various characteristics: according to their form, according to the methods of carrying them out, according to their emotional intensity, according to their time and space requirements, according to their physiological mechanisms, etc. The main thing that distinguishes one activity from another, however, is the difference of their objects. It is exactly the object of an activity that gives it a determined direction.” (1978, p.98)
So, what’s the object of activity?
The answer from Leontiev is the motive of activity. Leontiev claimed, “According to the terminology I have proposed, the object of an activity is its true motive. It is understood that the motive may be either material or ideal, either present in perception or exclusively in the imagination or in thought. The main thing is that behind activity there should always be a need, that it should always answer one need or another.” He also added a note about the term motive, “Such restricted understanding of motive as that object (material or ideal) that evokes and directs activity toward itself differs from the generally accepted understanding”.(1978, p.98)
The Object-orientedness principle is similar to other theories’ terms such as “needs”, “intentionality” or “intention”. According to Kaptelinin and Nardi (2012), “…all human activities are directed toward their objects and differentiated from one another by their respective objects. Objects motivate and direct activities, around them activities are coordinated, and in them activities are crystallized when the activities are complete.” (p.29)
However, the concept of Object has a different meaning in the Activity System Model which was developed by Yrjö Engeström with the above triangle diagram. According to Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006), “For Leontiev, the object (predmet) of activity is an object of activities carried out by individuals, either collectively or individually, and is related to motivation. For Engeström, the object, introduced through the ‘subject — object’ distinction — that is, as objekt — is the object of collective activities. The object is defined as ‘the raw material’ or ‘problem space’ at which the activity is directed and which is molded and transformed into outcome…’ ” (2006, p.142–143)
Here we face two issues. The first one is the language issue. According to Kaptelinin and Nardi (2012), “In Russian there are two words with similar but distinct meanings: objekt and predmet. Both refer to objectively existing entities, but the notion of predmet typically also implies a relevance of the entity in question to certain human purposes or interests…Leontiev deliberately referred to the object of activity as predmet rather than object. However, this distinction is usually lost in English translation since both words are translated as ‘object.’ ” (p.29) The second one is the theoretical issue. Leontive and Engeström offer two theoretical accounts about human activities. One is about psychology while the other is about organizational change.
As organizational scholar Frank Blacker (2009) claimed, “For newcomers to activity theory, the notion of the object of activity is unfamiliar and may not be easy to understand. Indeed, the term is complex; objects of activity need to be understood as simultaneously given, socially constructed, contested, and emergent.” He also pointed out, “The complexity of the term should not be thought of as a shortcoming of activity theory, however. Rather, it both reflects and reveals the complexity of human activity. ”
Some North American scholars use a special format to use the concept of objective: object(ive). For example, David Russell use the following sentences to describe Activity Theory in a paper titled Activity Theory and Its Implications for Writing Instruction, “I use the term object(ive) because it refers not only to persons or objects in a passive state (what is acted on) but also to the goal of an intentional activity, an objective, although the objective may be envisioned differently by different participants in the activity system.”
In the past several months, I worked on a project called iART framework which led to a new framework called Anticipatory Activity System. The core of these two frameworks is the diagram below:
The iART framework focuses on “Self, Other, Present, Future” which considers the Complexity of Anticipation of Performance with a Shared Activity. For example, an investor and a founder share the activity of a startup. In fact, my original inspiration came from an adult life development program which adopted a peer-support approach and OKRs method to build a supportive environment.
I also made the diagram below for concrete discussions. Since the phenomenon is about anticipation, I adopted Robert Rosen’s Anticipatory Systems theory as a theoretical resource for the iART framework.
Eventually, I did a theoretical curation and produced a new framework called Anticipatory Activity System. During the process, I realized that I have to use two concepts for my frameworks.
From the perspective of the iART framework,it’s clear that we have to use two terms because Objective (what is motive about) is about Future while Object (what is acted on) is about Present. Moreover, for the iART framework, Objective is related to Anticipation while Object is related to Performance.
If you want to know more details, you can read the following two articles:
- Activity U (V): Typology of Activities and Other Practical Tools
- D as Diagramming: Strategy as Anticipatory Activity System
The first article offers a typology of activities. The typology is based on the concept of Object. The second article is about the Anticipatory Activity System. You can compare these two ways of using the concept of object, then you can have your own notion about the concept.
Two Mapping Clues for One Dimension
As mentioned above, there eight dimensions of mapping between outer space and inner space:
- Approaches — Tastes
- Concepts — Notions
- Events — Projects
- Domains — Works
- Perspectives — Views
- Frameworks — Insights
- Methods — Guides
- Heuristics — Skills
We can add many mapping clues to one mapping dimension. For example, the pictures below show two mapping clues under the same dimension: “Heuristics — Skills”.
The above right picture is about “The Engeström’s Triangle” and my related work “The Curating Activity System” and this is a story of Misdiagramming.
In April 2018, I reflected on an early project BagTheWeb which is a web content curation tool. I adopted the Activity System model and the idea of “mediated artifact” from Activity Theory to develop a framework for understanding the BagTheWeb project and the Curating activity in general.
The above diagram is the Activity System model which was developed by Finnish educational researcher and Activity Theorist Yrjö Engeström in 1987. A core idea behind the diagram is “mediation.” According to Kaptelinin and Nardi, “The concept of tools does not describe all types of technologies…Can the use of artifacts that are not tools be described as mediation? Currently activity theory is not quite clear on this issue. On the one hand, the notion of mediation in activity theory is clearly not limited to tools. For instance, the activity system model proposed by Engeström (1987) includes three types of mediators. Besides tools (mediating the relationship between the subject and the object) the model also describes rules (mediating the relationship between the subject and the community) and the division of labor (mediating the relationship between the community and the object). In principle, nothing prevents us from considering environments as mediators of human interaction with the world.” (2006, pp.255–256)
The notion of mediation in activity theory and the above diagram inspired me to reflect on the BagTheWeb project. BagTheWeb is a web content curation application that has been in operation since 2010. I am the chief information architect of the project. As a web curation tool, BagTheWeb lets users collect information pieces and store them in an “information container” — a bag, as we call it. Created by a user, a bag has a specific theme that is usually written in its title. A bag has five components including theme (title and description), bagged web content cards (weblinks and embedded content), original notes, related bags, and identity information (author, URL, image icon, created date and modified date, etc).
The above left screenshot shows an early version of the UI design of Bag. I led a redesign project around 2012 and launched a new version in 2013. The new version allows users to write original notes (see the above left screenshot) which supports Markdown format.
While Bagged web content is bagged from the Web, original notes are bagged from the Mind. In order to build a model for describing the BagTheWeb project and the curating activity in general, I selected six elements: Actor, World, Mind, Web, Theme, and Bag.
The above left diagram was modified from the above Activity System model diagram. The original six elements were replaced with Bag-related elements. I wrote an email to my co-workers who are team members of the BagTheWeb project. The sentences below are quoted from my original email:
- First, I add “theme” as the “mediated artifact” between “subject” and “object”.
- Second, I add “web” as the “mediated artifact” between “world” and “theme”.
- Third, I add “bag” as the “mediated artifact” between “actor” and “theme”.
- Fourth, I add “mind” as the middle element between “actor” and “world”. Mind is not a mediated artifact, but a channel for an actor to understand the world.
- Then, I built my own version of Activity System diagram for BagTheWeb. This diagram uses the same visual format of third generation Activity Theory’s diagram which was developed by Yrjö Engeström in 1987, but my version’s content is different from Engestrom’s version.
- Check out this link to know more about the evolution of Activity Theory: https://www.slideshare.net/mpaskevi/activity-theory-presentation-tielab
Based on the diagram for BagTheWeb, I built a general version for all kinds of Curating Activity including talent curation, museum curation, and more. The key step is replacing Bag with Container while replacing Web with Network. See the above right diagram.
The final version created three pair concepts:
- Actor — World
- Container — Network
- Mind — Theme
Also, we can see two group of elements:
- Personal side: Actor — Container — Mind
- Social side: World — Network — Theme
In this way, I built a model called Curating Activity System for discussing the Curating Activity in general by reflecting on my practice of BagTheWeb with theoretical resources from Activity Theory.
I told my coworkers, “Anyway, this is just an academic exercise, it is not related to the business plan writing.” However, I found the Curating Activity System model has its business practical value in the later 2018 when we work on a new project. I just use the model to inspire our product discovery. That was a fantastic experience for me. I realized that this is an example of organizational knowledge creation.
Though I was satisfied with the Curating Activity System model because I built an abstract knowledge that can be used for different products, I realized that I was wrong on understanding the Activity System model and Activity Theory in general.
If you compare the Curating Activity System diagram with the original Activity System model diagram, you will find the same visual layout. But, my conceptualization is a totally different thing. My six elements don’t correspond to the Activity System model’s six elements. Moreover, I didn’t realize that I work on developing a model for individual curating activity, and the Activity System model is for studying collective activities.
Thus, I coined the term Misdiagramming to encourage myself to remember this mistake. Though the final result of the Curating Activity System was fine, the process indicated that I didn’t precisely understand the Activity System model and Activity Theory. I was tricked by my own visual preference because visual layout is easy to adopt while conceptual structure is hard to learn.
The above picture shows the other mapping clue “The Activity Checklist” and my work “The Means — End Spectrum” which was published on Nov 29, 2021.
Researchers have been adopting Activity Theory as a descriptional and orientational framework for analysis and evaluation in a variety of empirical studies. Some researchers also developed practical tools for connecting Activity Theory and empirical studies, for example, the Activity Checklist (Kaptelinin, Nardi, and Macaulay 1999).
According to Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006), there are five basic principles of Activity Theory:
- Object-orientedness
- Tool mediation
- Internalization — externalization
- Hierarchical structure of activity, and
- Development
The Activity Checklist applies the principle of tool mediation with other principles and develops four sections of checklist in order to design and evaluate technologies and tools.
- Means and ends: the extent to which the technology facilitates and constrains attaining users’ goals.
- Environment: the integration of target technology with other tools and resources.
- Learning, cognition, and articulation: internal versus external components of activity and support of their mutual transformations.
- Development: the transformation of components over time.
The Activity Checklist is developed for HCI (Human-computer interaction) researchers and designers. In Nov 2021, I indirectly applied it to discuss diagramming.
Inspired by the Activity Checklist, I adopt the Mediating Instrument perspective to discuss the diagramming practice and highlight four essential issues for present discussion.
The above diagram shows four issues. Some issues are inspired by Activity Theory, other issues are defined by the “Diagram — Thought” curating practice. For the Means v.s. End issue, I developed the Means — End Spectrum in order to present various instrumental values of diagrams.
You can find more details from a previous article here. Though the spectrum is about diagramming, I applied it to discuss other topics in Dec 2021.
In 2017, I was still a novice and had no experience on applying my knowledge about Activity Theory to real projects. In 2021, I was pretty sure that I can correctly do such things. This is a sample of developing tacit knowledge through building thematic spaces.
The Web of Mapping Clues
A thematic space is a large cognitive container which could contain many mapping clues with several years of development. Each mapping clue refers to a real experience of our life.
I’d like to emphasize that the landscape of a thematic space is a mess web which is formed by many intertwined mapping clues. The canvas of Thematic Space is an instrument for understanding and intervening, the notion of eight dimensions is an instrument too. One mapping clue under a dimension could link to other mapping clues under other dimensions.
I will share a real example of the web of mapping clues in the next article.
You are most welcome to connect via the following social platforms:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverding
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oliverding
Polywork: https://www.polywork.com/oliverding
Boardle: https://www.boardle.io/users/oliver-ding
License
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License. Please click on the link for details.
