D as Diagramming: Meet with Martin Prechelmacher
A conversation with Martin Prechelmacher and Stephan Kardos
Yesterday I had a wonderful conversation with Martin Prechelmacher and Stephan Kardos on Linkedin. Prechelmacher posted his sketch of the Impact Wheel as a sustainable model for business development. Kardos shared the post, then I joined the conversation.
Prechelmacher allows me to collect the post and conversation as a case for the D as Diagramming project.
The Impact Wheel
Martin Prechelmacher is a digital-first creative entrepreneur, photographer & videographer with 10 years of experience in social media communications, co-creation, digital branding and digital customer experience.
Prechelmacher observed that there is a trend of increasing number of workers being freelancers and he suggested an idea called for-benefit-freelancers, b_lancers.
The picture below is Prechelmacher’s sketch of the Impact Wheel.
Does anyone know of any viable impact models for freelancers that go beyond private carbon-offsetting?
With an increasing number of workers being freelancers, for-benefit corporations won’t be enough. We will need collective action at every level. We will need for-benefit-freelancers, b_lancers.
That’s why I’m trying to make sense of all the models for sustainable (or generational) business and make them actionable for freelancers and (very) small businesses. Because using a comprehensive impact model like the 17 SDGs is simply not viable for most of us.
So I started sketching an impact wheel based on the emotions wheel many of us use in their workshops and the Triple P Bottom Line — profit, planet, people. Something that should be easy to understand, easy to use and fast to implement. But I’m no expert on social and environmental impact so I’d really love to hear your thoughts.
This diagram inspired a great conversation about sustainable business and diagramming.
Actant Mapping Canvas
Stephan Kardos recommended a new tool called Actant Mapping Canvas.
Maybe you find some inspiration with Actant Mapping or in general planet centered design. Here is one read:
The Actant Mapping Canvas was created by Monika Sznel who is a design anthropologist, UX researcher and service designer. By adopting a term called Actant from the Actor-network theory, Sznel expanded the well-known stakeholder mapping to non-human stakeholder in order to develop an environment-centered design method.
You can find more details from Sznel’s articles (1, 2, 3). Let’s return to the original conversation.
I have been reading some books and papers about the Actor-Network theory for several years. It is interesting to know that there is an ANT-inspired canvas for designers. It encourages me to think about a response from the perspective of Activity Theory. So, I designed the diagram below and coined the term “Second-order Activity”.
Object/Objective and Outcome are core concepts of Activity Theory. You can find more details from this article:
If we apply Activity Theory to develop a sustainable design framework, then we can pay attention to the negative outcome. And we can consider the negative outcome as an object of second-order activity.
Last year, I designed the diagram below for the Life-as-Activity framework. It suggests that there are three types of outcomes: Product, By-product and Meta-product. The negative outcome should be part of the By-product section.
You can find details about it at the 2.4.2 section of the original article about the Life-as-Activity framework (v0.3).
A Wonderful Conversation
There are two threads of discussions in the comment area. One is about sustainable models for business development while the other one is about diagramming.
Thread 1: Sustainable Business Development
Stephan Kardos says,
If I may add a comment on your wheel: profit, people and planet and their “descendant” attributes show a different level of actionability. I wonder how freelancers and small orgs can understand / impact / manage say “Artenschutz” as easily as “Kosten” (financial costs of course). They might conclude that their undertaking doesn’t affect (negatively) a certain planet category and move on. The profit and to great extend the people section appear to be (in short term) more pressing.
I think actionability and a systemic understanding are key for what you are trying to achieve.
Hope that helps?!
Martin Prechelmacher says,
wow, thank you! This is great and immediately but the Actant Mapping on my reading list :-)
and thank you for your input about different levels of actionability. I’ve vaguely noticed this before (and it was probably both the reason I got stuck and for sketching it in the first place..)
I’m curious, though,…how do YOU think about your impact?
Stephan Kardos says,
Welcome. I ran into the same blocker while designing my creativity Canvas and still exploring the best solution.
You know that I am a designer and also active in education. My responsibility as a designer is to do good design and reflect the designer’s role. Good here refers to holistically good and meaningful solutions. And reflecting means thinking critically about the domain … see the future of design education movement for a good read.
As an educator in the entrepreneurship field I do everything I can to raise awareness among students that entrepreneurship is about shaping your world (for the better) … which at times might take on the shape of a Startup (many equate this two terms) but is by no means limited to that manifestation (what I try to show)
As you see, my impact, if there is any at all, is both, hard to measure and indirect (at least in education). So, thinking about eg “Artenschutz” becomes a challenge in my professional context.
But what you are doing goes into a right direction. Instead of listing certain areas for planet, ask questions and let people reflect which areas they impact positively, which negatively, which directly / indirectly, what are assumptions and what facts … and so on.
Martin Prechelmacher says,
I’ve missed your thoughtful comments and wondrous mind!!! It’s inspiring and surprisingly wholesome reading your reflections on your impact. And while some of your impact might be hard to measure, you clearly have an understanding of what it could and should be (and btw.: it’s difficult to imagine you not having an impact with the way you think and communicate).
A few months ago I heard someone speak about Elinor Ostrom (the political economist) being prescriptive not in how one should act but in what one should pay attention to. That’s been stuck with me for a while now and it seems you’re mirroring this. Asking questions like “who is impacted by the decision I’m about to make?” doesn’t tell me what to do, but might lead me to find my own impactful path.
What I’m having difficulty with in this line of argument is the systemic/collective perspective. Everyone making their own decisions about their impact will presumably limit the overall effectiveness of our actions, perhaps as a designer AND educator, you can help me unpack this question: how might we facilitate collective communication about our impact and coordinate individual behaviour?
Stephan Kardos says,
thx for the inspiration you posted … truly makes me wonder. Your final question I surely don’t have an answer for; but what a wonderful starting point for an explorative journey.
Try to understand this starting point better, explore side paths, challenge your assumptions (e.g. is really everyone making OWN decisions about their impact?, …) and talk to people … fall in love with the question you try to answer. Looks like you are doing it anyways already …
Thread 2: Diagramming
Oliver Ding says:
Wow, this is a wonderful idea and conversation. I am recently working on the D as Diagramming project which aims to explore the power of diagram and diagramming.
https://medium.com/call4/d-as-diagramming-60e8c63c6be3
I use three approaches for the project:
1. Reflect on my own works
2. Interview others
3. Collect examplesMartin Prechelmacher Stephan Kardos Would you mind allowing me to use the post and your comments as an example? It would be great if you can write more about it.
I’d like to publish it on CALL4 on medium as a CC article.
Stephan Kardos says:
Hey Oliver, nice to read from you. I’ve been following your d as diagramming posts and articles. I like the concept and notion of diagramming as a thinking “tool”. I realized that with the creativity canvas I’ve been doing the same: diagraming to help my thinking process. Cheers.
Martin Prechelmacher says:
wow, I just read your article about D as diagramming, and feel really inspired. (Ironically, I feel like diagramming to figure out what exactly I’m inspired to..😂) you definitely triggered something with your notions of spatial knowledge and diagramming as thinking, not thought. That’s certainly something that’s gonna stick with me for a while now…
As to your question: sure! I’m curious how and what your diagram-trained mind sees here. But also interested in how you might go about diagramming to organise collective action (or just organise individual impact decisions).
Oliver Ding says:
It is great to use diagram to figure out what exactly we are inspired to. There is no such only one perfect thinking style. Actually, spatial cognition is the foundation of abstract thought.
The issue about the diagramming and organizational activity is one of the research direction. I have conducted a case study about a community design workshop in which the members design a diagram for their definition about community. It’s an interesting case. I’d like to conduct more cases about this direction.
Martin Prechelmacher says:
I’m lucky we are now connected then! I’m definitely gonna watch your space and follow your thoughts on diagramming and organising.
I’m curious…what makes you say that spatial cognition is the foundation of abstract thought. I might argue that being able to understand counterfactuals is the foundation of abstraction (and vice versa, if you’re into systems theory), which need not be spatial.
As for the picture: I’m honestly very honoured and of course I like it! Though I feel, Stephan deserves as much credit for this conversation as myself — not just because he inadvertently made us aware of each other, but also for his invaluable input…
Stephan Kardos says:
…cheers Martin. I gladly add to the creation process of others where I can. In fact, creation is more often co-creation between a person and the audience than one might think. But I am curious how your creation grows through that new connection to Oliver and his work. As far as I am concerned I gained a lot of input from this convo, too. Though I knew about both of your works, only through the convo did I realize cross connection. So thx for that.
Martin Prechelmacher says:
man*, you are so kind! this conversation is just so awesome!!
The Discussion
I have used the phrase “Diagramming as Thinking” many times. I’d like to quote two sections from a previous article Activity U (IV): The Engeström’s Triangle and the Power of Diagram.
In addition, I’d like to talk about “Concept and Diagram”.
1. Diagram (representation) v.s. Diagramming (Instrument)
Engeström really understood the power of the diagram and diagramming. I use the noun “diagram” to refer to what Engeström called “representation function of the models” and the gerund “diagramming” to refer to what Engeström called “instrumental or processual function of the models.”
The representation is static, permanent, and bounded while the instrument is dynamic, temporary, and boundaryless. From the perspective of activity theory, a diagram is an instrument of our knowing and understanding. Vygotsky, distinguished between two types of instruments in human activity: tools and signs which also means “psychological tools.” According to Vygotsky, “The following can serve as examples of psychological tools and their complex systems: language; various systems for counting; mnemonic techniques; algebraic symbol systems; works of art; writing; schemes, diagrams, maps, and mechanical drawings; all sorts of conventional signs; etc.” (Vygotsky 1981, 137. cited in Engeström, 1987)
Clay Spinuzzi (2020) reviewed some criticisms on the Engeström’s triangle and gave a fair assessment as a response. He said, “Engeström provided a graphical heuristic (the now-famous triangle) for picturing Leontiev’s activity system. This heuristic, which has been derided by some critics (e.g., Miller, 2011), was meant not only as an analytical device for researchers but (critically) also as a way to communicate with — and codesign work with — research participants (e.g., Engeström, 1999; Engeström & Sannino 2010). That is, it served as an interventionist “language game” (Ehn 1989) similar to the prototypes and organizational games that Bødker and other participatory designers used to leverage the tacit expertise of participants. This point has been overlooked by those who have critiqued the triangle heuristic as an oversimplified theoretical tool. (See Sannino 2011 for further elaboration of this point, and see Engeström 2018, pp.23 and 78 for other representations Engeström has developed for local stakeholders.)”
As Engeström mentioned, “I use the graphic models in series of successive variations, not just as singular representations…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) We should remember that the diagram is not a dogma but a guide to action.
2. Spatial thought v.s. Linguistic thought
When we think about thinking, we usually think we are thinking in words. However, linguistic thought is not the only way of the human mind. Cognitive scientist and psychologist Barbara Tversky argued that spatial thought is the foundation of our abstract thinking in her 2019 book Mind in Motion: How action shapes thought.
I want to highlight three ideas I learned from Barbara Tversky. The first is about taxonomy and partonomy, the second is about individual differences in mental rotation, the third is a story about the Feynman diagram. First, Tversky said, “Spatial hierarchies are partonomies, not taxonomies like the categories of objects, events, and scenes…Partonomies are hierarchies of parts; taxonomies are hierarchies of kinds…categories allow reducing the amount of information in the world…Like taxonomies, partonomies allow inferences, but inferences of containment, not of properties…(p.77–78)”
According to Tversky, “Mental rotation is a distinctly visual-spatial transformation. It has been likened to watching something actually rotate in space…mental rotation task has become one of the major measures of spatial ability.” (p.89–90) She also pointed out the individual differences on mental rotation, “Surgeons, plumbers, electricians, football coaches, mathematicians, fashion designers, urban planners, gardeners, physicists, fire fighters, architects, basketball players, interior designers, dentists, and so many more use mental rotation and other forms of spatial reasoning regularly in their work…lawyers and journalists and historians and accountants and executives and philosophers and poets and translators don’t seem to need mental rotation in their work.” (p.91)
Tversky also directly talked about the diagram in chapter eight of Mind in Action. The title of the chapter is Spaces We Create: Maps, Diagrams, Sketches, Explanations, Comics. She said, “The ease of reasoning from well-designed diagrams has encouraged new fields to blossom, endeavors to make mathematics, logic, physics, and computer science diagrammatic, yet rigorous, in order to capitalize on our extraordinary abilities to see spatial relations and to reason about them. The rationale is the same, that diagrams use the power of spatial-motor reasoning for abstract reasoning.” (2019, p.210)
Tversky shared a story about the Feynman diagram with us, “Mark Wexler, now a cognitive scientist working on perception and mental imagery, used to be a physicist. When he was a physicist, he was working with the Feynman diagram in Figure 8.8. Each gray blob represents a separate universe. For the universe to be coordinated, the twist in the lower blob had to be undone. He imagined grabbing each of the lower ellipses with his thumb and index finger and twisting them in opposite directions, a bit like Cat’s Cradle. Doing that made him realize that untwisting the lower one twists the upper. The only way to remove the twist is to cut one of the attachments. This conclusion has implications for spacetime and quantum gravity, but that’s beyond me and thankfully beyond the scope of the book. His intuition turned out to be right, as he later showed in a rigorous line-by-line proof. Feynman diagrams are admittedly abstrute, as is the physics they represent, but once they are learned, like all effective visual spatial representations, they become a powerful thinking tool.” (p.211)
The goal of activity theory is for understanding various types of human activities in the real world. Engeström also targeted his audience as both researchers and practitioners. The value of learning activity theory is not only knowing some concepts and ideas, but the real transformation in real life with the help of concepts and methods of activity theory. I want to claim that the Engeström’s triangle and his graphical approach to theory building is a great case of “diagramming as theorizing”.
Since Barbara Tversky claimed the sixth law of cognition as “Spatial thinking is the foundation of abstract thought” (p.72), we should change our mind on theory development and knowledge building. It is time to switch from “language-based theorizing” to “spatial thinking-based theorizing”. Diagram and Diagramming are great approaches for visualizing complex structural relationships such as “activity” and other social phenomena.
3. Concept and Diagram
In 2018, I wrote a 108-page thesis titled Diagram Explained. I developed a framework for understanding multiple layers of diagrams and wrote on a list of topics about diagramming. You can find the original source of the picture below from this board.
My framework lists the following layers of diagrams:
- Layer 1: Schema of spatial relationships
- Layer 2: Models of domain cognition
- Layer 3: Application of models
- Layer 4: Artifact of epistemic tool
- Layer 5: Mediation of human activities
Last year, I used the term Meta-diagram to name Layer 1. For Layer 2, I considered two subtypes: Diagrams for Abstract Models and Diagrams for Concrete Models. These two subtypes are inspired by the HERO U framework:
The Diagram U looks like a pipeline and balls. It presents six types of “Objective of Knowing”. Let’s look at the terms I used for the diagram.
mTheory: Meta-theory
sTheory: Specific Theory
aModel: Abstract Model
cModel: Concrete Model
dPractice: Domain Practice
gPractice: General Practice
We should notice that domain cognition requires both diagrams and concepts. In other words, a knowledge model or knowledge framework should consider both diagrams and concepts.
There are three ways to think about concepts for developing a new knowledge framework.
- First, we can adopt a theoretical concept from an existing theory or an existing framework.
- Second, we can define a new concept from our own perspective.
- Third, we can combine the above two ways.
The Actant Mapping Canvas is a great example of the first way. The concept of Actant is adopted from Actor-network Theory. Thus, the canvas connects a domain problem with an established social theory. The following 2x2 Matrix is also a good example. The diagram was developed by the activity theorist Clay Spinuzzi. The primary concept behind the diagram is Object which is adopted from Activity Theory.
Spinuzzi said, “To develop an adequate typology of activities, then, we must characterize these objects — keeping in mind that since objects are multiperspectival, specific activities will often appear as hybrids located within this typology rather than fit neatly into a given type.”
He proposed a new matrix with the following two dimensions:
- How is the object defined? Is it defined explicitly and deductively or tacitly and inductively?
- Where is the object defined? Is it defined within the activity’s division of labor or outside it?
The outcome is a matrix with four quadrants which represent four ideal activity types. The diagram is not new because the 2x2 matrix is a popular meta-diagram.
The second way is developing new concepts by coining a new word or redefining an existing word. For example, I coined a new word called Supportance and developed it as a core concept for the Ecological Practice approach. I also redefined the word Theme and developed a new concept called Themes of Practice. The above Second-order Activity is also a good example of redefining a concept. The term Activity is adopted from Activity Theory, but the new concept of Second-order Activity is defined by me.
The third way is also normal. For example, I published the Organization-for-Opportunity framework on August 15. The framework adopted three concepts from organizational theories and used three concepts from the ecological practice approach.
Thus, Diagramming as Thinking also considers the diagram-inspired Concept Curation.
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
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.
