D as Diagramming: An Integrated Framework for Studying Knowledge Diagrams (Part 2)
Explore the conceptual space “Relevance” and the perspective of “Cultural Significance”.
This post is part of the D as Diagramming project which aims to explore the power of diagrams and diagramming for turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
The previous article introduced an integrated framework for studying knowledge diagrams and the first perspective Cognitive Representation.
Today I’d like to discuss the second perspective Cultural Significance which is generated from the Relevance conceptual space.
6. The Conceptual Space of Relevance
The integrated framework is formed by four conceptual spaces: Architecture, Relevance, Activity, and Opportunity. Each conceptual space refers to a set of similar theoretical approaches. Each theoretical approach could generate a set of perspectives. You can find more details about the framework in Part 1.
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. Moreover, it refers to a particular situation such as time and space too.
Both scholars and consultants have been interested in Relevance which is considered a key idea for researching intersubjectivity, communication, information, marketing, and culture in general. For example, the phenomenological sociological theorist Alfred Schutz developed a systemic theory of Relevance within the phenomenological framework, which focuses on subjective experience and life-world. Schutz’s relevance theory inspired many later works on relevance in information science.
Communication researchers consider Relevance as a key to understanding communication. Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson developed Relevance Theory from the perspective of an inferential model of everyday speech or verbal communication. Their 1986 book Relevance: Communication and Cognition was named one of the most important and influential books of the decade in the Times Higher Educational Supplement. The message from the authors is very simple: we pay attention only to information that seems relevant to us.
The marketing researcher and branding consultant David A. Aaker published Brand Relevance: Making Competitors Irrelevant in 2011 and suggested that brands can create and manage new categories or subcategories in order to make competitors irrelevant.
I personally like Alfred Schutz’s relevance theory, however, his phenomenological theoretical framework is complicated. Instead of adopting one particular relevance theory, I use multiple units of analysis to explore the conceptual space of Relevance.
The above diagram highlights four units of analysis:
- Intrapersonal Relevance
- Interpersonal Relevance
- Transactional Relevance
- Collective Relevance
I also highlight a practical perspective for discussion: Cultural Significance.
The following sections will unpack the above basic ideas and connect it with diagramming.
6.1 Alfred Schutz on Relevance
The problem of relevance is an important issue of Alfred Schutz’s intellectual enterprises. In his early writings, Schutz made a distinction between imposed relevance and volitional relevance (or “intrinsic”). In the very last years of his life, Schutz offered a new typology of relevances with three main categories:
- 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. According to Schutz, there are two types of motives: “in-order-to-motives” and “because-from-motives.” While the former is about a person’s future, the latter is about a person’s past experience. Schutz emphasized the difference of the distinction, “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 other words, the “in-order-to motives” highlights the subjective perspective while the “because-from-motives” refers to the 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. According to Helmut R. Wagner, “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. According to Helmut R. Wagner, “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 developed a framework called Zones of Relevance which is related to a person’s given knowledge for responding to different 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 also offered a framework about social domains of relevance and Typification. According to Schutz, “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.” Social domains of relevance have the following functions (1970, p.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)
There are two keywords for understanding Schutz’s social domains of relevance: scheme of orientation and scheme of interpretation. For discussing social domains of relevance, the concept of orientation means a person is oriented to become a member of a social group while the concept of interpretation refers to how others perceive and interpret the person’s actions.
In other words, we can understand a person’s socialization process as a journey of moving between different Zones of Relevance of Others who are members of particular social groups. This view roughly echoes Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger’s concept of Legitimate Peripheral Participation from the perspective of Situated Learning and Communities of Practice. It also can link to Roger Barker’s concept of Zone of Penetration from the perspective of ecological psychology and Behavior Settings theory.
6.2 iART Framework for Relevance
In August, I introduced my own framework (iART) for discussing intersubjectivity with a meta-digram (Oliver Ding’s diagram #005 — Thing and People).
The name iART stands for i +Activity + Relationship + Themes.
- i (actor): an actor who wants to make progress toward her goals of an ideal life.
- A (activity): the actor should take real actions which are curated into projects as life activities.
- R (relationship): the actor needs others’ support such as feedback, suggestions, recommendations, etc. Thus, this is also about relationship building and development.
- T (themes/things): the activity and conversation can be perceived with a set of themes such as Future, Present, Goals, Decisions, Challenges, Solutions, etc. In fact, the T refers to Things in the original meta-diagram.
For the present discussion, T1/T2 is understood as Diagram (T1) and Thought (T2). Thus, we have a new version of the iART framework: Self — Other — Diagram — Thought.
The above diagram shows the newest version of the iART framework. Since the framework considers “Self — Other”, we can use it as a tool for discussing Relevance. In addition, the framework also considers Shared Activity and Shared Things, so we can discuss Relevance from a unique perspective.
- Activity: the diagramming practice
- Relationship: the Self — Other interactions
- Thing: Diagram, Thought
This diagram is very simple, but it can be used to discuss the complexity of diagramming and social life.
I have introduced three ways of using the above diagram in a previous article: D as Diagramming: The iART Framework.
- Intrapersonal analysis
- Interpersonal analysis
- Transactional analysis
I consider the above three ways as three Units of Analysis. For the present discussion, I add a new unit of analysis: Collective Analysis. Together, we have a total of four units of analysis for discussing Relevance.
- Intrapersonal Relevance: the Other is potential, not actual.
- Interpersonal Relevance: the Other is actual, but the “Self—Other” is not considered as a whole.
- Transactional Relevance: the Other is actual, and the “Self—Other” is considered as a whole.
- Collective Relevance: the Other is pervasive, not proximal. The “Self — Other” relationship is understood as “Self — Group”.
The core of the framework is three aspects of Other.
- Potential v.s. Actual
- Independent v.s. Dependent
- Proximal v.s. Pervasive
The above is a new typology of relevance. Though it is different from Schutz’s typology, many ideas behind the typology echo Schutz’s thoughts. For example, the Potential aspect echoes Schutz’s concept of predecessors, the Proximal aspect echoes Schutz’s concept of face-to-face interaction, the Pervasive aspect echoes Schutz’s concept of indirect relationships and the Dependent aspect echoes Schutz’s concept of reciprocity of motive.
If a person doesn’t have direct interaction with real other people, he considers if his work or actions are relevant to predecessors or any other people. Then, this means Intrapersonal Relevance. For example, I am comparing my typology with Schutz’s typology while I am writing this article. Since Schutz is a predecessor to me, he can’t respond to me. I can’t have direct interaction with him. However, the Potential aspect also considers contemporaries. For example, there are many contemporary researchers who study Schutz’s theoretical thoughts. Now I don’t have any direct interaction with them, but I could have direct communication with them in the future.
Interpersonal Relevance refers to direct interactions for getting feedback from others. In this situation, the Other is actual, but the “Self—Other” is not considered as a whole since they don’t share reciprocity of motives. How can a person get good feedback from others? It depends on Relevance from the Other’s perspective. We can adopt Schutz’s typology of Relevance to understand Other’s Relevance. For example, If I want to get good feedback for my work on the D as Diagramming project, I need to consider my writing style for audiences. If I share a particular article on Linkedin and mention some contacts, I need to consider if these contacts are relevant to the article.
Transactional Relevance is about dependent relationships and interactions. The Other is actual, and the “Self—Other” is considered as a whole. and they share reciprocity of motives. In this situation, the person and Others share reciprocity of motives, challenges, and background knowledge. If we adopt Schutz’s typology of Relevance, it has high relevance in both three types: Motivational relevance, Thematic relevance, and Interpretational relevance.
Collective Relevance considers Others as a pervasive group, not a particular person or several people. The “Self — Other” relationship becomes the “Self — Group” relationship. This refers to Schutz’s social domains of relevance.
The above four types of Relevance offer a framework for understanding Cultural Significance.
6.3 Relevance and Diagramming
Now we can adopt the new version of iART framework to discuss the Diagramming practice. The diagram below shows four core entities:
- Self
- Other
- Diagram
- Thought
I also add several red words to describe several types of relations between entities. The previous article discussed the “Self — Diagram — Thought” relationship with two ideas: Visualization and Conceptualization. The “Self — Diagram” relation refers to Visualization while the “Self — Thought” relation refers to Conceptualization. I didn’t mention the idea of Curation in the previous article. Now we can use Curation to understand the “Diagram — Thought” relation because the “Visualization — Conceptualization” fit is a process of curation.
The “Self — Other” relation refers to the idea of Relevance. As mentioned above, there are four types of relevances since we have four ways of defining Other.
The “Other — Diagram” relation refers to the idea of Perception. Since diagrams are visual graphics, perception is important for Others to understand the meanings of diagrams.
The “Other — Thought” relation refers to the idea of Interpretation which refers to a dynamic interactive process between Self and Other. Others may not understand the meanings of a diagram, they could ask the author of the diagram. Others also could share a diagram with their friends and other people, they could share their own understanding about the diagram too.
6.3.1 Intrapersonal Relevance and Diagramming
Intrapersonal Relevance is about one person’s cognitive activities. The Other is Potential. That means the person has to guess potential audiences’ relevant facts such as motivation (Motivational relevance), problem (Thematic relevance), and knowledge (Interpretational relevance). If the person doesn’t have enough knowledge about his audience, he definitely can’t achieve his goal.
In fact, the person could diagram for self-reflection. That means he does need to consider potential audiences and he could focus on Cognitive Representation and consider the fit between visualization and conceptualization. In this manner, the person works like an artist, not a seller.
One of my good friends spent over ten years reading books about psychology and he used diagrams to curate his thoughts about the human mind and psyche. An interesting fact is that he is not a psychologist, but a policy researcher at a local government agency. For him, reading psychology and thinking about the human psyche is a Pro–am habit. Three years ago, he wrote a book titled On Autonomy and proposed a theoretical framework for human autonomy.
In July 2021, he published an article about a personal self-management system with a diagram. I invited him to join the D as Diagramming project and interviewed him about the diagram. I also collected his old diagrams about the human psyche and reviewed the changes between these diagrams and the changes in his thoughts.
Though he writes books and publishes articles, his diagrams should be considered with Intrapersonal Relevance because his goal is making good Cognitive Representation and using it to visualize his thoughts.
6.3.2 Interpersonal Relevance and Diagramming
Interpersonal Relevance is about conversations around diagrams. For example, I mentioned a case study in a previous article D as Diagramming: Hexagram, Symbolic Culture, and Diagram Choices.
In August, I conducted an empirical case study which is about a community design workshop. It was a three-day online learning program. The curator of the program divided students into groups of six. The activity of day 1 is an open discussion and brainstorming about the definition of community. In order to summarize conclusions from six groups, a volunteer suggested using the diagram of the Star of David as a frame. Thus, they selected a primary element from each group and placed six elements around the Star of David. Later, the curator asked an advisor to review the framework. The advisor suggested some revision opinions. The volunteer designed a personalized version of the framework for the advisor. See the picture below.
I started from this diagram and interviewed three key people: the curator, the volunteer, and the advisor. I wrote an 86-page report for the case study.
We can find two types of “Self — Other” relationships in this case. Each relationship refers to an Interpersonal Relevance.
- Volunteer (Self) — Curator/Advisor (Other)
- Volunteer / Curator / Advisor (Self) — Researcher (Other)
First, the volunteer designed the first version of the diagram. Then, there is a conversation between him, the curator, and the advisor. The result is a new version of the diagram.
Second, I am the researcher. I interviewed them and wrote a research report. There is a perception and interpretation from my perspective.
There is a middle position between Intrapersonal Relevance and Interpersonal Relevance. We can use Diagram Notation as an example for the position.
The term “Diagram Notation” is inspired by Daisy Mwanza’s Activity Notation which is one of four methodological tools of Activity-Oriented Design Method (AODM).
The Activity Notation is based on Yrjö Engeström’s Activity System Model. See the diagram below. You can find more details about it in a previous article: Activity U (IV): The Engeström’s Triangle and the Power of Diagram.
In 2001, Daisy Mwanza published a paper and introduced an activity theory-based methodology for guiding computer system design. She argued that “ Activity Theory (AT) has emerged as a suitable framework for analysing social and cultural issues because it provides a language to describe what people do in context. However, many computer system developers have failed to benefit from this insight mainly due to lack of established methods to operationalise ideas from this framework for the purpose of guiding the design process.”
Noticing the lack of a standard and specified method for applying Activity Theory within HCI, Mwanza developed an Activity-Oriented Design Method (AODM) with four methodological tools. One of the tools is called Activity Notation which breaks down the situation’s whole activity system into smaller manageable sub-activity triangles (see the diagram below).
She also developed a set of general research questions which are specific to a particular combination within the activity notation. Mwanza said, “These questions are used as pointers to what to look for during observational studies, also in questionnaires and interviews as triggers to help decide on what questions to ask.” Finally, researchers and designers can analyze and interpret data they gathered with a key concept of activity theory: contradictions.
The Activity Notation can be considered an expanded model of the Activity System. Now we can use the term Diagram Notation to describe the process of adding notes to a diagram and turning a basic model into an expanded model.
Why do we need to add notes to a diagram? Because some diagrams are too simple for visualization but too complex for conceptualization. We need a simple basic model for establishing a new symbol and an expanded model for advanced knowledge representation.
6.3.3 Transactional Relevance and Diagramming
Transactional Relevance is about co-working, team working, and collaborative working. For example, Iain Kerr and Jason Frasca are co-founders of Emergent Futures Lab. They wrote a book titled Innovating Emergent Futures: The Innovation Design Approach for Change and Worldmaking. For them, both the lab and the book should be understood from Transactional Relevance because they have shared goals and work together as a whole.
Their book offers a brand-new framework for understanding innovation and design thinking. The above pictures show the book and the core diagram of their framework. In fact, Iain Kerr designed over 80 diagrams for the book. According to Jason Frasca, “…the primary image of the Innovation Design Approach has been evolving since 2016. Kerr likes to draw. I like to write. No set order — some diagrams first. Some after. All hand drawn because we declared we’d never use stock imagery for our content. So we create every image ourselves for the website, book and social media.”
Iain Kerr and Jason Frasca are both diligent note-takers. For Iain Kerr, his notes are all handwritten, he shared his work model in a Linkedin comment, “…Big notebooks with drawings and notes mixed. I tend to try and figure things out as a diagram first — especially in regards to innovation — it is all process. In the last few years I have used the moleskine smart writing system: actual pen but makes a digital copy. Then I moved to the iPad quite recently. Still getting used to this. As to working together — we talk and discuss using a whiteboard — diagramming and editing the diagrams. The core diagram emerged via a set of such discussions and field research. Why put these in a hard-drawn form in the book? It is really practical — the super finished highly designed product means you are less likely to change and reinvent — hand drawing allows us to really quickly change and evolve.”
The major difference between Transactional Relevance and other types of relevance is the former is about team collaboration.
6.3.4 Collective Relevance and Diagramming
As mentioned above, Collective Relevance considers Others as a pervasive group, not a particular person or several people. The “Self — Other” relationship becomes the “Self — Group” relationship. This refers to Schutz’s social domains of relevance.
The above discussion has mentioned the Star of David and an empirical case study. You can find more details from a previous article D as Diagramming: Hexagram, Symbolic Culture, and Diagram Choices. The case study also shared a story of the curator and his diagram choices. The curator is a Christian. The early offline weekly meetup was inspired by Christian communion/Koinonia. He used two nested triangles to represent his tacit knowledge about the community.
Inspired by the Trinity, the Curator used the above diagrams as a framework to design the Three Talks on Community online course. This story echoes the above story of developing a framework with the Star of David. Both stories are about adopting symbolic cultural elements as instruments to represent tacit knowledge.
I realized that I should define a new topic for diagram studies. Inspired by Diane E. Bailey and Paul M. Leonardi’s Technology Choices: Why Occupations Differ in Their Embrace of New Technology, I coined a term called Diagram Choices.
People could use cultural signs as instruments to frame their ideas and build a diagram or framework. However, some diagrams don’t have to use cultural signs as frames because visual graphics have their own abilities to represent conceptual meanings.
Since Diagrams are visible, we can understand the impact of Collective Relevance on a particular person by perceiving his Diagram Choices. Also, we can utilize cultural signs for visualization and conceptualization in order to build connections with audiences through their Collective Relevance.
The video below is about art design, not diagram design. However, we can use it as an example for understanding the dynamics and evolution of Cultural Significance. While we can utilize cultural signs for making something new, we are adding something new to traditional Cultural Significance. In this matter, the Collective Relevance is changed too.
The dynamics of Collective Relevance lead to two key issues: Cognitive Invention and Symbolic Invention. It’s hard to find good words for the former. I want to use the term Cognitive Invention to refer to pure cognitive representation for knowledge development. We can understand it as Knowledge Invention too. Anyway, what I want to do is make a distinction between Cognitive meaning production and Cultural meaning production. I am not going to claim that cultural meanings are not important for cognition and cultural signs are not knowledge. For the present discussion, I need a distinction.
In fact, the distinction is born from the distinction between visualization and conceptualization which leads to the distinction between perception and interpretation.
6.4 Collective Relevance: Cognitive Invention
As mentioned in the previous article D as Diagramming: An Integrated Framework for Studying Knowledge Diagrams (Part 1), my primary interest is Knowledge Frameworks. When I used the term Diagrams interchangeably with Knowledge Frameworks, I always talked about Multiple Concepts Diagrams.
Also, my starting point is a person’s tacit knowledge. Creators could adopt metaphors and cultural signs for sense-making and design a diagram or knowledge framework in order to turn their tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Creators also can only use the geometric approach to design visual areas and match these visual areas with their conceptual spaces.
I collected many examples of knowledge diagrams from scholars’ books and papers. For example, the diagram below is adopted from a 1991 paper titled Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
In 1991, Hazel Rose Markus and Shinobu Kitayama published the paper in Psychological Review. The authors suggest that there are two types of self-construals from the perspectives of psychology and anthropology. According to the authors, “The Western, independent view of self is illustrated in Figure A. The large circle represents the self, and the smaller circles represent specific others. The Xs are representations of the various aspects of the self or the others. In some cases, the larger circle and the small circle intersect, and there is an X in the intersection. This refers to a representation of the self-in-relation-to-others or to a particular social relation (e.g., “I am very polite in front of my professor”). An X within the self circle but outside of the intersection represents an aspect of the self perceived to be relatively independent of specific others and, thus, invariant over time and context. These self-representations usually have as their referent some individual desire, preference, attribute, or ability (e.g., “I am creative”). For those with independent construals of the self, it is these inner attributes that are most significant in regulating behavior and that are assumed, both by the actor and by the observer alike, to be diagnostic of the actor. Such representations of the inner self are thus the most elaborated in memory and the most accessible when thinking of the self (as indicated by Xs in Figure A). They can be called core conceptions, salient identities, or self-schemata (e.g., Gergen, 1968; Markus, 1977; Stryker, 1986).” You can find the description of the interdependent view of self in the original paper.
The value of knowledge diagrams is highlighting conceptual relations with visualization. The above diagram aims to visualize the major difference between the two views of self. Thus, the diagram can’t tell details of each view, such as “In some cases, the larger circle and the small circle intersect, and there is an X in the intersection. This refers to a representation of the self-in-relation-to-others or to a particular social relation (e.g., “I am very polite in front of my professor”).”
This is the distinction between visualization and conceptualization.
Knowledge creators tend to use both diagrams and texts to present their tacit knowledge. In this manner, a brand new diagram is a new Cognitive Invention. For audiences, they should view the diagram and read the text in order to acquire new knowledge from the cognitive invention.
Sometimes, we will make bad cognitive inventions. For example, the famous Maslow’s pyramid. According to psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, “Abraham Maslow’s iconic pyramid of needs is one of the most famous images in the history of management studies. At the base of the pyramid are physiological needs, and at the top is self-actualization, the full realization of one’s unique potential. Along the way are the needs for safety, belonging, love, and esteem. However, many people may not realize that during the last few years of his life, Maslow believed self-transcendence, not self-actualization, was the pinnacle of human needs. What’s more, it’s difficult to find any evidence that he ever actually represented his theory as a pyramid. On the contrary, it’s clear from his writings that he did not view his hierarchy of needs like a video game– as though you reach one level and then unlock the next level, never again returning to the “lower” levels. He made it quite clear that we are always going back and forth in the hierarchy, and we can target multiple needs at the same time.”
In a 2019 paper, Todd Bridgman, Stephen Cummings, and John Ballard found that the author of the “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs” diagram is not Abraham Maslow. According to the authors, “No pyramid appears in McGregor’s writing. Keith Davis wrote a widely-used management textbook in 1957 that illustrated the theory in the form of a series of steps in a right-angled triangle leading to a peak. The top-level shows a suited executive raising a flag, reminiscent of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima. But this representation of the theory did not catch on.”
The authors also found the above right diagram from a 1960 article in Business Horizons. The article How Money Motivates Men was written by C.D. McDermid who argued the pyramid can be applied to generate “maximum motivation at the lowest cost”.
Maslow’s pyramid is so popular in business management and everyday life conversation because we all need the knowledge of human motivation. However, if we don’t pay attention to the knowledge itself, a simple diagram will become a symbolic invention and no longer a cognitive invention.
6.5 Collective Relevance: Symbolic Invention
A popular knowledge diagram is both a cognitive invention and a symbolic invention from the perspective of collective relevance. For the creator of the diagram, the value of symbolic invention means a knowledge brand that represents a successful creative career.
The above discussion has mentioned Finnish educational researcher Yrjö Engeström’s Activity System model which is also called Engeström’s triangle. David Nicolini (2012) commented on Engeström’s work in his book Practice Theory, Work, & Organization, “As I have noted above, the idea of the complex and systemic-like nature of activity is one of the central and defining aspects of the theory. This dimension is captured in Engeström’s triangle that has become not only a powerful intermediary for the theory but also something of a brand. For example, the picture constitutes a powerful analytical tool of immediate utility for all those who need to analyse and describe practice for different purposes (for example, those who are in the business of designing systems for integrating work practices: see e.g. Nardi 1996), and as such it has effectively supported the circulation and take-up of the theory.” (p.119)
Nicolini indecisively used “brand” to describe Engeström’s triangle. I want to go further and definitely claim that Engeström’s triangle and his theory is a knowledge brand. Traditionally, “brand” is used in the field of marketing. I coined the term “knowledge brand” to adopt the branding perspective to explain the micro-level activities of knowledge diffusion.
There are many theories of brand and branding, I simply highlight three core aspects of knowledge brand for our discussion: identity, reality, and engagement. The Engeström’s triangle is the “logo” of Engeström’s activity system model, this is the aspect of visual identity. The Engeström’s triangle represents the activity system model, this is the aspect of conceptual reality. The Engeström’s triangle is also an instrument for researchers, learners, and participants, this is the aspect of practical engagement.
From the perspective of Collective Relevance, a successful Symbolic Invention needs the above three aspects too.
- Identity: a unique visualization
- Reality: a unique conceptualization
- Engagement: accepted by members of a social domain
However, it is so hard to achieve both of these three aspects. Sometimes, a unique visualization could lead to a successful Symbolic Invention with little contribution to making a Cognitive Invention. For example, the diagram below is called the Product—Market Fit Pyramid which is part of a book titled The Lean Product Playbook. The author Dan Olsen also considers a six-step method to use the framework (see the right diagram below).
The interesting thing is that the diagram adopts the visual layout of Pyramid to visualize the concept of Fit. Is a good fit between visualization and conceptualization?
People usually use the concept of Product-Market Fit to explain the success or the failure of a startup. If a startup is successful, then we could say it achieves the product-market fit. If a startup fails, then we could say it doesn’t achieve the product-market fit. In the real-life world, the concept of Product-Market Fit is a subjective concept for evaluating product development activities. Each product manager could have their own measurement standard on user growth or marketing goals in general.
In fact, Dan Olsen offers a six-step framework for the lean product process. This is a unique conceptualization. He uses the Pyramid to visualize these six steps, this is also an acceptable visualization. The problem is that he mixes the Product-Market Fit and Lean Product Processes together. The Product — Market Fit is explained as a fit between Value Proposition and Underserved Needs. However, both Value Proposition and Underserved Needs should be considered as dynamic processes.
If we consider Product-Market Fit as a metaphor and pay attention to the real concept behind the metaphor. We could explore more new ideas such as Growth Evaluation. For example, Growth means a dynamic process while Fit means a particular ideal state. The Product and Market refer to two forces.
If we consider one process, one state, and two forces together in a conceptual framework, then the Pyramid doesn’t fit the conceptualization.
Anyway, the Product — Market Fit is an established term in the field of startup and product management. It has high Collective Relevance. What Dan Olsen did is make a great Symbolic Invention because Pyramid is unique for visualizing the concept of Fit. Actually, people like it (1, 2).
6.6 Frame, Unframe, Reframe
Diagrams, concepts, frameworks, metaphors, signs, rules, genres, rituals, laws…all are frames of our life world. We can’t live in a world without such frames because we need to live with relevance.
We detach our mental focus from existing frames and attach them to brand-new frames. Without our perception and interpretation, a cognitive invention becomes a narcissistic toy for its creator in a lonely world.
While we are living with frames, we are making new frames too. By accepting relevances out of our normal experience, we move between frames and become cross-boundary explorers. In this way, we are creating new cultural significance together.
6.7 Resources for Understanding Relevance
The Relevance conceptual space refers to intersubjectivity, cultural meanings, and common sense. You can find many theories from various fields. My reading scope is small, and you can find some books I read from the list below:
- Mind, Self, & Society (George Herbert Mead, 1934)
- The Psychology of Interpersonal Psychology (Fritz Heider, 1958)
- The Social Construction of Reality (Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, 1966)
- Alfred Schutz On Phenomenology and Social Relations (Helmut R. Wagner, 1970)
- Alfred Schutz: An Intellectual Biography (Helmut R. Wagner, 1983)
- Frame Analysis (Erving Goffman, 1974)
- Social Representations (Robert M. Farr and Serge Moscovici, 1984)
- Frame Reflection (Donald Schön and Martin Rein, 1994)
- The Development of Cognitive Anthropology (Roy D’Andrade, 1995)
- The Languages of Edison’s Light (Charles Bazerman, 1999)
- Sorting Things Out (Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, 1999)
- The Social Shaping of Technology (Donald Mackenzie and Judy Wajcman, 1999)
- Cultural Strategy (Douglas Holt and Douglas Cameron, 2010)
- Brand Relevance (David A. Aaker, 2011)
- Digital Anthropology (Heather A. Horst and Daniel Miller, 2012)
- Narrative Economics (Robert J. Shiller, 2019)
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
