Mapping Thematic Spaces #2 — The “Activity” Thematic Space

A case study based on the experience of Developing Tacit Knowledge about Activity Theory

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

The previous article Mapping Thematic Spaces #1: OS Card and Mapping Clues introduces the notion of OS Card which is a tool for analyzing Objective — Subjective Knowledge Curation with the canvas of Thematic Space.

A Thematic Space has two subspaces: inner space and outer space. 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 OS Card is designed as a tool for mapping thematic spaces. Each OS Card only records one mapping clue which refers to a connection between a fact inside the outer space and a fact inside the inner space.

Today I am going to use my “Activity” thematic space as an example to discuss the eight dimensions of thematic spaces. We can also consider this example as a case study of Developing Tacit Knowledge.

The “Activity” Thematic Space

I have introduced an integrated epistemological framework for understanding “Mind, Meaning, and Experience” in a previous article D as Diagramming: The Mind as Play Metaphor. The framework is formed by four thematic spaces:

• The “Architecture” Thematic Space
• The “Relevance” Thematic Space
• The “Activity” Thematic Space
• The “Opportunity” Thematic Space

The “Activity” Thematic Space refers to Activity Theory and Social Practice Theories in general. Its unit of analysis is not individual behavior, it is not macro social structure or culture meaning either. Since 2001, a group of philosophers, sociologists and scientists have rediscovered the practice perspective and used it as a lens to explore and examine the role of practices in human activity. Researchers called it The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. As Schatzki pointed out, “there is no unified practice approach”(2001, p.2). Davide Nicolini adopted a way of toolkit to introduce six different ways of theorizing practice in his 2013 book Practice Theory, Work, & Organization. Activity Theory is considered as one of six social practice theoretical approaches.

Though I read books and papers about Activity Theory and Social Practice Theories, most of my projects are related to Activity Theory.

The Landscape of Activity Theory

Activity Theory or the “Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)” is an interdisciplinary philosophical framework for studying both individual and social aspects of human behavior. According to Kaptelinin & Nardi (2012), “The immediate conceptual origins of activity can be found in Russian/Soviet psychology of the 1920s and 1930s. During that time theoretical explorations in Russian psychology were heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy… Leontiev’s activity theory emerged as an outgrowth of the sociocultural perspective. The theory employs a number of ideas developed by Lev Vygotsky, Leontiev’s mentor and friend. It is also strongly influenced by the work of Sergei Rubinshtein, a major figure in Russian psychology and a long-time colleague of Leontiev.”(p.13–14)

In the beginning, activity theory is a psychological theory about the mind and it focused on the development of individual psychological functions. Leontiev used “Activity, Consciousness, and Personality” as the title for his book. Later, activity theory became what Michael Cole called “monolithic enterprise” with several sub-traditions and local thought of schools such as German tradition, a Scandinavian/Nordic tradition, an American tradition (Cole, 1996. p.139).

In 2020, I worked on the Activity U project which is a knowledge curation project about the landscape of Activity Theory.

The above diagram is a brief of the landscape of Activity Theory. You can find the original article here. The project led to two books (drafts):

• Activity U: How to think and act like an activity theorist
• Project-oriented Activity Theory: A 21st-century version of activity theory for making impact projects and social movements

In 2021, I worked on the D as Diagramming project. In order to close the phase 1 of the project, I adopted four perspectives to develop a framework for studying diagramming: the Diagramming as Practice framework. One of perspectives is Mediating Instrument which is inspired by Activity Theory.

Mapping the “Activity” Thematic Space

Now we can use the canvas of thematic space to mapping my “Activity” thematic space.

The previous article has introduced OS Cards for recording mapping clues. In order to save time and space, I will use tables and text for present discussion. For each dimension, I will use one table which contains three mapping clues.

The previous article also offers details for two mapping clues. Today I will briefly introduce each mapping clue.

The Concepts — Notions Dimension

I consider Concepts in the outer space and Notions in the inner space. For thematic space, the term Notions is used for a person’s own understanding of Knowledge Concepts. Thus, Notions refer to ideas, questions, insights about existing knowledge concepts.

The A1 mapping clue is “Object — Objective/Object” which was introduced in the previous article. You can find more details here.

The A2 mapping clue is “Mediation/Object — Resource” which refers to my understanding of the Activity System Model. Since the model doesn’t have the concept of Resource, I have to apply some data to Mediation or Object which are two “official” concepts of the model. I even created a new diagram called Activity System Plus which adds “Resource” to the original model for private discussion with my friends.

The A3 mapping clue is “Outcome — Product/By-product/Meta-product”. See the diagram below.

I made the above diagram for the Life-as-Activity framework (v0.3). The idea of “By-product” was adopted from Howard Gruber. You can find more details above the Achievement Chain, you can directly visit here.

The Approaches — Tastes Dimension

A thematic space may contain many similar theoretical approaches. If we pay attention to two thematic spaces, then we will focus on similarities between a group of approaches inside a thematic space. However, if we move to the inside of a thematic space, we should pay attention to differences between the same group of approaches. How do we deal with these similarities and differences? It all depends on our tastes which are related to our value, experience, motivation, and more personal aspects. Moreover, tastes are learnable and changeable.

As mentioned above, Activity Theory is not a single theory, but a theoretical tradition which has several theoretical approaches. I started learning Activity Theory with the Activity System Model which is really useful for studying organizational activities and collective activities in general. The model offers a series of concepts for connecting theory and practice.

B1 refers to my ideas based on the Activity System Model’s concept and framework. For example, I coined the concept of “Self-reference Activity” to connect Activity Theory and Self-reference System theory. It refers to a special type of activity which can support self-reference development. I also coined the term “Second-order Activity” for discussing a special type of activity which considers Outcome as an Object.

B2 refers to a solution for connecting two approaches together. In 2010, Andy Blunden published a book titled An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity and suggested a new theoretical approach of Activity. The new approach considers an activity as a project of formation of concept. In order to develop the theoretical foundation of “Project as a unit of Activity”, Blunden adopts Hegel’s Logic and Vygotsky’s theory about Concept as theoretical resources. The process is documented in three books: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010), Concepts: A Critical Approach (2012), and Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study (2014).

The Activity System Model and Project as a unit of Activity are two different theoretical approaches of Activity. Can we connect them together?

The above diagram is my solution for connecting these two approaches. I made a distinction between Idea and Concept in order to build a continuum. The above diagram represents a path in which the idea defines an object and the object defines the work or regular activity. This path is covered by the statement of “Object-orientedness” which is initiated by Leontiev’s approach and supported by Engeström’s Activity System model. On the other hand, the “Idea” is a pre-concept process which can lead to the “Concept” and the “Project”. This path is the focus of Blunden’s approach.

B3 refers to Karpatschof’s 2000 book Human Activity: Contributions to the Anthropological Sciences from a Perspective of Activity Theory. I found this book online three months ago. Though I have read many books and papers about Activity Theory, Karpatschof’s theoretical approach opened a new door for me. Inspired by his ideas, I am thinking if I could use Activity Circle to rename the iART framework.

The Perspectives — Views Dimension

For the canvas of thematic space, a perspective can be understood as an aspect of a theory. Sometimes, we don’t have to use a theory in its entirely. We can only adopt one principle or one concept from a theory for our projects. Based on one perspective, we can develop our views for various new ideas.

C1 refers to a perspective called “Development” which is an important principle of Activity Theory. This perspective inspired my views about several new ideas and frameworks such as Future/Present, Anticipatory Activity System, Life-as-Activity, the Historical — Cognitive approach, and Slow Cognition.

C2 refers to the “Mediation” perspective which is the basic principle of Activity Theory. Last December, I used the “Mediating Instrument” perspective as one of four perspectives of the Diagramming as Practice framework.

C3 is the “Formation of Concept of Activity — Themes of Practice”. Though Andy Blunden combined “Project — Concept — Theory” together, I consider the notion of “Formation of Concept of Activity” as a perspective and adopt it to support my work “Themes of Practice”.

The Frameworks — Insights

I use Frameworks to refer to knowledge frameworks/models with diagrams. By using frameworks with diagrams, we can develop new insights. Some insights are about using frameworks and diagrams, other insights are about new ideas.

D1 refers to the “Hierarchy of Activity” framework. A. N. Leontiev’s three-level hierarchy of activity is an important part of Activity Theory. According to Leontiev, The three levels of activity are: activity, actions, and operations. The three levels of psychological notions are: motive, goals, and conditions. On Sept 29, 2020, I published Activity U (VI): The Hierarchy of Human Activity and Social Practice and reviewed the framework. A by-product of the article is the table below.

Based on perspectives from activity theorists and other researchers, I found there are eight levels of hierarchy of activity and practice. The six mid-levels are adopted from activity theorists. The top-level is adopted from anthropologist Morris Opler (1945). The low-level is adopted from ecological psychologist James J. Gibson (1979). I also classify these eight levels into three types: “logical level”, “actual level”, and “possible level”.

D2 refers to the “Typology of Activity” framework which was developed by Clay Spinuzzi in 2015. In Sept 2017, I adopted Spinuzzi’s typology of activities to analyze the situation of Andmind Group and hosted a strategic discussion about the potential development directions of the enterprise. During the discussion, I realized the practical value of typology is really impressive. Since Andmind Group’s activities were widely distributed in four quadrants, I just gave a simple suggestion: Let’s reduce the scope to two quadrants. This heuristic method generated six possible directions.

D3 refers to the “Activity Network” framework. The newest development of the Activity System Model is a multiple activity system analysis. Activity Theorists tend to use the Activity Network framework for this new unit of analysis. Inspired by the framework, I used “Project Network” for the Developmental Project framework.

The Methods — Guides Dimension

Methods are very important for turning knowledge into skills. For knowledge creators, there are various types of methods. Some theoretical approaches require specific methods for empirical research. I used guides for inner space in order to highlight the process of learning methods which means adopting knowledge about methods as guides of actions.

The above three mapping clues lists three methods. I learned these methods from three Activity Theorists by reading their books.

E1 refers to diagramming and thinking. On Sept 3, 2020, I published an article titled Activity U (IV): The Engeström’s Triangle and the Power of Diagram. I focused on Finnish educational researcher Yrjö Engeström’s work and reviewed his theoretical building from the perspective of diagram and diagramming. Yrjö Engeström upgraded the activity theory from the individual activity level to collective activity level with a conceptual model of “activity system” in order to apply activity theory to educational settings, organizational development and other fields (Engeström,1987).

Engeström considered the use of graphic models as an important part of his method of theory building in his 1987 book Learning by Expanding is An Activity-theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. He said, “There are further two specific features of presenting and processing data in this book. The first one is the extensive use of quotations from the theoretical sources discussed and analyzed. The second one is the almost equally extensive use of graphic models.” His story is a great example for rethinking the value of diagrams and diagramming.

E2 refers to my reading of Clay Spinuzzi’s books. Clay Spinuzzi is a professor of rhetoric and writing at The University of Texas at Austin. Spinuzzi has over twenty years of empirical research experience with activity theory. His interests include research methods and methodology, workplace research, and computer-mediated activity. Spinuzzi has written four books: Tracing Genres through Organizations (2003); Network (2008); Topsight (2013); and All Edge (2015). The book Topsight offers a methodology for activity-theoretical approach to empirical research.

In 2021, I adopted the notion of Triangulating Data from Topsight to design the D as Diagramming project. I use three approaches for the project: Reflect on my own works, Interview others, and Collect examples.

E3 refers to Andy Blunden’s approach for building his theoretical approach. In his 2010 book An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity, Blunden traces the roots of Activity Theory from Goethe, Hegel, and Marx in order to present an immanent critique of Activity Theory and its contemporary version CHAT. The core of Blunden’s argument is a theoretical methodological issue: Unit of Analysis. For Blunden, the concept of “Unit of Analysis” should be understood as Goethe’s Urphanomen which is also known as the ‘cell’. Blunden believes that the unit of analysis should be followed by an explanatory principle of “the part contains the whole”. In other words, if we want to understand a complex phenomenon, we should start with the most primitive form of the phenomenon. For activity theorists, if they agree that their theoretical roots are ideas from Goethe, Hegel, Marx, and Vygotsky, then they have to respect this methodological criticism because the Urphanomen principle has been adopted by all of these predecessors.

Inspired by the immanent critique method, I used immanent development to guide my work on Project-oriented Activity Theory. Blunden has given us several successful examples of applying the idea of “germ-cell” for social science, such as Hegel’s formulation of the idea, Marx’s Capital, and Vygotsky’s five ideas. Can we apply the idea of “germ-cell” to diagramming for social science? I accepted this challenge with a concrete task: designing a series of diagrams for Blunden’s Project-oriented Activity Theory with a germ-cell diagram. This task echoed my ideas about “meta-diagram, diagram and diagram system”. You can find the series of diagrams here.

The Heuristics — Skills Dimension

Heuristics are diagrams, frameworks, models, concepts, checklists, questions, etc. Though some frameworks and models are developed for systematic research projects, they could be used as heuristics for discussions, reflections, and informal research. I use Skills for inner space because using heuristics is about developing skills.

I have used F1 and F2 for the article Mapping Thematic Spaces #1: OS Card and Mapping Clues. You can find more details from the original article.

F3 refers to the Second-order Activity which was inspired by a conversation with Martin Prechelmacher and Stephan Kardos on Linkedin. The conversation is about sustainable business. In order to respond to the challenge from the perspective of Activity Theory, I designed the diagram below and coined the term “Second-order Activity”.

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.

The notion of Second-order Activity became a heuristic tool for myself. I used it for understand an adult development program which adopts OKRs and peer review to support young creators’ life development. I realized that the program can be modeled as a Second-order Activity because it is all about improving people’s goals and plans.

The Domains — Works Dimension

Domains are social fields for applying theoretical knowledge and they are also contexts of our work practices. There are two types of practice domains: horizontal domains and vertical domains.

• Horizontal domains refer to general functions in society such as “organization, strategy and innovation”.
• Vertical domains refer to specific industries, for example, farm (agriculture), bus (transportation), and movies (entertainment).

Works refer to a person’s work experiences, work activities, and his work creations.

G1 refers to HCI (Human-computer Interaction) and my work BagTheWeb. As a digital interaction designer, I found Bonnie Nardi’s books perfect for me because she is the knowledge bridge between Activity Theory and HCI. Bonnie A. Nardi is an activity theorist, HCI researcher and anthropologist. She is well known for her work on activity theory, interaction design, games, social media, and society and technology. You can find her story here. In 2018, I adopted the Activity System model to reflect on an early project BagTheWeb and produced the Curating Activity System. You can find more details here.

G2 refers to Education and my activities of building nonprofit social learning communities before 2014 and my recent projects such as Developing Tacit Knowledge and Adult Life Discovery. The source of Activity Theory is Lev Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory of psychology which is a widely influential theory about human mental development. Activity Theory is also adopted by educational researchers and organizational learning researchers. As mentioned in other articles, I have some friends who are working on adult development programs and youth development programs. Thus, I have opportunities to talk with them and build connections between Theory and Practice.

G3 refers to Activity Analysis and Strategic Innovation. In Oct 2021, I coined the term Activity Analysis to describe a possible domain. Though Activity Theory is adopted by various domains, it has not been known by many practitioners yet. I was wondering if we can build a new domain for connecting Activity Theory and professional practitioners. A possible direction is strategic innovation since the core of Activity Theory is Object and Objective. You can find some ideas from my previous articles: 1, 2, 3.

The Events — Projects Dimensions

While Domains refer to contexts of formal work experiences, Events refer to daily life experiences. I also use Projects to refer to non-work projects. For the canvas of thematic space, all Projects are self-determined for developing tacit knowledge.

In May 2021, our family moved to a new house. During the past several months, we bought various new products and services. This new life ecology led to an independent research project: Self-installation Activity and Customer Service. I collected data about my own experience of using products and services and reflected on the self-installation activity and consumer service from perspectives of both a real customer and an independent researcher.

H2 refers to an adult development program and the Developmental Project Model. In June 2021, one friend of mine started an online adult development program. The program was designed with three components: 1) Life Purpose Awareness, 2) Personal OKR Practice, 3) Peer Review and Feedback. The major part of the program is a monthly peer-support group on several social media platforms. As a mentor, I often talked with her about the program in the past several months. I adopted Activity Theory and other theoretical resources for our discussions.

H3 refers to the development of CALL which is my own studio. In the past year, CALL became a knowledge curation studio. Three projects produced many knowledge products such as diagrams, models, frameworks, and concepts. I also use Activity Theory to reflect on the development of CALL and my own mind and life.

A New Typology of Tacit Knowledge

I have reviewed the concept of Tacit Knowledge in The Dynamics of Tacit Knowledge. The term Tacit Knowledge was coined by Michael Polanyi in his 1958 book Personal Knowledge which is a book about philosophy of science. Polanyi emphasized the importance of skillful knowing and intellectual passions for the development of scientific knowledge.

In a later book, The Tacit Dimension (1966), Polanyi claimed that “we can know more than we can tell.” This affirmation leads to a popular typology of knowledge: Tacit Knowledge v.s. Explicit Knowledge. After Polanyi, many scholars and researchers outside the field of philosophy of science adopted the typology for their study and research. They usually claimed that skills, ideas and experiences are part of tacit knowledge.

Based on the canvas of thematic space, I’d like to suggest a new typology of tacit knowledge: the following eight types of mapping clues between outer space and inner space.

• Approaches — Tastes
• Concepts — Notions
• Events — Projects
• Domains — Works
• Perspectives — Views
• Frameworks — Insights
• Methods — Guides
• Heuristics — Skills

I have to point out that I don’t claim that the inner space is the container of tacit knowledge. Why? Because we can tell others some things within the inner space. But, the mapping clues between outer space and inner space are hard to tell.

Moreover, the new typology moves from the traditional typology Tacit Knowledge v.s. Explicit Knowledge to a process view of Tacit Knowledge.

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.