D as Diagramming: The NEST Way and Knowledge Frameworks

A meta-diagram and how to develop a framework with a meta-diagram

The above diagram is a meta-diagram called the NEST way. The notion of “meta-diagram” considers a special type of diagram as an independent thing which doesn’t have to be a representation of an existing theory or model. For example, the 2x2 matrix diagram is a meta-diagram which doesn’t refer to any concrete theory or model such as BCG’s Growth-share matrix.

So, what’s the meaning of meta-diagrams? We can use meta-diagrams to generate general diagrams. For example, the BCG’s Growth-share matrix is based on the 2x2 matrix.

The NEST Way meta-diagram has three components:

• A hierarchical loops
• A matrix
• A set of concepts

This post aims to offer details about these components. In addition, I’d like to share some ideas about using this meta-diagram to develop a knowledge framework.

Contents

Part 1: Meta-diagrams

1.1 Meta-diagrams really matter
1.2 The #Non2x2Matrix challenge
1.3 The NEST Way

Part 2: Knowledge Frameworks

2.1 Meta-theory v.s. Specific Theory
2.2 Abstract Models v.s. Concrete Models
2.3 Theoretical Concepts v.s. Operational Concepts

Part 3: Building A Knowledge Framework

3.1 How to develop a knowledge framework with a Meta-diagram?
3.2 The Top-down Approach
3.3 The Bottom-up Approach

Part 1: Meta-diagrams

A meta-diagram is a diagram for creating diagrams.

1.1 Meta-diagrams Really Matter

I have mentioned an idea called Avocado Effect which describes an essential structure called “meta-product / product”. If we apply the Avocado Effect to diagramming, we can see the same structure: “meta-diagram / diagram”.

Diagram is one of my essential three knowledge units. I love to dwell in thought with diagramming. I even wrote a 108-page thesis which develops a theory about diagrams and diagramming in 2018. I consider two groups of ideas for my theory about diagrams. The first group is “meta-diagram, diagram and diagram system” and the second group is “diagramming as an activity of knowing, theorizing and reflecting”.

The notion of “meta-diagram” considers a special type of diagram as an independent thing which doesn’t have to be a representation of an existing theory or model. For example, the 2x2 matrix diagram is a meta-diagram which doesn’t refer to any concrete theory or model such as BCG’s Growth-share matrix. A diagram system is a series of diagrams which share an intrinsic spatial logic and a visual identity.

The notion of “diagramming as an activity of knowing, theorizing and reflecting” adopts a process view to understand Diagrams. In other words, it is “becoming.” That means we can use diagrams as a tool for our thinking. We don’t need to consider all diagrams as final outcomes.

I have discussed this topic in a previous article: Activity U (IV): The Engeström’s Triangle and the Power of Diagram. If you want to go deep, you can read the following sections of the article:

• 5.1 Diagram (Representation) v.s. Diagramming (Instrument)
• 5.2 Spatial thought v.s. Linguistic thought
• 5.3 Knowledge model v.s. Knowledge brand

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 a diagram is not a dogma but a guide to action.

1.2 The #Non2x2Matrix Challenge

Last year, I started a challenge called #Non2x2Matrix.

In 2018, I wrote a 108-page personal thesis about diagrams and diagramming. I found many management and business thinkers like using a 2x2 matrix to represent their ideas. And, it is really bad!

In Nov 2019, I read a paper titled The technology-mindset interactions: Leading to incremental, radical or revolutionary innovations. The authors used a 2x2 matrix to generate three types of innovation models. I believe this matrix is too simple because it only considers two dimensions: the technological transformation and mindset transformation. I’d like to add the third dimension: culture transformation.

This reading experience inspired me to initiate the #Non2x2Matrix Challenge in order to encourage people to use something beyond the 2x2 Matrix.

Why do we use the 2x2 Matrix? Because we need a visual frame to represent our ideas. If we always use the 2x2 Matrix, it becomes the cage of our mind. Meta-diagrams really matter. We need more choices on meta-diagrams.

1.3 The NEST Way

The NEST Way meta-diagram is inspired by my diagram about the Attachance Perspective. The diagram below was designed in the early of 2020 in order to test a concept called Attachance.You can find more details from a previous article: D as Diagramming: The Attachance Perspective.

I didn’t immediately create a meta-diagram from the above diagram, but instead made it indirectly almost ten months later. In Oct, 2020, I wanted to develop a framework based on a pair of concepts of “Affordance — Supportance” for applying my approach the Ecological Practice approach to design innovation. Since the pair of concepts of “Affordance — Supportance” forms a hierarchical loops, I realized the diagram of the Attachance Perspective is perfect for representing the structure of a hierarchical loops.

The above two diagrams represents the process of making the “Affordance — Supportance” hierarchical loops.

First, I use a new pair of concepts “Lifeway — Lifeform” and Lifeway refers to the “human — material” interaction which is about Affordance while Lifeform refers to the “human — human” interaction which is about Supportance.

Second, I adopted the pair of concepts “Subject — Object” from Activity Theory.

Third, I also adopted the pair of concepts “Enter — Exit” from the Ecological Practice approach.

The new diagram produces eight spots for defining Operational Concepts. The final outcome is a brand new framework for design innovation in general.

From this process, I realized the diagram of the Attachance perspective could be used as a meta-diagram. Thus, I remove the original words and rename it the NEST way.

Part 2: Knowledge Frameworks

Based on the HERO U framework, I understand Knowledge Frameworks as a category which contains two types models: Abstract Model (aModel) and Concrete Model (cModel).

2.1 Meta-theory v.s. Specific Theory

Last year I developed the HERO U framework for knowledge heroes. The framework uses the following diagram to display six types of “objective of knowing”.

• mTheory: Meta-theory
• sTheory: Specific Theory
• aModel: Abstract Model
• cModel: Concrete Model
• dPractice: Domain Practice
• gPractice: General Practice

Meta-theory (mTheory) means philosophical approaches or theoretical perspectives which can guide researchers to develop their own theory in a special domain. For example, Activity Theory or the “Cultural-historical theory of activity (CHAT)” is an interdisciplinary philosophical framework for studying both individual and social aspects of human behavior. I also consider some established theories in special domains as meta-theory. For example, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a type of psychological motivation theory. As a meta-theory, SDT represents a broad framework for the study of human motivation and personality with six mini-theories.

Specific Theory (sTheory) refers to discipline-dependent theories. This type theory only applies to a particular domain or field. For example, Event System Theory is an event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Specific theory can be guided by meta-theory. For example, Job Crafting Theory is a theory about career and it is based on Self-Determination Theory. Expansive Learning Theory is developed within the framework of Activity Theory.

The bridge between theory and practice is Model. I defined two types of models, one is Abstract Model (aModel) and the other one is Concrete Model (cModel).

2.2 Abstract Models v.s. Concrete Models

Abstract Models (aModel) are high level models which connect theoretical approaches with special domains. For example, Paula Jarzabkowski introduced Activity Theory to Strategy as Practice in a paper, she explained some specific concepts associated with Activity Theory and indicated its value for studying Strategy as Practice. She presented an activity system framework with a new diagram.

Concrete Models (cModel) are lower level models with details for directly guiding domain practice. For example, researchers of the HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) discipline found that the Activity Theory conceptual approach highlights the importance of computer users’ social and cultural behavior in context and helps designers and developers understand complex and intertwining issues that impact on the usefulness of objects. However, there is no established standard method for connecting Activity Theory concepts with HCI practice. Activity Theory doesn’t provide ready-made techniques and procedures for research and design.

Noticing the lack of a standard and specified method for applying Activity Theory within HCI, Daisy Mwanza developed an Activity-Oriented Design Method (AODM) with four methodological tools. Mwanza highlighted the benefits of AODM for HCI researchers and designers: 1). AODM provides a structured and grounded approach for operationalising Engestrom’s (1987) activity triangle model; 2). The AODM approach can easily be integrated with other design methods; 3). AODM can be successfully applied to the analysis of real world settings; 4). AODM produces data that can be meaningfully interpreted and usefully incorporated in system design; 5). AODM can be easily used by designers and other users with little knowledge of Activity Theory (p.198).

While theories are represented with theoretical concepts without diagrams, models usually rely on diagrams for visual representation. People also called these models as frameworks.

2.3 Theoretical Concepts v.s. Operational Concepts

A knowledge framework is a bridge which connects theory and practice. An ideal knowledge framework should contain two types of concepts:

• Theoretical Concepts
• Operational Concepts

Theoretical Concepts are adopted from Meta-theory or Specific Theory. Some frameworks don’t associate with any theories, they only have operational concepts.

Operational Concepts are framework-dependent concepts for guiding research and reflection. For example, Yrjö Engeström’s Activity System Model is a knowledge framework. Its diagram displays seven operational concepts.

The Activity System (Engestrom, 1987)

We should notice that a knowledge framework can directly adopt some theoretical concepts as its operational concepts. For example, the above diagram shows “Subject” and “Object” which are core theoretical concepts of Activity Theory. However, some researchers use “Actor” to replace “Subject” with the same diagram for their own work. The concept of “Actor” should be understood as an operational concept. For real life research, the difference between “Subject” and “Actor” doesn’t matter since we need to see the final data which refers to a person or several people.

While Yrjö Engeström uses the word “Instruments”, other researchers use “Mediating Tool” or similar words. For example, Maral Babapour, Antonio Cobaleda-Cordero, and MariAnne Karlsson adopt Activity Theory to develop a framework for understanding the interrelations between users and workplace design. They use the word “Mediating Tool”.

Both theoretical concepts and operational concepts can be defined precisely or vaguely. For example, the scope of the concept of “Instruments/Mediating Tool” is very broad in Activity Theory. The above diagram shows an example, the authors understand “Office Environment” as “Mediating Tool” from the perspective of Activity Theory. Since Activity Theory doesn’t have a theoretical concept of “Environment,” researchers tend to use the concept of “Instruments/Mediating Tool” to understand “Environment”.

We also should notice that a knowledge framework’s diagram may not display some key theoretical concepts. In fact, we don’t have to display theoretical concepts in a diagram because we can discuss them with words in a research report. For example, the concept of “Mediation” is a foundational theoretical concept of Activity Theory. In fact, Yrjö Engeström’s Activity System Model was developed with double mediations. However, the Activity System Model doesn’t display the word “Mediation” in its diagram.

Part 3: Building A Knowledge Framework

How to build a knowledge framework? This is a broad topic. The present discussion only focuses on meta-diagram and knowledge framework.

3.1 How to develop a knowledge framework with a Meta-diagram?

From the perspective of the HERO U framework, I use the following formula to define a knowledge framework:

Concepts + Diagrams + Methods = Knowledge Framework

As a tool for guiding research and reflection, a knowledge framework is a whole which contains concepts, diagrams, and methods.

From the perspective of Activity Theory, a knowledge framework is the outcome of a knowledge building activity which refers to turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. A person has some ideas about something, these ideas are his tacit knowledge. He needs to use concepts and diagrams to describe and visualize these ideas and turn them into a knowledge framework.

As mentioned above, there are two types of concepts. With a meta-diagram, a person can create new theoretical concepts or new operational concepts, then make a new knowledge framework. These two ways are Top-down approach and Bottom-up approach.

• Top-down approach: using theoretical concepts to generate operational concepts with a meta-diagram.
• Bottom-up approach: using operational concepts to generate theoretical concepts with a meta-diagram.

The following sections will unpack these two approaches with two examples.

3.2 The Top-down Approach

I have mentioned the “Lifeway — Lifeform” diagram in Part I. The final outcome of the “Lifeway — Lifeform” diagram is a framework called Lifesystem.

This section uses the Lifesystem Framework as an example of the top-down approach. As mentioned above, the beginning of the process is combining three pairs of concepts with the meta-diagram. The result is finding eight spots for locating operational concepts.

The following steps are generating operational concepts from theoretical concepts. I use the pair of concept of “Lifeway — Lifeform” as a principle to separate “Subject — Object” and “Enter — Exit” into eight operational concepts.

The concept of Subject is separated into Actor and Group. The concept of Actor is located at the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Group is located at the loop of Lifeform.

The concept of Object is separated into Material and Information. The concept of Material is located at the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Information is located at the loop of Lifeform.

The concept of Enter is separated into Intention and Resource. The concept of Intention is located at the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Resource is located at the loop of Lifeform.

The concept of Exit is separated into Result and Reward. The concept of Result is located at the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Reward is located at the loop of Lifeform.

The above diagram is the final outcome: the Lifesystem framework. The word “Life” is inspired by the term “Lifeworld” from Alfred Schutz while the word “System” is inspired by Anticipatory System Theory. The framework considers the “lifeway — lifeform” hierarchical loops as a which is an anticipatory system.

The purpose behind the Lifesystem framework is developing a framework for discussing work-related design innovation. It is close to Alfred Schutz’s concept “The World of Working”.

I’d like to write a new post to offer more details of the Lifesystem framework. Here it is used as an example for discussing the top-down approach.

3.3 The Bottom-up Approach

The Bottom-up approach means generating theoretical concepts from operational concepts. I’d like to use the following diagram “The Landscape of Opportunity” as an example.

The above diagram is a rough idea about expanding the Infoniche model.

Why did I want to deal with this issue? It refers to the newest development of my thought about the Infoniche model. In order to explain this newest development, I have to review its short history.

Following the Ecological Psychologist James J. Gibson’s definition of niche, I coined a new term Infoniche which is defined as a set of potential action possibilities such as affordances and supportances. The part of “info” means the new version of niche aims to expand Gibson’s idea into the information age and digital environments. However, I want to claim that Infoniche doesn’t only refer to information environments or digital environments, but both traditional environments and digital environments. Moreover, the Infoniche framework also expands Gibson’s idea from natural environment to social environment by working with the concept of Supportance.

Unlike Roger Barker, Gibson doesn’t develop a systematic analysis framework for his version of niche. Inspired by Barker’s work on the theory of Behavior Settings, I develop a concrete analysis framework for applying the concept Infoniche to empirical studies.

The term Spot refers to a minimal time-space scale environment which is the container of the body level immediate situational actions. The term Zone refers to a micro social space which contains the dyad, or two-person system of social interactions. The term Camp refers to a connected group of Zones. The term Ba refers to a large scale of social spaces such as a community, a field, a domain, etc.

After finishing the book draft of Project-oriented Activity Theory, I added a new layer called Project to expand the Infoniche framework.

I also developed a triad of “Network — Container — Platform” as context of ecological practice approach.

The above two diagrams were designed from two ideas under the same approach: the ecological practice approach.

After finishing the book draft Platform for Development and editing the TOC of the book Themes of Practice, I started thinking about a new layer: Domain. In July, I wrote a short file titled The Epistemology of Domain (v1.0) and used the theory curation method to develop a framework for understanding Domain. I adopted the following theories and curated them together:

• Activity Theory
• Events System Theory
• Network of Enterprise
• Themes of Practice

Eventually, I realized that I need to expand the triad of “Network — Container — Platform” to a tetrad of “Network — Container — Platform — Domain”.

Two weeks ago, I worked on the NEST way meta-diagram. I realized the NEST way is a perfect meta-diagram for expanding the Infoniche model. Thus, I just tried it. I named the outcome the Landscape of Opportunity.

Since my thought about The Epistemology of Domain is still rough, I only consider the Landscape of Opportunity as an intellectual exercise and a test of the NEST way meta-diagram.

In a previous article D as Diagramming: iART Diagram Notation, I mentioned a term “Diagram Focus” which is for Diagram Notation.

What’s Diagram Notation? It means the process of adding notes on a diagram and turning a basic model into an expanded model. It also means the product of the final expanded model.

The D as Diagramming project aims to explore the power of diagrams and diagramming. What I really want to know is about the value of diagrams for turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.

The idea of “Diagram Focus” highlights an area of a diagram as a figure and considers other parts as ground. In this matter, we can focus on a small area and discover a deep meaning. This is a critical technique of bottom-up approach.

For example, by focusing on the area of “Spot — Platform”, I got an theoretical concept called “Material Engagement”.

For the focus of “Project — Container”, I coined a new term “Bounded Objective” as a new theoretical concept.

The Zone is about interpersonal interaction while the Network is about connection. So, I used “Embedded Connection” to refers to the focus of “Zone — Network”.

Finally, I used “Structural Dynamics” refers to the focus of “Camp — Domain”.

A challenge of the bottom-up approach is matching the inner loop and outer loop. Each loop has four operational concepts. Without theoretical concepts, we don’t have a guide to match eight operational concepts.

If we want to match them perfectly, we need to try different configurations and discover higher level theoretical concepts from ideal matches.

This is one of the most exciting moments in the process of Diagramming as Thinking.

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.