The Notion of Thematic Spaces

Published in

CALL4

11 min readJan 6, 2022

A super cognitive container for Knowledge Curation and Developing Tacit Knowledge

The above picture is a canvas for Knowledge Curation Mapping. I use the Diagramming as Practice framework as an example.

The canvas is a tool for the Model of Knowledge Curation.

The model presents six types of “Objects of Curating” for a knowledge curation work:

Theoretical Approaches
Conceptual Spaces
Practical Perspectives
Integrated Frameworks
Operational Heuristics
Practical Phenomena

You can find more details from a previous article: The Diagramming as Practice Framework.

From Conceptual Spaces to Thematic Spaces

The term Conceptual Spaces is inspired by Peter Gardenfors’ 2004 book Conceptual Space: The Geometry of Thought. However, I roughly use it to describe large cognitive containers for curating similar theoretical approaches together.

I published the model and the canvas on Dec 16, 2021. In the past weeks, I realized that I should use a new term to replace Conceptual Spaces.

First, what I am talking about is not the original meaning of Peter Gardenfors’ concept of Conceptual Spaces.

Second, I use the word “theme” for Theme U, Theme Plus, and Themes of Practice. I think it is better to use Thematic Space for the model and the canvas.

What is Thematic Spaces?

Is thematic spaces a simple category of theoretical approaches?

Yes, it is. But, it is more than an objective label. For the model of knowledge curation, the notion of Thematic Spaces is both objective and subjective. An important feature of Thematic Spaces is connecting objective theoretical resources and subjective work experience.

As a lifelong thinker, I was satisfied with the Mind as Play metaphor and an integrated epistemological framework in the middle of 2017. See the diagram below.

Basically, the framework is formed by four thematic spaces which refer to four ways of connecting theory and practice.

The “Architecture” thematic space connects my work experiences in Information Architecture and my learning of cognitive science.
The “Relevance” thematic space connects my work experiences in advertising/media/marketing and my learning of semiotics/communication study/culture study.
The “Activity” thematic space connects my work experience with various domains and my learning of Activity Theory.
The “Opportunity” thematic space connects my life experience in my kids’ childhood and my learning of ecological psychology’s Affordance theory and my own work the Ecological Practice approach which was born in 2018.

From the perspective of Curativity Theory, building and developing a Thematic Space means the Objective — Subjective knowledge curation.

You need to connect established theories with your own personal life/work experience. There is a lot of work to do for this type of knowledge curation. You have to select theoretical approaches and identify the similarities and differences between various theories. You have to reflect on your own experience and imagine your future work in order to find relevant themes to curate theoretical approaches. Finally, you need to name your thematic spaces.

For example, I have been reading books and papers about Activity Theory and Social Practice Theories for several years. In 2020, I also worked on the Activity U project which focuses on curating the landscape of Activity Theory. The Activity U project is a knowledge project too.

Sometimes, you could give a working definition for a conceptual space. For example, I consider the Opportunity thematic space as a super container to curate Environments, Situations, Affordances, Opportunities, Possible Actions, Possible Practices together.

Possible Actions can be understood with two inseparable aspects:
a) Potentials which are offers by the environment or the situation, and
b) Capabilities, a skill, an ability, or knowledge that makes a person able to do a particular action.
The Potentials — Capabilities coupling echoes the Environment — Organisms coupling.

Some scholars use a similar approach to build toolkits for research. For example, Davide Nicolini introduces six different ways of theorizing practice in his 2013 book Practice Theory, Work, & Organization. However, their works are about Objective knowledge curation because they aim to produce public knowledge for academic researchers. My notion of Thematic Spaces is for building Personal Epistemological Frameworks and personal epistemic development in general.

Thematic Spaces are dynamic since a person could learn new theories and work on new projects. His experience of learning and working could change his thematic spaces. These changes also impact his further learning and working.

The rest of the article will offer a solution for exploring the structure and dynamics of the Thematic Space.

The Structure of Thematic Space

I have introduced a canvas named Opportunity Space in a previous article. Inspired by the canvas, I made a new canvas for mapping the thematic space.

I adopted two dimensions from my other projects:

The Theory — Practice dimension
The End — Means dimension

The Theory — Practice dimension is the core issue of the ECHO Way and the Knowledge Curation Project. You can find more details from the original project HERO U — A New Framework for Knowledge Heroes.

The End — Means dimension refers to the Means-End Spectrum which is published in a previous article about diagraming.

The form of the canvas is a matrix. There are other two dimensions:

The Enter—Exit dimension
The Individual — Collective dimension

The Enter—Exit dimension is inspired by my work on the Ecological Practice approach which highlights the concept of Container. As mentioned above, the thematic space is a super cognitive container. The Enter—Exit dimension describes the whole process of interaction with the container.

For the Knowledge Curation project, the Enter is related to Resources and the Exit is related to Results. That means we consider two types of resources for Developing Tacit Knowledge: Theory and Practice. There are two types of Results for Developing Tacit Knowledge: End and Means. The End refers to “Knowing for All” while the Means refers to “Knowing for Me”.

The “Knowing for All” and “Knowing for Me” are two types of motivations, the former is developing knowledge for public benefit while the latter is developing knowledge for personal practice. This leads to the second dimension: individual — Collective.

The Individual — Collective dimension is inspired by Activity Theory and other social practice theories. I personally consider them as knowledge resources for my “Activity” thematic space. The major notion behind these theoretical approaches is that they consider individual actions within a social practice context or a human activity. For Developing Tacit Knowledge, I also consider personal actions and social context. This is the reason that I don’t use the term “Personal Knowledge Development”.

The above canvas also has two nested squares which divide the thematic space into two sub-spaces: inner space and outer space. We can adopt the metaphor of City to understand these two sub-spaces. While a city is a whole, we can clearly identify its inner space and its outer space. For Developing Tacit Knowledge, the inner space is all about personal knowing activities while the outer space is related to social interactions.

Based on the above settings, I generated a series of mapping between outer space and inner space:

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

Should we consider the inner space as the space of Personal Tacit Knowledge or Personal Knowledge? We can roughly use it in this way. However, I am not going to develop a new definition of the concept of Tacit Knowledge or Personal Knowledge. The above settings are only for discussing the process of Developing.

The Dynamics of Thematic Space

Developing Tacit Knowledge is more about the Dynamics of the thematic space. From the perspective of Activity Theory, I consider Developing Tacit Knowledge as an Activity.

Where is the Developing Tacit Knowledge activity?

The diagram below highlights a light blue area around the boundary between the inner space and the outer space. That means the activity is a cross-boundary activity.

According to Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006), there are five basic principles of Activity Theory:

Object-orientedness
Tool mediation
Internalization — externalization
The hierarchical structure of activity, and
Development

We can apply these five principles to discuss the Developing Tacit Knowledge activity. You can find more details here and here. Our discussion about inner space and outer space echoes the Internalization-externalization principle.

For Activity Theorists, there is a debate on the Internalization-externalization principle. Some members pay attention to the paradigm of Internalization while others emphasize the paradigm of Externalization. I personally support both sides and I think the principle is a whole. We can’t only accept half of the principle.

For Developing Tacit Knowledge, I consider it a self-determined activity with social support. Also, I think there are many paths or strategies for developing tacit knowledge. It all depends on a person’s motivation, situation, and vision.

The Primary Theme

Each thematic space is led by a primary theme which is both a name and a center of a thematic space.

I personally like to use one word such as “Cognition” or a concept such as “Themes of Practice” to name a thematic space. I also use this approach to design knowledge diagrams and knowledge canvases.

However, there are two issues. The first one is a linguistic issue. A single word may have several unrelated meanings. If we use a word for a name of a thematic space, it may lead in different directions. For example, the word “Activity” means a theoretical concept of Activity Theory in the context of discussing Activity Theory. However, I use “Activity” as the name for one of my thematic spaces, and it refers to many theoretical approaches to human activities and social practices. So, the thematic space is not only about Activity Theory, but also about other social practice theories.

The second one is a conceptual issue. Since a thematic space is dynamic, its form and content always change. In a previous article about diagramming and thought, I used the notion of Ambiguity — Precision Dynamics to discuss this issue. Sometimes a thematic space doesn’t have a precise theme, or we can’t clearly name it with one word. From the D as Diagramming project, I found some people use more than one word to name a thematic space. For example, my friend Mr. Nicoman used words such as “Judgement | Opinion (2010)” and “Cognition Judgement (Opinion) (2020)” to name the same thematic space. You can find Nicoman’s story here.

In the past two weeks, I designed a series of mandala diagrams. Each mandala diagram has four thematic spaces and four connected hubs. I tried two approaches to name thematic spaces.

On Dec 23, 2021, I designed the Creator’s Mandala (see the diagram below) which uses “Cognition” to name a thematic space that refers to cognitive sciences and related fields. This is a one-word approach.

Yesterday, I designed the Sailor’s Mandala (see the diagram below) which is also considered a Life Discovery Framework. The purpose of the diagram is to summarize discussions about an adult development program. You can find more details here.

When I designed the Sailor’s Mandala, I added a pair of keywords to each thematic space. For example, I attached “Belief/Fact” to “Cognition”.

If we compare the Creator’s Mandala and the Sailor’s Mandala, then we can find the same word “Cognition” refers to two different thematic spaces. For the Creator’s Mandala, “Cognition” is about cognitive science and related fields. For the Sailor’s Mandala, “Cognition” is related to Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

The Sailor’s Mandala is for developing tacit knowledge for a group of people since the adult development program has many participants. We will use it as an instrument for group reflection.

Both approaches are fine for developing tacit knowledge. The change of names of thematic spaces also indicates the development of thematic spaces.

Is Thematic Spaces Real?

We can ask Peter Gardenfors a similar question: Is Conceptual Spaces Real? I’d like to quote Gardenfors’ answer as my answer:

Finally, a philosophical question: What is the ontological status of conceptual spaces? I view conceptual spaces as theoretical entities that can be used to explain and predict various empirical phenomena concerning concept formation…Since my basic methodological position is instrumentalistic, I avoid questions about how real the dimensions of conceptual spaces are but view them as instruments for predictive and constructive purposes (compare, for example, the question of what the equator is). (Conceptual Spaces, 2004, p.31)

For me, the notion of Thematic Spaces is part of a large knowledge enterprise that contains the following ideas:

Curativity Theory > Cognitive Container > Knowledge Curation
Curativity Theory > Themes of Practice
Life as Activity > Creative Life > Slow Cognition
Mind as Play > Diagramming as Practice
Mind as Play > Developing Tacit Knowledge
Mind as Play > Themes of Practice

For Curativity Theory, the notion of Thematic Spaces is a new theoretical concept that is part of the Knowledge Curation framework. Also, Themes of Practice is a sub-theory of Curativity Theory, the notion of Thematic Spaces is also part of the Themes of Practice framework.

The notion of Slow Cognition refers to the long-term development of thoughts and the historical-cognitive method. The notion of Thematic Spaces is a great tool for turning the notion of Slow Cognition from a concept into a project.

Since my newest project is about Developing Tacit Knowledge, I’d like to offer more details about it.

The Framework of Developing Tacit Knowledge

On Dec 25, 2021, I published the diagram below as a framework for discussing Developing Tacit Knowledge.

The above framework is adopted from the Mind as Play metaphor and my integrated epistemological framework which was defined by four thematic spaces as mentioned above: Architecture, Relevance, Activity, and Opportunity.

Also, the framework also highlights several forms of activities, for example:

Think
Count
Present
Talk
Curate

These forms of activities should be considered as forms of Developing Tacit Knowledge. In other words, Developing Tacit Knowledge is not only about thinking. You can do more things!

This is also the core message of the Mind as Play metaphor. You are not going to develop your mind through pure thinking.

What’s the relationship between the framework and the notion of Thematic Spaces?

The framework is directly adopted from a framework for studying diagramming, so I used Methods [Concepts(Meta-diagrams)] as its center. It refers to a special type of knowledge product: Knowledge Frameworks.

The canvas of Thematic Spaces points to many types of knowledge products, Knowledge Framework is one of them.

If we revise the framework, the center can be replaced by other things. It all depends on your strategies for Developing Tacit Knowledge. You can change the four perspectives for the framework too.

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