TALE: A Possible Theme called “Concept Choices”
The Defining Movement of Platform Innovation
The above picture represents a Possible Theme called “Concept Choices”.
- Name: Concept Choices
- Clue: The Defining Movement of Platform Innovation
- Type: knowledge theme
- Contributors: Ping-keung Lui
- Related themes: Platform Ecology
- Reference: Concept-fit, Platform Orientation, Concept Dynamics, Technology Choices
The theme of “Concept Choices” was born from my recent two projects. One is a Strategic Design Research project about a web3 platform. The other one is a Creative Life Study project about Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology.
While the first project is about technological innovation, the second project is about theoretical innovation. From the perspective of Activity Theory, these two projects refer to different types of concert actions and operations. However, I adopt the Platform Ecology approach to understand their similarity.
Both projects aim to develop an innovative platform to support others’ activities, I use the following frameworks of Platform Ecology for my research.
During the process of working on these two projects, I started developing some new ideas and reorganized my mind about these ideas.
This post shares a new idea called “Concept Choices” and reviews some related existing ideas.
The Concept-fit Framework
I started my research with the Concept-fit framework. See the diagram below. You can also find more details in Platform Innovation as Concept-fit.
The above diagram is based on the HERO U diagram. Blue circles refer to technological concepts and green circles refer to sociocultural concepts. Each side has three levels of concepts. Thus, the term “Concept-fit” means six types of concepts fit together from two sides and three levels.
- Technological Concepts at the Theoretical level
- Technological Concepts at the Operational level
- Technological Concepts at the Product level
- Sociocultural Concepts at the Collective level
- Sociocultural Concepts at the Individual level
- Sociocultural Concepts at the Project level
These two sides can be seen as the Owner’s Concepts and the Users’ Concepts. In general, the notion of “Concept-fit” means the fit between the Owner’s Concepts and the Users’ Concepts.
One theoretical resource behind the Concept-fit framework is the Project-oriented Activity Theory. The theory adopts a unique perspective to understand “Concepts.” Andy Blunden initiates the theory with a special proposal of “Project as a unit of Activity”.
In order to develop the theoretical foundation of “Project as a unit of Activity”, Blunden adopts Hegel’s Logic and Vygotsky’s theory about Concepts 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).
Blunden points out, “As Hegel explained, every concept exists as Individual, Particular and Universal. These three moments of the concept are never completely in accord. There is always a measure of dissonance between them, and this is manifested in the dynamics of the concept. What an individual means when they use the word is never quite the same as the meaning produced in any other context.” (2012, p.295)
The above diagram only represents the transformation of a Concept. In a real research project, we can apply it to study a Concept Network.
Concept Network
A primary task of the Concept-fit framework is to understand the landscape of a Concept Network that captures the cognitive structure of a platform on one side and the landscape of multiple thematic networks of a platform-ba which refers to the platform-based social practice space.
For example, I used the Thematic Landscape Map to visualize the landscape of Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology.
The Thematic Landscape Map was developed for representing three types of Objectification of a Concept:
- Symbolic Objectification: “Verbal” and “Visual”
- Instrumental Objectification: “designed” and “found”
- Practical Objectification: “Branded” and “Shared”
A Concept Network can be understood as a primary theme with several related themes. In other words, a Concept Network is a Theme Network that refers to a network of significant keywords. The diagram below is an example of a theme network.
Concept Choices
If we use the above frameworks to understand the journey of building a technological platform or developing a brand new scientific theory, then we can find the defining movement of platform innovation:
Concept Choices
I use “Concept Choice” to refer to decision-making on selecting a position at a particular level and moving between two levels.
Let’s see an example from Lui’s journey of building Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology. One of Lui’s concepts is “Paradigm”.
Ping-keung Lui aims to build a brand new theoretical sociology as a candidate for the paradigm of sociology. According to Lui, “There are three kinds of theories in sociology, namely, social theory, sociological theory, and theoretical sociology. ”
- Social theories are speculations about the social world. They constitute the speculative project of sociology.
- Some social theories are amenable to positivistic investigation under certain specific conditions. I call them sociological theories.
- Also, some other social theories, being very ambitious, attempt to recruit as many as they can sociological theories supporting themselves. I call them theoretical sociologies. They compete against each other. The winner becomes the paradigm of sociology, and its supporting sociological theories become exemplars of the paradigm. In this way, theoretical sociologies and sociological theories constitute the scientific project of sociology.
“Paradigm” is inspired by Thomas Kuhn’s theory about scientific revolutions. There are various versions of “Paradigm” and “Paradigm Shift”. It means that we have a Universal Concept about Kuhn’s “Paradigm” which refers to the whole thematic space about different versions of “Paradigm”.
However, if we want to actually do something about “Paradigm”, we have to pick one version of “Paradigm”. In this movement, we move to define an Individual Concept.
Finally, we need to give a solution to make a real thing of our definition of “Paradigm”. This refers to a Particular Concept.
The diagram below represents Lui’s Concept Choices for these movements.
At the level of Universal Concept, Kuhn’s Paradigm competes with Lakatos’ Scientific Research Programmes and other accounts. Lui’s choice is Kuhn’s Paradigm.
At the level of Individual Concept, Lui had to choose one idea from various versions of Paradigm. According to Lui, his choice is half of “Disciplinary Matrix”.
The result is the disciplinary matrix in which various uses of the term “paradigm” are sorted into its components. There are four main components, namely, symbolic generalizations, beliefs in particular exemplars, values, exemplars. […T]hese four components belong to two kinds of subject matters; symbolic generalizations and exemplars are subject matters internal to the scientific project itself, and the remaining two are external to the project but internal to the scientific community.
Both kinds of subject matters are indispensable, since the scientific project and the community that carries it out and carries it on the scientific project of sociology, […] I shall retain the term “paradigm” and equate it with “symbolic generalizations”. In this way, we make the paradigm (a theoretial sociology) and its exemplars (sociological theories) a worthy topic on the scientific project. […]
(Aspects of Sociological Explanation: Lectures on Sociology-Philosophy, Fall 2016, p.107)
Lui’s primary interest is the scientific project itself, not the scientific community. So, he only uses “symbolic generalizations” (and “exemplars”) as his version of “paradigm”.
How does Lui make the real “symbolic generalizations” for his knowledge enterprise?
He adopts Ferdinand de Saussure’s idea to build a foundation for his theoretical sociology. We can call his account “Sociological Langue/Speech”. Langue and parole is a theoretical linguistic dichotomy distinguished by Ferdinand de Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics. Langue refers to the abstract system of language while parole means concrete speech.
The “Sociological Langue/Speech” account is Lui’s choice at the level of Particular Concept.
Technology Choices
The theme of “Concept Choices” is also inspired by a 2015 book titled Technology Choices: Why occupations differ in their embrace of new technology.
In Technology Choices, the authors Diane Bailey and Paul Leonardi argue that occupational factors — rather than personal preference or purely technological concerns — strongly shape workers’ technology choices.
Why do people who perform largely the same type of work make different technology choices in the workplace? An automotive design engineer working in India, for example, finds advanced information and communication technologies essential, allowing him to work with far-flung colleagues; a structural engineer in California relies more on paper-based technologies for her everyday work; and a software engineer in Silicon Valley operates on multiple digital levels simultaneously all day, continuing after hours on a company-supplied home computer and network connection.
Drawing on extensive field work — a decade’s worth of observations and interviews in seven engineering firms in eight countries — Bailey and Leonardi challenge the traditional views of technology choices: technological determinism and social constructivism. Their innovative occupational perspective allows them to explore how external forces shape ideas, beliefs, and norms in ways that steer individuals to particular technology choices — albeit in somewhat predictable and generalizable ways. They examine three relationships at the heart of technology choices: human to technology, technology to technology, and human to human. An occupational perspective, they argue, helps us not only to understand past technology choices, but also to predict future ones.
After reading this book, I realized that there are many types of decision-making activities. Each type of decision-making activity could be developed as a Possible Discipline.
The theme of “Technology Choices” led to a decade of fieldwork and a book. I wish the theme of “Concept Choices” could lead to a new project and a new possible book.
Platform Genidentity: Concept as Platform-core
The “Platform Genidentity” framework aims to understand the process of keeping the uniqueness of a platform within a long-term duration. The framework is formed with the following concepts:
- Platform
- Platform-core
- Platform-ba
- Genidentity
- Essential Differences
- Situated Dynamics
The basic model of the Platform Genidentity is represented in the following diagram. You can find more details in Platform Genidentity: The Movements of Unfolding Uniqueness.
The Platform Genidentity Toolkit considers the following tools for practical work.
Platform Genidentity Matrix:
- The Movements of Objectification of Platform-core (Three types)
- Construal Levels of Platform Objectification (Six levels)Platform-based Service:
- The SET Framework
- The DEEP Framework
I have to point out that I use “Developmental Platform” to define a working concept of “Platform”. The term “Developmental Platform” refers to “social environment that could strongly support adult development in various ways”. You can find more details in The Developmental Platform.
What’s the relationship between “Concept-fit” and “Platform Genidentity”?
The “Platform Core” can be understood as a Concept or a Concept Network. In this way, the growth of a platform is a process of Objectification of Platform-core.
Objectification of a Concept
As mentioned above, the Thematic Landscape Map was developed for representing three types of Objectification of a Concept:
- Symbolic Objectification: “Verbal” and “Visual”
- Instrumental Objectification: “designed” and “found”
- Practical Objectification: “Branded” and “Shared”
On May 29, 2022, I used two models to expand the concept of “Objectification” and build a framework:
- The Movements of Objectification of Platform-core (Three types)
- Construal Levels of Platform Objectification (Six levels)
If we combine these two together, we can generate a 3x6 matrix. See the chart below.
I use “Curativity” as an example of the meta-theory. Though the concept of “Curativity” is a member of the Ecological Practice Approach, it led to a series of projects such as the Knowlege Curation project, the Life Curation project, and the Career Curation project. My “Curativity” thematic space became a large knowledge enterprise.
You can find more details about my “Curativity” thematic space.
“Concept Choices” is about decision-making activities of the journey of “Objectification of a Concept”. See the table below.
In the above table, each block refers to a thematic space. There is a Concept Choice between each move between two blocks.
There are many ways to represent the concrete actions of the journey of “Objectification of a Concept”. In general, we can find Concept Choice in each decision-making activity about selecting a thematic space and moving between two thematic spaces.
Reference
- TALE: A Possible Theme called “Possible Discipline”
- The Disciplinary Identity of HCI Research: An Investigation Using Configurational Theory
- Mental Moves #2: Creative Swapping of Mental Elements
- Project Engagement (v2.1) as an Innovation Approach
- Platform, Platform-ba, and Platform Ecology
- TALE: A Possible Theme called “Social Pieces”
- TALE: The “Strategic Thematic Exploration” Framework (v1.1)
