TALE: A Possible Theme called “Continuous Curation”

Published in

TALE500

10 min readFeb 16, 2023

The Art of Reframing

The post aims to respond to Daiana Zavate’s new post Moving Inward: Cycles of Reinvention. She is confused about the method of annual themes.

With Oliver’s help, I considered Strategic Exploration as a main theme to pursue this year. However, it wasn’t clear to me what it meant to work with a primary theme and the method of slow cognition he proposed. To my understanding the two can be roughly mean:
- Primary Theme: dedicating your activity space to the pursuit of Strategic Exploration
- Slow cognition: track reflection and developments using a blend of historical and cognitive discourse method

It inspired me to revisit my post about the notion of annual themes:

TALE: How to Set Annual Themes for 2023?

The Double Themes Strategy

medium.com

For knowledge engagement, learning, and development in general, we can use “Annual Themes” for framing the direction, the boundary, and the meaning of the journey.
A journey of knowledge engagement is a multi-year journey. A particular year is part of the whole process. So, annual themes are part of a theme network too.
If you have a good model for your journey, you can use it as a reference for setting your annual themes.

The post doesn’t offer concrete suggestions for developing a journey of knowledge engagement around a primary theme.

A Good Starting Point

On Jan 23, I wrote an article titled How to develop a framework for a possible theme called “Slow Talk”?

It suggests one type of activity of knowledge engagement: Developing a knowledge framework around a knowledge theme.

A possible theme is a good starting point for a journey of knowledge engagement. There are many things you can do within the journey. It all depends on your motivation and preferences.

There is no standard process of knowledge engagement, I used the Slow Cognition approach to reflect on my own experiences and developed several models and methods. What I discovered is that I can make many models from my journey. I can use different units of analysis, select different periods, and pay attention to different aspects, etc.

From the perspective of Curativity Theory, a simple idea of the journey of knowledge engagement is about “Filling the Container”.

A new possible theme frames a new thematic space for creative work. In the beginning, the new thematic space is an empty container. The rest of the journey is filling the empty container and developing a meaningful order for the new whole.

In order to fill the thematic space, you can do various things. Developing Knowledge Frameworks is one such thing.

I share my own experience of developing a knowledge framework for the theme of “Slow Talk”. My path is very simple:

Step 1: Naming a new possible theme
Step 2: Make a cover picture for the theme
Step 3: Develop a working definition (by using a relevant framework)
Step 4: Curate more relevant frameworks together
Step 5: Make a diagram of a theme network

For Step 3, I used a relevant framework to develop a working definition. You don’t have to do it. You can directly give a definition to a new possible theme.

For Step 4, I used my own knowledge frameworks as raw materials for this project. You don’t have to do the same way.

You can use the knowledge frameworks you learned for your projects.

Frame, Unframe, and Reframe

Today I want to share a simple piece of advice for developing knowledge frameworks.

Frame > Unframe > Reframe

I discovered the above pattern from my journey of knowledge engagement in the past several years. I realized that I often unframed my knowledge frameworks once I learned something new or discovered some new insights. This pattern echoes scholars’ ideas about theory building.

In 2004, Clayton M. Christensen and Paul R. Carlile wrote a paper about theory building in Management Research: The Cycles of Theory Building in Management Research. They suggested two stages of theory building: the descriptive stage and the normative stage.

Source: Clayton M. Christensen and Paul R. Carlile (2004)

In the first stage, researchers find a conceptual insight from observing phenomena and design a typology by making classifications, finally they define the relationships between categories and form a model. In the second stage, researchers need to collect more data to test the model and confirm the causality. If they pass the anomaly test, the outcome will be a new version of the theory: the normative theory.

Academic theoretical frameworks are one kind of knowledge framework. One year ago, I developed a typology of knowledge frameworks. See the diagram below.

While scholars and scientists develop knowledge frameworks for Explanation and Research, ordinary people tend to use knowledge frameworks for Reflection and Remember. Professional knowledge workers like to work on Intervention and Exploration with frameworks.

If we reduce frameworks into a lower unit of analysis, we can see a set of elements that form a knowledge framework:

Theory: some frameworks are inspired by some theories.
Concept: some frameworks have a group of concepts.
Diagram: some frameworks use diagrams to represent.
Data: some data are used to develop frameworks while another is for testing them.
Method: how to develop a framework? how to use a framework?

Building a new knowledge framework means we discover a particular configuration of a network of these elements. You can find more details in TALE: Possible Configurations of A Theme Network.

If we call this process Frame, then Unframe means detaching these elements from the particular configuration. We can also use Reframe to refer to re-attaching these elements together around a new configuration. During the Reframe phase, we may remove some elements, or add some new elements.

Moreover, we also update our understanding of these elements over time.

Daiana Zavate mentioned the “Self — Other” issue in her post with the following diagram.

It inspired me to rethink the “Frame > Unframe > Reframe” schema from the perspective of Curativity Theory.

Originally, I use “Situational Curation” to describe practitioners’ knowledge curation for a particular project. Now it seems that I can make a distinction between two types of Situational Curation:

Respond to Others: Responsive Curation
Self-determined: Continuous Curation

The distinction is based on the source of motivations, which can be external triggers or internal triggers.

Respond to Others: Responsive Curation

Responsive Curation is triggered by others. For example, the possible theme “Slow Talk” is inspired by was inspired by Mani Vannan’s question:

Hi Oliver, Which of your models will you use to improve communication and enhance understanding?

It inspired me to rethink my knowledge frameworks. In the past several years, I worked on theories about Activity, Relevance, Affordances, Concepts/Themes, and Anticipation. I didn’t directly work in the field of Communication Research.

However, I made some knowledge frameworks about the thematic controversy, collaborative projects, slow cognition, etc. Mani Vannan’s question encouraged me to curate these frameworks together.

So, I made a new possible theme called “Slow Talk” and developed a framework.

I used “Slow Talk: From Controversy to Collaboration” to frame a thematic space and run a knowledge curation project in order to achieve “improve communication” and “enhance understanding”.

You can find more details in How to develop a framework for a possible theme called “Slow Talk”?

Self-determined: Continuous Curation

Continuous Curation is self-determined. It is part of a person’s journey of knowledge engagement.

One year ago, I worked on the Life-as-Project toolkit and found the changes in my “Project” thematic space.

In Thematic Space: The Project Engagement Toolkit for Creators, I discussed my “Project” thematic space and highlighted the following three points:

First, the Developmental Project Model is an independent framework.
Second, there is a concept called Projectivity behind the module 4 Zone of Project and the module 5 Developmental Project Model.
Third, I also adopted Howard E. Gruber’s Evolving Systems Approach to the study of Creative Work (1974,1989) for module 6.

Originally, the Project Engagement toolkit was born from the work of Project-oriented Activity Theory. Now, it is an instrument for practitioners.

The Life-as-Project approach continuously expands my “Project” thematic space. It seems that I was building a Project-centered approach.

On Feb 13, 2022, I wrote an article titled Life Discovery: The Life-as-Project Approach and discussed the notion of “Project as A Multiple Dimension Concept”.

What does a Project-centered approach look like?
A simple strategy is considering Project as A Multiple-dimension Concept.
… the Life-as-Project approach adopts several theoretical approaches for discussing “Life as Project”. Even though I didn’t intend to develop a solution for a multiple-dimension concept, the outcome is a real multiple-dimension concept.

The above diagram places several pairs of concepts around “Project”. Each pair of concepts defines a dimension.
Aspiration — (Project) — Reflection
Present/Performance — (Project) — Future/Anticipation
Self — (Project) — Other
Idea — (Project) — Concept
Task — (Project) — Enterprise
If we consider Project as A Multiple-dimension Concept, then a new focus is established: Building A Project-centered Approach.
This focus creates a new “Center” in my mind. The “Project” thematic space becomes an independent creative space.

In January 2022, I had a similar experience. I detached from the idea of “Conceptual Space” and attached to my own idea of “Thematic Space” which led to a new creative journey.

There is also a technique change behind the reframe. I used the same visual layout as the above original one to curate more pairs of concepts. See the diagram below.

I want to point out that there is an important switch between two diagrams:

The Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0) Diagram
The Life-as-Project Approach Diagram

The Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0) Diagram is based on the Dialectic Room meta-Diagram.

Originally, I developed the Dialectic Room meta-diagram in order to design a series of diagrams for Project-oriented Activity Theory. The diagram below is one of these diagrams.

There is a spatial logic behind the above diagram. I repeat the spatial logic of the Dialectic Room meta-Diagram at two levels. The zoom-in level and the zoom-out level. The above “Activity as Formation of Concept” diagram represents three phases of a process at the zoom-in level.

The Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0) Diagram is inspired by the above “Activity as Formation of Concept” diagram and roughly keeps the original spatial logic.

However, the Life-as-Project Approach Diagram changes the spatial logic. It adopts the “CENTER-PERIPHERY” spatial logic. I just placed several pairs of concepts around the center “Project” in order to develop the “Project-centered” approach.

You can find more details in Life Discovery: The Life-as-Project Approach.

The Pleasure of Meta-learning

The article Life Discovery: The Life-as-Project Approach ended with the following sentence:

Frame, Unframe, Reframe! Welcome to the world of Attachance!!!

This is the pleasure of meta-learning. We use the Field of Meta-learning model to explain the above case.

Work: the Life-as-Project Toolkit
Knowledge: Project as A Multiple-dimension Concept
Meta-knowledge: the “CENTER-PERIPHERY” spatial logic behind new diagrams

The “Frame > Unframe > Reframe” schema is very simple. However, if we connect it with the concept of “Thematic Spaces”, the notion of “Possible Configurations”, and the Field of Meta-learning, it becomes a powerful tool for knowledge engagement.

TALE: A Possible Theme called “Continuous Curation”

TALE: How to Set Annual Themes for 2023?

TALE: How to Set Annual Themes for 2023?

The Double Themes Strategy

A Good Starting Point

Frame, Unframe, and Reframe

Respond to Others: Responsive Curation

Self-determined: Continuous Curation

The Pleasure of Meta-learning

Related Articles

Written by Oliver Ding