TALE: A Possible Theme Called “Methodological Empathy”
The HITED Framework and Design Wisdom
The above picture represents a Possible Theme called “Methodological Empathy”.
- Name: Methodological Empathy
- Clue: The HITED Framework and Design Wisdom
- Type: Knowledge Themes
- Contributors: Maurizio Goetz
- Reference: The HITED Framework
- Related themes: Expansive Activity Analysis, Product Engagement
The possible theme “Methodological Empathy” was born on Jan 30, 2023. It was originally published as a Linkedin post.
Today Maurizio Goetz recommends a related Linked post with a diagram of research methods to me. See the diagram below.
It was shared by a Linkedin Page called Journal of Futures Studies.
Let’s peel back the onion in the great article by Aleksandras Melnikovas. #Explore the #issues of #developing a useful #research #methodology and the construction of #researchdesign within the field of #futuresstudies. The article analyzes and creates a #systematic #approach for developing a #researchmethodology in #business studies — the “research onion” — an #innovative model for the #future, which utilizes #data, #narratives, #postmodernism, #scientific, #philosophical, #quantitativeresearch and #qualitativeresearch. #futureofeducation #futureofbusiness #futuresliteracy
The Linked post doesn’t offer more details about the Research Onion model. I found the description of the six main layers from their original website.
1. Research philosophy
forms a basis of the research by delineation of ontology — nature of reality, epistemology — nature, sources of knowledge or facts and axiology — values, beliefs and ethics of the research.2. Approach to theory development
— can be implied by the research philosophy on previous level and usually include: deduction — the research starts with an existing theory, then rising a question or hypothesis and data collection in order to confirm or reject the hypothesis; in- duction — the research starts with observation and data collection, moving to description and analysis in order to form a theory; abduction — observation of an empirical phenomena is followed by the research which comes up with a best guess or conclusion based on available evidence. Deductive approach is applied for existing theory testing, while inductive approach is commonly used in developing a theory or in fields with little researches on the topic. Abductive approach usually starts with a surprsing fact and is moving between induction and deduction in order to find the most likely explanation
3. Methodological choice
— determines the use of quantitative and qualitative methods or various mixtures of both.4. Strategy
— to collect and analyze data: experiment, survey, archival research, case study, ethnography, action research, grounded theory, narrative inquiry.5. Time horizons.
This layer defines the time frame for the research — cross-sectional or short term study, involving collection of data at a specific point of time; longitudinal — collection of data repeatedly over a long period of time in order to compare data.6. Techniques and procedures include data collection and analysis
— the use of primary/ secondary data, choosing sample groups, developing questionnaire content, preparing interviews, etc.
You can find more details in the original article. The Research Onion model is a general framework, you have to apply it to your own domain. In 2016, Mark Saunders and other authors applied to the field of Futures Studies. See the diagram below.
Within the past few decades’ futures studies have developed into a scientific approach. Distinct methods create a theoretical basis for studying the future, however methodological uncertainty and chaotic nature of modern social reality does not add to the coherence of futures studies. In this situation the research onion for futures studies can serve as a heuristic approach for building up methodology and developing research design.
The research onion for futures studies, however, does not aim to become “the one and the only” approach for developing the research design, on the contrary — it aims to bring the general notion on the use of existing methodologies and approaches developed within the field of futures studies and serve as a guide for futures studies researchers and practitioners. The research onion for futures studies offers a flexible model of methodology development as it enables the researcher to choose most suitable theories or practices within existing layers in order to answer the research questions.
In fact, Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill published a book titled Research Methods for Business Students (7th edition).
Kinds of Business Studies
The original Linkedin post mentioned the following message:
…The article analyzes and creates a #systematic #approach for developing a #researchmethodology in #business studies…
There are many types of Business Studies. For example:
- Academic Business Studies: uses the scientific approach to produce public knowledge for the world
- Professional Business Studies: uses the practical approach to produce public knowledge for a professional community
- Corporate Business Studies: uses the practical approach to produce private knowledge for the business owners
The Research Onion model is quite complicated for normal business practitioners, especially people who work in the section of Corporate Business Studies.
However, it is nice to have a systematic thinking of knowledge engagement:
Philosophy > Science > Practice
Traditional scholars tend to use the following structure in the field of social sciences: Ontology > Epistemology > Methodology.
- Ontology: What’s this?
- Epistemology: What’s the knowledge about this?
- Methodology: How do we actually know the knowledge about this?
This schema has its root in Western Philosophy, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophy of the pre-Socratics.
This is not “the one and the only” approach to building systematic thinking of knowledge engagement.
A Grand Theory for Knowledge Engagement
In 2022, I learned a new schema from Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology.
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. ”
The structure of Lui’s theoretical sociology is a nested structure. See the diagram below. According to Lui, “The realism comprises a subjectivist structuralism and an objectivist stock of knowledge, while the hermeneutics is an interpretation and an analysis. Second, I shall present an ontology that nests the realism within its boundaries.” (p.250, 2016, Aspects of Sociological Explanation)
We should see this grand theory as a dialogue between philosophy and sociology because “Ontology” and “hermeneutics” are respectable terms in philosophy, but “realism” — sandwiched between them — is not. Lui emphasizes that Realism is the sociological matter proper (p.251, 2016, Aspects of Sociological Explanation).
It can perhaps be said to be the apple in the scientist’s eye,138 though the term “realism” may sound naïve to the phenomenological ear. It is much closer to “what is” than “what is the meaning of”.
In a certain sense, science is always naïve though not simple. With the freedom of imagination being exercised by the scientist to its fullest, it presupposes in the first instance that there is really a reality out there, at least in the Schutzian sense, that is, the reality is often “taken- for-granted”, “questionable but unquestioned.” The presupposition may be naïve, but its buttresses are not. The sociologist — who should be a scientist more than a philosopher — relies on empirical (or positivistic) investigations to buttress his discipline.
Lui considers the following four realities for the grand theory:
- the Weberian course of action
- the Giddensian course of action
- Social Territory
- Symbolic Universe
Realism is determined by Ontology. According to Lui, “I made a distinction between action and its course; that is, action is not a reality but its course is. My justification is based on a fundamental ontology.” (p.251, 2016)
Realism leads to Hermeneutics which considers two parts: the actors’ interpretation and the researcher’s analysis.
The whole structure of the grand theory is represented by the following semiotic system.
What’s the value of such a complicated grand theory?
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.
In fact, the term “Social theories” refer to all “Social Thoughts”, “Logs”, and “Ideology”, etc. For example, a political party’s ideology and a professional community’s knowledge framework are “Social theories” too. However, Lui only considers Sociological Theories and Theoretical Sociologies as scientific projects.
As a grand theory, Lui’s theoretical sociology can be used as a frame to curate theoretical approaches and knowledge engagement in general.
For example, I used it as a meta-theory to curate three theoretical approaches (Specific Theories, sTheory) for the Life Strategy Project. See the diagram below.
The diagram below uses Lui’s nested structure to connect my four frameworks. It’s clear that these frameworks are located at different layers.
- Ontology: The Path of Creative Life and The Life — History Complex
- Realism: The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework
- Hermeneutics: The Creative Life Curation Framework
Lui’s approach also offers a brand-new tool called “Semiotic System Diagram” which is a set of concepts that are connected together. He used the same method of mapping the semiotic system of theoretical sociology to map other sociological theories. By comparing different semiotic system diagrams with the semiotic system diagram of theoretical sociology, he can use his theoretical sociology to support and contain many empirical sociological theories.
Lui’s work focuses on Theoretical sociologies and Sociological theories because these belong to the scientific project of sociology.
From my perspective, Lui’s Semiotic System Diagram and the related method are pretty useful for knowledge creators who are making various kinds of logos as social theories.
Now let’s make a semiotic system for understanding Creative Life Strategy. Since the above diagram shows the basic structure of the map, I collected major concepts from my four frameworks and placed them together.
The final outcome is the following semiotic system diagram.
The above diagram uses three colors to highlight three parts of the framework.
- Blue > Ontology: The Path of Creative Life and The Life — History Complex
- Green > Realism: The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework
- Red > Hermeneutics: The Creative Life Curation Framework
Each part features several concepts from the original frameworks. The whole semiotic system diagram is quite complicated, however, it is not complex and chaotic.
The first part is Ontology which contains the Path of Creative Life and the Life-History Complex. See the diagram below.
The main content of the Realism of my semiotic system diagram is the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework. See the diagram below.
The third part of my semiotic system diagram is the Creative Life Curation Framework. See the diagram below.
You can find more details in Slow Cognition: Three Paths of Creative Life and A Semiotic System.
Improve your Spontaneous Concept System
Why do we need to learn a schema about “Philosophy > Science > Practice”?
Several days ago, I published an article titled TALE: A Possible Theme called “Spontaneous Concept System”. I made a distinction between Spontaneous Concept System and Defined Concept System in order to highlight two types of concept systems.
Scientific thinking tends to develop Defined Concept System while normal thinking tends to develop Spontaneous Concept System.
If you commit to a long-term journey of knowledge engagement, then you should improve your Spontaneous Concept System by adopting a schema of “Philosophy > Science > Practice”.
You can try one of the following schemas:
- Ontology > Epistemology > Methodology
- Ontology > Realism > Hermeneutics
You can also try other schemas.
The rest sections will adopt Lui’s “Ontology > Realism > Hermeneutics” to develop a systematic approach to Business Engagement.
Ontology: Business as Engagement
On Feb 7, 2023, I shared a theme called “Business as Engagement”. Now we can use it as the Ontology of Business Engagement.
The notion of “Business as Engagement” is inspired by the “Product Engagement” approach and related theoretical resources.
Business is a significant part of individual life and social life. We can use the Project Engagement approach to understand Business.
The notion of “Business as Engagement” indicates a solution to understanding Business from the perspective of Project Engagement. Specifically speaking, I will use three keywords, three types of projects, six levels of analysis, and six guiding questions to build the framework.
See the diagram below. The rest of the article will unpack this framework.
You can find more details in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Business as Engagement”.
Realism: Business as Anticipatory Activity System
We can directly use the Anticipatory Activity System framework for the Realism of Business Engagement.
The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework is inspired by Activity Theory and Anticipatory System theory. It aims to offer an abstract model for understanding “Self, Other, Present, Future”.
While the traditional Activity Theory focuses on “Exploitative Activity”, the AAS framework is more about “Exploratory Activity”.
The semiotic system diagram below was originally developed for the Life Strategy project. Now we can directly use it for Business Engagement.
The above diagram shows a set of concepts that are adopted from the basic model of the AAS framework.
- Discovering
- Producing
- Unfolding
- Modeling
- Storytelling
- Evaluating
You can find more details in Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) and A Possible Book.
Hermeneutics: Expansive Activity Analysis
On March 29, 2023, I shared a multi-level approach called “Expansive Activity Analysis” to Design and Innovation. Now we can use it as Hermeneutics for Business Engagement.
The notion of “a multi-level approach” is inspired by the following ideas:
- The Hierarchy of Human Activity and Social Practice
- The Hierarchy of Fit
- Multilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service Experience Blueprint
The approach is based on the following idea:
- The Hierarchy of human experience is significant
- The Hierarchy of Activity and Practice is Invariant
- The Number of levels of analysis in Variant
You can define many units of analysis as much as you want if you can perceive them and analyze them. This is a significant insight for understanding human activity and social practices.
In the past several years, I worked on connecting THEORY and PRACTICE, especially Activity Theory/Ecological Psychology/Social Practice Theories and Design/Strategy/Innovation. The outcome of my journey is 18 possible books, a set of knowledge frameworks, and six knowledge centers.
In March 2023, I used the following diagram to curate some of my frameworks into a meaningful whole.
The “Expansive Activity Analysis” Framework has three sections. The first section Pre-Activity Analysis has two units of analysis.
- Level 1: The “Human — Material” Interaction
- Level 2: Interpersonal Interaction
The second section Activity Analysis has two units of analysis.
- Level 3: Human Activity / Social Practice
- Level 4: Platform, Network, and Ecosystem
The third section Post-Activity Analysis has three units of analysis.
- Level 5: Lifelong Development
- Level 6: Themes behind Social Practices
- Level 7: The All-in-one Wholeness
You can find more details in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Expansive Activity Analysis”.
Where is the Methodology?
There is no methodology in Lui’s “Ontology > Realism > Hermeneutics”. However, all methods belong to the Hermeneutics section.
What’s the difference between Lui’s “Hermeneutics” and traditional “Methodology”?
Lui considers an important distinction between Actors and Researchers. It means Actors and Researchers have different Hermeneutics. The traditional schema only considers researchers’ methods.
On Nov 21, 2022, I developed a model called Kinds of Actors. See the diagram below.
The above model is developed for the Creative Life Curation project. I made a distinction between Actors and Curators. You can find more details in Creative Life Curation: Kinds of Actors.
For the Business Engagement project, we can use Business Researchers to replace Curators. It is clear that Business Researchers are working on producing Business-related Knowledge.
As mentioned above, there are at least three types of Business Studies:
- Academic Business Studies: uses the scientific approach to produce public knowledge for the world
- Professional Business Studies: uses the practical approach to produce public knowledge for a professional community
- Corporate Business Studies: uses the practical approach to produce private knowledge for the business owners
If we connect these three types of business studies and the above seven levels of Expansive Activity Analysis together, then we can face a challenge:
Each particular business study project requires a particular method.
How can we respond to this challenge?
We have to accept the “Methodological Empathy” statement.
The HITED Framework
On Oct 4, 2022, I develop a new visual language called HITED for the Design Wisdom project. Now we can use it for the Hermeneutics of Business Engagement.
The HITED framework is all about the “Hypothesis — Data” Gap which is a sub-issue of the THEORY — EXPERIENCE (PRACTICE) Gap.
There is a “THEORY” behind a HYPOTHESIS. Each THEORY can generate several HYPOTHESES.
DATA comes from real EXPERIENCE. Experience can generate DATA.
The core of the above diagram is “I” which refers to managers, designers, strategists, researchers, etc.
We have to notice that there are three types of “I”:
- Scholars/Scientists: they work on public knowledge creation.
- Professional Workers: managers, designers, strategists, researchers, etc.
- Actors: Ordinary people
I’d like to mention that Professional Workers can be divided into two groups:
- Knowledge Makers
- Knowledge Users
While Knowledge Makers commit to both using knowledge for practical tasks and creating new knowledge for public purposes, Knowledge Users only think about using knowledge for internal activities.
Different groups of people hold different attitudes to the Hypothesis — Data Issue. See the above diagram.
There are many academic papers about the Hypothesis — Dada Issue. My goal is to develop a new visual language for Professional Workers in order to encourage the discussion about the Hypothesis — Data Issue.
For example, the diagram represents the Hypothetico-deductive Model that considers both Hypothesis and Data. This model has different approaches too. The diagram only shows one approach.
The above diagram highlights two key ideas: Deduction and Validation. While a Hypothesis is generated by deductive reasoning from a pre-existing Theory, the Data is used to test the hypothesis.
You can find more details in Design Wisdom: The HITED Framework for Methodological Empathy.
Methodological Empathy
There are various approaches to the Hypothesis — Data Fit! You can use the basic model of HITED framework to make your versions.
Which one is the correct way?
It all depends on your situation. Some theories require corresponding methods.
We all know the difference between scientists and practitioners.
I’d like to encourage Methodological Openness and Methodological Empathy.
Maybe you are an expert on a particular method, you don’t have to reject other methods.
The HITED framework is a new visual language for making methodological issues visible. We need to see the difference between scientists and practitioners. We also need to see the difference between you as a practitioner and me as a practitioner.
We need Methodological Empathy.
