TALE: Find 100 Novel Themes and their Communities

Published in

TALE500

18 min readJan 12, 2023

Concept Formation, Thematic Competition, and Cross-boundary Knowledge Innovation

TALE stands for Thematic Analysis Learning Engagement. TALE was launched as a new knowledge center for the Thematic Engagement project.

Thematic Engagement refers to the “Person — Theme” relationship and interaction.

As a knowledge center, TALE considers the “Person — Theme” relationship and interaction as its primary object.

Anthropologist Morris Opler (1945) developed a theoretical concept called “cultural themes” for studying culture. Career counseling therapists and psychologists also developed a theoretical concept called “life themes”.

The Thematic Engagement Project uses the “Themes of Practice” approach and the “Project Engagement” approach to connect “Life Themes” and “Cultural Themes”.

The “Project Engagement” approach considers the development of a theme as a collaborative project of “Formation of Concept”.

Today we will offer more details about the Project Engagement approach with three examples.

Project Engagement and Concept Formation

Activity Theory or the “Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)” is an interdisciplinary philosophical framework for studying both individual and social aspects of human behavior. Activity Theory is an established theoretical tradition with several theoretical approaches developed by different theorists. Originally, it was inspired by Russian/Soviet psychology of the 1920s and 1930s.

A major development of Activity Theory during the past decade is Andy Blunden’s account “An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity.” Andy Blunden is an independent scholar in Melbourne, Australia. He works with the Independent Social Research Network and the Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy and has run a Hegel Summer School since 1998

In order to develop the notion of “Project as a unit of Activity” as a theoretical foundation of the new interdisciplinary theory of Activity, Blunden adopts Hegel’s logic and Vygotsky’s theory about “Unit of Analysis” and “Concept” as theoretical resources. The process is documented in four books: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010), Concepts: A Critical Approach (2012), Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study (2014), and Hegel for Social Movements (2019).

The notion of “Activity as Formation of Concepts” is a core idea of Andy Blunden’s approach to an interdisciplinary theory of Activity.

According to Andy Blunden, there are three phases of the formation of concepts:

Phase 1: Initialization;
Phase 2: Objectification;
Phase 3: Institutionalization.

The notion of three phases is inspired by Blunden’s case study “Collaborative Learning Space”. I have to point out, Blunden is relatively unconcerned with demarcating the boundaries between the successive phases of a project. We should consider the above diagram as a rough representation. Blunden definitely uses “Objectification” and “Institutionalization” in his writings. However, he doesn’t obviously use the term “Initialization”.

In 2021, I wrote a possible book titled Project-oriented Activity Theory and designed a series of diagrams to introduce Blunden’s approach.

You can find more details in Project-oriented Activity Theory (Summary).

Themes, Concepts, and Social Movements

What’s the difference between Themes and Concepts?

In TALE: Find 100 People’s Life Stories and Creative Themes, I gave a working definition of Creative Themes.

Creative Themes are Meaningful Keywords of a person’s work, career, or life.
A person can use many keywords to highlight his/her work, career, or life. However, he/she may not claim that all keywords are Meaningful Keywords. Only a few keywords are perceived as Meaningful keywords.

The above definition adopts the perspective of individual creative life. It is more about life themes.

From the perspective of collective social life, we can use a similar definition.

Themes are Meaningful Keywords of Social Life. There is a New Concept behind each Novel Theme.

The new working definition also connects Themes and Concepts. If a theme is really new, we can definitely discover a new concept behind the theme.

Themes are Concepts since we use two different words. But they have a very close connection. Moreover, I focus on the “Person — Theme” relationship and interaction. If a person is working on a Concept, then we can consider his activity as a “Person — Theme” interaction. His project is a Thematic Engagement project.

For TALE, a major difference between Themes and Concepts is Concepts refer to general collective cultural themes. However, we can use life themes to refer to personal life experiences and activities.

Concepts as Collaborative Projects

From the perspective of Project Engagement and Project-oriented Activity Theory, each concept refers to a collaborative project.

Blunden clearly claims that there are three aspects of objectification of a concept: symbolic, instrumental, and practical.

According to Blunden, “Firstly, the moment someone first communicates the concept of the project it is given a name or symbolically represented in some other way, after which the word or symbol functions as a focus for actions. The word eventually enters the language and acquires nuances and meaning through the development of the project and its interaction with other projects and institutions.” (2014, p.9)

This is symbolic objectification. I highlight “Verbal” and “Visual” as two tendencies of symbolic objectification. Its orientation is “Embed” which means the name will be used within the language of the community and the logo or other symbols will be used with materials.

The second aspect of objectification is instrumental objectification. According to Blunden, “Secondly, the project may be objectified by the invention and production of some new instrument or by the construction of material artifacts which facilitate or constrain actions in line with the project and facilitate its integration into the life of a community. The word in which the project is symbolically objectified may then be taken as referencing this artifact, reifying the concept as if it were an independently existing object, rather than an ideal functioning as the focus of a new form of social practice which constitutes it.” (2014, p.9)

Here we see Blunden clearly points out there are two ways of adopting instruments. I use the term “designed” to refer to “by the invention and production of some new instrument” and the term “found” to refer to “by the construction of material artifacts which facilitate or constrain actions in line with the project and facilitate its integration into the life of a community”. You can find details about “Designed/Found” in my article about artifacts and the materiality turn: Hammer, Hammering, and Affordance.

The most important is practical objectification. According to Blunden, “…once the project achieves relatively permanent changes in the social practices of a community, the project transforms from a social movement into customary and routinized practices — an institution. In this instance, the word may be taken as referencing the form of practice in which the project has been given practical objectification and normalized.” (2014p.9)

Practical objectification refers to participants, participation, and community. This is the connection between concept and activity.

In this way, we claim that “Formation of Concepts” are Collaborative Projects.

Here we use the term “Collaborative Projects” in a broad sense. They are not regular works of a particular company or an organization, but “social movements”.

Example 1: TEDx

Blunden uses “Tree” and “Freeway” as two examples for explaining these three movements. Since two examples are existing concepts. Let’s use “TEDx” as an example for our discussion.

TEDx is an open brand program which is hosted by the non-profit TED Foundation. The “x” of TEDx means an independently organized TED event. The TEDx program allows local volunteers who obtain a free license from TED to organize independent events similar to TED’s 18 minutes format. TED officially launched the TEDx program in 2009. The first TEDx event is TEDxUSC 2009 which was hosted at the University of Southern California. Local TEDx event teams only can use their local TEDx logo as the brand identity for their events.

Let’s apply our diagram and three movements to this case.

Universal: “ TEDx” is a word that refers to a new concept of an “Open Brand” of events.
Individual: The TEDxUSC 2009 is an individual local TEDx event. It uses its own logo “TEDxUSC”.
Particular: It refers to particular activities of hosting and organizing local TEDx events around the world.

I consider Universal and Individual as two tendencies and Particular as Orientation because Particular refers to participation in social practice behind the new concept. The orientation of Particular leads to Objectification which is the following phase of Initialization.

For the case of TEDx, the below picture represents the symbolic objectification of the TEDx project. The name of the project is “TEDx”, the concept of “TEDx” refers to an “independently organized TED event”. The whole design is a meta-logo of the TEDx brand’s visual identity. The “Name” is a placeholder for local TEDx events teams to place their local place’s name.

The second aspect of objectification is instrumental objectification.

Look at the above picture, do you find there is a red circular carpet on the stage? This is a great example of instrumental objectification of the concept of TEDx and an “independently organized TED event”.

Now let’s visit a webpage on the TED official site: TEDx Organizer Guide > Design the experience. The guide gives suggestions on using the full official TEDx logo, “Every stage is required to include your official TEDx logo with your full event name. So make sure you create a large logo and place it in a visible space on the stage. If you can’t get a stand-up, 3D logo, a projection screen could also work.” The guide also considers how to make a good view, “Position your speakers, the screen, and any props carefully so that there’s a good view for the audience. For example, you’ll want to give your speakers a specific place to stand for their talk. (A red circular carpet, perhaps?)” Thus, the red circular carpet is not an official rule or requirement. The room of instrumental objectification is open with potential opportunities for creativity.

Another example of instrumental objectification is TEDx in a Box. See the picture below.

Why does the TEDx program design this toolkit?

According to TED, “The idea for TEDx in a Box came from TEDxKibera, a TEDx event held in the slums of Nairobi. Despite a lack of quality local resources, the event was an extraordinary success. With TEDx in a Box, individuals in developing communities are delivered all the resources they need in order to organize a TEDx event, packaged in a portable box.”

The formation of a concept is a large social process. It will face various situational challenges, especially in developing communities. So, the phase of instrumental objectification needs creative design and innovative thinking such as Ecological Practice Design.

The most important is practical objectification which refers to participants, participation, and community.

According to the official website of TED, as of December 31, 2020, there are 35,713 local TEDx events that were held in more than 130 countries. The TEDx Talks library contained over 30,000 videos from these local TEDx events. There are various ways of participating in the TEDx community, such as organizing, curating, hosting, designing, speaking, sponsoring, photographing, videoing, lighting, translating, listening, watching, sharing, etc. It’s not the word “TEDx” and the slogan “independently organized TED event” that define the movement, but the real actions of thousands upon thousands of volunteers define the movement.

The above TED Talk is about making a TED Talk video. Jason Wishnow, the Director of Film and Video at TED, explains how to shoot a TED Talk.

As Blunden emphasizes, “…it is only possible to say what a concept is, even in terms of its realisation in word meanings, in the context of the activity in which the concept is to be realised. A word is meaningful only within the context of the relevant project.” (2012, p.293)

If you want to understand the concept of “TEDx” and “independently organized TED event”, don’t stop at the word meaning level. You have to get involved in the community and be part of the practical objectification of TEDx.

Cultural Themes and Knowledge Themes

I roughly define two types of themes for the Thematic Engagement project and TALE. See the diagram below.

While Knowledge Engagement is about the interaction between a person and a knowledge theme, Cultural Engagement is about the interaction between a person and a cultural theme.

While Knowledge Engagement aims to produce Knowledge Innovation, Cultural Engagement aims to produce Cultural Innovation.

TEDx is a great example of a Cultural Theme. The rest of the article will introduce two Knowledge Themes.

Example 2: Knowledge Canvas

In the past decade, there is a micro-innovation in the field of business innovation and strategic design. In 2010, Alexader Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur published a book titled Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers.

The authors introduce a new tool called Business Model Canvas for discussing business models. They use “Building Blocks” to describe nine visual areas of the canvas. Their simple design established a model of Knowledge Canvas and attracted many followers.

They didn’t promote the concept of “Knowledge Canvas”. However, they made an innovative format of knowledge representation for business activity. Others perceived the innovation and adopted it for their own projects. Eventually, we saw a lot of similar knowledge canvases.

I picked Event Design Canvas and Design Ops Canvas for the present discussion. You can find more canvases here.

The above picture is Event Design Canvas.

The right picture is Design Ops Canvas. As mentioned above, the Business Model Canvas made a standard format for Knowledge Canvas and it attracted many followers.

However, there are two strategies for adopting a standard format: 1) you can adopt both the concept of Knowledge Canvas and the visual layout from the Business Model Canvas and 2) you can only adopt the concept of Knowledge Canvas and create your own visual layout.

Can we find an example of the second approach? Let’s look at the Product Field canvas:

According to the authors of the Product Field canvas, “The visual form of the Product Field is a Mandala. According to the Groups Keyboard a mandala helps you and your team to perceive wholeness and see gaps and unities under a diversity of perceptions.”

This is the difference! While The Business Model Canvas puts a set of “building blocks” in an A4 sheet, The Product Field Canvas jumps out of the box and gives a Mandala a free space.

I’d like to claim both Business Model Canvas and Knowledge Canvas are themes. If you use Business Model Canvas, then it is one of your life themes. If you make a new canvas to represent your tacit knowledge, then Knowledge Canvas is one of your life themes.

Is Knowledge Canvas one of my life themes? Yes. I designed a canvas called Creative Work on Oct 22, 2021. You can find more details in D as Diagramming: The Creative Work Canvas.

It is part of the D as Diagramming project which aims to explore the power of diagrams and diagramming. I also wrote two books about diagramming. Canvas is a special type of Diagram. See the picture below.

You can find more details about the above diagram in A Typology of Knowledge Diagrams (v2, 2022).

Thematic Competition and Knowledge Innovation

A novel theme or a brand-new concept will attract many people to join the social movement.

While we claim that the movement is a large collaborative project, we should notice the thematic competition behind the movement.

After perceiving the brand new format of knowledge representation for business activity, many people designed their own knowledge canvases. For example, Lean Canvas is a direct competitor to Business Model Canvas.

In June 2010, Ash Maurya created a different adaptation from the original Business Model Canvas. According to Maurya, “Even though it may have been easier to lay out a new canvas differently, I chose to work within the existing layout constraints to attribute the work back to Alex Osterwalder’s original canvas. The fact that he licensed the original canvas under a ‘Creative Commons’ license and invited others to ‘Share & Remix’ made this a no-brainer.”

Maurya renamed some blocks of the original Business Model Canvas and used Lean Canvas to name the new version.

The major difference between Business Model Canvas and Lean Canvas is the block of “Problem”. If you use Business Model Canvas, you will describe your “problem-solution” fit at the block of “Value Proposition.” However, Lean Canvas is heavily “problem-focused”.

Later, Ash Maurya published a book titled Running Lean and offered more details of the product-market fit in 2012.

In 2014, the authors of Business Model Canvas published a new book titled Value Proposition Design and introduced a new canvas: Value Proposition Canvas.

In 2019, the authors of Business Model Canvas published a new book titled Testing Business Ideas: A Field Guide for Rapid Experimentation. The focus of the book is to close the knowledge gap between strategy and experimentation/validation. It helps readers to identify and test key business assumptions with the Business Model Canvas and Value Proposition Canvas.

In 2020, the authors of Business Model Canvas published a new book titled The Invincible Company which is about business innovation.

From 2010 to 2020, the authors of Business Model Canvas produced a series of books for business readers. All books are based on the same creative theme: Knowledge Canvas.

This is a fantastic case of “Theme as Strategy”! If you launch a brand new creative theme, it could be the cornerstone of your long-term strategy! A creative theme of knowledge representation is an unusual competitive advantage in the market of knowledge innovation.

Example 3: Design Anthropology

The third example is Design Anthropology. This is a story about cross-boundary knowledge innovation.

What’s Design Anthropology? See the diagram below (a large-size version).

The above diagram is made by Brandon Meyer who is the founder of The Collaborative Anthropology Network.

Brandon Meyer was the designer of the new NAPA website and NAPA’s 2019 volunteer of the Year Awardee. NAPA stands for The National Association for the Practice of Anthropology.

NAPA published an online interview with Brandon Meyer. This is a great story of Thematic Engagement. Let’s quote two pieces for the present discussion:

What personal and career passions does anthropology enable you to pursue?

Although many designers may not realize it, I don’t consider it an irony that my foundational education in anthropology prepared me much more for design research than a studio-based design pedagogy ever could have. It was a tough decision for me at the time but having a background in anthropological theory and practice has served as a great foundation for the exploration of design research. Not just in terms of UX and user research as is often the area advocated for within applied anthropology circles (at the other end of the spectrum), but also in the development and critical analysis of new and experimental forms of design epistemologies, theories, research, and practices as culturally, socially, environmentally, and politically implicated world-building activities.
I believe that it is no accident that design anthropology has served as a conduit for many diverse and emerging epistemologies within design and it is exactly in those periods of volatility and transition when critical thinking, rigorous debate, and an openness to exploration is most required. Many design anthropologists have taken on that role and made valuable contributions to design that no serious design scholar could now ignore. Albeit there is still a space between the two fields as they are traditionally taught and predominantly practiced, I see Design Anthropology as a transdisciplinary space that has sought to bridge those gaps into a single practice and that’s what I’ve always focused on.

How does an “aspiring design anthropologist” navigate the professional landscape?

As I’ve actively followed the development of design anthropology across the “of,” “with,” “for” spectrum between the two fields — and beyond — my own professional aspirations have dramatically shifted from a designer wanting to dabble in anthropological theory and practice, to an anthropologist wanting to make an impact as such in design, to a design researcher seeking to contribute to the development of emerging areas within the field of design and anthropology through this time of transition.
So there is lots of opportunities to work within business and design but within a very limited sense. There is a standard set of “best practices” and a limited scope within industry that is necessary to fully jump on board with or to first mold any proposed practice into — this is the source of Design Thinking’s success. Many other kinds of emerging and alternative forms of design practice, like speculative design for instance, are experiencing an uphill battle as radical forms of design that exist outside of the realm of business and are either struggling to find a ground outside of academia and museums, or are undergoing a process of streamlined adaptation and commodification similar to that which the ethnographic method has undergone in business and design.
I’ve been lucky to have the opportunity to choose — not between academia or business — but between maintaining my connection with design as an experimental and theoretically-rich mode of production, and conducting more established forms of design research as a service for business. Maintaining my role as a designer has allowed me to stay close to what had originally inspired me to move into design research in the first place and to stay up to date with new and exciting forms of theory and practice within design — and mind you on a very strong footing due to my anthropological training!

Some creative knowledge themes are born from the interaction of two fields. I called it cross-boundary knowledge innovation. I often use a tool called WXMY (When X Meets Y) for creative dialogue. For example, the diagram below is about connecting “Activity Theory” and “Service”.

You can find more details in The Knowledge Curation Toolkit #2: WXMY for Interdisciplinary Curation.

Brandon Meyer’s diagram of four pedagogical quadrants of design anthropology can be represented with the above WXMY diagram. He uses the following four categories:

Anthropology Relevant to Design
Anthropology of Design
Design of Anthropology
Anthropological Design

He also roughly uses “of,” “with,” and “for” to describe a spectrum between the two fields.

Some authors also use other terms to discuss Design Anthropology, such as dA, Da, and DA.

dA: design Anthropology
Da: Design anthropology
DA: Design Anthropology

According to Matt Artz, who is a business and design anthropologist, consultant, and creator, there are three models of Design Anthropology.

dA — The theoretical contribution is for anthropology rather than design. Design follows the lead of anthropology in terms of adopting theoretical understandings, or becoming the subject of anthropological study (Gunn and Donovan 2012, 12).
Da — Fieldwork is in the service of design. Framing originates from problem-orientated design approaches rather than engagement with people. Anthropology is put in service of design, for example, ethnographic studies are used for establishing design requirements. (Gunn and Donovan 2012, 12).
DA — Disciplines of design and anthropology are engaged in a convergence of efforts each learning from the other. (Gunn and Donovan 2012, 12).

This is also a good example of the distinction between Themes and Concepts. It is clear that the term “Design Anthropology” doesn’t have a solid definition. Most emergent terms don’t have a clear definition, it is better to use them as “Themes”, not “Concepts”.

What’s the value of the distinction between Themes and Concepts?

While a knowledge concept is expected to have a clear definition, at least a working definition, we don’t have to require a knowledge theme to have a solid definition. In this way, we can use the “Themes — Concepts” spectrum to cope with the dynamics of knowledge innovation.

Help me find 100 Novel Themes and their Communities

TALE aims to build a list of 100 novel themes and their communities.

If you are working on some novel themes or building a community around a novel theme, you are welcome to connect!

If you find interesting novel themes and communities, you can leave a comment or DM me on Linkedin.