Themes in the Field: Self, Agency, and Activity (Part I)

Notes for The Persona Dynamics Framework

In a previous article, I introduced the “Strategic Thematic Exploration” framework (v1.1).

The “Themes in the Field” stage refers to two states: 5) A knowledge concept with a working definition, and 6) A knowledge framework with a set of concepts. In this stage, our goal is to develop the primary knowledge concept and a network of related concepts.

We can compare your primary concept with others’ concepts by running the literature review and using the Concept Dynamic Framework as a tool. See this example: Developing a working definition of Innovation Ecosystems.

We can also find similar ideas from various domains.

Today I will share some reading notes about the Persona Dynamics Framework. You will find all details in this article (Part 1).

In the next article (Part 2), I will use this experience as an example of the “Themes in the Field” stage.

Contents

Part 1: Notes about Persona Dynamics

1.1 The Concept of “Persona Dynamics”
1.2 Rapid Literature Reviews
1.3 Two Views of Self
1.4 Self-System Therapy
1.5 Anticipation and Metamovitation
1.6 Jung: Self, Ego, and Persona
1.7 Possible Practice
1.8 Conceptual Heterogeneity

Part 2: Reflection

Part 1: Notes about Persona Dynamics

In 2019, I developed a framework called SET which stands for “Social Engagement Theory” for understanding Social Interaction Design. The notion of “Persona Dynamics” is part of the SET framework.

I didn’t work on the idea from 2019 to 2022 because I moved to developing the Ecological Practice approach which is a meta-theory. In 2020, I started working on the Activity U project which led to the Project Engagement approach and the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework.

In Feb 2023, I rediscovered the notion of “Persona Dynamics” and attached it to the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework. The outcome is a new version of Persona Dynamics, see the diagram below.

It is a practical framework for the AAS toolkit.

1.1 The Concept of “Persona Dynamics”

Traditional social psychological theories and sociological theories tend to use real interpersonal actions or social roles for units of analysis. Inspired by interaction design and digital social practices, I adopted the term “Persona” from the field of User Experience to define a middle entity between Person and Social Role.

• Person
• Persona
• Social Role

In this way, we can research pluralistic social interaction in the age of digital platforms. See the diagram below.

In 2020, I also used a term called “Quasi-social Interaction” and developed a related framework called Ecological Interaction Analysis. You can find more details in Frame Analysis in Context.

Three months ago, I revisited this topic and coined a new term called “Possible Personas” and made a new version of the “Persona Dynamics” Framework. You can find more details in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Possible Personas”.

The Persona Dynamics Framework (v2.0) is based on the following three things:

• The Persona Dynamics Framework (v1.0)
• Possible Selves Theory
• The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework

The Persona Dynamics Framework (v1.0) defines a new unit of analysis called “Persona” to study life development.

What’s the relationship between the Persona Dynamics Framework and the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework?

As a new approach to Activity Theory, the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework offers an abstract model for understanding future-oriented activities. It can be applied to domains such as Strategy Development, Career Development, Life Strategy, etc.

In 2022, I wrote a book (draft) titled Advanced Life Strategy: Anticipatory Activity System and Life Achievements. However, I didn’t discuss the “Self — Persona — Role” issue in the book.

I’d like to add the Persona Dynamics Framework to the Advanced Life Strategy toolkit. You can find more details in Life Strategy Center.

1.2 Rapid Literature Reviews

The primary theme of the Personas Dynamics framework is “Self — Personas — Role” and its secondary themes are “Past — Present — Future”, “Possible — Actual” and “Activity”.

I selected Possible Selves Theory as the starting point of my journey of literature reviews. More specifically, I used a 2001 paper titled Possible Selves as the starting point for exploring the landscape of Possible Selves Theory on Connected Papers. See the screenshot below.

From the above graph, I found three milestones of the development of the theory.

• 1977: Self-schemata and processing information about the self (3828 citations)
• 1987: The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective (2977 citations)
• 2001: Possible Selves (3487 citations)

Many years ago, I read the 2001 paper and some literature reviews about the theory. I roughly knew the historical development of the theory. In different stages, Hazel Rose Markus uses different terms for her theory:

• Self-schemata
• Self-Concept
• Self-knowledge

The significance of the theory is connecting Cognition and Motivation in order to research human anticipatory behavior.

Possible selves are the cognitive components of hopes, fears, goals, and threats, and they give the specific self-relevant form, meaning, organization, and direction to these dynamics.

Possible selves are important, first, because they function as incentives for future behavior (i.e., they are selves to be approached or avoided) and second, because they provide an evaluative and interpretive context for the current view of self.

What I really want to explore about the theory are the following two questions:

• What’s the relationship between Possible Selves Theory and Self-determination Theory?
• How did people use Possible Selves Theory to develop models or frameworks for intervention programs?

In fact, the first question led to a general view of the concept of “Self” in the field of psychology.

The second question is about connecting THEORY and PRACTICE which was the primary theme of my creative journey from 2020 to 2022.

1.3 Two Views of Self

I moved to read books and papers about Self-Determination Theory and found a helpful piece about the general view of Self in a book about Self-Determination Theory.

In a broad sense, there are two views of Self in the field of Psychology:

• Self-as-object
• Self-as-subject or Self-as-process

This typology was developed by Dan P. McAdams in his 1990 book The Person: An introduction to personality psychology.

In a 2017 book titled Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness, authors Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci review various views of self in chapter 3 titled Human Autonomy: Philosophical Perspectives and the Phenomenology of Self.

They start with the following piece:

The term self carries quite distinct meanings in different psychological theories, and there is a particularly salient contrast between its meaning within social-cognitive perspectives and in organismic approaches. Most social-cognitive views can be traced to the tradition of the looking-glass self (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934), in which the term self is primarily employed to represent an object of one’s own perceptions.

In this tradition, the self is understood as a constructed concept, image, or representation (viz., self-concept) accompanied by a collection of mechanisms for governing action (viz., self-schemas) that are usually oriented toward verifying, enhancing, or protecting this representation. Thus the self referred to in the constructs of self-concept, self-perception, self-esteem, and many other hyphenated self- terms concern what McAdams (1990) referred to as self-as-object.

As Harter (2012) recently summarized, most of the attention in empirical psychology has historically been on this self-as-object or “me-self” idea, and it continues to be an active focus of research (e.g., Oyserman, Elmore, & Smith, 2012; Sedikides & Gaertner, 2001).

By contrast, the self of organismic psychologies has typically (though with some notable exceptions) concerned what McAdams (1990) characterized as the self-as-subject and what we refer to as self-as-process (Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Rigby 2015) — that is, the self that is phenomenally experienced as both a center of experience and as the initiator and regulator of volitional behavior.

(p.52)

It’s clear that Possible Selves Theory belongs to the camp of self-as-object.

Now I have to cope with a theoretical challenge: Can I use ideas from Possible Selves Theory and Self-Determination Theory in a knowledge framework such as the Persona Dynamics framework?

Since they have different views of self, I have to evaluate the value of adopting ideas from them for my frameworks.

I also notice that Dan P. McAdams’s 2013 paper offers a new framework about the psychological self.

The psychological self may be construed as a reflexive arrangement of the subjective “I” and the constructed “Me,” evolving and expanding over the human life course. The psychological self begins life as a social actor, construed in terms of performance traits and social roles.

By the end of childhood, the self has become a motivated agent, too, as personal goals, motives, values, and envisioned projects for the future become central features of how the I conceives of the Me.

A third layer of selfhood begins to form in the adolescent and emerging adulthood years, when the self as autobiographical author aims to construct a story of the Me, to provide adult life with broad purpose and a dynamic sense of temporal continuity.

An integrative theory that envisions the psychological self as a developing I–Me configuration of actor, agent, and author helps to synthesize a wide range of conceptions and findings on the self from social, personality, cognitive, cultural, and developmental psychology and from sociology and other social sciences.

The actor–agent–author framework also sheds new light on studies of self-regulation, self-esteem, self-continuity, and the relationship between self and culture.

Dan P. McAdams sees the I-Me configuration as a dynamic process. It seems that this new framework is a solution to bridge Self-as-object and Self-as-subject (or Self-as-process).

1.4 Self-System Therapy

My second question led me to find some new theoretical resources. I started with the following paper:

Possible Selves: Implications for Psychotherapy

The paper is devoted to the therapeutic applications of theories and research concerning self-regulation issues. The key concept here is possible selves, defined as an element of self-knowledge that refers to what a person perceives as potentially possible. The main idea of using knowledge about possible selves in psychotherapy is based on their functions as standards in self-regulatory processes. The problem of the changeability of possible selves and self-standards is analyzed in the context of their role in behavior change. The paper also presents the assumptions of Self-System Therapy — a newly developed cognitive therapy for depression, drawing directly on self-regulation theory and research.

To be honest, I am not familiar with the field of Psychotherapy because I don’t pay attention to the field. However, this paper shows me an example of from THEORY to PRACTICE.

The author Waclaw Bak uses “future-projected” and “cognitive representations” to describe the concept of Possible Selves.

According to Markus and Nurius’s (1986) classic approach, possible selves are a “future-projected” aspects of self-knowledge, which refers to what a person perceives as potentially possible with regard to himself or herself. Like all self-knowledge, possible selves are largely based on past experiences, but their essence lies in clear references to the future. They may be said to be imagined visions of oneself in the future (Erikson 2007; Hoyle and Sherrill 2006). As such, they are cognitive representations of hopes, fears, and fantasies regarding oneself.

If we only consider “future-projected” and “cognitive representations”, and remove “hopes, fears, and fantasies regarding oneself” from the concept of “Possible Selves”, then we can get a general version of “Possible Selves”.

Or, we can directly use a new term called “Anticipatory Selves” for the Persona Dynamics framework.

Markus and Nurius’s (1986) classic approach uses “hopes, fears, and fantasies regarding oneself” to define the content of “Possible Selves”. Though this model is useful for some situations, I think that we can use other types of content of “Possible Selves” for my framework.

In the second half of the paper, Waclaw Bak introduces Self-System Therapy.

Self-System Therapy (SST) is a proposal of therapeutic intervention aimed at people whose depression problems stem from ineffective self-regulation (Vieth et al. 2003). The theoretical basis of SST is Higgins’s (1987) Self-Discrepancy Theory, describing the relations between the structure of the self and emotions, as well as a somewhat later theory by the same author — Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins 1997), describing the promotion-focused vs. prevention-focused self-regulatory styles. The originators of SST assume that one of the major sources of depression is chronic failures — repeated or individual but concerning very important life domains — in achieving desirable states of affairs. In the language of Higgins’s (1987, 1997) theory, this means those aspects of self-regulation that are realized using promotion-focused strategies — as opposed to prevention-focused ones, which govern the avoidance of undesirable states.

What’s the connection between THEORY and PRACTICE?

• THEORY: Higgins’s (1987) Self-Discrepancy Theory/Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins 1997)
• PRACTICE: Self-System Therapy (SST)

How does the connection work? In a 2006 paper about Self-System Therapy, we can find the following answer:

SST incorporates techniques from a number of empirically supported psychotherapies (cf. Beutler, Clarkin, & Bongar, 2000), including CT, interpersonal psychotherapy, and behavioral activation therapy ( Jacobson, Martell, & Dimidjian, 2001).

However, SST was designed to translate the principles of regulatory focus theory into an intervention for examining and modifying the individual’s goals and strategies for pursuing them (Avants, Margolin, & Singer, 1994; Moretti, Higgins, & Feldman, 1990).

SST can be summarized in four questions: What are your promotion and prevention goals? What are you doing to try to attain them? What is keeping you from making progress? What can you do differently? SST was designed so that within an overall emphasis on self-regulation, specific interventions from other therapies could be incorporated easily, allowing the patient and therapist to bring a broad range of techniques to bear on the patient’s difficulties in goal pursuit.

For example, SST emphasizes the use of behavioral activation, as do behavioral activation therapy and other therapies. However, in SST, behavioral activation is used in the service of enhancing promotion goal pursuit — that is, “What can you do today that would help you make progress toward that goal?” To the extent that SST is differentially efficacious for depressed individuals with problems in self-regulation, such efficacy would derive from its overall emphasis rather than from any specific techniques or interventions.

From the above description, we can see a simple schema of psychotherapy:

• Principles
• Techniques
• Guiding Questions

Even Self-System Therapy uses some techniques from other psychotherapies, it still can establish its own uniqueness because the configuration of principles, techniques, and guiding questions can be different from other psychotherapies.

1.5 Anticipation and Metamovitation

The paper about Possible Selves and Self-System Therapy also inspired me to find more information about E. Tory Higgins’ work and theories.

I found a paper titled Metamotivation: Emerging research on the regulation of motivational states.

Until recently, research examining the self-regulation of motivation focused primarily on the strategies people use to bolster the amount of motivation they have for pursuing a task goal. In contrast, our metamotivational framework highlights the importance of also examining if people recognize which qualitatively distinct types of motivation (e.g., promotion vs. prevention) are most helpful for achieving their goal, given the demands of the task or situation.

At the heart of this framework is the idea that any given motivational state involves performance trade-offs, such that it may be relatively beneficial for some tasks, but detrimental for others.

In this article, we review research suggesting that, on average, people (a) possess metamotivational knowledge of such trade-offs (particularly those posited by regulatory focus theory, self-determination theory, and construal level theory), (b) recognize strategies that could be used to induce adaptive motivational states, and implement this knowledge (at times) to increase the likelihood of performance success.

We also discuss future directions for metamotivation research, including whether and when individual differences in metamotivational knowledge predict real-world outcomes, how such metamotivational knowledge develops, and whether there is a general metamotivational competency that predicts people’s sensitivity to a broad range of motivationally-relevant performance trade-offs.

The authors conducted several empirical studies of Metamotivational Knowledge which are based on several motivational theories.

• Regulatory Focus Theory: Promotion and Prevention Motivations
• Self-determination Theory: Autonomous and Controlled Motivations
• Construal Level Theory: High-level and Low-level Construal

I found the idea of “Metamotivation” and the above model of “Metamotivational Knowledge” to be really useful to the Personas Dynamics Framework.

I don’t have to struggle with selecting one theory from several motivational theories. I can use the “Metamotivation” approach to define Metamotivational Knowledge for the Personas Dynamics Framework.

Some researchers use “motivational components” to describe a similar approach. For example, we can find an example from a 2023 paper about metamotivational monitoring in medical students.

Considering three motivational theories (expectancy-value theory, self-determination theory, and regulatory focus theory), these researchers specified six motivational components include self-efficacy, intrinsic value, self-relevant value, external value, promotion value, and prevention value involved in the metamotivational model.

In this way, I can connect Metamotivation with Anticipation. The Personas Dynamics Framework and the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework can use the Metamotivation approach to deal with issues about motivation.

1.6 Jung: Self, Ego, and Persona

I also find a bug in the Personas Dynamics Framework (v1.0) and my knowledge of psychological theories in general.

In a 2017 book titled Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness, authors Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci review various views of self in chapter 3 titled Human Autonomy: Philosophical Perspectives and the Phenomenology of Self.

The authors mention Carl Jung’s phenomenology of Self and his psychoanalytic theory.

Among the most complex of the dynamic psychologies of self is that developed by Carl Jung, who also viewed the self as an organismic endowment. Jung (1951, 1959) referred to the self (to distinguished from both ego and persona) as the center of the psyche that represents the potential for integration or unity of the whole personality. The self provides the impetus or spirit for realization of potentialities, which ultimately involves the unification and synthesis of the personality as a whole. For Jung, this tendency toward realization and integration, which he described also as individuation, was a vital principle so basic that it simply described the very propensities of life (Nagy, 1991).

(Source: Self-Determination Theory, 2017, p.61)

Jung used the term “Persona” to describe one of the personality components. The authors don’t offer more details about it. So I searched it on the web and found a related piece from a 2019 paper about the process of Self-Realization.

4) Archetypes. It is important to emphasize that the self is the integration and improvement of personality resulting from a continuous process of development that Jung calls individuation or the inherent unity of human being with its own nature (Brinich & Shelley, 2002) .

Individuation as a developmental process involves the differentiation and integration of such personality components as: the ego (the organizer of the conscious mind), the shadow (the unconscious aspect of the individual), the persona (the social mask adopted in response to the requirements of the environment) and the animus/anima (the male and female contradictions of the person).

By exercising the psychological functions of thinking, feeling and intuition, they gradually pass under the conscious control of the self, which constitutes the new, recent ego, so that the person attains self-realization, thus becoming an individual who feels the psychic fulfillment.

Jung can be called a precursor of transpersonal psychology as he confers the primordial role of the spirit in human actions and brings the soul and the spirit to the counseling room, offering invaluable concepts and techniques for the psychological work.

The need for individuation, this genuine “evolutionary process of personality,” is viewed by Jung as introspection, which it regards as “self-focusing” and which, far from subduing it, regards it as an integrative, unifying process: “Introspection or the need for individualization — which is the same thing — gathers what is scattered and multiple, elevating them to the original form of the One, the primordial man.

Through this separate existence, the Ego category is abolished, the circle of consciousness is widened and, through the awareness of paradoxes, the sources of conflict are exhausted” (Jung, 1994: pp. 167–168) .

There are four components in Jung’s theory of personality:

• the ego (the organizer of the conscious mind)
• the shadow (the unconscious aspect of the individual)
• the persona (the social mask adopted in response to the requirements of the environment)
• the animus/anima (the male and female contradictions of the person)

Source: Reddit/r/Jung

Jung used “social mask” to define “Persona”. It seems that he used the term “Persona” to describe passive behavior because it is caused by “response to the requirements of the environment”. In general, Jung used “Persona” as a concept to study the socialization of a person.

In contrast, I used the term “Persona” to describe active behavior because it is caused by “engaging with certain activities with positive subjective experience” in the Personas Dynamics Framework (v1.0).

We also have to compare Jung’s concept network with my concept network because the whole concept network offers the context for its members.

Jung’s concept network can be understood as a theory of Mind and a theory of Socialization.

• A theory of Mind = Shadow (unconscious mind) + Ego (conscious mind)
• A theory of Socialization = Self (true self) + Persona (social mask)

I didn’t incorporate a theory of Mind in the Personas Dynamics Framework (v1.0). So, my framework can be seen as a theory of Socialization.

• My theory of Socialization = Person + Persona + Social Role

How did I define these three concepts? See the table below.

My goal was to insert a new unit of analysis between “Person” and “Social Role”. My strategy is to discover the need for a new unit of analysis from the following aspects:

• Situations
• Duration
• Practice
• Interaction

The concept of “Persona” was used to highlight the following possibilities:

• Situations: Public and Private
• Duration: Short term
• Practice: Possible Practice
• Interaction: Exploratory Actions

Why did I use the terms “Possible Practice” and “Exploratory Actions”?

1.7 Possible Practice

These two terms are adopted from the Possible Practice framework. See the diagram below.

I consider actions at the individual level and practice at the collective level. The four types of actions correspond to four types of social practice.

• Possible Practice — Possible Actions
• Normal Practice — Normal Actions
• Novel Practice — Creative actions
• Ideal Practice — Exemplary Actions

If we put Normal Practice, Novel Practice, and Ideal Practice into one category: Existing Practice, then we can get the diagram below.

Since 2001, a group of philosophers, sociologists, and scientists have rediscovered the practice perspective and used it as a lens to explore and examine the role of practices in human activity. Researchers called it The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. As Schatzki pointed out, “there is no unified practice approach”(2001, p.2). Davide Nicolini adopted a way of toolkit to introduce the following six different ways of theorizing practice in his 2013 book Practice Theory, Work, & Organization:

• Praxeology and the Work of Giddens and Bourdieu
• Communities of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
• Activity Theory / Cultural-historical activity theory (the Marxian/Vygotskian/Leont’evian tradition)
• Ethnomethodology (Harold Garfinkel, 1954)
• The Site of Social (contemporary developments of the Heideggerian/Wittgensteinian traditions, by Theodore R. Schatzki)
• Conversation Analysis / Critical Discourse Analysis (the Foucauldian tradition)

I suggest “Possible Practice” as a new term that expands the scope of contemporary practice theories from “actual actions and existing practice” to “possible actions and possible practice”. I consider “Possible Practice” as the special unit of analysis for my approach “Ecological Practice”. Again, the Ecological Practice Approach is not an alternative to contemporary practice theories, but expands their scope and contains more theoretical concepts such as James J. Gibson’s Affordance.

The ecological practice approach claims that the original source of all human actions is affordance and imagination. Affordance refers to material engagement while imagination refers to linguistic engagement. If we accept the ideas from cognitive linguistics which claims that the source of linguistic conceptual metaphor is embodied experience, we can reduce the linguistic engagement (imagination) to material engagement (affordance). In fact, we can learn more from philosophists of embodied cognitive science. They consider affordance as an essential concept for rethinking the mind from the perspective of embodied cognitive science.

My focus is action and practice, not mind and cognition. The goal of Ecological Approach is to build a new unit of analysis for discussing action and practice. The “Possible Practice” is just the beginning.

You can find more details about “Possible Practice” in The NICE Way and Possible Practice.

1.8 Conceptual Heterogeneity

Now we see a big difference between Jung’s theory and my theory. Jung’s theory is about Mind and Personality while social theory is not his primary interest. However, I want to develop a social theory that emphasizes creative actions and possible practices.

The different context leads to different views on the concept of “Persona”.

What should I do with this Conceptual Heterogeneity?

What’s Conceptual Heterogeneity? It refers to different people using the same word to express different conceptual meanings. It leads to Knowledge Fragmentation inside one discipline. Also, it raises the cost of cross-boundary collaborative projects.

I could respond to this challenge with three solutions:

• #1 — Ignore Jung’s theory if I don’t claim that we are working in the same discipline.
• #2 — Use a new word to replace “Persona” while keeping my original meaning.
• #3 — Combine Jung’s view on “Persona” and my view on “Persona” together and develop a new theory of “Persona”.

Can I ignore Jung’s theory? The diagram below represents a creative space for my theoretical creative work. I work on the boundary between sociology and psychology. I use “Life” to name the boundary and use it to refer to both individual life and social life.

My major theoretical resources are the following four approaches:

• Ecological Psychology
• Activity Theory
• Theoretical Sociology
• The Psychology of Creativity

My primary themes are Life, Work, Career, Activity, etc. These themes are all about things people could do, should do, would do, and must do.

Mind, Self, Personality, Emotion, and Unconscious, are not my primary themes. I prefer to adopt contemporary cognitive psychologist Keith Stanovich’s tripartite theory of mind as the primary theoretical resource about “Mind”. You can find more details in #TalkThree 09: The Art of Intelligence or Mind.

Source: The Rationality Quotient (2016, p.36)

It’s clear that I am not in the camp of Psychoanalytic Approaches. That’s the reason that I didn’t read Jung in the past several years.

However, if we see Psychology as a discipline, I can’t ignore Jung’s term “Persona” because it is part of the historical tradition of the field of Psychology.

The second solution is simple. I can use a new word to name my original meaning if I don’t want to touch Jung’s theory. I don’t have to change the Persona Dynamics Framework (v1.0) and (v2.0).

The third solution is ambitious. I could combine Jung’s view of “Persona” and my view of “Persona” together and develop a new theory about “Persona”.

I realized that the third solution points out a new challenge which beyond the Persona Dynamics Framework. It asks me to develop a new theory about Self and Agency, or at least curate theoretical approaches to Self and Agency together.

Maybe I should do it. But it is not now.

In this movement, I am reading the 2017 book titled Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness, authors Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci review various views of self in chapter 3 titled Human Autonomy: Philosophical Perspectives and the Phenomenology of Self.

This chapter is a great starting point for understanding “Self, Agency, and Activity”.

Part 2: Reflection

The next part will reflect on my experience of reading and thinking about the Persona Dynamics Framework.

This is a case study of the “Themes in the Field” stage which is the third stage of the Strategic Thematic Exploration framework.

The “Themes in the Field” stage refers to two states: 5) A knowledge concept with a working definition, and 6) A knowledge framework with a set of concepts. In this stage, our goal is to develop the primary knowledge concept and a network of related concepts.

The primary resources of this stage are previously published works on similar concepts. We should use Literature Review to explore others' creative ideas.

Reference

• TALE: The “Strategic Thematic Exploration” Framework
• TALE: The “Strategic Thematic Exploration” Framework (v1.1)
• TALE: The Deep Analogy Technique for Strategic Thematic Exploration
• TALE: A Possible Theme called “Possible Practice”
• TALE: A Possible Theme called “Possible Discipline”
• TALE: A Possible Discipline called “Platform Ecology”
• The Disciplinary Identity of HCI Research: An Investigation Using Configurational Theory
• Mental Moves #2: Creative Swapping of Mental Elements
• TALE: The Deep Analogy Technique for Strategic Thematic Exploration
• TALE: Possible Configurations of A Theme Network
• TALE: The Dynamics of Thematic Space (v2.0)
• TALE: How to develop a framework for a possible theme called “Slow Talk”?
• TALE: How to Develop a Possible Knowledge Theme? A Simple Answer
• TALE: Start Your Journey of Knowledge Engagement with A Possible Theme