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

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.

In Part 1, I shared some reading notes about the Persona Dynamics Framework.

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

In this part, I will reflect on my experience with the rough literature review.

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

2.1 The Attachance of Rediscovery
2.2 Theoretical Resources for Knowledge Engagement
2.3 Actors, Researchers, and the Landscape of “Self” Knowledge
2.4 Develop a Spontaneous Concept System
2.5 Concept Dynamics and Conceptual Heterogeneity
2.6 The “Oliver — Jung” Thematic Conversation
2.7 Concept Choices and School Choices

2.1 The Attachance of Rediscovery

The Section of [1.1 The Concept of “Persona Dynamics”] shared the background of the story of “Persona Dynamics”. In 2019, I reflected on my work experience in digital social interaction design and developed a framework called Social Engagement Theory (SET). My primary interest was person-to-person social interactions. The screenshot below is the cover image of my slide about SET.

SET is a short name for the framework. I started learning Activity Theory, Ecological Psychology, and other theories around 2015. The name “SET” was inspired by ecological psychologist Roger Barker’s Behavior Settings Theory.

After 2019, I moved to develop a meta-theory framework called the Ecological Practice Approach (1, 2) and stopped developing the SET framework.

However, I continuously detached mental elements from the original SET framework and attached these mental elements to my new projects. For example, I used the word “SET” to name an Ecological — Activity Hybrid Approach in 2020. The difference is the full name between the original SET framework and the 2020 framework.

• 2019: Social Engagement Theory
• 2020: Structured Engagement Theory

Why did I love the word “SET”? Because it refers to a connection between my knowledge enterprise and Roger Barker’s Behavior Settings Theory. I also directly adopt Barker’s ideas for the 2020 framework. You can find more details in The SET Framework [Hybrid Approach].

One module of the 2019 SET framework is the ARCH Diagram. See the screenshot below. I also detached it from the 2019 SET framework and attached it to the D as Diagramming project in 2020. Later, I named it “Interactive Zone” (1, 2) in 2021.

In 2021, I relaunched the ARCH diagram on the Activity Analysis site (1, 2) and further developed it as a visual language of interpersonal interactions and collaborative project engagement (3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

What can we learn from this story?

I called it “the Attachance of Rediscovery”. Even though I didn’t work on the 2019 SET framework, I still can use some mental elements I found from the framework for other projects.

In a recent knowledge project called “Mental Moves”, I adopted Dean Keith Simonton’s Chance-configuration theory as the foundation and expanded his theory to a new model from the perspective of Attachance Theory. You can find more details on The Mental Moves Board.

It’s clear that we can consider “ARCH” as an example of “Mental Moves” and “the Attachance of Rediscovery”.

However, I didn’t touch on the concept of “Persona” and the “Persona Dynamics” framework from 2019 to 2022 because I moved to develop 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.

The notion of “the Attachance of Rediscovery” is really powerful because it encourages us to see our past experiences from a new perspective. In this manner, we can detach some mental elements from some projects whether they were unfinished, dead, or successful, and attach them to our new projects.

In this manner, we can turn our past experiences into developmental resources for our creative life.

2.2 Theoretical Resources for Knowledge Engagement

The Section of [1.2 Rapid Literature Reviews] is about the utilization of academic knowledge resources for knowledge workers.

My primary interest is located in the intersection between Knowledge, Creativity, and Adult Development. I roughly use Creative Life to name this focus. It’s clear that I don’t want to develop a general framework about adult development for everyone. I only consider Knowledge Workers and Creators as my target audience.

In the past several years, I worked on connecting THEORY and PRACTICE. I didn’t pay attention to the distinction between academic workers and industry workers. I think it is better to see the landscape of knowledge as a meaningful whole.

I am not an academic worker. However, I read many academic theoretical books in the past years and used theoretical knowledge to reflect on my various work practices. The journey is amazing! I wrote over 18 books in drafts. From my own experiences, I believe that the distinction between Scholars and Practitioners is not useful for knowledge engagement.

If a person like to develop his/her intellectual wisdom, he should not ignore academic knowledge resources if he is an industry professional practitioner.

As professional practitioners, how can we utilize academic theoretical resources for our journey of Knowledge Engagement?

In a previous article titled TALE: A Possible Theme Called “Methodological Empathy”, I encouraged readers to embrace systematic thinking of knowledge engagement:

Philosophy > Science > Practice

I also recommend two schemas of the general structure of social sciences: 1) Ontology > Epistemology > Methodology (a traditional approach), and 2) Ontology > Realism > Hermeneutics (developed by Ping-keung Lui).

This idea inspired me to develop the following framework for considering theoretical resources.

It’s a simple 4x4 chart that is formed by two dimensions: “Person” and “Knowledge”. The “Person” dimension is divided into four categories:

• Knowledge Creator
• Knowledge Curator
• Knowledge Maker
• Knowledge User

The “Knowledge” dimension is divided into four types:

• Philosophy
• Pure Science
• Applied Science
• Practice

How to use this chart? It is designed to make a choice of the utilization of theoretical resources for a particular knowledge project or a knowledge enterprise.

If you start a long-term knowledge enterprise, you can use the chart to decide your position in the landscape of knowledge. For example, the above chart shows a configuration for my “Activity U” knowledge enterprise.

I use the “Activity U” knowledge enterprise to refer to my journey of appropriating Activity Theory which is an established theoretical tradition.

• Philosophy: I am a Knowledge User because I didn’t want to create a new philosophy about Activity Theory.
• Pure Science: I am a Knowledge Maker because I made a series of diagrams for Andy Blunden’s approach to “An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity”.
• Applied Science: I am a Knowledge Curator because I run the Activity U project and host the Activity Analysis Center. These two projects are all about selecting, reviewing, and comparing different knowledge frameworks of Activity Theory.
• Practice: I am a Knowledge Creator because I made a set of frameworks for applying Activity Theory to a particular task (1, 2). Sometimes, I connect Activity Theory with other theoretical resources (3, 4).

If we consider Knowledge Engagement as an Activity, then we can utilize theoretical knowledge as resources for our creative projects. It is just like a normal production activity, we don’t have to make everything for ourselves. There is a Supply Chain in the field of knowledge production.

For example, we see an example in the section of [1.4 Self—System Therapy].

• Pure Science: Higgins’s (1987) Self-Discrepancy Theory/Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins 1997)
• Applied Science: Self-System Therapy (SST)

We also don’t have to worry about our situational role in each project. You don’t have to make the same choice for different knowledge projects.

If you are planning a large knowledge enterprise that is formed by a series of knowledge projects, the above chart is a great tool for your strategic exploration. You could make a chart for each project and put them together to see the whole picture.

2.3 Actors, Researchers, and the Landscape of “Self” Knowledge

The Section of [1.3 Two Views of Self] introduces two views of Self in the field of Psychology.

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.

I used this typology to test the “Universal Reference for Knowledge Engagement” diagram. See the diagram below.

The Vertical group refers to the Degrees of Abstraction of “Knowledge”.

The “Theory — Practice” dimension is shared with the following pairs of concepts:

• The “Heaven—Earth” dimension
• The “Langue — Space” dimension
• The “Episteme — Empeiria” dimension

The “Langue” refers to universal concepts or vocabulary while “Space” refers to spatial structure and immediate embodied experience.

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.

From the view of “Self-as-Object”, there are a set of terms which is called “Self-concept”. We can place these self-concepts in the layer of “Langue (language).”

From the view of “Self-as-Process” (Self-as-Subject), the self can be seen in a process of dynamic development. At different times, we see a concrete content of an abstract Self-concept. So, we can place “Self-as-Process” in the layer of “Parole (speech)”.

Moreover, we can see a distinction between Researchers and Actors. While Researchers only care about the above two views, Actors only consider the third view: “Myself”.

From the perspective of researchers, “Myself” is a mystery for scientific work. They have to build a “DATA — HYPOTHESIS” formula in order to turn the “Myself” from original experience into scientific knowledge such as “Self-as-Process” or “Self-as-Object”.

From the perspective of a particular actor, “Myself” is not a mystery. He/she has his/her own Spontaneous Concept System of “Myself”. However, “Self-as-Process” and “Self-as-Object” refer to a large Scientific Defined Concept System.

These two types of concept systems don’t need fully fit at all times.

The Horizontal group refers to the Situations of Activity of “Engagement”. In the diagram of the landscape of “Self” Knowledge, the Horizontal group refers to a person’s real “Life”.

The “Means — End” dimension is shared with the following pairs of concepts:

• The “Birth — Death” dimension
• The “Attach — Detach” dimension
• The “Self — Other” dimension

The “Means — End” dimension is adopted from Activity Theory.

The “Birth — Death” dimension refers to the “alive” status of things. Actions and Activities are only “alive” when we are acting. At the end of an activity, the thing we worked on is produced. It’s done. It’s no longer alive. If we use it in a new activity, it becomes alive again.

The “Attach — Detach” dimension considers the reference space as a container. People attach their minds to the reference space and detach their minds from the reference space.

The “Self — Other” dimension is about the “Self — Other” Relevance.

These dimensions indicate that “Life” is the container of “Self”. We can understand the “Self” without understanding the “Life”. This insight returns to the Ecological Practice Approach’s basic model: Container (Containee):

Life (Self)

This is a significant insight! It means I can develop a theory about “Self” from the perspective of the Ecological Practice Approach. I can also apply “Life (Self)” to the Creative Life Theory project.

Part III will discuss the following topics:

• 2.4 Develop a Spontaneous Concept System
• 2.5 Concept Dynamics and Conceptual Heterogeneity
• 2.6 The “Oliver — Jung” Thematic Conversation
• 2.7 Concept Choices and School Choices

Reference

• TALE: The “Strategic Thematic Exploration” Framework
• TALE: The “Strategic Thematic Exploration” Framework (v1.1)
• Themes in the Field: Self, Agency, and Activity (Part I)
• 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