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

The Territory of Concepts

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, we aim 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 I, I shared some reading notes about the Persona Dynamics Framework.

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

In Part II, I will reflect on my experience with the rough literature review.

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

In Part III, I discuss some topics about concepts. Though we can dive into the world of concepts, it is not the primary focus of the Strategic Thematic Exploration project, so this post makes the end of the project.

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 Metamotivation
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

Part 3: The Territory of Concepts

3.1 Develop a Spontaneous Concept System
3.2 Concept Dynamics and Conceptual Heterogeneity
3.3 The “Oliver — Jung” Thematic Conversation
3.4 Concept Choices and School Choices

From the perspective of “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, we aim to develop the primary knowledge concept and a network of related concepts.

Now we have a good name for the network of concepts: Spontaneous Concept System.

The next phase of the journey of knowledge engagement is Conceptual Elaboration which aims to turn a Spontaneous Concept System into a Defined Concept System or a Scientific Concept System.

If we see the “Conceptual Elaboration” phase as an Activity, the raw material is a Spontaneous Concept System and the outcome is a Defined Concept System or Scientific Concept System. All actions of the Activity are about deliberately developing individual concepts, relationships between concepts, diagrams of concepts, and representations of frameworks. The mediation of the Activity can be various tools and methods case studies, etymology, thematic analysis, concept choices, etc.

The further phase is Continuous Objectification which aims to turn a concept system into real things.

I consider Strategic Thematic Exploration and Conceptual Elaboration as two phases of EARLY DISCOVERY of the journey of knowledge Engagement. See the diagram below.

In the above diagram, you can see a term called “The Territory of Concepts” which is inspired by Alfred Korzybski’s “The Map is not the Territory”.

According to Korzybski, the conceptual models of reality are not the reality itself. For the journey of knowledge engagement, our challenge is more complicated than the simple map-territory relation because we are making the map while we are trying to understand reality.

As mentioned above, a Spontaneous Concept System refers to a rough Knowledge Framework which is the outcome of Strategic Thematic Exploration. The Activity of Developing a Spontaneous Concept System means turning a Rough knowledge framework into a Reliable knowledge framework.

I use “The Territory of Concepts” to refer to the subjective experience of objectification of concepts. It means we should make some real objects of concepts. In the process of objectification, we, as the makers of these objects, will earn the subjective experience such as feedback from others, reflection on mistakes, excited moments, thematic conversations, capturing significant insights, comparing two concept systems, testing an object, expanding a concept system, moving between concept systems, etc.

The Territory of Concepts can be seen as a Subjective Reality. We, as the developer of a concept system, only can see this Subjective Reality and use it to help us elaborate the Spontaneous Concept System.

Is there an Objective Reality that can be an object for our knowledge engagement? Yes, we can claim it. However, once we reach a part of an Objective Reality, it becomes a part of our experience.

3.1 Develop a Spontaneous Concept System

As mentioned in Part II, 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 Persona Dynamics Framework is a Spontaneous Concept System because I did not work on the “Conceptual Elaboration” phase from 2019 to 2022. The recent notes are the starting point of its Conceptual Elaboration phase.

I also consider the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework as a Spontaneous Concept System too. However, I have been working on its Conceptual Elaboration phase for over one year. I also wrote a book (draft) about it. It’s clear that there are several states in the “Conceptual Elaboration” phase.

In TALE: A Possible Theme called “Spontaneous Concept System”, I developed a diagram for exploring the structure of Spontaneous Concept System. Now we can use it to visualize my experience of writing notes about “Persona Dynamics”. See the attached diagram.

The above diagram was originally developed for the ARCH model. I use the following elements for exploring the structure of Spontaneous Concept System.

• Object: Primary Theme
• Focus: Situational Theme Network
• Landscape: Relevant Theme Network
• Backstage: Deep Theme Network

In this case, I considered the “Persona Dynamics” framework as a sub-framework of the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework. So, the primary Object is “AAS”. It means the development of “Persona Dynamics” is a step of the development of “AAS”. In order to watch the whole picture, I use “AAS” as the primary theme to connect the whole concept system.

I place the following themes about the “Persona Dynamics” framework in the Focus block.

• Personas
• Possible Selves
• The Persona — Activity Fit
• Anticipation
• Social Roles

For the Landscape block, I list the following themes:

• Motivation
• Self
• The Theory-Practice Connection
• Agency

The section [1.3 Two Views of Self] and the section [1.6 Jung: Self, Ego, and Persona] are about the theme of “Self”.

The section [1.4 Self-System Therapy] is about the theme of “the Theory-Practice Connection”.

The section [1.5 Anticipation and Metamotivation] is about the theme of “Motivation”.

The theme of “Agency” is not a concept of the Persona Dynamics framework. I also didn’t use it for the AAS framework. Why did I place it here?

It connects to the Backstage block where we can see two things: the Creative Life Theory and Activity Theory. The theme of “Agency” is a significant theme of sociology. I used it because one of the theoretical resources of Creative Life Theory is Theoretical Sociology.

The above diagram highlights four theoretical resources:

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

The Activity of “Conceptual Elaboration” is a tough challenge since you have to work with both your own concepts and others’ concepts. You need to find some others’ ideas and use them to support your concepts. You may remove some concepts from your concept system. You may add some new concepts to your concept system. You may detach a whole concept system from a knowledge framework.

The above model is a useful tool for watching each event of Situational Elaboration. In this way, you can see changes in a Spontaneous Concept System.

3.2 Concept Dynamics and Conceptual Heterogeneity

One typical challenge of Conceptual Elaboration is 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.

The section [1.6 Jung: Self, Ego, and Persona] is a great example of Conceptual Heterogeneity.

Carl Jung used the term “Persona” to describe one of the personality components of his psychoanalytic theory. Jung’s theory is about Mind and Personality while social theory is not his primary interest. I used the term “Persona” to insert a new unit of analysis between “Person” and “Social Role”. My notion is part of a social theory that emphasizes creative actions and possible practices.

I discussed more details and the background of my work on Persona and my social theory in the section [1.7 Possible Practice] and the section [1.8 Conceptual Heterogeneity].

The Concept Dynamics Framework is a useful tool for dealing with the challenge of Conceptual Heterogeneity. I used the concept of “Ecosystem” as an example to test the framework in Sept 2022.

The Concept Dynamics framework suggests four views on a concept:

• Ecological Reality: real experience with a concept
• Conceptual Reality: an idea about a concept
• Linguistic Reality: name of a concept or ordinary language
• Context: what’s the background of the situation?

The above diagram shows a Practitioner’s View on the concept of “Innovation Ecosystem”.

The diagram below shows a Scholar’s View on the concept of “Innovation Ecosystem”.

The gap between naming and conceptual reality refers to the difference between Practitioners’ perspectives and Scholars’ perspectives. See the diagram below.

Inside the academic world, there is also a gap between different scholars.

You can find more details in Against Conceptual Heterogeneity: A Case Study of Academic Knowledge Curation and Knowledge Discovery: The Concept Dynamics Framework.

3.3 The “Oliver — Jung” Thematic Conversation

The discussion about the concept of “Persona” and the difference between my framework and Jung’s theory can be seen as a thematic conversation.

The diagram below uses the method of “Mapping Thematic Conversation” to visualize the “Oliver — Jung” Thematic Conversation.

• Initial Theme/Primary Theme: Initial Theme refers to a meaningful keyword that triggers a conversation while Primary Theme refers to a primary theme of a conversation.
• Focus: A person’s Situational Theme Network
• Landscape: A person’s Relevant Theme Network

The initial theme of the “Oliver — Jung” thematic conversation is the concept of “Persona”.

“Focus” is about situational conversations. For example, a conversation around a post on Linkedin, a discussion around a Twitter thread, an email conversation, etc. Jung used the term “Persona” to describe one of the personality components. So, Jung’s theory of personality is his Focus. On the other side, my Focus is the Persona Dynamics framework.

“Landscape” refers to the relevant theme network which can be seen as the background of “Focus”. In this case, it means my theory and Jung’s theory in general.

This is an interesting case study because it is about a Quasi-social Conversation. In 2020, I developed a method to discuss six kinds of context of reading.

• Physical environment as context
• Digital ecology as context
• Personal psychobiography as context
• Social connections as context
• Figure ecology as context
• Idea ecology as context

An emergent issue is an interaction between people and their figure ecology. I consider this type of interaction as “Quasi-social Interaction” since historical figures are people too but they can’t respond to us.

The diagram below is a connection between my ideas and Erving Goffman’s ideas. You can find more details in Frame Analysis in Context.

You can also find the idea “Persona Dynamics” in the above diagram. It seems that this is a thematic conversation too!

3.4 Concept Choices and School Choices

On May 22, I shared a theme called “Concept Choices”. The theme of “Concept Choices” was born from my recent two projects. One is a Strategic Design Research project about a web3 platform. The other one is a Creative Life Study project about Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology.

In 2021, I developed a framework called Concept-fit for discussing Platform Innovation.

I use the theme of “Concept Choices” to discuss decision-making on selecting a position at a particular level and moving between two levels under the Concept-fit framework.

Now we can detach it from the Concept-fit framework and attach it to Knowledge Engagement.

As mentioned above, I consider Strategic Thematic Exploration and Conceptual Elaboration as two phases of EARLY DISCOVERY of the journey of knowledge Engagement.

Both two phases require Concept-related decision-making actions.

Concept Choices are the foundational actions of knowledge engagement!

School Choices are similar to Concept Choices. In every domain, there are some schools of thoughts about the domain. They represent the historical development of intellectual activities in the domain. School Choices mean respecting theoretical tradition while reserving creative spaces.

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