TALE: A Possible Theme called “Theme (Concept)”

Themes, Concepts, and Taking Thematic Attachances

The above picture represents a Possible Theme called “Context (Mind)”.

• Name: Theme (Concept)
• Clue: …
• Type: Knowledge Themes
• Contributors: Jeroen Coelen (see this thread on Twitter)
• Reference: The Curated Mind, Attachance
• Related themes: Context (Mind), Life (Self), The Territory of Concepts

On June 20, 2023, I introduced the theme of Theme (Concept) in a post titled TALE: A Possible Theme called “Context (Mind)”. Today I am going to use this individual post (which generates an individual URL for the theme) to re-introduce it with additional new ideas.

Theme (Concept) is an application of the notion of Container (Containee) which is the core idea of the Ecological Practice approach.

The Ecological Practice approach is inspired by Ecological Psychology, Activity Theory, and social practice theories. It considers Experiences, Actions, and Social Context.

I have been working on the theme of “Themes” for many years. Two days ago, I reflected on the journey from 2017 to 2023. The pictures below represent the newest development of the journey.

My vision behind the journey is to build an Ecological Approach to Concept Science. This is an ambitious project!

This post highlights some ideas about the theme of “Theme (Concept)” and related projects.

Contents

Part 1: The Ecological Approach to Concepts

1.1 The Ecological Practice Approach
1.2 Container Thinking
1.3 Theme (Concept)
1.4 The Thematic Space of A Concept
1.5 An Example: Life (Self)
1.6 Taking Thematic Attachances

Part 2: Creating New Concepts and Themes

2.1 The Concept Dynamics Framework (2020)
2.2 “Formation of Concept” and “Themes of Practice” (2020)
2.3 The Concept-fit Framework (2021)
2.4 The Themes of Practice Framework (2021)
2.5 The Knowledge Discovery Canvas (2022)
2.6 The “Theme — Concept” Transformation (2023)
2.7 The Territory of Concepts (2023)

Part 1: The Ecological Approach to Concepts

Part 1 introduces the Ecological Practice approach and a new unit of analysis Theme (Concept) with an example.

1.1 The Ecological Practice Approach

In a broad sense, the Ecological Practice approach has its philosophical roots in traditional Pragmatism and contemporary embodied cognitive science. In 2019, I made the first version of the Ecological Practice Approach which is a curated knowledge framework. See the diagram below.

The above diagram shows several theoretical concepts. Some concepts are adopted from theoretical resources. The concept of Selectivity is adopted from William James’ Radical Empiricism. The concept of Affordance is adopted from Ecological psychologist James J. Gibson. The concept of Reflectivity is adopted from Donald Schön. I also developed several original concepts such as Attachance, Containance, Curativity, and Themes of Practice.

In 2020, I developed a new diagram to represent the germ-cell of the Ecological Practice approach. A Germ Cell of a theoretical approach is its smallest entity which can represent the whole of thinking in different levels of analysis. The diagram below shows the germ cell of the Ecological Practice approach.

The Basic Model of Ecological Practice Approach

The above diagram combines three core concepts of the Ecological Practice approach together: Affordance, Attachance, and Containance. The term “Offers” is an affordance-inspired concept, it refers to opportunities afforded by the Container. The group of “Offer — Act” forms “Event” which changes the status of the Container. The new status of the Container affords new opportunities which guide the new acts and events. In a broad sense, the Ecological Practice approach has its philosophical roots in traditional Pragmatism.

The above diagram also represents the concept of Attachance at the level of Container. We can consider Entering the Container as an Attaching act and Exiting the Container as a Detaching act. However, the diagram doesn’t represent the second attachance which is inside the Container. In fact, the Ecological Practice approach considers the “Form of Act” as “Attach” or “Detach”. Any act is either an attaching act or a detaching act.

The above picture is another way of representing the germ cell of the Ecological Practice approach. The two forms of the act are represented by binary numbers. The 0 represents detaching act and the 1 represents attaching act. The parenthesis represents the Container. The right diagram shows an example of complex status which brings out other two concepts: Curativity and Themes of Practice. I also add the concept of Emergence from complexity theory to the above diagram.

Let’s move to the landscape level to view the Ecological Practice Approach.

Based on the concept of Container, I coined two related ideas: Network and Platform. The Network refers to the pre-container status which means pieces loose coupling outside the container. The Platform refers to the post-container status which means pieces loose coupling within the super large container. These three ideas form a triad: Network — Container — Platform. I consider the triad as the basic form of collective contexts.

The Landscape of Ecological Practice Approach

The above diagram represents a large map of the ecological practice approach. Here we see three basic types of collective context and attaching/detaching acts inside contexts and between contexts.

The Ecological Practice approach is a radical account with its transactional worldview. The approach is inspired by ideas from multiple disciplines. Thus, it is an interdisciplinary study itself. However, the Ecological Practice approach has its own focus: ecological complexity, which means the relationship between “the structure and dynamic of environments” and “human action and social practice”.

You can find more details in Curativity Theory and The Ecological Practice Approach (v2, 2020) and The Development of Ecological Practice Approach.

1.2 Container Thinking

Since the Ecological Practice approach contains a set of concepts, I often use one concept individually for some projects. For example, the idea of Container (Containee).

One day In 2017, I saw a sideways flower pot in a local supermarket. As a guy who was not familiar with gardening, I was curious about such a container and the plants it contains. I used to think that plants always grow upward. That day, I was surprised that there are some plants that grow horizontally. I feel ashamed of my ignorance of botany.

This dramatic experience inspired me to reflect on the concept of Container. In 2017, I was fascinated with George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s conceptual metaphor Container and image schema Containment. For Lakoff and Johnson, Container refers to the in-out orientation and boundary of space. After the day, I moved my attention from the boundary of the container to the dynamic relationship between the Container and the Things it contains. For the sake of discussion, I coined a new term called “Containee” in order to simply represent “Things contained by Container”.

The sideways flower pot taught me an invaluable lesson in which I learned the initial idea of the ecological practice approach. Though a plant is held by a container, the living space occupied by the plant in the world is beyond the interior space of the container. Later, I theorized this phenomenon with the following terms and diagrams.

• Inside Space: the interior space of the container.
• Outside Space: the exterior space of the container.
• Spilling Space: the living space occupied by the containee.

We have to notice that the Spilling Space is a dynamic space because it can be smaller than the inside space or bigger than the outside space. In this way, the spilling space connects the inside space and the outside space.

In Feb 2021, I applied the above Container Thinking to develop the Platform-for-Development framework (v2.0). I defined Platform as Super Large Container. Thus, the Container Thinking can be used with the following approach:

• Platform: a super large container
• Participants: the containee of the platform
• Inside Space: the interior space of the platform.
• Outside Space: the exterior space of the platform.
• Spilling Space: the living space occupied by the Participants of a Platform

To facilitate discussion, I coined the term Platform-ba (or Platformba) to describe the sum of Containee and Spilling Space for the Platform Ecology project.

For the Platform-for-Development framework and the Supportive Cycle model, I defined Platform-ba as a platform-based sociocultural field.

The “ba” is originally found in Japanese. The concept of “ba” has been used extensively by Japanese management researcher Ikujiro Nonaka in his SECI model of knowledge creation. The platform-ba is an emergent social substance that is formed by people who have relations to a platform. While a platform is designed, managed, and controlled by its owner, its platform-ba is determined by people, the users, and stakeholders of the platform. By using the new term Platform-ba, I can highlight the active aspect of platform practice which refers to people’s activity.

You can find more details in Platform, Platform-ba, and Platform Ecology.

1.3 Theme (Concept)

On May 11, 2023, I applied Container Thinking to discuss the relationship between “Theme” and “Concept” for the “Strategic Thematic Exploration” project. See the diagram below.

For the Strategic Thematic Exploration framework, I made a distinction between “Theme” and “Concept”. While “Theme” emphasizes subjective experience and understanding, “Concept” is more about objective meaning and definition.

I also see “Theme” from the perspective of “Themes of Practice” which is a core concept of the Ecological Practice approach.

In this way, we can see two types of cognitive space from the perspective of “Container Thinking”.

• Container: Concept
• Containee: Theme
• Container’s boundary: Conceptual Space
• Containee’s living space: Thematic Space

As mentioned above, “the Spilling Space is a dynamic space because it can be smaller than the inside space or bigger than the outside space. In this way, the spilling space connects the inside space and the outside space.” The Thematic Space can be smaller than the Conceptual Space or bigger than the Conceptual Space because it is a dynamic space.

The Thematic Engagement project aims to explore the “Person — Theme” relationship and interaction. The Thematic Engagement approach is supported by the “Themes of Practice’” approach and the “Project Engagement” approach.

We don’t only consider the semantic relationship between themes, but also the genetic relationship between them. While the semantic relationship is associated with the part of “themes”, the genetic relationship is associated with the part of “practice” which means the real historical development of projects.

The “Theme — Concept” Transformation can be understood with the term “Loose coupling” which is inspired by y Karl E. Weick, an American organizational theorist. If you visit Wikipedia, you can pay attention to the following paragraph:

Loose coupling in Weick’s sense is a term intended to capture the necessary degree of flex between an organization’s internal abstraction of reality, its theory of the world, on the one hand, and the concrete material actuality within which it finally acts, on the other.

A loose coupling is what makes it possible for these ontologically incompatible entities to exist and act on each other, without shattering (akin to Castoriadis’s idea of ‘articulation’).

Orton and Weick argue in favour of uses of the term which consciously preserve the dialectic it captures between the subjective and the objective, and against uses of the term which ‘resolve’ the dialectic by folding it into one side or the other.

Thematic Engagement is both subjective and objective, the “Loose coupling” model is a typical configuration of a theme network. In this way, we can have the necessary degree of flex between the semantic relationship and the genetic relationship.

You can find more details in TALE: Possible Configurations of A Theme Network.

1.4 The Thematic Space of A Concept

On Nov 9, 2022, I developed a new diagram called Universal Reference for Knowledge Engagement. Now we can use it as the Thematic Space of a Concept.

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 “Heaven — Earth” dimension is a metaphor that is a popular pair of concepts in Chinese philosophy. 天 (Tian) heaven, 地 (Di) earth, and 人 (Ren) humans, are three spheres of origin, 三才 (San Cai). This threefold structure of the universe offers a coherent and systematic approach to understanding nature and society.

I’d like to use “天 (Tian) heaven” to refer to the high degree of abstraction of knowledge while “地 (Di) earth” is associated with the low degree of abstraction of knowledge.

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

The “Episteme — Empeiria” dimension refers to Aristotle’s typology of thought: technê, epistêmê, phronêsis, sophia, and nous. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “At the beginning of the Metaphysics, Aristotle says that the person with epistêmê and the person with technê share an important similarity. There Aristotle contrasts the person of experience (empeiria) with someone who has technê or epistêmê.”

The Horizontal group refers to the Situations of Activity of “Engagement”.

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. I consider the Means v.s. End issue within concrete activities. For example, a diagram might be an end, I call it Thought-to-Diagram. For another particular activity, the same diagram might be a means, I call it Diagram-to-Thought. If we combine these two situations together, we can develop a Means-End Spectrum and use it to present various instrumental values of diagrams.

The same logic can be applied to other things such as themes, concepts, frameworks, tools, events, etc.

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 which suggests four units of analysis:

• Intrapersonal Relevance: the Other is potential, not actual.
• Interpersonal Relevance: the Other is actual, but the “Self — Other” is not considered as a whole.
• Transactional Relevance: the Other is actual, and the “Self — Other” is considered as a whole.
• Collective Relevance: the Other is pervasive, not proximal. The “Self — Other” relationship is understood as “Self — Group”.

The typology of “Self — Other” Relevance offers a way for understanding the situations of Activity.

The Self — Other dimension echoes the Means — End dimension. In the Intrapersonal Situation, a person doesn’t work with others, a diagram can be a private draft for thoughts. In the Intrapersonal Situation, a person directly works or talks with others, a diagram is not a shared thing for thoughts.

In the Transactional Situation, a diagram is presented to a team or a group as a piece of internal knowledge. In the Collective Situation, a diagram is published by academic institutions or other institutions as a piece of public scientific knowledge or public social policies.

What can we do with the Universal Reference Canvas?

It is for understanding “Knowledge Engagement”.

By using the new canvas, I discovered a path for “Knowledge Engagement”:

Action > Creation > Curation

This path covers 1) Action and Reflection, 2) Knowledge Creation, and 3) Knowledge Curation. See the diagram below.

The above diagram represents four layers of knowledge engagement:

• Langue (language)
• Parole (speech)
• Observable / Data
• Unobservable / Hypothesis

Moreover, we can see four types of actors. Let’s use sociological knowledge as an example.

The above diagram displays four types of actors in a different visual layout. We can see the implicit similarity between Curators and Theoretical Sociologists.

You can find more details in Diagram: A Universal Reference for Knowledge Engagement and Creative Life Curation: Kinds of Actors.

1.5 An Example: Life (Self)

Now we can use Universal Reference Canvas as a thematic space for mapping the notion of Theme(Concept).

Let’s use the concept of “Self” as an example.

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 “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 to 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 “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’t 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.

You can find more details in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Life (Self)”.

This example is significant because it deals with a super abstract concept: “Self”.

We can apply the same method to other concepts.

1.6 Taking Thematic Attachances

In the past several months, I worked on a set of connected projects about the process of thematic exploration and concept development.

From the perspective of the Ecological Practice approach, this complicated process can be understood as Taking Thematic Attachances.

I coined the term Attachance by combining Attach and Chance in 2018 to discuss some ideas related to Affordance, a core idea of Ecological Psychology.

Affordance means potential action opportunities offered by environments. I want to highlight the meaning and value of actual action itself, however, the term Affordance only refers to potential actions. Thus, I coined the term Attachance to emphasize the potential opportunities offered by actual actions, especially the attaching act and the detaching act.

The diagram below uses the Universal Reference diagram and the “Attach — Container — Detach” schema as frameworks to curate these projects.

While the example Life (Self) refers to a single concept, the above diagram represents a complicated landscape of thematic exploration and concept development.

The landscape has one process and four thematic spaces.

• The “Attach — Container — Detach” process

The activity of thematic exploration and concept development can be seen as a process of 1) attaching mental focus to a primary thematic space (Container), and 2) detaching mental focus from the primary thematic space. The primary thematic space has two tendencies that determine the events:

• Offers: The thematic space offers frames to guide the process
• Acts: The actor takes creative mental moves in order to develop unique concepts

The above diagram also identifies four secondary thematic spaces. I use a red dot and a light blue circle to represent a secondary thematic space. Each secondary thematic space has a name that represents a secondary theme.

• ED: Early Discovery
• EF: Ecological Formism
• SC: Slow Cognition
• FI: Fast Ignition

In the past several months, I worked on the Early Discovery of the journey of Knowledge Engagement. I consider Strategic Thematic Exploration and Conceptual Elaboration as two phases of EARLY DISCOVERY.

The theme of “Thematic Exploration” is located in the “Early Discovery” thematic space. On June 23, 2023, I closed the “Strategic Thematic Exploration” project with a possible book titled Thematic Exploration: The Early Discovery of Knowledge Engagement.

The “Frame for Work” theme refers to a project about using and developing knowledge frameworks for creative projects. The core idea of the theme is called “Ecological Formism”.

The “Mental Moves” theme refers to a book (draft) titled Mental Moves: The Attachances of Moving between Thematic Spaces. It is about the immediate experience of mental inspiration. So, it is located in the “Fast Ignition” thematic space.

I use the theme of “Slow Cognition” to refer to a large thematic space for my creative work study. The theme of “Creative Life Curation” and related framework are located in the “Slow Cognition” thematic space.

Taking Thematic Attachances sees the process of thematic exploration and concept development as a creative action of making new themes and concepts.

Part 2: Creating New Concepts and Themes

Traditional theories of Concepts tend to focus on common objects. My primary interest in Concepts is about Creating New Concepts. In the past several years, I worked on several projects about Creating New Concepts and Themes.

2.1 The Concept Dynamics Framework (2020)

From 2014 to 2017, I often read academic papers about the concept of Affordance. In the beginning, I read papers in the field of ecological psychology. Then, Cognitive Science, Creativity Research, Design, HCI, Social Media, Information Systems, etc.

One of the by-products of the journey is the Concept Dynamics Framework. See the diagram below.

The Concept Dynamics Framework emphasizes that every theoretical concept has three basic aspects: ecological reality, conceptual reality, and linguistic reality.

• Ecological Reality refers to the real experience of discovery in the real world from the perspective of researchers.
• Conceptual Reality refers to the outcome of the creative conceptualization process.
• Linguistic Reality refers to expressional form with verbal and rhetorical effects.

Based on the framework, I believe that an ideal theoretical concept should not have intrinsic contradictions between these three aspects and extrinsic contradictions between these aspects and context which means the dynamic background of the concept. Thus, it is hard work to create an ideal theoretical concept. The harder work is detaching an existing concept from its original context and attaching it to a new context by reconceptualizing it with new meaning.

The framework was born from reading about 300 academic papers about the concept of Affordance.

Though William M. Mace mentioned the cross-discipline influence of Affordance in the classic edition of Gibson’s book, I see there are more radical variations than systematic development. Researchers from different fields adopted the concept of Affordance and modified its definition to fit their own contexts. Eventually, the concept of Affordance became a buzzword. The original theoretical value behind the word was lost in the process.

I am so sad to see this situation. This also means an opportunity for theory building. There is a need to build an affordance-based ecological approach for interdisciplinary research.

After roughly reviewing some papers about the concept of Affordance from several fields, I made the above diagram and summarized five ways of appropriating the concept of Affordance:

• Informing Affordance: This way focuses on telling users Affordances of objects. Designers tend to adopt this way because they want users to understand designed features.
• Concrete Affordance: This way is also called the Ecological approach, they deal with physical environments and adopt Gibson’s concept of Affordance without modifications. This way pays attention to concrete situations.
• Abstract Affordance: This way is very popular in the field of digital environments such as Information systems, Social Media, Digital platforms, Organization Science, etc. Scholars from these fields want to use the concept of Affordance, but they find it is so hard to define Environments for them. Thus, they move to use the concept of Affordance at the abstract level without considering concrete situations.
• Affordance System: This way expands the theoretical model of affordance from the original “environment — organism” relationship to a multiple-part system such as the “human—robot — object — environment” system.
• Affordism: This way adopts the concept of Affordance as a philosophical idea to support theoretical debates and theoretical building.

My own approach is to return to Gibson’s ecological approach and adopt its core: the Ecological Physics Method. You can find more details here.

I also conducted a genetic analysis of the development of the “Affordance” Concept Ecology. See the above diagram. I found there are six moments of the development process:

• Perceive: A person perceives a brand new reality in the real-life world and discovers its theoretical value.
• Primary Conceptualize: The person conceptualizes his insights and develops a brand new theoretical concept.
• Secondary Conceptualize: The original theoretical concept is adopted and modified by others. This moment generates first-order variation and second-hand concepts.
• Tertiary Conceptualize: A second-hand concept is adopted and modified by others without returning to the original theoretical concept. This moment generates second-order variation and third-hand concepts.
• Meta Conceptualize: This moment is about reflecting and reviewing the developmental process of a concept ecology.
• Deconstruct: People use the word part of the concept without deeply considering its theoretical meaning and value. An awesome theoretical concept became a buzzword.

This model is pretty interesting because it clearly describes the source of the complexity of a concept ecology. It also points out a possible solution to solve the problem of knowledge overload.

What I learned from the concept of “Affordance” is the relevance of “Ecological Reality”.

As mentioned above, “Ecological Reality” refers to seeing a theoretical concept in the real-life world. After learning Affordance Theory, I realized that the Gap between Theory and Practice is the “Ecological Reality”. Many theoretical concepts are great in Conceptual Reality and Linguistic Reality, but they fail in the test of “Ecological Reality”.

Why?

Because it’s easy to create new knowledge concepts by only working on Conceptual Reality and Linguistic Reality with some creative heuristic tools. Then, we share these new concepts by writing articles or publishing academic papers without testing their Ecological Reality.

It’s hard to test new concepts in the real-life world because it costs time and energy.

In order to emphasize the relevance of “Ecological Reality” for concept creation, I used the slogan “I See It” to describe this notion. I even designed a visual identity for the notion and the Concept Dynamics framework.

The above is the symbol of the Concept Dynamics Project. One circle means a concept as a whole while three lines mean the above three aspects.

The above is the logotype of the Concept Dynamics Project. It reuses the three-line visual idea.

I also used “I See It” to guide concept creation for my projects. For example, the concept of “Container”.

One day in 2017, I saw a sideways flower pot in a local supermarket. As a guy who was not familiar with gardening, I was curious about such a container and the plants it contains. I used to think that plants always grow upward. That day, I was surprised that there are some plants that grow horizontally. I feel ashamed of my ignorance of botany.

A Sideways flower pot and a spilling flower (Oliver Ding, 2017)

This dramatic experience inspired me to reflect on the concept of Container. In 2017, I was fascinated with George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s conceptual metaphor Container and image schema Containment. For Lakoff and Johnson, Container refers to in-out orientation and boundary of space. After the day, I moved my attention from the boundary of the container to the dynamic relationship between the Container and the Things it contains. I coined a new term called “Containee” in order to simply represent “Things contained by Container”.

The sideways flower pot taught me an invaluable lesson in which I learned the initial idea of the ecological practice approach. Though a plant is held by a container, the living space occupied by the plant in the world is beyond the interior space of the container.

This is the beginning of the Container Thinking.

I saw the concept of “Container” in the real-life world in a way that is different from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s conceptual metaphor Container and image schema Containment.

In 2019, I continuously worked on developing “container thinking” with the idea of the Container System. Eventually, it became the foundation of my theoretical account: the Ecological Practice approach.

You can find more details in Knowledge Discovery: The Concept Dynamics Framework and Platform, Platform-ba, and Platform Ecology.

2.2 “Formation of Concept” and “Themes of Practice” (2020)

In 2020, I worked on writing a book (draft) titled Project-oriented Activity Theory in order to introduce Andy Blunden’s approach to Activity Theory. I found a similarity between his idea of “Formation of Concept” and my idea of “Themes of Practice”.

In 2019, I developed the idea of “Themes of Practice” in order to discuss the “meaning” of the meaningful whole for my book Curativity: The Ecological Approach to Curatorial Practice. I realized the notion of “Theme” is a great tool for curating experiences and actions.

As an application of Curativity Theory, the above General Curation Framework represents the structure and dynamics of curatorial practice. The activity of curatorial practice aims to collect pieces of things into a meaningful whole in order to present a theme to a group of audience. There are three immanent contradictions within the activity of curating: “pieces — whole”, “things — themes” and “curator — audience”. For the first dichotomy, I use the concept of “Container” to balance the pieces and whole. For the last dichotomy, I use the notion of “Everyone A Curator” to deconstruct the concept of “Curator” because I want to claim that the activity of curating is a general social practice.

The dichotomy of “things — themes” refers to two classical great debates of social science: “mind—matter” and “individual — collective”. After reviewing the concept of “theme” in various disciplines such as Cultural Anthropology, Counseling Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, and the Philosophy of Science, I developed a new concept “Themes of Practice” to propose a process view of “Theme”.

Anthropologist Morris Opler (1945) developed a theoretical “theme” for studying culture. Career counseling therapists and psychologists also developed a theoretical concept called “life theme.” If we put cultural themes and life themes together, we see a “great debate” of social science: “individual — collective.” The above diagram visualizes the “concept network” or “idea ecology” of “Themes of Practice”.

I consider the notion of “Themes of Practice” as a “process” type of concept, not a “substance” type of concept. Thus, it is not a new category of themes, but a transformational process between individual life themes and collective culture themes. It refers to both concept and action. It connects mind and practice. It indicates the transformation of both a person and society.

After reading Blunden’s book Concepts: A Critical Approach which presents a “Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky” account of “Concept”, I realized this is an essential theoretical resource that can support my idea of “Themes of Practice”. According to Blunden, “Dualism has been around for a long time, and not only in the form of mind/matter dualism. One of the most persistent and debilitating forms of dualism today is the dualism of the individual and society, supported by sciences devoted exclusively to one or the other domain. Since concepts are units both of cultural formations and individuals minds, a theory of concepts confronts this head on…The development of the human sciences along two parallel paths, one concerned with human consciousness, the other concerned with social and political phenomena, can only serve to place barriers in front of people’s efforts to intervene in the affairs determining their own life. By understanding concepts as units of both consciousness and the social formation, I aim to create a counter to this disempowering dogma.” (2012, p.9)

Blunden’s argument on Concept echoes my consideration of the concept of Theme. Since Theme is a particular concept, I can adopt Blunden’s proposal — the “Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky” account of “Concept” — as a theoretical foundation to support the concept of “Themes of Practice”. Furthermore, I can also adopt the Project-oriented Activity Theory to upgrade the General Curation Framework to the Cultural Curation Framework.

Each curation program can be considered as a Project. Each “Theme of Practice” of a curation program can be considered as a Concept of a Project. Thus, the whole process of a curation program can be considered as “Initialization”, “Objectification” and “Institutionalization” of a “Theme of Practice”.

You can find more details in Activity U (VIII): Project as a Unit of Activity.

2.3 The Concept-fit Framework (2021)

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

the term “Concept-fit” means six types of concepts fit together from two sides and three levels.

• Technological concepts at the Theoretical level
• Technological concepts at the Operational level
• Technological concepts at the Product level
• Sociocultural concepts at the Collective level
• Sociocultural concepts at the Individual level
• Sociocultural concepts at the Project level

The distinction between Technological concepts and Sociocultural concepts corresponds to the distinction between Natural science and Social science/humanities. Thus, socio-cultural concepts refer to any non-technological concepts including political concepts and economic concepts.

I classify such terms as Sociocultural Concepts because they refer to social behaviors and social phenomena. The value of Sociocultural Concepts is for ordinary communication and professional practices. By sharing such terms, we can exchange our insights on emerging social needs and changes in society.

By contrast, Technological Concepts refer to scientific theoretical knowledge and operational techniques. For example, “Search Engine,” “Ubiquitous Computing,” “5G,” “Virtual Reality,” “Blockchain,” “Responsive Web Design,” and “Markdown”. The value of Technological Concepts is for scientific discovery, academic research, and their industrial applications. It helps scientists, theorists, researchers, engineers, teachers, and designers on producing new knowledge and transforms abstract knowledge into concrete practice.

It’s hard to make a simple and accurate typology. My goal is to distinguish Concepts into Sociocultural types and Technological types. The above definitions may not be accurate, however, the distinction is already described by the terms “sociocultural” and “technological”. In fact, some concepts are both sociocultural concepts and technological concepts. For instance, “SEO,” “Blog,” “Social Media,” “Open Access,” “MOOC,” etc. In order to keep a simple starting point, let’s keep this rough distinction.

According to Andy Blunden, “As Hegel explained, every concept exists as Individual, Particular and Universal. These three moments of the concept are never completely in accord. There is always a measure of dissonance between them, and this is manifested in the dynamics of the concept. What an individual means when they use the word is never quite the same as the meaning produced in any other context.” (2012, p.295)

For Platform Innovation, I consider two fields as the context of Concept-fit:

• Technological field
• Sociocultural field

The above discussion leads to a three-step model of platform innovation:

• Step 1: Orientation Development
• Step 2: Product Development
• Step 3: Market Development

These three steps correspond to three movements of formation of concept: “Universal,” “Individual,” and “Particular”. Though we use steps to describe the process, we should notice this is not a simple linear path.

The above section discussed three types of Concept-fit at the concrete level. Now let’s move to the abstract level to discuss the issue of social innovation. I consider platform-based social innovation as the outcome of three movements of transformation:

• Technological Objectification
• Cultural Typification
• Niche Construction

The term Technological Objectification is inspired by Project-oriented Activity Theory. The term Cultural Typification is inspired by Alfred Schutz’s insights on types and typification. The term Niche Construction is adopted from Niche Construction Theory (NCT).

You can find more details in Platform Innovation as Concept-fit.

2.4 The Themes of Practice Framework (2021)

In April 2021, I designed a new diagram for Themes of Practice. It was shared on Twitter to discuss Genre Theory. At that time, I didn’t realize that the new diagram offered me a concrete framework for analysis.

In June 2021, I started the Career Curation project and applied the concept of Themes of Practice to discuss career development. The project guided me to move to a concrete level from an abstract level. I realized the new framework is perfect for career theme case studies because it offers a structure for observing and evaluating the “Practice” part of “Themes of Practice”.

Thus, I chose UX (User Experience) as an example of Career Themes and made a simple case study with the new diagram. See the diagram below.

UX (User Experience) is not a job title, but a concept. UX designer and UX researcher are two related job titles. As a concept, UX (User Experience) can be seen as a career theme of UX designers and UX researchers. However, job titles are not the primary factor for discussing career themes. The concept of Career Themes pays attention to real-world practice.

It’s reasonable to claim that UX is shared by Product Designers, Usability Testing experts, Human Factor Researchers, Brand Managers, and Community Managers as a Career Theme.

The new diagram of Themes of Practice uses the following ten dimensions for case studies:

• Concept: What are the related concepts for this career theme?
• Project: What are related projects for this career theme?
• Genre: What are related Genres for this career theme?
• Media: What are related media for this career theme?
• Activity: What are related activities for this career theme?
• Artifact: What are related artifacts for this career theme?
• Community: What are related communities for this career theme?
• Who: Who is the person behind this case study?
• When: When is the career duration behind this case study?
• Where: Where did these career events of this case study happen?

The above diagram only presents the general information for UX. It doesn’t offer information on “who/when/where”.

You can find more details in The Career Theme Canvas.

2.5 The Knowledge Discovery Canvas (2022)

In 2022, I developed a tool called Knowledge Discovery Canvas for Developing Tacit Knowledge.

The Knowledge Discovery Canvas has two nested squares which divide the thematic space into two sub-spaces: inner space and outer space. For Developing Tacit Knowledge, the inner space is all about personal knowing activities while the outer space is related to social interactions.

Based on the above settings, I generated a series of mapping between outer space and inner space:

• Approaches — Tastes
• Concepts — Notions
• Events — Projects
• Domains — Works
• Perspectives — Views
• Frameworks — Insights
• Methods — Guides
• Heuristics — Skills

The Knowledge Discovery Canvas is designed on a meta-canvas called Thematic Space Canvas.

What does Thematic Space mean?

I used the term to refer to a large cognitive space around a particular theme for a particular person.

Concepts and Notions are part of a Thematic Space.

Originally, I only considered Theoretical Concepts for the Knowledge Discovery Canvas. Inspired by the MEANS — END spectrum for Frameworks, I developed the following “Theory — Practice spectrum” for Concepts. The outcome is a new typology of Concepts.

The above diagram shows six types of concepts which are divided into two groups.

The first group is related to the “THEORY” area and these concepts are about research and producing new public knowledge.

• Theoretical Concepts
• Operational Concepts
• Orienting Concepts

The second group is related to the “PRACTICE” area and these concepts are about learning, sharing, and working with knowledge for individual purposes.

• Technological Concepts
• Sociocultural Concepts
• Shared Concepts

The distinction between the “THEORY” group and the “PRACTICE” group considers the two types of motivations for dealing with concepts. One is for contributing to the development of public knowledge, the other one is for using public knowledge for private purposes. These two types of motivations lead to different attitudes toward appreciating concepts.

For developing tacit knowledge, we can pay attention to the idea of Orienting Concepts.

The term “Orienting Concepts” was coined by the sociologist and social theorist Derek Layder.

Derek Layder suggests using Orienting Concepts as the starting point to guide research, “Two important features of orienting concepts are their ‘two-sided’ nature and their reference to social processes. The Two-sided nature of orienting concepts concerns their dual reference to objective and subjective aspects of social life. A concern with social processes focuses on their ability to trace social activity and events over time and space.” (1998, p.101)

A great example of orienting concepts is “Career”, Layder pointed out, “The twin virtues of the concept of career stem from its theoretical relevance and the breadth of its empirical applicability. The empirical scope of the concept derives from its use outside as well as inside the context of work and occupations…the concept of career is potentially capable of addressing certain problems in social analysis. In particular, it could help to overcome certain divisions such as that between macro and micro analysis and between interpretive and institutional analysis (‘interactionist’ or ‘structural’ sociology). This is because, as I have said, the concept of career is capable of reaching into both objective and subjective aspects of social life. In these senses, the concept uniquely expresses the intertwining of individual experience and the collective forces that constitute what we generally mean by the term ‘society’. Thus, career is a step towards overcoming the false distinction implicit in the old argument about the ‘individual versus society’.” (1993, pp.131–132)

In 2020, I followed Layder’s suggestion and used “Project” as an Orienting Concept for the book Project-oriented Activity Theory.

You can find more details in Knowledge Discovery: The “Concepts — Notions” Mapping.

2.6 The “Theme — Concept” Transformation (2023)

In 2023, I worked on the TALE project. TALE stands for Thematic Analysis Learning Engagement. One of the outcomes of the TALE project is the Strategic Thematic Exploration framework. See the diagram below.

From developing knowledge frameworks and developing tacit knowledge in general, I claim that there is a tendency to turn themes into concepts.

The framework represents a linear process of “From Theme to Framework” with the following six states.

• A Possible Theme without a Clue
• A Possible Theme with a Clue
• A Primary Theme without related themes
• A Primary Theme with its network
• A Knowledge Concept with a working definition
• A Knowledge Framework with a set of concepts

I also define three types of transformation for the framework:

• The “Possible — Primary” Transformation
• The “Theme — Concept” Transformation
• The “Concept — Framework” Transformation

The “Possible — Primary” Transformation is about discovering opportunities for knowledge creation and knowledge curation. It sets the primary strategic intent for the journey of knowledge engagement.

The “Theme — Concept” Transformation is about turning themes into concepts. It sees themes as raw materials and creative resources for producing concepts for further production.

The “Concept — Framework” Transformation is about curating pieces into a meaningful whole. A knowledge framework is formed with a set of knowledge concepts.

You can find more details in TALE: The “Strategic Thematic Exploration” Framework (v1.1).

2.7 The Territory of Concepts (2023)

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

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.

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.

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 developers 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.

The “Territory” of Concepts is inspired by Ping-keung Lui’s term “Social Territory” and his Subjectivist Structuralism which is part of his theoretical sociology.

I have claimed that “Knowledge Center” is a type of Social Territory. You can find more details in Knowledge Engagement: The Creative Course Framework. We can apply the same logic to understand the Territory of Concepts.

The Territory of Concepts is a specific type of Social Territory.

You can find more details in TALE: The Territory of Concepts.