The Knowledge Creation Toolkit (v1.0)
A series of tools for making knowledge frameworks
Two years ago, I made a framework called HERO U for knowledge heroes.
I consider the framework as “an ecological approach” to knowing because it refers to the structure of “organism (personal conditions of knowing) — action (knowing) — environment (objects of knowing)”. See the diagram below.
The U shape refers to the environment which highlights six types of objects of knowing: Meta-theory (mTheory), Specific Theory (sTheory), Abstract Models (Model), Concrete Models (Model), Domain Practice (dPractice), and General Practice (gPractice).
This simple idea led to the Activity U project and the Knowledge Curation toolkit. You can find more details in The Knowledge Curation Project (phase 1).
The seven red balls refer to the organism which means seven types of personal conditions of knowing, namely, Domain, Resource, Tools, Method, Problem, Diagram, and Concept. In fact, these seven balls can be seen into three groups:
- The first group is Domain, Resource, and Tools, they define the outside setting of the knowing activity.
- The second group is Method and Problem, they define the source of competence and solution.
- The third group is Diagram and Concept, they define the representation format of the outcome of knowing.
Why did I only consider Diagram and Concept for the outcome?
Because I focused on Making Knowledge Frameworks. Moreover, I used the following simple formula to define Knowledge Framework:
A Knowledge Framework = Concepts + Diagrams
In the past three years, I worked on several knowledge creation projects and developed a series of tools for the knowledge creation activity.
This article aims to curate several tools together and turn them into a toolkit.
What’s the difference between the Knowledge Curation toolkit and the Knowledge Creation toolkit?
The primary goal of the Knowledge Curation project is Connect THEORY and PRACTICE by turning pieces into a meaningful whole. Its focus is on the environment which highlights six types of objects of knowing.
The Knowledge Curation Toolkit (v1.0) has the following 11 sub-frameworks.
#1: Theme U for Single-theory Curation
#2: WXMY for Interdisciplinary Curation
#3: Hamburger for Contextural Curation
#4: Project I and The HERO I Canvas
#5: WIDENESS for Multi-theory Curation
#6: The Concept Dynamics Framework
#7: The Knowledge Canvas Design Principle
#8: The Means-End Spectrum
#9: The HITED Framework for Methodological Empathy
#10: The Applied Knowledge Curation Framework
#11: The Model of Curated Mind
You can find more details in The Knowledge Curation Project (phase 1).
However, the Knowledge Creation toolkit is about the organism which means seven types of personal conditions of knowing. See the diagram below.
The Knowledge Creation toolkit has the following 8 tools:
#1 — Domain: A List of Domains
#2 — Resource: The Creative Life Curation Framework
#3 — Tools: The HERO U Canvas
#4 — Method: The HITED Framework
#5 — Problem: The “5A” Slow Cognition Model
#6 — Diagram: The Diagramming Reference Frame
#7 — Concept: The Concept Dynamics Framework
#8 — Concept: A Typology of Vocabulary
Some of the above 8 tools were developed in the past four weeks. I’d like to put them together to represent the newest development of my creative mind.
#1 — Domain: A List of Domains
There are two types of practice domains: horizontal domains and vertical domains.
- Horizontal domains refer to general functions in society such as “organization, strategy, and innovation”.
- Vertical domains refer to specific industries, for example, farms (agriculture), buses (transportation), and movies (entertainment).
I focus on horizontal domains.
Inspired by the naming approach of Academy of Management’s Divisions and Interest Groups (DIGs), I set six Learning Interest Groups (LIGs) to represent horizontal domains about knowledge works. See the diagram below.
I also develop a toolkit for the Domain Discovery Activity. See the original article.
#2 — Resource: The Creative Life Curation Framework
In 2016, Information Science scholar Diane H. Sonnenwald edited a book titled Theory Development in the Information Sciences, she presented a three-stage framework for understanding the theory development process. At the center of the diagram she drew, Resource is the core of theory development.
Stages of the theory development process (Diane H. Sonnenwald, 2016)
According to Sonnenwald, the Resources mentioned by chapter authors are literature, personal experiences, their own research, colleagues, technology, institutions, and societal issues.
- Literature: read literature deeply, dissatisfaction and disagreement, etc.
- Personal experiences: observations, work experiences, personal challenges, etc.
- Own research: positive and negative results, tests, real-world applications, etc.
- Colleagues: inspiration, valuable feedback, disseminate and apply, etc.
- Technology: new behavior and phenomena, new types of data, etc.
- Institutions: guide of research focus, funding, expert network, etc.
- Societal issues: social problems, funding, evaluation, impact, etc.
From the perspective of Curativity Theory, I pay attention to Personal experiences and Own research. In order to highlight the significance of personal experiences for creative work, I developed the following Creative Life Curation framework.
The term Subjectification refers to Experience 1 which means turning the world into a person’s experience, while the term Objectification refers to Experience 2 which means turning the person’s experience into artifacts for the world.
You can find more details in Slow Cognition: The Creative Life Curation Framework.
#3 — Tools: The HERO U Canvas
I have introduced the HERO U canvas in the Knowledge Curation toolkit (v1.0). Now I consider it a member of the Knowledge Creation toolkit too.
You can find more details in The Knowledge Curation Toolkit #4: Project I and The HERO I Canvas.
#4 — Method: The HITED Framework
HITED stands for Hypothesis, I, Theory, Experience, and Data. See the diagram below.
The above diagram is the original model of the HITED framework. You can see two gaps in the diagram.
- The “THEORY — EXPERIENCE (Practice)” Gap
- The “HYPOTHESIS — DATA” Gap
You can see two connections between the two levels:
- THEORY -> HYPOTHESIS
- EXPERIENCE -> DATA
There is a “THEORY” behind a HYPOTHESIS. Each THEORY can generate several HYPOTHESES.
DATA comes from real EXPERIENCE. Experience can generate DATA.
The core of the above diagram is “I” which refers to managers, designers, strategists, researchers, etc.
We have to notice that there are three types of “I”:
- Scholars/Scientists: they work on public knowledge creations.
- Professional Workers: managers, designers, strategists, researchers, etc.
- Actors: Ordinary people
In HERO U — A New Framework for Knowledge Heroes, I mentioned three types of knowing.
- Knowing-for-all
- Knowing-for-us
- Knowing-for-me
Different groups of people hold different attitudes to the Hypothesis — Data Issue. There are many academic papers about the Hypothesis — Dada Issue. My goal is to develop a new visual language for Professional Workers in order to encourage the discussion about the Hypothesis — Data Issue.
You can find more details in The HITED Framework for Methodological Empathy.
#5 — Problem: The “5A” Slow Cognition Model
In 2021, I developed several knowledge frameworks in order to test some meta-theories and meta-frameworks.
In order to test these frameworks, I also worked on the following independent research projects with diverse methods such as Ecological Observation, Participatory Research, Thematic Analysis, and Theory-based Reflection.
- A project about Self-installation Activity and Customer Service design.
- A project about Digital Whiteboard Platforms.
- A project about an Online Adult Development program.
- A project about Diagramming and Knowledge Building.
I used the lean approach to manage these projects. Since my primary goal is testing theoretical frameworks, I focused on collecting data and capturing insights, not writing final reports.
This week I reflected on these projects and considered them a journey of “Slow Cognition”.
What did I find from this journey? See the diagram below.
I use the following five keywords to summarize my creative pattern behind the journey of Slow Cognition:
- Aspirations
- Aspects
- Approaches
- Attachances
- Achievement
You can find more details in The “5A” Slow Cognition Model.
This week I also developed a model about Problem Space, Solution Space, and Reference Space by using the ECHO Way model. See the diagram below:
You can find more details in the original article Three Paths of Creative Life and A Semiotic System.
You can also find more details about the ECHO Way (v3.0) in Creative Journey: The ECHO Way to Creative Work Study (Note).
#6 — Diagram: The Diagramming Reference Frame
Last year I worked on the D as Diagramming project which produced two books (drafts) and many insights.
One insight is called the Means-End Spectrum. Yesterday (Oct 27, 2022) I modified it and made a new version.
Now it has a new name: the Diagramming Reference Frame.
The major change is adding two types of diagrams:
1. Semiotic System Diagrams
2. Meta-diagrams
You can find examples of Semiotic System Diagrams in Three Paths of Creative Life and A Semiotic System
Meta-diagrams remove all text from diagrams. You can find more details in a possible book: Diagram Blending: Building Diagram Networks (Introduction).
You can also find my meta-diagrams in the following picture and more details in Diagram Blending: Building Diagram Networks (Introduction) and Diagram Blending: Building Diagram Networks (Table of Contents).
I also developed the Diagramming as Practice framework for studying diagramming and knowledge diagrams. You can find more details in Diagramming as Practice (Book, version 1.0).
#7 — Concept: The Concept Dynamics Framework
The Concept Dynamics Framework is born from a review of over 300 academic papers about the concept of Affordance.
The 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.
You can find more details in Knowledge Discovery: The Concept Dynamics Framework.
I also apply this framework to review some academic papers and other ideas. You can find more from the following related articles:
- D as Diagramming: Don’t hate Buzzwords and Culture — Oct 23, 2021
- Knowledge Discovery: Concepts, Notions, and the Concept Dynamics Framework — March 29, 2022
- #TalkThree 02: How to Name “X Innovation”? — June 3, 2022
- Concept Dynamics: An Ontological Discussion about “Service” — June 4, 2022
- Diagram Blending: “Activity Circle” + “Concept Dynamics” — July 31, 2022
- Against Conceptual Heterogeneity: A Case Study of Academic Knowledge Curation — Sept 30, 2022
- #TalkThree 16: Concepts, Themes, and Culture — Oct 6, 2022
#8 — Concept: A Typology of Vocabulary
On Oct 5, 2022, I made a typology of vocabulary and used it to reply to questions about “Themes of Practice” and “Culture”.
I consider 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 person and society.
Does Culture only mean Culture Themes?
To be honest, I didn’t give a definition of Culture. I only considered it as a background. The uniqueness of Themes of Practice is connecting “practice” and “theme”.
I realized that there is a difference between “Themes of Practice” and “Culture”. Language is part of Culture, but not “Themes of Practice”.
Both “Themes of Practice” and “Culture” share “Controlled Vocabulary” and “Native Vocabulary”, but “Langue (language)” only belongs to “Culture”.
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.
There are some themes behind “Action”, but “Action” does directly refer to Vocabulary. Once you use Vocabulary, you start “Discourse”.
Parole (speech) and Discourse can be understood as the same thing. Both refer to Native Vocabulary and Controlled Vocabulary.
Langue (language) only refers to Curated Vocabulary.
This is the newest version of the “Themes of Practice” approach. It offers a solution to explain the relationship between Culture, Themes of Practice, and Language.
You can find a case study in #TalkThree 16: Concepts, Themes, and Culture.
