The Knowledge Engagement Framework (v4)

Published in

Curativity Center

9 min readMar 24, 2023

Developing a Knowledge Framework for a possible theme

Two months ago, I introduced a diagram titled Dimensions of Knowledge Engagement on Jan 31, 2023. Initially, I realized that there is a 3D model of the World of Activity for Knowledge Engagement.

Transdisciplinary dimension
Interdisciplinary dimension
Temporal dimension

Later, I expanded to six dimensions. On Feb 2, 2023, I made v2 which has seven dimensions. On Feb 16, 2023, I made a new version with a new section about objectification.

Today, I made v4 which has 6 sections and 18 dimensions. I realized that I need to tell more ideas behind the names of the 6 sections to readers. Eventually, I made a new framework for Knowledge Engagement.

The Seed of “Knowledge Engagement”

My journey of engaging with the theme of “Knowledge Engagement” started with the Knowledge Curation project in 2020. My first Knowledge Curation project is the Activity U project which is about curating knowledge about Activity Theory.

From 2020 to 2022, I worked on several projects about Activity Theory. See the diagram below. I realized that the theme of “Knowledge Curation” is only suitable for the Activity U project. The other projects are not “Knowledge Curation”.

The “Thematic Space Canvas” project and the “Life Discovery Canvas” project are about making for knowing while Using Activity Theory.

The “Building Knowledge Centers” project considers “Activity Analysis Center” as the first prototype of the concept of “Knowledge Center”. Activity Analysis Center aims to connect Activity Theory and Practitioners.

Thus, I decided to use “Knowledge Engagement” as the primary theme of this journey. You can find more details in Slow Cognition: Mapping Thematic Journey (Engaging with Activity Theory, 2020–2022).

The term “Knowledge Engagement” is inspired by the Project Engagement approach (v2.1). If you work on a knowledge-related project, you can use the term to describe your project.

However, the Project Engagement approach is an Activity-type approach, it doesn’t describe the dynamics and complexity of a concrete project or activity.

I roughly use “Knowledge Engagement” to refer to “Knowledge Creation + Knowledge Curation”. This notion is a foundation for building a new model.

A Basic Model of Knowledge Engagement

One month ago, I developed a possible theme called “Product as Thing” and developed a basic model to visualize my thoughts about the theme. See the diagram below.

The above model is an application of the Ecological Practice approach.

The basic unit of the Ecological Practice approach is the “Person — Thing” interaction and relationship.

Potential: the potential possible opportunities that a person could act with a particular thing.
Actual: what does a person actually act with the thing? Act 1 and Act 2 refer to two types of acts.
Focus: it refers to the thing the person is acting with.

Though the model was developed for the “Product as Thing” theme, it can be applied to the “Person — Knowledge” interaction and relationship. See the diagram below.

Potential: Mental Elements
Focus: Knowledge (such as Concept, Theory, Framework, Center, etc)
Thematic Space: A creative space that is framed by a theme
Actor: A person (sociologists tend to call a person an Actor)
Create: Making concrete things to represent abstract knowledge
Curate: Organize pieces of knowledge-related experience into a meaningful mental element

The term “Mental Elements” is adopted from Dean Keith Simonton’s Chance-configuration theory (Scientific Genius,1988). I use it to describe ideas, insights, sparks, etc. The above model of Knowledge Engagement considers “Mental Elements” as “Potential” things for developing Knowledge.

The term “Focus” is inspired by Activity Theory’s “Object”. I use it to refer to things we are working on. The above model of Knowledge Engagement considers “Focus” as various types things of Knowledge such as Concepts, Approaches, Frameworks, Papers, Books, Workshops, Knowledge Centers, Knowledge Communities, etc.

The term “Thematic Space” is a concept of the Ecological Practice approach. In Oct 2020, I wrote an article titled The Ecological Practice Approach Toolkit and shared my work on a new approach for practice studies. This approach was originally called the Gibson — Lakoff — Schön approach because I adopted theoretical concepts from James J. Gibson, George Lakoff, and Donald Schön.

In 2020, I developed a new diagram to represent the germ-cell of the Ecological Practice approach. See the below.

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 new acts and events.

You can find more details in The Development of Ecological Practice Approach (2021).

The term “Thematic Space” is used to describe a special type of Container: Cognitive Container. Last month, I used Thematic Space to develop two knowledge frameworks.

The Product as Thing Framework: 5 types of Thematic Spaces
The Product Langue Framework: 14 types of Thematic Spaces

This article doesn’t offer a list of Thematic Spaces for Knowledge Engagement. You can learn some examples from the above two links.

The pair of terms “Create — Curate” is inspired by “Knowledge Creation — Knowledge Curation”. However, I use them to refer to two types of actions:

Create: Making concrete things to represent abstract knowledge
Curate: Organize pieces of knowledge-related experience into a meaningful mental element

Moreover, if we connect the Model of Knowledge Engagement with the Creative Life Curation framework, then the “Curate” action echoes “Subjectification / Experience 1” while the “Create” action echoes “Objectification / Experience 2”.

A Framework of Knowledge Engagement

The above model is a basic model which doesn’t consider details of different units of analysis and situations. In order to expand the basic model, we need to develop a framework to frame some details.

My strategy is to introduce a set of meta-terms to form an intermediate framework to connect the basic model and the dimensions of Knowledge Engagement.

Let’s start with three basic elements: Actor, Knowledge, and World.

Why do I choose the term “Actor”?

If you read my recent articles about Creative Life (1, 2, 3), you could probably find my newest theoretical approach to Creative Life is inspired by Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology.

Sociologists tend to call a person an Actor. I will follow this tradition.

It means the Knowledge Engagement Framework is not only consider psychological perspectives, but also sociological perspectives.

The above three basic elements highlight the essential activity of Knowledge Engagement: an actor engages with knowledge while she is living in a real-life world.

Now we can learn some meta-terms for curating the dimensions of knowledge engagement. These terms are inspired by Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology. The diagram below is an expanded ontology of Lui’s approach.

Source: *Ingold’s Idea of Making — A View from Theoretical Sociology (2020, p.22)*

Ping-keung Lui doesn’t use “Subjectification” and “Objectification” for his theory. I used them for the Creative Life Curation framework.

For the Knowledge Engagement framework, the term “Subjectivity” refers to the Actor without considering other elements.

For the Knowledge Engagement framework, the term “Objectivity” refers to Knowledge without considering other elements.

For the Knowledge Engagement framework, the term “Subjectification” refers to capturing knowledge-related experiences inspired by the World. How does a person turn experiences into knowledge?

It echoes the “Curate” action in the basic model.

For the Knowledge Engagement framework, the term “Objectification” refers to making knowledge-related artifacts and offering them to the World. How does a person turn knowledge into objects?

It echoes the “Create” action in the basic model.

For the Knowledge Engagement framework, the term “Intersubjectivity” refers to knowledge-related interpersonal interactions and relationships between two actors or more actors.

For the Knowledge Engagement framework, the term “Interobjectivity” refers to the interactions and relationships between two or more pieces of knowledge.

Dimensions of Knowledge Engagement (V4)

Finally, we can see the newest version of Dimensions of Knowledge Engagement.

I have offered some details about some sections in the previous article Dimensions of Knowledge Engagement.

Dimensions of Knowledge Engagement

Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Objectification

medium.com

Today I only highlight the newest sections. You can follow my account on Medium or Linkedin if you want to know updates.

Part A has two sections: Subjectivity and Subjectification. I list three dimensions for each section.

The other way to understand these two sections is to read some “Slow Cognition” case studies I conducted in last year.

Part B has two sections: Objectivity and Objectification. I list three dimensions for each section.

The term “Objectification” is adopted from Project-oriented Activity Theory. It originally refers to three types of Objectification of a Concept:

Symbolic Objectification: “Verbal” and “Visual”
Instrumental Objectification: “designed” and “found”
Practical Objectification: “Branded” and “Shared”

You can find more details about it in Activity U (VIIII): Project-oriented Activity Theory.

In order to consider more complexity of Knowledge Engagement, I expand v3 to v4 by adding the above Part C.

I will share more details about these two new sections.

Case Studies: The Slow Cognition Project

The Dimensions of Knowledge Engagement (v4) is a heuristic tool for seeing Knowledge Engagement in an analytical approach.

If you prefer the synthetical approach, you can follow the Slow Cognition Project.

My original intention behind the Slow Cognition project is to adopt Howard E. Gruber’s approach and method to studying creative work.

In 2022, I conducted several “Slow Cognition” case studies by using my own experiences as data. You can find them here.

Since my creative work experiences are all about Knowledge Engagement, you can see these “Slow Cognition” case studies for the Knowledge Engagement framework.

Toolkits

If you want to find some heuristic tools for your journey of knowledge engagement, check out the links below:

Reference: