Platform Ecology (v3.1)
A Short note about a new meta-framework for the Platform Ecology project
On July 18, 2023, I made the above diagram for the Platform Ecology project.
I started the Platform Ecology project in 2019. The major outcome of the project is a book (draft) titled Platform for Development: The Ecology of Adult Development in the 21st Century (2021).
In 2022, I developed the Platform Genidentity Framework and moved to test a related concept called “Knowledge Center”.
In the past several months, I worked on a strategic design research project about a web 3.0 platform. A by-product of the project is the idea of “Spontaneous Concept System”.
On July 18, 2023, I used the “Ontology — Realism — Hermeneutics” schema to curate these frameworks. The outcome is the v3.1 meta-framework for the Platform Ecology Project.
I also updated the website of the project:
Related links
1. A Configurational Theory of “Platform Ecology” (2023)
On April 28, 2023, I wrote a post about a possible theme called “Possible Discipline” and mentioned Configurational Theory.
Configurational theories constitute unique frames of reference for the objects they describe. Configurational theory commonly focuses on how elements and their relationships constitute a whole.
The Platform Ecology project aims to explore platform-based social practices, especially the Platform — People relationship.
Platform Ecology refers to my vision of applying the ecological practice approach to study Platform-related social practices. I consider it as a knowledge enterprise that could lead to different projects such as the Platform-for-Development framework, Platform as Container, Platform Innovation as Concept-fit, etc.
2. Platform for Development: The Ecology of Adult Development in the 21st Century (2021)
3. The Platform Genidentity Framework (2022)
I used the diagram below to represent a rough idea of the “Platform Genidentity” framework.
What’s Platform Genidentity? I use the concept of Platform Genidentity to describe a process of keeping the uniqueness of a platform within a long-term duration. For example, Google.com (a Search Engine), Wikipedia.org, and YouTube.com, these three websites keep their original core design without major changes.
In order to understand the complexity of Platform Genidentity, I developed the following two new concepts:
- Platform Core: a basic unit of a platform. For example, a Tweet, a YouTube video page, a Q&A page on Quora, etc.
- Platform-ba: a platform-based sociocultural field. For example, YouTube-ba is a YouTube-based sociocultural space. You can find more details here.
As mentioned above, we have an operational definition of the concept of Genidentity: A thing’s Genidentity is defined by Essential Differences with Situated Dynamics.
For Platform Ecology, we need to discover the sources of Essential Differences and Situated Dynamics. I think the sources are Platform Core and Platform-ba. However, they don’t work as a one-to-one mapping relationship. See the above diagram.
Finally, we need to add “Platform” back to the framework. The whole structure is a nested whole.
- Platform-ba [Platform (Platform-core)]
This structure of Platform-ba can be understood as the following model:
- Platform-ba{Project [Zone (People)]} which is the focus of the Platform-for-Development framework.
Since the Platform Genidentity Framework focuses on the perspective of platform owners, we will pay attention to the relationship between Platform-core, Platform, and Platform-ba.
4. Spontaneous Concept System (2023)
In the past several months, I worked on a strategic design research project about a web 3.0 platform. A by-product of the project is the idea of “Spontaneous Concept System”.
The web3 platform recently launched a new product that aims to enable non-technical users to create, launch, and host their own decentralized applications (DApps). We may use the “No-code DApps platform” to frame the new product.
I have 0 knowledge of web3 and DApps. The first step of the Strategic Design Research project is to directly use the platform to create a simple DApp without formal training. I also didn’t read their HELP documents and DEVELOPER documentation.
I just learned some new knowledge about web3 and DID (Decentralized Identify) by using their platform to create a simple website with several pages. Sometimes I searched some keywords on the web in order to know some new terms. Sometimes I just use the Try-and-Fail approach to figure out the real meanings of some new terms.
After successfully launching the simple website, I made the screenshot below.
At that moment, I realized that there is a gap between the platform owner’s Concept System and my Concept System. As the designer of the platform, the owner clearly understands the following terms and the complicated relationships between these terms:
- DID Wallet
- DID
- Profile
- Passport
However, I have to figure out the following questions:
- What is the difference between DID Wallet and DID?
- I can see the Wallet on an app on my mobile phone. But, where is my DID?
- What does Switch DID mean? Do I have more than one DID?
- What’s the difference between Passport and DID?
By reading some documents, I can understand their design decision about separating Social Profiles and User Accounts.
The platform used a multi-layer approach to design its DID system. It’s fine to directly push this complicated structure to Developers because Developers can read documents.
Now we can use “Spontaneous Concept System” to describe my concept system. See the diagram below.
You can find more details in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Spontaneous Concept System”.
5. The “Ontology — Realism — Hermeneutics” Schema
In 2022, I learned a new schema from Ping-keung Lui’s theoretical sociology.
Lui aims to build a brand new theoretical sociology as a candidate for the paradigm of sociology. According to Lui, “There are three kinds of theories in sociology, namely, social theory, sociological theory, and theoretical sociology. ”
The structure of Lui’s theoretical sociology is a nested structure. See the diagram below. According to Lui, “The realism comprises a subjectivist structuralism and an objectivist stock of knowledge, while the hermeneutics is an interpretation and an analysis. Second, I shall present an ontology that nests the realism within its boundaries.” (p.250, 2016, Aspects of Sociological Explanation)
We should see this grand theory as a dialogue between philosophy and sociology because “Ontology” and “hermeneutics” are respectable terms in philosophy, but “realism” — sandwiched between them — is not. Lui emphasizes that Realism is the sociological matter proper (p.251, 2016, Aspects of Sociological Explanation).
It can perhaps be said to be the apple in the scientist’s eye,138 though the term “realism” may sound naïve to the phenomenological ear. It is much closer to “what is” than “what is the meaning of”.
In a certain sense, science is always naïve though not simple. With the freedom of imagination being exercised by the scientist to its fullest, it presupposes in the first instance that there is really a reality out there, at least in the Schutzian sense, that is, the reality is often “taken- for-granted”, “questionable but unquestioned.” The presupposition may be naïve, but its buttresses are not. The sociologist — who should be a scientist more than a philosopher — relies on empirical (or positivistic) investigations to buttress his discipline.
Lui considers the following four realities for the grand theory:
- the Weberian course of action
- the Giddensian course of action
- Social Territory
- Symbolic Universe
Realism is determined by Ontology. According to Lui, “I made a distinction between action and its course; that is, action is not a reality but its course is. My justification is based on a fundamental ontology.” (p.251, 2016)
Realism leads to Hermeneutics which considers two parts: the actors’ interpretation and the researcher’s analysis.
The whole structure of the grand theory is represented by the following semiotic system.
Source: Aspects of Sociological Explanation (Ping-keung Lui 2016, p.258)
What’s the value of such a complicated grand theory?
Ping-keung Lui aims to build a brand new theoretical sociology as a candidate for the paradigm of sociology. According to Lui, “There are three kinds of theories in sociology, namely, social theory, sociological theory, and theoretical sociology. ”
- Social theories are speculations about the social world. They constitute the speculative project of sociology.
- Some social theories are amenable to positivistic investigation under certain specific conditions. I call them sociological theories.
- Also, some other social theories, being very ambitious, attempt to recruit as many as they can sociological theories supporting themselves. I call them theoretical sociologies. They compete against each other. The winner becomes the paradigm of sociology, and its supporting sociological theories become exemplars of the paradigm. In this way, theoretical sociologies and sociological theories constitute the scientific project of sociology.
In fact, the term “Social theories” refer to all “Social Thoughts”, “Logs”, and “Ideology”, etc. For example, a political party’s ideology and a professional community’s knowledge framework are “Social theories” too. However, Lui only considers Sociological Theories and Theoretical Sociologies as scientific projects.
As a grand theory, Lui’s theoretical sociology can be used as a frame to curate theoretical approaches and knowledge engagement in general.
For example, I used it as a meta-theory to curate three theoretical approaches (Specific Theories, sTheory) for the Life Strategy Project. See the diagram below.
The diagram below uses Lui’s nested structure to connect my four frameworks. It’s clear that these frameworks are located at different layers.
- Ontology: The Path of Creative Life and The Life — History Complex
- Realism: The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework
- Hermeneutics: The Creative Life Curation Framework
You can find more details in Knowledge Engagement: The Utilization of Theoretical Resources and Slow Cognition: Three Paths of Creative Life and A Semiotic System.
