Value Circle #5: Building A Joint Knowledge Center

A Case Study of Mental Engagement Center

This article is part of the Value Circle project. You can find more related articles below:

• Value Circle #1: From “Mental Moves” to “Value Circle” — August 7, 2023
• Value Circle #2: Engaging with Lui’s Theoretical Sociology — August 9, 2023
• Value Circle #3: TALE as A Thematic Transformation Hub — August 31, 2023
• Value Circle #4: From “ARCH” to “Activity Circle” — Oct 11, 2023

The Value Circle project aims to reflect on the development of several knowledge centers and explore the dynamics of networked knowledge centers. It follows the Mental Moves project, especially the idea of “Mental Moves between Knowledge Centers”.

Originally, the “Networked Knowledge Centers” refers to the following knowledge centers. You can find more details in TALE: A Possible Theme called “Knowledge Center”.

1. CALL(Creative Action Learning Lab) Center
The “Human — Material” Interaction

2. ARCH Center
The Interpersonal Interaction

3. Activity Analysis Center
Human Activity/Social Practice

4. Platform Ecology Center
Platform, Network, and Ecosystem

5. Life Strategy Center
Lifelong Development

6. TALE (Thematic Analysis Learning Engagement) Center
Themes behind Social Practices

7. Curativity Center:
The All-in-one Wholeness

From Sept 2023 to Dec 2023, the Value Circle project started a new sub-project:

Building a joint knowledge center with a friend of mine

The above seven knowledge centers are built by myself. All knowledge frameworks and related books are created by me. The new project moved to a new venture and offered me a new sub-concept: Joint Knowledge Center.

The new knowledge center has a code name: Mental Engagement Center.

This article aims to share the story behind this experiment.

The above diagram represents several significant moments of the journey from Sept 2023 to Dec 2023.

1. The Basic Model of “Value Circle”

This experiment was designed to test the basic model of “Value Circle”.

My friend works in the field of mental healthcare. I am not familiar with the field.

In Sept 2023, I designed the diagram below and used it to kickstart the experiment.

As mentioned above, the “Mental Engagement Center” is a code name. It was not real in Sept 2023. However, I used it as a Possible Knowledge Center and connected it with Activity Analysis Center and Curativity Center.

In this way, we build a Minimal Value Circle:

• Two People
• Three Knowledge Centers
• Two Projects

Our goal was very clear. We wanted to test the model of Value Circle.

A Value Circle is a set of networked knowledge centers. While the Value Circle is a Whole, each knowledge center is a Part.

Can we grow a Part while growing the Whole? Can we grow a new member while growing old members too?

2. September 2023: The Patient Engagement Project

In September 2023, my focus was the connection between Activity Analysis Center and Mental Engagement Center.

We used the theme of “Patient Engagement” to launch a collaborative project. See the diagram below.

The primary theme of Activity Analysis Center is “Activity Analysis” while it has several secondary themes such as:

• T1: “Product Engagement”
• T2: The “SET” Framework

The theme of “Patient Engagement” is related to the theme of “Product Engagement”. Both themes are related to the Project Engagement approach which is a core framework of the Activity Analysis Center.

The “Patient Engagement” project is also related to the theme of “Developmental Service Design” and the “SET” Framework.

On the other side, Mental Engagement Center started with two projects:

• The Patient Engagement project
• The “Mindset” Project

Mental Engagement Center was a Possible Knowledge Center in Sept 2023. It didn’t have a website.

On Sept 19, 2023, We launched the Patient Engagement project on Activity Analysis Center’s website.

You can find more details in Patient Engagement #1: Activity Theory and Healthcare Experience Design.

We also worked on another collaborative project: the “Mindset” project.

From Oct 2023 to Dec 2023, most of our time was spent on the “Mindset” project.

3. The Workfield

From Sept 2023 to Dec 2023, the primary collaboration happened between Curativity Center and Mental Engagement Center. See the diagram below.

We used a thematic conversation about developing a brand-new theoretical framework of Mindset as our Workfield.

The term Workfield is part of the “Subject — Workfield — Object” model which is also called the 5A Slow Cognition model.

The above diagram was designed for a person's situation. For the present discussion, we can use the following settings:

• Subject (Container X): I and my friend
• Object (Container Y): Things we are working on: the concept of “Mindset”
• Workfield (Contaienr Z): Our thematic conversation via Gmail

Inspired by the term “Workshop”, I coined a new term called “Workfield”.

What’s the difference between Workfield and Workshop? While Workshop has a clear temporary boundary, Workfield rejects the notion of a temporary boundary.

The notion of Workfield is more about the “interactive space between the subject (two people…) and the object (a thing, the concept of Mindset)”. It’s an object-centered spatial boundary, in other words, it is a Container.

The above diagram is the basic model of the Ecological Practice Approach. It doesn’t offer us more details about the container. The “Subject — Workfield — Object” model describes a special type of container.

You can find more details in The “5A” Slow Cognition Model.

4. The “Mindset” Project

The outcomes of the Mindset project shaped the Mental Engagement Center. Eventually, we created some new knowledge themes and made some new knowledge frameworks. The possible knowledge center became a real knowledge center. See the diagram below.

If we use the Ecological Formism Framework to reflect on this thematic conversation. We can find there are two phases of the development of the project.

In phase 1, we stayed at the Z1 thematic zone (the “THEORY — END” thematic zone), the primary outcome is the Mental Tuning Framework.

In Phase 2, we moved to the Z4 thematic zone (the “END — MEANS” thematic zone), the primary outcome is the Mindset Activation Framework.

On Sept 9, 2023, I published an article titled Knowledge Engagement: The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration.

In the article, I used the Knowledge Discovery Canvas to discuss psychological knowledge engagement. I also used the “Home — Away” terms as metaphors to describe Points of Observation.

We can assign these areas as Home for four types of creators.

• The THEORY Area: The Home of Theoretical Psychologists
• The PRACTICE Area: The Home of Actors
• The END Area: The Home of Empirical Psychologists
• The MEAN Area: The Home of Intervenors

For each type of creator, the other three types of creators’ Home means Away.

Each type of creator can do their homework in their Home, they can also visit other types of creators’ Home to run the thematic conversation for collaborative knowledge creation.

I didn’t use the term “Thematic Zones” in the article. Now we can use “Thematic Zones” to replace the “Home — Away” metaphor.

In phase 1 of the thematic conversation, I played the role of a Theoretical Psychologist while my friend was an Empirical Psychologist. We met at the Z1 thematic Zone (the “THEORY — END” thematic zone).

At the Construal Level, Theoretical Psychologists work at the most abstract level of psychological science. While Empirical Psychologists are busy with the Hypothesis — Data Gap, Theoretical Psychologists think and work as Philosophers in the field of Psychological Science.

The primary Practical Interest of Theoretical Psychologists is to accelerate the progress of the discipline as a meaningful whole. They work on reflecting the historical development of the field and anticipating the strategic intent of the whole field.

Theoretical Psychologists tend to use Concept Analysis and Formal Representation as their primary methods and use Empirical Psychologists’ creative works as their raw materials. This particular method also leads to unique Expressive Conventions: they often use Mathematical formulas or Conceptual frameworks to represent their outcomes.

How do theoretical psychologists work? I offered an answer in the article:

Now we can visit the Home of Theoretical Psychologists and invite them to join a thematic conversation about a possible theory of Mindset.

They would like to ask us the following questions:

What’s the relationship between the Concept of Mindset and the Primary Orienting Concepts in the field?

What kind of theory do you want to build?

What’s the relationship between the possible theory and existing theories?

What’s the unique contribution of the possible theory?

Usually, Theoretical Psychologists tend to reject ambitious proposals to establish a new theoretical concept and build a brand-new theoretical approach. Unless the creator could offer reasonable answers to the above questions.

In the article, I made a demo of theoretical integration by curating Carol S. Dweck’s version of Mindset theory and Peter Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset theory together.

A by-product of the article is the Mental Tuning Framework.

Later, I continued the work of theoretical integration and used the Mental Tuning Framework as a meta-framework to curate more psychologists’ work.

In Phase 2, we met at the Z4 thematic zone (the “END — MEANS” thematic zone). The primary goal of the conversation changed to help my friend develop a new theoretical framework that could integrate his experiences and knowledge on mindset, emotion, and well-being.

My friend’s theoretical resources is Richard Lazarus’s Cognitive Appraisal Theory. I reviewed the theory and used the Mental Tuning Framework to make a new framework called “Coping Activity as Mental Tuning”. See the diagram below.

Then, I moved to use the Knowledge Discovery Canvas to imagine the landscape of “Mindset Engagement Theory”. See the diagram below.

In the third step, I designed a visual representation of the Mindset Activation framework. See the diagram below.

From the perspective of the Ecological Formism Framework, this case study is unique because it indicates the power of Knowledge Discovery Canvas for developing collective tacit knowledge.

It also indicates the concepts of “Thematic Areas” and “Thematic Zones” are useful “Frame for Work”.

In the Early Discovery phase of knowledge engagement, we often face unclear objectives and uncertain problems. The Ecological Formism Framework could offer us solid support.

5. A Developmental Project

On the other side, Curativity Center produced a different kind of outcome. See the diagram below.

I, as the host of Curativity Center, see the Mindset project as a Developmental Project.

The Developmental Project Model is part of my 2020/2021 book Project-oriented Activity Theory.

Activity Theory or the “Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)” is an interdisciplinary philosophical framework for studying both individual and social aspects of human behavior. Activity Theory is an established theoretical tradition with several theoretical approaches developed by different theorists. Originally, it was inspired by Russian/Soviet psychology of the 1920s and 1930s.

A major development of Activity Theory during the past decade is Andy Blunden’s account “An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity”. Andy Blunden is an independent scholar in Melbourne, Australia. He works with the Independent Social Research Network and the Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy and has run a Hegel Summer School since 1998.

In order to develop the notion of “Project as a unit of Activity” as a theoretical foundation of the new interdisciplinary theory of Activity, Blunden adopts Hegel’s logic and Vygotsky’s theory about “Unit of Analysis” and “Concept” as theoretical resources. The process is documented in four books: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010), Concepts: A Critical Approach (2012), Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study (2014), and Hegel for Social Movements (2019).

At the end of 2020, I wrote a book about Andy Blunden’s approach. Since his approach focuses on philosophical analysis, I developed several practical frameworks to connect it with practice: the Developmental Project model, the Zone of Project framework, and the Cultural Projection Analysis method.

The term “Developmental Project” is adopted from my work the Developmental Project Model.

From a theoretical perspective of adult development, the concept of “Developmental Project” emphasizes the life development of individuals within the context of Projects. It cares about the transformation of a person’s life themes and her or his identity in the stream of Projects.

You join a project, you leave a project. You initiate a project, you close a project. All kinds of activities form a chain of projects and they are projections of the development of your life.

If we read the chain of projects of your life, it is also a projection of social life.

By adopting the Developmental Project model, we have a way to reflect on the development of personal life and social life in one unit of analysis. We can connect psychology, sociology, and others.

You can find more details in Developmental Project Model.

6. The Territory of Concepts

In Sept 2023, I made a diagram about the concept of “Mindset”.

The above diagram uses the “Universal Reference” diagram, the “Kinds of Actors” framework, and a sub-framework of “Ecological Formism” to explore a thematic network around “Mindset” and build a Configurational Theory of “Mindset”.

This diagram goes beyond the original “Universal Reference” diagram and offers us a new creative space for discussing the Concept — Theory Transformation which is part of “the Territory of Concepts”.

This diagram inspired me to run a mini Theoretical Integration project. On Sept 9, I made a demo of theoretical integration by curating Carol S. Dweck’s version of Mindset theory and Peter Gollwitzer’s version of Mindset theory together.

You can find more details in Knowledge Engagement: The Concept of Mindset and Theoretical Integration.

Later, I wrote more articles about the concept of Mindset. Eventually, I edited a book (draft) titled Grasping the Concept: The Territory of Concepts and Concept Dynamics.

This is a fantastic outcome!

7. Psychological Knowledge Engagement

From 2022 to 2023, Curativity Center worked on the Knowledge Engagement project.

A by-product of the Mindset project is the theme of “Psychological Knowledge Engagement”.

On Nov 17, 2023, I used the developmental psychologist Robert Kegan’s knowledge enterprise as an example to discuss psychological knowledge engagement.

Kegan switched between four roles and moved between four different types of thematic spaces of psychological knowledge engagement.

• Theoretical Psychologists — The THEORY thematic space
• Empirical Psychologists — The END thematic space
• Intervenors — The MEANS thematic space
• Actors — The PRACTICE thematic space

These four types of knowledge creators have different perspectives and behavioral patterns because they have different construal levels, practical interests, points of observation, methodological preferences, and expressive conventions (or language habits).

Since the four thematic spaces correspond to four types of roles, moving between these thematic spaces means moving between four social spaces.

You can find more details in Psychological Knowledge Engagement and Robert Kegan’s Knowledge Enterprise.

This is a perfect example of Social Moves (Mental Moves). It also encouraged me to work on the Social Moves project.