KNOWLEDGE MAPPING

Our present system of knowledge mapping differs among disciplines and remains acutely arcane. It is also of questionable effectiveness in dealing with many of the complex problems relating to environment and culture. This is not surprising once the nature and context of this inheritance is considered.

The collective knowledge base, until recently, was relatively limited in breadth and depth. Information entropy was not a consideration. Cultures remained largely homogeneous and hierarchical with relatively static social orders, thereby impeding democratic access to, and dissemination of, knowledge. From an historical perspective, the secularization of knowledge within a dynamic culture is a notion which has only started to take root.

Problems and issues tended to remain confined within one or several disciplines since man's impact on nature and humanity had not reached critical thresholds of sustainability. Success with the scientific method and industrialization tended to breed an obliviousness toward any other paradigms of knowledge mapping.

The framework for our inherited system of knowledge mapping evolved largely within this context, until the mutating influence of electronic media was encountered. Today, a common awareness of the need to develop more appropriate knowledge mapping tools is evident in the entire culture and communications sector. The staggering growth in the use of the Web and a broad interest in the information highways of tomorrow are early indicators of how the present system of knowledge mapping may be mutating.

Mutation, however, can either increase or decrease the odds of survival. The intention of the knowledge mapping model presented here is to hopefully increase the sustainability of the collective knowledge base. Mutations also tend to inherit many highly evolved traits, hence there is no need at present to completely discard our present system. It would be far more useful to first understand the basic characteristics that promote the adaptive and self-organizing behaviour of knowledge mapping systems.

A Knowledge Mapping Model

The model that will be discussed below attempts to reconcile aspects of knowledge mapping which presently exist, with those that need to be developed. First, however, a brief description of the knowledge mapping process which has been envisioned. Professor Robert Wright was largely responsible for the development of this model, which we subsequently refined into the form presented here, acknowledging its continued evolution. It is actually more of a schematic than a model, because we have not managed to construct a prototype which can be rigorously tested, but it is often necessary to overlook such inconvenient details in the process of conceptual design. The knowledge mapping process that we tentatively proposed consists of 4 contiguous spaces: the dialogue space; the construct space; the operational space; and the synthetic space. The definitions and connections between the spaces are described further on, and illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - A Knowledge Mapping Model

Dialogue Space

The dialogue space represents the medium or media within which people communicate with one another. In the absence of technology, this would reduce to oral conversation, but in the present, it includes a vast array of available means. The significance of the dialogue space to any knowledge mapping system is its role in sharing awareness of significant opportunities, issues and problems. Once these have been identified and the intent of their resolution is clear, the information which enables resolution can be assembled.

Construct Space

Construct space represents the rationale supporting the intent of a resolution to a problem or issue. It deals with the assembly of information used to establish measures of, or perspectives on, the problem or issue. These measures and perspectives, both qualitative and quantitative, foster common understanding. In order to resolve complex problems and issues, a large number of constructs are required. This is evident in present-day issues such as the environment and aboriginal rights, to name a few, and the required constructs to deal with these involve a wide range of disciplines. In many cases, the constructs simply do not exist, and this reinforces the significance of the construct space in storing, making accessible, and developing relevant constructs.

Operational Space

Operational space takes the constructs and manipulates them in attempting to resolve the problem or issue. The means of operationalizing constructs may involve digital approaches such as computer simulation models, or analog processes such as policy development and legislation, for example. These may be invoked either individually or as some combined, hybrid process, depending on the nature of the problem or issue. It should be recognized that government, business and academia all engage within some form of operational space, presently perhaps without a full dialogue or relevant constructs. The significance of the operational space is in its role as a translator of intent and rationale into a particular resolution of a problem or issue. Practically, it identifies explicit linkages between constructs, which are in turn linked to dialogue.

Synthetic Space

Synthetic space synthesizes the adequacy of a resolution to a problem or issue, in terms of its intent, supporting rationale and operational approach. This is sometimes referred to as the "so what" of the particular resolution strategy employed. The better the fit of a resolution with reality, the more likely the resolution strategy is to be employed again under similar circumstances. Appropriate resolution strategies form strong conventions within a culture. The robust resolution strategies within the synthetic space of a culture often found its social, economic, political, and technological institutions. Access to this synthetic space, however, is typically restricted to dialogue with experts. As implicit and as difficult as it may be presently to access this synthetic space, it has the potential to become explicit and accessible to all knowledge mapping spaces. It remains significant in maintaining a concise critique of a knowledge mapping process by performing an interpretative role, and providing experiential feedback.

A knowledge mapping cycle will nearly always involve these 4 contiguous spaces, and most problems and issues will require a large number of iterations. The process is also typically non-monotonic within and between cycles, unless the problem or issue is straightforward. Emphasis, in terms of focus within one, or less than all, of the spaces can also be expected, depending on the nature of the knowledge mapping process (i.e., intra or multidisciplinary). On the other hand, hybrid processes resulting from matings between a number of narrowly focused processes may begin to define transdisciplinary knowledge. The knowledge maps which result should ideally contain a record of all such interactions to enable independent validation and androgogy. But before any of this can be expected to occur, there is some need to understand what would drive the knowledge mapping model being proposed here.

Knowledge Mapping Drivers

Implicit in this model is a willingness on the part of individuals to share, or bring to market, their intellectual property in terms of dealing with problems, issues and opportunities. Research has shown that one of the most powerful drivers in self-organizing systems is the principle of "tit for tat"(4). What would induce individuals to volunteer the recording of personal knowledge mapping processes for storage and access in a public domain environment, or even within their particular private enterprise? I am suggesting that some form of tagging, analogous to genetic coding, is needed which allows for the tracing of knowledge to its source(s). This must be combined with a system of accounting for citations, royalties, etc. that is built into the genealogy of every knowledge mapping process. Otherwise, real experts will not develop explicit knowledge maps within a digital culture, instead, they will continue to navigate their implicit knowledge maps within an analog culture.

The primary drivers should be access to a broader and more equitable marketplace of knowledge and information. This does not mean that all knowledge mapping processes will operate within the public domain. Most knowledge mapping processes will likely remain confined to special projects, private enterprises, public institutions, and disciplines, with no intention of permitting public access beyond a superficial level. And there is little to suggest from recent experience that majority co-operation within these bodies will come easily - the status quo in knowledge based organizations remains largely dependent on knowing what others do not. Nevertheless, a viable knowledge mapping process should encourage broad based participation across analog and digital cultures.

Having provided a conceptual model or schematic for this knowledge mapping process, it becomes apparent that not all of the enabling technologies to invoke such a process exist. At this time, rather than deal with any specific tools which will be required, a generic set of characteristics for a sustainable knowledge mapping process are explored to identify vital features.

Next Section - Essential Characteristics of Knowledge Mapping Technologies
Previous Section - Problems and Essential Knowledge
Return to Main Page