WWP cognitive map diagram animated tutorial

This cognitive map diagram contains animated drawings, text labels, shapes and arrows. In this description the term “label” refers to text in the diagram, and the term “phrase” refers to text in the audio description or transcript. 

Page	Transcript	Description	
Page 1	Cognitive mapping explicitly maps out how someone thinks about a particular issue or problem.

It needs to be clear from the beginning whose perspective is being mapped. For example, the mapper might attempt to capture the perspective of one individual, either directly through an interview or more indirectly, for instance through a journal article or report.

In such cases, the mapper must record as precisely as possible the actual words used by the subject and re-use these in the individual constructs that make up the cognitive map.

Alternatively, the mapper might record their own perspective on a particular situation. Again, this might be done directly by recording actual experiences of a working situation, or indirectly through interpreting a situation from their own perspective.

The cognitive map that follows is based on my interpretation of the Working for Water Programme and how the programme might – given the costs of implementation – be sustained in an economy with competing claims on finances.	An animated drawing of a woman with her back to the viewer writing on a large mounted paper pad. In front of her there is a man sitting at a table covered with pieces of paper, pens and a mug. As the woman draws she turns towards the man.

At the phrase “capture the perspective of one individual” a circle is drawn around the man sitting down. 

At the phrase “In such cases the mapper must record…” the previous scene disappears and the same woman is shown writing notes at the same table as before. A thought bubble appears from her saying “in his view…”.

At the phrase “Alternatively, the mapper might record their own perspective…” an animated drawing of a different person sitting at a desk with an angle poise lamp lighting the taking notes. A piece of paper falls from the desk onto the floor where there are other pages of notes. A thought bubble from this person reads “in my view…”.	
Page 2	The ‘seed’ construct I came up was ‘continue support for WWP’ separated by three dots from its opposite statement ‘end support’. The title and seed construct reflects a problem situation from my perspective as an interested observer.

While I’ve used some of the words and phrases from the WWP summary sheet, they are my interpretation rather than the original author’s.	The title “My exploration of continued support for WWP” appears in the top left of the page. Underneath this, the text “continue support for WWP…end support” appears.	
Page 3	Having identified a key problem and translated it into terms of an ‘action item’, I reviewed the summary sheet and wrote down a number of relevant action items. I then transformed each action item into a construct. An opposing or contrary action statement can also be identified. Each construct can then be written on bits of paper which can easily be moved about as the map develops.

Another sheet was used to show the hierarchy of decision making. The seed construct was placed first in the upper-middle part of ‘strategic directions’. Then I explored where to place the other constructs relative to the initial seed construct. In the rest of this tutorial, I’ll go through this process in a little more detail with respect to my own thoughts on WWP.	At the phrase “I reviewed the summary sheet and wrote down…”, a list of action items with letters appears under the title”. For example, the first is called “action item G”, followed by “action item X” and so on. The action item letters are G, X, A, H, B, Y, K, M, C, J, R, N.

At the phrase “I then transformed each action item” the action points all change into the format “construct G… not G”, then “construct X… not X” and so on.

At the phrase “Each construct can then be written on bits of paper…”, the constructs change into drawings of scraps of paper with the text “G… not G”, “X… not X” and so on written on them.

At the phrase “Another sheet was used to show the hierarchy…” a drawing of a lined piece of paper appears on the right side of the page. This paper is divided into three horizontal sections labelled: “goals”, “strategic decisions” and “potential options”. 
At the phrase “The seed construct was placed first…” the text “continue support for WWP…end support” moves from underneath the title to the middle section: “strategic decisions”.
The ‘scraps of paper’ then move into one of the three sections on the paper.	
Page 4	To begin with, I wanted to explore the consequences of providing further support to the programme. This was fairly straightforward. I simply reiterated its ecological and socio-political goals. I also thought about what needed to happen between these goals and the seed construct and how that affected the decision on whether to continue support for WWP.	The page goes blank.
The three horizontal sections “goals”, “strategic decisions” and “potential options” reappear covering the entire page. The ‘seed construct’ text also reappears in a purple rectangular box under “strategic decisions”.

At the phrase “I simply reiterated its ecological and socio-political goals”, two labels appear in the “goals” section: “improve well-being of ecosystem…allow deterioration” on the left and “improve economic and social well-being of black South Africans…increase poverty” on the right.

At the phrase “I also thought about what needed to happen…” two further labels appear: “control spread of invasive species…allow spread” on the left with an arrow pointing to the existing left label: “improve well-being og ecosystem”; and on the right “generate jobs/skills in rural sector…high unemployment” with an arrow pointing to the existing right label: “improve economic and social well-being” Arrows also appear pointing from the seed construct box, to each of these new labels.	
Page 5	It occurred to me that there was need for sustaining the jobs being created and skills being taught in order to realise the longer term goal of improving economic and social well-being of black South Africans. Clearly, the control of invasive species actually might work against long-term sustainability of jobs, as the jobs created are dependent on there being invasive species. Therefore, this is a negative link, so the arrow has a minus sign. Also, it seemed the programme has an impact by having influence on relevant areas of policy making.	At the phrase “”, a further label appears in the centre of the “goals’ section: “sustain job security…do not sustain”. Arrows appear pointing from this label to “improve economic and social well-being…” and to this label from “generate jobs/skills in rural sector…”.

At the phrase: “as the jobs created are dependent on there being invasive species” another arrow appears, pointing from “control spread of invasive species” to “sustain job security”. A minus sign appears next to this arrow.

At the phrase “Also, it seemed the programme has an impact”, a label appears in the “strategic goals” section: “improve capacity to advise policy…no capacity”. An arrow pointing to this label from the seed construct appears, along with an arrow pointing from this label to the label “improve economy and social well-being…”.	
Page 6	Next, I wanted to explore the action items required to bring about the original seed action. Two important threads of action emerged. Firstly, the need for publicising the strengths and opportunities of WWP, particularly as a multiagency programme.	More labels appear in the “strategic directions” section.
The label “identify and publicise strengths/opportunities of WWP…emphasise weaknesses” points to the seed construct. Two labels have arrows pointing to the “identify and publicise” label: “improve capacity for WWP to change/adapt…WWP loses relevance” and “maintain and develop multi-agency approach…no sectoral integration”. There is a further arrow from “maintain and develop…” pointing to “improve capacity to advise policy…”.
A further label: “facilitate intersectoral collaboration…do not facilitate” points to the “maintain and develop…” label. 	
Page 7	In order for the programme to justify its expenditure, a second thread of action needs to make explicit some of the concerns against the programme. Recognising weaknesses of a programme or proposed course of intervention inevitably leads to a reduction in the support for the programme or intervention.

However, a minus sign might be misplaced, as any support for an intervention needs to recognise the threats and other potential pitfalls as well as actual costs involved. Failure to recognise such weaknesses can often result in the failure of programmes or interventions. I think the minus sign here ought to be removed.

However, this thread does suggest an alternative, more limited programme, one that simply deals with combating invasive species, and perhaps uses technology as a less labour-intensive form of intervention.	A further label appears in the “strategic direction” section: “recognise weaknesses and threats of WWP…ignore weaknesses/threats”, with minus-sign labelled arrow pointing to the seed construct.

At the phrase “a minus sign might be misplaced…” the minus sign is highlighted.
At the phrase “I think the minus sign here ought to be removed” the minus sign and its circle disappear.

At the phrase “However, this thread does suggest an alternative…” another label appears in the ‘strategic direction” section: “design alternative ‘limited’ programme…retain idea of WWP”. An arrow points from this label to “control spread of invasive species…”. Two arrows point to this label: one from “recognise weaknesses and threats…” and one from the seed construct. The arrow from the seed construct is labelled with a minus sign.	
Page 8	Working through the actions required to bring about these strategic goals, one obvious option would be to commission an independent expert-driven impact study to demonstrate the economic, social and biophysical value of WWP to date. This could also be used to uncover some of the real concerns and possible negative consequences regarding the continuation of the programme. Decisions about funding support and identifying appropriate forms of expertise are then needed.

The reference terms of the study would have to include consultation with those people who may be against the programme. Such an exercise would also benefit general programme management. I also identified other types of operational action items with respect to the strategic directions.	At the phrase “Working through the actions required to bring about…” the label “Strategic goals” is highlighted briefly.
At the phrase: “to demonstrate the economic”, a label appears in the “potential options” section: “commission study on impact of WWP…have no evidence” with arrows pointing to the labels “recognise weaknesses and threats” and “identify and publicise strengths/opportunities” both in the strategic directions section. 
A number of further labels appear in the “potential options” section.
At the phrase “This could also be used to uncover” the label “Consult protagonists against WWP…do not consult” appears, with an arrow pointing to the “commission study on impact…” label.
 At the phrase “Decisions about funding support” the label “identify appropriate sponsors and experts…don’t identify” appears, with an arrow pointing to the “commission study on impact…” label.
At the phrase “…would have to include consultation” the label “identify those adversely affected by WWP…identify only the ‘winners’” appears, with an arrow pointing to “consult protagonists…”.
At the phrase “Such an exercise would also benefit” the label “monitor project’s success and failure…don’t monitor” appears, with arrows pointing to “improve capacity for WWP” and “facilitate intersectoral collaboration”, both in the “strategic directions” section. A further arrow appears, pointing to this label from “consult protagonists…”
At the phrase “…other types of operational action items” the label “organise multi agency workshops…do not organise” appears, with an arrow pointing to “facilitate intersectoral collaboration” in the “strategic directions” section.
At the phrase “with respect to the strategic directions”, the label “build in M&E component to WWP involving all stakeholders…M&E considered as expert-driven appendage” appears, with arrows pointing to the labels “organise multi-agency…” and “monitor project’s success…”.	
Page 9	A cognitive map often turns out to be quite dense with words. In such cases, it might be better to use abbreviations and include a key. Drawing a cognitive map is perhaps one of the most messy mapping techniques, not least because of the space required. Very often you find the map becomes over-burdened with constructs, and you need to group constructs together or remove the less useful ones.

Sometimes, particular constructs might stand out as being in need of further analysis. Here the construct ‘sustain job security … do not sustain’ appears to need further analysis, particularly in exploring the action items required to bring this about.

Similarly the construct concerning the decision on whether or not to commission an impact study of the programme might itself be a seed construct for a further cognitive map.	A key appears at the bottom of the page stating: “M&E: monitoring and evaluation” and “WWP: Working for Water Programme”.

At the phrase “the construct ‘sustain job security…do not sustain’” the corresponding label is highlighted on the diagram. 

At the phrase “the construct concerning the decision…”, the previous highlight fades and the label “commission study on impact of WWP….have no evidence” is highlighted.	
Page 10	Looking at the final diagram, you can appreciate that cognitive mapping has subjective elements to it. However, all mapping techniques have subjective elements because they’re done from the mapper’s perspective. A significant exception is when a cognitive mapper is directly recording another person’s thought processes as they are spoken. The value of cognitive mapping is in revealing or making explicit these thought processes and drawing out and questioning their implications.	No change is made to the diagram.	
Summary	Summary

1 Identify a key decision around which to construct your cognitive map.

2 Devise a construct around the key decision (your seed construct).

3 Demarcate between three levels of planning (from top to bottom): goals (ideals); strategic options (objectives); and potential options (tasks). Place your seed construct towards upper part of ‘strategic options’.

4 Trace the immediate and less immediate implications (goal-orientation) of your seed construct in terms of the consequences of the decision, creating further constructs and arrows between them for each perceived consequence (i.e. forecasting).

5 Trace what actions are required in order to bring about the decision being made and represent these actions as constructs underneath your seed construct (i.e. backcasting).

6 Ensure that for each arrow link the first pole of tail construct leads to first pole of head construct. If not put in a minus sign on the arrow.