Transcript
Cognitive map animated tutorial
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.