IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

Mapping methods for qualitative data structuring (QDS)

By Jenny Brightman, Banxia® Software Ltd.
Presented at “Strategies in Qualitative Research: Methodological issues and practices
using QSR NVivo and NUD*IST” conference. Institute of Education, London, 8-9 May 2003.

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to outline and discuss the characteristics and use of four different methods
for “mapping” qualitative data. The methods discussed are mind mapping (developed primarily by
Tony Buzan. Buzan with Buzan 1993)), concept mapping (developed primarily by Joseph Novak.
Novak & Gowan 1984), cognitive mapping (developed primarily by Colin Eden - with David Sims
and Sue Jones and later with Fran Ackermann. Eden, Jones, & Sims 1979, Ackermann et al 1992,
Eden & Ackermann 1998) and dialog mapping (developed by Jeff Conklin. Conklin 2003). Each of
these methods provides a framework for structuring qualitative data (ideas). While there are some
similarities between the four methods each has its own distinctive characteristics. These characteristics
are described in detail, with a short illustration and sample map. The characteristics are then
summarized and contrasted at the end of the paper. Any one of these methods might be of interest and
of use to individuals and groups of researchers who either need to structure their own thinking about a
project or who wish to use one of the methods to gain new insights into their research data. Which
method you use to map your data depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Qualitative data analysis (QDA) context

Qualitative data analysis texts and journals (see note 1) show a focus on the “code and retrieve” approach
for structuring and analyzing qualitative data. These methods tend to form the main body of work in
studies using qualitative data. A "typical" QDA project might involve a series of interviews or focus
groups from which information is recorded and transcribed and then "coded" into various categories.
The researcher’s own notes, recorded as linear text, may also be added to the repository of data and
coded using a particular coding approach (such as open coding, axial coding or selective coding).
Conclusions are then drawn from and theories built around the coded data. Mapping the structure of
ideas, be they the researcher’s ideas about a project or the research subjects’ ideas is generally a small
part of such QDA studies. In talking about causal mapping Miles and Hubermann observe that: “the
conventional view is that qualitative studies are only good for exploratory forays, for developing
hypotheses - and that strong explanations, including causal attribution, can be derived only through
quantitative studies” (Miles & Hubermann. 1994). The result of this view is that researchers do not
appear to explore the use of mapping methods (particularly causal ones), either for their own use or as
part of their study. There are, however, several well-established ideas mapping methods for qualitative
data structuring (QDS) - not all of which are causal methods. These methods offer different
frameworks for organizing ideas and providing insight into qualitative data. As well as being of use to
the researcher in organizing his/ her own thinking, ideas mapping can be used to express and explore
the relationship between the different variables in the data, to explore the causal and other
relationships expressed in the data, and highlight actions and their consequences.

The four QDS methods discussed here developed in different fields of study. The mind mapping
technique was developed and popularized primarily by Tony Buzan, in the UK, who started his career
at the Daily Telegraph Newspaper, in London. As an undergraduate at the University of British
Columbia, studying psychology, English, mathematics and general science he became absorbed by
questions which related to how we learn, the nature of thinking and the best techniques for creative
thinking. This led to further studying of “psychology, the neuro-pathology of the brain, semantics,
neuro-linguistics, information theory, memory and mnemonic techniques, perception, creative
thinking and the general sciences”. (Buzan with Buzan 1993). In 1971 he started to write about his
ideas on mind mapping and radiant thinking, “Use your head” was published in 1974.

The development of concept mapping was driven by Joseph Novak (in the field of education), inspired
by the work of educational psychologist David Ausubel and his “Assimilation Learning Theory”. In
essence this theory contends that some prior knowledge is the key to additional learning and that new
© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 1
IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

material is related to relevant ideas in the individual’s existing cognitive structures. (Ausubel 1968,
Ausubel 1978, Novak 1998). Novak developed the concept mapping technique while employed as a
Professor of Education and Biological sciences at Cornell University. His research there focused on
educational studies, knowledge creation and knowledge representation. In 1977 he published his ideas
in the book “A theory of education” (Novak 1977).

The development of cognitive mapping was driven by Colin Eden (in the operational research field),
working initially at the University of Bath and latterly at the University of Strathclyde. Based in the
School of Management, the team were using operational research techniques and mathematical
modeling to address their clients’ problems. For those seeking help with strategy development, the
problems were founded in dealing with complex and messy data. The team realized that the key to
helping these clients was not in the (mathematical) modeling of the problems themselves but in the
structuring of the problems. Problem definition and problem structuring were seen as the keys to
success rather than the use of a particular mathematical modeling technique. The focus turned to
methods of providing decision support and QDS for the strategy formulation process. The ideas of the
psychologist George Kelly (Kelly 1955) relating to how we construe information were used to inform
the development of the cognitive mapping technique, these ideas being particularly important when
thinking about working in teams - in attempting to create a sense of commitment and agreement to
action, a common way of construing the future was needed. Kelly’s theory is organized into a
fundamental postulate and 11 corollaries, certain elements of that theory were adopted, namely the
individuality, the sociality, the commonality and (for problem solving) construction corollaries, that of
bipolar constructs and the idea that beliefs are structured hierarchically into a system of super-ordinate
and subordinate constructs.

Dialog mapping was developed by Jeff Conklin, based on the work of Horst Rittel in the field of urban
planning. The theme of Horst Rittel’s work was “the reasoning of designers: the nature of their
problems, the kinds and structures of the knowledge they use, the formation of judgment, their logics
of procedure” (Churchman et al 1992). Rittel’s work led to the development of the Issue-Based
Information Structuring (IBIS) approach to ideas structuring (known as “the IBIS grammar”) from
which dialog mapping was developed. Dialog mapping is a “question based” form of ideas mapping.
The map starts with a question, ideas (which are possible answers to the question) are then added as
the next level “out” from the question and then pros and cons are added which qualify the possible
answers.

Despite their different origins these four approaches to ideas mapping (QDS) are generic methods and
can be used in any field of study. Also, a common theme across the application of all of the methods is
their utility in building understanding and consensus within groups, as well as their utility as tools for
individual thinking and learning. They can be used as “learning tools”: helping researchers to explore
and define what it is that they are trying to do - structuring their own thinking at various stages during
the project (from outlining the project plan, to structuring the final report) or as “exploratory tools”:
helping researchers to build a visual representation of an interviewees’ or group’s perceptions of an
issue.

Mind mapping
A mind map consists of a central idea (expressed in the form of a picture or words and a picture) from
which radiate ideas that relate to the central idea. The structure is dendritic (tree-like), usually with
branches of diminishing size - “thick” towards the center and finer towards the periphery. The map is a
radially organized structure of key words and images emanating from a central image (idea or topic).
The small number of inner “branches” radiate out to a much larger number of outer branches. Buzan
talks about “radiant thinking”. The images are an aid to memory and, as illustrated in Buzan’s books
these hand-drawn images can be quite spectacular. “The full power of the Mind Map is realized by
having a central image instead of a central word, and by using images where ever appropriate” (Buzan
1993). The emphasis is on using artistic and textual prompts to help with the organization of data.

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 2

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

The guiding principles for the creation of mind maps (Buzan 1993) are:
1. Use emphasis - images, color, font and style variations throughout your map
2. Use association - make links between associated ideas, use color coding (specific colors) for
specific types of information
3. Be clear - make your images as clear as possible and try to use one key word per line (branch).
Make the length of the line match the length of the word. Lines (branches) closer to the central
idea should be thicker than those further out (emphasizing the hierarchy).
4. Develop your own mapping style - including other forms of coding (such as symbols) which can
be used to cross-reference on maps.

The illustration used throughout this paper is that of a school pupil thinking about the forthcoming
school science fair. The maps that have been produced are “personal”, that is, if you (the reader) or
any of your colleagues were asked to carry out this exercise you would be unlikely to produce the
same maps. There would be common elements but your knowledge of and attitude towards the subject
will influence the content of the map. The purpose here is to illustrate the structure of the mapping
approach.

Figure 1: An example of a mind map.

Concept mapping
Concept maps are made up of “concepts” and expressions of the relationships between concepts (these
relationships are known as “propositions”). A concept is the label given to “an idea of a class of
things” or “a perceived regularity in phenomena” (often but not necessarily expressed as a single
word). A “proposition” is a statement or assertion, made up of two or more concepts with linking
words, presenting the proposition as a meaningful statement. For example:

concept maps

help to

organize data

“Concept maps help to organize data” is the proposition. When drawing a concept map, concepts are
usually framed, most commonly by rectangles. The links are labeled to express the relationship

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 3

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

between the concepts in the map. Cross-links provide links between the different “domains” of the
map (a domain is a “branch” of the map which deals with one particular aspect of the issue being
considered). Cross-links often provide new insights into the information being mapped. The structure
of the concept map is hierarchical, with the broadest, most inclusive statements at the top of the map
and the more detailed, specific statements lower down. The statement at the top of the hierarchy is
usually the subject of the map. There can be multiple links from a concept to a number of other
concepts.

The guiding principles for the creation of concept maps, having defined the subject of the map, are:
1. Identify and list the key concepts which apply to the subject of the map
2. Establish (or think about) an approximate rank order for the concepts in the list - from the
broadest, most general concepts to the most specific. (The rank order need only be approximate,
but going through this stage helps with the construction of the map and the identification of the
different domains/ branches of the map. You do not have to do this step.)
3. Construct a “preliminary” concept map
4. Having created a preliminary map, review the map and look for cross-links - links between the
different domains of the map. (It is often the cross-linking which gives new insights into the data).

Using the school science fair example, the following concept map was produced.

Figure 2: An example of a concept map

Good science project

needs requires
public appeal
needs
resources are restricted by
visible results requires should be
must not have
economics
must be special equipment
report use
fun
school facilities
must demonstrate replaceable
includes negotiate
understanding I enjoy parents facilities
has a
accessibility
question text chemistry

graphics produces
hypothesis conclusion physics

procedure observations might be smoke and bangs

photographs

Cognitive mapping
There are a number of different techniques which use the label “cognitive mapping” (Huff, A.S. (ed)
1990 gives a good overview of various forms of cognitive mapping). Here we are discussing cognitive
mapping based on the work of Eden et al. A cognitive map is made up of “concepts” - short phrases
that express an idea (fact or assertion) about an issue - and links - connections between the concepts
which are read as “may lead to”. [The use of the label “concept” to describe the basic unit of data in a
cognitive map can be confusing to those already familiar with concept mapping.] Concepts may be
mono- or bi-polar. Bi-polar concepts express ideas in the form of: “carry out a good project rather than
try for a spectacular one”. In this case “carry out a good project” is the emergent pole and “try for a
spectacular one” is the contrasting pole. Bi-polar concepts give us more information about what a
person really thinks about a subject. This concept could have been expressed as: “carry out a good
project rather than a mediocre one” or “carry out a good project rather than study a different subject”.
The bi-polar concepts which are of most interest are those which bring out “the shades of grey”, the

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 4

 IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

subtleties in peoples’ thinking. Links in a cognitive map can be “positive” (which is the default - “may
lead to”) or “negative”. Negative links lead the first part of the concept at the tail of the link to the
contrasting pole of a concept at the head of the link, i.e.
end up with nothing rather than have
results to show on the day

-
carry out a good project rather
than go for a spectacular one

This would be read as “carry out a good project may lead to have results to show on the day” and “go
for a spectacular one may lead to end up with nothing” - “one” in this case referring to “project”. The
“rather than” phrase appears often in cognitive mapping and so there is a short-hand way of
representing this, which is as an ellipsis, that is three dots - “…”, so bi-polar concepts would be
written as:

carry out a good project … go

for a spectacular one

The guiding principles for the creation of cognitive maps, having defined the subject of the map, are:
1. Break ideas down into short phrases (6 to 10 words if possible), one idea per concept
2. Express ideas in an imperative form (that is as a command) if possible e.g. “carry out a good
project”
3. Try to capture any “opposite poles” (that is “rather thans”) which are expressed.
4. Build ideas into a hierarchy - think in terms of outcomes (desirable or undesirable), “what may
lead to what” - means/ ends, cause/ effect , how?/ why? - this is surfacing the goal structure.

Using the school science fair example, the following cognitive map was produced.

Figure 3: An example of a cognitive map:

11 conduct a mind
1 What should I do blowingly brilliant
for the science project!
fair?

16 more likely to
35 looks good to the 17 write up my stick with it
judges project
36 have results on
the day ... having
nothing to show 18 good graphics 15 have fun ... get
bored
34 high public
appeal 20 use Dad’s
26 choose 19 use digital
appropriate project graphics package camera
28 do at home 3 pick something 14 not 8 weeks of
27 feasible project that I think I will
25 choose from more grind
than one thing get a result with
-
29 hazardous
materials 31 easily available 8 have a look in the
resources ... 9 check out what 24 generate topics encyclopedia
difficult to get qualifies as for project
33 special equipment - hold of "science"
needed
30 use family
computer 12 decide what I
10 get a copy of the
really enjoy
rules
21 visit museum 4 have a look at my
32 find out what’s test scores
available through
home 23 visit library 13 write down what I
think of each
22 go to the city subject
®
© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia Software Limited 5
IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

Dialog mapping
The IBIS grammar consists of questions, ideas, and arguments. Ideas link in to questions, arguments
link in to ideas. Arguments may be either pros (plusses) or cons (minuses). The link type, rather than
the node type, specifies whether ideas are classified as pros or cons. The node type is simply
“argument”, because arguments may be either pros or cons depending on the context. With a change
of context a node (argument) which previously supported an idea (a pro) may change to oppose it
(become a con).

The form of a dialog map would be as shown in figure 4:

con
Figure 4: the structure of a dialog map.
con - con
- -
idea
idea pro + pro
+
question which + pro
expands on idea
question idea
+ pro idea con
-

pro +
idea + pro
- con
+
pro

The guiding principles for the creation of dialog maps are:

1. All maps (discussions) start with a question
2. Answers (ideas) are stated in response to the question (the “responds to” link) - ideas are always
defined relative to some question
3. Justifications (arguments) are added to the ideas - these justifications may be pros (supporting/
advantages/ plusses) or cons (objecting to/ inhibiting/ disadvantages/ minuses)
4. Arguments can give rise to new questions which expand on an idea

Dialog mapping extends the IBIS grammar to include additional link and node types. In dialog
mapping the node types and links are:

Node Link Node Explanation

Q Ä I: the idea node links to question node with a “responds to” link
responds to
I Ä A: the argument node links to the idea node with a “supports (+) or
supports or objects to (-)” link
objects to
I Ä Q: the (new) question node links to the idea node with an “expands
expands on on” link.
I Ä A: the argument node links to the idea node with a “specialize” link
specializes where the argument is an example of the idea
Q, I or Ä Q: the (new) question “challenges” the content of an existing node
A challenges (allowing explanation of why the question, idea or argument might
be wrong).
D “decision node” - a decision in IBIS is simply a “selected” node.
That is having constructed the map, nodes are identified which
represent the chosen course of action.

Using the school science fair example, the following dialog map was produced.

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 6

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

Figure 5: An example of a dialog map

Summary of the characteristics of the four ideas mapping methods.

The following table gives a summary of the main features of the four ideas mapping methods, based
on their:
structure (1) physical layout and (2) how content is structured
link type(s)
orientation (1) goal-orientation - aimed a surfacing an individuals or a groups goal structure
(2) action orientation - intended to act as a spur to action
basis of construction (e.g. question based).
This is a comparison across the four methods. This is an important distinction because while it might
be argued that there are is questioning involved in constructing a mind map, it is not question based
when compared to methods such as cognitive mapping (where “why” and “how” type questions are
used to build up the hierarchy in the map) or dialog mapping, which is expressly question based.

Mind mapping • One central idea surrounded by a radiant network of associated ideas
• Hierarchical - from the generic towards the center to the specific at the outer
extremes
• Associative - links are associative i.e. this idea is associated with or part of
the super-ordinate idea, but the nature of the relationship is not expressed.
• Not inherently goal structured - aimed at helping you to identify all of the
factors associated with an issue but not (necessarily) focusing on outcomes
• Not inherently action orientated
• Not question based

Concept mapping • Multi-directional network of ideas (usually presented as a structures with one
“upper most” idea but can be represented as a “wheel” with a central concept
with a radiating network of concepts)
• Hierarchical - from the generic (at the top) to the specific (at the bottom) of

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 7

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

the hierarchy
• Relational - links can be used to express any form of relationship between
concepts, identified by the map builder
• Not inherently goal structured - helping you to identify all of the factors
associated with an issue but not focusing on outcomes
• Can be action orientated, but not inherently so
• Not explicitly question based - implicitly question based in so far as the map
builder must answer the question: “what is the relationship between this
concept and that concept?”

Cognitive • Multi-directional network of ideas - (usually small number of “upper most”

mapping ideas - goals - with a larger supporting body of ideas “beneath”).(2)
• Heirarchical - from the generic (at the “top” of the map) to the specific (at the
“bottom”) of the hierarchy
• Causal - all links are in the form of “may lead to”
• Goal structured - specifically aimed at surfacing a goal structure of desirable/
undesirable outcomes
• Specifically aimed at being “action oriented” - concepts with a verb in the
imperative form
• Not explicitly question based - question based in so far as “laddering” up and
down the chains of argument in the map is achieved by asking “why?” type
questions to elicit outcomes and “how?” type questions to elicit enabling
events

Dialog mapping • Dendritic (tree-like) network with “seed questions” - built from left to right
• Not heirarchical - questions, ideas and arguments are neutral
• Relational - with five categories of relationship defined - “responds to”,
“supports/ objects”, “expands on”, “specializes” and “challenges”.
• Not inherently goal structured - not aimed at surfacing a goal structure but
aimed a problem solving
• Not action orientated
• Question based

Comparing and contrasting the four methods for ideas mapping

All four methods help you to organize existing knowledge. To a greater or lesser degree each of them
helps you to express associations, find hidden links between ideas, trigger new ideas and/ or questions
and in so doing to create new knowledge and understanding. Also, all four methods encourage a high
level of critical thinking. The discipline of building a map helps to clarify thinking and helps to
develop different interpretations and new views about the subject in question.

When used with groups mapping methods (where the developing map is projected on to a screen) help
to avoid “truth through repetition” or "the magic of reiteration", which is that “if you say something
often enough it must be true”. The argument is presented and captured in the map, it does not have to
be repeated again and again. This may be a disadvantage, depending on the type of study, in that a
respondent repeating the same idea many times, may be seen as significant in itself, indicative of that
person being “obsessed” with a particular idea or event.

Mind mapping truly encourages artistic talents, the other methods do not. Mind mapping developed as
an aide-memoir - the aim of mind mapping is to accelerate learning, the ability to remember and recall
information, by presenting ideas in note form around a central theme, with visual stimuli, thus
stimulating different parts of the brain and helping to trigger learning and understanding. In concept
mapping, cognitive mapping and dialog mapping the emphasis is on clarity of display and making
explicit the relationship between ideas. Artistic layouts are not encouraged. Concept mapping offers
© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 8
IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

the greatest flexibility in terms of expressing relationships between ideas. In cognitive mapping the
traditional view of the conditions for causality (precedence in time, necessity - the event/ phenomenon
would not exist without the pre-existing event/ phenomenon - and sufficiency) is not rigorously
applied. You are mapping an individual’s or a group’s understanding of a situation not testing for
scientific accuracy. (Miles & Hubermann (1994) suggests a broader view of causality and Pearl (2000)
while a largely mathematical text has a nice presentation of some of the philosophical arguments
relating to causality). Knowing what causes something or believing that we know what the cause is
makes a difference in how we act.

A common mistake across all methods is to put more than one idea in to a node or on a branch. It
usually become obvious when this has been done because it becomes very difficult to link into the
node or build on the branch. This is something that is learnt with practice but some people never feel
comfortable with any ideas mapping method, they are not “graphical thinkers”.

Conclusions
Having been through the process of developing four different types of idea maps for the same subject,
as illustrations for this paper, it certainly felt like the different methods encouraged the development of
different ideas and different perspectives. You might want to try that exercise for yourself. In a
research project using qualitative methods, the decision whether or not to use one of these QDS
methods depends on what you are trying to achieve and what you think it is that you are looking for.
From a project perspective, does the method help you to address your research question and give you
new insights into your data? If so, what have you learnt? I would argue that mind mapping is of most
use as a tool for personal reflection, knowledge exploration and learning. Mind maps tend to be highly
personal, especially hand-drawn ones containing few words and a lot of images. It would be difficult
to fit such a method into the body of qualitative research study and use it as the main form of QDS.
Similarly, I would argue that dialog mapping is of most use as a tool for personal knowledge
exploration and learning but it can also be used for group exploration of issues around a project.

Concept and cognitive mapping have more to offer in terms of how they can be used in the body of a
qualitative research study. Concept maps can be used to express complex forms of relationships
between categories of data, cognitive maps to express causal or loosely causal relationships. If you are
using a causal model for the main part of your study then you need a definition of what you are
considering as “causal” - how do you define or identify a cause in a highly complex situation? (The
causal conditions of: precedence in time, necessity (phenomenon A must be present for phenomenon
B to happen) and sufficiency (phenomenon A must be sufficient cause in itself to cause phenomenon
B) are difficult to satisfy and correlation does not imply causation). If you are only mapping your own
thoughts on a subject, you may not have to deal with what definition of “causal” you are using other
than to accept the “may lead to” notation offered in cognitive mapping. The alternative is that you use
a broader definition of “causal”. You might argue that “more often than not factor A leads to factor B”
(possibly evidenced by more than 50% of recorded incidents having a particular outcome) or are you
mapping (and accepting) the interviewee’s perception of causation? With both cognitive mapping and
concept mapping depth of understanding tends to come from cross-linking - new links between
different branches of data.

It is possible to develop your own mapping style and to developing your own coding system - for
example using a different link style to signify weakly causal links, associative links, temporal links or
connotative links and so on. The language of cognitive mapping comes from the management field
where talking about “goals” and “key issues” sits well with an audience of managers trying to solve a
particular problem. Outside this field the labels for the different types of information in the model
should be changed - goals may simply be labeled “outcomes” or “hopes/ fears” or “aspirations” -
depending on the context - the structuring remains “may lead to”.

In what circumstances might you choose to use a mapping method for the main body study? Perhaps
where you are interested in following the interviewee’s agenda, rather than the interviewer’s, where

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 9

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

you are involved in a dynamic and changing dialog with the research subject(s) rather than just having
an interest in taking a “snap shot” at the particular time or of a particular event.

The table in appendix 1 draws some comparisons between the ideas and tools which support ideas
mapping methods and those which support “traditional” QDA. These have implications for research
design - data gathering and data management

What is a legitimate or valid QDS method for use in a study dealing with qualitative data? One which
you can defend in the context of your research project, one which helps you to understand your data,
to see it in a different way, to discover new questions and to address your research question

Notes:

(1) Review the contents of journals such as: Qualitative Health Research, Qualitative Inquiry,
Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, Qualitative Sociology and other Social, Behavioral
Sciences and Human Science journals (there is a long list of journals which publish qualitative
research studies). And texts such as Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln),
Qualitative data analysis (Miles & Hubermann), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods
(Bickman, Rog, (eds.)) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods
(Bogdan and Biklen), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design : Choosing Among Five Traditions
(Creswell), Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell). Educational
research: quantitative and qualitative approaches (Johnson & Christensen) and there are many other
books to choose from which give guidance on qualitative research methods. You can also search on
the Internet for information on qualitative research studies. The overall impression is that qualitative
methods include some form of interviewing, focus groups, participant observation, shadowing, diary
keeping, note taking/ recording (sound, video, photographic) - from which data is transcribed or
“filed” (in the case of video clips and photos) in a system for coding and later retrieval for theory
building. Ideas mapping is a small part of this field. Concept building at a higher level (which ideas
mapping helps with) is rarely mentioned either as a tool for personal reflection or as a tool for use in
the main study.

(2) Cognitive maps are multi-directional networks of ideas - but they are shown two-dimensionally.
The “small number of “upper most” ideas - goals” are colored up so that they are “raised above” the
general level of the map. The problem is that you are unlikely to end up with a neat little model (or a
big model come to that) where the outcomes sit at the top of the page. There will be, or are likely to
be, multiple goals with varying degrees of elaboration beneath them. Imagine a mountain range with a
number of peaks and passes that link between the peaks. That is what you are building - but in two
dimensions with the color (display styles) giving the height to the peaks.

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 10

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

Appendix 1:

Ideas mapping methods and “traditional” QDA

Ideas mapping methods “Traditional” QDA

Interviewer as facilitator and data Interviewer as data gatherer – single
gatherer (facilitating interviewee understanding
understanding as well as researchers
understanding) – dual understanding
Concept building at the time of data Literal transcription and then concept building
gathering
Closeness to data through understanding Closeness to data through having access to all
the research subject’s perspective and the data collected for the interviewer to interpret
research subject exploring their
understanding
Interviewee agenda Interviewer agenda
Interviewee interpretation (of the Interviewer interpretation of what the
situation) interviewee has said about the situation
Dynamic and changing dialogue Static snapshot
Prioritization of ideas Recording of ideas
Process is important for researcher and Process important for researcher (closeness)
client (interviewee)
Mind mapping and concept mapping: Research driven – internally focused (helping
“learning based” development researcher
Cognitive mapping and dialog mapping: Would you give your QDA software to your
“consultancy based” development – a interviewee? Would you expect them to work
practical means to an end – externally with it? Would you explain your deduction
focussed (helping both interviewer and process to you interviewees? – invisible
interviewee). Crossing the boundary research process
between researcher and researched
(mediating artifact).
Coding as learning – building Ditto – coding is for theory building
understanding and conveying meaning
Iterative research process Linear research process
Feedback to verify meaning (all the way Feedback of conclusions rather than feedback
through) – “validation meetings” of meaning
Rich context (lots of links around, lots of Incidence – lots of mentions
“ins”)
Mapping follows links for context does it “Code and retrieve” methods follow order for
link in, idea could be mentioned at any context (i.e. lines before and after)
stage in the interview
Inter-relationship of ideas – multiple One reality – the interviewer’s interpretation
perspectives, alternate realities - Non-
linear recording
Problem structuring
Representation of complexity ?Simplification of complexity
Understand/ represent cause and time Not generally a focus
(flows of events)

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 11

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

References and bibliography

Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Cropper, S. (1992) “Getting started with cognitive mapping”. Tutorial paper,
7th Young OR Conference. (Available from Banxia Software Ltd. www.banxia.com)

Ausubel, D. (1968). “Educational psychology: A cognitive view.” New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., and Hanesian, H. (1978). “Educational psychology: A cognitive view”.
New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Buzan, T. (1974) “Use your head”. BBC Books

Buzan, T. with Buzan , B (1993) “The Mind Map Book.” London: BBC Books (Latest edition, updated
2003. BBC Books).

Buzan, T. (2001). “Head Strong.” Thorsons ISBN: 0-00-711397-8

Buzan, T. (2003) “How to Mind Map: Make the Most of Your Mind and Learn to Create, Organize,
and Plan.” Thorsons. ISBN: 0007153732

Churchman, C. W, Protzen, J-P, Webber, M.M. (1992) “University of California: In Memoriam”.

Krogh, David, Ed. A publication of the Academic Senate, University of California

Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1989). “gIBIS: A tool for all reasons”. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science (JASIS), 40(3), 200-213.

Conklin, J (2003) “Dialog mapping: an approach to wicked problems”. Cognexus Institute.

Conklin, J (2002) “Dialog Mapping: Reflections on an Industrial Strength Case Study” in Visualizing
Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Kirschner, P.A.,
Buckingham Shum, S.J., Carr, C.S. (Eds.) Springer-Verlag: London.

Eden, C., Jones, S. and Sims, D. (1979). “Thinking in organizations”. London: MacMillan.

Eden, C. Sims, D. and Jones, S. (1979). “Policy analysis and organizational politics.” European
Journal of Operational Research, 3, 207-215.

Eden, C., Jones, S., Sims, D. and Gunton, H. (1979). “Images into models: the subjective world of the
policy maker.” Futures, 11, 56-62.

Eden, C. and Sims, D. (1979). “On the nature of problems in consulting practice.” Omega, 7, 119-127.

Eden, C., Jones, S., Sims, D. and Smithin, T. (1981). “The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of
intersubjectivity”. Journal of Management Studies, 18, 37-47.

Eden, C. and Sims, D. (1981). “Subjectivity in problem identification.” Interfaces, 11, 68-74.

Eden, C. and Sims, D. (1981).” Computerized vicarious experience: the future for management
induction?” Personnel Review, 10, 22-25.

Eden, C., Jones, S. and Sims, D. (1983). “Messing about in problems”. Pergamon Press Ltd.

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 12

IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

Eden, C., Jones, S. and Sims, D. (1984). “Understanding problems and the problem of
understanding”. In: Paton, R. ed. Organizations: cases, issues, concepts. pp. 52-57. London: Harper
and Row

Eden, C. (1988) “Cognitive mapping”, European Journal of Operational Research, 36:1-13

Eden, C., Ackermann, F., (1998) “Making Strategy: the journey of strategic management”. London:
Sage Publications Ltd.

Jones, S., Eden, C. and Sims, D. (1979). “Subjectivity and organizational politics in policy analysis.”
Policy and Politics, 7, 145-163.

Huff, A.S. (ed). “Mapping strategic thought.” Chichester: Wiley

Kelly, G.A., (1955) “The psychology of personal constructs.” New York: Norton.

Kunz, W, Rittel, H. (1970) “Issues as Elements of Information Systems”, Working Paper 131, Institute
of Urban & Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, California, email:
iurd@uclink.berkeley.edu.

Miles, M.B, Hubermann, A.M. (1994) “Qualitative data analysis”. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage

North, V, Buzan, T (1991). “Get a head: mind map your way to success.” 5th Edition. Buzan.

Novak, Joseph D. (1977). “A theory of education.” Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Novak, J.D., Gowin, D. B,. (1984). “Learning How to Learn”. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Novak, J. D. (1990). “Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and
mathematics education.” Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.

Novak, J. D. (1991). “Clarify with concept maps”. The Science Teacher, 58(7): 45-49.

Novak, J.D,. (1993). “How do we learn our lesson?: Taking students through the process”. The
Science Teacher, 60(3), 50-55.

Novak, J. D. (1998). “Learning. Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools
in Schools and Corporations”. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pearl, J. (2000)“Causality”, by Judea, Cambridge University Press

Rittel, Horst (1969) “Reflections on the Scientific and Political Significance of Decision Theory”,
Working Paper 115, Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley,
email: iurd@uclink.berkeley.edu.

Rittel, Horst (1972) “On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the “First and
Second Generations”, Reprint No. 107, Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of
California, Berkeley, California, email: iurd@uclink.berkeley.edu.

Rittel, Horst (1972) “Structure and Usefulness of Planning Information Systems”,

Reprint No. 108, Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley,
California, email: iurd@uclink.berkeley.edu.

Rittel, Horst and Melvin Webber (1973) “Dilemmas in a General Theory of

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 13
IOE Conference, May 2003, London, UK

Planning”, Reprint No. 86, Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California,
Berkeley, email: iurd@uclink.berkeley.edu.

Rittel, Horst, and Douglas Noble (1989) “Issue-Based Information Systems for Design”, Working
Paper 492, Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, California,
email: iurd@uclink.berkeley.edu.

Sims, D., Eden, C. and Jones, S. (1981). “Facilitating problem definition in teams.” European Journal
of Operational Research, 6, 360-366.

Sims, D. and Jones, S. (1981). “Explicit problem modelling: an intervention strategy.” Group and
Organization Studies, 6, 486-499.

Sims, D. and Smithin, T. (1982). “Voluntary operational research”. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 33, 21-28.

Sims, D. and Eden, C. (1984). “Futures research - working with management teams”. Long Range
Planning, 17, 51-59.

Smithin, T. and Sims, D. (1982). “Ubi caritas? - modelling beliefs about charities”. European Journal
of Operational Research, 10, 237-243.

Wycoff , J. (1991) “Mindmapping: Your Personal Guide to Exploring Creativity and Problem-
Solving”. Berkley Pub Group. ISBN: 042512780X

© 2003 Jenny Brightman and Banxia® Software Limited 14