Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 1403–1416 | Cite as

Group concept mapping methodology: toward an epistemology of group conceptualization, complexity, and emergence

  • Scott R. RosasEmail author
Article

Abstract

Group concept mapping is a participatory mixed-methods approach to social and behavioral research that integrates qualitative group processes with multivariate statistical analyses to generate, structure and represent the content of a specific topic. Group concept mapping is widely recognized as a means for capturing the complexity found in social phenomena and many claim the process and results of the method are emergent. Despite these claims however, the ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations of group concept mapping, viewed through the phenomenological lenses of complexity and emergence, have not been fully explored. Moreover, the characteristics of group concept mapping as a shared mental model lacks a clear description. This paper argues for a more precise description of collective group mental model construction and examines emergence as a critical multi-level process for found in group concept mapping. Based on this appraisal, group concept mapping can be characterized as a discontinuous compilation model that displays configural properties congruent with this typology. The phenomenon exhibited in this type of model are the result of patterned emergence processes, and concept mapping appears to exemplify several principles associated with the conceptualization of emergence. The implications for two research activities where group concept mapping is often used, theory and measure development, are discussed.

Keywords

Group concept mapping Complexity Emergence Mental models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Martin Cloutier and Slavi Stoyanov for their suggestions on a previous draft of the manuscript.

References

  1. Akkerman, S., Van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R.J., et al.: Reconsidering group cognition: from conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives? Educ. Res. Rev. 2(1), 39–63 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks, A.P., Millward, L.J.: Running shared mental models as a distributed cognitive process. Br. J. Psychol. 91(4), 513–531 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B.: Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. J. Learn. Sci. 9(4), 403–436 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battterham, R., Southern, D., Appleby, N., Elsworth, G., Fabris, S., Dunt, D., Young, D.: Construction of a GP integration model. Soc. Sci. Med. 54, 1225–1241 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertin, G.: Sensemaking and social research in the analysis of educational processes: some methodological problems. Ital. J. Sociol. Educ. 5(3), 147–173 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. Bickhard, M.H.: Information and representation in autonomous agents. Cogn. Syst. Res. 1(2), 65–75 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunge, M.: Systemism: the alternative to individualism and holism. J. Socio-Econ. 29, 147–157 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, R., Salem, D.A.: Concept mapping as a feminist research method examining the community response to rape. Psychol. Women Q. 23(1), 65–89 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cillers, P.: What can we learn from a theory of complexity? Emergence 2(1), 23–33 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, J.S.: Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. Am. J. Sociol. 91, 1309–1335 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conrad, K.J., Iris, M., Ridings, J.W., Langley, K., Anetzberger, G.J.: Self-report measure of psychological abuse of older adults. Gerontologist 51(3), 354–366 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cossette, P.: Analysing the thinking of FW Taylor using cognitive mapping. Manag. Decis. 40(2), 168–182 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dimitrov, V., Woog, R.: Making sense of social complexity through strange attractors. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Geelong, Australia, pp. 161–164 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. Fiore, S.M., Schooler, J.W.: Process mapping and shared cognition: teamwork and the development of shared problem models. In: Salas, E., Fiore, S.M. (eds.) Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that Drive Process and Performance, pp. 133–152. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fornells, A., Rodrigo, Z., Rovira, X., Sánchez, M., Santomà, R., Teixidó-Navarro, F., et al.: Promoting consensus in the concept mapping methodology: an application in the hospitality sector. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 67, 38–48 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galvin, P.F.: Concept mapping for planning and evaluation of a big brother/big sister program. Eval. Program Plan. 12(1), 53–57 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldman, A.W., Kane, M.: Concept mapping and network analysis: an analytic approach to measure ties among constructs. Eval. Program Plan. 47, 9–17 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein, J.: Emergence as construct: history and issues. Emergence 1(1), 49–72 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, A.L., Kerner, J.F., Quinlan, K.M., Vinson, C., Best, A.: Translating cancer control research into primary care practice: a conceptual framework. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2(3), 241–249 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holmes, D., Fairchild, S., Hyer, K., Fulmer, T.: A definition of geriatric interdisciplinary teams through the application of concept mapping. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 23(1), 1–11 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinsz, V.B.: Mental models of groups as social systems: considerations of specification and assessment. Small Group Res. 26(2), 200–233 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., Vollrath, D.A.: The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol. Bull. 121(1), 43–64 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, K.M., Trochim, W.M.K.: Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organ. Res. Methods 5(4), 307–336 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, T.E., O’Connor, D.L.: Measuring team shared understanding using the analysis-constructed shared mental model methodology. Perform. Improv. Q. 21(3), 113–134 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kane, M., Trochim, W.M.K.: Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kane, M., Trochim, W.M.K.: Concept mapping for applied social research. In: Bickman, L., Rog, D. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, pp. 435–474. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.: From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organ. Res. Methods 3(3), 211–236 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klimoski, R., Mohammed, S.: Team mental model: construct or metaphor? J. Manag. 20(2), 403–437 (1994)Google Scholar
  29. Kozlowski, S.W.J., Klein, K.J.: A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.J. (eds.) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions, pp. 3–90. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  30. Kozlowski, S.W., Chao, G.T., Grand, J.A., Braun, M.T., Kuljanin, G.: Advancing multilevel research design capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organ. Res. Methods 16(4), 581–615 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemke, J.L.: Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. Taylor & Francis, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  32. Lucas, C.: Evolving an integral ecology of mind. Cortex 41, 709–725 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J.: A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26(3), 356–376 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A.: The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85(2), 273 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matsuov, E.: Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind Cult. Act. 3, 25–45 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGrath, R.E.: Conceptual complexity and construct validity. J. Pers. Assess. 85(2), 112–124 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McLinden, D.: Concept maps as network data: analysis of a concept map using the methods of social network analysis. Eval. Program Plan. 36(1), 40–48 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S., Hinings, C.R.: Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Acad. Manag. J. 36(6), 1175–1195 (1993)Google Scholar
  39. Miller, J.H., Page, S.E.: Complex Adaptive Systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2007)Google Scholar
  40. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., Hamilton, K.: Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J. Manag. 36(4), 876–910 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. Morgeson, F.P., Hofmann, D.A.: The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24(2), 249–265 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nabitz, U., Severens, P., Van Den Brink, W., Jansen, P.: Improving the EFQM model: an empirical study on model development and theory building using concept mapping. Total Qual. Manag. 12(1), 69–81 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quine, W.V.O.: From Stimulus to Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  44. Reis, R.S., Kelly, C.M., Parra, D.C., Barros, M., Gomes, G., Malta, D., et al.: Developing a research agenda for promoting physical activity in Brazil through environmental and policy change. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 32(2), 93–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Risisky, D., Hogan, V.K., Kane, M., Burt, B., Dove, C., Payton, M.: Concept mapping as a tool to engage a community in health disparity identification. Ethn. Dis. 18(1), 77–83 (2008)Google Scholar
  46. Rosas, S.R.: Concept mapping as a technique for program theory development: an illustration using family support programs. Am. J. Eval. 26(3), 389–401 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosas, S.R.: The utility of concept mapping for actualizing participatory research. Hispanic. J. Psychol. 12(2), 7–24 (2013)Google Scholar
  48. Rosas, S.R., Ridings, J.W.: The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: application and future directions. Eval Program Plann (in press)Google Scholar
  49. Sawyer, R.K.: Emergence in sociology: contemporary philosophy of mind and some implications for sociological theory. Am. J. Sociol. 107(3), 551–585 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salomon, G. (ed.): Distributed Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  51. Southern, D.M., Young, D., Dunt, D., Appleby, N.J., Batterham, R.W.: Integration of primary health care services: perceptions of Australian general practitioners, non-general practitioner health service providers and consumers at the general practice–primary care interface. Eval. Program Plan. 25(1), 47–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sutherland, S., Katz, S.: Concept mapping methodology: a catalyst for organizational learning. Eval. Program Plan. 28(3), 257–269 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trochim, W.M.K.: An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval. Program Plan. 12(1), 1–16 (1989a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trochim, W.M.K.: Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Eval. Program Plan. 12(1), 355–366 (1989b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trochim, W.M.K., Cabrera, D.: The complexity of concept mapping for policy analysis. Emergence 7(1), 11–22 (2005)Google Scholar
  56. Trochim, W., Linton, R.: Conceptualization for evaluation and planning. Eval. Program Plan. 9, 289–308 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams, B., Hummelbrunner, R.: Systems concepts in action: a practitioner’s toolkit. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2011)Google Scholar
  58. Yoo, Y., Kanawattanachai, P.: Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 9(2), 187–208 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concept Systems, Inc.IthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations