Editorial: "The Meaning of Concept Analysis" i

Nursing Science Quarterly (NSQ)

 

 

This editorial, "The Meaning of Concept Analysis" is open access and concerns an academic activity that is 'bread and butter' in nursing theory. It is well worth reading, for students too.

"The purpose of this editorial is to clarify the meanings of the term concept and analysis and to offer some guidelines that show what is appropriate for publication of concept analyses."

 

The editorial is helpful in encouraging the effort here, even as it suggests I would be wasting my time, the editor's and referees (although quarterly has a certain appeal).

 

 

The journal's role and purpose is clearly described:

"Nursing Science Quarterly is unique in that it is the only journal devoted exclusively to the enhancement of nursing knowledge. Only Nursing Science Quarterly publishes original manuscripts focusing on nursing theory development, nursing theory-based practice and quantitative and qualitative research related to existing nursing frameworks, contributed by the leading theorists, researchers and nurse executives. including nurse theory development."

I've enjoyed the freedom here, on the periphery of academia. Afraid at the same time that this 'h2cm' obsession has, will ... impact my objectivity, subjectivity - by way of attitudes, openness and view within and without of nursing, in theory, practice and management. Added to being able to carry the weight that is nursing (responsibility). The load is made-up of history, the legacies, the global academic balance (or not), the current global state of the profession, the fight for professional recognition and more. All rolled-up, and rolled-out when the challenges of the 21st century warrant it. Yes, the future is always - out there.

Concepts are key in Hodges' model, as a conceptual framework, as a series of conceptual spaces, as domains for threshold concepts and much more. I think I'm struggling now, as I always have in giving 'a' concept my critical attention, and its being in uniform. Concepts are always 'seen' as a gestalt. This may explain why I'm not an academic and definitely not a professional philosopher. The editorial notes:

"Examples of some analyses of concrete concepts that would not contribute to discipline-specific nursing knowledge and therefore are not worthy of publication include nursing overtime, nursing shortage, cultural competencies, medical diagnoses, precision health, big data, sensor technology, health economics, omics, and symptom science, among others."

I have mapped these concepts to Hodges' model below (underlined), and added in italics some associated concepts:

 

 

 INDIVIDUAL

|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

psychiatric diagnosis data ethics [person-al] symptom science [here] person-centered care / health emotional/spiritual intelligence	medical diagnoses, precision health, big data sensor technology, omics, and symptom science procedure x,y,z - cost $$$
cultural competencies social prescribing health literacy public understanding of sciences	nursing overtime nursing shortage nursing crisis? data ethics [COP15] outcomes - patient safety information governance health economics

As an exercise you may like to consider the following, as relates to the care - knowledge domains of Hodges' model?

"For the discipline of nursing (which includes the extant theories and frameworks) appropriate analyses of abstract concepts that contribute to the advancement of discipline-specific knowledge include self-care, wellness, well-being, self-esteem, courage, trust, burden, comfort, resilience, betrayal, shame, and authentic presence, among others."

Along with the concern about my preoccupation with Hodges' model, every time I type reflection, reflective practice - it hurts. It feels like another form of navel gazing, and yet the need for reflection, and reflective practitioners, producing critical thinkers and reflective practitioners is recognised world-wide.

I can't help but get a sense that concept analysis is nurse's navel gazing. If I sound critical, it would be a greater problem if this was the view of others outside nursing? Maybe, this point itself, validates the production of discipline-specific knowledge for nursing? I can't escape though, the feeling that there is something limiting, narrowing, even apolitical here: (Is there a global nursing crisis)? There has been much needed conceptual work on race, justice, gender, equality [google 'concept analysis, ...']. I realise my expansive approach can - and does - fall dead from the press. If I can blame the Atlantic, then I hope that pluralism still has a role to play?

 

Parse concludes:

"Nurse researchers and emerging scholars should answer four questions before launching a concept analysis that could be worthy of publications.

1. Is the concept an abstract expression to illuminate the essences that can contribute to nursing knowledge development?

2. Is the conception critical to the advancement of discipline-specific knowledge?

3. Which extant concept analysis model is appropriate for this concept?

4. Will this concept analysis be worthy of publication in light of its level of abstraction and possible contribution to nursing science?"

In the 21st Century concept analysis will have its place, being key in philosophy, linguistics, ethics, law, artificial intelligence ... and yes, nursing too. But increasingly I think the true power of concepts (in theory, practice, management, policy) is found when they are related and conjoined.* 

More to follow ... then silence ... for a time ...

Parse RR. The Meaning of Concept Analysis. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2023;36(1):5-5. doi:10.1177/08943184221131957

*To state the obvious.

Review: vi Kinchin's Visualising Powerful Knowledge to Develop the Expert Student

I have had a look at CMAP Tools over the years. My not actually using this software is an omission I must admit.. This year I will give CMAP a concerted try (and a review)?

My notes at the end of chapter 5 include: from bedside manner to fireside with regard to well-being. I think this was prompted by the conclusion students developing expertise (knowledge structures) not just as part of the curriculum, but motivation to extend their knowledge to "integrate characteristics of their future profession within their current studies" (p.84). My thought points to an increasing challenge to the 'professions' that governing bodies must be acutely mindful of, but also sustains and expands the space for non-professional experts - hence the 'fireside'. In mental health were lived experience continues to be pathologised and governments look to economise (professional rates of pay) this really brings home the future agenda.

Chapter 6 "Embedding Wider Theory" begins with a timeline from the 1960s that identifies key steps in theories, software conferences and journals (p.87).

By default Hodges' model can help transcend differences in terminology and make the links and overlap between the theories of Ausubel (in Psychology) and Bernstein (sociology, p.89). Diagrams being used to depict their respective work and support a more holistic view (my wording). Threshold Concepts are introduced (pp.89-92) and the discussion that follows of semantic gravity is a great insight (pp.93-100) together with the idea of punctuated learning. Perhaps the latter is also assisted by having a conceptual Swiss army knife ready-to-hand for when a burst (a step) of learning is initiated? There are many quotes here that I might return to later in the year.

As a student previously and mentor feedback is central and chapter 7 builds on chapter 6 and continues a call for change in feedback on learning AND teaching. 'Recipience' is stressed with its own section (pp.111-12); students may bemoan a lack of feedback but when provided do they engage with it? The book is rich throughout including this chapter and chapter 8 (final). As already noted an index would help, but I'm still bound to consider the related titles.

These posts have been text heavy, but for illustration purposes, the pièce de résistance is figure 44 on page 124:

Figure 44, page 124

I wonder if there is a common model that can act as a generic structure for readers and students disciplinary AND experiential knowledge structures?


Roland Tormey (2014) The centre cannot hold: untangling two different trajectories of the ‘approaches to learning’ framework, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:1, 1-12.
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827648

Novak, J.D. and Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 48: 3–11.

Kinchin, I., (2016) Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Many thanks to Brill for the review copy:

https://brill.com/view/title/37823

BRILL  | Plantijnstraat 2 | 2321 JC Leiden | The Netherlands
BRILL  | P.O. Box 9000 | 2300 PA Leiden | The Netherlands


See also:

Intro post

Review One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Review: v Kinchin's Visualising Powerful Knowledge to Develop the Expert Student

Still just in chapter 4 'Presenting the Curriculum'...

Threshold concepts are mentioned on page 57 but not explained (as yet).

There is interesting discussion of students being able to navigate their subjects. On levels of discourse and the role of textbooks. What do textbooks do? What do they not do?

I know this 'review' is a selective reading with my eye on Hodges' model, but the 'evidence' to support #h2cm really stands out. For example, on page 60, the curriculum as a political currency. So informative that I am looking forward to teaching opportunities in the Spring and the possibility of delivering a workshop in the autumn. Tufte is referenced in discussion on Powerpoint, bullet points and the form of notes. Powerpoint is also contrasted with concept mapping, as an affordance for learning.

At the heart of the book Chapter 5 'The Expert Student' is subtitled 'The Need to Manipulate Knowledge'. This gets to nub of the 'traditional' approach to much teaching, the regurgitation of facts. Figure 28, a concept map (of course), suggests and illustrates the dichotomy between competence (chains) and understanding (nets) but these together can make both learning and teaching a fluid, dynamic and rewarding experience (p.74). This is effectively what follows in models of expertise that also addresses the theory practice gap (p.76).

Kinchin's main point for me and what I've been aware of for too many years on W2tQ is that it is the knowledge connections between concepts that are more important than the concepts themselves (p.77). C/o Elvira et al. (2016), ten interrelated instructional principle for expertise development are listed (pp.76-79) and bear specific analysis here (including the content of Hodges' model within a new web environment - how I wish...!).

There's mention of a 'conceptual spine' which is great to read (p.83) but I think the challenge of education and the 21st Century calls for at least two [ Why settle for one! ;-) ]. The concept of 'resilience' is over-used of late (especially in mental health) and is diminished as a consequence. Perhaps, however a call for conceptual resilience AND assurance is very appropriate (testing this resilience is learning)?

'Moving between knowledge structures', that is, theory and practice should be an inevitable experience for students in their learning. Kinchin writes specifically on this with figures to match. On twitter of late (yes, my @h2cm 'bubble') there have been many tweets expressing concern about not just nurse recruitment and retention but student's too. Kinchin notes: "When students are interested or excited with the curriculum they are more likely to develop other positive emotions." (p.83). As I write this a New Year refresh is upon us. I have a template for Hodges' model pre-populated with content that doubtless needs updating. But with every new situation and patient encounter, there is a refresh, new learning to be sought with the patient/carer.

To be completed (but don't wait for me get your own copy!) ;-)

Roland Tormey (2014) The centre cannot hold: untangling two different trajectories of the ‘approaches to learning’ framework, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:1, 1-12.
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827648

Novak, J.D. and Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 48: 3–11.

Kinchin, I., (2016) Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

See also:

Intro post

Review One

Two

Three

Four

Six

Thanks to Brill for my review copy.

Review: iv Kinchin's Visualising Powerful Knowledge to Develop the Expert Student

It seems there is no escape from 'learning styles'. Just when you thought they are dated and defunct like a Whac-A-Mole up they pop.

Here on serialists and holist - 'big picture' learners (p.37). Kinchin writes:

"Like the deep-surface binary, the holist-serialist dichotomy covers a diversity of perspectives, details of which can be analysed using concept mapping. Concept maps provide an indicator of a student's learning approach for a given context. Raynor and Riding (1997:21) have speculated that:

"The idea that 'style awareness' may help reach reach the 'hard to reach', and perhaps contribute to reducing failure generally by enhancing the learning process, is an elusive but tantalising prospect which clearly merits further attention.' (p.37)

Kinchin cites research on the influence of existing knowledge on learning. How students may simultaneously hold misconceptions and more acceptable (professional) conceptions. Perhaps a way to resolve the learning styles 'debate' is to have tools that can potentially cater for all learning styles? The chapter heading 'Patterns of Learning' points to other requirements, especially in respect of personal learning journeys. As Kinchin discusses conceptual ecologies. This is a very appropriate description for what Hodges' model provides (p.38); and a gestalt (p.43). The domains encourage 'travel' and exploration, as the student formulates a "cycle of concepts" (within one, or around several domains) a means to help integrate a context or situation. The domains of Hodges' model act as placeholders for several concepts simultaneously, whether contentious or not (p.38) or as a source of  'troublesome knowledge'." (p.37).

I've been drawn to Dewey and pragmatism in educational thought, given the accent on a natural and active approach to learning. Chapter 4 moves to Presenting the Curriculum (subtitle: hiding the discipline from view). This surely speaks to the interdisciplinary, interprofessional nature of education in the 21st Century and even the increasing instances(?) when transdisciplinary approaches are needed? Hodges' model predates Project 2000 and the shift of UK nurse education to degree pathways. Mid 1980s the model was created to facilitate curriculum design and Kinchin sees concept maps as evidencing curriculum design and a means to communicate design, communication and implementation.

Four reasons for use of concept maps in relation to curriculum design - summarised here:

1. Concepts maps support 'big picture thinking'. ...
2. Concept maps are embedded in contructivist learning theory ...
3. Concept maps support collaborative planning ...
4. Concept maps reduce the 'cognitive load' placed on teachers* ... (p.54).

I like to the emphasis in this book on structure. The concept maps - learning patterns and curricula, knowledge and very well referenced. 'Cumulative learning' could refer to cramming, committing facts to memory for regurgitation, but it doesn't. It is about student's "understandings integrate and subsume with previous knowledge, or 'segmented learning' where new ideas or skills are accumulated alongside rather than build on past knowledge." (p.55).

Not quite the center of the book, but page 56 introduces a key concept (in Chapter 7) in semantic gravity.

*This came up a lot generally - students too - within educational technology in MRES studies at University of Lancaster.

to be continued...

Roland Tormey (2014) The centre cannot hold: untangling two different trajectories of the ‘approaches to learning’ framework, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:1, 1-12.
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827648

Novak, J.D. and Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 48: 3–11.

Kinchin, I., (2016) Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

See also:

Intro post

Review One

Two

Three

Five

Six

Thanks to Brill for my review copy.

Review: iii Kinchin's Visualising Powerful Knowledge to Develop the Expert Student

Also aimed at general as well as readers in education, this is an accessible read. The book's compact size, eight chapters across 134 pages invites completion even though I took quite a few weeks.

Book reviews here are a bit 'unconventional' with the two axes I have to grind [ ;-) ]. Returning to chapter 2 momentarily and map topography. Kinchin explains how concept maps of various types can be better understood and evaluated - a process of 'topological normalisation' (p.27). On W2tQ I may sound like 'I have it in' for process and processes. I do, in the importance they seem to assume within project management. I do 'get this'. A focus on processes is inevitable and readily appreciated in Hodges' model.

No process then ... no time, sequences, events, change, movement, spatial references and so on ... Kinchin's inclusion of  'topological normalisation' is very constructive (imho) as it indicates a method (as with measuring concept maps) and suggests something beyond an algorithmic approach.

The phrase (inevitably?) reminded me of database normalization:

".. the process of structuring a relational database."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization

So, topological normalisation and associated structures provides the icing.

Little wonder then that next up in chapter Kinchin's Table 1 lists the characteristics of

'Deep Learning' and 'Shallow Learning'

So cake and icing clearly.

On deep learning the first item is ''Linking new information with prior knowledge'. This is central in Hodges' model and the reflection (individual or group) and critical thinking that the model can help generate. With all the claims for VR AR, this (reflection / reflective practice facilitated by Hodges' model) is conceptually immersive (and a definition of learning?).

From this, another item is realised. As learners engage with content; find, 'own' and sustain their enthusiasm for their learning, understanding and the subjects and parts of the curriculum they find themselves learning within. The sum total is: structured networks of knowledge (p.36).

This gets even better with the subheading: 'Oppositional Binaries'.

Hodges' model provides two binaries - but (apologies - another time!) let's get back to the book.

While 'Deep learning' has its advocates, Kinchin quotes Tormey (2014:4) who warns:

'a framework that is simple enough to be a powerful metaphor may be too simple to adequately account for learning in different contexts' and that its blind acceptance by new entrants to the profession has 'imposed blinkers that make alternative conceptualisations invisible'.

Finding further evidence to support Hodges' model within this debate is invaluable.

to be continued...

Roland Tormey (2014) The centre cannot hold: untangling two different trajectories of the ‘approaches to learning’ framework, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:1, 1-12.
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827648

Novak, J.D. and Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 48: 3–11.

Kinchin, I., (2016) Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

See also:

Intro post

Review One

... Two

... Four

... Five

... Six

Many thanks to Brill for my review copy.

Review: ii Kinchin's Visualising Powerful Knowledge to Develop the Expert Student

Kinchin makes the point early on that if teaching relies on a linear, rote approach then the talked of experiential learning from life experience and the student's developing knowledge structures are rendered irrelevant (p.16 and figure 5).

Hodges' model is a metacognitive tool so any future research could call upon constructivist methodology. Kinchin describes Novak's (1993) summary of constructivist epistemology as "the belief that from birth to senescence or death, individuals continually construct and reconstruct the meaning of events and objects they observe." (p.16). There are three key assertions behind this:

1. human beings are meaning-makers;
2. the goal of education is the construction of shared meanings;
3. and shared meanings may be facilitated by the active intervention of well-prepared teachers.

It is easy to see how this sequence can contribute to active teaching and learning. This resonates with Hodges' model too (inevitably - yes really!). In the model's title:

Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model

The 'health career' is not career, as in jobs and work. 'Health career' is drawn from the idea of  'life chances'. In combination or isolation the knowledge (care) domains of Hodges' model can capture the potential range of concepts, events and objects that might be encountered by a student - lifelong learner. Hodges' model can even preempt birth if needed, incorporating epigenetic factors, the stress and trauma associated and experienced with conflict, forced migration of mother's to-be; ethical, spiritual and religious matters also.

The student's network of concepts, for example, on a first clinical placement may be rudimentary, but informed by experience in the family of a particular illness perhaps. The concepts they grasp-for initially may be rather broad, lay-terms but this is were the well-prepared teachers and mentors come into play. Kinchin refers to epistemological resonance between the curriculum and the concept mapping tool.

Can Hodges' model really facilitate both? That would be quite an educational coup surely?

A definition of  'concept' by Novak and Carnas (2007) is one to reference (pp.16-17). The definition is sufficiently broad so as to apply to all disciplines and subject areas.

In constructing concept maps Kinchin begins with a proto-map. These are produced through brainstorming to create what colleagues refer to as 'a parking lot of concepts'. From these concepts the most important concept is identified which leads to a focus question and root concept. This frames the resulting concept map. This reminds me of Tony Buzan's approach. There are marked differences and there may be merit in further future reflection (study) as Kinchin also suggests through the steps described.

Chains of prepositions are also formulated with the links between concepts following depending on the context. For example, STUDENTS--;LECTURES could be linked meaning Students should attend Lectures. The meaning could be that Students are bored in Lectures (p.18). The examples of concept maps are clear, readily followed and relevant for all students, biology and nursing students especially. The importance of constructing the links between concepts is stressed: the need for the links to help the map move from the descriptive to the explanatory. Chapter 2 is devoted to applying concept mapping. In the past I recall researchers in cognitive linguistics, nlp - natural language processing, expert systems, neural networks and artificial intelligence research being described as either 'hard' or 'fuzzy'.

Sources are provided for the dynamic relationships "as those which establish implication, functional interdependence and covariation among the concepts" (p.19). In concept maps these imply "movement, action and change".  The explanation of constructing maps and links hints at the amount of mentalising involved. I will return to this mentalising in a future (standalone) post. Kinchin's glue is referenced through Miller and Canas (2008) who differentiate between static, non-causative dynamic and causative dynamic relationships with helpful examples (p.20). I suspect that as a process this is achieved in parallel. In developing the concept maps Kinchin points out how initially the process involves something akin to brainstorming (p.22). I realise in reading this that as presented here on #W2tQ I have sold Hodges' model short, as the links between concepts are missing.

I like the formality that is not just implied but is explicit in terms of having metrics for assessment purposes, to measure the quality of concepts maps. The closing section of chapter 2 (p.26) explains and illustrates map topography. The feature of dynamism in a concept map becomes a property that can be measured. How is the quality of a concept map determined? What constitutes a good concept map, in contrast to poor? Chapter 2 points to the prospect of something tangible as Kinchin (2014) has sought to address weaknesses in the literature (pp.30-31). This is very good. Good because these questions are applicable to Hodges' model also.

to be continued...

Novak, J.D. and Symington, D.J. (1982) Concept mapping for curriculum development. Victoria Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 48: 3–11.

Kinchin, I., (2016) Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

See also:

Intro post

Review One

Three

Four

Five

Six

Thanks to Brill for my review copy.

Papers 2 study: The longitudinal effect of concept map teaching on critical thinking of nursing students

Lee, Weillie; Chiang, Chi-Hua; Liao, I-Chen; Lee, Mei-Li; Chen, Shiah-Lian; Liang, Tienli (2013) The longitudinal effect of concept map teaching on critical thinking of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, Vol.33(10), pp.1219-1223.

From the summary (with my emphasis):

... The intervention of concept map teaching was given at the second semester in the Medical–Surgical Nursing course. The results of the findings revealed student started with a mean critical thinking score of 41.32 and decreased at a rate of 0.42 over time, although not significant. After controlling for individual characteristics, the final model revealed that the experimental group gained a higher critical thinking score across time than the control group. The best predictive variables of initial status in critical thinking were without clinical experience and a higher pre-test score. The growth in critical thinking was predicted best by a lower pre-test score, and lower scores on surface approach and organized study. Our study suggested that concept map is a useful teaching strategy to enhance student critical thinking.

Reading: From A to <A> Keywords of Markup

On the way to Colombia I started to read this book in order to review it - more on that to follow. I've only read four chapters so far and it is a fascinating read. A collection of essays each deals with a particular HTML tag and each so far provides new insights for me and resources.

When I came across the invitation for reviewers I read through the index. HTML 5 was not there so I thought the book might suffer from the rate of change in the interval from original conception to publication. Well HTML 5 is not in the index (just HTML), but it is in the text. Drupal and Ruby on Rails also get a mention.

Of particular interest is chapter 4 'alt' by Colleen A. Reilly which combines accessibility and definitions of disability.

I'll start writing the review soon for the Journal of Community Informatics trying to be more concise than previous efforts (I volunteered to learn too). As for W2tQ I've already found several interesting quotes too, such as the example below. This struck me because it's possible to describe h2cm as a keyword collage ...

<A> evokes collagist writings, "interesting networks that open up a conceptual map" McLuhan (258).
Indeed, collage often is the focus of this type of educational/digital education or writing that asks students to merge texts and ideas. <A>, as a social space, though, is not a collage. As a network, <A> builds relationships while also becoming relationships. To enact a pedagogy of <A>, I have to imagine a social software logic as opposed to connection or merging among things. That logic is not bound to a specific platform, such as the Web, but instead informs institutional practices through the generation of large-scale spaces.p.61.

Call for Maps: Mapping Science Exhibit, 7th Iteration on "Science Maps as Visual Interfaces to Digital Libraries" (2011)

Background and Goals

The Places & Spaces: Mapping Science exhibit was created to inspire cross-disciplinary discussion on how to best track and communicate human activity and scientific progress on a global scale. It has two components: (1) physical exhibits enable the close inspection of high quality reproductions of maps for display at conferences and education centers and (2) the online counterpart (http://scimaps.org) provides links to a selected series of maps and their makers along with detailed explanations of how these maps work.

Places & Spaces is a 10-year effort. Each year, 10 new maps are added, which will result in 100 maps total in 2014. Each iteration of the exhibit attempts to learn from the best examples of visualization design. To accomplish this goal, each iteration compares and contrasts four existing maps with six new maps of science. Themes for the different iterations/years are:

  * 1st Iteration (2005): The Power of Maps
  * 2nd Iteration (2006): The Power of Reference Systems
  * 3rd Iteration (2007): The Power of Forecasts
  * 4th Iteration (2008): Science Maps for Economic Decision Makers
  * 5th Iteration (2009): Science Maps for Science Policy Makers
  * 6th Iteration (2010): Science Maps for Scholars
  * 7th Iteration (2011): Science Maps as Visual Interfaces to Digital Libraries
  * 8th Iteration (2012): Science Maps for Kids
  * 9th Iteration (2013): Science Maps for Daily Science Forecasts
  * 10th Iteration (2014): Telling Lies With Science Maps

Places & Spaces was first shown at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers in April 2005. Since then, the physical exhibit has been displayed at more than 175 venues in over 15 countries, including eleven in Europe, plus Japan, China, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. A schedule of all display locations can be found at http://scimaps.org/exhibitions

Submission Details

The 7th iteration of the Mapping Science exhibit is devoted to science maps that serve as visual interfaces to digital libraries. These maps might communicate the

  * quality and coverage of data sets,
  * the structure (ontology, taxonomy, classification hierarchy) of data sets,
  * (semantic) linkages between data sets,
  * the evolution of a data set, or
  * access and usage patterns of data sets.

They are intended to support the navigation, management, and utilization of mankind’s scholarly knowledge and to make it more readily available to researchers, educators, industry, policy makers and/or the general public.

We invite maps that show a visual rendering of a dataset together with a legend, textual description, and acknowledgements as required to interpret the map. Science map dimensions can be abstract, geographical, or feature-based, but are typically richer than simple x, y plots. Scientific knowledge can be used to generate a reference system over which other data, e.g., funding opportunities or job openings, are overlaid or be projected onto another reference system, e.g., a map of the world, but must be prominently featured.


Each initial entry must be submitted by Jan 30th, 2011 and needs to include:

  * Low resolution version of map
  * Title of work
  * Author(s) name, email address, affiliation, mailing address
  * Copyright holder (if different from authors)
  * Description of work: Scholarly needs addressed, data used, data analysis, visualization techniques applied, and main insights gained (100-300 words)
  * References to publications in which the map appeared
  * Links to related projects/works

Entries should be submitted via email to the curators of the exhibit: Katy Börne (katy at indiana.edu) and the exhibit designer Michael J. Stamper (mstamper at indiana.edu) using the email subject header “Mapping Science Entry”.

Please feel free to send any questions you might have regarding the judging process to Katy Börner (katy at indiana.edu). Please keep subject header (as used here).

This call - with additional details -  is also available at http://scimaps.org/call

Nursing Times and mind mapping: All my slides are packed, I'm ready to go...

This Saturday I leave for the Society for Philosophy and Technology Conference in Charleston, SC. Still awaiting news regards funding with £200 gratefully received thus far.

I'm really looking forward to this, not just being able to contribute, but listening to the other presentations. Must admit that after the weather here in the UK, warmer climes will be most welcome.

The past week's Nursing Times included a feature on mind mapping in research. I haven't checked the full paper, but in NT noticed two references to Buzan (1997 and 2003).

I'm keen to differentiate h2cm from mind mapping, even though of course there are a lot of similarities.

I wonder if Hodges' model gets a mention in the full paper? If not then of course other people realise h2cm isn't about mind mapping!

The reason why I ask (beyond the obvious) is that for many people models of nursing are old-hat. When were they really in fashion? The 80s...

When did Buzan's mind mapping arrive? I think 'Use your Head' aired on TV in the 70s, early 80s...? My Library thing includes books written by Buzan in the 80s and one or two from the 70s.

Maybe it really is time to move on?

So looking forward to the (relaunch of) semantic web Community too!

What is a 'domain'?

With visitors to the website confusing the title Hodges' Health Career Model for job careers; the addition of 'Care Domains' was intended to reduce confusion.

I think this has helped, but because the future beckons and this blog plus the website appear to have a multidisciplinary readership more clarity may be of help, especially the use of this word 'domain'.

The dictionary is a good place to start:

do·main

1. A territory over which rule or control is exercised.
2. A sphere of activity, concern, or function; a field: the domain of history. See synonyms at field.
3. Physics. Any of numerous contiguous regions in a ferromagnetic material in which the direction of spontaneous magnetization is uniform and different from that in neighboring regions.
4. Law.
a) The land of one with paramount title and absolute ownership.
b) Public domain.
5. Mathematics.
a) The set of all possible values of an independent variable of a function.
b) An open connected set that contains at least one point.
6. Biology. Any of three primary divisions of living systems, consisting of the eukaryotes, bacteria, and archaea, that rank above a kingdom in taxonomic systems that are based on similarities of DNA sequences.
7. Computer Science. A group of networked computers that share a common communications address.
[Source: Answers.com]

1. A territory over which rule or control is exercised: can apply in Hodges' model from a theoretic perspective by a curriculum, a scheme of work, and consequently in practice. We refer to the clinical domain, medical domain or social domain. This latter usage overlaps with 2. we often speak of fields of study and practice.

Place (territory) is the vital ingredient here; specific wards, clinics, treatment centres and even community may be described as a domain of care. The way 'domain' is used in day-to-day language may vary markedly. On some occasions the domain in question may be at an even higher level: clinical domain versus management domain.

3. Is interesting because although they are not exactly magnetic, there are several polarities* at work in Hodges' model.

On the borders between Hodges' domains, what is the 'switch' (context, situation, person focus ...) that determines the placement and direction of care concepts: for example - humanistic or mechanistic?

Sticking with physics there are undoubtedly several chaotic attractors within the bounds of Hodges' model. From the behaviour of the heart to the role of psychosocial stress in risk of relapse. If several variables are linked chaotically, what risks are run if one or more domains (however defined) are deemed non-relevant or out of scope?

4. This legalistic definition of 'domain' also applies. Hodges' model is person-centred, but although focused on the individual the model acknowledges the need to reconcile the diametric opposition that is the law that prevails for the one [INTERPERSONAL] and the law, justice and systems of the many [SOCIAL] and [POLITICAL].

Hodges' model is also in the public 'domain' all that is needed is an acknowledgement.

The remaining definitions 5, 6 and 7 - maths, biology and computer science - are all connected.

The connection?

Language?

More to follow.... Hope to return over the weekend...
*Will post about polarities, when I take a certain photo over in Manchester.
Just hope they don't pull it down before I get there! Bye for now...