Situational mapping
(→Introduction) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Situational mapping is a situational analysis (SA) tool developed by the American sociologist Adele E. Clarke as an extension of another socioligical analysis theory called "Grounded Theory" (GT). GT was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’ back in 1967, when they published "The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research"<ref name="Glaser & Strauss"/>. It is possible, that some may already know, that GT is a '''qualitative''' social research methodolgy that can be accomodated when trying to understand and analyse imperical data. The method uses the inductive reasoning framework, which seeks to formulate a theory based on the actual data rather than having a set of theories and models fit the data (deductive reasoning)<ref name="Boolsen"/>. Theory that blossoms from the collected data is more likely to be true and look like the real world, compared to theory that stems from experiences and speculations of how one believes things should be<ref name="Boolsen"/>. Adele E. Clarke was a student of the two and had therefore worked with GT for a long period of time before she in 2005 published the book: "Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after the Postmodern Turn"<ref name="Clarke">. | Situational mapping is a situational analysis (SA) tool developed by the American sociologist Adele E. Clarke as an extension of another socioligical analysis theory called "Grounded Theory" (GT). GT was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’ back in 1967, when they published "The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research"<ref name="Glaser & Strauss"/>. It is possible, that some may already know, that GT is a '''qualitative''' social research methodolgy that can be accomodated when trying to understand and analyse imperical data. The method uses the inductive reasoning framework, which seeks to formulate a theory based on the actual data rather than having a set of theories and models fit the data (deductive reasoning)<ref name="Boolsen"/>. Theory that blossoms from the collected data is more likely to be true and look like the real world, compared to theory that stems from experiences and speculations of how one believes things should be<ref name="Boolsen"/>. Adele E. Clarke was a student of the two and had therefore worked with GT for a long period of time before she in 2005 published the book: "Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after the Postmodern Turn"<ref name="Clarke">. | ||
| − | In her book Adele E. Clarke put forwards three main situational maps; "Situational maps", "Social Worlds/arenas maps" and "Positional maps" (the lather being a strategy for plotting positions articulated and not articulated in discourses, which is not covered in this article). With these, Clarke articulates a different way of codifying the imperical data which instead becomes much more visual drawing parallels to another theoretical framework used in qualitative researh, namely Actor-network theory (ANT) <ref name="Elgaard"/>. Although, these two framework come very close to describing many of the same elements and mechanism in a social context, the difference lies in the nature of the focus and scope of the analysis. While SA seeks to develop a theory of the social context<ref name="Clarke">, ANT is more concerned with the broader view of the creation and maintenance of socio-technical networks<ref name="Elgaard"/>. In the context of project, program and portfolio management, it is relevant to set aside their differences, as these are mainly rooted in the study domain and not so much of the practicalities of the methodology. | + | In her book Adele E. Clarke put forwards three main situational maps; "Situational maps", "Social Worlds/arenas maps" and "Positional maps" (the lather being a strategy for plotting positions articulated and not articulated in discourses, which is not covered in this article). With these, Clarke articulates a different way of codifying the imperical data which instead becomes much more visual drawing parallels to another theoretical framework used in qualitative researh, namely Actor-network theory (ANT) <ref name="Elgaard"/>. Although, these two framework come very close to describing many of the same elements and mechanism in a social context, the difference lies in the nature of the focus and scope of the analysis. While SA seeks to develop a theory of the social context<ref name="Clarke"/>, ANT is more concerned with the broader view of the creation and maintenance of socio-technical networks<ref name="Elgaard"/>. In the context of project, program and portfolio management, it is relevant to set aside their differences, as these are mainly rooted in the study domain and not so much of the practicalities of the methodology. |
In reality, it becomes even clearer to what extend the two line of thoughts cross paths with eachother, when Clarke mentions the notion of Social worlds/Arenas maps as the second "situational map". Evidently, the construction of Social worlds and Arenas maps is closely linked to the theories of Actor Worlds <ref name="Callon"/> and Development Arenas articulated in ANT, given the founding theories, being GT and ANT their ''spatial'' aspect respectively. | In reality, it becomes even clearer to what extend the two line of thoughts cross paths with eachother, when Clarke mentions the notion of Social worlds/Arenas maps as the second "situational map". Evidently, the construction of Social worlds and Arenas maps is closely linked to the theories of Actor Worlds <ref name="Callon"/> and Development Arenas articulated in ANT, given the founding theories, being GT and ANT their ''spatial'' aspect respectively. | ||
Revision as of 12:18, 9 May 2023
Abstract
Whenever a project, program or portfolio is conducted it is oftentimes with the intention of changing the status quo of the current situation. It is therefore not so irrelevant to know what the situation is and what impact the offered change (a so-called translation) in the status quo will have on the situation. Any given situation consists (for the most parts) of the same elements; human and non-human, material and symbolic/discursive elements as framed by those in it and the analyst [1] The "human" element is everything human related and can in relation to PPPM best be described as "stakeholders". Knowing stakeholders and their relation to the situation is important but to understand all elements of the situation is even more important. By knowing the other elements of the situation a project/program manager can mitigate even more risks and uncertainties that are dwelling in the complexity of their activities.
Situational mapping is an analytical tool and a prerequisite to another situational analysis tool Development Arena[2][1], when used can give a better understanding of the situation the project or program is trying to change. Situational mapping consists of three different maps; Messy map, Ordered map and Relation map. The maps can be worked with in a chronological order with the last being the relational map or all three maps can be worked with simultaniously, if the time frame allows for greater abstraction. As one goes through the steps of analyising the situation with the three maps the important aspects becomes clearer and subsequently the different actors "human" or "non human" each with their unique relationship to eachother or maybe the same "common concern", "commitment to action" or "shared objects" will form based on these three into "Actor Worlds" [3] and then eventually they will start to populate the Development Arena[2].
Situational mapping can be seen as an advanced stakeholder analysis where not only the stakeholders are populating the arena but literally everything else that can have a sizeable impact on the project, program or portfolio is mapped a nd accounted for.
Introduction
Prior to delving into the methods of situational mapping, it is imperative to know and understand how the method came to be, as this establish the basis for the acknowledgement of the tool.
Situational mapping is a situational analysis (SA) tool developed by the American sociologist Adele E. Clarke as an extension of another socioligical analysis theory called "Grounded Theory" (GT). GT was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’ back in 1967, when they published "The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research"[4]. It is possible, that some may already know, that GT is a qualitative social research methodolgy that can be accomodated when trying to understand and analyse imperical data. The method uses the inductive reasoning framework, which seeks to formulate a theory based on the actual data rather than having a set of theories and models fit the data (deductive reasoning)[5]. Theory that blossoms from the collected data is more likely to be true and look like the real world, compared to theory that stems from experiences and speculations of how one believes things should be[5]. Adele E. Clarke was a student of the two and had therefore worked with GT for a long period of time before she in 2005 published the book: "Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after the Postmodern Turn"Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
