Situational mapping
(→Introduction) |
(→Introduction) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
== Situational maps - a precursor for the Development Arena == | == Situational maps - a precursor for the Development Arena == | ||
| − | As it is reasoned in the introduction, the SA framework of situational mapping can be used together with the Development Arena framework to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a complex social situation. Situational mapping provides the necessary starting point for analysing the situation, while the development arena only then can provide the broader framework for understanding the context of the elements in which that situation is taking place. Situational mapping consists of three different maps, these are the top three in the list below. The fourth on the list is not a map persay but instead a concept for which the two frameworks (Situatinal mappnig and development arena) are bridged together. The concept is called ''actor worlds'' or ''social worlds''<ref name="Clarke"> (as Clarke frames it). | + | As it is reasoned in the introduction, the SA framework of situational mapping can be used together with the Development Arena framework to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a complex social situation. Situational mapping provides the necessary starting point for analysing the situation, while the development arena only then can provide the broader framework for understanding the context of the elements in which that situation is taking place. Situational mapping consists of three different maps, these are the top three in the list below. The fourth on the list is not a map persay but instead a concept for which the two frameworks (Situatinal mappnig and development arena) are bridged together. The concept is called ''actor worlds'' or ''social worlds''<ref name="Clarke"/> (as Clarke frames it). |
# Messy Map | # Messy Map | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
=== Situatinal Mapping Part 1: Messy Map === | === Situatinal Mapping Part 1: Messy Map === | ||
| − | The ''messy map''<ref name="Clarke"> is the first part of the situational mapping tool (see fig. 1). The principle with the messy map is to identify and also define different types of elements both human (individuals and groups) and non-human (objects, discourses, issues etc.). It feels much like a brainstorming activity, which is exactly what it is suppose to. It is also not the objective of the mapping to finish it but rather the process of the mapping itself, which is what makes up the analytical results. It is however important to keep this part of the analysis ''messy'', as one may feel reluctant to order and structure the empirical data from the get go. if one were to order the data as it came into light, the ''usual suspects'' of elements could obstruct and impair the field of view of other elements or how the elements act. When engaging in the situational mapping, one could argue, that the first thing to overcome is the cribbling anxiety, that the chaos and mess the first map encourage one to do. It does make it easier, that the name of the map itself is 'messy map' and that chaos is preferable and it is the sheer premis of the map, that elements may vary in the level of abstraction<ref name="Harders"/>. | + | The ''messy map''<ref name="Clarke"/> is the first part of the situational mapping tool (see fig. 1). The principle with the messy map is to identify and also define different types of elements both human (individuals and groups) and non-human (objects, discourses, issues etc.). It feels much like a brainstorming activity, which is exactly what it is suppose to. It is also not the objective of the mapping to finish it but rather the process of the mapping itself, which is what makes up the analytical results. It is however important to keep this part of the analysis ''messy'', as one may feel reluctant to order and structure the empirical data from the get go. if one were to order the data as it came into light, the ''usual suspects'' of elements could obstruct and impair the field of view of other elements or how the elements act. When engaging in the situational mapping, one could argue, that the first thing to overcome is the cribbling anxiety, that the chaos and mess the first map encourage one to do. It does make it easier, that the name of the map itself is 'messy map' and that chaos is preferable and it is the sheer premis of the map, that elements may vary in the level of abstraction<ref name="Harders"/>. |
With the ''messy map'' every conceivable thing related to the situation can be put down, but to make the tool even more applicable to new users, the list below should give some ideas to what these elements might be and what to look for in imperical data one has gathered about the situation. | With the ''messy map'' every conceivable thing related to the situation can be put down, but to make the tool even more applicable to new users, the list below should give some ideas to what these elements might be and what to look for in imperical data one has gathered about the situation. | ||
Revision as of 13:19, 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
