This article is from the April 2003 issue of Update.
At Online 2002, Sheila Webber showed how she had been using mind-mapping techniques in her information literacy programme in the University of Sheffield. Her presentation created lots of interest and there were suggestions that the technique should be given wider exposure across the information world.
Mind mapping emerged on to the world stage in the spring of 1974 with Tony Buzan’s book Use your Head. The technique has grown in popularity and the BBC published the phenomenally successful The Mind Map Book in 1993, which was reprinted and updated in 2000.1
For real insight into mind maps and ‘radiant thinking’ theory and technique you should of course read Tony Buzan’s books. As with all the most powerful ideas, mind mapping is a brilliantly simple concept on the surface but contains hidden depths which merit practice and study.
Mind maps are essentially a method of representing and relating information and ideas two dimensionally in a way that closely mirrors how concepts are mapped and related in the brain. The technique differs from the standard note-making/-taking methods used in most civilisations in that it deliberately uses colour, symbols and spatial layouts in order to help the process of creativity and recall.
The mind map has four essential characteristics:
- The subject of attention is crystallised in a central image.
- The main themes of the subject radiate from the central image as branches.
- Branches comprise a key image or key word on a line with sub-branches attached to each main branch.
- The branches can be connected to form a complex, interrelated nodal structure.
This is shown below in the simplified map produced from the software Mind Manager.2
Stimulating creativity: organising information and ideas
Bill Johnston has been using mind mapping, and teaching people to use it, at Strathclyde University for many years. Here he talks about the use of mind mapping in the creative processes in which he trains his students.
Initially my work with mind mapping focused on helping students generally to clarify their subject knowledge, develop ideas for research projects, manage academic writing processes (including exam essays), and many other learning activities.
Later I included mind mapping as an integral part of my own class in Personal Creativity. This is one of a suite of credit-bearing electives offered by Strathclyde’s Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship. The class is designed to demystify creativity and enable students to generate and extend ideas and opportunities of their own. This is achieved by applying various idea-generating techniques, such as mind mapping, allied to raising awareness on psychosocial aspects of creativity, and its relevance to entrepreneurial activity.
Mind mapping has proved to be a popular and successful part of these processes. Students use it to capture brainstorming sessions, clarify and structure the ensuing ideas, and identify areas for further research. They reproduce maps in their individual and team assignment reports and oral presentations.
Mind mapping also provides a gateway to making complex concepts (like right and left brain functioning, and divergent/convergent thinking) more accessible and specific to the student’s practical experiences.
Creativity is becoming a highly valued graduate attribute. There is an increasing organisational interest in innovation, entrepreneurial skill and human resource development. Students with an exposure to these mind-mapping and creativity techniques at university are better placed to take advantage of these initiatives when they enter the workplace.
Teaching information searching
Working with Bill Johnston at Strathclyde stimulated Sheila Webber into using mind mapping in her teaching. Now at Sheffield University, she uses the technique in a popular first-year undergraduate information literacy class.
Many students skip over the planning stage of a search, and are poor at selecting the right sources and search terms. By getting them to create mind maps of the search at different stages I hope to get them to do a number of things:
- visualise their view of a search problem (e.g. What do I know about this topic already? What are the gaps in my knowledge?);
- spend more time planning the search, and thinking about the search process;
- create a reference point for possible search terms. Some of these words and phrases might be used directly in the search. However, if rich pictures have been used in the mind map, they can help to steer students away from the ‘word you first thought of’ syndrome that affects novice searches;
- provide a reference point for the success of the search. They can add to the mind map, or create a new mind map once they have done the initial search, helping them decide whether they’ve got the right sort of information;
- interact, comparing their views of what is needed and what has been found. Mind maps of the same topic can be very different — more different than a list of ‘brainstormed’ keywords.
I introduce the technique very early on in the class. Students are then given exercises in which they have to create individual mind maps of searches. There is also a group exercise, stretching over a couple of weeks, in which students search on a topic and then give a PowerPoint presentation, which focuses on how they found relevant information and why they chose particular sources. The students have to include ‘before’ and ‘after’ mind maps of the search topic. Importantly (in terms of motivation), students have to create mind maps as part of their assessed work — both a piece of coursework, and in the examination.
As well as becoming more effective at mind mapping, students do make the connection between mind map and search, and many move between the two in a way that appears to improve their searching. A minority of students are reluctant to move away from text as something that appears in lines and columns, and are more resistant to mind mapping. At the other end of the spectrum, sometimes students who have more difficulty with written text prove to be excellent mind mappers, and this is obviously empowering for them.
Mapping enquiries in the workplace
Sheila O’Flynn has been an advocate of mind mapping since her days as an Information Manager at Unilever Research. Now running her own information research company, InfoValues, Sheila still uses the techniques on a daily basis.
I started mapping enquiries simply because I’d got into the habit of creating maps for other forms of note-taking and planning. I began to notice that enquirers were really interested in the maps, getting involved in their creation, even engaging in discussion of the best keywords we should use to describe their enquiry. The enquiry process seemed less like drawing blood more like an enjoyable game, benefiting both parties. This is an attempt to deconstruct why mapping seems to work so well in enquiry work.
I’ve always found it hard to judge the right level of help to offer on an enquiry. Some users resent telling you anything but the barest details of their enquiry, while others tell you so much you wonder if it’d be quicker to do their research for them. Then there are the stalkers, browsing the shelves for ages then approaching the desk as a last resort. They’re either averse to the idea of planning, don’t exactly know what they’re looking for or just hoping to get lucky. Whatever the reasons for the reluctance or enthusiasm of some enquirers, whether their enquiry is minimalist or complex, I have found that mapping enquiries helps us both to manage enquiries better.
For me, mapping enquiries bridges the gap between letting users do a pot-luck romp around the shelves and a full-scale interrogation. Maps can be simple or complex; they bring structure to an enquiry without constraining it. They encourage exploration of a topic while pruning irrelevancies. Maps provide a plan without removing all hope of instant gratification.
Maps of any sort are of course highly visual and it’d be so much easier to show how to map an enquiry rather than write about it. But perhaps the fictional enquiry below will illustrate some of the benefits I’ve found from mapping.
Imagine the scene... a small workplace library, I’m half hidden behind my PC going through the morning’s email. A youngish guy in a lab coat is doing a circuit of the shelves. Let’s call him Tim. Head cocked to one side Tim scans the spine labels. At around Dewey 300 he finds something, he spends a minute looking at the table of contents then puts the book back. He continues browsing. I continue with email. Minutes later Tim’s made his way to the 600s and pulls out another book. This one he brings to a table for a longer look.
‘You found what you wanted?’
‘Kind of. There’s a bit on it in here.’
‘Let me know if you need any help.’
A few minutes later Tim returns the book to the shelves and approaches the enquiry desk.
‘I was looking for something on profiling.’
In the usual reference interview this is my cue to ask lots of questions in a bid to clarify what Tim wants to know about profiling. However, mapping is a far ‘gentler’ way of exploring enquiries. I take a blank piece of paper and simply note the single keyword that has been proffered. I write it in the centre of the page in capitals. I position the page so I can write on it and Tim can read it, though I don’t specifically suggest he should.
‘PROFILING’. Radiating out from it I draw a couple of lines (branches).
I always begin by just noting the keyword offered. I’m not immediately responding with ‘What do you mean "profiling"?’ or "What kind of profiling?"’ To users, the sub-text to these types of questions is ‘I am now going to expose how little you know about profiling and ultimately make you very sorry you came in here and had the cheek to try and find out more’.
While I take Tim’s enquiry at face value, it’s also clear to him from the expanse of blank paper in front of us that I am going to need to know more.
‘Do you want a textbook/background work on profiling or a specific type of profile that you’ve heard of?’
‘Well the Star profile is one that I’m interested in.’
So I note ‘STAR PROFILE’. This still leaves empty branches for other types of profiles that may be discussed but it also shows that we’re making progress in defining what Tim is looking for.
Leaving empty branches is a prompt to provide/ask for something that will fill them in. Tim sees there is space to say more about a concept if he wants to. I can see clearly what information I’ve been given and where I’m going to need more.
So from the ‘STAR PROFILE’ branch I sketch in one or two branches.
‘Are there other types of profile or is that the main one you want to know about?’
‘That’s the main one I think.’
‘So I’ll see about buying a copy of the Star Profile for you.’
I add ‘BUY COPY’ and circle it indicating an action or the end point of that part of the enquiry.
‘I’m hoping to adapt it for use in our pre-school unit,’ Tim adds.
I go back a level to create a new branch named ‘PRE-SCHOOLERS’.
Tim sees I’ve begun a new branch for the new concept he’s introduced to the enquiry. The visual prompt of placing this new concept on the map encourages him to expand further on it.
‘You see I’ve not heard of any profiles for pre-schoolers so I was going to get the Star Profile and adapt it.’
‘Would you be interested in some if they existed?’
‘Well, yes, that would be ideal but I’d still like a copy of the Star Profile as well.’
I underline the ‘PRE-SCHOOLERS’ branch as this is emerging as the most important requirement.
‘So we’ll get an order in for the Star Profile but we’ll also look for any profiles designed for pre-schoolers?’
‘Yes, that’d be great. By pre-schoolers I mean 2-4 year-olds.’
I note ‘2-4 YEARS’ as a sub-branch.
Tim could see that the term pre-schoolers was all I’d written and recognised it needed clarification. Looking at the map we see that there are empty branches off ‘pre-schoolers’ so I ask Tim ‘What level of disability are the pre-schoolers that you want to profile?’
‘Oh, moderate — we already have a profile tool for the severe ones.’
I note ‘MODERATE’ and ‘SEVERE’ on two branches.
And so we go on until we’re both happy that we’ve given and taken all the information needed.
I don’t want to over-hype my claims for the benefits of mapping enquiries but I have to say that they certainly help to get more quickly to the nub of the enquiry. At the simplest level just writing down keywords makes the enquirer think about what they’re telling you and keep it to the important stuff. The fact that you are capturing their enquiry on the fly brings home to them that you are not simply having a conversation but realistically expecting to take action on what they’re telling you.
Mapping the enquiry shows the user how I’m interpreting what they’re telling me. Critically this gives them a chance to correct any misunderstanding and to clarify terminology, or simply reassures them that I’m getting the gist of what they want. This is all done at the time, not after you’ve spent ages going down blind alleys on their behalf.
Capturing the enquiry as a map cuts out repetition. The enquirer can see I’ve understood what they asked for and they don’t have to keep repeating themselves to feel reassured that I’ll remember it — it’s there in black and white.
Maps allow the enquirer to jump from discussion of one concept to another, limited only by the speed with which you can agree a keyword for each concept. However, it soon becomes obvious to them that they’re ‘rambling’ because they can see the proliferation of branches with no details. This prompts them to return to key concepts and fill in the details.
Put more positively, the enquirer can interrupt their own train of thought as much as they like and still be kept on track by the map. The map keeps the train of thought for you both because the branches represent the key concepts you’ve talked about.
Sometimes half way through the mapping, the enquirer will realise they want to go away and think a bit more about their enquiry. Seeing me attempt to capture their query in a map illustrates the rough edges to them. Often they will ask for a copy of the map we’ve created so they can work on it themselves. The good thing is that we’ve at least clarified that they need to go away and reflect a bit before sending us both off on a wild goose chase through the literature.
Building the taxonomy or knowledge map
This application of mind mapping was first published in 20013 by Adrian Dale and has since been used in hundreds of instances to build the initial cut of taxonomies for intranets or internet document collections.
The methodology works well with teams or groups who have been charged with the task of creating the information classification for intranet or internet document collections. It follows the same principles outlined by Sheila O’Flynn, including all the tricks of leaving blank branches to prompt further thinking. However, the critical factor is the use of the Mind Manager software live in the facilitated mapping session, with the image projected on to a large screen for the group members to see.
Before using Mind Manager, the first step is to get the group thinking individually on Post IT® notes of the possible terms in the classification scheme. These are then transferred to a wall and then are clustered by the group members to remove the obvious duplicates.
During a 20-minute coffee break, the facilitator quickly types the clustered terms into Mind Manager in whatever structure seems appropriate.
When the group returns, the members are presented with the partial mind map and, for the uninitiated, there is usually a ‘WOW’ factor as the map looks impressive when projected to a very large scale. It then doesn’t take long for the group to understand the principles and to become happy working live on screen. Terms are added, changed or deleted and using the basic tools they can be moved and clustered differently on screen. It is even possible to add notes to items that are ambiguous.
We usually find it unnecessary to explain some of the interesting challenges associated with getting the hierarchies of the classification in the right order as this problem emerges quite quickly in any classification work in a way that leaps off the screen. At this point, it is usually someone in the group that points out the need to modify or even invert the hierarchy. Fortunately, with the software it is easy to save the initial result and then try out a different form with no real loss of work.
At the end of the first four-hour session, the facilitator tidies up the map and then gets it printed at both A3 and A0 size. The A3 copies are circulated to the group so that they can study and annotate them off line. The A0 version is used at the second mapping session where the group first add their annotations on Post IT® notes to the main map and then discuss them in plenary session. During the break, the facilitator captures the comments on to the main software-based map and makes the necessary changes. These are then reviewed in plenary session with the whole group.
If the purpose of the map is to create an intranet/internet navigation system, this can be immediately tested by exporting the map to a set of web pages. If the purpose is a more formal list-based thesaurus or taxonomy structure, the map can be exported to Microsoft Word for processing elsewhere.
As Sheila O’Flynn noted, there are certainly people who don’t feel comfortable with mind maps, preferring traditional text-based notation. However, in our collective experience, mind mapping is more inclusive, allowing a wider range of individuals to interact with information problems in a more effective way — try it!
References
1 The MindMap Book — Millennium Edition. Tony Buzan with Barry Buzan. BBC Books, 2000.
2 Mind Manager software is sold in the UK by M-urge (www.murge.com).
3 Adrian Dale. ‘Designing Taxonomies in Unilever.’ Knowledge Management Review 3(6), January/February 2001.
Adrian Dale is a Managing Partner with Creatifica Associates (Adrian.Dale@Creatifica.com) Bill Johnston is a Lecturer in the Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (b.johnston@strath.ac.uk).
Sheila O’Flynn is Managing Director of InfoValues (Sheila.OFlynn@InfoValues.com).
Sheila Webber is a Lecturer in the Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield (s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk; http://dis.shef.ac.uk/literacy).