What does knowledge look like? Interpreting diagrams as contemporary hieroglyphics

Introduction

Archaeologists have been analyzing and interpreting graphic communicative symbols as early as 30,000 BC (Houston, 2004; Lester, 2006; Tversky, 2015). Despite this longstanding practice, modern education has given privilege to written and spoken language as the predominant tools for articulating concepts, ideas, and messages that inherently contain shared meanings (Kress, 2000; Stafford, 2004). However, many of these ideas and concepts are too abstract for written and spoken language alone, requiring the use of other modes of communication like drawing and diagramming. In fact, graphic representations have been argued to be more effective for explaining abstract objects, ideas, and/or phenomena (Drucker, 2014; Kress, 2000; Stafford, 2004; Tversky, 2011, 2015).

One notable challenge in using this mode of communication lies in interpreting and analyzing graphic representations, which can be problematic due to the many forms of visual communications encountered across digital and physical spaces or contexts. In addition, there is a significant challenge in understanding the many reference points and interpretations a graphic object may have across its producer’s personal and cultural experiences, and knowledge. The individual’s exposure to specific social and cultural contexts is likely to drive his or her propensity to use specific socially constructed shared symbols, especially when attempting to understand or articulate complex and abstract concepts (Kazmierczak, 2001; Tversky, 2011). An additional interpretation problem is presented to researchers in dealing with analyzing these graphic objects when individuals meaningfully group or link them together. This article analyzes the methods used for grouping and linking these graphic objects, highlighting the commonalities and limitations within socially constructed visual communications.

This multidisciplinary visual communications research study focuses on interpreting and analyzing the graphic representation types and objects individuals use to depict the abstract concept of knowledge (Bowen and Evans, 2015). A total of 833 participants aged 5–65 years participated in the A total of 833 participants aged study by constructing a drawing to answer the question, ‘What does knowledge look like?’. Engelhardt’s (2002) graphic representation taxonomy was used to identify grouping and linking diagrams in the drawings. Next, graphic objects were coded and categorized within the drawings to identify the common representations, shared symbols, and non-depictive elements used to group and link. This article focuses on Engelhardt’s grouping and linking graphic representation types in an effort to illustrate how individuals combine and arrange two or more common graphic objects to communicate (or personally make sense of) the abstract concept of ‘knowledge’. The methods used to develop these diagrams often lead to the construction of a shared visual language that may be understood by others.

This paper suggests methods for constructing and interpreting grouping and linking graphic representation types, and highlights the common ground that emerges through visual communication practices (i.e. contemporary hieroglyphics). The graphic objects individuals chose to represent an abstract concept and the methods they used to arrange and connect them, is of particular interest. Gaining further insight into the ways in which individuals access common representations circulating within their culture, and how those representations could affect their ways of seeing and communicating with the world, will help educators and information designers to better understand and use visual languages. This is particularly important in the use of big data visualization techniques, infographics, and even presentations. Interpreting and creating visual communications in relation to narratives, problem-solving, and meaning making is of particular importance to educators across all levels and disciplines. Educators and information designers who intend to use diagrams as a method of learning or communication need to: (1) understand the core principles of how individuals organize the elements within diagrams; (2) recognize the ways in which graphic objects are grouped, organized, arranged by proximity, and/or linked compositionally by arrows, lines or other directional objects; and (3) recognize or be situated in the context within which meaning was constructed.

The Sociology of [Graphic] Knowledge

Philosophers such as Nietzsche have long suggested the premise that human knowledge (consciousness or reality) is largely constructed by social context (Greer, 1997). However, it was not until the 20th century, and the work of Scheler (1980[1926]) and Mannheim (1986[1925]), that scientists began to actively examine human knowledge from a sociological perspective. The domain of inquiry referred to as the Sociology of Knowledge can best be understood as investigating the ‘relationship between human thought and the social context within which it arises’ (Berger and Luckman, 1966: 16). Scheler (1980[1926]) introduced perhaps the most basic and central premise relating to the sociology of knowledge, namely what can be termed relative natural worldview (relativ natürlichen Weltanschauung). This premise establishes that all personal knowledge is shaped by a particular socio-historical or socio-cultural environment (i.e. society). Thus, meaning, for the individual and his or her experience is established through interaction with this environment. Mannheim’s (1986[1925]) work, which is credited for popularizing the Sociology of Knowledge, was predominantly concerned with the particular influence of society on the individual’s ideology, proposing that human knowledge is not ‘immune to the ideologizing influences of its social context’ (Berger and Luckman, 1966: 21). Many theorists of the time, including Mannheim, were clearly influenced by Marxist philosophy, which proposed the idea that consciousness (i.e. the human mind, knowledge) and activity could not be separated. Marx (1974[1932]) argued that interpretation only occurs in the context of meaningful and socially constructed interactions between humans and their physical environments. ‘What concerned Marx was that human thought is founded in human activity … and in the social relations brought about by this activity’ (Berger and Luckman, 1966: 18).

Of course, sociology was not the only discipline to be influenced by the work of Marx. There was also a significant effort to develop a new form of psychology from Marxist philosophy, which was then largely in thrall to approaches such as behaviorism and psychoanalysis. Vygotsky (1962[1934], 1978[1975]), who founded cultural–historical psychology, conducted early childhood development research that examined the role that social and cultural contexts/factors play in a child’s early learning. Leont’ev (1978[1975], 1981[1959]), continued Vygotsky’s work by developing the first activity theory theoretical framework, which emphasized the study of social factors and interactions between agents and their environments. One thing Soviet psychologists seemed to agree on was that human development and understanding could only be interpreted in the context of meaningful and socially constructed interactions between humans and their physical environments.

More recently, many theorists in different disciplines have looked toward social constructionism and activity theory as a framework for understanding how individuals make sense of the world around them. For example, sociologist Gherardi (2001: 133) suggests that both learning and knowledge reside in and are mediated by social relations; arguing that, ‘knowing is part of a surrendering to a social habit’. This is also a very popular perspective in knowledge management (KM), a discipline fundamentally concerned with the interpretation and representation of human knowledge. For example, Nonaka (1994: 23), perhaps one of the most recognized KM theorists, argues ‘individual behavior ought to be relativized through an interactive process to construct social reality’ (emphasis added). He further argues that shared experience is a necessary prerequisite needed for the sharing of tacit knowledge to occur, which is a central process/stage in and for knowledge creation and sharing (Nonaka, 1994, 2002). It can be argued that this connection exists because individuals exercise judgment ‘based on an appreciation of context in the ethno-methodological sense that a social being is (or, to be more precise, becomes) knowledgeable … within particular contexts … as a result of having been through processes of socialization’ (Tsoukas, 2005: 123).

Based on the above discussion, it has been argued that new knowledge is socially constructed by and becomes meaningful to the community within which it is constructed (Boer et al., 2002). Furthermore, abstract formulations ultimately depend on collective, socially accepted definitions (Blackler et al., 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1962, 1966; Spender, 1996; Toulmin, 1999; Tsoukas, 2005). Wittgenstein (1953) refers to this as ‘forms of life’ (Lebensformen), Grant (2002) suggests this is ‘common knowledge’, Brown and Duguid (1991) explain it as shared understanding, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998: 259) denote it as ‘collective knowledge’, and Tversky (2011: 502) describes it as ‘common ground’.

The Role of [Graphic] Objects in Social Construction

Most social constructionists (e.g. Berger and Luckman, 1966) and activity theorists (e.g. Engeström, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1999; Leont’ev, 1978[1975]; Vygotsky, 1978) agree that human consciousness, in addition to being shaped by social experiences, is also mediated by culturally established tools or objects. Marx (1974[1932], Third Manuscript: xxxix, 4) famously argues this point when he states that ‘the eye has become a human eye, just as its object has become a social, human object, made by man for man’ (emphases added). In this respect it may be further argued that subject and object cannot be separated (Leont’ev, 1978[1975]).

According to Berger and Luckman (1966), ‘Consciousness is always intentional; it always intends or is directed towards objects’ (p. 34) … ‘The reality of everyday life appears already objectified, that is, constituted by an order of objects that have been designated as objects’ (p. 36). Depending on the social span of relevance of a certain type of ‘knowledge’ and its complexity and importance in a particular collectivity, the ‘knowledge’ may have to be reaffirmed through symbolic objects … In other words, physical objects and actions may be called upon as mnemotechnic aids’ (p. 88).

Furthermore, an individual’s understanding of reality is only possible because of these objects. Objects ‘proclaim the subjective intentions of my fellowmen’ (p. 54). This relationship, between objects created by individuals and the world around them, is dialectical with each one having an effect on the other (Berger and Luckman, 1966; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). This is what activity theorists refer to as artifact-mediated and object-oriented action (Vygotsky, 1978: 40). Knowledge that is acquired, ‘in the course of socialization and that mediates the internalization within individual consciousness of the objectivated structures of the social world’ (Berger and Luckman, 1966: 83). In other words, action and knowledge have a reciprocal relationship. However, fully understanding or interpreting what the objects are proclaiming may be difficult if the person who is decoding is not familiar with the individual (or society) that created or encoded the object. Equivocality may arise in situations where objects are created and used in different socially constructed environments.

One underlying argument within this article, and also within research on multimodal learning, is that objects used by individuals to make sense of the world are not always verbal or language-based (Kress, 2000; Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006; New London Group, 1996). In interacting with graphic objects, individuals engage in encoding and decoding in a similar manner in which they interact with physical objects. Graphic objects, like physical objects, are created as mediating tools of the individual’s culture and society. Subsequently, they may need to be interpreted and examined in the socially constructed domains in which they are situated in order to be fully understood.

The graphic objects within the drawings illustrate a diverse range of symbols specific to cultural communities. Two representative examples of culturally and/or socially constructed graphic objects are seen in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 represents an example of a typical light bulb on the left and a rare candle on the right. The candle was pointed out to the researchers by the participant and also written on the drawing. Amongst the hundreds of drawings of brains, books, and light bulbs meant to represent the concept of knowledge, the lone candle was an interesting outlier difficult to interpret contextually. However, through conversation and written text, the participant described the candle as a symbol of knowledge that emerges from their religious and cultural background. Since the participant’s native culture was different from those interpreting the data, the intended meaning of the candle would have been lost without further exploration through written and/or oral explanations. Figure 2 depicts a similar situation in the case of the Google™ homepage. While familiar to many (particularly the researchers and perhaps those reading this article), the frames and text may not be as situated or representational to those who do not use or have access to the internet or to those that live in one of the many countries like China, Iran, or North Korea where Google™ is banned. Both of these drawings are representations of knowledge, which may not necessarily be shared outside particular communities, making them difficult to interpret outside of their socially constructed domain, or by anyone not familiar with the domain.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Light bulb vs candle.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Google homepage.

[Graphic] Objects as [Visual] Language

Common languages are formed both verbally and visually; however, both are contextually situated within particular socio-cultural communities. The role of language is essential in both the social construction and interpretation of objects in the world, as language builds a taxonomy that allows individuals to differentiate the objects (Berger and Luckman, 1966: 55). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998: 253–254) explain this interaction as language influencing perception. They suggest that codes organize sensory data into perceptual categories and provide a frame of reference for observing and interpreting the environment. Thus, language removes from awareness those events where terms do not exist in the language, and filters in those where terms do exist. People formulate a language that serves to represent the objects (Leont’ev, 1978[1975]: 18), making language a function of the physical environment and objects within it (Collins, 2010). This is illustrated in the example of the Inuit people (or Eskimos), and snow:

Eskimos have seventeen words for snow, because snow comprises so much of their business … if [you grew] up isolated in the Amazon jungle, your native language almost certainly has no word for snow, or house brick or bicycle or car. (Collins, 2010: 133)

It is through conversations with other people that the individual consciously comes to know these objects. Further, through continuing use of the same language (and objects) the individual embeds the concepts further. ‘All who employ this same language are reality-maintaining others [that used the objects and language before them]’ (Berger and Luckman, 1966: 173). This is what is often meant by the term common language.

In some domains such as art, architecture, and design, drawing is quite naturally thought to be a form of language or mediating tool that facilitates expressions and explanations of the world (Bowen, 2010; Brooks, 2009; Dubovsky, 2008; Dutoit, 2008; Lyons, 2012). Drawing is a way of interpreting the world and its objects. Rogers (2012: 2) looks at drawing as a way ‘to facilitate reflection and dialogue’. She contends that it is ‘more useful to think of the visual as having communicative potential’ and drawing makes things visible. She argues that ‘if we agree that drawing is a tool for finding out things, than we have to accept it can generate knowledge.’

Drucker (2014) examines the ‘structuring principles’ (p. 3) of drawings and diagrams for the ways in which graphic objects are organized to communicate concepts and information. She states that drawing is ‘a visual form of knowledge production’ (p. 5). Further, drawings are visualizations that ‘externalize thought’ and when created on a tangible surface, ‘can be inspected and re-inspected’ and analyzed through using a range of processes that ‘compare, contrast, assess similarity, distance, direction, shape and size, reverse figure and ground, rotate, group and regroup; that is, they can be mentally assessed and rearranged in multiple ways that contribute to understanding, inference, and insight’ (Tversky, 2011: 500). Drawings contribute to the ongoing social construction of the artifacts used to mediate the world, further embedding the shared representations within their societies. According to Lyons (2012: 8), they offer ‘new insight into the familiar, i.e. allowing us to re-see or come to know something in a new way’.

Findings

In previously reported findings, Bowen and Evans (2015) categorized each of the 838 drawings using Engelhardt’s (2002) graphic representation types (see Table 1) and examined both the concrete and abstract graphic objects depicted in the drawings of knowledge. The findings emphasized common graphic objects repeatedly used in isolation (as pictures or symbols) and in combination with other objects (as a diagram). The findings also highlighted a much higher concentration of ‘pictures’ (i.e. 78%), with lower incidences of more complex diagramming (see Figure 3, Percentage of graphic representation type by age range).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Categorization of the 833 drawings using Engelhardt’s (2002) graphic representation types.

Age	Grouping diagram	Link diagram	Picture	Symbol	Written text	Hybrid –chronological linking diagram	Drawings collected
0 – 4	1	0	7	0	0	0	8
5 – 11	31	9	162	6	11	0	219
12 – 18	4	3	92	8	6	0	113
c. 19 – 25	0	13	141	14	7	1	176
26 – 40	8	6	155	14	8	1	192
41 – 55	3	5	93	17	2	0	120
56 – 65	0	0	3	0	2	0	5

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Percentage of graphic representation type by age range.

Diagramming is a drawing technique that helps individuals explain tangible objects and invisible concepts to make sense of the world around them. Diagrams have the capability to ‘externalize thought [and most often] inform self and others’ (Tversky, 2011: 500–501). Moreover, ‘like other cultural artifacts [diagrams] have evolved over time, they have undergone an informal but powerful kind of natural user testing’ through their continued and repeated use by social groups (p. 501). Tversky suggests diagrams that externalize thought are both created and read within particular communities, contextualized through the ways in which these communities ‘externalize and clarify common ground’ (p. 502). Diagrams, according to Kazmierczak (2001), function as ‘excellent tools for showing the invisibles [and visualizing] conceptual knowledge [because they] are most effective for representations of reality as we understand it’ (p. 93, emphasis in original).

Grouping diagrams and link diagrams are distinct from pictures in that they use various spatial relationships, organizations, and causal relationships (Engelhardt, 2002). Grouping diagrams are predominantly concerned with the thematic classifying of objects and how those objects are organized to highlight the classification for others to understand through common ground. Grouping diagrams involve a relational logic, as well as the Gestalt law of proximity (Tversky, 2015), for categorizing and arranging objects based on a common theme or relationship. Link diagrams, however, suggest causal relationships between graphic objects to communicate an idea or concept. Link diagrams often imply a system to convey meaning, linking actions and objects, suggesting direction (particularly when using arrows) and/or sequence.

The grouping and link diagrams that combine and/or connect graphic objects inform the particular focus of this article in terms of the methods individuals use to construct meaningful communications. In addition, these diagrams highlight shared experiences in relation to the objects individuals use to be understood by others as a shared language.

Grouping diagrams

Grouping diagrams are described by Engelhardt (2002) as having common elements that may be categorized using a hierarchical system or presented as having a common relationship through arranging and juxtaposing one graphic object with another (Figures 4 and 5). Tversky (2015: 105) describes grouping diagrams as ‘a diagram of things, derived from depictions, by distillation and thematic rearrangement’. Figures 4 and 5 are examples of grouping diagrams that arrange objects to create thematic relationships around acquiring knowledge or sources of knowledge through school subjects. Figures 6 and 7 also illustrate diagrams of things, where respondents have arranged graphic objects to communicate the mediating tools they use to acquire knowledge (e.g. books, computers, etc.).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Grouping diagram #1, age: 5–11.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Grouping diagram #2, age: 12–18.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Grouping diagram #3, age: 26–40.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

Knowledge as a collection of subjects.

Some of the grouping diagrams present objects arranged in sequences, while others include labeling. For example, graphic objects were grouped into domain taxonomies in Figure 7 and embodied experiences in Figure 8.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 8.

Diagram of sensory experience.

However, one of the most interesting anomalies with the grouping diagrams was that the majority were drawn by 5–11-year-old children (31 out of the 47, see Table 1). In examining these 31 drawings it becomes immediately evident that many children used graphic objects to depict school subjects or study topics. These school-oriented objects represented the community with which they were most familiar, and the context in which they constructed knowledge and developed meaning of it. Further, the specific objects used by these children are familiar to them because they have been embedded and used by their teachers, family members, and friends as common apparatus. Tolman (1988) explains this by suggesting that an individual is ‘born into the world of objects created by previous generations, and is formed as such only in the process of learning how to use them to a definite end’ (Tolman, 1988: 16). As previously mentioned, most activity theorists and social constructionists (e.g. Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Leont’ev, 1978[1975]; Marx, 1974[1932]; Vygotsky, 1962[1934], 1978) may argue that this is the case because all human consciousness is shaped by social experiences and mediated by culturally established tools. By organizing and arranging the range of school or learning-related graphic objects, the children developed meaning and communicated their understanding to others within their particular community (who they assume share the same experiences of school and learning).

This theory builds on the work of Brooks (2009) who slightly contrasts traditional Vygotskian theory, which suggests that the ‘rational, intentional conveying of experience and thought to others requires [speech as] a mediating system’ (Vygotsky, 1962[1934]: 6). Instead, Brooks (2009: 3) argues that ‘speech’ may be replaced by ‘drawing’: ‘perhaps the power of drawing for children (and adults) is that it more closely represents thought … I consider drawing to be a communication system that supports meaning and operates in similar ways to language.’ Where Leont’ev (1978[1975]: 18) would argue that ‘people formulate a language that serves to represent the objects’, in these cases children formulate objects and arrange those objects in ways that represent a language – both for communicating the concept and for mediating an understanding of it. Through drawing, the children are communicating the concept of knowledge, through their reality, as they know it (Kazmierczak, 2001). Literally, the children have used the graphic object tools to construct thematic arrangements that build and represent their understanding of knowledge through their experiences of learning at school. The specific graphic objects, arranged by theme to be read as a whole, offer a common ground for sharing common experiences and for gaining knowledge within their current knowledge sharing community. The groupings highlight the children’s experiences of school-themed objects, as representing knowledge and/or knowledge acquisition in relation to how they have seen these graphic objects used in similar ways before. Building on Brooks (2009), it may be suggested that, when children group single objects together into categories, they are developing a more generalized meaning of the concept they are attempting to draw. ‘When we consider drawing to be a mediation tool, and a language of sorts, then we can see how drawing might contribute to the formulation of thinking and meaning (p. 2).

Another relevant observation within the 5–11 category is their preference for using literal graphic objects, as opposed to expressive or abstract ones. This finding is consistent with both Ives (1984), Jolley (2009) and Jolley et al. (2004) who suggest that younger children tend to use more literal expressions in their drawings (see Figure 4). Jolley et al. (2004: 560) also suggest that there is proof that the use of abstract and expressive representations increases with age, because ‘children’s use of expressive formal properties may take much longer to develop, the signs of which may not be seen clearly until adolescence.’

Link diagrams

Link diagrams are defined as ‘a graphic representation in which the syntactic structure consists of linking. Syntactic structures that consist of linking can be divided into linear chains, circular chains, trees, and networks’ (Engelhardt, 2002: 140). Link diagrams often include some form of directional lines or arrows that imply, a cause and effect relationship rather than arrangement and order, as in Figure 9 (which also uses colour change to signal cause and effect). Link diagrams combine a number of graphic objects, in conjunction with visual devices such as arrows and dotted lines, to construct meanings (e.g. Figures 11–14). For example, in Figure 10, the respondent used plus (+) or equal (=) signs between the graphic objects to communicate progression, suggest a process, and/or imply a causal relationship. Whether arranging or sequencing graphic objects, both the grouping and link diagrams are used to visualize the individual’s experience of knowledge (Lyons, 2012; Rogers, 2012).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 9.

Link diagram #1, age: 5–11].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 10.

Link diagram #2, age: 12–18.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 11.

Link diagram #3, age: 19–25.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 12.

Link diagram #4, age: 26–40.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 13.

Link diagram #5, age: 41–55.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 14.

Link diagram #6, age: 41–55.

Tversky’s (2011: 515) categorization of graphic objects (i.e. icons or signs) as either ‘likenesses’ or ‘glyphs’ further helps in understanding and interpreting link diagrams. Glyphs ‘like points, lines, blobs and arrows … are especially important in diagrams because they allow visual means of expressing common concepts that are not easily conveyed by likenesses [tangible objects, things or people]’. Glyphs are particularly important when looking at how graphic objects are organized and combined. The graphic objects that represent glyphs ‘have parallels to certain kinds of gestures, for example, ‘linear gestures that suggest relationships between things’. These relationship gestures are particularly evident in the use of the arrows, dotted lines, and bracket in Figure 13, and the arrows in Figure 12.

Another example is apparent in Figure 11 where glyphs are represented by lines used to connect groups of objects into themes: an arrow is used to signify the passing of time (i.e. day to night); and short lines to signify interaction or conversation. The glyphs (i.e. arrows) in Figure 12 suggest a directional, perhaps cyclical, process of acquiring knowledge. Figures 10–14 highlight examples of likenesses that are represented by people (or more particularly, their brains), environment (i.e. trees, sun), subject matter (i.e. art, math, and science symbols), books, and a computer.

Proximity and spatial organization

Figures 9–14 are all examples of link diagrams that use combinations of glyphs and likenesses. There is also evidence of respondents deliberately combining graphic objects with proximity and spatial organization in mind. For example, in an attempt to communicate knowledge as a process, Tversky (2011: 517) maintains that ‘glyphs are ideal for visually conveying the invisible.’ In the case of the link diagrams, the parts of the drawings that represent connections (e.g. the lines, arrows, and spaces in between graphic object likenesses) are relationships not easily described or named using words alone. The use of glyphs facilitates the process of generating knowledge about knowledge (Drucker, 2014) through linking and sequencing, which helps to form an explanation of the concept beyond mere depiction. Kazmierczak (2001) may argue that this process makes the invisible, visible through the diagram. Similarly, using Vygotskian theory, and building on Brooks (2009), it may be suggested that the process of linking and sequencing graphic objects helps the drawer develop a socially-constructed meaning of knowledge, through the mediated tool of drawing.

However, this aspect of diagramming or drawing may not be available to younger children as it requires more abstraction to explain the causal relationships using non-depictive signs (Ives, 1984; Jolley, 2009; Jolley et al., 2004). While drawing the grouping diagrams is a form of generating knowledge through the organizing and arranging of familiar objects, it stops short of sequencing the objects in an explanatory manner, a capability that is developed as the individual matures.

Organizing principles, such as sequencing, arranging, ordering, and spatializing through proximity, may in some cases help to develop visual explanations. This is illustrated in Figure 15, drawn by a participant who is older (26–40) than most of the others who used grouping diagrams. This grouping of objects depicts human senses and other non-human mediums (i.e. computers and books) that are important to the acquisition of knowledge. These objects begin to explain knowledge more abstractly, although no causal relationship is explicitly implied. It may also be noted that the graphic objects in this grouping are not all as literal as those used by the younger children (Figure 16).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 15.

Organized grouping diagram, age: 26–40.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 16.

Organized grouping diagram, age: 5–11.

Drucker (2014: 66) suggests that ‘diagrammatic images spatialize relationships in a meaningful way.’ Deliberately arranging the objects creates relationships on the page through size and proximity, which represents hierarchies, sequences, and patterns that ‘serve to direct attention, to augment memory, to facilitate and organize actions, and to communicate to ourselves and others’ (Tversky, 2011: 504).

The grouping and link diagrams use a combination of graphic objects to depict relationships, such as books impacting brains (e.g. Figure 17), or a collection of school subjects and tools representing the learning process that leads to acquiring knowledge (e.g. Figures 4, 5, and 6). In contrast to drawings with only one graphic object on the page (e.g. Figure 18), grouping and link diagrams allow the individual to create meaningful relationships between multiple objects on the same page.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 17.

Book impacting the brain.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 18.

Three separate, single graphic object drawings representing knowledge.

Using Grouping and Link Diagrams to Construct Shared Meaning

The researchers further interpreted link and grouping diagrams in terms of Drucker’s (2014) and Lyons’s (2012) suggestions that drawing and diagramming can be more than depicting or creating visual representations. The act of drawing ‘offers new insight into the familiar i.e. allowing us to re-see or “come to know something in a new way”’ (Lyons, 2012: 8). Categorizing, arranging and linking, while in the process of drawing, enables the participants (drawers) to generate their own knowledge about the subject they are drawing (i.e. ‘knowledge’) through an active process of experimenting with, and combining various graphic objects (Drucker, 2014; Rogers, 2012). However, their own knowledge is influenced by their situation in and activity within the community they are part of. In addition, by reusing existing graphic objects, they are further embedding their representations and relationships, as part of a common language for others in their community. This idea is well illustrated in Figure 19, which suggests the participant’s understanding of the social construction of knowledge.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 19.

Producing knowledge through interaction with others.

The recurring objects depicted in the participants’ drawings (e.g. brains used in 29.7%, people in 21.7%, books in 20.8%, and light bulbs in 13.8%) and the common methods they used for grouping and/or linking the objects (e.g. object proximity, arrows, dotted or linking lines) suggest that visual languages exploit the common ground of shared meaning making. Many of the drawings (e.g. Figures 4–6) illustrate a collection of themes that may be understood as facilitating knowledge acquisition. The specific collection of objects, and the commonalities among them, will largely be based on individual experience and a particular community (i.e. where their knowledge is socially constructed). Shared symbols that reflect the participants’ everyday experiences of gaining knowledge through institutionalized structures, such as educational systems, are common within the grouping diagrams.

Creating a visual representation (of a thing, person, place, concept, or phenomenon) with the intent that it will communicate something, and that particular unit of communication will be understood by others, involves some form of intentional design that ‘is inherently social, because to be understood by another or by oneself at another time entails fashioning communications to fit the personal mental states of others or of one’s self at another time’ (Tversky, 2011: 500).

Developing Contemporary Hieroglyphics

The grouping and link diagrams also provide a micro case study for analyzing the drawings in terms of a contemporary hieroglyphics. For the purpose of this discussion, contemporary hieroglyphics are defined as a collection of small pictographic units that represent things, people, actions, or ideas that are explicable in language, and shared within one or more sociocultural groups or communities. The pictographic units are combined and arranged to communicate or express a concept, narrative or process through ‘spatialized relationships’, so that they are meaningful to those reading them (Drucker, 2014: 66; see also Tversky, 2011: 500, 2015: 103–104). Contemporary hieroglyphics are the products of sequencing or grouping together multiple graphic objects to design and create recognizable and meaningful communications. Tversky’s (2011: 500) use of likenesses and glyphs provides the tools for designing contemporary hieroglyphs that are communications ‘to be understood by others or one’s self at another time’. Meanings inherent in contemporary hieroglyphics are socially constructed, communally shared, and contextually situated. The common use of similar and repetitively used graphic objects (e.g. books, brains, light bulbs) linked and/or grouped together suggests the potential for shared contemporary hieroglyphics.

Contemporary hieroglyphics are also bound by the rules of the community in which they are situated. A common visual language comprised of contemporary hieroglyphics, however, may create particular limitations for seeing and depicting the world and its objects because of habitual ways of looking at the world (Door, 2012). An important consideration is how and why individuals consciously attend to some things in the world, while choosing not to attend to others, and, in this attending, develop a habitual way of seeing. Door suggested that habitual ways of seeing are problematic because ‘once we perceive the visual world in one way, we tend to stick to it’ and because ‘we get so used to our own visual analysis [of the world] that we cease to notice it’ (p. 2) (see also Bourdieu, 1991, and habitus).

Door’s (2012) definition of habitual ways of seeing aligns with Fleckenstein’s (2007) concept of scopic regime. Scopic regime is rooted in power relations that affect what individuals see and how they see within a culture. Scopic regimes are based on ‘shared symbol systems’ that, with language, construct realities for the individual (Fleckenstein, 2007: 11). In this dominant way of seeing, ‘visual conventions determine how and what we see’ (p. 12). Using the work of Martin Jay, Fleckenstein contends, ‘a culture is shaped as much by its scopic regimes as by its language conventions’ (p. 15). She further suggests that ‘our construction of those realities is a collaborative project, calling us to examine not just symbol systems, but shared symbol systems and the dynamic process of emergence, appropriation, and resistance by which they come to be shared and contested’ (p. 10). This is what is suggested by Berger and Luckman (1966:173) as ‘reality-maintaining others’.

The data analysis of the grouping and link diagrams suggests that certain graphic objects are commonly used across many of the drawings in response to the researchers’ question: ‘What does knowledge look like?’ The frequent occurrence of images such as brains, books, and maths symbols has been, as Fleckenstein (2007) suggests, ‘co-opted and absorbed by the culture so that [they] become a habitual part of a member’s personal and cultural existence’ (p. 8). Furthermore, ‘the visual conventions that we learn [through the scopic regime] dictate in general terms the image[s] that we construct’ (p. 16). The question of whether the recurring images drawn by the participants were habitual ways of seeing, in terms of depicting what they have already seen depicted elsewhere and circulated, or as the product of the organizing power of a scopic regime, still remains.

For the most part, these graphic objects are familiar to, and shared within, the North American social and cultural communities in which the participants are situated. Despite collecting the data in a highly multicultural environment ¹ and asking the research question in nine different languages, the researchers still collected a set of consistent and familiar (from a North American perspective) graphic objects (Bowen and Evans, 2015). The study participants may have chosen to use particular depictions because they had seen them before, and therefore concluded that these symbols were already circulating, and were accepted by others within the social group (i.e. a form of contemporary hieroglyphics). If these representations were seen by the participants as commonly used and accepted cultural symbols, then they may have assumed that others would understand their depictions as representing the concept of ‘knowledge’. It is also possible that the participants used graphic objects that the researchers would be familiar with as a means of trying to speak their language. This implies that researchers may introduce some form of bias, unconsciously (i.e. by influencing the participants’ drawings through situating the study within a particular culture and environment).

A challenge to interpreting lies in knowing whether the participants understand the task as drawing what they think knowledge looks like from their own experience, or as socially constructed and culturally accepted depictions they have seen elsewhere. The recurring graphic objects in the drawings suggest a shared set of symbols across all age groups that in Western culture, at least, are representative of how the abstract concept of ‘knowledge’ is depicted through socially constructed experiences.

Implications

The study findings have important implications for education in terms of creating, interpreting, and using visual languages that are understood by self and others to establish a common, socially constructed language. Individuals need to develop competencies in both designing visual languages for others to understand, as well as learning to interpret the visual texts created by others. This is particularly important in visual and digital environments where communication is often multimodal and diversified across different intellectual, social, and cultural domains. Integrating Tversky’s (2011, 2015) concepts of glyphs and likenesses into Engelhardt’s (2002) grouping and link diagram representation types offers a more complex analysis of the methods and symbols individuals use when combining graphic objects to visually communicate complex or abstract ideas.

As Wright (2011) asserts, individuals start communicating at a very young age using pictures and visuals. Children use drawing as a method to communicate meaning, which they assume ‘through shared cultural conventions’ will be recognized by others in the way they intended (Mavers, 2003: 32). The study findings demonstrate that individuals continue to build this capacity to communicate using graphic objects, which they circulate and share with others for meaning making, just like their childhood drawings. Barry (2002: 94) contends that ‘the process of perception’ for making sense of the world emerges from past experiences. Interpreting and creating forms of visual communication for narratives, problem-solving, and meaning making is important whether students are in elementary school creating concept maps (Mavers, 2003) or in higher education creating PowerPoint presentations (Katz and Odell, 2013). Further, forms of visual communications are increasingly used in visualizing big data/information and as infographics or presentations, where understanding is assumed contextually within the professional community. The graphic objects used to represent reality in childhood drawings, diagrams, and concept maps inform this later understanding.

Barry (2002: 99) argues that experiences from the past and present are used ‘to construct the maps by which we understand future experience’. Focusing on the ways in which common graphic objects are recycled, as contemporary hieroglyphics within organized systems, highlights the importance of learning how to interpret graphic depictions for shared meaning. Demonstrating the ways in which individuals choose graphic objects provides insight for information designers who depend on graphic objects, symbols, and icons to develop products and information about services, and design better communication tools within particular communities. Further understanding the relationship between common graphic objects and shared meaning within communities will help information designers speak to the particular community they are working with.

Another implication of this study pertains to how individuals create and read diagrams to gain information. Habitual ways of seeing the world have consequences in that they may reinforce particular ideas and perspectives. Therefore, one should be cognizant of the limitations of using and sharing common graphic objects that may be exclusive to other communities and warrant closer examination. Questioning the habitual ways of seeing that affect an individual’s choice of graphic objects, and the meaning they are attempting to communicate, complicates the interpretation of visual communications across communities and domains. It is also possible that individuals choose to use certain graphic objects (socially constructed and seen elsewhere) because of the belief that they will be best understood by the audience and in an attempt to speak the language.

Conclusion

This article focuses on the representation and interpretation of grouping and link diagrams, as a form of visual language that individuals socially construct for making sense of the world. It is argued that common ground (shared meaning) emerges through these visual communication practices, in relation to culture and community. Diagramming and/or drawing ‘when used as a medium of exchange, can form a dynamic function that allows an elaboration of an initial idea and the definition of a concept’ (Brooks, 2009: 5). The grouping and link diagrams from the study illustrate the methods individuals use to connect discrete graphic objects, in an attempt to understand and represent abstract ideas, things or concepts, or to be understood (through visual language) by others within their social group. The results demonstrate that individuals choose a variety of methods to organize and arrange common graphic objects to communicate taxonomies or hierarchies based on spatial proximity; however, grouping diagrams were more common among younger children. In addition, individuals connect and link graphic objects together using glyphs (e.g. arrows, dotted or straight lines) to understand and/or communicate causal relationships, a task that requires more advanced abstract thinking and expression (Brooks, 2009; Tversky, 2015).

Even though it may be assumed that individuals from different age groups experience visual culture differently, previous findings demonstrate that participants use the same graphic objects and representations across age groups (Bowen and Evans, 2015). These graphic objects circulate within their culture and reflect shared meaning. The common ground that emerges from sharing graphic objects suggests a form of contemporary hieroglyphics that helps the individuals to both develop and communicate meaning. While similar graphic objects (e.g. brains, books, light bulbs) were used with little variance of choice across age groups, the ways in which these objects were depicted, organized and used in combination, or with non-depictive elements such as arrows and dotted lines, differed with age and conceptual maturity (Brooks, 2009; Ives, 1984; Jolley, 2009).

Shared meaning and the use of common graphic representations also have an impact on the individual’s habitual ways of seeing, perpetuated by scopic regimes. Scopic regimes are reinforced through the recirculation of common graphic representations constructed by communities and embedded within them. This may be particularly impactful in communities of young children who look for common meaning through their experiences with familiar social places (e.g. school) and the representations affiliated with those places (e.g. textbooks and blackboard diagrams). When young children reuse representations they have seen before to construct or communicate meaning, they further reinforce common scopic regimes. This behoves educators to help students situate and critically analyze the representations they use.

Mavers (2009: 141) classifies the work that children do when they make decisions about their drawings as ‘semiotic work’. In order to convey meaning to others, children learn to select and combine particular graphic objects that are part of their social and cultural milieu. In the case of constructing representations of abstract concepts, such as knowledge, children reflect on their own experiences and make decisions about the kinds of objects they (and others around them) will understand that best represent these experiences. They then evaluate how best to combine these shared objects to convey meaning. Teaching students to be aware of the meanings that result from their decisions can inspire questions regarding the scopic regime, and promote critical awareness of how visual representations are interpreted within their social sphere.

Future research may provide further insight into the effect of different cultures on the choice of common graphic objects used, by posing the same research question in a largely different socially constructed environment. If the interpreter of the graphic representations happens to belong to a different socially constructed culture than that of the respondents, he or she may consider asking participants for additional information (i.e. textually or orally) to describe why they drew what they did. This will assist in mitigating the potential interpreter’s bias.

The ways in which individuals create and construct meaning from graphic representations, such as grouping and link diagrams, and how common graphic objects are used and reused within organized systems, highlight the importance of learning how to interpret graphic depictions for shared meaning. Moreover, greater insights into the ways in which individuals visually communicate abstract concepts and ideas will help educators and problem solvers across multiple domains interpret and use these visual languages as meaningful forms of knowledge construction and communication.

Demonstrating the ways in which individuals choose graphic objects that have shared meaning within their community also provides insight to information designers who depend on graphic objects, symbols, and icons to develop information products and services or to communicate information. However, understanding the ubiquity of shared symbols also sheds light on the consequences of invisible scopic regimes, which may channel reductive thinking at an early age. Emphasizing the ways in which graphic representations are used to generate and share new knowledge about concepts will help expand the range of communication tools and, hopefully, offer new ways of understanding, seeing, and communicating.