Decision Making / 3 / 3.10

3.10 DIFFICULTIES OF AMALGAMATING MAPS

Eden and Ackermann (1988b) identify difficulties associated with amalgamating cognitive maps. Consider the amalgamation of maps from two reports by different authors on the same subject, or produced from interviews with two separate interviewees on the same subject.

In such case, it is necessary to contend with:

• potentially disparate perspectives;
• idiosyncrasies in the use of language; and
• individual use of fuzzy logic in the psychological constructs portrayed in the maps.

Considerable skill in interpretation is needed. So, interpretation should be done in consultation with the interviewees or authors. Working in a group setting places the interpretive task back on the originators.

Individuals working together can produce a joint, and agreed, map. But, working alone, the mapper produces an amalgamated, third perspective. That does not mean such a perspective is invalid. If there are high levels of agreement in the original maps, amalgamation is less difficult. Where significant differences exist in the original maps, considerable skill needed and objectivity could be threatened. It is more likely that findings will be inconclusive.

Where findings are inconclusive (indeed in all cases) the maps can be used to facilitate dialogue. Dialogue can result in creation of a new view. The most important aspect is that, correctly managed, dialogue can result in critical analysis of individually held, ingrained assumptions.

Kelly (1955) makes the point that our personal constructs are continually being reviewed and re-constructed. We continually evolve our personal constructs. Our views of the world today are not necessarily our views tomorrow… our personal constructs change continually, incrementally.

This does not mean radical change. The overall structure influenced by our systems of meaning may remain largely unaltered [unless deeply ingrained assumptions are challenged and, as a result of critical review, reconstructed].