< Previous | Contents | Next >
4.2 Cognitive mapping
25 maps were created in total, with 11 maps by Roar groups (two in Gallowhill, four in West End and five in Sherwood Greenlaw), six by Create Café and eight by the Star project (all of which can be viewed on the online portfolio):
Table 7- Summary Analysis of Cognitive Maps
Roar | Star | Create | |
Number of Maps | 11 | 8 | 6 |
Types of map: Annotated printed map (A) Mind map (M) Own plan(O) | (A) 1 | (A) 0 | (A) 1 |
(M) 2 | (M) 4 | (M)1 | |
(O) 8 | (O) 4 | (O) 4 | |
Average number of items drawn | 20 | 18 | 9 |
Most number of items drawn | 40 | 31 | 19 |
Least number of items drawn | 3 | 12 | 3 |
Depiction of self in map | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Source: Analysis of practice-based research maps, adapted from factors discussed by Gieseking (2013, p.717)
The participants were eager to look at cognitive maps which others created, and much conversation took place around the details contained in the maps. This was a useful starting
point for later digital storytelling activities, particularly among Roar, suggesting that a continuous or longer session may be desirable and that these two research methods are particularly complementary.
Notable trends within the maps were the layers of personal meaning and annotation attached to the drawings, with many participants adding their own notes to them such as places of work, memories of attending birthdays and weddings in particular venues or transport routes, even recommendations for places to eat and drink, as shown below in Figure 6:
Figure 6- Two examples of annotation on cognitive maps showing personal meaning and annotation
Source: Personal research- workshop participant maps (used with permission)