Rhizomatic Maps as a Form of Design Thinking

This blogpost is a part of a longer paper published in 2019. Read it here.

A rhizomatic map is a visual schema representing a simultaneous web of interconnections produced by an individual, creative thought process. Such a map may serve as a personal tool for assembling and organizing knowledge and ideas, with the aim of leading to an innovative project . וn the field of design, a rhizomatic map enables the designer to synchronize visual information, material and formal characteristics, measurements, concepts. ideas, associations and more - in order to formulate an innovative question in design research. This article will demonstrate that rhizomatic mapping, in contrast to hierarchical mapping, constitutes a form of design thinking.

The term "rhizome" is used in botany to refer to a plant stem that lacks a bulb, sending out roots and shoots in all directions. The philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari borrowed this term and reformulated it as a philosophical concept in order to describe a form of thinking that evolves as a network with no single center. According to Deleuze and Guattari, the rhizome is a horizontal plane that contains related elements organized in a non-hierarchical manner, and holds the potential for infinite expansion and for the formation of endless interconnections as more elements are added. Accordingly, rhizomatic maps form coherent networks containing different forms of knowledge and ideas that expand in all directions, and are interconnected by means of lines, arrows, forms and colors.

A rhizomatic map is distinguished from visual tools that hierarchically map knowledge, data or associations. Hierarchical mapping includes all forms of analysis in which contents diverge from a single point of departure. Examples of this type of mapping are numerous: a flow chart begins with a question that is provided with several answers, which in turn lead to further questions and so until final answers are reached; a "genealogical diagram" begins with a person (or concept) that branches out to include offspring (or additional concepts), all the way to the last one; a sun mind map begins with a central idea with from which lines radiate out to associations on the periphery of the map. Over the last two decades, theorists of mapping practices have also begun to define and discuss additional, less familiar forms of hierarchical mapping, such as a concept map, an argument map, and a radial map.

A hierarchical mind map is likely the most common and familiar form of mapping, if one is to judge by the frequency of its appearance in the professional literature, where it is simply referred to as a mind map, without mention of its hierarchical organization. The popularity of mind maps can be traced back to Tony Buzan, who coined this term in the 1970s. Buzan's mind map is structured by clear rules: mapping begins from a subject located at the center of the map, and is broken down by means of branches that expand outwards — each branch represents an association that is given a different color, forking out into additional branches that are coded according to the same principles. Some theorists support Buzan's rules, according to which the branches carry words whereas their points of intersection remain empty, while others present maps based on an inverse method, according to which the intersections among branches are marked by words, while the branches are devoid of content. The differences between these two types are aesthetic rather than essential. The principle, in both cases, is the hierarchical structure, which requires of the map's creator to first determine its subject, and then to break it down in a systematic manner.

Most of the digital mapping programs marketed today offer tools for the creation of one or more types of the hierarchical mapping diagrams mentioned above. Such programs undoubtedly have numerous advantages: they enable us to see the big picture (as described verbally), while attending to nuances. Additionally, they enable us to move among different areas on the map and develop separate subjects without losing touch with the overall context. Yet almost all of these programs, despite their advantages, limit our ability to create a rhizomatic map, which offers numerous other advantages. The idea underlying these different types of hierarchical maps is that every problem has a structured solution that can be organized in accordance with an ordered scheme, and executed based on predetermined guidelines. Yet the initiation of a design project from a single point of departure immediately imposes limits on the final product. As the design theorist Vasilije Kokotovich rightly argues, design problems are not hierarchical in nature, and hierarchical mind maps thus provide designers with limited tools. In their place, he offers an initial outline for "non-hierarchical mind mapping." which calls to mind the rhizomatic map discussed in this article. What follows is an examination of the fundamental differences between these two types of maps. focusing on rhizomatic maps.

Differences between Hierarchical and Rhizomatic Mapping

Rhizomatic mapping is distinguished from all types of hierarchical mapping by its form, contents, creation process and goals. The following are several of these fundamental distinctions:

1. De-centralization: Whereas hierarchical mind maps are based on a center that radiates outwards, a rhizomatic map does away with the center and places equal importance on the periphery. In place of deductive thinking (from the general to the specific) concerning a single idea, the map presents a network that synthesizes knowledge and thoughts. A concept, idea, or data are only part of a large picture that expands out in different directions and that has infinite potential. In the absence of a center from which things radiate outwards or where they come together. any element has equal theoretical value to all other elements, based on the creator's decisions. 2. Synchronized interconnectivity among a range of elements: Whereas a hierarchical mind map is composed Of words and sometimes also of images, a rhizomatic map may also contain data, figures, concepts, quotes, images, diagrams. thoughts, associations, and so forth, which are consolidated into a single ensemble by means of synchronic tools such as lines, arrows, colorful schemas, icons, and more. There are no accepted rules, set forms, or conventional colors. Researchers create their own internal legend for organizing the map. The synchronic interconnections are at the heart of the map's innovative character, visually reflecting the manner in which information is gathered, deciphered and located on the map and thus capturing an individual thought process consolidated in a given field of research.

3. Openness to external content: Whereas a hierarchical mind map is a closed system that views the whole as reflecting the sum of its parts. the rhizomatic map is open to the integration of contents that are not directly derived from the core subject, but are rather related to it by the map's creator. One can add elements from other fields, locating them in a manner that connects them to the map's existing elements. and thus understanding their place within the expanding network. A rhizomatic map presents the manner in which concepts and ideas from different fields were woven together in the creator's mind, and deciphered in a unique manner based on independent decisions. It presents the structured contents of consciousness without compromising their complexity.

4. An orientation towards the research question: A hierarchical mind map opens with a question about a core issue, while the structure in its entirety provides the answer, By contrast, a rhizomatic map begins without an agenda, and ends with a research question. It enables the researcher to search for the missing place, the area that has yet to be studied, exhausted, or deciphered. Its goal is to define a unique research niche that reflects the researcher's personal interests and subjective capacity for innovation. The map is created in order to identify unexpected interconnections and thus point to new ideas and creative trajectories. The map is complete when the goal is reached: when the research question and its unique hypothesis become known.

5. A combination of knowledge and ideas: Whereas a hierarchical mind map is based purely on associations, a rhizomatic map is based on a combination between two types of maps — a "map of ideas" and a "map of knowledge". A "map of ideas," like a hierarchical map, is designed to map ideas and associations. Yet in contrast to a hierarchical map, the process of its creation reveals new interconnections that lead to additional ideas. The second type is a "knowledge map" whose goal is to teach us about a given area, without the need to introduce innovation. A knowledge map transforms a textual-linear format (written or orally transmitted) into a spatial-synchronic sphere. This process requires JS to attend to every element and to connect it to the whole, and thus improves our understanding of the material. This map also constitutes a mnemonic tool for its creator, so that he or she can easily identify one element out of the whole when needed. A "knowledge map" offers an absolute substitute for writing summaries. A rhizomatic map combines the idea map and the knowledge map while effacing the lines between them. It is based on knowledge that creates new ideas and ideas that require an expansion of our knowledge, and gives expression to creative thinking combined with a research- based infrastructure. Rhizomatic mapping strives to avoid the automatic nature of associative thinking by locating trajectories of associative thought within a larger system of contexts, in order to reveal new and unexpected connections. The mapping of knowledge strives to reveal the gaps — those areas in which the map's creator lacks knowledge — thus anchoring the project in research and providing a solid basis for innovation.

A Rhizomatic Map as a Form of Design Thinking

Designers exploring a new field of research are often faced with a blank slate, which they are required to study for the first time. Even when they possess partial or deep knowledge of the field, they are seeking to break new ground. In either of these cases, the process requires going beyond one's reservoir of personal knowledge and initial intuitions. A rhizomatic map synchronizes the knowledge accumulated in the coorse of research — be it morphological, material, technological, historical, theoretical, or a combination of the above — with thoughts, ideas, and free associations concerning this body of knowledge. Just as design is an adaptation of form, function, materials, colors and so forth to a user, context, budget and more, a rhizomatic map adapts its form to its content while delineating the range of interconnections between its different elements.

In order to demonstrate the rhizomatic mapping process, let us take as an example the field of research concerning teapots. A certain researcher who specializes in ceramics will focus on ceramic teapots. In accordance with her personal range of interests, she will map teapots according to their design in different traditions and the use of different technologies (pottery-making, casting, 3-D ceramic printing, and more). Based on her personal interest in parametric, virtual teapots, she will discover, for instance, the Utah teapot, which represents the group Unfold's material representation of such a teapot. She will locate the teapots on the map and forge connections between them by means of synchronic links with other elements on the map. The research question that such a map may yield could be: "How will virtual parametric teapots influence the design of traditional teapots?"

As the above discussion reveals, rhizomatic mapping is more complex than hierarchical mapping. It requires the adaptation of form to contents; highly developed associative abilities in order to introduce new and extraneous factors into the core subject; the diversion of the research field in unusual directions; the grounding of associative trajectories within a synchronic network; and a willingness to continue and expand the research project and reveal the gaps within it, rather than clinging to what is already known. This type of mapping constitutes less stable ground, for the introduction of every new element requires its examination in relation to the entire system — especially since the end result is a design question, rather than an answer. It is clear, however, that this unstable terrain, which is groundbreaking and challenges accepted boundaries, gives expression to the unique thinking skills of designers. A design project must begin free of prejudice and external dictates, and open to experimentation with the unfamiliar. A rhizomatic map makes this possible.

This blogpost is a part of a longer paper published in 2019. Read it here.