Cognitive mapping

General approach

The cognitive maps are visualized through an appropriate automated software tool, namely XMind in version 3.6.1 from XMind Ltd. Hong Kong. This software is an open source brainstorming and mind mapping tool that helps with capturing, structuring, and visualizing complex information to clarify thinking. This software tool is similar in its main functions to the well-known Decision Explorer from Branxia Software, which is one of the first mind mapping tools of its kind. Therefore, the instructions from Brightman (2002) serve as the main reference regarding symbolism. She explains the graphical materialization by describing how to implement the generated ideas and critical success factors into nodes, so-called concepts, link them to each other, and visually classify them

regarding their meaning and importance. Key elements of the utilized symbolism are as follows:

• A concept or a node is a statement consisting of either a keyword or a phrase that can be linked to other concepts by relationship.

• Relationships are shown as links between the concepts and imply that one concept leads to another concept.

• Concepts can be linked to form a hierarchy of factors and objectives.

• Relationships can be temporal links showing that one concept follows the other concept in time.

• Relationships can be connotative and therefore bidirectional.

• Concepts can be either positively or negatively related. Bryson et al. (2004) distinguishes between options and constraints.

• Arrows out of concepts represent a consequence whereas arrows into concepts represent an explanation or cause. The thickness of the arrows indicates the strength of relations.

• Concepts with no out-arrows are heads and represent goal type statements that express desired or not-desired outcomes.

• Concepts with no in-arrows are tails and represent causes.

• Concepts are consecutively numbered to provide the possibility of clear referencing.

Bryson et al. (2004) and Eden (2004) serve as the main reference of work for the structural map development. Bryson et al. (2004) categorize the concepts as assertions, actions, options, issues, strategies, goals, and negative goals. The linking of the concepts forms a hierarchy of action and result. Therefore, it is helpful to categorize the concepts to locate their position in the hierarchy. As a result, the researcher can explore his intended activities or strategies regarding the aspired goal.

Mapping process

According to Bryson et al. (2004), the mapping process implies three important trade-offs to be overcome: accuracy, generality, and simplicity. A cognitive map describes a

hierarchy that is set by the map shape. Its meaning can be understood by each concept and the embedded relationships between several concepts. Some concepts are goals, some

represent causes, and others are actions. The more relationships a concept has, the more significant it can be and vice versa. Key concepts are those nodes with a complex

ramification and many connections to other concepts. When a cognitive map is in the form of connected clusters of nodes, each cluster might represent a separate part of the issue that might be addressed separately.

Reasons for modification

Although categorization provides transparency and facilitates subsequent analysis, the researcher modifies this approach for the following reasons:

• Categorization is understood as an act of interpretation that is made after the cognitive map construction by the researcher.

• Concepts can represent different categories at the same time, e.g., a concept can simultaneously be a critical success factor and a goal.

• A hierarchy that can be deducted from a categorization contradicts the research objective of analysing reciprocal dependencies; moreover, the illustration of this hierarchy would unnecessarily stress the aspired clarity of the cognitive map. • In contrast to Correira dos Santos and Mira da Silva (2015), who analyse the

cognitive map inter alia by the means of counting connections, the researcher believes that the complexity of the ramification does not necessarily increase the importance of a concept and advances it to a key concept.

Modification

As the conceptual framework (see section 2.4) sketches the key aspects of the research topic – price-settings, price strategies, managerial objectives, and practical improvement – it makes sense to cluster these main areas in the cognitive map the same way and make them explicitly visible and collocate the main areas. Providing this structure upfront may be considered a limitation that constrains the explorative character of the research. However, the researcher considers holistic research covering all research questions as a priority to provide an overall impression. This approach does not prevent research from being accentuated and at the same time holistic.

Therefore, the interviewee is given the possibility to accentuate and thereby partly

categorize the concepts by graphically marking them as the key aspects or critical success factors according to the symbolism illustrated in Figure 6. The key aspects reflect the focus of the main research objectives, namely price-setting practice, price strategy, managerial objectives, and practical improvement. On the one hand, this approach limits upfront categorization and its undesired consequences. On the other hand, it facilitates a holistic reflection on the topic by considering all relevant research objectives. Furthermore, it enables understanding the interviewee and his understanding of the significance of the concepts and critical success factors.

The simplified coding of the map is conducted according to the symbolism shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Cognitive map symbols

Source: Conceptually adapted from Correira dos Santos and Mira da Silva (2015)

Additional coding extending the interviewee’s categorizations according to the previously described approach is not conducted by the researcher. Further fragmentation of data would result in a loss of the narrative flow and a loss of the identified relationships between the concepts that provide additional value for the understanding of complex interrelations (supported by Riessman (2002)). Furthermore, coding would rip concepts out of a cognitive maps’ context and lead to misinterpretations. The researcher believes that cognitive mapping conducted in this way during the semi-structured interview can provide a reliable approach that brings out the relevant influencing factors as considered by the interviewee and documents complex interrelations in an integrated way.