A Conceptual Model for Eliciting Mental Models Using a Composite Methodology

Abstract

Formed through experience, observation, and learning, mental models are used in decision making to understand, predict, and solve problems. The investigation and application of mental models research are a growing area of scholarly inquiry in human resource development (HRD) and adult education, yet debate about how to best elicit such knowing still persists. Therefore, exemplars for eliciting the mental models of individuals are a matter of importance. The goal of this article is to address some of the issues central to mental model research and the methodological problems faced by scholars and provide an approach to mental model elicitation that holds promise for attending to some of the issues raised in the article. Multi-method Mental Model Elicitation (MMME) overcomes some of the limitations of current approaches, thus helping to increase the utility of mental models research in the field of HRD. Keywords research methodologies, employee development, learning and development The mental models of individuals influence many workplace factors including decision making, work processes, and learning. A mental model encompasses those values, beliefs, and knowledge that create perspectives for filtering information and guiding problem solving (Eckert & Bell, 2005), is held internally, and has the ability to affect how a person acts (Rook, 2013). An individual holds multiple mental models simultaneously, and those are refined and built out over time through the integration of

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

“…IMMs are elaborated through experience and interactions with others (Johnson-Laird et al 1998). In that respect, they are very similar to social representations (Mathevet et al 2011) and are very relevant for exploring the relationship between representations and actions (Grenier and Dudzinska-Przesmitzki 2015). Indeed, IMMs are dynamic representations of how objects work and interact with other objects, i.e., a "small-scale" model of reality (Craik 1943:61) used to try out alternative scenarios mentally (Carley and Palmquist 1992) before acting.…”

“…We therefore consider that IMMs are particularly relevant to describe farmers' representations of complex and dynamic agricultural landscapes and for exploring fine-scale relationships between farmers' representations and their land management practices. Jones et al (2014) and Grenier and Dudzinska-Przesmitzki (2015) reviewed advantages and drawbacks of diverse IMM elicitation methods. Building on their work, we propose a method in which IMMs are elicited graphically, individually, and directly.…”

“…Our results therefore confirm the value of our interdisciplinary methodological framework compared to these other methods. Grenier and Dudzinska-Przesmitzki (2015) have also highlighted drawbacks of existing methods and proposed a multi-method mental model elicitation that consists of three consecutive elicitation techniques. However, those authors did not discuss the potential drawbacks of such a method on sample size.…”

“…Moreover, describing and sharing mental models among stakeholders has been suggested as a way to induce changes in their representations and therefore to improve policy efficiency (ComMod et al 2003, Biggs et al 2011. Indeed, mental models strongly influence people's perceptions of the world and therefore their practices (Grenier and Dudzinska-Przesmitzki 2015). For this reason, mental models have been increasingly studied in research on human-environment interactions (Lynam and Brown 2011).…”

Landscape and biodiversity as new resources for agro-ecology? Insights from farmers’ perspectives

“…Interviewer bias is certainly a risk to the accuracy of the mental model because an intermediary is added to the elicitation process. To avoid many of these bias issues, Grenier and Dudzinska-Przesmitzki (2015) propose a multistep elicitation method that may increase the accuracy of the process. In our case, however, we based our approach on the comprehensive interview approach, which recognizes intersubjectivity between the interviewer and interviewee (Kaufmann 2011).…”