The following text has been adapted from a short article produced for the Centre for Staff and Educational Development (CSED) in 2008:
Keeping track of the structure of a thesis is not as simple as it first seems. After a year and a half of PhD research, the nature of sections change, chapters move and ideas slip between them. This is the nature of research and writing, but it is also very unnerving, and difficult to maintain an overview when so much time can be spent on minutiae.
Mind mapping, a thinking, problem solving and planning technique popularized by psychology author Tony Buzan in the 1960s, departed from traditionally linear assimilation and production of information (e.g. left to right, top to bottom). Buzan advocated a system that began with a central concept or topic that grew in different directions, and developed connections that reflect the way that the brain processes information and generates ideas. Mind maps are designed to be, as far as possible, multi-sensory, incorporating images and vivid colours to isolate key points, trace connections and stimulate thought processes.
My main concern was with the applicability of mind mapping in PhD research. I wanted to see if it could help, not only to generate novel ideas and problems to be addressed in the sections and sub-sections of a thesis, but to structure such ideas in a way that enabled the student to keep in mind the ‘big picture’, thus avoiding the pitfalls of repetition and digression that accompany an extensive piece of writing.
Mind mapping as a technique is now big business. Several major software companies have produced programs that are capable of producing mind maps on screen, integrating images, links and files. During my doctorate, I selected three recognised market leaders that all possessed business-level functionality, which basically meant integration with Microsoft Office applications, such as Word, Powerpoint and Outlook, and the export of maps in PDF format for printing. These programs were Visual Mind 8 (now discontinued), Mind Manager Pro 6, and Mind Genius Version 2. I assessed them on the basis of user-friendliness, integration with Microsoft Office applications, and the clarity and potential of certain features in the map.
Visual Mind 8 from Mind Technologies was a slick program designed along the lines of an Office application, with a simple menu bar at the top of the screen and a series of trendy icons along the right-hand side, which can be embedded in the map to stimulate ideas, presumably make the whole thing look less severe. The map topics and sub-topics were well-structured and clear. Integration with Microsoft Office was generally good, except that the trial version seemed to prohibit repeated exporting to Office programs by spontaneously shutting down. The fact that the cursor could also change to a ‘grasp and drag’ hand after clicking the mouse a couple of times, meant that it was easy to move around the map. However, I could not figure out how to create connections between topics, and, at the time, I was unsure as to whether the program acually included such a feature.
Mindjet’s Mind Manager Pro 6 was serious. It virtually took over my desktop by placing its little blue icon in most of the Microsoft applications. Mind Manager also adopted the familiar menu bar at the top of the screen, but the right-hand side included a ‘tab’ system for keeping track of the maps you create, the ‘tasks’ that you have assigned, and a range of colourful icons that you can place in your maps. In 2008, it had an advantage over Visual Mind 8 in including simple ‘relationship’ arrows to link topics. Its integration with Office enabled efficient exporting and importing of information, and the creation of PDF files. However, seemed to have been designed for stressed executives. The emphasis on ‘tasks’ and ‘alerts’ suggested a piece software for organizing people rather than ideas.
Gael’s Mind Genius Version 2 was probably the least attractive of the three programs I tested. In layout it was closer to Visual Mind than Mind Manager, and Office integration was good. However, the PDF production seemed to favour creation of a linear text document with headings rather than the map itself. The handy zoom bar at the top of the screen was useful, and gave the impression that the map actually occupied some sort of virtual space, making it somewhat more tangible than either Visual Mind or Mind Manager. Unfortunately, having to switch between the cursor and the ‘grasp and drag’ hand was nothing short of annoying. The ‘relationship’ arrows were present but imperceptible.
Back in 2008, I recommended Mindjet’s Mind Manager Pro 6. Notwithstanding its human resources feel, it was probably the most functional and intuitive of the three programs I tested. The map styles were comprehensible and conducive to structuring sections and sub-sections. The relationship arrows were clear and flexible. The integration with Microsoft Outlook intrigued me, and I suspected that its scheduling capabilities would be immensely useful in planning the thesis, such as arranging research trips, keeping to chapter deadlines, reminders for emailing people and conducting literature searches.
What really makes mind mapping software useful is its compatibility with existing digital information, such as e-mails, websites and documents. It serves as a summary of work completed and still in progress; signposting the point reached and the way to go with the thesis. By connecting an overview map to other maps, which could represent sections or chapters, it is possible to move through the levels of the project, and actually visualize the relationships between ideas and the development of an argument, for example. If you are encountering a problem with the direction of your thesis, or have that feeling that your work is fragmenting, then I would strongly recommend a tool like MindManager. A free trial can be found on the company’s website.
I will be exploring this topic in future posts, and suggesting some alternative applications available to students at the University of East Anglia, as well as the impact of artificial intelligence. In the meantime, check out the very helpful introduction to the subject by Steve Hutchinson and the University of Edinburgh.