by John Turner
In my previous article, I talked about problem types and how identifying the type of problem you are working with will determine the most appropriate method or technique to use. When dealing with uncertainty, it sometimes becomes necessary to practice sensemaking to better understand the environment, its conditions, and the problem. This sensemaking step is often critical before being able to properly define the problem and identify the appropriate method or technique.
In this short article, I will present the concept of sensemaking along with a background and a few definitions/descriptions. I will then introduce some benefits from practicing sensemaking. Last, I will introduce the 9-Stages of sensemaking that we derived from our research (Turner et al., 2023) to provide guidance for those who are beginning their sensemaking journey.
Sensemaking
The field of sensemaking has been described as a process of interpretation and understanding for humans to understand ambiguous and puzzling events (Golob, 2018), a communicative process (Naumer et al., April 2008), a theory of our verbings to aid sensemaking and un-making (Dervin, 2015), a bridge between structure and agency (Dervin, 2015; Naumer et al., April 2008), a socially-based activity (Snowden, 2005; Weick, 1995), a humanistic method rather than a mechanistic one (Dervin & Naumer, 2017; Snowden, 2005), and a methodological framework for applying conceptualizations to close the gaps of realities (Dervin, 2015; Naumer et al., April 2008).
Influencers
Sensemaking has been acknowledged as emerging from five main influencers or researchers.
Brenda Dervin’s sense-making methodology from the field of communications.
Dave Snowden’s techniques (e.g., the Cynefin Framework, Estuarine Mapping) that originated from the field of knowledge management.
Gary Klein’s sense-making in cognitive systems engineering.
Daniel Russell’s sense-making and human computer interaction.
Karl Weick’s sense-making in organizations. (Urquhart et al., July 31, 2019)
Definitions
The field of sensemaking has been described as an individual process. A process of interpretation and understanding, a process for humans to understand ambiguous and puzzling events (Golob, 2018). Sensemaking form this perspective has been defined as “the processes through which people interpret and give meaning to their experiences” (Urquhart et al., July 31, 2019, p. Introduction).
It has also been described as a communicative process, one that identifies the nouns of our world offering a bridge between structure and agency (Dervin, 2015). From this perspective, sensemaking has been described as focusing on “how messages are understood by receivers of information and communicated in their life contexts” (Naumer et al., April 2008, p. 2).
Sensemaking has also been captured as a social process. From this perspective, sensemaking is described as a “continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively” (Klein et al., 2006, p. 71).
The definition that I propose, one that encompasses each of the above perspectives, follows: “The process of interpreting ambiguous, complex, unknown, or unexpected events involving multiple processes and interactions resulting in representative actions” (Turner et al., 2023, p. 3).
Sensemaking Benefits/Drives
The practice of sensemaking is practiced by every individual whenever they encounter something unfamiliar or unexpected, either consciously or unconsciously. Acknowledging when one is applying the techniques of sensemaking, and knowing what is involved in this activity, aids agents through the process. Having a better understanding of such a practice will support agents during their journey. Some of the benefits that sensemaking can provide users include:
It satisfies a need or drive to comprehend.
It helps us test and improve the plausibility of our explanations and explain apparent anomalies. Whether an explanation makes sense depends on the person who’s doing the sensemaking. The property of ‘being an explanation’ isn’t a property of statements but an interaction of people, situations, and knowledge.
It’s often a retrospective analysis of events. It clarifies the past but doesn’t make it transparent (that is, completely understood).
It anticipates the future. This makes action possible, though uncertain. It helps us muster resources, anticipate difficulties, notice problems, and realize concerns.
It isn’t the choice of an explanation but a process of deliberating over alternative plausible explanations.
It guides the exploration of information.
It’s often a social activity that promotes the achievement of common ground. It isn’t just an individual activity. (Klein et al., 2006, p. 72)
The 9-Stages
After synthesizing the literature from the five influencers previously identified, a multifaceted sensemaking theory was derived through topic analysis, highlighting the 9-stages of sensemaking (Turner et al., 2023). These 9-stages include: sensing, meaning-making, sensegiving, becoming, agency, counterfactuals, future-scoping, movement, and impact.
Reason and Action
From the 9-stages just presented, a fulcrum was highlighted in the literature. This centroid balances between reason and action. Early philosophers indicated that humans were either capable of reasoning or taking action, but not both. Later, philosophers such as Hume challenged this position stating that it isn’t an either/or proposition, humans are composed of a mixture of dispositions; reasoning, being social, and taking action (Flew, 1988). These stages of sensemaking involve social activity at all levels. Reasoning is best represented by the earlier stages of sensing, meaning-making, sensegiving, and becoming. Action is best represented by the later stages of future-scoping, movement, and impact.
The fulcrum is the stage of counterfactuals which acts as the transition between reason and action. Counterfactuals also challenge the reasoning and action stages in that each must support the other. If the reason stages are not in alignment with what is found in the action stages, then agents must revisit the reason stages to identify why there is a discrepancy. This results in iterative, back-and-forth, activities until understanding is gained and both the reason and action stages align with one another. Counterfactuals aid in this iterative process that challenges the reason and action stages.
Conclusion
Applying sensemaking, regardless of which model or framework you apply (e.g., Dervin, Snowden), application begins with knowing where you are at any given moment in time. The stages presented are non-linear, meaning that any agent can begin or end at any of the 9-stages. Sensemaking aids agents in knowing where they are before they can act.
To reconnect with the conversation at the start of this article, you must know where you are and have a good handle on the problem and conditions (environmental, functional, structural) before you can begin to select the best method or technique for resolving the problem. Sensemaking is an activity, and in many cases a methodology, that aids agents in better understanding their environment and its surroundings. Practicing sensemaking when an unknown problem or issue first arises supports leaders, managers, and practitioners to better identify and define the problem. Sensemaking also helps to keep agents honest by assuring that all action results in a positive change for all stakeholders involved rather than change for the sake of change.
References
Dervin, B. (2015). Dervin's Sense-Making Theory. In A.-S. Mohammed Nasser & A.-A. Ali Saif (Eds.), Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption: Theories and Trends (pp. 59-80). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8156-9.ch004
Dervin, B., & Naumer, C. M. (2017). Sense-making. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed., pp. 4696-4707): CRC Press.
Flew, A. (Ed.). (1988). David Hume: An enquiry concerning human understanding. Open Court.
Golob, U. (2018). Sense-Making. In R. L. Heath & W. Johansen (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of strategic communication (pp. 9). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0159
Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467611
Naumer, C. M., Fisher, K. E., & Dervin, B. (April 2008). Sensemaking: A methodological perspective CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.
Snowden, D. J. (2005). Multi-ontology sense making: a new simplicity in decision making [Article]. Informatics in Primary Care, 13(1), 45-53. https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16815895&scope=site
Turner, J. R., Allen, J., Hawamdeh, S., & Mastanamma, G. (2023). The multifaceted sensemaking theory: A systematic literature review and content analysis on sensemaking. systems, 11(3), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11030145
Urquhart, C., Lam, L. M. C., Cheok, B., & Dervin, B. L. (July 31, 2019). Sense-Making/Sensemaking. In Oxford Bibliographies: Oxford.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
Commentaires