Discover the world's scientific knowledge

One aspect that is lacking in the literature (or perhaps I haven't found it) is the methodological implications of Weick's sensemaking framework. In other words, what does it mean to use sensemaking as a method for analysing the data? Is sensemaking some kind of analytical framework? How do you 'make sense' of the data?

I am interested in learning from those who have applied sensemaking in their research.

Ahmad

Hello everyone. I'm looking for papers that measure the construct of sensemaking in respect to organizational shared understanding or plausibility through quantitative questions, Any help with samples are very welcome

Thanks and Regards

I am working on a data visualisation tool to support sensemaking, which just means making sense of something. Examples are understanding an unfamiliar research field or finding your next holiday destination. This usually involves searching/reading from many sources and reasoning (probably not the best word) with all the discovered information. This goes beyond showing what's interesting in the data, and is usually a quite complex process (for example the Pirolli Card model: http://ccom.unh.edu/vislab/VTDP_web_pages/VTDP_Sensemaking.html).

I am very interested in the actual daily tasks that are relevant to sensemaking, rather than abstracted ones such as information triage and foraging (the tool will support concrete tasks). What sensemaking do you do, and is there any tool for that? It will be ideal if there is an overview survey on people's daily sensemaking tasks.

Thanks.

Could this be a new paradigm for patient safety that has many applications? Where have you seen ongoing processes in hospitals where people stop to take stock of what they are doing?

Sensemaking theory describes the process of sensemaking as rather linear 1.noticing cues 2. interpretation 3.action. Does theory that challenge this rather streamlined way of acting exist?.

I am in particular interested in perspectives that challenges this process as seen from Mills & Mills Critical sensemaking theory.

If other researchers or practitioners of conservation planning and natural resource management have been using the SenseMaker tools, I'd be interested to hear your experiences and opinions.  I am undertaking SenseMaker training from Cognitive Edge (http://cognitive-edge.com/) as part of my sabbatical work. Very interesting approach to planning and decision making in complex adaptive systems where there are many plausible outcomes and cause-and-effect relationships are only coherent in retrospect because the "effect" is one of many possible outcomes that could have emerged in response to the "cause". These are situations where expert knowledge can mislead if poorly applied... "Relying on expert opinion based on historically stable patterns of meaning will insufficiently prepare us to recognize and act upon unexpected patterns." (Kurtz & Snowdon. 2003. The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sensemaking in a Complex and Complicated World, IBM Systems Journal 42(3), p8). While I've found much benefit from applying Structured Decision Making and Open Standards approaches to conservation problems and natural resource management decisions - there have been many times where I feel assigned to create a cause-and-effect model where such knowledge does not apply. The SenseMaker approach has not yet been broadly applied and tested in conservation settings - but for those curious, a paper was just published looking at applications of SenseMaker to the challenges of climate change and climate change planning (Lynam and Fletcher. 2015. Sensemaking: a complexity perspective. Ecology and Society 20(1):65) (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art65/).  Looking forward to adding to my elicitation toolbox and thinking about the diverse structures of decision frameworks - simple, complicated, and complex.  Thanks!

This puts spiraling of an organization into an ontological spacetime(mattering). The spiraling fractal antenarrative assemblage and its storytelling properties is something you can find in these references. 

There is a difference between embodied attunement (Heidegger, 1962) to the situation, such as fear of something known, anxiety of something unknown, and turbulent forces (such as economic crisis after crisis) --- and --- the emotional roller coaster people are on.  In spiral antenarratives there is forecaring in advance, the preparations to be in a spiraling assemablage organizing for prospective sensemaking, by acts of forehaving, foreconception, forestructuring, and foresight.  

In spirals fractals there is an assemblage making quicker course corrections as a flock/school/etc. than can be done by empirics of sensemaking (5 senses). Something beyond and beneath is allowing the assemblage to change directions, without bumping into each other, to move into centrifugal and centripetal outward and closeness of the whorls, and to move up and down the spiral vortex. 

This is occurring in fractality of selfsameness across multiple levels or magnifications of scalability, in reality, in acts of coordinated recurrence.

Boje, D. M. (2014). Storytelling organizational practices: Managing in the quantum age. Routledge.

Boje, D. M. and Henderson, T. (Eds.) 2014) Being Quantum: Ontological Storytelling in the Age of Antenarrative. UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Boje, David M. (2016). Organizational Change and Global Standardization: Solutions to the Standards and Norms Overwhelming Organizations. London/NY: Routledge. 

Henderson, Tonya; Boje, David M. (2016). Organizational Development and Change Theory: Managing Fractal Organizing Processes. London/NY: Routledge.

Rosile, G. A., M Boje, D., & Nez, C. M. (2016). Ensemble leadership theory: Collectivist, relational, and heterarchical roots from indigenous contexts. Leadership, 1742715016652933.

Websites

Boje - Double Spiral images https://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/448/double_spiral_for_final.html

Boje – Quantum Energy Works http://davidboje.com/shamanic/quantum_world.htm

Boje – Fractal study guide for Henderson and Boje (2016) and Boje (2016)  http://davidboje.com/fractal/ and https://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/690/What_is_Fractal_Storytelling.htm 

I am looking for a measure of behavioral complexity in a strategic leadership context (in this case, nonprofit boards of directors). The most common instrument for this purpose seems to be Cameron & Quinn's Competing Values Framework. However, the wording of the language is very managerial and at the interpersonal level (even in the most recent version of the instrument from Lawrence et al., 2009).

In a strategic leadership context where the leadership tasks are more oriented toward environmental scanning, sensemaking, and decision making around deployment and alignment of organizational resources, it seems to me that the interpersonal-level framing of the CVF does not fit. This is all the more true in a governance context, where the leadership of board members does include have some interpersonal interaction, but they do not have supervisory relationships with staff. (Even the CEO reports to the board as an body, not to individual members.)

Does anyone know of a validated version of the CVF that has been used in this context? 

Or are there other measures of behavioral complexity that would fit what I am looking for?

In the management literature, "the memories of the past strong episodic emotional experiences or events that are unconsciously embedded and imaged for use in present and future actions, and operations of organization" (Akgün et al, 2012) are considered als antecedent of firm innovativeness.

Can the managers of R&D projects use their emotional memories (EM) and their teams´ EM in order to improve the project sucess in technology integration projects? Maybe the firm that carried out the R&D projects can collect lessons learned, but the tacit knowledge that remains in the mind of the employees is still there if it is not codified.

Attending to other studies, declarative memories (Neil et al, 2007; Moorman & Miner, 1997; Walsh & Ungson, 1991) and procedural memories (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994; Moorman & Miner, 1998) could be an antecedent of the technology sensemaking capability and firm innovativenes (Akgün et al, 2014).

Could be this concepts related with the experience of the project manager in the dimensions of Valence and Arousal? Could we design an scale in order to relate with the project sucess?

"both interviewing (Meretoja, 2014) and sensemaking (Laroche 1995; Lant 2002; Weick 1993) are theorised as enactment of actions to exchange symbols, giving the possibility to explore human experience also as a symbolic interaction. Here “the world cannot be known as such but is brought about by acting upon it. It does not lie there ready to be interpreted, but has to be made sense of” (Hernes & Maitlis, 2010, p. 31). In this way, knowledge is understood to be originated from subjective interpretations of reality, which in the literature is referred as the social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Nevertheless, those subjective interpretations are mediated through the use of shared symbolic schemas of knowledge, such as the language. Those interpretations are better understood as intersubjective, because underlining its shared nature will overcomes the limit of a mere subjective reality. Symbolic interactionism is the most suitable paradigm for the present research, because its “emphasis is on individual sense making, expressed through its detailed development of the role of the self in the construction of reality” (Prasad, 2018, p. 19). Indeed, in our case the focus of the research is both on how political communicators made sense of their professional role, as well as how this could have influenced the interpretation of the Covid-19 context. It was Mead (1977), one of the most influential philosopher of the phenomenological pragmatism, who contributed to the diffusion and development of symbolic interactionism, conceiving that people in order to make sense of a situation decide which role to enact, thus projecting already some of the possible circumstances. According to Mead (1977), people interpret a situation by staging different roles which correspond to the expectations of the context. So roles and identity are an adaptation to the context, because “humans have the capacity to resolve blocks to ongoing activity by internally manipulating symbols to review and choose among potential solutions” (Stryker, 2008, p. 17). Therefore, the role that one takes, is due by the context and vice versa, where the roles are enabled by communication, and communication depends on the interactive and exchange of meanings, which is “constantly being modified through a series of individual interpretations” (Prasad, 2018, p. 21) among the engaged parts. To this extent, the perceived and the enacted roles are behavioural and cognitive symbols exchanged inside and outside individuals, which generate new knowledge to people. Therefore, using the Symbolic Interactionism as a Paradigm, as also PR and Sensemaking theorized, means to focus on those multiple identities, roles, meanings and contexts as phenomena of negotiation. Indeed, multiple realities exist, and through interviews the researcher has the function of let them emerge and observe how interviewees self-identify and perceive their role in the narrated events. I argue that the use of interviews can provide a window over those meanings generated in those contexts, because it allows to reproduce and to grasp a situated knowledge by a person as well as the contextual believes in relation to other social actors."

Do you think those words are accurate and correct about Mead works on roles enactment?

Thank you in advance :D