Talk:Sensemaking

message: Brenda Dervin often uses the latter for the Sense-Making Methodology on her webpages. 
Do we need to diambiguate?
:No, sense-making is what word does when it doesn't like the single word sensemaking there are no good theoretical distinctions Saylors (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensemaking vs. Sense-Making 

message: This page also lacks reference to work in sensemaking and sensemaking tools:
StephenDeGabrielle 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? 

message: I'm going to start to work on this article. I know mostly about sensemaking in organizations (the Weickian tradition), and not so much about its relation to Brenda Dervis's work. But it looks like the two main applications of the concept of sensemaking (or at least the word) are found in organization theory (Weick) and information/library science (Dervin). A quick look at the citation index suggests that the OT version is the most common, but Dervin's concept seems sufficiently similar to keep this in one article. (We can consider a content fork later on.) I think the military application is just that—an application, mainly of Weick's concept, not Dervin's. Anyway, I'm going to start cleaning things up, and I'll probably be moving material temporarily into the talk space as I go a long.--Thomas B (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning overhaul 

message: It looks like Snowded and I are for a split and Biogeographist is the lone voice against. Shouldn't we just boldly split the thing and see what happens?Thomas B (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You won. Be bold. Biogeographist (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Tally 2:1 ? 

message: There is a literature on the role of argumentation in sensemaking that I would like to see integrated into this article, for example:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
I will try to write this myself if I can find time. Of course, anyone else is also welcome to make an attempt. Biogeographist (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensemaking and argumentation 

message: I have now split the article, following the instructions to the best of my ability. There may still be some things that need to be moved, and there seem to be quite a lot of links from other pages that are best changed to link to new article, not this one. There's certainly work to do. I'm looking forward to seeing where this leads.--Thomas B (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks better than I expected, and I too am looking forward to seeing how the articles develop. I now wonder why I tried to argue against the split (perhaps I had some status quo bias), although at least the argument laid out a more extensive rationale (and responded to possible objections) for others to see. Biogeographist (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you like it. I agree that it was not a waste of time to rehearse the arguments for and against the split. Looking forward to working with you on it.--Thomas B (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: I'm trying to break the article into sections that can be worked on more or less independently. I'm happy to talk about whether these are the right headings.--Thomas B (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: I like the alphabetical reference list at the end because it is easy for someone who is familiar with the literature to see what has been cited and what hasn't. But I propose that the citations themselves should be converted from plain text to citation templates (for an example of citation templates, see the reference list that I included in the split discussion above). Citation templates offer advantages over plain text, such as embedded COinS data and inclusion in Wikipedia's own journal citation metrics. I added Template:Wikicite to this article's citations earlier this year because it was a relatively easy way to hyperlink the existing author-date references, but citation templates are preferable, in my view. Converting to citation templates typically requires consensus per WP:CITEVAR so I am mentioning it here before attempting a conversion. Biogeographist (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation templates 

message: I'm beginning to regret support for splitting the article.   At the time it seemed to make sense to give Dervin's work some prominence as she came at the subject from a different perspective to Weick.  But what we now seem to be having is an argument that the field of sense-making (sorry I don't use the neologism) is restricted to, or confined to, academics within the Weickian school.  That is simply not the case.   We need to make sure we are agreed on the subject matter please. -----Snowded TALK 06:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The split was motivated by the fact that there are two fields, not one, that have a concept called "sensemaking": organization studies and information science. But while the names are similar ("sensemaking"/"sense-making") the concepts are different. No one (not even Dervin) has argued that these two concepts are the same. Or no one I know of. Just show me the source that brings them together and I'm happy talk about how to put Dervin into this article.--Thomas B (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

text: PS. In a 1999 paper ("On studying information seeking methodologically" in Information Processing and Management 35, pp. 727-750), Dervin says "There are many uses of the term sense-making as phenomena in the literature (spelled myriad different ways) which have no relationship to the Sense-Making Methodology. For example Weick's (Weick, 1995) Sensemaking in organizations proposed looking at organizational life by examining the phenomenon -- sensemaking" (p. 729, n4). If even Dervin thinks her approach has "no relationship" to Weick's, and Weick's is central to this article, then the "see also" link, and the references in this article are surely misleading? Like I say, maybe something has happened in the intervening 20 years, but it hasn't come up in my searches.--Thomas B (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dervin thinks there are three distinct schools of sense-making and that her approach is different from Weick.  It does not follow from that that sense-making or sensemaking in organisational studies cannot use other approaches to that of Weick.  If you want the article so restricted then you need to get a splinter article on Weick's approach referenced from a reduced article here.-----Snowded TALK 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: she says there is "no relationship". I would argue that you can certainly depart from Weick within OS, but you can't do so without citing him and acknowledging his importance. I.e., you can't publish a paper about "sensemaking" in, say, Organization Studies that doesn't mention Weick, no matter how much your conception of it is at odds with his. You have to take him on. That's how tradition works. But if your conception differs from Dervin, you don't even have to mention it. In OS.--Thomas B (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No relationship in method or underlyingtheory; the same is true of those of us in the naturalising tradition or other schools.  Application however to organisational work is common to many. Any summary article about sense-making is going to reference Weick as one of the giants in the field - but that doesn't mean that he is the only player -----Snowded TALK 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said he's the only player. Sutcliffe, obviously. Maitlis. Go from there. Make connections to Boje and storytelling. All of those are legitimate extensions of the concept. But, as Dervin points out, when you move into her area it's a whole different thing. She doesn't see it as a "phenomenon" but as a "methodology".--Thomas B (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

text: PS. I'm truly puzzled that you'll grant me "No relationship in method or underlying theory" but not that these topics should have distinct articles.--Thomas B (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK 'only player' may have caused confusion - maybe better to say 'only school'. I would always acknowledge Weick's position but my own approach (how to we make sense of the world in order to act) comes from complexity theory, cognitive science and anthropology.   Given Weick's presence others have compared the approaches (the Browning paper for example notes the lack of references but some similarities) but while the application areas are the same the origin of the approach is different.   Dervin the same, she came from one perspective and application but is now used in organisational work.  That means we can't take Weick's definition of the field as definitive, it is one definition and his approach is one approach (allbeit one of the best known). They are not extensions of Weick, nor derivative from or inspired by.  Not mentioning institutions :-) but it might be interesting to convene a state of the field seminar ... -----Snowded TALK 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent thought experiment. Would Weick and Dervin attend that seminar? I think the answer is no. Depending on how you pitch it an entirely different group of people would show up. Weick and Dervin don't acknowledge each other; that's the entire point of my argument here. There's a concept of sensemaking whose meaning derives from acknowledging Weick. And then there's another concept (with a hyphen and a "methodology" attached) whose meaning derives from acknowledging Dervin. The two articles define and explain these two unrelated concepts.--Thomas B (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this article about=

message: It looks like Dave (Snowded) is moving to turn "Weick's approach" into a subcategory of sensemaking. But the lead clearly says it's his concept. This article is about the concept that Weick introduced to organization studies. As I point out above, at least one other approach (Dervin's) has "no relationship" to Weick's. So I think taking the article in this direction is very unwise.--Thomas B (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat sense-making is not confined to Weick or those who have followed his approach -----Snowded TALK 16:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Newton introduced the calculus to mathematics, but it doesn't mean that all subsequent work on the calculus has to be framed in terms of Newtonianism -----Snowded TALK 16:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Within organization studies ("physics") sensemaking ("mechanics") is Weickian ("Newtonian"). That's how I'd make the analogy. There hasn't yet been an "Einstein" of sensemaking. Though (as you may know) I'm inclined to agree with you that we need one.--Thomas B (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Weick's approach?" 

message: My suggestion at this point is to simply rename the article "Sensemaking (organization studies)" or "Organizational sensemaking" using the WP:MOVE procedure.--Thomas B (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't allow you to make the article restricted to Weick I'm afraid.  Do a google scholar search on sensemaking or sense-making in organisations and you will find a lot of material that is not derivative of Weick -----Snowded TALK 16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. Google-scholar. Okay. You've done the search and found "a lot" of material. What's the best example you've found? Let's talk about it.--Thomas B (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a search and found enough. I writing a book chapter on sense-making in systems thinking for a new collection at the moment - when I finish that Monday I'll aim to post some examples - but there is more than enough to make the point -----Snowded TALK 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't given one! When your book is published it may itself be the reliable source we need. (I'm rooting for you!) But let's not be coy here.--Thomas B (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a chapter in someone else's book and part of that is to sort out which references I think are relevant - I've said I look at doing that next week.  In the meantime the Google scholar search gives enough for a link -----Snowded TALK 17:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If it gives enough it should give one. Just give me one example that justifies the link. I'll even grant you that there might, say, ten like it. So give me one example, and we'll assume there's ten like it, and then we'll decide if it justifies the link to Dervin.--Thomas B (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks promising in establishing different schools -----Snowded TALK 18:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still just a list of references (a bibliography). The two encyclopedia articles are co-authored by Dervin, so I'm not sure about those. Then there's a PhD dissertation, which doesn't quite cut it either. But the Browning & Boudès paper is the sort of thing I'm looking for. In this case, it justifies the inclusion of a see also link to Cynefin. Which is of course already in the article, as it should be. (The connection between Cynefin and org-sensemaking is much stronger than the connection to Dervin's sense-making methodology.--Thomas B (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's rename this article to clear this up 

message: The material on Weick is nearly all primary sources.  If you check it out this is not accepted. The article on Boje's anti-narrative was deleted because the only sources were to Boje's writing.  It was only when secondary third party sourcing was found that the article was restored.   It doesn't matter how famous an author is, wikipedia doesn't allow people to write essays based on primary sources. -----Snowded TALK 16:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think that is silly. Weick 1995 is not a "primary source" on sensemaking. It's a classic statement of the theory. The seven properties (as you know) could easily be sourced to countless articles applying them and to org studies textbooks. It's fine to add those sources. But surely it's disingenuous to say that the statement "The standard  conception of sensemaking has seven properties" is "original research". It is totally and completely orthodox.--Thomas B (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Many aspects of wikipedia can be seen as silly I'm afraid.  Use of primary sources is designated as OR or synthesis and we need secondary ones.  Boje got really angry on anti-narrative as it is his idea but the rules were applied  -----Snowded TALK 17:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. There's a perfectly good article on antenarrative that mentions Boje. What's he mad about?--Thomas B (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the history - at one time the only references were to Boje, that is when it got hit.  Third Party references were then found. The new Cynefin framework with liminality can't be in the Wikipedia article until there are third party references - I'm the originator but that makes my work a primary source. -----Snowded TALK 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then add a "citation needed" tag or something. Or just add the citations. Don't pretend you think it's OR to say sensemaking has seven properties. WP:POINT, if I recall.--Thomas B (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically given its all primary sources it should be deleted.   I'll see if I can find a better tag but technical that is correct - writing from primary sources is original research -----Snowded TALK 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: It's a bit rich to link  to a list of articles that I questioned at the time (i.e., read my comment immediately below it), pointing out that they were mainly irrelevant to the discussion. Show me one article that justifies the link. I've shown you a good, solid quote from Dervin (1999) that eschews any "relationship" with Weick's conception. (And this article says clearly, in the lead, that it's about the concept Weick introduced to org studies.) Just show me the article that credibly refutes Dervin and we can talk. But all this gesturing at lists of references (obviously generated by algorithm) is not helping.--Thomas B (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK let me try again.  Dervin clearly says she did not originate her thinking in Weick - not disputed. This article is called Sensemaking (and relates to organisations).  Dervin's work on sense-making is used in organisations.  A link is therefore reasonable -----Snowded TALK 17:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dervin's work is used in organizations. But it has "no relationship" to the concept, which Weick introduced to organization studies, that this article is about. This article is not about every idea that has been called "sensemaking". It's about the idea Weick coined as such. That's clear in the lead. To then associate this with Dervin is to mis-lead. ;-)--Thomas B (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "see also" conflict (I'm not going to revert again)