Re: [unrev-II] Dervin and Sense-Making

From: Peter Jones (ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 15 2001 - 07:51:19 PST

  • Next message: Eugene Eric Kim: "unrev-ii going away; please subscribe to new list"

    I'm not saying that there aren't interesting things in Dervin's work, just
    questioning whether persuasion can be taken out of the picture.
    I actually didn't read far enough last night - mea culpa.

    "Thus, Sense-Making mandates attention to the power and
    authority forces that impact those who make and use information."
    p12.
    http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artdervin01.pdf

    Leaving that aside....what is there of interest in Dervin's work?

    Dervin's papers are about methodologies for making sense of studying others
    making
    sense. But she's seemingly trying to do science without actually doing any
    science (or philosophy), and that's where it falls flat for me. It basically
    suggests that methodologizing (in the hopes of gaining some sort of
    scientific validity for it) the act of sense-making is hugely problematic
    to the point of impossibility (because there is personal construal at every
    level),
    and that if you attempt to do it without
    coherent communicable theorizing beforehand the results aren't really of any
    communicative scientific value,
    +ve, -ve, or otherwise. But she's deliberately shunned static coherences as
    part of the methodology, so you are left wondering where the theory is...
    The theory is in that she's saying boils down to, "I'm looking for patterns
    in folks' sense-making activities. *Verb/action patterns*, not noun
    patterns. But since I have my own verb patterns of interpretation of others'
    verb patterns, and verb use is not always attached to substantive contexts,
    the results are going to look pretty woolly."
    Hmm.

    From
    http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artdervin01.pdf
    p9
    "1.12. Searching for patterns: multiple connectivities
    Sense-Making assumes that there are myriad ways that human beings have
    individually and
    collectivity verbed their worlds, in adaptation, response, resistance,
    creativity, challenge, and
    invention. This, in turn, implies that in attempting to understand the human
    condition Sense-
    Making admits all manner of connectivities and patterns, not just
    causalities but spontaneities,
    simultaneities, temporalities, collaboralities, and so on. This includes not
    just connectivities
    that imply anchorings in the real (factizings, experiencings, structurings)
    but those that imply
    soarings beyond (narratings, fantasyings, imaginings). In essence,
    Sense-Making mandates that
    the connectings between entities and events that have been traditionally
    called theorizing and
    traditionally relegated to the researcher's superior tools and training
    become themselves a focus
    of study. A causal assumption would, for example, become an interpretive
    focus not merely an
    outcome of statistical testing or researcher extrapolating. By positioning
    ordinary persons as
    theorists, Sense-Making mandates that ordinary persons be asked and that the
    patterns -- the
    connectivities -- not be imposed by assumption. Where there are different
    `readings' (and
    Sense-Making assumes there always will be) these must themselves be put into
    dialogue rather
    than making one reading central by caveat and homogenizing or marginalizing
    the rest."
    [...]
    p.10
    "This mandate is a methodological move necessitated by the very
    metatheoretic premises on which Sense-Making rests. It does not deny the
    possibility of
    multiple perspectives finding places of convergence. At the same time it
    does not tautologically
    impose this concept by relegating all divergence to error."
    [...]
    "What this means is that there is a kind of quadruple
    hermeneutic operating in Sense-Making's enterprise. Any methodology involves
    interpretations
    (hermeneutic #1). In the case of studies of human beings, the focus is the
    interpretations of
    interpretations made by researched human beings (hermeneutic #2). But
    Sense-Making is self-
    consciously focused not on interpretations per se, but on interpretings,
    those of
    researchers-interpreting interpretations (hermeneutic #3) of
    human-beings-interpreting interpretations
    (hermeneutic #4)."

    Got that? But then in reading the results of her research you are on
    hermeneutic level #5, interpreting your interpretations of interpreting your
    interpretations of....
    Anyone you try to communicate all that to is definitely on level #6. And so
    on.

    The scientistic twist comes when she asserts that all this interpreting of
    interpreting of... can help nail methods for researching particular aspects
    of human sense-making. Um, but don't you need to know what it means to
    interpret first?

    "In a more general way, Sense-Making aims
    toward achieving these ends by implementing an interviewing approach that
    does not name the
    world for the actor but rather mandates the actor to name the world for
    herself."
    p14. ibid.

    So the initial method is just questioning then, really. That'll give the
    researcher some data that they can then study. They might see some patterns
    of verbing, interpreting their interpretations of interpreting their
    interpretations of [...] the verbing as they go. If they're really lucky
    they might see a pattern in their interpreting their interpretations of
    [...], and off they go again.

    Does this tell them what interpreting is, how it works, etc? How does this
    tell them how it works?

    How will we know when we know that we've made sense of how folks make sense
    of stuff?

    The supply of questions is just never-ending. "Sense-Making" (TM) is just
    asking questions, imho.

    So I guess a moral of the tale might be:
    Don't go loopy, unless it's one you can stop.
    (Good advice for programmers at least.)

    Cheers,
    Peter

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
    To: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
    Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 2:01 AM
    Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Dervin and Sense-Making

    > Peter.
    >
    > From your reading of this paper, anything in that that bears directly on
    how we
    > should conduct ourselves editorially? Any hints, suggestions?
    >
    > Henry
    >
    > Peter Jones wrote:
    >
    > > OK, I've just read a Dervin paper:
    > >
    http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artdervin83.html
    > >
    > > AN OVERVIEW OF SENSE-MAKING RESEARCH:
    > > CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND RESULTS TO DATE
    > > by: Brenda Dervin
    > >
    > > It comes with a proviso:
    > >
    > > Notes:
    > > This 1983 presentation of the Sense-Making approach is now out of date
    but
    > > still provides a foundation for interested readers. For more up-to-date
    > > works, see the various bibliographic listings on this on-line site.
    > >
    > > As I read that paper it does emphasize the importance of active
    information
    > > seeking by individuals, but omits any notion of their reaction to that
    > > information.
    > >
    > > Or from:
    > > On studying information seeking methodologically: the
    > > implications of connecting metatheory to method
    > > Brenda Dervin*
    > > Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
    > > Accepted 20 April 1999
    > > http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artdervin01.pdf
    > >
    > > "Sense-Making mandates a focus on the hows of human individual and
    > > collective sense-
    > > making and sense-unmaking, on the varieties of internal and external
    > > cognizings, emotings,
    > > feelings, and communicatings that make, reinforce, challenge, resist,
    alter,
    > > and reinvent human
    > > worlds."
    > >
    > > Funny how the word persuasion or self-persuasion could cover so much of
    that
    > > list.
    > >
    > > "Factizing, of course, is not the only verbing that creates what we
    > > call knowledge. There are a host of other verbings involved (e.g.
    > > consensusing, negotiating,
    > > power-brokering, deŽning, hunching, muddling, suppressing). By focusing
    on
    > > the verbings by
    > > which sense is made and unmade, Sense-Making frees research from the
    > > implicit assumption
    > > that there is one right way to produce knowledge. Emoting, for example,
    > > usually marginalized
    > > as a non-useful strategy for sense-making takes equal footing along with
    > > factizing. Sense-
    > > Making conceptualizes every verb of collective and individual human
    > > sense-making as useful
    > > under some conditions and methodologically mandates research to unearth
    > > those conditions."
    > >
    > > Ditto.
    > >
    > > "Sense-Making assumes that issues of force and power
    > > pervade all human conditions; that humans are impacted by the
    constraining
    > > forces of
    > > structural power (both natural and societal) and that as individuals in
    > > specific situations they
    > > are themselves sites of power, to resist, reinvent, challenge, deny, and
    > > ignore."
    > >
    > > Ditto.
    > >
    > > "Extrapolated from the above is a central assumption that ordinary human
    > > beings are
    > > theorists, not just potentially theorists, but theory-makers.
    Sense-Making
    > > posits that theory-
    > > making is a mandate of the human condition given pervasive
    discontinuity.
    > > This discontinuity
    > > manifests itself in multiple ways: in the gappiness of the human
    condition
    > > with its gaps
    > > between external worlds and internals, time, and space; in the gaps
    between
    > > human mind,
    > > tongue, heart, body; in gaps between people at the same time; in gaps in
    a
    > > person across time;
    > > in gaps between structure and person, structure and structure. The
    > > assumption of pervasive
    > > discontinuity leads to the assumption that no human movement, collective
    or
    > > individual, can
    > > be fully instructed or fully constrained a priori. The next step may be
    a
    > > repetition, or an
    > > invention; by design or by caprice; in conformity or resistance; a
    muddle or
    > > a thrashing about.
    > > Whatever the next move, whether it be a move by a single person, or a
    move
    > > by one or more
    > > persons on behalf of a collective, that move is made without complete
    > > instruction or
    > > constraint. The very idea of this incompleteness presents the
    possibility of
    > > considering these
    > > moves as at least in part designed (consciously or unconsciously,
    > > repetitively or innovatively).
    > > Being in part designed, they can be conceptualized as practices that are
    in
    > > some way theorized
    > > even if that theorizing appears mute and inarticulate or dominated and
    > > constrained. It is in this
    > > space that Sense-Making mandates the positioning of humans as theorists
    and
    > > the study of
    > > communication as dialogic."
    > >
    > > Ditto.
    > >
    > > So how come 'Sense-Making' seems only to stress the information seeking
    of
    > > actors and not the power struggles, internal and external that are so
    > > important in the picture? Why, when she's studied Michel Foucault, are
    her
    > > actors so divorced from this struggle?
    > > Could it be because there's a 'GAP' in there that shouldn't be there?
    > >
    > > And so on...
    > > Seems to me that good sense-making requires a little more coherence.
    > >
    > > [Time for bed.]
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: <albert.m.selvin@verizon.com>
    > > To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:14 PM
    > > Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Visual stimuli & IBIS methodology
    > >
    > > >
    > > > The text may have sounded that way -- my fault, if so. Take a look at
    the
    > > > many years of field research, both in industrialized and developing
    > > > countries, that supports Dervin's reseach, in order to judge its
    > > > speciousness and pseudo-ness.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk> on 11/14/2001 03:15:35 PM
    > > >
    > > > Please respond to unrev-II@yahoogroups.com
    > > >
    > > > To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    > > > cc:
    > > >
    > > > Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Visual stimuli & IBIS methodology
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Al Selvin wrote:
    > > > >Brenda Dervin, for example, contrasted a sensemaking
    > > > >approach to the persuasion approach. For her, sensemaking is a
    process
    > > > >where people confront obstacles or discontinuities in their progress
    > > > >towards some goal; when they hit such obstacles, they cast about for
    ways
    > > > >to understand their situation so that they can design effective
    movements
    > > > >around, through, or away from the obstacles. It has little to do with
    > > > >persuasion and much to do with figuring out what's going on and what
    to
    > > do
    > > > >in a situation where the normal rules are upset.
    > > >
    > > > Nope, I'm not persuaded. Based on the text above, it sounds like
    specious
    > > > pseudo-intellectual meaning dodging.
    > > >
    > > > >much to do with figuring out
    > > >
    > > > Self-persuasion? Justified beliefs, new or old?
    > > > It's still a form of persuasion.
    > > > How rational and sophisticated it is is entirely dependent on the
    players
    > > > and the context, but it's still persuasion.
    > > >
    > > > But then that's just my opinion, you don't have to be convinced.
    > > >
    > > > Cheers,
    > > > Peter
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > From: "Jack Park" <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
    > > > To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:43 PM
    > > > Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Visual stimuli & IBIS methodology
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > At 09:11 AM 11/14/2001 -0500, Al wrote:
    > > > > >I studied communication in grad school in the early 80s. In that
    field,
    > > > > >much of the newer and promising work going on was a reaction
    *against*
    > > a
    > > > > >model of communication as persuasion, which had dominated the field
    in
    > > > the
    > > > > >previous decades. Brenda Dervin, for example, contrasted a
    sensemaking
    > > > > >approach to the persuasion approach. For her, sensemaking is a
    process
    > > > > >where people confront obstacles or discontinuities in their
    progress
    > > > > >towards some goal; when they hit such obstacles, they cast about
    for
    > > > ways
    > > > > >to understand their situation so that they can design effective
    > > > movements
    > > > > >around, through, or away from the obstacles. It has little to do
    with
    > > > > >persuasion and much to do with figuring out what's going on and
    what to
    > > > do
    > > > > >in a situation where the normal rules are upset.
    > > > >
    > > > > As it turns out, I read TR 74 and was somehow primed for this
    response,
    > > > > which also corresponds to my intuition that seeking truth or making
    > > sense
    > > > > cannot and should not involve persuasion. It is for this reason
    that I
    > > > > have been thinking that keeping the participants (at least in the
    non
    > > > > face-to-face) dialogs anonymous. I have observed a tendency to play
    to
    > > > > whatever opinions the "expert" (read: big cheese) has to say, while
    > > > > conducting meetings with QuestMap. It strikes me that a good
    > > facilitator
    > > > > ought to have some skills handy for deflecting the force of
    unwarranted
    > > > karma.
    > > > >
    > > > > Jack
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Community email addresses:
    > > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > > > >
    > > > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > > > >
    > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Community email addresses:
    > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > > >
    > > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > > >
    > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Community email addresses:
    > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > > >
    > > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > > >
    > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Community email addresses:
    > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > >
    > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > >
    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    >
    >

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
    Refill any ink cartridge for less!
    Includes black and color ink.
    http://us.click.yahoo.com/bAmslD/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/IHFolB/TM
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

    Community email addresses:
      Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
      Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
      Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
      List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page:
      http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 07:39:37 PST