INVISQUE as a Tool for Intelligence Analysis: The Construction of Explanatory Narratives

Abstract

We report an exploratory user-study in which a group of civil servants with experience of, or involvement in, intelligence analysis used the tool INVISQUE to address a problem using the 2011 VAST dataset. INVISQUE uses a visual metaphor that combines searching, clustering and sorting of document surrogates with free-form manipulation on an infinite canvas. We were interested in exposing the behaviours and related cognitive strategies that users would employ to better understand how this and similar environments might better support intelligence type work. Our results include the observation that the search and spatial features of the system supported participants in establishing, elaborating and systematically evaluating explanatory narratives that accounted for the data. Also, visual persistence at the interface allowed them to keep track of searches and to re-find documents when their importance became apparent. We conclude with reflections on our findings and propose a set of guidelines for developing systems that support sensemaking.

Using Machine Learning to Infer Reasoning Provenance From User Interaction Log Data

“…More detail is provided in the original reporting of study B in Kodagoda, Wong, Rooney & Khan (2012), . Similar observations were also made in Rooney, Attfield, Wong, & Choudhury (2014).…”

Community-Oriented Policing and Technological Innovations

“…Passmore et al (2015) described the importance and functionality of different types of evidential structuring and reasoning approaches, as found within a wide set of literature dedicated to the research of uncertain sense-making environments. The evidential structuring and reasoning approaches described by Passmore et al (2015) encompassed argumentation schemas (Wigmore 1931; Wagenaar et al Bex et al 2006;Allen et al 2015), narrative (Pennington and Hastie 1992;Rao 2003;Bruner 2004;Segel and Heer 2010;Attfield and Blandford 2011;Chapin et al 2013) and thematic sorting Attfield and Blandford 2011;Rooney et al 2014) and the role that each served during sensemaking and analytical activities. Passmore et al (2015) urged that any software application design that is aimed at supporting thinking and reasoning throughout analytical and problem-solving tasks, should incorporate a hybrid of structuring and reasoning approaches.…”

Supporting Variability in Criminal Intelligence Analysis: From Expert Intuition to Critical and Rigorous Analysis

“…Based on a number of studies we conducted: e.g. focus group studies with 20 intelligence analysts (Wong and Varga 2012); think-aloud studies with analysts and librarians performing simulated intelligence tasks (Rooney et al 2014;Kodagoda et al 2013); and cognitive task analyses with analysts from three major police forces in Europe (e.g. Wong and Kodagoda 2016;Gerber et al 2016), we summarise below the key design requirements for fluidity in analytical reasoning.…”

“…Analysts also practise a mix of critical thinking and storytelling. In this process they elaborate, question, and often reframe and discard explanations (Klein et al 2007), with some evolving into stronger, well-justified explanations that are robust enough to withstand interrogation (Rooney et al 2014). Wong and Kodagoda (2016) present other aspects of the analytical reasoning process: anchoring, laddering, and posing associative questions.…”