Understanding “influence”: An empirical test of theData‐FrameTheory ofSensemaking

Abstract

This paper reports findings from a study designed to gain broader understanding of sensemaking activities using the Data/Frame Theory as the analytical framework. Although this theory is one of the dominant models of sensemaking, it has not been extensively tested with a range of sensemaking tasks. The tasks discussed here focused on making sense of structures rather than processes or narratives. Eleven researchers were asked to construct understanding of how a scientific community in a particular domain is organized (e.g., people, relationships, contributions, factors) by exploring the concept of "influence" in academia. This topic was chosen because, although researchers frequently handle this type of task, it is unlikely that they have explicitly sought this type of information. We conducted a think-aloud study and semistructured interviews with junior and senior researchers from the humancomputer interaction (HCI) domain, asking them to identify current leaders and rising stars in both HCI and chemistry. Data were coded and analyzed using the Data/Frame Model to both test and extend the model. Three themes emerged from the analysis: novices and experts' sensemaking activity chains, constructing frames through indicators, and characteristics of structure tasks. We propose extensions to the Data/Frame Model to accommodate structure sensemaking.

Adaptive skill as the Conditio sine qua non of expertise.

“…The D/F model evolved from research on larger scale sensemaking in organizations (Weick, 1993, 1995), used mostly in the context of post hoc explanations of significant national and international events, and from recent cognitive task analytic studies of decision making (for related research on sensemaking in the field of human–computer interaction, see Pirolli & Russell, 2011; Russell, Stefik, Pirolli, & Card, 1993). Recent support for this model has come from assessments of high-level sensemaking in real-world decision contexts, including military intelligence analysis, medicine, business, firefighting, and academic influence (e.g., Baber, Attfield, Conway, Rooney, & Kodagoda, 2016; Pontis and Blandford, 2016; Sieck, Klein, Peluso, Smith, & Harris-Thompson, 2004, 2007), as well as the coordination of sensemaking within teams of various kinds (Attfield & Blandford, 2011; Klein, Wiggins, & Dominguez, 2010). Although this evidence serves as verification of the original D/F model, studies are needed to confirm the hypothesis that adaptive framing is central to expertise in complex real-world contexts.…”

Educative Sensemaking on Social Media: An Empirical Investigation of Informal Learning on YouTube

“…In addition, anchors can assist learners in understanding the connections in the elements of the learning material, organizing such understandings into the evolving mental model, and building a coherent and integrated representation of the content of learning [28]. In other words, anchors can support germane load in sensemaking by indicating links between related elements and help learners in building an integrated mental representation.…”

Opening up the black box of scholarly synthesis: Intermediate products, processes, and tools

“…When sensemaking has been studied in scholarly setting, the tasks tend to be general, time‐unbounded, or heavily focused foraging scholarly sources rather than synthesizing. For example, Pontis et al applied the Data/Frame Model of Sensemaking to the task of understanding the organization of a specific scientific community (Pontis & Blandford, 2015, 2016; Pontis, Blandford, Greifeneder, Attalla, & Neal, 2017). Similarly, Faisal et al proposed a model for sensemaking a literature domain, with a vague and long‐term goal of “learning and gaining knowledge of the domain” (Faisal, Cairns, & Blandford, 2006).…”