Abstract
In the field of naturalistic decision making, the data–frame model (DFM) has proven to be a popular and useful way of thinking about sensemaking. DFM provides a parsimonious account of how ‘sensemakers’ interact with the data in their environment to make sense of what is happening. In this paper, however, we argue that it is useful to elaborate DFM in several ways. We begin by arguing for the idea of sensemaking as a quest for coherence, an idea that we see as consistent with the DFM. We then present some examples of sensemaking studies and use these to motivate a ‘distributed resources’ model of sensemaking. This model uses the notion of resources for action, as resources that can be flexibly drawn upon in both choosing courses of action and accounting for the actions of oneself and of others (as opposed to prescriptions or mechanisms that determine behaviour in any strict way). The model describes resources involved in sensemaking in terms of three domains: knowledge and beliefs, values and goals, and action. Knowledge and beliefs are concerned with how things are, values and goals are concerned with how things are desired to be and action provides the means for redressing the gap. Central to the model is the idea that these resources can be distributed across a cognitive work system including actors and representational media. Hence, the model aims to provide a framework for analysing sensemaking as distributed cognition.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
EWMST is proprietary software developed by MASS Consultants Ltd (UK).
We use ‘domain’ here to mean a taxonomically bounded set of things.
References
Attfield S, Baber C (2017) Elaborating the frames of data-frame theory. In: 13th International conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, pp 25–32
Attfield S, Blandford A (2011) Making sense of digital footprints in team-based legal investigations: the acquisition of focus. Human Comput Interact 26(1–2):38–71
Attfield S, Dowell J (2002) Information seeking and use by newspaper journalists. J Doc 59(2):187–204
Attfield S, Fields B, Wheat A, Hutton R, Nixon J, Leggatt A, Blackford H (2015) Distributed sensemaking: a case study of military analysis. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on naturalistic decision making, 9–12 June 2015, McLean, VA
Baber C (2010) Distributed cognition at the crime scene. AI Society 25:423–432
Baber C, Butler M (2012) Expertise in crime scene examination: comparing search strategies of expert and novice crime scene examiners in simulated crime scenes. Hum Factors 54:413–424
Baber C, McMaster R (2016) Grasping the moment: sensemaking in response to routine incidents and major emergencies. Ashgate, Avebury
Baber C, Smith P, Butler M, Cross J, Hunter J (2009) Mobile technology for crime scene examination. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67:464–474
Baber C, Chen X, Howes A (2015) (Very) rapid decision making: framing or filtering? 12th International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making
Baber C, Attfield S, Conway G, Rooney C, Kodagoda N (2016) Collaborative sensemaking during intelligence analysis exercises. Int J Hum Comput Stud 86:94–108
Blandford A, Attfield S (2010) Interacting with information. Synth Lect Hum Centered Inf 3(1):1–99
Brooks M (2010) Things that don’t make sense: the most intriguing scientific mysteries of our time. Profile Books
Carsten O, Vanderhaegen F (2015) Situation awareness: valid or fallacious? Cogn Technol Work 17(2):157–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0319-1
De Jaegher H, Di Paolo E (2007) Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenol Cognit Sci 6:485–507
Dervin B (1983) An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods, and results to date. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX. http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artdervin83.html
Duffy T, Baber C, Stanton NA (2013) Measuring collaborative sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM conference, 561–565
Elm W, Potter S, Tittle J, Woods D, Grossman J, Patterson E (2005) Finding decision support requirements for effective intelligence analysis tools. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. pp 297–301
Hutchins E (1995a) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge
Hutchins E (1995b) How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognit Sci 19(3):265–288
Jenkins DP, Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH (2008) Cognitive work analysis: coping with complexity. Ashgate, Aldershot
Klein GA, Calderwood R, Clinton-Cirocco A (1986) Rapid decision making on the fire ground. In: Proceedings of the human factors society annual meeting, SAGE Publications, Sage, pp 576–580
Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006a) Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):70–73
Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006b) Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):88–92
Klein G, Phillips JK, Rall EL, Peluso DA (2007) A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In: Expertise out of context: proceedings of the sixth international conference on naturalistic decision making. New York, NY, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 113–155
Kodagoda N, Attfield S, Wong BL, Rooney C, Choudhury S (2013) Using interactive visual reasoning to support sense-making: Implications for design. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Gr 19(12):2217–2226
Pennington N, Hastie R (1991) A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo L Rev 13:519
Pirolli P, Card S (2005) The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In: Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis, pp 2–4
Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-13(3):257–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313160
Roth EM, Pfautz JD, Mahoney SM, Powell GM, Carlson EC, Guarino SL, Fichtl TC, Potter SS (2010) Framing and contextualizing information requests: problem formulation as part of the intelligence analysis process. J Cognit Eng Decis Mak 4:210–239
Russell DM, Stefik MJ, Pirolli P, Card SK (1993) The cost structure of sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 269–276
Salmon PM, Walker GH, Stanton NA (2015) Broken components versus broken systems: why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness. Cogn Technol Work 17(2):179–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0324-4
Schmidt LK (2006) Understanding hermeneutics. Acumen, Stocksfield
Selvaraj N, Attfield S, Passmore P, Wong BLW (2016) How analysts think: think-steps as a tool for structuring sensemaking in criminal intelligence analysis. In: European intelligence and security informatics conference (EISIC 2016), August 17–19, Uppsala, Sweden
Smith PA, Baber C, Hunter J, Butler M (2008) Measuring team skills in crime scene examination: exploring ad hoc teams. Ergonomics 51:1463–1488
Starbuck WH, Milliken FJ (1988) Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In: Hambrick D (ed) Executive effect: concepts and methods for studying top managers. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 35–65
Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vakkari P (2001) A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study. J Doc 57(1):44–60
Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: towards safe, productive and healthy computer-based work. LEA, Mahwah
Wagenaar WA, Van Koppen PJ, Crombag HF (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. St Martin’s Press
Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage
Wheat A, Attfield S, Fields B (2016) Developing a model of distributed sensemaking: a case study of military analysis. Informatics 3:1
Wong BW, Kodagoda N (2016) How analysts think: anchoring, laddering and associations. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 60, no. 1. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 178–182
Wright PC, Fields B, Harrison MD (1996) Distributed information resources: a new approach to interaction modelling. In: Proceedings of ECCE8: eighth european conference on cognitive ergonomics, pp 10–13
Wright PC, Fields RE, Harrison MD (2000) Analyzing human-computer interaction as distributed cognition: the resources model. Hum Comput Inter 15(1):1–41
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Attfield, S., Fields, B. & Baber, C. A resources model for distributed sensemaking. Cogn Tech Work 20, 651–664 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0529-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0529-4