Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Author:
Brenda Dervin, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Communication
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43220
Presented at:
International Communication Association annual meeting,
Dallas, May l983
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
c Brenda Dervin, l983
Interested scholars may use with appropriate citation any of the methods
or approaches described herein. The methods or ideas may not be used for
commercial gain without the express permission of the author.
______
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the
Sense-Making approach to research -- its assumptions, methods, and results
to date. The intent is to provide this overview in a semi-outline form to
facilitate its speedy use by the reader. No a ttempt is made in this
paper to fully document all studies done using the Sense-Making approach
to date of the extensive literature reviews on which development of the
approach has been based. This extensive documentation is included in an
upcoming book entitled THE HUMAN SIDE OF INSORMATION: PERSPECTIVES FOR
COMMUNICATING and in briefer form in a series of papers and reports
published to date. (1)
Roots
In the most general sense, sense-making (that which is the focus of study
in the Sense-Making approach) is defined as behavior, both internal (i.e.
cognitive) and external (i.e. procedural) which allows the individual to
construct and design his/her movem ent through time-space. Sense-making
behavior, thus, is communicating behavior. Information seeking and use is
central to sense-making (as it similarly is seen as central to all commun-
icating) but what is meant by these terms is radically different than what
is typically meant in the positivistic tradition. (2)
The Sense-Making concepts and methods will be detailed below. The purpose
of this section is to describe Sense-Making's philosophic and
espistemological roots. What is most unusual about the Sense-Making
approach is that it can not be easily labelled in
terms of its allegiance to one or another currently accepted research
thrust. Rather, it stands between some traditional, frequently
illusionary and restraining polarities.
* Also related to the above is the idea that what is being predicted is
not how people are moved by messages but rather how people move to make
sense of messages. Thus, Sense-Making searches for patterns in how people
construct sense rather than for mec hanistic input-output relationships.
Sense-Making observes rather than assumes connections between situations
and information needs, between information exposed to and uses.
* Sense-Making assumes that all people live in time and space (although
the meanings ascribed to these are assumed to differ). Because of this,
Sense-Making assumes that there are universals of sense-making that will
allow more successful prediction and
ecplanation than has been possible in the traditional positivistic
approach. Drawing heavily on Carter, Sense-Making assumes that the key to
identifying these universals lies in focusing on the human mandate to move
through time-space. This then draws attention to the ways in which
movement can be stopped (as a perspective fro looking at situational
conditions), the kinds of gaps humans need to brdige in order to keep
moving (as a perspective for looking at sense-making or information
needs), and the d ifferent weays in which people assess success in
gap-bridging (as a perspective for looking at information use or effects
of information-sharing and communicating). It should be noted that while
the last sentence uses the term "effects", the effects refe rred to are
not observer imposed but mover-created.
_________________________________________________________________
Figure 1
SITUATIONS-------GAPS-------USES
__________________________________________________________________
USES: The uses to which the individual puts newly created sense,
translated in most studies as information helps and hurts.
Further elaborations have been developed for each of the three dimensions
but in all studies the above has formed the core focus. The model has
also been extended to practice situations as well. The use of "three"
dimensions has been seen as particularl y appropriate both in the realm of
practice as well as research because it involves "triangulating"
subjectivity. The idea here is that since different people create sense
differently, when one attempts to understand the sense made by another, it
is usef ul to assess three points as a minimal basis for co-orienting.
Situation measures
a) What were you trying to do when you asked this question?
b) Did you see yourself as blocked or hindered when you
asked this question? How?
c) Is there anything else you can tell us that explains why
you asked this question.
Gaps measures
d) Did this question stand alone or was it related to other
questions? How?
e) How many other people in similar situations would ask?
f) How easy did it seem to get an answer? Why?
g) Did the ease change? How? Why?
h) How important was getting an answer?
i ) Did the importance ever change? How? Why?
j ) Did you ask the question out loud? If no, why not?
k) Did you get an answer? When?
l ) Was the answer complete or partial? Why?
m) How did you get an answer?
Uses measures
n) Did you expect the answer to help? If got answer: did it
help in ways expected or other ways?
o) Did you expect the answer to hurt? If got answer: did it
hurt in ways expected or other ways?
Helps/Hurts Chaining
*Straight Lime Chaining: Here, the interviewer asks the respondent "And,
how did that help?" for each successive help and "And, how did that hurt?"
for each successive hurt. An example of this is included as EXAMPLE #12
in Appendiz A.
Of the two methods, respondent and interviewer reports suggest that #l3 is
more valid but that #12 has its utility particularly in situations where
interviewing brevity is required and where information uses are more
straightforward. Specific study of th ese issues is on the Sense-Making
research agenda.
Sense-Making variables
A second way in which Situation Movement State has been measured is with a
series of close-ended scales. Here, respondents are asked to assess the
extent to which their situation fits each of the movement state pictures.
A final way in which Situation Movement State has been meaasured has been
to train respondents in the definitions of each of the States and have
them essentially do their own coding. Further investigation of this
approach is high on the Sense-Making rese arch agenda.
GAPS. For this class of measures, there have been two main thrusts of
emphasis. One has been in developing a series of content analysis schemes
for coding the nature of questions people ask. The other has been for
developing the set of auxiliary measur es focusing on respondent gaps.
Both of these groups of measures are listed in OVERVIEW #2, Appendix B.
In addition, data in most of the applied studies have been used to develop
a dexcriptive focus scheme for questions detailing the specific content
areas for which respondents see gaps in that particular research context.
Recent work has also used the now
eight years of findings to develop a close-ended list of questions for
close-ended studies.
Attempts have been made to develop the measures of the nature of gaps to
adhere consistently to the general theoretic perspective . Thus, it was
reasoned in developing the theoretic content analysis scheme, that human
beings mandated to make sense in an ever-changing time-space will have
specific kinds of generic questions because of that mandate. The
theoretic templates are the attempt to tap these generic questions,
measurable for specific situations but theoretically applicable across
situations.
The entire set of measures has rarely all been used in a given study. As
a set, however, they allow the researcher to look at such questions as:
What kinds of questions are least likely to be seen as answered? What
barriers do people see to getting ans wers? What are the bases people use
for judging answers as good in different situations?
Work to date
The published articles, chapters, and available institutional
reports produced using the Sense-Making approach have now begun to form a
substantial body of work. They fall into two classes. One includes
theoretic and critical essays addressing issues raised in the first
sections of this paper. These works detail the assumptions of
Sense-Making, the roots from which it came, and the reasons why it
developed as it did. Because these pieces all build on each other, they
do not need to be described indivi dually except in the briefest way.
This list includes all of the non-redundant pieces:
The second class of published and available work involves the empirical
studies. These include:
* Dervi, Zweizig, Banister, Gabriel, Hall, and Kwan l976. This is the
institutional report, available in ERIC, of the large-scale study of the
sense-making in recent troublesome situations of 265 general population,
l00 Asian, and l00 Black respondents drawn in a multi-state geographic
probability sample from within the Seattle city limits. This study
involved the first use of the Sense-Making approach, including use of the
Time-Line Interview, tapping of nature of questions and helps, tapping of
prece ived barriers to gap-bridging. The study was seen as descriptive in
intent and yielded a large number of findings useful in designing further
work. The major findings were seen as supporting the Sense-Making
premises. Among the highlights of the findin gs were:
c) Respondents informed themselves when and where they could. Tactics for
bridging the same gap changed over time. Respondents used a wide variety
of gap-bridging tactics, with the expected high emphasis on informal
networks and low emphasis on formal networks. This latter finding was
interpreted not as proof that people won't use formal systems but rather
as indication that formal systems as they are now designed do not
intersect well with gap-bridging needs.
* Dervin, Harlock, Atwood, and Garzona l980. This is the first empirical
study published in a refereed publication. This study involved
Micro-Moment time-Line Interviews with 24 patients on their last visit to
their doctor. Patients were sampled using
random procedures from the patient rosters of four Seattle doctors. The
patients contributed a total of 494 questions, the units of analysis in
this study. The study incorporated an early version of Situation Movement
State as a predictor and early ver sions of Nature of Questions Asked and
Nature of Helps Obtained as criterions. The study hypothesized and found
significant relationships between the Situation Movement State measure and
the two criterions. Each Situation Movement State was shown to hav e its
own complexion of emphasis on questions and uses. Highlights of the
findings included:
* Atwood and Dervin l982. This study utilized the California information
needs study data (see Palmour et al. above) to pit race against Situation
Movement State as a predictor of the nature of respondent questions
(measured with the 5W Focus Template) and sources used to get answers.
From the respondents in the California study, 205 were selected for the
study. Asians were excluded because their numbers were too small. Whites
were sub-sampled to reduce their numbers to levels more closely aligned wi
th other groups. The resulting sub-samples include respondents with a
most important question: 67 Whites, 74 Blacks, 64 Hispanics. It was
hypothesized and found that: l) Situation Movement State significantly
predicted nature of questions; and 2) Sit uation Movement State and Race
in interaction significantly predicted sources used. Reasoning behind the
hypotheses was that race as a predictor is a measure that taps the
structural or system constraints within a society and, thus, should play
more of a
role in predicting behaviors that are constrained by society (i.e. source
use) than in predicting behaviors that are more in the individual's
control (i.e. gap-defining, question-asking).
* Atwood, Allen, Bardgett, Proudlove, and Rich l982. This study used
Micro-Moment Time-Line Interviews with children aged 5-l2 reporting on
recent television viewing. In all, 55 children were interviewed (all
children at two sites of a day care porgram
for whom parental permission was obtained) yielding l28 questions asked.
The questions were the units of analysis for this study. Children were
asked to describe the steps in their recent exposures to TV. The study
compared the predictive power of typ e of program watched to Situation
Movement States as content analyzed based on children reports of the
Time-Line steps in their viewing. Criterion measures included: Nature of
question asked at each Time-Line step (5W Focus); whether question was
asked out loud or silently; when question was answered; source of answer;
and helps obtained from answer. Results suggested that Situation Movement
State was a stronger predictor of the nature of questions asked and helps
while program type was a stronger predictor of sources used.
* Dervin, Jacobson, and Nilan l982. Using the same data base as
described for the Dervin, Nilan, and Jacobson article above, this study
set out to validate the relativistic, qualitative approach to looking at
information-seeking by using relativistic and qualitative differences in
information seeking as predictors of a criterion set of measures of
information seeking emphasis, and success. Predictor measures included:
time, 5W, valence, entity, movement, and descriptive focus of question.
Criterion measures included frequency of asking, proportionate emphasis,
ease of gap-bridging, and completeness of gap-bridging. Of 24 statis
tical tests completed, 20 were significant indicating that the different
kinds of questions differed significantly from each other in terms of the
frequency with which they were asked, the emphasis placed on them, the
degree of ease seen in answering (i.e . gap-bridging), and the
completeness of gap-bridging. Some noteable findings included:
*Dervin, Nilan, Krenz, and Wittet l982. This study of cancer patients
used random sampling procedures to secure 82 respondents (3l chemotherapy
and 5l radiation therapy) from the patient rosters at the University of
Washington hospital. The 82 responden ts contributed 525 questions, the
units of analysis for this study. One section of the study compared the
predictive power of treatment (chemotherapy versus radiation therapy) with
a situational measure of state in the disease/treatment process as predic
tors of the nature of questions asked (time, 5W, valence, entity, and
descriptive focus). Of 29 dummy measures tapping nature of questions
asked, treatment significantly predicted none while statge in the
disease/treatment process predicted l9. Results showed that each stage
had its own sense-making profile. A second section of findings focused on
the importance, method of getting answers, success, andexpected
helpfulness-hurtfulness of different kinds of questions. Results showed
significant differen ces between question types. Highlights of specific
findings included:
* One noteable finding showed an ebb and flow in sense-making such that
attention turned to underlying issues (philosophical questions,
understandings whys) only when situational conditions permitted this kind
of attention).
* Why questions were seen at least important in this study, the most
difficult to get answers to, and the least likely to be reported as
answered.
* Good road questions were seen as more important than either neutral or
bad road questions.
Across the studies to date, there have been some consistencies in analytic
approaches which deserve mention.
THEY CONTRADICT SOME OLD MYTHS. One prevalent myth, well documented in the
past literature, is that the amount of information seeking and use of
citizens, even highly educated ones, is low. The Sense-Making studies, on
the other hand, show so-much Sense-Making activity that the researc h
approaches are sometimes hard-put to deal with it all.
THEY PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR PRACTICE. Both the theoretic and descriptive
findings provide specific directions for communication practice. They,
for example, pinpoint for practitioners what kinds of questions
respondents need answers to and what kinds of uses they want to put these
naswers to . They also pinpoint for the practitioner the time-space
points at which the respondents are most likely to be asking specific
kinds of questions. They also show where the current system is not
meeting sense-making needs.
NEUTRAL QUESTIONNING.
To tap situations : What happened? What led you to this place? What
blocks or hinders you?
To tap gaps: What questions do you have? What confuses you? What do you
need to make sense of? What holes exist in your understanding?
To tap uses: What help would you like? What would you like to see
happen? What's your aim?
THE INFOSHEET.
This practice invention also is derived from Sense-Making
theoretic premises and its finding which suggest that in order to make
effective sense people: need to receive information that is transmitted
subjectively (i.e. anchored in the situations-gapa-us es of the sources);
and need to get a picture of the different senses different poeple have
made in a variety of situations to so they can locate themselves (i.e.
allows them to circle reality and locate themselves within it). These
premises lead to the conclusion that in media products more than one
source should be used, sources should be macimally different and not
defined simply as experts, and that information from sources should be
rooted in their time-space. Infosheets have been designed for a do ctor's
office, a school system, and a medical clinic and are being developed for
a variety of library settings. All Infosheet development starts with some
kind of Time-Line interviews with intended audience members. After
audience questions are determin ed, an Infosheet is constructed to address
one or more questions. Sources who give answers to the question are
solicited from a wide spectrum of individuals involved in, effected by, or
knowledgeable about the situational context. Sources are asked how they
would answer the question, what led them to construct that answer, and how
the answer helps them. Contradictions in source's answers are referred
back to sources so they can explain their views of what led to the
contradictions existing. An an exam ple, one Infosheet developed for
parents of exceptional children in a school system focused on the most
asked question of parents: "what makes a child exceptional?" Answers
were obtained using the guidelines above from "experts," from parents,
from both
so-called exceptional and not exceptional children. While no explicit
test has been done to date, users of Infosheets have universally reported
them interesting and useful.
Research agenda