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