Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A resources model for distributed sensemaking

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. EWMST is proprietary software developed by MASS Consultants Ltd (UK).

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attfield S, Dowell J (2002) Information seeking and use by newspaper journalists. J Doc 59(2):187–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baber C, McMaster R (2016) Grasping the moment: sensemaking in response to routine incidents and major emergencies. Ashgate, Avebury

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blandford A, Attfield S (2010) Interacting with information. Synth Lect Hum Centered Inf 3(1):1–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jaegher H, Di Paolo E (2007) Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenol Cognit Sci 6:485–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995a) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995b) How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognit Sci 19(3):265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins DP, Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH (2008) Cognitive work analysis: coping with complexity. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006a) Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):70–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006b) Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):88–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington N, Hastie R (1991) A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo L Rev 13:519

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt LK (2006) Understanding hermeneutics. Acumen, Stocksfield

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: towards safe, productive and healthy computer-based work. LEA, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interaction Design Centre, Faculty of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, NW44BT, UK

    Simon Attfield & Bob Fields

  2. School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Chris Baber

Authors
  1. Simon Attfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bob Fields
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Baber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bob Fields.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0529-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation