![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Sensemaking was split to Sensemaking (information science) on 09:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC) from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Brenda Dervin often uses the latter for the Sense-Making Methodology on her webpages.
Do we need to diambiguate?
StephenDeGabrielle 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Msloescher ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)This page is grossly inaccurate with respect to military command and control. As one of the authors of the Navy doctrine Network-Centric Warfare, i can assure you that the elements listed under this article on sense-making are nowhere mentioned in the doctrine. The doctrine is straightforward:
1. that Brilliant Sensors linked to
2. Sophisticated Networks, linked to
3. Long-legged Precision Weapons
Make it possible to mass fires instead of massing forces.
Moreover, it might make possible two other opportunities:
First, Speed of Command, by which we mean the ability to make decisions faster (not necessarily better) that the enemy
Two: Decentralized Execution, by which we might be able to preclude the actions of an enemy and prevent war from escalating.
NB: that sense-making, or as some put it situational awareness, is but one part of this, and not the critical element. The critical elements are in the shift to the principles of war, particularly the nature of mass and command.
Commander MS Loescher, USN (ret.) -- Msloescher ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)-- Msloescher ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msloescher ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This page also lacks reference to work in sensemaking and sensemaking tools:
Russell, Daniel M. (1993).
The cost structure of sensemaking. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM Press. pp. 269–276.
ISBN
0-89791-575-5. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |title=
|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
StephenDeGabrielle 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit ( talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Added material about D. Snowden and the Cynefin framework. All linked to sensemaking and complexity theory. Nuovosole —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC).
I'm going to start to work on this article. I know mostly about sensemaking in organizations (the Weickian tradition), and not so much about its relation to Brenda Dervis's work. But it looks like the two main applications of the concept of sensemaking (or at least the word) are found in organization theory (Weick) and information/library science (Dervin). A quick look at the citation index suggests that the OT version is the most common, but Dervin's concept seems sufficiently similar to keep this in one article. (We can consider a content fork later on.) I think the military application is just that—an application, mainly of Weick's concept, not Dervin's. Anyway, I'm going to start cleaning things up, and I'll probably be moving material temporarily into the talk space as I go a long.-- Thomas B ( talk) 08:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What do people think of splitting this article into "Sensemaking (computer science)" and "Sensemaking (organization studies)"? It seems to me that these areas of research are completely unrelated in practice (even if there are a few cross references). My sense is that a completely different set of editors have a the knowledge and interest to work these topics, and we'd have an easier time of it if we just left each other to it.-- Thomas B ( talk) 18:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.
— WP:POVSPLIT
Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing. The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects, working in a community of editors who can be anonymous if they wish. We generally find "accepted knowledge" in high quality secondary sources like literature reviews and books. Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Sources have authority when it comes to content, not people.
— WP:EXPERT
However, there is no such thing as one sensemaking perspective. Sensemaking knows different schools, which have been compiled in a systematic literature review by Dervin (2010). The human-computer interaction school is based on Russell's (1993) analysis of the cost structure on sensemaking and puts information retrieval at the heart of sensemaking. The cognitive systems engineering school is based on the writings of Klein147 and colleagues, who look at how a sensemaking approach can influence the design of decision support systems. The organizational communication school, especially by Karl Weick and David Snowden, has shaped the idea of sensemaking by emphasizing "decision making, strategy development, and dealing with complexity".148 The library and information science school, represented by Brenda Dervin, claims to be the only universally applicable approach to understanding and researching sensemaking.149 While these approaches have interesting ideas and are worth thorough consideration when researching sensemaking, the organizational communication school seems to be most fitting. The perspective on sensemaking executed by this school offers a unique perspective, which is yet little used in information systems and, therefore, worth examining. According to Dervin (2010) this school shares a set of core ideas about sensemaking but differs in their research approach. Both Weick and Snowden see narration as a procedural response to complexity.150 They diagnose the need to move away from top-down hierarchical forms of organizing, which closely connects to the ideas presented in this thesis. In their view, complexity (and ambiguity) from the environment is, thus, best answered (and controlled) when "language, included the richness of metaphor and the flexibility of the story, is invoked as sensemaking device".151 It is especially interesting to see how closely related both Weick and Snowden are in their philosophy on sensemaking, but how very differently they operationalize and present their results. While Weick's work is widely regarded in academia, Snowden applies his findings in practice, e.g. in building a software solution to support organizational sensemaking. This is very important to inform the building of a support system for distributed organizing. Weick's work on sensemaking152 encompasses a broader ontology and is most widely referred to. The ideas contained in the sensemaking perspective are an essential part of the organizing processes.
— Böhler, Dominik (2014). "Order creation from a transactional perspective: creating practices from sensemaking processes". On the nature of distributed organizing. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. pp. 57–67 [58–59]. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-06123-4_7. OCLC 883625072.{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Unknown parameter
|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) ( help)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
— WP:RS
I'm not disparaging anyone. I'm saying that Dervin and Weick are talking about different things with different people, and splitting the article would reflect that. I can simply repeat that no serious scholars of organization sensemaking give any thought to Dervin's approach. That's not disparagement, it's just because she's interested in something else.
At this point we've got three very solid review articles of the Weickian school that don't cite Dervin at all, not even in passing. Neither of the two articles we have that cite both Weick and Dervin are published in very influential places, and while they cite both they always dismiss one of them and focus on the other. I don't mind having a similar sentence in both articles that say something like that, namely, that this kind of sensemaking is not to be confused with the other. But I really don't see how this article can be salvaged without splitting it. Thomas B ( talk) 21:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)It looks like Snowded and I are for a split and Biogeographist is the lone voice against. Shouldn't we just boldly split the thing and see what happens? Thomas B ( talk) 13:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a literature on the role of argumentation in sensemaking that I would like to see integrated into this article, for example:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I will try to write this myself if I can find time. Of course, anyone else is also welcome to make an attempt. Biogeographist ( talk) 17:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now split the article, following the instructions to the best of my ability. There may still be some things that need to be moved, and there seem to be quite a lot of links from other pages that are best changed to link to new article, not this one. There's certainly work to do. I'm looking forward to seeing where this leads.-- Thomas B ( talk) 10:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to break the article into sections that can be worked on more or less independently. I'm happy to talk about whether these are the right headings.-- Thomas B ( talk) 08:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the alphabetical reference list at the end because it is easy for someone who is familiar with the literature to see what has been cited and what hasn't. But I propose that the citations themselves should be converted from plain text to citation templates (for an example of citation templates, see the reference list that I included in the split discussion above). Citation templates offer advantages over plain text, such as embedded COinS data and inclusion in Wikipedia's own journal citation metrics. I added Template:Wikicite to this article's citations earlier this year because it was a relatively easy way to hyperlink the existing author-date references, but citation templates are preferable, in my view. Converting to citation templates typically requires consensus per WP:CITEVAR so I am mentioning it here before attempting a conversion. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@
Snowded: You
reverted my recent edit with the edit summary "It's still relevant as a link—her work use wider than information sciences".
Thomas Basboll argued hard in the
split discussion above that I work in organizational sensemaking and Dervin's work simply doesn't enter into it.
You agreed with Basboll: You said: Dervin herself considers there to be three schools of sensemaking or sense-making (both are used)
and Splitting is key for understanding
. I argued against you and Basboll, so I'm not against keeping the "See also" link if you insist, but there's no justification for the uncited references to her work in "References". It's not a "Further reading" list, and it's clear that her works were not used to write this article. It doesn't make sense to keep those references.
Biogeographist (
talk) 22:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
With that assertion we are and your patronising remarks do you little favour, or the --- for that matter. This is an article about sense-making or sensemaking not Weick's approach to sensemaking, ethnography (one of the references) has more claim to organisational studies that much which comes under that name. ----- Snowded TALK 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm beginning to regret support for splitting the article. At the time it seemed to make sense to give Dervin's work some prominence as she came at the subject from a different perspective to Weick. But what we now seem to be having is an argument that the field of sense-making (sorry I don't use the neologism) is restricted to, or confined to, academics within the Weickian school. That is simply not the case. We need to make sure we are agreed on the subject matter please. ----- Snowded TALK 06:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It looks like Dave (Snowded) is moving to turn "Weick's approach" into a subcategory of sensemaking. But the lead clearly says it's his concept. This article is about the concept that Weick introduced to organization studies. As I point out above, at least one other approach (Dervin's) has "no relationship" to Weick's. So I think taking the article in this direction is very unwise.-- Thomas B ( talk) 15:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion at this point is to simply rename the article "Sensemaking (organization studies)" or "Organizational sensemaking" using the WP:MOVE procedure.-- Thomas B ( talk) 15:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The material on Weick is nearly all primary sources. If you check it out this is not accepted. The article on Boje's anti-narrative was deleted because the only sources were to Boje's writing. It was only when secondary third party sourcing was found that the article was restored. It doesn't matter how famous an author is, wikipedia doesn't allow people to write essays based on primary sources. ----- Snowded TALK 16:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit rich to link [6] to a list of articles that I questioned at the time (i.e., read my comment immediately below it), pointing out that they were mainly irrelevant to the discussion. Show me one article that justifies the link. I've shown you a good, solid quote from Dervin (1999) that eschews any "relationship" with Weick's conception. (And this article says clearly, in the lead, that it's about the concept Weick introduced to org studies.) Just show me the article that credibly refutes Dervin and we can talk. But all this gesturing at lists of references (obviously generated by algorithm) is not helping.-- Thomas B ( talk) 17:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Sensemaking was split to Sensemaking (information science) on 09:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC) from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Brenda Dervin often uses the latter for the Sense-Making Methodology on her webpages.
Do we need to diambiguate?
StephenDeGabrielle 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Msloescher ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)This page is grossly inaccurate with respect to military command and control. As one of the authors of the Navy doctrine Network-Centric Warfare, i can assure you that the elements listed under this article on sense-making are nowhere mentioned in the doctrine. The doctrine is straightforward:
1. that Brilliant Sensors linked to
2. Sophisticated Networks, linked to
3. Long-legged Precision Weapons
Make it possible to mass fires instead of massing forces.
Moreover, it might make possible two other opportunities:
First, Speed of Command, by which we mean the ability to make decisions faster (not necessarily better) that the enemy
Two: Decentralized Execution, by which we might be able to preclude the actions of an enemy and prevent war from escalating.
NB: that sense-making, or as some put it situational awareness, is but one part of this, and not the critical element. The critical elements are in the shift to the principles of war, particularly the nature of mass and command.
Commander MS Loescher, USN (ret.) -- Msloescher ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)-- Msloescher ( talk) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msloescher ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This page also lacks reference to work in sensemaking and sensemaking tools:
Russell, Daniel M. (1993).
The cost structure of sensemaking. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM Press. pp. 269–276.
ISBN
0-89791-575-5. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |title=
|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
StephenDeGabrielle 09:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit ( talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Added material about D. Snowden and the Cynefin framework. All linked to sensemaking and complexity theory. Nuovosole —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC).
I'm going to start to work on this article. I know mostly about sensemaking in organizations (the Weickian tradition), and not so much about its relation to Brenda Dervis's work. But it looks like the two main applications of the concept of sensemaking (or at least the word) are found in organization theory (Weick) and information/library science (Dervin). A quick look at the citation index suggests that the OT version is the most common, but Dervin's concept seems sufficiently similar to keep this in one article. (We can consider a content fork later on.) I think the military application is just that—an application, mainly of Weick's concept, not Dervin's. Anyway, I'm going to start cleaning things up, and I'll probably be moving material temporarily into the talk space as I go a long.-- Thomas B ( talk) 08:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What do people think of splitting this article into "Sensemaking (computer science)" and "Sensemaking (organization studies)"? It seems to me that these areas of research are completely unrelated in practice (even if there are a few cross references). My sense is that a completely different set of editors have a the knowledge and interest to work these topics, and we'd have an easier time of it if we just left each other to it.-- Thomas B ( talk) 18:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.
— WP:POVSPLIT
Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing. The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects, working in a community of editors who can be anonymous if they wish. We generally find "accepted knowledge" in high quality secondary sources like literature reviews and books. Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Sources have authority when it comes to content, not people.
— WP:EXPERT
However, there is no such thing as one sensemaking perspective. Sensemaking knows different schools, which have been compiled in a systematic literature review by Dervin (2010). The human-computer interaction school is based on Russell's (1993) analysis of the cost structure on sensemaking and puts information retrieval at the heart of sensemaking. The cognitive systems engineering school is based on the writings of Klein147 and colleagues, who look at how a sensemaking approach can influence the design of decision support systems. The organizational communication school, especially by Karl Weick and David Snowden, has shaped the idea of sensemaking by emphasizing "decision making, strategy development, and dealing with complexity".148 The library and information science school, represented by Brenda Dervin, claims to be the only universally applicable approach to understanding and researching sensemaking.149 While these approaches have interesting ideas and are worth thorough consideration when researching sensemaking, the organizational communication school seems to be most fitting. The perspective on sensemaking executed by this school offers a unique perspective, which is yet little used in information systems and, therefore, worth examining. According to Dervin (2010) this school shares a set of core ideas about sensemaking but differs in their research approach. Both Weick and Snowden see narration as a procedural response to complexity.150 They diagnose the need to move away from top-down hierarchical forms of organizing, which closely connects to the ideas presented in this thesis. In their view, complexity (and ambiguity) from the environment is, thus, best answered (and controlled) when "language, included the richness of metaphor and the flexibility of the story, is invoked as sensemaking device".151 It is especially interesting to see how closely related both Weick and Snowden are in their philosophy on sensemaking, but how very differently they operationalize and present their results. While Weick's work is widely regarded in academia, Snowden applies his findings in practice, e.g. in building a software solution to support organizational sensemaking. This is very important to inform the building of a support system for distributed organizing. Weick's work on sensemaking152 encompasses a broader ontology and is most widely referred to. The ideas contained in the sensemaking perspective are an essential part of the organizing processes.
— Böhler, Dominik (2014). "Order creation from a transactional perspective: creating practices from sensemaking processes". On the nature of distributed organizing. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. pp. 57–67 [58–59]. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-06123-4_7. OCLC 883625072.{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Unknown parameter
|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) ( help)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
— WP:RS
I'm not disparaging anyone. I'm saying that Dervin and Weick are talking about different things with different people, and splitting the article would reflect that. I can simply repeat that no serious scholars of organization sensemaking give any thought to Dervin's approach. That's not disparagement, it's just because she's interested in something else.
At this point we've got three very solid review articles of the Weickian school that don't cite Dervin at all, not even in passing. Neither of the two articles we have that cite both Weick and Dervin are published in very influential places, and while they cite both they always dismiss one of them and focus on the other. I don't mind having a similar sentence in both articles that say something like that, namely, that this kind of sensemaking is not to be confused with the other. But I really don't see how this article can be salvaged without splitting it. Thomas B ( talk) 21:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)It looks like Snowded and I are for a split and Biogeographist is the lone voice against. Shouldn't we just boldly split the thing and see what happens? Thomas B ( talk) 13:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a literature on the role of argumentation in sensemaking that I would like to see integrated into this article, for example:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I will try to write this myself if I can find time. Of course, anyone else is also welcome to make an attempt. Biogeographist ( talk) 17:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now split the article, following the instructions to the best of my ability. There may still be some things that need to be moved, and there seem to be quite a lot of links from other pages that are best changed to link to new article, not this one. There's certainly work to do. I'm looking forward to seeing where this leads.-- Thomas B ( talk) 10:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to break the article into sections that can be worked on more or less independently. I'm happy to talk about whether these are the right headings.-- Thomas B ( talk) 08:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the alphabetical reference list at the end because it is easy for someone who is familiar with the literature to see what has been cited and what hasn't. But I propose that the citations themselves should be converted from plain text to citation templates (for an example of citation templates, see the reference list that I included in the split discussion above). Citation templates offer advantages over plain text, such as embedded COinS data and inclusion in Wikipedia's own journal citation metrics. I added Template:Wikicite to this article's citations earlier this year because it was a relatively easy way to hyperlink the existing author-date references, but citation templates are preferable, in my view. Converting to citation templates typically requires consensus per WP:CITEVAR so I am mentioning it here before attempting a conversion. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@
Snowded: You
reverted my recent edit with the edit summary "It's still relevant as a link—her work use wider than information sciences".
Thomas Basboll argued hard in the
split discussion above that I work in organizational sensemaking and Dervin's work simply doesn't enter into it.
You agreed with Basboll: You said: Dervin herself considers there to be three schools of sensemaking or sense-making (both are used)
and Splitting is key for understanding
. I argued against you and Basboll, so I'm not against keeping the "See also" link if you insist, but there's no justification for the uncited references to her work in "References". It's not a "Further reading" list, and it's clear that her works were not used to write this article. It doesn't make sense to keep those references.
Biogeographist (
talk) 22:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
With that assertion we are and your patronising remarks do you little favour, or the --- for that matter. This is an article about sense-making or sensemaking not Weick's approach to sensemaking, ethnography (one of the references) has more claim to organisational studies that much which comes under that name. ----- Snowded TALK 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm beginning to regret support for splitting the article. At the time it seemed to make sense to give Dervin's work some prominence as she came at the subject from a different perspective to Weick. But what we now seem to be having is an argument that the field of sense-making (sorry I don't use the neologism) is restricted to, or confined to, academics within the Weickian school. That is simply not the case. We need to make sure we are agreed on the subject matter please. ----- Snowded TALK 06:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It looks like Dave (Snowded) is moving to turn "Weick's approach" into a subcategory of sensemaking. But the lead clearly says it's his concept. This article is about the concept that Weick introduced to organization studies. As I point out above, at least one other approach (Dervin's) has "no relationship" to Weick's. So I think taking the article in this direction is very unwise.-- Thomas B ( talk) 15:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion at this point is to simply rename the article "Sensemaking (organization studies)" or "Organizational sensemaking" using the WP:MOVE procedure.-- Thomas B ( talk) 15:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The material on Weick is nearly all primary sources. If you check it out this is not accepted. The article on Boje's anti-narrative was deleted because the only sources were to Boje's writing. It was only when secondary third party sourcing was found that the article was restored. It doesn't matter how famous an author is, wikipedia doesn't allow people to write essays based on primary sources. ----- Snowded TALK 16:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit rich to link [6] to a list of articles that I questioned at the time (i.e., read my comment immediately below it), pointing out that they were mainly irrelevant to the discussion. Show me one article that justifies the link. I've shown you a good, solid quote from Dervin (1999) that eschews any "relationship" with Weick's conception. (And this article says clearly, in the lead, that it's about the concept Weick introduced to org studies.) Just show me the article that credibly refutes Dervin and we can talk. But all this gesturing at lists of references (obviously generated by algorithm) is not helping.-- Thomas B ( talk) 17:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)