Antecedentes históricos de la bibliometría.

Weick explicates sensemaking as a process through which human consciousness attends to portions (extracted cues) of their ongoing flow of experience and draw from a stock of prior conceptions (frames) of reality stored in memory to generate plausible account of what is going on.6 _{What makes sense is that which resembles something in the past,}7 _{which means}

1 _{Weick (1995, p. 10); for disambiguation, both Brenda Dervin (1999) and Dave Snowden (2005) have proposed} variations of “sense making” theorisation which differ from the Weickean perspective as discussed in this chapter.

2 _{Weick (1995, p. 11)}

3 _{Weick (1995 citing Garfinkel, 1967)}

4 _{It is observable thus, that Weick does not move away from theories of decision-making, but instead draws our} attention to how rationalisation of decisions shapes cognition as efforts are made to find justifiable “facts” supporting outcomes of decisions. This also begins to show that the earliest parts of decisions may not be as clear in later stages, which means that which is referred to as the decision may have only been formulated in light of evident outcomes.

5 _{Weick (1995, p. 13)} 6 _{Weick (1995)}

the process relies on reflective thought.1 _{Sensemaking is the search for answers, first to the} question“what’s the story here?”, or queried alternatively, “what is going on?”, and the second question, “now what should I do?” which implies that the process orientates and regulates human conduct towards the emerging reality.2 _{While prior experience (causal maps)} affords people a sense of immersion into their current flow of experience through a sense of familiarity, occasions which lack in this familiarity violate the flow of experience, which engender a search for meaning, or said alternatively, instigate a sensemaking process driven by a quest for meaning.3

Unusual situations, under which held expectations about how the world functions come under duress, instigates the sensemaking process, just as it is the case for a need to act into worlds in which no clear expectation have been constructed yet.4 _{The inability to generate an account} equates to absolute lack of congruity between any held expectation with what is occurring, or what may occur, which leads to a state of puzzlement. The collapse, violation or interruption of expectation engenders a search for answers for the two questions as previously mentioned and thus, to solve the puzzle. Plausible hunches are constructed based on the stock of frames stored in the memory and tested through action. However, this process unfolds on, and therefore changes, for better or worse, the puzzling situation just as it affords the opportunity to generate meanings for resolving the puzzle.5 _{The recursive interplay between actions and} cognition potentially leads to the enlargement of the speculation as it continues to gain some credence.6 1 _{Weick (1995, p. 24-30)} 2 _{Weick et al. (2005)} 3 _{Weick et al. (2005)} 4 _{Weick (1995, p. 83-100)} 5 _{Weick (1988)}

6 _{It is important to note so far that what perpetuates this process is not so much that credence is built upon} accurate resemblance, which was implied by the mention of a construction of “plausible account” earlier, as it may be a belief analogous to a self-fulfilling prophecy set in motion. Thus, plausible sense made may turn out to be perceived as accurate sense depending on whether the initial hunch or supposition validated itself by

initiating favourable actions, which in their outcome confirmed the supposition. Weick broadens the self- fulfilling prophecy proposition, initially made by Merton (1948 as cited by Weick, 1995, p. 147), in which the latter viewed the incipient supposition as inaccurate, or an error. However, Weick contents that whether the initial supposition was accurate or not will depend on who the observer is, for he or she who confirms it by their actions under the drive of such an “inaccurate” hunch, can only perceive the initial prophecy as having been accurate because the outcome proved it. Thus for Weick, if the initial supposition was verified, then it means it was accurate. (Weick, 1995, p. 147)

Explained within the organisational context, sensemaking is considered to be “a significant process of organizing… [which] unfolds as a sequence in which people concerned with identity in the social context of other actors engage ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make plausible sense retrospectively, while enacting more or less order into those ongoing circumstances.”1 _{In addition to highlighting the significance of sensemaking as} a mechanism by which organising is achieved, this explanation highlights core characteristics of the process, which are identity construction, retrospection, enactment, social, ongoing, extracted cues, and plausibility. Most important, the enacting of “more or less order” highlights the important fact that the outcomes of efforts to make sense of puzzles “are not always sanguine.”2 _{The counsel here is that sensemaking and its genesis trade on invention} rather than discovery. The strength of the beliefs under operation and the resultant plausible sense made, greatly influence the direction of its ensuing processes.

Because any process which follows from interrupted expectations constructs new meanings, Weick has the following caution: “When people confront noncontingent reinforcement of their [interaction with their environment], they try to discover a structure that is not there. Their main recourse is invention.”3 _{Commitment may be achieved just as a window of danger} may open because “[t]these inventions tend to be plausible, persistent, and sealed off from refutation.”4 _{This is because “once a tentative explanation has taken hold of our minds,} information to the contrary may produce not corrections but elaborations of the

explanations.”5 _{In other words, sensemakers are disposed to the potential for acting either} favourably or dangerously, the latter of which may persist even in the face of information which suggests the behaviour is not favourable to the actor or their subject.

A study by Weick and Sutcliffe about the conduct of leaders at Bristol Royal Infirmary’s (BRI) makes that point clearer. The authors observed how members of the BRI continued to administrate a paediatric cardiac surgery program for many years despite evidence showing its failure as the death rate of the centre was much higher than the national statistics. 6 _As Weick highlights, “[t]hat mindset prevailed partly because surgeons constructed their identity

1 _{Weick et al. (2005)} 2 _{Weick et al. (2005, p. 416)} 3 _{Weick (1995, p. 84)} 4 _{Weick (1995, p. 84)}

5 _{Weick (1995, p. 84 citing Watzlawick, 1976, p. 50)} 6 _{Weick & Sutcliffe (2003)}

as that of people learning complex surgical procedures in the context of unusually

challenging cases.”1 _{Although this is a case of a public institution and not a firm, Weick has} often reminded us that what is explained in the sensemaking perspective concerns human conditions, which means any given context with favourable ingredients for commitment may lead to a similar conduct. It was the justifications considered acceptable within the context that allowed for the organisational members’ beliefs to continue taking such a harmful route.