| Sense-Making Home Page | Meetings, Conferences, Workshops | 1996 Sense-Making Workshop | Workshop Abstracts |
COPYRIGHT AND CITATION INFORMATION:
© Rosenbaum, Howard, 1996. Cite as: Rosenbaum,
Howard. (1996). Sense-Making: Between Action and Structure.
Paper presented at International Communication Association annual
meeting, Chicago, Illinois, May 23. Available at: http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/meet/m96rosenbaum.html
Description:
"The problem of the relationship between the individual and
society, or between action and social structure, lies at the heart
of social theory and the philosophy of social science. In the
writings of most major theorists ... this problem is raised and
allegedly resolved in one way or another... the problem is not
so much resolved as dissolved, that is, disposed of beneath a
philosophical and methodological platform that is already located
in one of the camps."
--Thompson (1989; 56)
Sense-Making as a meta-theoretical/theoretical/methodological approach is claiming a unique niche for itself, staking out a position somewhere in between many of the polar issues that characterize the boundaries of thinking in the social sciences while redefining these as differences, rather than polarities (Dervin, 1993). For example, it stands between theory and practice, between order and chaos, between the individual and society, and between structure and action. These moves have allowed the approach to assume a privileged position and underlie the various calls to move the study of human communication to new grounds somewhere beyond these "axes of polarities" or differences. Of interest in this paper is the position Sense- Making takes between action and structure, because this polarity or difference has been singled out by many as being crucial in social science (Thompson, 1989; Baber, 1991; Fielding, 1988; Knorr-Cetina, 1988; Giddens, 1984). In sociology and cognate disciplines, the debate over this difference has been both divisive and long-standing, leading to streams of theorizing and research which have been and remain fundamentally opposed to each other; broadly dichotomized as "macro" and "micro," these streams (Bohman, 1991; 156):
"Are by themselves incomplete and indeterminate in complementary ways: macro explanations require 'micro-translations,' and 'micro-foundations' require stable and enduring social contexts ... Both micro- and macro-level explanations must therefore be extended in the direction of the other, if they are to be explanations at all."
Sense-Making offers an intriguing strategy for dealing with the relationship between action and structure which does not rely on either dissolving or disposing of the problem and which moves beyond the "orthodox consensus" (Giddens, 1989, 55). From its assumptions of ontological and epistemological incompleteness, to its theory of the subject, to its focus on process, the Sense-Making approach seems to be attempting to stand between macro and micro-level explanations, extending the explanatory power of each in the direction of the other. This paper examines the reasoning behind this stance and assesses the consequences of this move for the Sense-Making approach. This involves a critical study of the meanings and uses of the concepts of action and structure and, more abstractly, chaos and order, in the Sense-Making approach, focusing on the ways in which they allow the circling of the moment wherein both the individual and her society are "maintained, reified, changed, and created by individual acts of communicating" (Dervin, 1989; 67). Working out from a conception of the individual as "an individual moment of communicating" and from the central role of "communication-as-procedure," this paper questions whether a systematic view of the constitution of the individual and society, and of action and structure can be developed which provides "the energizing linkage between the macro and the micro as well as the micro and the macro" (Dervin and Clark, 1993; 110-111).
THE REASONS I TOOK THIS ROAD ARE:
I have had a long standing interest in fundamental issues in the
social sciences and have been influenced by a thread in social
philosophy that argues, convincingly to my mind, that the issue
of the relationship between action and structure is critically
important to the development of sociology in this century. After
exposure to the Sense-Making approach in library and information
science, I began to wonder if the issue was beginning to rear
its head in the debates over the way to theoretically and methodologically
account for users and their interactions with intermediaries and
with information systems. Having recently finished an extended
work on the theoretical integration of the Robert Taylor's (1991)
value-added approach to information systems with Anthony Giddens'
structuration theory, I wondered if the outcomes of this argument
could be extended to the Sense-Making approach.
THE BEST OF WHAT I HAVE ACHIEVED IS:
I have developed what I believe to be a consistent and coherent
argument that has critically examined Taylor's value-added approach
to information systems and demonstrated that it has been troubled
by an inconsistency resulting from an underconceptualized notion
of structure. This inconsistency can be seen most clearly in the
formulation of the concept of the information-use environment.
To resolve this inconsistency, I have argued that the concept,
along with the related concept of information behaviors, must
be integrated into Giddens' structuration approach. Doing so had
provided a revitalized concept of the IUE and a way to think about
the issue of the relationship between action and structure in
LIS that may have accomplished what the Sense-Making approach
seeks to accomplish for the discipline of communications. An empirical
study of the information use environment of managers in a public
sector organization was conducted to offer evidence in support
of this argument.
WHAT HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY HELPFUL TO ME (US) IN THIS PROJECT
HAS BEEN:
I have been helped by careful statements of the Sense-Making approach
in the literature (see the brief bibliography below) and by conversations
with Dervin and others about this project.
WHAT HAS HINDERED ME, WHAT I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH HAS BEEN:
Much has hindered this work as I have attempted to extend the
argument to Sense-Making; many hinderances are probably of my
own construction. I have had difficulty in isolating the concepts
of structure and action, order and chaos, and of "communication-as-procedure"
in the literature of Sense- Making in order to derive textual
evidence that would allow me to make clear statements about the
meanings of these concepts. I am struggling with the problem of
explaining the conditions of social reproduction, which are explicitly
located within acts of communicating, using the vocabulary of
Sense-Making. Although I know the concept is critically important,
I am not sure what "energizing behavior" is. I am struggling
also with the boundaries of procedure -- What behavior falls outside
of acts of communicating?
WHAT WOULD HELP ME (US) NOW IS:
This is a project that is very much in process. I would find discussion
of and reaction to the questions and issues raised in this paper
very helpful...
PROJECT ABSTRACT:
Sense-Making as a meta-theoretical/theoretical/methodological
approach is claiming a unique niche for itself, staking out a
position somewhere in between many of the polar issues that characterize
the boundaries of thinking in the social sciences. For example,
it stands between theory and practice, between order and chaos,
between the individual and society, and between structure and
action. These moves have allowed the approach to assume a privileged
position and underlie the various calls to move the study of human
communication to new grounds somewhere beyond these dichotomies.
Of interest in this paper is the position Sense-Making takes between
action and structure, because this dichotomy has been singled
out by many as being crucial in social science. This paper examines
the reasoning behind this stance, assesses the consequences of
this move for the Sense Making approach, and questions whether
a systematic view of the constitution of the individual and society,
and of action and structure can be developed. If it can be developed,
Sense-Making offers an intriguing strategy for dealing with the
problem of the relationship between action and structure which
does not rely on either dissolving or disposing of the problem
and which moves beyond the orthodox statements of the problem.
WORKS CITED:
Baber, Z. (1991). Beyond the structure/agency dualism: An evaluation
of Giddens' theory of structuration. Sociological Inquiry,
61(2). 29-230.
Bohman, J. (1991). New Philosophy of Social Science: Problems
of Indeterminacy. Polity Press. Cambridge, UK.
Dervin, B. (1989). From the mind's eye of the user: The Sense-Making
qualitative quantitative methodology. In Glazer, J.D. and Powell,
R.R. (ed.) Qualitative Research in Information Management.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. 61-84.
Dervin, B. (1993). Verbing communication: Mandate for disciplinary
communication. Journal of Communication.,43(3).
45-54.
Dervin, B. , & Clark, K. (1993). Communication and democracy:
A mandate for procedural invention. In S. Splichal and J. Wasko
(Eds. ). Communication and Democracy (pp. 103-140). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Fielding, N.G. (1988). Between micro and macro. In Fielding, N.G.
(Ed.). Actions and Structure: Research Methods and Social Theory.
London, UK: Sage Publications. 1-19.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1989). The orthodox consensus and the emerging synthesis.
In Dervin, B., Grossberg, L., O'Keefe, B.J., and Wartella, E.
(Eds. ), Rethinking communication: Paradigm issues (Vol.
1). Newbury Park: Sage.
| Return to top | Page last updated 7/1/99 |