AN OVERVIEW OF SENSE-MAKING RESEARCH:

CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND RESULTS

By Brenda Dervin Ohio State University - Columbus, OH, USA

dervin.1@osu.edu


CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:

Cite as: Dervin, B. (1983, May). An overview of Sense-Making research: Concepts,
methods, and results to date. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Interna-
tional Communication Association, Dallas, TX.

Brenda Dervin (1983 & 2002).

EXPLANATION AND CAUTION:

This 1983 presentation of the Sense-Making Methodology is now out of date. Many
additional features have been developed since 1983 and important changes in de-
scriptive terms and foundational concepts have been introduced. This 1983 paper is
still foundational, however, and is thus a useful reading for those interested in the
Methodology. Page #s from the original paper have been indicated in the online file
to facilitate citation (and in some instances may result in seemigly odd line breaks,
paragraph breaks, etc.). The paper as presented here is exactly as delivered in 1983
except for:
Use of the label Sense-Making Methodology instead of sense-making to des-
ignate the approach. The change was introduced in the mid-90s to distinguish
this explicit Methodology from a variety of uses of the term sense-making in
both social sciences and humanities discourses which mandate attention to
sense-making as a phenomenal focus for research. As presented here,
Sense-Making Methodology is a methodology developed explicitly to imple-
ment that mandate.
The first paragraph of the paper and footnote #1 have been changed to accu-
rately reflect where readers can go for additional information as of 2002.
ABSTRACT:

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the Sense-Making approach to
researchits assumptions, methods, and results to date (circa 1983). The paper in-
cludes sections on: Sense-Makings roots, core conceptual premises, the Sense-
Making model, methods of data collection, Sense-Making variables, practice inven-
tions, and the Methodologys research agenda. Also included are a series of appen-
dices that present examples, overviews, and discussions of the impact of Sense-
Makings interview style. Despite the thorough nature of this paper, however, no at-
tempt is made to fully document all studies done using the Sense-Making approach
or the extensive literature reviews on which development of the approach has been
based.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose 3
Roots 3
Core conceptual premises 4
Current Sense-Making model 9
Methods of data collection 10
Sense-Making variables 14
Work to date 18
Practice inventions 25
Research agenda 27

Appendix A: Examples of various approaches to Sense-Making
Interviewing 28
Appendix B: Overview of the various dimensions tapped to
represent situations-gaps-uses 59
Appendix C:What respondents learned and what interviewers
learned 66

Notes 68
References 69
Finis 72

1 PURPOSE:.......................................................................................................... 2
2 ROOTS:............................................................................................................... 3
3 CORE CONCEPTUAL PREMISES: .................................................................... 4
4 CURRENT SENSE-MAKING MODEL:................................................................ 8
5 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION: ................................................................. 9
6 SENSE-MAKING VARIABLES:......................................................................... 14
7 WORK TO DATE:.............................................................................................. 17
8 PRACTICE INVENTIONS: ................................................................................ 24
9 RESEARCH AGENDA: ..................................................................................... 26
10 APPENDIX A................................................................................................. 27
11 NOTES .......................................................................................................... 63
12 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 64


1 PURPOSE:


The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the Sense-Making approach to
researchits assumptions, methods, and results to date. The intent is to provide this
overview in a semi-outline form to facilitate its speedy use by the reader. No attempt
is made in this paper to fully document all studies done using the Sense-Making ap-
proach to date of the extensive literature reviews on which development of the ap-
proach has been based. This extensive documentation is included in an upcoming
book entitled THE HUMAN SIDE OF INFORMATION: PERSPECTIVES FOR COM-
MUNICATING and in briefer form in a series of papers and reports published to date.
(1)

To access up-to-date reviews, see the bibliographic listings available on this web site
at:
http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/art/artlist.html
(for abstracts and in some cases full texts of relevant articles) and
http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/bib/biblist.html
(for bibliographical listings of writings by Dervin, and writings by others who have util-
ized Sense-Making in some way).

2 ROOTS:

The term Sense-Making is a label for a coherent set of concepts and methods used
in a now 8-year programmatic effort to study how people construct sense of their
worlds and, in particular, how they construct information needs and uses for informa-
tion in the process of sense-making. Since sense-making is central to all communi-
cating situations, (whether they be intra-personal, interpersonal, mass, cross-cultural,
societal, or inter-national) the Sense-Making approach is seen as having wide appli-
cability.
In the most general sense, sense-making (that which is the focus of study in the
Sense-Making approach) is defined as behavior, both internal (i.e., cognitive) and ex-
ternal (i.e., procedural), which allows the individual to construct and design his/her
movement through time-space. Sense-making behavior, thus, is communicating be-
havior. Information seeking and use is central to sense-making (as it similarly is seen
as central to all communicating) but what is meant by these terms is radically differ-
ent than what is typically meant in the positivistic tradition. (2)
The Sense-Making concepts and methods will be detailed below. The purpose of this
section is to describe Sense-Makings philosophic and epistemological roots. What is
most unusual about the Sense-Making approach is that it cannot be easily labeled in
terms of its allegiance to one or another currently accepted research thrust. Rather, it
stands between some traditional, frequently illusionary and restraining polarities.
If one thinks of the stereotypic model of so-called quantitative empirical inquiry, one
thinks in such terms as mechanistic, static, neutral, absolutist, analytic, and, above
all, positivistic. If, on the other hand, one thinks of the stereotypic model of so-called
qualitative inquiry, one thinks in such terms as humanistic, dynamic, relativistic, con-
textually-bound, involved, constructivistic, and holistic. Sense-Making research, how-
ever, rests of concepts and methods which are clearly quantitative and analytic and
yet can be described with all attributes usually reserved only for qualitative inquiry.
In terms of allegiance to existing work, Sense-Making owes its debt to the writings of:
Researchers of cognition who have focused with quantitative approaches on
how people construct meaning, including portions of the work of Bruner and
Paiget. (3)
Philosophers and others concerned with the constraints of traditional science
and alternatives, including among others Bronowski, Kuhn, and Habermas. (4)
Third world critical researchers, usually rooted in Critical Theory, who have
found the concepts and methods of communication as developed in the logical
positivistic model both unuseful and troublesome in their contexts, including
among others Ascroft, Beltran, and Rolings. (5)
The handful of communication theorists and researchers who have taken a
situational, constructivistic approach to studying communication as behavior,
notably Carter and researchers whose work owes a debt to his core ideas
about the human mandate to construct ideas to bridge gaps as a means of
dealing with ever- present discontinuities in reality. Central to this view is the
idea that communicating behavior is gap-bridging behavior. (6)
The handful of theorists focusing on psychological therapy who have also
taken a situational, constructivistic approach to understanding why a con-
structing species (i.e., humans) sometimes behave like a non-constructing
species. Particularly important here have been J ackins and Rogers. (7)
3 CORE CONCEPTUAL PREMISES:

The Sense-Making approach rests on a set of core theoretic premises. These prem-
ises have been described in different ways in various of the past works. This listing
below represents the most recent and most detailed attempt to date. As a set, the
premises present baseline assumptions about the nature of reality, the human rela-
tionship to that reality, the nature of information, human seeking of and use of infor-
mation, the nature of communicating, and the most useful ways to research commu-
nicating behavior. (8)
Sense-Making starts at bedrock with an assumption that reality is neither
complete nor constant but rather filled with fundamental and pervasive
discontinuities or gaps. Resting heavily at this point on the work of Carter,
Sense-Making assumes that the discontinuity or gap condition is generalize-
able both because all things in reality are not connected and because things
are constantly changing. (9)
A second bedrock assumption of Sense-Making is that information is not a
thing that exists independent of and external to human beings but rather
is a product of human observing. This is seen as applying equally to direct
observations of reality as well as to observations of the observations made by
others (i.e., the stuff usually called information.) In both contexts, the obser-
vations are never direct because the observing is mediated by human minds
and those minds guide the selection of what to observe, how to observe, and
the interpretations of the products of the observing.
Since it is assumed that all information producing is internally guided and
since it is generally accepted that all human observing is
constrained, Sense-Making further assumes that all information is subjec-
tive. The term constrained is used purposely. Biased is not used because it
assumes an external standard against which the observings can be judged.
Limited is not used because it assumes that the observing is trapped, unable
to be responsive to changing conditions and break out of old patterns of struc-
tures. Clearly, if observing were trapped in this way, there would be no inven-
tion. And, certainly, those who try to differentiate humans from other species
frequently include among the most telling human characteristics, the human
capacities to invent, create, and respond flexibly to changing conditions. The
constraints on human observing are seen as four-fold.
1. The limitations on human physiology. As a species, we appear at
this point in our collective history, at least to be unable to make some
observations of which other species are capable.
2. The limitation of present time-space. Since it is assumed that we are
all bound in time-space, what we can observe at a given moment is
constrained by where we are.
3. The limitation of past time-space. We come from different histories
and our observations today rest, at least in part, on our pasts. In one
sense, our historical differences account for our great species variety
and enable us, via communicating, to achieve fuller pictures of the cir-
cle of reality enriched by wider spectrums of observations. In a second
sense, our past-time space can rigidify (become frozen time-space)
when, as much literature in psychotherapy suggests, our past experi-
ences lead us to treat present time-space as identical to the past.
4. The limitation of future time-space. We are going to different places
and our observations today rest, at least in part on where we focus in
the future. In addition, the general discontinuity principle suggests that
our observations today apply only to today and not to tomorrow.
Given the assumptions above, the Sense-Making approach posits information
seeking and use not as Transmitting activity, as has been traditionally as-
sumed. Rather, information seeking and use are posited as construct-
ing activitiesas personal creating of sense. It is assumed that all infor-
mation is simply the sense made by individuals at specific moments in time-
space. Some information becomes agreed upon and is termed fact for a
given time-frame at least. Others are controversial and are called opinion or
delusion depending on the socio-political context and/or the charity of the
observer. Sense-Making assumes that this constructing is what is involved in
information sharing interactions no matter what the context. Information shar-
ing is seen as the successive modifications of internal pictures of realitya
series of constructings and reconstructings.
Because the focus of Sense-Making is on constructings, research is directed
to look not solely or primarily at things that traditionally have been defined as
communication. These traditional approaches have focused primarily on the
transmitting of so-called objective, external, information from knowledgeable
experts (e.g., scholars, educators, journalists) to those less knowledgeable
(i.e., non-experts). Because of this, traditional approaches have focused not
on constructing behavior but rather on source-using (and, in most recent work,
networking). Sense-Making, in contrast, focuses on how individuals use
the observations of others as well as their own observations to construct
their pictures of reality and use these pictures to guide behavior.
In the Sense-Making approach, it is assumed that sense-making behav-
ior is responsive to and mandated by changing situational conditions.
Traditional positivistic research has looked for constant, across time-space
patterns in human communication behavior. In doing so, the research has fo-
cused almost entirely on behaviors rigidified (or habitualized) in at least two
senses. In the first sense, the rigidities are those imposed by external socio-
economic-political structures. Thus, for example, many population sub-groups
do not use libraries or public affairs media. And, evidence shows, those who
run these institutions are typically unaware of how their institutions do not ad-
dress needs of these sub-groups. In this sense, then, the research has fo-
cused on behaviors rigidified by external conditions. In the second sense, tra-
ditional positivistic research in searching for across time-space constancies in
behavior has searched for exactly the kinds of behaviors which are not flexible
and responsive to changing conditions, those most likely to be frozen. Such an
approach has been able to observe the variety and creativity with which peo-
ple universally respond to their ever-changing life struggles. Such an approach
ignores the mandate of the human condition to make sense in a discon-
tinuous, constantly changing universe when complete sense is not available
as complete information. Sense-Making, in contrast, assumes, first, that
sense-making behaviors are frequent given the mandate of the human condi-
tion to bridge gaps. Second, it assumes that these behaviors are responsive to
changing situational conditions.
Directly derivable from the preceding premise is the idea that sense-making
behavior can be predicted more successfully within the framework of a
model, which focuses on changing situations as predictors rather than
such constant across time-space attributes as so-called personally character-
istics or demography. The model changes from the traditionally accepted
if...then form to a then...then form. The question becomes: what situational
conditions will relate to what sense-making behaviors? Prediction is still seen
as a relevant concern but the prediction moves from attempts to isolate con-
sistent patterns of individual behavior that repeat themselves across time-
space to the search for patterns of human sense-making responsive to chang-
ing situations.
Also related to the above is the idea that what is being predicted is not how
people are moved by messages but rather how people move to make
sense of messages. Thus, Sense-Making searches for patterns in how
people construct sense rather than for mechanistic input-output rela-
tionships. Sense-Making observes rather than assumes connections be-
tween situations and information needs, between information exposed to and
uses.
Sense-Making assumes that all people live in time and space (although the
meanings ascribed to these are assumed to differ). Because of this, Sense-
Making assumes that there are universals of sense-making that will allow
more successful prediction and explanation than has been possible in the
traditional positivistic approach. Drawing heavily on Carter, Sense-Making as-
sumes that the key to identifying these universals lies in focusing on the hu-
man mandate to move through time-space. This then draws attention to the
ways in which movement can be stopped (as a perspective for looking at situ-
ational conditions), the kinds of gaps humans need to bridge in order to keep
moving (as a perspective for looking at sense-making or information needs),
and the different ways in which people assess success in gap-bridging (as a
perspective for looking at information use or effects of information-sharing and
communicating). It should be noted that while the last sentence uses the term
effects, the effects referred to are not observer imposed but mover-created.
As suggested above, the Sense-Making approach assumes that sense-
making behavior is situationally and contextually bound and rooted in present,
past, and future time-space. Sense-Making attempts to address issues raised
by many Critical Theorists. Sense-Making assumes, for one, that studying
communicating behaviors in the context of current communication sys-
tems leads to distorted views of communication potential because most
of our institutions are rigidified inventions, being at best suitable to past situ-
ational conditions. Most communication structures are more related to the age
of the guillotine (when information sharing was low, homogeneity assumed
right, communicating potential constrained, and authority assumed expert)
rather than the age of technology (with high information sharing, assumed
heterogeneity, relatively open communicating, and the continued erosion of
expertise). In the age of the guillotine, procedures for communicating were
relatively unimportant because the notion of circling reality was deemed nei-
ther necessary nor desirable. The concept of circling reality is used in Sense-
Making as a convenient way of referring to the necessity of obtaining a variety
of perspectives in order to get a better, more stable view of reality based on
a wide spectrum of observations from a wide base of points in time-space.
Sense-Making assumes that effective circling of reality is not only de-
sirable (i.e., valued) but necessary given the considerable body of evidence
showing what happens to systems unable to assess and respond flexibly to
changing reality. Since current systems and research on them assume essen-
tially an expertise transmission system, little research has led to the system-
atic development and testing of alternative communicating structures and pro-
ceduresthat is, means for effectively sharing and using information.
The idea of a truly responsive information system designed to serve user
needs is actualized primarily at the expense of individual professional burnout.
Information systems (whether mandated to collect, store, retrieve, or dissemi-
nate information) all rest on expertise-transmission assumptions and, thus, are
not supported by institutionalized structures and procedures for what Sense-
Making calls information sharing and usethat is, the successive construct-
ings and reconstructings of sense. While much is said about the need for bot-
tom-up communication system designs, little is known systematically about
their implementation.
Sense-Making assumes that useful communication research needs to in-
form the practice of communicating and that this requires that the re-
searcher involve him/herself actively in communication invention. In be-
ginning to systematically develop alternative structures and procedures, it is
assumed that at least three research thrusts are needed. One, as suggested
by Critical Theory, lies in understanding how current systems constrain com-
municating. A second lies in understanding how individuals construct sense
both inside and outside of structural constraints. A third lies in inventing com-
municating alternatives and assessing their utility. Sense-Making research has
focused on the latter two thrusts and is enriched by the first.
The Sense-Making approach acknowledges the utility of observer assess-
ments of situational conditions and the idea from Critical Theory that there are
structural constraints that limit sense-making and communicating which are
out of consciousness to many people. Sense-Making assumes, however, that
there is utility in starting with the person and finding systematic ways of
having individuals share their observations about all manner of situa-
tions, including those they see as structurally constrained. It is further as-
sumed that one reason why research focusing on individual behavior rather
than structures has been so unfruitful in the past has been that it has searched
for across time space constancies. Based on this, it is assumed that research
focusing on situational contingencies is theoretically consistent with a concern
for structures and expected to yield results useful in improving and altering
structures.
Given this last assumption, the Sense-Making approach makes a firm distinc-
tion between observer and actor views of reality suggesting that in the study-
ing sense-making the researcher must adhere consistently to actor-
perspectives. This is not meant to limit potential. The perspectives of various
actors moving in given structural condition could be compared, for example,
thus illuminating the portrait of sense-making in that particular condition. What
is important here, however, is that the researcher not set the boundaries of the
situation in terms of any particular observers definition.
4 CURRENT SENSE-MAKING MODEL:

The Sense-Making approach, when implemented in both research designs and ap-
plications at this point in time, rests on the following model:




Figure 1
Current model used in Sense-Making
studies
SITUATIONS ----- GAPS ----- USES

Sense-Making studies and applications, thus, have all incorporated two or more of
the following:
SITUATIONS: The time-space contexts at which sense is constructed.
GAPS: The gaps seen as needing bridging, translated in most studies as in-
formation needs or the questions people have as construct sense and move
through time-space.
USES: The uses to which the individual puts newly created sense, translated
in most studies as information helps and hurts.
The SITUATIONS-GAPS-USES model is derived directly from conceptual premises
stated above.
SITUATIONS are included because it is posited that sense-making is situ-
ational.
GAPS are included because they are assumed to be what sense-making is all
about.
USES are included because Sense-Making focuses on constructing and does
not assume a mechanistic connection between information and use.
Each of the three dimensions labeled above identifies a category of variables. The
specific conceptual and operational definitions of typical measures in each category
will be described in a later section below and are listed in Appendix B.
Further elaborations have been developed for each of the three dimensions but in all
studies, the above has formed the core focus. The model has also been extended to
practice situations as well. The use of three dimensions has been seen as particu-
larly appropriate both in the realm of practice as well as research because it involves
triangulating subjectivity. The idea here is that since different people create sense
differently, when one attempts to understand the sense made by another, it is useful
to assess three points as a minimal basis for co-orienting.
Further, the Sense-Making model assumes that the three-points specified in the
Sense-Making model are examples of the kind of universals specified in the con-
ceptual premises. Thus, it is stated as assumption that people who are sense-making
have gaps in situations and assess the value of information, regardless of how con-
structed, in terms of the uses to which they can put it.

5 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION:

A major portion of the effort in developing the Sense-Making approach to date has
been directed to the invention of alternative means for interviewing respondents. A
variety of techniques have been developed. They can be summarized as four tech-
niques with variations.

Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview

This is the core technique of the Sense-Making approach. It involves asking a
respondent to detail what happened in a situation step-by-step in terms of what
happened first, second, and so on. Then, for each step (called a Time-Line
step), the respondent is asked what questions he or she had, what things
he/she needed to find out, learn, come to understand, unconfuse, or make
sense of. These two elements form the core of the Time-Line. In-depth analy-
ses are then of each question asked as mandated by study purposes
Micro-Moment Time-Line Interviews have been applied in a wide variety of
contexts. Examples included in Appendix A are:
EXAMPLE #1: a cancer patient on a chemotherapy treatment situation
EXAMPLE #2: a blood donor on most recent donation
EXAMPLE #3: an undergraduate on a recent interpersonal conflict
EXAMPLE #4: a college student on a recent college class
EXAMPLE #5: a development disabled adult on a recent difficult situa-
tion
EXAMPLE #6: a 5-year-old girl and a l0-year-old boy on their best re-
membered or most important recent watching of a TV show
EXAMPLE #7: a minority college student on a recent difficult situation at
college
EXAMPLE #8: a college student on a recent paper writing experience
EXAMPLE #9: an l8-year resident of the State of California on a recent
troublesome situation
EXAMPLE #10: 4 southeast Asian refugees living in Seattle on recent
visits to hospitals and clinics
EXAMPLE #11: a college freshman on describing a recent media day
Each application of the Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview involves its own ad-
justments. What all have in common is an attempt to secure from the respon-
dent a description of at least two dimensions of the three-part SITUATIONS-
GAPS-USES model and to do so in such a way that the data for each dimen-
sion is tied to a micro-moment, a specific situational moment in the time-space.

To illustrate this, a description of the structure of the most detailed use of the tech-
nique will help. For the 1982 study of cancer patients (Dervin, Nilan, Kranz, & Wittet,
1982), each patient was instructed as follows:
1. To select a situation during their chemotherapy and radiation treatment.
2. To describe what happened first in that situation and to list the ques-
tions he/she had at that step. To then describe what happened second
and list questions for that step. To continue this process through all
Time-Line steps. In this process, the interviewer recorded Time-Line
steps on blue file cards and the accompanying questions on white file
cards, one per card.
3. To then collect and shuffle the question cards if 9 or more questions re-
sulted and to select eight randomly for in-depth analysis.
4. To then describe each of the up to eight questions on the following di-
mensions (abbreviated below, see EXAMPLE #1 in Appendix A for full
details).
Situation measures
a. What were you trying to do when you asked this question?
b. Did you see yourself as blocked or hindered when you asked this ques-
tion? How?
c. Is there anything else you can tell us that explains why you asked this
question.
Gaps measures
d. Did this question stand alone or was it related to other questions? How?
e. How many other people in similar situations would ask?
f. How easy did it seem to get an answer? Why?
g. Did the ease change? How? Why?
h. How important was getting an answer?
i. Did the importance ever change? How? Why?
j. Did you ask the question out loud? If no, why not?
k. Did you get an answer? When?
l. Was the answer complete or partial? Why?
m. How did you get an answer?
Uses measures
n. Did you expect the answer to help? If got answer: did it help in ways
expected or other ways?
o. Did you expect the answer to hurt? If got answer: did it hurt in ways ex-
pected or other ways?
For this application, then, each of eight questions was analyzed in extensive detail. In
other studies (EXAMPLES #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) all questions (no matter how many)
were analyzed in detail.

Variations on the detailed Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview format described
above are shown in other examples:
EXAMPLE #9: In this application, the core Time-Line consisting of steps
and questions was elicited but detailed analyses of questions were
done only on the most important question. This allowed a briefer pho-
ne interview to be done.
EXAMPLE #l0: In this application, the interviews elicited general situa-
tion descriptions and then questions respondents had in those situa-
tions. Interviewers then probed to get Micro-Moment descriptions of the
specific situations which led to each question being asked.
EXAMPLE #11: In this application, respondents were asked to focus in
on specific times during a media day and describe their situations at
that time and their media use at that time.
Helps/Hurt Chaining

The primary way in which uses has been operationalized in Sense-Making re-
search has been in terms of how respondents have seen information as help-
ing (facilitating) or hurting (blocking). In the early stages, it was simplistically
assumed that one of two questions to the respondent would elicit their
helps/hurts and show how they constructed the connection between the mes-
sage and its use for them. The data, however, had its own inductive force and,
as a result, two alternative techniques have been developed both of which in-
volve chaining helps or hurts. Briefly, what this means is asking the respondent
to show how each successive help related to yet another help. If a respondent
says, for example, that a TV show helped him relax, the interviewer asks And,
how did that help? Respondents are instructed to end the chaining at any time
where they think it ends. The two versions of chaining include:
Straight Line Chaining: Here, the interviewer asks the respondent And,
how did that help? for each successive help and And, how did that
hurt? for each successive hurt. An example of this is included as
EXAMPLE #12 in Appendix A.
Complex Chaining: Here, the respondent is told that information (or an
event) may lead to both helps and/or hurts and that any given help or
hurt may lead in turn to both helps and/or hurts. An example of this is
included as EXAMPLE #13 in Appendix B.
Of the two methods, respondent and interviewer reports suggest that #13 is
more valid but that #12 has its utility particularly in situations where interview-
ing brevity is required and where information uses are more straightforward.
Specific study of these issues is on the Sense-Making research agenda.

Close-ended Sense-Making Interview

After eight years of entirely open-ended research, it was decided that enough
inductive work had been done to develop a close-ended approach to data col-
lection specifically for hypothesis testing situations. In using this close-ended
instrument, respondents are first asked to anchor themselves in terms of a
real-life situation. This can be either a Micro-Moment or a Total Situation. The
former, of course, is preferred in the context of Sense-Making premises. In one
variation, a total Time-Line is elicited and then respondents are asked to focus
on only the most important step. Or, in another variation, a set of parameters
for choosing a situation are given to the respondent (for example, chose a re-
cent situation in which you saw yourself as facing a barrier, being of higher
status than others, and having open communication available to you).
After focusing on a real-life situation, respondents are usually asked to de-
scribe the situation briefly and give their reasons for selecting it to meet the cri-
teria. This step allows checks to be made of whether respondents used criteria
in the same way as the researchers.
At this point, respondents are asked to rate on scales from 1 to 7 the extent to
which they saw themselves in the designated situation as seeing the situation
in specific ways, having specific questions, and wanting specific helps. The
close-ended items for situation perceptions questions-helps are all derived
from the many content analyses done on other data bases. An example of a
Close-Ended Sense-Making Interview is included as EXAMPLE #14 in Appen-
dix A.

Message Q/ing Interview

For this technique, the Sense-Making approach is combined with Carters
stopping technique (Carter, Ruggels, J ackson, & Heffner, l983) in order to tap
sense-making during printed message reading. In the use of this technique,
respondents are asked to read a message and stop everywhere they have a
question (i.e., something they want to learn, understand, make sense of, un-
confuse, or find out). The point of their stop is indicated in the text with a / as is
standard in Carters stopping. Then, an in-depth analysis is conducted of each
question asked. Typical dimensions have included assessments of the ques-
tions connection to the respondents life situations, rating of question impor-
tance, judgments of whether the question is ever answered in the message,
judgments of the completeness of the answer, and reports of expected and ac-
tual helps and hurts from answers. An example of Message Q/ing is included
as EXAMPLE #l5 in Appendix A.

Regardless of the specific data collecting technique uses, all Sense-Making data col-
lection approaches share some features in common.
LONGER THAN AVERAGE INTERVIEW TIMES. Micro-Moment Time Line in-
terviews typically average 60 minutes, in on study averaged 120. Even phone
interviews, usually thought to have a maximum range of l5 minutes have suc-
cessfully lasted an average of 25.
HIGH RESPONDENT INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT. This is indicated, for
example, in unusually high interest among respondents in obtaining study re-
sults. In the cancer patient study, for example, 90% of respondents requested
results. This is also indicated in the many spontaneous as well as solicited re-
sponses from respondents on the value of the kind of self-analysis the Sense-
Making interviewing
techniques require. Favorable responses have been obtained even for close-
ended approaches. Sample comments are included in Appendix C.
HIGH INTERVIEWER INTEREST. With few exceptions, interviewers report
high interest and lack of interviewing boredom. In addition, they almost univer-
sally report that doing the interviews helped them appreciate people better and
gave them new communicating skills. Examples of these comments are also
included in Appendix C.
HIGH USE OF CONTENT-FREE INTERVIEWING STRUCTURE. Sense-
Making assumes that it is appropriate in the interviewing context to explicitly
provide respondents with an anchor or a context within which they are re-
sponding. For Sense-Making, this context is typified by the Time-Line a series
of questions which include the content of the assumptions made by Sense-
Making (i.e., that we are mandated to make sense in time-space, that we get
stopped in situations, that we have different uses for information) but as little
other content as possible.
HIGH USE OF RESPONDENT TRAINING. In line with the above, Sense-
Making also assumes that it is appropriate to train respondents in the use of
the interviewing structure so that respondent and researcher are co-orienting
in the same frame. In order to safeguard against too strict an imposition of
structure, Sense-Making studies frequently repeat the admonition that respon-
dents should answer to represent their situations and their thinking. Since the
researchers questions addressed to the respondent are virtually content-free
(except as noted above), the respondent is free to fill-in to represent his/her
situation and thinking. One variation of the high respondent training is the fre-
quent use made in Sense-Making studies, particularly with college student re-
spondents, of self-interviews.
6 SENSE-MAKING VARIABLES:

As noted above, the Sense-Making model focus on three classes of measures:
SITUATIONS-GAPS-USES. The primary concern in constructing measures in each
class to date has been to identify dimensions of sense-making that are useful and
valid and as content-free (in the sense suggested above) as possible. The focus has
varied in each of the three classes.

SITUATIONS. The concern in this class has been to identify the different ways
in which respondents see situations that predict information seeking (i.e.,
question asking, gap seeing) and information uses (i.e., helps/hurts).
OVERVIEW #1 in Appendix B lists all the different situational measures used
to date. These include:
Situation Movement State
Situation Clarity
Situation Embeddedness
Social Embeddedness
Situation Importance
Past Experience
Ability to Deal with Situation
Power to Change Situation
Openness to Communication in Situation
Status in Situation
Distance into Situation
Appendix B includes definitions of each. Of these measures, the one most
central to Sense-Making approaches to date has been Situation Movement
Statea measure that taps the different qualitative ways in which the respon-
dent sees his/her movement through time-space blocked. Sense-Making as-
sumes that it is movement blocks that give rise to question-asking (i.e., infor-
mation seeking). The different Situation Movement States are all seen as dif-
ferent ways of being stopped in movement through time-space. For example,
being stopped at a decision point means having two or more roads ahead and
needing to reduce them to one. Or, being stopped a problematic point means
seeing self as being dragged down a road not of ones own choosing. Or, be-
ing stopped at a barrier is knowing where you want to go but having someone
or something standing in the way. Appendix B includes definitions of each of
the Situation Movement States.
Most situation variables in Sense-Making have been measured using close-
ended scales, even in the contest of the highly open-ended Time-Line Inter-
view. The one exception to this is Situation Movement State which has been
measured primarily using standard content analytic procedures. Here, coders
take the respondents verbal answers to such questions as What happened?
What led up to your asking this question? What blocked or hindered you? and
translate them into one of the theoretically defined Situation Movement States.
A second way in which Situation Movement State has been measured is with a
series of close-ended scales. Here, respondents are asked to assess the ex-
tent to which their situation fits each of the movement state pictures.
A final way in which Situation Movement State has been measured has been
to train respondents in the definitions of each of the States and have them es-
sentially do their own coding. Further investigation of this approach is high on
the Sense-Making research agenda.
GAPS. For this class of measures, there have been two main thrusts of em-
phasis. One has been in developing a series of content analysis schemes for
coding the nature of questions people ask. The other has been for developing
the set of auxiliary measures focusing on respondent gaps. Both of these
groups of measures are listed in OVERVIEW #2, Appendix B.

For the emphasis on identifying the nature of respondent questions, a series of
highly tested and reliable content analysis templates have been developed.
Used in most of the studies have been:
5W FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether it focuses on a
who, what, when, where, why, or how gap
TIME FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether it focuses on the
past, present, or future.
VALENCE FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether it focuses
on good roads, bad roads, or neutral roads.
ENTITY FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether it focuses on
self, other, process, objects, situations, means of getting from the past
to present, present situations, means of moving from present to future,
or future situations.
In addition, data in most of the applied studies have been used to develop a
descriptive focus scheme for questions detailing the specific content areas for
which respondents see gaps in that particular research context. Recent work
has also used the now eight years of findings to develop a close-ended list of
questions for close-ended studies.
Attempts have been made to develop the measures of the nature of gaps to
adhere consistently to the general theoretic perspective . Thus, it was rea-
soned in developing the theoretic content analysis scheme, that human beings
mandated to make sense in an ever-changing time-space will have specific
kinds of generic questions because of that mandate. The theoretic templates
are the attempt to tap these generic questions, measurable for specific situa-
tions but theoretically applicable across situations.
The additional gap-related measures all attempt to detail the nature of informa-
tion seeking processes and success for different kinds of questions. Specific
measures included to date have been:
Ease of Answering
Reasons for Ease of Answering Difficulty
Question Connectedness
Nature of Question Connectedness.
Who would Ask
Importance of Answering
Reasons for Importance of Answering
Asking Out Loud or Silently
Reasons for Not asking out Loud
Answering Success
Reasons for Lack of Answering Success
Answer Completeness
Reasons for Completeness? Partialness
Answer Sources
Gap-Bridging Strategies
The entire set of measures has rarely all been used in a given study. As a set,
however, they allow the researcher to look at such questions as: What kinds of
questions are least likely to be seen as answered? What barriers do people
see to getting answers? What are the bases people use for judging answers
as good in different situations?
USES. The final class of variables has, to date, actually consisted of only two
measuresthe nature of hurts and the nature of helps. Both hurts and helps
are defined by Sense-Making as the uses made of information. Until recently,
all helps/hurts were measured using content analysis based on a theoretically-
guided scheme. This scheme is described in OVERVIEW #3 in Appendix B.
Basically, it codes a help (or hurt) in terms of how it facilitates (or blocks) a
persons picture-making (seen as required for movement), movement, and
gaining of desired ends.
The scheme is used in different forms in different studies. The most detailed
recent list of major categories of helps/hurts includes the following (stated here
as helps):
Got Pictures, Ideas, Understandings
Able to Plan
Got Skills
Got Started, Got Motivated
Kept Going
Got Control
Things Got Calmer, Easier
Got Out of a Bad Situation
Reached a Goal, Accomplished Things
Went on to Other Things
Avoided a Bad Situation
Took Mind Off Things
Relaxed, Rested
Got Pleasure
Got Support, Reassurance, Confirmation
Got Connected to Others
In very recent work, a close-ended list of helps/hurts has been used as rating
scales asking respondents to judge the extent to which they expected each
help/hurt and the extent to which they actually experienced each help/hurt.

7 WORK TO DATE:

The published articles, chapters, and available institutional reports produced using
the Sense-Making approach have now begun to form a substantial body of work.
They fall into two classes. One includes theoretic and critical essays addressing is-
sues raised in the first sections of this paper. These works detail the assumptions of
Sense-Making, the roots from which it came, and the reasons why it developed as it
did. Because these pieces all build on each other, they do not need to be described
individually except in the briefest way. This list includes all of the non-redundant pie-
ces:
Dervin (1976a) article in J OURNAL OF BROADCASTING detailing the nature
of the assumptions made about information in communications research and
the consequences of the assumptions to research conduct.
Zweizig & Dervin (1977) chapter in ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP applying
Sense-Making concepts (particularly the idea of uses) to the context of library
use.
Dervin (1977b) chapter in DREXEL LIBRARY QUARTERLY reviewing the
prevalent assumptions about information and its use that guide research and
offering alternative assumptions.
Dervin (1980) chapter in PROGRESS IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCE in
which the review of prevalent and alternative assumptions is done specifically
in the context of society have-nots and the issue of communication gaps and
inequities. Specific references are made to development issues, as well.
Dervin (1981) chapter on changing conceptions of the audience in the Rice
and Paisley volume, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNS.
The second class of published and available work involves the empirical studies.
These include:
Dervin, Zweizig, Banister, Gabriel, Hall, & Kwan (1976). This is the institutional
report, available in ERIC, of the large-scale study of the sense-making in re-
cent troublesome situations of 265 general population, l00 Asian, and l00
Black respondents drawn in a multi-state geographic probability sample from
within the Seattle city limits. This study involved the first use of the Sense-
Making approach, including use of the Time-Line Interview, tapping of nature
of questions and helps, tapping of perceived barriers to gap-bridging. The
study was seen as descriptive in intent and yielded a large number of findings
useful in designing further work. The major findings were seen as supporting
the Sense-Making premises. Among the highlights of the findings were:
a. Respondents saw information as a means rather than an end. They
didnt describe their troublesome situations as information gaps, they
didnt focus on information

a. acquisition as an end in itself. Rather, information seeking and use was
seen as a means for moving.
b. Respondents saw information as that which informs. Answers came in-
ternally as well as externally. So-called subjective questions were as
prevalent as so-called objective ones. Information was needed for
situations without resolutions as well as for situations with resolutions.
Most questions related to self or others rather than merely fact-finding
independent of people. Question asking continued even after situation
resolution.
c. Respondents informed themselves when and where they could. Tactics
for bridging the same gap changed over time. Respondents used a
wide variety of gap-bridging tactics, with the expected high emphasis
on informal networks and low emphasis on formal networks. This latter
finding was interpreted not as proof that people wont use formal sys-
tems but rather as indication that formal systems as they are now de-
signed do not intersect well with gap-bridging needs.
d. Respondents informed themselves in the context of time-space bound
situations. A variety of situational measures emerged as predictive of
information seeking and use.
e. Respondents assessed information usefulness in a variety of ways, in-
cluding not only the traditional posited making decisions and making
progress but less frequently seen uses such as getting support, gaining
self-control, and so on.
Palmour, Rathbun, Brown, Dervin, & Dowd (1979). This is the institutional re-
port, also available in ERIC, of the large scale study of Californian information
needs with 646 respondents sampled using multi-state random procedures
from the entire states population of adults l4 years of age or older. The study
involved the second large-scale use of the Sense-Making approach and as
with the first yielded a large number of descriptive findings useful in designing
further work. The study formed the basis for a series of training workshops for
librarians in the State of California and, in some libraries, is actively being
used for system redesign. The studys intent as presented in this report was
primarily descriptive and yielded findings much like those above.
Dervin, Harlock, Atwood, & Garzona (1980). This is the first empirical study
published in a refereed publication. This study involved Micro-Moment time-
Line Interviews with 24 patients on their last visit to their doctor. Patients were
sampled using random procedures from the patient rosters of four Seattle doc-
tors. The patients contributed a total of 494 questions, the units of analysis in
this study. The study incorporated an early
version of Situation Movement State as a predictor and early versions of Na-
ture of Questions Asked and Nature of Helps Obtained as criterions. The
study hypothesized and found significant relationships between the Situation
Movement State measure and the two criterions. Each Situation Movement
State was shown to have its own complexion of emphasis on questions and
uses. Highlights of the findings included:
o In general, when in Decision Movement States, respondents reported
asking more questions about choices. In contrast, when in Worry
States, respondents asked more questions about the states of their
bodies, the nature of treatments, and the reasons for states of their
bodies. Barrier States, on the other hand, yielded more questions about
the reasons for treatment and impacts on life.
o In general, when in Decision Movement States, respondents reported
getting more helps from information by identifying options, finding direc-
tions, planning, and arriving. In Worry States they reported more use of
getting away from bad feelings and seeing the road ahead helps. Bar-
rier States also showed more use of this last use while Observing
States reported more use of avoiding bad roads ahead.
Atwood & Dervin (1982). This study utilized the California information needs
study data (see Palmour et al. above) to pit race against Situation Movement
State as a predictor of the nature of respondent questions (measured with the
5W Focus Template) and sources used to get answers. From the respondents
in the California study, 205 were selected for the study. Asians were excluded
because their numbers were too small. Whites were sub-sampled to reduce
their numbers to levels more closely aligned with other groups. The resulting
sub-samples include respondents with a most important question: 67 Whites,
74 Blacks, 64 Hispanics. It was hypothesized and found that: l) Situation
Movement State significantly predicted nature of questions; and 2) Situation
Movement State and Race in interaction significantly predicted sources used.
Reasoning behind the hypotheses was that race as a predictor is a measure
that taps the structural or system constraints within a society and, thus, should
play more of a role in predicting behaviors that are constrained by society (i.e.,
source use) than in predicting behaviors that are more in the individuals con-
trol (i.e., gap-defining, question-asking).
Dervin, Nilan, & J acobson (1982). This study used Micro-Moment Time-Line
interviews with 80 blood donors as its data base. The blood donors were se-
lected using random procedures from eight strata (based on age, sex, and
new versus repeat donor status) of donors listed on the Puget Sound Blood
Center rosters. The 80 respondents yielded 480 questions, the units of analy-
sis. This study focused on the predictor power of predictors defined in
terms of different time definitions. The question was what kinds of measures
would predict information uses (i.e., helps) best: a group of seven Demo-
graphic measures (defined as tapping across time-space); six a prior: situ-
ational measures (defined as tapping time space at the point of entry into the
communication situation): and time-space bound situational measures includ-
ing six measures of situational perceptions and six measures of the nature of
gaps seen (i.e., questions). It was hypothesized and found that the time-space
bound measures accounted for more variance in information uses than either
across time-space or a prior time-space measures. Results showed that time-
space bound measures accounted for l7.4% of variance in information uses on
the average compared to l.7% and l.6% respectively for across time-space
and a prior: Time-space measures. It was also hypothesized that of the two
classes of time-space bound measures, gaps measures would be stronger
predictors than other situational characteristic measures because gap meas-
ures speak more directly to the essence of sense-making. Results supported
the hypothesis. Gap measures accounted for l5.3% on the average compared
to only 2.l% for other situational measures. The study, thus, provided evidence
of the ways in which different uses are used to assess the effectiveness of
gap-bridging for different kinds of questions. Typical of these specific findings
were:
a. When respondents reported using got pictures as their means for as-
sessing the use of answers to questions, they were significantly more
likely to have done so if they had asked a where am I now question
and questions about the state of their own bodies or the nature of blood
processing.
b. When respondents reported using got started/going as their use for
answers, they were significantly more likely to have done so if they
asked where will I be questions and answers focusing on their own
self-control and bodies.
c. When respondents reported using avoided a bad situation as their
use, they were significantly more likely to have done so if they asked
questions before donating, questions about paid, and questions about
the donating process.
Atwood, Allen, Bardgett, Proudlove, & Rich (1982). This study used Micro-
Moment Time-Line Interviews with children aged 5-l2 reporting on recent tele-
vision viewing. In all, 55 children were interviewed (all children at two sites of a
day care program for whom parental permission was obtained) yielding l28
questions asked. The questions were the units of analysis for this study. Chil-
dren were asked to describe the steps in their recent exposures to TV. The
study compared the predictive power of type of program watched to Situation
Movement States as content analyzed based on children reports of the Time-
Line steps in their viewing. Criterion measures included: Nature of question
asked at each Time-Line step (5W Focus); whether question was asked out
loud or silently; when question was answered; source of answer; and helps
obtained from answer. Results suggested that Situation Movement State was
a stronger predictor of the nature of questions asked and helps while program
type was a stronger predictor of sources used.
Dervin, J acobson, & Nilan (1982). Using the same data base as described for
the Dervin, Nilan, and J acobson article above, this study set out to validate the
relativistic, qualitative approach to looking at information-seeking by using
relativistic and qualitative differences in information seeking as predictors of a
criterion set of measures of information seeking emphasis, and success. Pre-
dictor measures included: time, 5W, valence, entity, movement, and descrip-
tive focus of question. Criterion measures included frequency of asking, pro-
portionate emphasis, ease of gap-bridging, and completeness of gap-bridging.
Of 24 statistical tests completed, 20 were significant indicating that the differ-
ent kinds of questions differed significantly from each other in terms of the fre-
quency with which they were asked, the emphasis placed on them, the degree
of ease seen in answering (i.e., gap-bridging), and the completeness of gap-
bridging. Some notable findings included:
o Frequently asked questions focused more on the future.
o Most emphasized questions were those that involved self.
o Hardest questions to answer were seen as those involving the future of
those that focused on understanding the connections between different
time-space points and evaluating events.
o Questions least completely answered were why questions.
o Questions most completely answered were those involving exclusively
personal assessments.
Dervin, Nilan, Krenz, & Wittet (1982). This study of cancer patients used ran-
dom sampling procedures to secure 82 respondents (3l chemotherapy and 5l
radiation therapy) from the patient rosters at the University of Washington
hospital. The 82 respondents contributed 525 questions, the units of analysis
for this study. One section of the study compared the predictive power of
treatment (chemotherapy versus radiation therapy) with a situational measure
of state in the disease/treatment process as predictors of the nature of ques-
tions asked (time, 5W, valence, entity, and descriptive focus). Of 29 dummy
measures tapping nature of questions asked, treatment significantly predicted
none while stated in the disease/treatment process predicted 19. Results
showed that each stage had its own sense-making profile. A second section of
findings focused on the importance, method of getting answers, success, and
expected
helpfulness-hurtfulness of different kinds of questions. Results showed signifi-
cant differences between question types. Highlights of specific findings inclu-
ded:
o One notable finding showed an ebb and flow in sense-making such that
attention turned to underlying issues (philosophical questions, under-
standings whys) only when situational conditions permitted this kind of
attention).
o Why questions were seen at least important in this study, the most diffi-
cult to get answers to, and the least likely to be reported as answered.
o Good road questions were seen as more important than either neutral
or bad road questions.
o Questions without any involvement of self or others (i.e., questions
about processes and objects seen as unconnected to ones own situa-
tions) were judged as least likely to have helpful answers.
Across the studies to date, there have been some consistencies in analytic ap-
proaches which deserve mention.

THE USE OF UNITS OF ANALYSIS SMALLER THAN THE PERSON.

Conceptually, Sense-Making posits that sense-making behaviors are respon-
sive to situational conditions and should not be predicted based on across
time-space measures. This premise has been supported with the consistent
results showing situation as a more powerful predictor of information seeking
and use as defined by Sense-Making. Sense-Making has also relied heavily on
other work which has supported the notion that respondent consistencies do
not account for significant variance in information seeking. While some Sense-
Making studies have used the person as the unit of analysis (i.e., Atwood &
Dervin, 1982), this has resulted from the fact that each person had only one
question as mandated by the study design. In all other studies, the question
asked or the sense-making instance has been the unit of analysis in order to
allow respondents to create their own context and be different in different con-
texts. The open-ended procedures used for most Sense-Making work to date
have also prevented any explicit statistical comparison of the power of respon-
dent differences in accounting for variance versus situational differences. This
test is now being performed for a study using the Close-Ended Sense-Making
Interview (Nilan, 1983; Nilan & Dervin, 1983). This approach allows the re-
searcher to obtain situational data from the same respondent for a verity of
prescribed situational conditions and thus permits an explicit test of situation
versus respondent.

HIGH EMPHASIS ON DESCRIPTIVE, INDUCTIVE WORK.

Even in studies with hypotheses, Sense-Making studies have universally
placed heavy emphasis on describing the results of data collection in inductive
ways in order to enrich and provide direction for future work.

HIGH EMPHASIS ON TESTING DATA COLLECTING, MEASURING,
AND CODING TECHNIQUES.

Appropriately, to date, most of the effort in Sense-Making has been focused on
developing and refining data collecting, measuring, and coding approaches.
The Micro-Moment Time-Line, for example, has gone through a number of
transformations until its recent stabilization. The dimensions of situations,
gaps, and uses tapped with explicit questions and either close-ended meas-
urement or content analysis have also gone through transformations.

USE OF RELATIVELY SIMPLE STATISTICAL PRESENTATIONS.

The reason for this is the conclusion that statistical clarity is necessary to sup-
port and enrich conceptual clarity and that frequently unuseful conceptualiza-
tions are hidden in overly elaborate statistical presentations.

Looking at the studies in terms of their contributions to date, these can be summa-
rized in five ways. Each of these will be described briefly below and illustrated with
one or two examples.

THEY SUPPORT THE SENSE-MAKING THEORETIC PREMISES.

All the studies, to date, have provided support for the core Sense -Making
premises. They, for example, show consistently that people assess the effec-
tiveness of the answers they get to questions (i.e., information) in personal
terms rather than in terms of objective information processing.

THEY CONTRADICT SOME OLD MYTHS.

One prevalent myth, well documented in the past literature, is that the amount
of information seeking and use of citizens, even highly educated ones, is low.
The Sense-Making studies, on the other hand, show so-much Sense-Making
activity that the research approaches are sometimes hard-put to deal with it all.

THEY FREQUENTLY FIT COMMON-SENSE EXPECTATIONS.

It might be said that the hardest conclusions to reach are sometimes the sim-
plest in retrospect. This is an assessment that can be easily made about many
Sense-Making findings. It might be said, for example, that: Of course, people
ask different questions at different points as they proceed through a situation;
or Of course, why questions are harder to answer. It must be remembered,
however, that while the findings often pass the test of common sense, they
remain findings that prior research approaches have not been able to engen-
der.

THEY CONFIRM WHERE THE SYSTEM PUTS ITS SENSE-MAKING EM-
PHASIS.

As part of the ways in which Sense-Making studies have supported their own
theoretic premises, they have also confirmed the expectations of those prem-
ises for the usefulness in sense-making of current communication systems.
One example is the heavy emphasis in the Sense-Making studies on why
questions and the empirically proven lack of emphasis on such questions in
current information systems. Another example is the consistent use by re-
spondents of positive uses for answersfeeling good about self, getting hope,
being able to continue, feeling happy. This contrasts with evidence showing
that consistently our communication systems emphasize the disastrous, sad,
and negative. Another is the findings showing that topic focus and assumed
use do not predict question asking or answer using. This contradicts the al-
most exclusive use in our communication systems of topic (e.g., national news,
local news) or assumed use (e.g., entertainment, information) for organizing in-
formation.

THEY PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR PRACTICE.

Both the theoretic and descriptive findings provide specific directions for com-
munication practice. They, for example, pinpoint for practitioners what kinds of
questions respondents need answers to and what kinds of uses they want to
put these answers to. They also pinpoint for the practitioner the time-space
points at which the respondents are most likely to be asking specific kinds of
questions. They also show where the current system is not meeting sense-
making needs.

8 PRACTICE INVENTIONS:

Both the theoretic premises of the Sense-Making studies and the findings have been
used as the basis for three practice inventions currently being used in actual commu-
nication systems. Testing the helpfulness of these inventions is on the Sense-Making
research agenda.

NEUTRAL-QUESTIONING.

Neutral-Questioning is an interpersonal communicating tactic derived from
these Sense-Making premises: that sense-making is situational; and that fo-
cusing on the assumed to be universals of movement through time-space and
the mandate to bridge gaps allows one person to assess dimensions of the
perspective of another universally applicable to sense-making. Neutral-
Questioning directs the communicator to ask others three classes of questions
which are content free except in their allegiance to time-space premises. E-
xamples of these questions are:
To tap situations: What happened? What led you to this place? What
blocks or hinders you?
To tap gaps: What questions do you have? What confuses you? What
do you need to make sense of? What holes exist in your understan-
ding?
To tap uses: What help would you like? What would you like to see
happen? Whats your aim?
Practice in the use of Neutral-Questioning has been systematically given to a
variety of professionals: primarily librarians, and doctors. No explicit test has
been conducted yet but informal reports suggest that after the initial shock of
the change, professionals find the tactic allows them to communicate more ef-
fectively and efficiently at the same time. As one reference librarian put it: Ive
been able to find out in two minutes with Neutral-Questioning what it would
have taken l5 minutes or more to determine using the traditional approach to
the reference interview. This statement, which needs explicit study, of course,
contradicts one of the most-often stated assumptions in the field of communi-
cationsthat effective communication always takes more time.

THE INFOSHEET.

This practice invention also is derived from Sense-Making theoretic premises
and its finding which suggest that in order to make effective sense people:
need to receive information that is transmitted subjectively (i.e., anchored in
the situations-gaps-uses of the sources); and need to get a picture of the dif-
ferent senses different people have made in a variety of situations to so they
can locate themselves (i.e., allows them to circle reality and locate themselves
within it). These premises lead to the conclusion that in media products more
than one source should be used, sources should be maximally different and
not defined simply as experts, and that information from sources should be
rooted in their time-space. Infosheets have been designed for a doctors office,
a school system, and a medical clinic and are being developed for a variety of
library settings. All Infosheet development starts with some kind of Time-Line
interviews with intended audience members. After audience questions are de-
termined, an Infosheet is constructed to address one or more questions.
Sources who give answers to the question are solicited from a wide spectrum
of individuals involved in, effected by, or knowledgeable about the situational
context. Sources are asked how they would answer the question, what led
them to construct that answer, and how the answer helps them. Contradictions
in sources answers are referred back to sources so they can explain their
views of what led to the contradictions existing. An example, one Infosheet de-
veloped for parents of exceptional children in a school system focused on the
most asked question of parents: what makes a child exceptional? Answers
were obtained using the guidelines above from experts, from parents, from
both so-called exceptional and not exceptional children. While no explicit test
has been done to date, users of Infosheets have universally reported them in-
teresting and useful.

GOOD NEWS NEWSPAPER.

As a result of the consistent emphasis in the findings on good and hopeful
uses of answers to questions, the GOOD NEWS NEWSPAPER was designed.
The only example to date focused on the University of Washington community.
Communication students interviewed other students, faculty, and staff asking
them: Whats one thing you really like about being a member of the UW com-
munity? Whats the thing youve accomplished recently at UW that you are
most proud of? Whats an instance when someone at UW really helped you in
a time of need? Representative selections of these responses are being com-
piled in a UW GOOD NEWS NEWSPAPER. Again, no test has been made.
However, the would-be journalists who did the interviewing and constructing of
the paper and the students readers exposed to it so far have been enthusias-
tic.

9 RESEARCH AGENDA:

While Sense-Making studies and essays first emerged in 19751976, now eight
years later, there is still the feeling of being at a beginning, even if the beginning is
now infinitely more complex. Each Sense-Making study has raised more questions
than it has answered. Each step points to more need for development, more potential
applications, more tests. A detailed research agenda will be published in the upcom-
ing book (Dervin, 1984). For purposes of this paper, the research agenda can be
summarized as involving seven thrusts of activity:
1. Systematic tests of the testable Sense-Making premises.
2. A series of explicit tests of respondent versus situation as predictors of sense-
making.
3. The development and use of more traditionally qualitative methods of analysis
in order to tap the richness of the Micro-Moment Time Line Interviews.
4. The continued development and refinement of content analysis schemes to
tap nature of situations, questions, and uses as well as barriers to sense-
making, bases for judging answers as complete incomplete, and gap-bridging
strategies.
5. The continued development and refinement of training approaches which al-
low respondents to classify their own responses in the context of researcher
templates.
6. The continued development and refinement of the Close-Ended Sense-
Making Interview, particularly with application to micro-moments.
7. The evaluation of the usefulness of practice inventions in actual communica-
tion systems.

10 APPENDIX A

EXAMPLES OF VARIOUS APPROACHES TO SENSE-MAKING INTERVIEWING

EXAMPLE #1

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1982 study of cancer patients.

SAMPLE: 82 cancer patients treated at the University of Washington Hospitals se-
lected using stratified disproportionate random selection procedures. The stratifica-
tion variable was radiation vs chemotherapy treatment. In-person interviews took an
average of 150 minutes with a range from 30-420.
METHOD: Each respondent was asked to focus on a situation during his/her chemo-
therapy and/or radiation treatment. The entire Time-Line was elicited: what happened
first? what questions did you have? what happened next? what questions did you
have? and so on. Time-Line steps were written on white file cards, and each question
on blue cards, keyed to time line step #. Then, up to 8 Qs were analyzed in depth. If
an R was more than 8, he/she was asked to shuffle the cards on which the Qs were
listed and randomly select 8. Dimensions for the in-depth analysis of the 8 questions
are identified briefly below in terms of what the respondent was asked to elicit re-
sponses. This is not the entire format of the Time-Line interview used because differ-
ent respondents went different paths depending on their earlier responses. What fol-
lows is the structure for this one respondent.
CITATIONS: Dervin, Nilan, Krenz, & Wittet (1982)
EXCERPT: What follows below is an excerpt from the Time-Line (consisting of de-
scriptions of Time-Line steps accompanied by their questions). This is followed by
complete transcripts of the in-depth analyses of two questions. Respondent is a 46
year old female chemotherapy patient with 14 years of education.

THE TIME-LINE

STEP 1: Each time before the treatments we got up and I fixed breakfast for every-
one.
Q1: Why am I going in again when I am going to feel awful?
STEP 2: My husband took me to the U District to my friends house on his way back
to work and we picked places to go because my treatments were around noon.
Q1: Why am I letting myself get ill even before the chemotherapy treatments?
STEP 3: I would go and stick my arm out and they couldnt find a vein and they would
poke and poke and I would try to be big about it. They made me feel insecure by
sending me from the chemo nurse to the blood lab because the technicians there
didnt seem professional.
Q1: Why am I going through this?
Q2: When my blood count was low and they put off the treatment would this
mean this would stretch out longer than a year?
Q3: Have they ruined my arm?
Q4: Do these people know what they are doing?

(SKIPPING DOWN TO THE LAST STEP)

STEP 11: They cut back my dosage and I was able to start school in the fall.
Q1: Will this do as much good?
Q2: Why did I quit menstruating?

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP2

Q: Why am I letting myself get ill even before the chemotherapy treatment?
What were you trying to do (cope with, understand, accomplish, figure out, survive,
endure, tolerate) when you asked this question?
I suppose I was trying to talk myself out of it to convince myself that I wasnt
going to feel this way each time as I walked through those doors; that I was
going to be able to overcome that nausea and that upset that started the min-
ute I got there. And then too I guess I always felt a little sorry for myself and
thats why I suppose I got that way because I knew it was in the back of my
mind you are going to do to this poor thing and I would remember how it was
the month before and how much it hurts. I dont really know why I was asking
this question except that I did.

Did you see yourself as blocked or hindered in any way when you asked this ques-
tion?
How?
Yes. My normal life by then was kind of a mess. I was barely able to function at
home. I had given up my schooling, my bowling was terrible, I dropped some
of the things I did outside. Yeah, I guess I would say I was hindered. My nor-
mal life that I had lived for years and years and years was just a mess. I wasnt
able to do hardly anything.



Is there anything else you could tell us that explains why you asked this question?
As I was saying, up to this point I have been very healthy and my family was
very healthy and it was just really hard for me to accept this fact that I felt sick
all the time when I was so used to always feeling well, and I didnt like and
there wasnt anything I could do about it. And I marched in there every month
to do something that made me sick and when you are normally a person who
feels good it is just really hard to accept that. That you are going to be sick
every day and I suppose that was part of it. That really irritated me; and made
me mad and it kind of got into my mind and it bothered me and the next thing I
knew I felt lousy.



Did this question stand alone or was it related to other questions?
Stood alone.


If other people were in a situation like this, how many of them do you think would ask
this same question in their minds? All/A lot/About half/J ust a few/None.
A lot.

How easy did it seem to get an answer to this question? (Scale: 1 =very hard to 10 =
very easy). Why did you see it this way?
5
Because after turning it over a few times I finally decided that I was allowing
this to happen just because I was focusing in on the pain and the discomfort
and it made me sick. It was never a thing I ever answered for myself. I wasnt
able to overcome the feelings as I went in there.

Did getting an answer ever seem harder or easier (Same/harder/easier)

(If harder or easier) Where did it move on scale?

(If harder or easier) Why did it change?
Same as before.

How important was getting an answer to this question at the time when you asked it
in your mind? (Scale: 1 =very unimportant to 10 =very important). Why did you see
it this way?
2
Because I felt I was caught up in a situation I couldnt do anything about. I was
committed and it didnt matter whether I had an answer to the question. I was
going to do it.

Did getting an answer ever seem more or less important? (same/less/more)
(If more or less) Where did it move on the scale?

(If more or less) Why did it change?
Same as before.

Did you actually ask this question out loud at this time?

(If no) Why?
No.
It was just a rumbling at first.

Did you ever ask this question out loud?
Yes.

Did you get an answer to this question at this time?
No.

Did you ever get an answer to this question?
Yes.


Was it complete or partial?

What about it made it seem (complete/partial)?
Partial.
I dont feel that I am equipped psychologically or medically to answer why I got
this reaction so my supposition is that I had to go on.

How did you get the answer?
I just thought about and decided that this is the way it was with me from my
own background.


Did you expect the answer to help you in any way? If so, how?
No.

Did you expect the answer to hurt you in any way? If so, how?
No.

Did the answer actually help you in any way? If so, how?
No.

Did the answer actually hurt you in any way? If so, how?

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q3, STEP 5
Q1: After all the doctors, was he really a doctor or a specialist? Is he still trai-
ning?

What were you trying to do (cope with, understand, accomplish, figure out, survive,
endure, tolerate) when you asked this question?
I wanted to be reassured that I was getting the proper treatment and that these
people were really qualified to be giving me all these lethal type drugs. I was
kind of insecure and this was all really new and I just wanted to be reassured
that this was really good for me.

Did you see yourself as blocked or hindered in any way when you asked this ques-
tion?
How?
Yes. My state of mind mainly because I was nervous about it. I was feeling in-
secure and frightened.

Is there anything else you could tell us that explains why you asked this question?
Only that they were told that they had finished their tour of duty so to speak
and that the part that they were moving on made me wonder if this was just a
training session to them and they werent really specialists, and I wanted a
specialist.

Did this question stand alone or was it related to other questions?

What questions? How were they connected?

Related to other questions.
Was he really taking care of my case?
I just wasnt sure what their positions were, what they were in the whole set-
up. Were they the doctors that were looking at my case and deciding on the
medicine or did they just repeat things to some other doctor and get the an-
swers somewhere else? Were they qualified to make these decisions or did
they have to go to somebody else. Im not sure that is what you want.

If other people were in a situation like this, how many of them do you think would ask
this same question in their minds? All/A lot/About half/J ust a few/None.
A lot.

How easy did it seem to get an answer to this question? (Scale: 1 =very hard to 10 =
very easy) Why did you see it this way?
1
Because I never asked it out loud to anyone who could answer it.

Did getting an answer ever seem harder or easier? (Same/harder/easier)

(If harder or easier) Where did it move on scale?

(If harder or easier) Why did it change?
Easier
Moved to 10
Because I finally got the answers, the secure answers.

How important was getting an answer to this question at the time when you asked it
in your mind? (Scale: 1 =very unimportant to 10 =very important)

Why did you see it this way?
9
Because they were giving me some very strong medicine and once I began to
doubt their ability then I was worried about it.

Did getting an answer ever seem more or less important? (same/less/more)
(If more or less) Where did it move on the scale?

(If more or less) Why did it change?
More
Moved to 10
Because the more I thought about it the more worried I got that I didnt under-
stand the set-up there and I wasnt sure about their abilities.

Did you actually ask this question out loud at this time?
Yes.

Did you get an answer to this question at this time?
Yes.

Was it complete or partial?

What about it made it seem (complete/partial)?
Complete
He explained that their different abilities were that yes, they were really doctors
and they were trained specialists and although there were what they consid-
ered in training they had been at it for some time. And they were, he assured
me, that they were qualified to do what they do and he also told me that they
were in consultation with Dr. __________. Always there was never one doctor
that made the decision. It was always Dr. _____ in connection with the doctor
you were seeing.

Did the completeness ever change?
No.

How did you get the answer?
By asking the doctor.


Did you expect the answer to help you in any way? If so, how?
Yes.
By putting me at ease about the quality of people that were treating me.

Did the answer actually help you in the way you expected?

Did it help you in any other way?
Yes.
No.

Did you expect the answer to hurt you in any way? If so, how?
No.

Did the answer actually hurt you in any way? If so, how?
No.

EXAMPLE #2

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1980 study of blood donors.

SAMPLE: 80 blood donors residing in the city of Seattle, selected from the donor ros-
ters of the Puget Sound Blood Center in a disproportionate stratified random sample
defined by three strata (two levels of age, sex, and new versus repeat donor). In-
person interviews took an average of 93 minutes, with a range from 50-130.
METHOD: Each respondent was asked to describe his/her recent blood donation.
For this administration, Time-Line steps were elicited first, then questions were elic-
ited for each Time-Line step. Finally, in-depth analyses were elicited on all questions.

CITATIONS: Dervin, Nilan, & J acobson (1981).

Dervin, J acobson, & Nilan (1982).

EXCERPT: What is presented below is an excerpt from the Time-Line (consisting of
Time-Line steps and accompanying questions). This is followed by a complete ex-
ample of an in-depth Time-Line step analysis. This is, in turn, followed by a complete
example of an in-depth question analysis. Respondent is a 16 year old male new do-
nor.


THE TIME LINE

STEP 1: We were told we would get extra credit in health class for donating.
Q1: How much did I have to give?

Q2: What are the procedures?
STEP 2: A friend who had donated told me about it so a friend and I decided to do-
nate.
Q1: How long would it take?
Q2: Would it hurt?
Q3: How big is the needle?
Q4: How much blood do I have to give?
STEP 3: I got my parents permission.
No questions.
(SKIPPING DOWN TO STEP 7)

STEP 7: She called me in and I didnt know what was going on.
Q1: What are they going to do?

Q2: What is all this equipment for if they are just going to take my blood?
(SKIPPING DOWN TO THE LAST STEP)

STEP 11: After eight minutes I went to the canteen for cookies and juice.
No questions.


IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF STEP 7

How clear was the event (scale of 1 =very unclear to 10 =very clear.)
3

How many people were involved?
Only me.

Did you see event as just happening or was it seen as a result of something that
happened earlier?
J ust happened.

Did you see event as having possible good consequences?
No.

Did you see event as having possible bad consequences?
No.

Which of the situation movement state pictures fit the event best? (R chose from de-
cision, barrier, problematic, worry).
Problematic.

How important was the event? (Scale of 1 =very unimportant to 10 =very important).
10

Did event help in any way?
No.

Did event hurt in any way?
No.

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q2, STEP 7
Q: What is all this equipment for if they are just going to take my blood?

How easy was it to get an answer to this question? (Scale of 1 =impossible to 10 =
very easy.)
1

How many people would ask this same question in the same situation? (none, a few,
about half, a lot, all of them)
About half.

Did you ever get an answer to this question?
No.

Why didnt you get an answer?
Because they didnt tell me anything. They just did it. They thought I knew
what was going on.

Page 37
Did you expect the answer to help? If so, how?
I wouldnt have been scared or in suspense wondering what they were going
to do.

Did you expect the answer to hurt? If so, how?
No.

EXAMPLE #3

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1979 study of interpersonal con-
flicts faced by university graduate students.

SAMPLE: 35 students in an applied communication class at the University of Wash-
ington. Students did a self-analysis following prepared guidelines.
METHOD: Each student was asked to list the Time-Line steps (what happened first,
second, and so on) and then the questions at each step. Then they did in-depth
analyses of each question.
CITATIONS: unpublished at this time.
EXCERPT: What is presented below is a complete Time-Line (consisting of Time-
Line steps and accompanying questions) followed by two complete examples of in-
depth question analyses. Respondent is a male, sophomore, 20 years old.

THE TIME LINE

STEP 1: This person was in my room in the dorm without my permission.
Q1: What does he want?
STEP 2: I asked him to leave.
Q1: Whats his problem anyway?
STEP 3: He physically harmed me.
Q1: Do I have to defend myself?
STEP 4: I defended myself.
Q1: Was this really necessary?
STEP 5: I left my own room.
Q1: Why do I always put up with this happening?

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP 2
Q: Whats his problem anyway?
Was it easy, hard, or impossible to get an answer?
Easy.

Did you get an answer?
Yes.

How did you get an answer?
I put two and two together.

Did the answer help you or hurt you or both?
Both.

Page 39
How did it help you?
It showed me how not to get into this predicament again.

How did it hurt you?
What happened next hurt.

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP 5
Q: Why do I always put up with this happening?

Was it easy, hard, or impossible to get an answer?
Hard.

Did you get an answer?
Partial.

How did you get an answer?
I reasoned it through, figured my inexperience is why.

Did the answer help you or hurt you or both?
Hurt.

How did it hurt you?
Somehow it was useless. Made me feel bad.

EXAMPLE #4


Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1979 study of students attending
university classes.

SAMPLE: Undergraduate students attending two classes in the University of Wash-
ington School of Communications: a class in radio production and a class in research
methods. Students in the research methods class did interpersonal interviews.
METHOD: Each student was asked to list the Time-Line steps (what happened first,
second, and so on) and then the questions at each step). In-depth analyses were
then done of all questions.
CITATIONS: unpublished at this time.
EXCERPT: What is presented below is an excerpt from a Time-Line (consisting of
Time-Line steps and accompanying questions). This is followed by a complete ex-
ample of an in-depth question analysis. Respondent is a female, age 22, a senior.

THE TIME LINE


STEP 1: I got into class and everyone shuffled in late.
Q1: How will I handle the assignments to write spots to produce radio sports
that is due next week?
Q2: Will we get out of class early?
Q3: Why are people always late?
STEP 2: The instructor told us what we were going to do that day.
No questions.
STEP 3: She started talking about the editing machine.
Q1: I wondered if I would be able to do it.
(SKIPPING DOWN TO LAST STEP)

STEP 11: Our small group decided wed talk later and we left.
Q1: Would I remember when we were going to meet?

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP 3
Q1: I wondered if I would be able to do it.
Was it easy, hard, or impossible to get an answer?
Easy.

Did you get an answer at that time, later or never?
Later.

How did you get an answer?
Tried it out myself.

Did the answer help or hurt or both?
Helped.

How did it help?
Built up my confidencethis helped me perform betterthis helped me relax
and feel better.
EXAMPLE #5

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview. 1981 Study of developmentally
disabled adults.

SAMPLE: 6 developmentally disabled adults selected judgmentally by the Library
Services to the Developmentally Disabled Adult Project of the Metropolitan Coopera-
tive Library System headquartered in Pomona, California.
METHOD: Each respondent was asked to describe a recent troublesome experience.
They described their Time-Line steps and the questions they had at each step. They
were asked then to describe each question they had in more detail.
CITATIONS: unpublished at this time.
EXCERPT: What is presented below is the complete Time-Line Interview for a 23
year old male diagnosed as moderately retarded.

THE TIME LINE AND ALL ACCOMPANYING DETAILED ANALYSES

STEP 1: The kite, the string came undone.

What were you trying to accomplish?
I wanted the kite to go up in the air.
What questions did you have at this time?
Whether to tie it back on.
Did you get an answer?
No.
Why not?
Because I was mad. I lost my cool so darned easy.
Would an answer to this question have helped you?
Yes.
How?
Try again.

STEP 2: I tore the kite up.

What were you trying to accomplish?
J ust dont do it, just try again, but I lost my cool.
What questions did you have at this time?
Do I have to pay for it?
Did you get an answer?
No.
Why not?
Because I was mad at the time.
Would an answer to this question have helped you?
Yes.
How?
I dont know, just to make it work again.


STEP 3: People were laughing at me.

What were you trying to accomplish?
To get it to school, to get it at least half way up.
What questions did you have at this time?
I wished I could talk to the folks and tell them what they were doing.
Did you get an answer?
No.
Why not?
The kids would turn against me.
Would an answer help?
Yes.
How?
I would have talked to them and told them to knock it off.

STEP 4: Then I got on the bike and took off.

What were you trying to accomplish?
To go somewhere and cool off.
What questions did you have at this time?
How come it didnt go up?
Did you get an answer?
No.
Why not?
Because I was still mad at the time.
Would an answer have helped?
Not to lose my cool.

EXAMPLE #6

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1981 study of childrens television
viewing.

SAMPLE: Permission was sought from parents of all 114 children attending the Aus-
tin, Texas Extend-A-Care after-school program at two sites. All children whose par-
ents agreed were interviewed, yielding 55 interviews. The respondents were aged 5-
12.
METHOD: Each respondent was asked to name several television shows he or she
had watched in the past several days and then to name the television show best re-
membered or most important. The child was then asked to describe the show on a
time-line, as though the child had a camera and took pictures during the program.
When the time-line was complete, the child was asked to indicate what questions
he/she has asked aloud or silently during each time line step. They were then asked
to indicate whether each question was answered, when, how and whether the an-
swer helped or was expected to help.
CITATIONS: Atwood, Allen, Bardgett, Proudlove, & Rich (1982).
EXCERPT: What is presented below is the complete Time-Line Interview for a 5
years old girl and a partial Time-Line Interview for a 10 year old boy.



THE COMPLETE TIME LINE FOR A 5 YEARS OLD GIRL

STEP 1: A man was running. A shark headed at him. He jumped out of the boat and
got away.
Q1: Did this really happen?

Q2: Why is this so funny?
Did this really happen?
a. Asked this question out loud.
b. Got an answer at the time.
c. Got answer from mother.
d. Answer helped because: I knew it wasnt real.
Why is this so funny?
a. Asked this question out loud.
b. Got an answer at the time.
c. Got answer from mother.
d. Answer helped because: My mother told me it wasnt funny. I asked be-
cause I didnt think it was funny but my brothers laughed so I laughed
too.
THE TIME LINE FOR THE 10 YEARS OLD BOY

STEP 1: Everybody got stuck in the car on the way to the cabin.
Q1: How did they get stuck in the snow when they were going 50 miles an
hour?
STEP 2: Fonzie digs the car out of the snow.
Q1: Why did he forget the shovel?
STEP 3: Fonzie walks in the woods with friends.
No questions.
STEP 4: They were having an axe throwing contest. A man got a splinter in his fin-
ger.
Q1: Why didnt he say ouch?
STEP 5: Richie and his girlfriend had a fight. Fonzie gets them back together.
Q1: How would he do that?
STEP 6: Fonzie talks to the bluejay birds.
Q1: How does he do it?

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP 4 (10 years old boy)
Q: Why didnt he say ouch? Was the question asked out loud or silently?
Silently.

Did you get an answer to the question at this time, later, or never?
Never.

Would an answer have helped? How?
Yes. It would help me not to say ouch, too.

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP 6 (10 years old boy)
Q: How does he do it (how does Fonzie talk to bluejays)?
Was the question asked out loud or silently?
Out loud.

Did you get an answer to the question at this time, later, or never?
Never.

Would an answer have helped? How?
Yes. Would have told me how to talk to them.


EXAMPLE #7

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1982 study of minority and non-
minority students at the University of Texas-Austin.

SAMPLE: 79 students (20 Blacks, 20 Hispanics, 19 Asians, 20 Whites) selected with
disproportionate stratified random sampling procedures from the roster of students at
the University of Texas-Austin.
METHOD: Each respondent was asked to describe recent difficult situations encoun-
tered at the University of Texas. They were then asked to select the most important
situation from the current semester.
CITATIONS: Atwood & McLean (1983a, 1983b).
EXCERPT: What follows below is the Time-Line and one in-depth question analysis
from an interview with a 27 year old male Black doctoral student.


THE TIME LINE

STEP 1: During my first meeting with professors in my department, my GRE scores
were presented to me in front of my spouse as inappropriate and representative of
my inability to perform according to department requirements.
Q1: Could I do the work?

Q2: If I dont perform, will I be here next year?
STEP 2: I put myself in a psychological state of stress and challenged myself to ei-
ther put up or shut up.
Q1: Who can I go to for assistance?

Q2: How could I go about setting up my own program of individual study?

STEP 3: I sought assistance from one professor in the department regarding help
with statistics. I also recruited the professors help who was teaching the stat course.
No questions.

STEP 4: The psychological stress of the situation took its toll on me and I got physi-
cally ill. As a consequence, I began to panic and my motivation level began to de-
crease.
Q1: Was it my fault that I was under so much pressure?

Q2: Did it really matter if I could do the work in the eyes of the department?

STEP 5: At the end of the semester, I asked my professor for moral and academic
support. I was given a second semester to prove to my department and myself that I
had the ability to perform.
Q1: Will my professors give me the commitment I am asking for?

IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP 4

Q: Was it my fault that I was under so much pressure?

How hard was it to get an answer? (Scale: 1 =impossible to 10 =very easy)
2

How many students like yourself in similar situations would ask this question?
(Scale: none, few, about half, a lot, all)
About half.

How many students unlike yourself would ask this question? (same scale)
About half.

Did you ask this question in your head or out loud?
In head.

Did you get an answer to this question at this time, later, or never?
At this time.

Did you get a complete or partial answer?
Complete.

Where did you get the answer from?
Self.

Did the answer help? How?
Yes. Helped develop self satisfaction, assurance, and confidence.

Did the answer hurt? How?
Yes. For a while I doubted myself.


EXAMPLE #8

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1981 study of college student pa-
per writing experience.

SAMPLE: 98 students in an undergraduate communications course at the University
of Washington-Seattle.
METHOD: Students did self-interviews using specified instructions. They detailed the
time-line steps for their most recent paper writing experience and then completed in-
depth analyses for all questions asked.
CITATIONS: unpublished at this time.
EXCERPT: What follows below is a complete set of the data obtained for Step 2 in
the Time-Line Interview of a 19 years old male college sophomore.

STEP 2: I decided on the topic of my paper alcoholism.
Questions I got answers to:
Will this be an interesting topic to research?
Will I find enough information to do a 10-page paper?
Questions I did not get answers to:
Should I have picked abortion as my issue instead?
Questions raised by event:
How does this assignment relate to this class?

Will this be an interesting topic to research?
a. Easy to get answer because I was already interested in topic and
through my research become more interested.
b. Got answer at a later time.
c. Got a complete answer.
d. Got answer by doing my research and writing the paper.
e. Answer helped by making me feel more relaxed in doing this topic be-
cause I felt that I could make an interesting report.
f. Answer did not hurt.
/skipping to last question asked at this time-line step/

How dies this assignment relate to this class?
a. Easy to get an answer because I was able to ask teacher.
b. Got answer at this time.
c. Got a complete answer.
d. Got answer by asking teacher.
e. Answer helped because I tried to center my paper around the sociologi-
cal aspects of alcoholism as teacher wanted and this helped me get a
better grade.
f. Answer hurt because I really wanted to focus on the facts of alcoholism
rather than sociological interpretation.

EXAMPLE #9

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1979 study of California residents
aged 14 years of age or older.


SAMPLE: 646 California residents secured with multi-stage probability sampling de-
sign.
METHOD: Respondents were asked to describe recent situations in which they had
stopped and thought about or tried to solve a problem, make a decision, or answer a
question. Respondents were then asked to identify the situation most important to
them and to describe the Time-Line steps for that situation. They were also asked to
indicate what questions they had at each step and which question across all steps
was most important to them. This most important question was analyzed in depth in
terms of what sources were used, what helps were sought, and so on.

CITATIONS: Atwood & Dervin (1982)

Palmour, Rathbun, Brown, and Dowd (1979)

EXCERPTS: What follows below is the core Time-Line for an 18 years old Black fe-
male and an in-depth analysis of her most important question.

THE TIME LINE (* =the most important question)

Step 1: I quit school because I got pregnant.
No questions.
Step 2: I had the baby one month ago.
Step 3: I didnt know whether to go back to school or not.
Q1: *How important is returning to school?
Step 4: Im only 18 and my folks thought it was important.
Q1: How much do I really want to go back?
Step 5: I live at home so I have no expenses and my mother babysits for me.
Step 6: So I am going back to school.

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION

Did you get an answer to this question? How?
My own thinking and parents advice.

Did the answer help? How?
Yes. Made me feel better about me. Got me started toward going back to
school.

EXAMPLE #10

Excerpt from Micro-Moment Time-Line Interviews: 1983 study of southeast Asian
refugees living in Seattle.

SAMPLE: Southeast Asian refugees living in Seattle interviewed in available groups
(i.e., at English classes).
METHOD: The refugees were asked to recall their recent visit to a hospital or clinic.
They were asked to describe the events involved and detail the questions they had
during each event. For each question they indicated, they were asked whether they
got answers, and how. Among speaking interviewers/group process facilitators were
trained and ran the sessions when respondents could not speak English. Responses
were tape recorded and translated and transcribed later.
CITATIONS: Wittet (1983)
EXCERPT: What follows below is the situation descriptions and questions asked by
four respondents. Since questions emerged in the process of talking, the questions
are indicated in all capital letters in the transcriptions.

RESPONDENT #02 - female, 29 years old describing visit to hospital
Situation: They gave me medicine to take to increase the blood in my body.
Even I take before breakfast or lunch or dinner it make me vomit. So that I
need to ask the doctor [QUESTION:] IF ITS OKAY I DONT TAKE IT OR I
MUST TAKE IT? But I cannot ask because I do not speak English.

RESPONDENT #11 - female, 35 years old describing visit to hospital
Situation 1: The last time I went to the hospital is I have my baby and then af-
ter I have my baby the doctor and nurse bring me cold water. So that in my
culture thats different and I keep asking them about the question that [QUES-
TION:] WHY THE PEOPLE THAT HAS NEW BABY THEY KEEP DRINKING
VERY COLD WATER?
Situation 2: After I have my baby Im very new. I like my body is changing and
they let me take a walk every two hours or three hours. I keep thinking that my
body is new and that Im so tired to understand. And also I think that many
things in my body is not wrong and there is no illness but I just have a baby
and Im thinking that in a few days Ill get better. Ill get strong but the doctor
say you have to walk and I was thinking [QUESTION:] WHY HE SAY THIS?
And, many things many things but I cant tell them. They dont understand me
either.

RESPONDENT #15 - male, 37 years old describing hospital visit
Situation 1:when I came to the U.S. and they have to give blood check to
take out blood. {QUESTION:] WHY DO THEY USUALLY TAKE A LOT OF
BLOOD OUT?
Situation 2: I would like to ask but I believe that the doctor they know more
than me but Im still concerned like Mrs. __________ she say when you a lady
have a baby in our culture we just use very special food, hot food, or hot water.
We have to cook special for the people that just have baby. But [QUESTION:]
WHY WHEN YOU HAVE BABY IN HOSPITAL THEY GIVE YOU EVERY KIND
OF FOOD TO EAT? And, in our people if they take every food like that should
be they have problem when they get old.
Situation 3: Usually our people believe that the doctor know more than yourself
and every time you went to the hospital you dont have any questions and you
just say I see and you hope that the doctor will find everything for you and the
doctor will tell you everything. But I am very concerned that [QUESTION:]
WHY WHEN YOU GO TO THE DOCTOR HE ASK YOU MANY, MANY
QUESTIONS?

RESPONDENT #19 - male, 28 years old describing hospital visit
Situation 1: This happened. When person who die, they already know that kind
of sickness he or she have before. But after die, they still open. [QUESTION:]
WHY WHEN PEOPLE DIE THEY NEED TO OPEN THE BODY?


EXAMPLE #11

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1981 study of college student
media days.


SAMPLE: Students in an introductory communications course at the University of
Washington School of Communications.

METHOD: Students were asked to write a media diary for an entire day detailing for
each waking hour the most important media exposed to, what the exposure con-
sisted of, what the situation consisted of, and how the exposure helped or hurt. Helps
and hurts were described using Straight Line Helps/Hurts Chaining (see EXAMPLE
#12).

CITATION: unpublished at this time.
EXCERPT: What follows below is an excerpt for three time periods of the media ex-
posure of a 19 year old male freshman.


TIME PERIOD 1

Time 9:30 a.m.
Media textbook
Content political science text
Situation sitting in class
Help
chain
knew what was going on in classthis helps
me do better on examsthis helps me get
better gradesthis means I keep my schol-
arshipthis means I dont have to workthis
gives me more free time for school and plan.
<END>
Hurt
chain
the TA knew I didnt do my reading before
classthis might bias her against me when
she reads my papers or grades my testthis
might lower my gradeI could lose my
scholarshipthis would depress me. <END>

TIME PERIOD 2


Time 12:00 noon
Media radio
Content pop music station
Situation doing differing things in my dorm room
Help
chain
made me feel as though I was not
alonethis made me happy <END>
Hurt
chain
none

TIME PERIOD 3
Time 12:00 noon
Media newspaper
Content comics (Garfield)
Situation waiting for someone
Help
chain
gave me a laugh for the daythis gave me a
good attitude about studyingthis meant I
got more donethis meant I can improve my
grade <END>
Hurt
chain
none


EXAMPLE #12

Excerpt from Straight Line Helps/Hurts Chaining: 1981 study of media uses by Syra-
cuse, N.Y.adults.

SAMPLE: 252 person systematic random sample of Syracuse, N.Y. adults age 18
years and older drawn from the Syracuse, N.Y.phone book.
METHOD: Each respondent was asked to name their most recent TV show seen,
newspaper (or magazine article) read, book read, and conversation participated in.
They were asked to describe the content of the exposure and then to chain helps
they saw as emerging from the exposure.
CITATION: unpublished at this time.
EXCERPT: What follows below is the complete interview with a 34 years old female.

MOST RECENT TELEVISION SHOW
CONTENT: Show was about exercisesthe Ed Allen Show.
Helps chain: Helped me because I participatedthis gave me a push to do more
exercisesthis helps me firm my musclesthey helped me feel better about my-
selfthis makes me feel goodthis benefits my familythis makes everyone feel
better. <END>

MOST RECENT MAGAZINE ARTICLE
CONTENT: Magazine article about how to win friends.
Helps chain: Made me aware of myselfthis showed me how to improve myself.
<END>

MOST RECENT CONVERSATION
CONTENT: With my children regarding cleaning their rooms.
Helps chain: It helped because I told them what to dothis helped because there
was no mess in the other roomthen I dont have to clean upthen I am less
tiredthis makes me happier. <END>this showed me how to improve myself.
<END>

MOST RECENT BOOK
CONTENT: Bible
Helps chain: It was food for thoughtit helps because then I know what to dothis
gives me security and purposethis makes me happier and the world looks better.
<END>

EXAMPLE #13

Excerpt from Complex Helps/Hurts Chaining: 1982 study of college students report-
ing on recent class lectures.

SAMPLE: Students in an introductory communications course in the University of
Washington School of Communications.
METHOD: Students did self-interviews. They were asked to detail the Time-Line
steps from a recent lecture they attended. Then for each step in the Time-Line, they
chained both helps and hurts. Chaining was done in such a way that a help or hurt
could chain to either a help or hurt or both.
CITATIONS: unpublished at this time.
EXCERPT: What follows below is the helps/hurts chaining for one time-line step in
the interview of a 21 years old senior.

Step 1: The teacher said we had to write a term paper focusing on the relationship
between this class and our future jobs.













EXAMPLE #14

Excerpt from Close-ending Sense-Making Interview: 1983 study of college student in-
formation seeking and use in structurally and situationally constrained contexts.

SAMPLE: 162 University of Washington students enrolled in an introductory commu-
nications course.

METHOD: Each student was asked to recall and describe their sense-making in 12
different situations. The situations were all prescribed with each one involving one of
the 12 cells created by the intersections of the values of three different variables
(their own status relative to other persons involved, the degree of openness of com-
munication, and the nature of the situational stop that led to question asking). The 12
situations were:

For each situation, respondents were then asked to rate (on 7-point scales):
1. the extent to which they had each of 18 different questions in the situation;
2. the extent to which they had each of 13 different helps in the situation;
3. their ability to deal with the situation;
4. the extent to which they experienced similar situations in the past; and
5. the extent to which they saw themselves as having power to change the situa-
tion.
Each respondent was also asked to describe in words why he/she saw the situation
as being of the type specified.
CITATIONS: Nilan (1983)

Nilan & Dervin (1983)

EXCERPT: What follows is the complete response record for one respondent (a 19
year old female freshman) on one of the 12 situations.

SITUATION: problematic, lo status, closed communication

DESCRIPTION OF SITUATION: My mother refused to let me buy a new bathing suit.



The situation was problematic because: There was nothing I could do about it. I didnt
have enough money of my own.

The situation was lo status because: Shes my mother. She controls the money.
The situation was closed communication: She just wouldnt listen to reason.

QUESTIONS ASKED: (1 =not at all a Q of mine; 7 =very much a Q of mine)
a. How can I make this situation go away? 2
b. How can I avoid bad consequences? 5
c. How can I do something that I want to? 7
d. What will result from this situation? 5
e. Are other people in similar situations? 4
f. Is this a good situation or a bad one? 1
g. How do other people see this situation, what are their motives/reasons/plans?
7
h. Does anyone agree with me? 7
i. What do I think or feel? 1
j. How can I decide among my options/alternatives? 1
k. What are the different ways of looking at this situation? 1
l. What caused this situation? 5
m. Who and/or what is involved in this situation? 1
n. Where can I get encouragement, help, and/or support? 6
o. What are my options/alternatives? 2
p. Should I change my view of this situation? 1
q. Should I change my view of this situation related to each other? 3
r. How can I get motivated? 1

HELPS WANTED: (1 =didnt want this help at all; 7 =wanted this help very much)
a. Being able to relax. 5
b. Getting ideas, pictures, understanding. 4
c. Being able to plan ahead, decide what to do, prepare. 2
d. Getting started, being able to keep going, being motivated. 5
e. Getting confirmation, reassurance, support. 7
f. Getting out of a bad situation. 7
g. Accomplishing what you wanted, reaching your goal. 7
h. Being able to take your mind off things. 5
i. Getting connected to other people, feeling less alone. 7
j. Getting control of things. 6
k. Having things go easier, calmer. 4
l. Being able to go on to other things, leaving this behind. 3
m. Avoiding a bad situation, not getting into one. 1

OVERALL SITUATION EVALUATIONS: (1 =not at all; 7 =very much)
a. extent able to deal with situation. 3
b. extent experienced situation before. 7
c. extent feel had power in situation. 1
EXAMPLE #15


Excerpt from Message-Q/ing Interview and a Profile of Message Q/ing by message
users: 1983 study of college student reading of Seattle Times leisure times coverage.

SAMPLE: 55 students in a course on introductory communications research meth-
ods.
METHOD: As an optional class assignment, students were given copies of the most
recent weeks leisure time coverage by the Seattle Times (sections of sports, arts
and culture, travel, and a general entertainment section). Students read the sections,
indicated at what points in the coverage they had questions. For each question rai-
sed, they were asked to:
a. Draw a / at the point in the coverage where they had the question.
b. Rate the importance of the question on scale from 1 <not important>to 7
<very important>.
c. Indicate how they hoped an answer would help them.
d. Indicate whether they got an incomplete, partial, or complete answer from the
story.
This method of having people indicate with a / where they stopped in a message was
developed by Carter (Carter, Ruggels, J ackson, & Heffner 1983).
CITATIONS: Dervin & Martin (1983)
EXCERPT: What follows below is:
a. the first three questions listed for the first article in the travel section by a 21
year old senior; and
b. excerpts from the Profile of the question-asking by 20 respondents for the be-
ginning paragraphs of the same article.

MESSAGE-Q/ING INTERVIEW


ARTICLE Q# RESPONSES
1 1 When was the hurricane at Kauai?
a) Importance: 2
b) Expected help: Understand why this article was
in travel
section of newspaper.
c) Got partial answer.
1 2 Is it near where I stay when I go to Hawaii?
a) Importance: 3
b) Expected help: Id be more interested in article.
c) Didnt get answer.
1 3 Why arent tourists returning?
a) Importance: 6
b) Expected help: Wanted to check if damage
was so great that I should cancel my plans to
travel there.
c) Got partial answer.

11 APPENDIX B

OVERVIEW OF THE VARIOUS DIMENSIONS TAPPED TO REPRESENT

SITUATIONS-GAPS-USES

OVERVIEW #1

SITUATIONS

MEASURES USED TO DESCRIBE SITUATIONS TO DATE HAVE INCLUDED:
SITUATION MOVEMENT STATE: the way in which the person sees his/her
movement through time-space being blocked (full copy of this measure follows
on next page).
SITUATION CLARITY: the extent to which the person sees the situation as
unclear, as fogged.
SITUATION EMBEDDEDNESS: the extent to which the person sees the situa-
tion as related to other situations (a road intersecting with other roads).
SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS: the extent to which the person sees the situation
as involving many others in his/her life.
SITUATION IMPORTANCE: the extent to which the person sees the situation
as important to self.
PAST EXPERIENCE: the extent to which the person sees the situation as one
he/she has experienced before.
ABILITY TO DEAL WITH: the extent to which the person sees the situation as
one he/she is able to deal with.
POWER TO CHANGE: the extent to which the person sees the situation as
one he/she has the power to change.
OPENNESS TO COMMUNICATION: the extent to which the person sees the
situation as one in which communication can flow both ways between partici-
pants.
STATUS IN SITUATION: whether the person sees his/her status in situation
as higher than, lower than, or equal to others in the situation.
DISTANCE INTO SITUATION: whether the person sees the particular time-
space moment as being at beginning, middle, or end of total situation or some
point in between.
THE SITUATION MOVEMENT STATES

Different studies have treated these states in different ways, sometimes eliminating
some, sometimes combining some. The description below is the most expanded ver-
sion.
DECISION

Being at a point where
you need to choose
between two or more
roads that lie ahead.
PROBLEMATIC

Being dragged down a
road not of your own
choosing.
SPIN-OUT

Not having a road.
WASH-OUT

Being on a road and
suddenly having it dis-
appear.
BARRIER

Knowing where you
want to go but some-
one or something is
blocking the way.
BEING LED

Following someone
down a road because
he/she knows more
and can show you the
way.
WAITING

Spending time waiting
for something in par-
ticular.
PASSING TIME

Spending time without
waiting for something
in particular.
OUT TO LUN-
CH

Tuning out.
OBSERVING

Watching without being
concerned with move-
ment.
MOVING

Seeing self as pro-
ceeding unblocked in
any way ad without
need to observe.


OVERVIEW #2
GAPS

Gaps have been defined to date as the questions a person constructs as he/she
moves through time-space. Listed below are the different ways in which the qualita-
tive nature of questions have been described. Also included below are the set of ad-
ditional measures which have been used in different studies to examine in detail the
nature of information seeking for different kinds of questions.

MEASURES USED TO DESCRIBE THE QUALITATIVE NATURE OF QUESTIONS
TO DATE HAVE INCLUDED:

5W TEMPLATE: Assessing the question in terms of whether it asks about a gap in-
volving:
WHEN: the timing of events.
WHERE: the location of events.
WHY: the reasons and causes of events, the motives of actors in the events.
HOW: the procedures or skills for moving from one time-space to another.
WHO: the identification of others.
WHAT: the nature of objects, events, situation if codable above.
TIME FOCUS TEMPLATE: Assessing the question in terms of whether it asks about
a gap involving:
PAST: a time-space point prior to the point at which
PRESENT: the time-space point which is current focus.
FUTURE: a time-space point that has not yet occurred at the time-space point
which is the current focus.
VALENCE FOCUS: Assessing the question in terms of whether it asks about a gap
involving:
BAD ROAD: an actual or potential bad road, something not desired or wanted.
GOOD ROAD: an actual or potential good road, something desired or wanted.
NEUTRAL ROAD: a question articulated neither in terms of a bad road nor a
good one.
ENTITY FOCUS: Assessing the question in terms of whether it asks about a gap in-
volving:
SELF: a gap where the major focus is self.
OTHER: a gap where the major focus is an other.
OBJ ECT: a gap where the major focus is an object.
SITUATION: a gap where the major focus is a process or event.

MOVEMENT FOCUS: Assessing the questions in terms of whether it asks about a
gap involving:
WHERE I WAS: a gap focusing on the past.
HOW I GOT HERE: a gap focusing on movement from past to present.
WHERE I AM: a gap focusing on current time-space.
HOW TO GET THERE: a gap focusing on movement from present to future.
WHERE I WILL BE: a gap focusing on future time-space.
DESCRIPTIVE FOCUS: Assessing the question in terms of the kinds of gaps specific
to a given research context. In the study of cancer patient information needs, for ex-
ample (Dervin, Nilan, Krenz, & Wittet 1982), the major categories were:
Nature of the problem
Extent of the problem
Cause of the problem
Effects of problem on family/friends/relationships
Nature of tests
Treatment choices
Treatment process
Treatment effectiveness
The nature of the treatment effects
Reasons for treatment effects
Timing of treatment effects
Life effects of treatment
My thinking and behavior
Medical personnel/institutions
Other patients and people
Philosophical questions
For the study of blood donor (Dervin, Nilan, & J acobson, 1982; Dervin, J acob-
son, & Nilan, 1983), the major categories were:
Pain
My body
Blood processing
Donating objects
Eligibility
Planning
Blood Center staff
Self control
Donating others
CLOSE-ENDED LISTS: The templates above have usually been applied using con-
tent analysis. Analysis has yielded a set of generic questions for use in close-ended
studies. This set of questions is listed in EXAMPLE #14 in Appendix A.

ADDITIONAL MEASURES USED TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF INFORMATION
SEEKING FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF QUESTIONS:
EASE OF ANSWERING: The extent to which the person sees a question as
easy, hard, or impossible to answer.
REASONS FOR EASE OF ANSWERING DIFFICULTY: The bases on which
the person judges a question as difficult or impossible to answer.
QUESTION CONNECTEDNESS: The extent to which the person sees a ques-
tion as connected to other questions.
NATURE OF QUESTION CONNECTEDNESS: The kind of questions the per-
son sees as connected to a given question.
WHO WOULD ASK: The extent to which the person sees the question as one
that would be asked by none, a few, some, many, or all others involved in
similar situations.
IMPORTANCE OF ANSWERING: The extent to which the person sees getting
an answer to the question as important.
REASONS FOR IMPORTANCE: The bases on which the person judges a
question out loud or silently in his/her head.
ASKING OUT LOUD OR SILENTLY: Whether the person asked the question
out loud or silently in his/her head.
REASONS FOR NOT ASKING OUT LOUD: The bases on which the person
explains not getting an answer.
ANSWERING SUCCESS: Whether an answer was obtained at the time the
question was asked, later, or never.
REASONS FOR LACK OF ANSWERING SUCCESS: The bases on which the
person explains not getting an answer.
ANSWER COMPLETENESS: Whether the person saw the answer as com-
plete or partial.
REASONS FOR COMPLETENESS/PARTIALNESS: The bases on which the
person judged an answer as complete or partial.
ANSWER SOURCES: The places from which the person reported getting an-
swers (including self, others, media, and so on).
GAP-BRIDGING STRATEGIES: The different strategies the person used to
bridge the gap, including thinking, reading, emoting, comparing, and so on).
OVERVIEW #3

USES

Uses of information answers have been defined as the helps or hurts the person saw
self as obtaining. While all the applications to date have been based on the same
theoretic core, different studies have used different major categories. The most de-
tailed list follows presented as helps. When used as hurts, the categories are re-
stated in terms of whether a help was used as hurts, the categories are restated in
terms of whether a help was not achieved and in terms of whether a potential help
turned out badly (i.e., didnt get a picture and got a bad picture). Usually the catego-
ries are applied in content analysis. A closed-ended version is presented in
EXAMPLE #14 in Appendix A.

GOT PICTURES/IDEAS/UNDERSTANDINGS: It is assumed that people need ideas
in order to move. This category focuses on getting new or revised understandings,
sense, pictures.

ABLE TO PLAN: In order to move, one must have direction. this category includes
being able to decide, prepare, plan ahead.

GOT SKILLS: Moving frequently requires skills and this category taps being helped
by acquiring them.

GOT STARTED, GOT MOTIVATED: Moving sometimes requires a push to get
started. This category includes helps by getting motivated to start or finding ways to
start.

KEPT GOING: Sometimes moving is in danger of stopping from lack of self motiva-
tion. This category includes helps by getting motivated to keep going.

GOT CONTROL: Here help is needed to gain or regain control.

THINGS GOT CALMER, EASIER: Here the helps involve making the situation easier
and/or calmer.


GOT OUT OF A BAD SITUATION: Sometimes the situation is bad and the help ob-
tained is getting out of it.


REACHED THE GOAL, ACCOMPLISHED THINGS: Here the helps involve achieving
goals arriving places.


WENT ON TO OTHER THINGS: Being able to leave this situation behind and go on
to other things.


AVOIDED A BAD SITUATION: Here the helps involve seeing a bad situation ahead
and avoiding it.


TOOK MIND OFF THINGS: Here the helps involve being able to put the situation out
of mind temporarily.


RELAXED, RESTED: Here the helps involve some kind of rest, recuperation, relaxa-
tion.


GOT PLEASURE: Here the helps involve obtaining pleasure, happiness, joy, satis-
faction, or other pleased emotional states.


GOT SUPPORT, REASSURANCE, CONFIRMATION: Here the helps involve obtain-
ing pleasure, happiness, joy, satisfaction, or other pleased emotional states.


GOT CONNECTED TO OTHERS: Here the helps being connected with others, not
feeling lonely.

12 APPENDIX C

WHAT RESPONDENTS LEARNED AND WHAT INTERVIEWERS LEARNED
STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS ON WHAT THEY LEARNED FROM PARTICI-
PATING IN A SENSE-MAKING STUDY:
It helped me to analyze the situation and without anyone even telling me, I re-
alized I was making a mountain out of a molehill.
I never realized that I have so many unanswered questions in my mind when I
am faced with a troublesome situation. I learned that if I would sit down and
think of what these questions are and try to answer them, I will probably un-
derstand the problem better.
I got a whole perspective on the situation and learned that there were impor-
tant elements I overlooked.
I understood better what was really important and what was irrelevant.
I learned that it helps to talk about what youre feeling.
I felt like I was actually experiencing this situation all over again, only this time
I had all the time in the world to really analyze what I was trying to accomplish.
It was the first time that someone really was willing to listen to my whole story.
I cant thank you enough.
STATEMENTS BY INTERVIEWERS ON WHAT THEY LEARNED FROM PARTICI-
PATING IN A SENSE-MAKING STUDY:
I never realized how differently people see situations from each other. I am as-
tounded.
The interviewing techniques, in particular the use of Neutral Questioning,
created a real conversation between me and my respondent [in this case, the
interviewers mother] instead of manipulating one. It gave my respondent the
opportunity to talk about herself, which anyone can do for a long period of
time. Everything my respondent said was real. My relationship with her has
shown a miraculous improvement. We are able to communicate our true feel-
ings with each other as we use our Neutral Questioning.
I learned that other people (not just me) are sometimes unsure of themselves
when faced with a problem and that other people are faced with situations
they dont know how to deal with.
When we were done, this perfect stranger and I wanted to be friends. We now
are.
The interview took four hours but the respondent did not want to stop. When
we were done, he thanked me at least ten times. I felt like I had contributed in
a way I never had before.
This has changed my whole way of interacting with people. I cant believe the
difference it makes.
13 NOTES
1. The author owes a debt to the many people who have contributed to Sense-
Making studies since the beginning: Rita Atwood (at the University of Califor-
nia State University - Fresno) and Michael Nilan (at Syracuse University) de-
serve mention in particular. Others have included: Sylvia Harlock, Carol Gar-
zona, Tom J acobson, Colleen Kwan, Payson Hall, Michael Banister, Benson
Fraser, Michael Gabriel, Claudia Krenz, Scott Wittet, and Douglas Zweizig. In
addition, input from colleagues doing related work has been very helpful: J ohn
Bowes, Dick Carter, Alex Edelstein, Keith Stamm, Ken J ackson at the Univer-
sity of Washington; J ames Grunig at the University of Maryland; Patricia
Dewdney at the University of Western Ontario. Richard Carter, in particular,
needs mention for his theoretic work has been crucial to the development of
Sense-Making. Financial and moral support from several institutions has been
vital, as well: the U.S. Office of Education Bureau of Libraries and Learning
Resources; the Puget Sound Blood Center; the Graduate School Research
Fund of the University of Washington; the California State Library; the National
Cancer Institute, and the Seattle Times, and the Safeco Insurance Compa-
nies. While each of these institutions has provided support, the ideas and
opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and are not to
be construed as official positions of any of the named organizations.
2. For extensive reviews of the treatment of the concept information, see, in
particular: Dervin (1976a, 1976b, 1980, 1981); Dervin, J acobson & Nilan
(1982).
3. See, in particular: Bruner (1973); Piaget (1962).
4. See, in particular: Bernstein (1976); Bronowski (1956, 1969, 1973); Haberman
(1971, 1973); Kuhn (1962, 1977).
5. See, in particular: Beltran (1976); Ascroft & Chege (1976). See, also, Freire
(1970).
6. Carter (1972, 1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1975); Carter, Ruggels, J ackson, & Heffner
(1973); Edelstein (1974); Grunig (1978a, 1978b); Grunig & Disbrow (1977);
Stamm & Grunig (1977). Also helpful is the work of Delia (1977).
7. See, in particular, J ackins (1973, 1981).
8. Dervin (1981) includes the most recent extensive published treatment of these
questions from a Sense-Making perspective.
9. See, in particular, Carter (1974b).
14 REFERENCES

Atwood, R., R. Allen, R. Bardgett, S. Proudlove, & R.Rich. Childrens realities in tele-
vision viewing: exploring situational information seeking. In Burgoon, M., COMMU-
NICATION YEARBOOK 6. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982, pp. 605-628.

Atwood, R. & B. Dervin. Challenges to socio-cultural predictors of information seek-
ing: a test of race versus situation movement state. In Burgoon, M., COMMUNICA-
TION YEARBOOK 5. New Brunswick, N.J . Transaction, 1982, pp. 549-569.

Atwood, R. & P. McLean. Report on the information needs of minority and non-
minority students. Graduate Opportunity Program, University of Texas-Austin, 1983a.
Atwood, R. & P. McLean. Demographic system constraints and sense-making. Paper
presented at annual meeting of International Communication Association, Dallas,
May 1983.

Beltran, L.R.S. Alien premises, objects, and methods in Latin American communica-
tion research. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 3, 1976, pp. 107-134.

Bernstein, R. The restructuring of social and political theory. New York: Harcourt
Brace J ovanovich, 1976.

Bronowski, J . Science and human values. New York: Harper and Row, 1956.

Bronowski, J . Nature of knowledge. New York: Science Books, 1969.

Bronowski, J . The ascent of man. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1973.

Bruner, J . Beyond the information given. New York: W.W. Norton, 1973.

Carter, R.F. A journalistic view of communication. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for Education in J ournalism, Carbondale, Illinois, 1972.

Carter, R.F. Communication as behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association for Education in J ournalism, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1973.

Carter, R.F. A journalistic cybernetic. Paper presented at the Conference on Com-
munication and Control in Social Processes, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel-
phia, 1974a.

Carter, R.F. Toward more unity in science. Unpublished paper, University of Wash-
ington School of Communication, 1974b.

Carter, R.F. Elementary ideas of systems applied to problem-solving strategies. Pa-
per presented at the Far West Region of the Society for General Systems Research,
San J ose 1975.
Carter, R.F., W.L. Ruggels, K.M. J ackson, & M.B. Heffner. Application of signaled
stopping technique to communication research. In Clarke, P., NEW MODELS FOR
MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972, pp. 5-44.

Delia, J .G. Alternative perspectives for the study of human communication. COM-
MUNICATION QUARTERLY 25, 1977, pp. 46-62.

Dervin, B. Strategies for dealing with human information needs: information or com-
munication? J OURNAL OF BROADCASTING 20, 1976, pp. 324-333.

Dervin, B. Useful theory for librarianship: communication, not information. DREXEL
LIBRARY QUARTERLY 13, #3, 1977, pp. 16-32.

Dervin, B. Communication gaps and inequities: moving toward a reconceptualization.
In Dervin, B. & M. Voigt, PROGRESS IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCES, VOL. 2.
Norwood, J .J .: Ablex, 1980, pp. 73-112.

Dervin, B. Mass communication: changing conceptions of the audience. In Rice, R. &
W. Paisley, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNS. Beverly Hills: Sage Publica-
tions, 1981, pp. 71-87.

Dervin, B., D. Zweizig, M. Banister, M. Gabriel, E. Hall, & C. Kwan. The development
of strategies for dealing with the information needs of urban residents, Phase Ithe
citizen study. Final report on Project No. L003d5J A to the Office of Libraries and
Learning Resources, U.S. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. (ED 136791)

Dervin, B., S. Harlock, R. Atwood, & C. Garzona. The human side of information: an
exploration in a health communication context. In Nimmo, D. COMMUNICATION
YEARBOOK 4. New Brunswick, N.J .: Transaction Books, 1980, pp. 591-608.

Dervin, B., M. Nilan, & T. J acobson. Improving predictions of information use: a com-
parison of predictor types in a health communication setting. In Burgoon, N., COM-
MUNICATION YEARBOOK 5. New Brunswick, N.J .: Transaction Books, 1982, pp.
806-830.

Dervin, B., T. J acobson, & M. Nilan. Measuring aspects of information seeking: A test
of a quantitative/qualitative methodology. in Burgoon, M., COMMUNICATION
YEARBOOK 6. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982, pp. 419-445.

Dervin, B., M. Nilan, C. Krenz, & S. Wittet. When cancer strikes: how cancer patients
make sense out of their health situations. Report presented to Office of Cancer
Communications, National Cancer Institute on Procurement order #263-MD-102094-
3, J une 1982.

Dervin, B. & M. Martin. Sense-Making profiles of message Q/ing on Seattle Times
leisure time coverage. Report to the Seattle Times, in preparation, 1983.

Dervin, B. The human side of information: perspectives for communication. Norwood,
N.J .: Ablex, 1984 (expected publication date, in preparation).

Edelstein, A. The uses of communication in decision making: a comparative study of
Yugoslavia and the United States. New York: Praeger, 1974.

Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press, 1974.

Grunig, J . Accuracy of communication from an external public to employees in a for-
mal organization. HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 5, 1978a, pp. 40-53.

Grunig, J . Defining publics in public relations: the case of a suburban hospital.
J OURNALISM QUARTERLY 55, 1978b, pp. 109-118.

Grunig, J . & J . Disbrow. Developing a probabilistic model for communications deci-
sion making. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 4, 1977, pp. 145-168.

Habermas, J . Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon, 1971 (translated by
J . Shapiro).

Habermas, J . A postscript to knowledge and human interests. PHILOSOPHY OF
THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 3, 1973, pp. 157-185.

J ackins, H. The human situation. Seattle: Rational Island Publishers, 1973.

J ackins, H. The benign reality. Seattle: Rational Island Publishers, 1981.

Kuhn, T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions, INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPE-
DIA OF UNIFIED SCIENCE, 2:2, 1962, entire issue.

Nilan, M. Structural constraints and situational information seeking and use. Paper
presented at annual meeting of International Communication Association, Dallas,
May 1983.

Nilan, M. & B. Dervin. A comparison of structural and situational predictors of infor-
mation use. In preparation, University of Washington School of Communications,
1983.

Palmour, V., P. Rathbun, W. Brown, B. Dervin, & P. Dowd. The information needs of
Californians. Report from King Research to the California State Library, March 1979.

Piaget, J . Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton, 1962.

Roling, N.G., J . Ascroft, & F.W. Chege. The diffusion of innovations and the issue of
equity in rural development, COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 3, 1976, pp. 155-170.

Stamm, K. & J . Grunig. Communication situations and cognitive strategies in resolv-
ing environmental issues, J OURNALISM QUARTERLY 54, 1977, pp. 713-720.

Wittet, S. Information needs of southeast Asian refugees in clinical and hospital situa-
tions. Masters thesis, University of Washington 1983, in preparation.

Zweizig, D. & B. Dervin. Public library use, users, and uses: advances in knowledge
of the characteristics and needs of the adult clientele of American public libraries,
ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP 7, 1977, pp. 231-255.

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEB SITE:

See:

http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-
making/AAauthors/authorlistdervin.html
Last updated: 01-J ul-2004