The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making sense of sensemaking: the critical sensemaking approach
Abstract
Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to revisit the oft cited but as yet not operationalized Weick's sensemaking framework, in order to provide suggested ways forward. Development of a method based on Weick's sensemaking is suggested as a starting point for a heuristic that takes into account missing elements from his original model while operationalizing (critical) sensemaking as an analytical tool for understanding organizational events. Design/methodology/approach – Following the trajectory of sensemaking, the limitations of Weick's model were discussed (i.e. failure to address power and context) and the critical sensemaking was developed as a method that takes into account agency in context. Empirical studies that apply sensemaking were discussed. Findings – It is concluded that plausibility and identity construction are key to understanding how some voices are heard over others and through critical sensemaking sense that can be made of such phenomena as the gendering or organizational culture and discriminatory practices in organizations. Practical implications – A heuristic can help people to understand the socio‐psychological properties involved in behavioural outcomes. Originality/value – Critical sensemaking builds on and operationalizes Weick's original sensemaking approach and demonstrates how it can be used in a range of empirical studies, something that Weick himself suggested was lacking.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
Cited by
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Critical positions: Situating critical perspectives in work and Organizational Psychology
Islam, G., & Sanderson, Z. (2022) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/20413866211038044 · Cited by 33
Taking an eventful historic turn down the cultural memory lane
Deal, N. M., Novicevic, M. M., Mills, A. J., Lugar, C. W., & Roberts, F. (2021) · Journal of Management History · doi:10.1108/jmh-05-2020-0034 · Cited by 15
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Helms Mills, J., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J.
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-08-24
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 182-195
- ISSN
- 1746-5648 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976253783
- Cited by
- 431
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.