Cited by 108Data Visualization and AnalyticsStatistics Education and MethodologiesStatistical Methods and Applications

A Cognitive Interpretation of Data Analysis

Open access
Grolemund, Garrett, Wickham, Hadley·2014·International Statistical Review

Abstract

Summary: This paper proposes a scientific model to explain the analysis process. We argue that data analysis is primarily a procedure to build understanding, and as such, it dovetails with the cognitive processes of the human mind. Data analysis tasks closely resemble the cognitive process known as sensemaking. We demonstrate how data analysis is a sensemaking task adapted to use quantitative data. This identification highlights a universal structure within data analysis activities and provides a foundation for a theory of data analysis. The competing tensions of cognitive compatibility and scientific rigour create a series of problems that characterise the data analysis process. These problems form a useful organising model for the data analysis task while allowing methods to remain flexible and situation dependent. The insights of this model are especially helpful for consultants, applied statisticians and teachers of data analysis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/insr.12028

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Cox, D.R. (2001). Comment on statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Stat. Sci., 16(3), 199-231.
  2. Klein, G., Phillips, J.K, Rall, E.L & Peluso, D.A. (2003). A data/frame theory of sense making. In Expertise Out of Context: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, pp.113-155. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. Mallows, C. & Walley, P. (1980). A theory of data analysis? In Proceedings of the Business and Economics Section, American Statistical Association, pp. 8-14. Washington, DC.
  4. Pirolli, P. & Card, S. (2005). The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, Vol. 5, pp. 2-4. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. (1986). Report of the presidential commission on the space shuttle challenger accident (pbk). volume 1 Author, Washington, DC.
  5. Rosch, E. (1977). Classification of real-world objects: Origins and representations in cognition. In Thinking: Reading in Cognitive Science, Eds. P.N. Johnson-Laird & P.C. Watson, pp. 212-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Rudolph, J. (2003). Into the big muddy and out again: Error persistence and crisis management in the operating room. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Mass., available online at http://escholarship.bc. edu/dissertations/AAI3103269.
  7. Tierney, J. (1991). Behind monty halls doors: Puzzle, debate and answer. New York Times, 140(1), 20.
  8. Varian, H. (2009). Hal Varian on how the web challenges managers. McKinsey Quarterly, 45(1), 1.
  9. Velleman, P.F. (1997). The philosophical past and the digital future of data analysis. In The Practice of Data Analysis: Essays in Honor of John W. Tukey, Eds. D.R. Brillinger, L.T. Fernholz & S. Morgenthaler, pp. 317-337. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  10. Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grolemund, G., & Wickham, H.
Affiliations
  • Posit Software, PBC (United States) (US)
  • Rice University (US)
Venue
International Statistical Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04-11
Volume
82
Issue
2
Pages
184-204
ISSN
  • 0306-7734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-5823
OpenAlex
W2169066315
Cited by
108
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Statistical Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
data analysis, sensemaking, cognitive processes, scientific rigor, cognitive compatibility, numerical data, data analysis education, applied statistics

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