The Paradox of Sensemaking in Organizational Analysis

Abstract

International audienceTaking Weick's theory of sensemaking as illustrative of a socio-constructionist conception of sensemaking and learning in organization studies, I examine the methodological approaches used in this research. This analysis reveals that, although departing from the structuro-functionalist perspective of conventional cognitive theory, sensemaking research nonetheless aims to establish objective knowledge of these subjective processes. In so doing, it is faced with the interpretive paradox implied in seeking an 'objective science of subjectivity'. Fully acknowledging that studying sensemaking is an active and subjective sense-making process in itself implies that we re-engage in sensemaking processes. The postmodern route, on the one hand, invites us, through deconstruction, to engage against our sensemaking as a way of uncovering both the constitutive and the undecidable character of sensemaking activities. The pragmatist (or participative) route, on the other hand, suggests that, through participative action research, we fully engage in sensemaking with organization members and recognize the socially constructed aspect of all sensemaking activities. Though not without difficulties, these proposals encourage us to make sense differently of sensemaking processes in organizations. The collective dimension of cognition and sensemaking has attracted a great deal of attention in managerial and organizational cognition research since 1980, leading to numerous theoretical, methodological and empirical works on its characteristics, how it has emerged and how i

The Meaning of Organizational Learning

“…In addition, as significant as the environment is for organizations and OL, constructionist researchers do not consider it an independent and influential factor. Finally, Allard-Poesi (2005) argues that while acknowledging the socially constructed nature of reality, constructionist researchers disengage from it and do not convey the emergent and fluid nature of learning as they claim to do.…”

The role of theory adaptation in the making of a reference discipline

“…It has been applied in a number of studies, including studies of strategic change (Gioia & Thomas, 1996), organizational learning (Thomas, Sussman, & Henderson, 2001), creativity (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazaniian, 1999), post-acquisition integration (Vaara, 2003), trust (Adobor, 2005) and product innovation (Dougherty & Borrelli, 2000). Although they rely on different theoretical backgrounds, scholars converge to see sensemaking as created and situated in the micro-practices of interactions, conversations and coordinated actions between people (Allard-Poesi, 2005).…”

“…The substance of sensemaking is a frame (an overall paradigm or shared understanding) that summarizes past experiences, such as traditions, ideologies, theories of actions or stories (Allard-Poesi, 2005), and a cue (for example, a new experience, a new technology or a failed project) that includes a connection between the two. The frame and the cue alone do not make sense, whereas the cue in the frame does make sense.…”

From Practice-based Knowledge to the Practice of Research: Revisiting Constructivist Research Works on Knowledge

“…Yet these researchers themselves sidestep the analytical process that they willingly impose upon the agents under examination. This involves the "paradox of attempting to establish an objective science of subjectivity" as pointed out by Allard-Poesi (2005). Researchers appear to construct knowledge in isolation, thereby removing themselves from the process of knowledge development, which according to these same authors, cannot be anything other than socially embedded.…”