- #references - Title: Distributed Sensemaking: Improving Sensemaking by Leveraging the Efforts of Previous Users - Meta: - Tags: #ref/Paper [[🧱 sensemaking]] - Authored by:: Kristie Fisher , Scott Counts , [[Aniket Kittur]] - Year: [[2012]] - Publication: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [[confCHI]] - URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2207676.2207711 - Citekey: fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012 - Content - Placeholder - Abstract - We examine the possibility of distributed sensemaking: improving a user's sensemaking by leveraging previous users' work without those users directly collaborating or even knowing one another. We asked users to engage in sensemaking by organizing and annotating web search results into "knowledge maps," either with or without previous users' maps to work from. We also recorded gaze patterns as users examined others' knowledge maps. Our findings show the conditions under which distributed sensemaking can improve sensemaking quality; that a user's sensemaking process is readily apparent to a subsequent user via a knowledge map; and that the organization of content was more useful to subsequent users than the content itself, especially when those users had differing goals. We discuss the role distributed sensemaking can play in schema induction by helping users make a mental model of an information space and make recommendations for new tool and system development. - [[📝 lit-notes]] - [[Jay Patel]] - __Feel free to have free-floating notes that don't neatly fit into the boxes below!__ - ## results of interest and discussion - participants rated the quality of their maps higher when they constructed it based on a map that was iterated on by multiple previous participants for the same topic compared to constructing it from scratch or from a map constructed by just one other person - __One block for each result of interest. we'll refactor this together into EVD notes__ - ### summary - __nest details and screenshots (e.g., key figures, quotes) under here__ - ### grounding context - __block ref in major methods details from the source methods / context block we might need later to make sense of this result, particularly as they might conflict with others. __ - __also discuss possible critiques/claims. create source CLM notes for author conclusions (if you like), or reference other CLMs that we have that engage with this__ - __Also can discuss meta-results (combinations of results) in a similar template.____ - ## side notes - __Where are the authors coming from? Are there any useful "breadcrumbs" (e.g., other theoretical frameworks, authors, papers) we can follow up on?__ - [[Joel Chan]] - ## #inspectionalread - __What questions are the authors tackling and how do they intersect with what we care about? What key concepts or ideas or people do you notice that might be useful for us? What are some of the possible major contributions/results we will care about from this source?__ - ## methods notes - no audio, so i'm gonna make some notes here on process. first, we are going to record some main things we want to understand when we revisit results, regarding *how* the key results of the paper were produced. typically, it's 1) who/where (participants, setting) and 2) what/how (procedures, materials, measures) - pilot study -  (p. 250) - main experiment - participants: 21 participants from a software research company (5 female) -  (p. 251) - materials: a set of maps created by 12 participants from the same software research company (2 female) using similar procedures, with each map going through four total iterations. -  (p. 250) - map creation portion - task 1: map creation task: create a map in Powerpoint with clippings for everyday sensemaking topics, such as vacation and party planning, options for starting a vegetable garden and DIY kitchen remodeling. overall time limit was ~20 minutes. -  (p. 250) -  (p. 250) -  (p. 251) -  (p. 252) - design 1: within-subjects experiment - participants created knowledge maps for three different topics, each in one of three conditions: 1) solo, 2) other (starting with a map that was created by one other person), and 3) iterated (starting with a map that was created by one other person and iterated on by 3 other people) -  (p. 251) -  (p. 251) - measure: survey, measuring self-rated cognitive effort, map quality, helpfulness of others' maps and their maps for others -  (p. 251) - map understanding portion - task 2: map understanding task: given a map from another user, examine map and try to figure out what it was about to answer some questions about it -  (p. 251) - measure: eye tracking -  (p. 251) - measure: informal interview -  (p. 251) - ok i think i've grabbed most of the notes and key details. not ideal for now, but really pays off over time: grabbing screenshots so we can review details in context rather than needing to pull up the paper. - next, let's do the results. - ## results of interest and discussion - so let's lay out the key results that are interesting to us - (wish they had marked sig. in the table 1) - there are some similar results from a think-aloud, though not formally analyzed, in the pilot study - [[EVD - no reliable differences in time and effort when creating a sensemaking map for an everyday to...ting from scratch vs. building on maps from others - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - [[EVD - highest self-rated map quality, as measured by overall quality, and helpfulness to others, wh...er person, for the same everyday sensemaking topic - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - i want to signal that this was an everyday topic because [[CLM - Requirements for sensemaking come from the particulars of the work task]] - [[EVD - participants more frequently cited organization as helpful when building on sensemaking maps from others, compared to the content itself - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - [[EVD - participants spent more time looking at content vs. organization in maps created by one other... for maps that were iterated on by multiple people - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - __One block for each result of interest. we'll refactor this together into EVD notes__ - ### summary - __nest details and screenshots (e.g., key figures, quotes) under here__ - ### grounding context - __block ref in major methods details from the source methods / context block we might need later to make sense of this result, particularly as they might conflict with others. __ - __also discuss possible critiques/claims. create source CLM notes for author conclusions (if you like), or reference other CLMs that we have that engage with this__ - __Also can discuss meta-results (combinations of results) in a similar template.____ - So in general, I think the key inference for here is that - [[CLM - It is possible to benefit from receiving intermediate sensemaking outputs from others, particularly if those outputs have been iterated on]] - [[SupportedBy]] - [[EVD - no reliable differences in time and effort when creating a sensemaking map for an everyday to...ting from scratch vs. building on maps from others - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - [[EVD - highest self-rated map quality, as measured by overall quality, and helpfulness to others, wh...er person, for the same everyday sensemaking topic - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - more specifically: [[CLM - Organizations and schemas from others' intermediate sensemaking outputs may be more beneficial for distributed sensemaking compared to the content]] - [[SupportedBy]] - [[EVD - participants more frequently cited organization as helpful when building on sensemaking maps from others, compared to the content itself - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - [[EVD - participants spent more time looking at content vs. organization in maps created by one other... for maps that were iterated on by multiple people - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] ###### Discourse Context - **Informs::** [[QUE - How can we best bridge private vs. public knowledge]] - **SourceFor::** [[EVD - highest self-rated map quality, as measured by overall quality, and helpfulness to others, wh...er person, for the same everyday sensemaking topic - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - **SourceFor::** [[EVD - higher estimated helpfulness and clarity of map from others for their own sensemaking for an ...ed on by multiple people vs. created by one person - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - **SourceFor::** [[EVD - participants more frequently cited organization as helpful when building on sensemaking maps from others, compared to the content itself - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - **SourceFor::** [[EVD - participants spent more time looking at content vs. organization in maps created by one other... for maps that were iterated on by multiple people - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]] - **SourceFor::** [[EVD - no reliable differences in time and effort when creating a sensemaking map for an everyday to...ting from scratch vs. building on maps from others - @fisherDistributedSensemakingImproving2012]]