Click icon or label to view this node's details

Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Shaping Analysis

How much/many different aspects did practitioners have to deal with Ð participants, maps, text, subject matter, surroundings, process. This is assessed based on the grid analysis. So for the Ames and Rutgers sessions it is just for the sensemaking episodes, while for the Mobile Agents sessions it's the whole session. Calculated based on number of x's in the grid analysis focus section divided by number of rows with x's.

Shaping Dimension

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
AG1 Sensemaking Moment Analysis
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
Session
AG1

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
AG2 Sensemaking Moment Analysis
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
Session
AG2

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
AG3 Sensemaking Moment Analysis
AG3 Shaping Analysis Items
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Ames Group 3
Ames Group 3 Drill-Down
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
Session
AG3

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
AG4 Sensemaking Moment Analysis
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
Session
AG4

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
Hab Crew Sensemaking Moment Analysis
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
Session
Hab

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
RST Sensemaking Moment Analysis
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
RST
Session

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
RG1 Sensemaking Moment Analysis
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
RG1
Session

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Click icon to view map contents
Click label to view this node's details

Addressing and Incorporating Participant Impulses and Desires (B.1.1, B.1.2)
Ambitiousness of the planned approach
Choice of method
Clarity of Artifacts (A.6.1)
Complexity of the software techniques in use
Degree of "exclusive"/delinked practitioner interaction with the representation
Degree of "finishedness" of the artifacts
Degree of "meta" discussion (how are we doing, how should the shaping be done, etc.)
Degree of "noise"
Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners
Degree of collaboration between practitioners and participants
Degree of divergence from plan
Degree of expressed participant resistance, disagreement, etc.
Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
Degree of practitioner "gating" of participant input
Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions in response to participant input
Degree to which practitioners requested validation of their changes to the representation
Density of practitioner shaping moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Density of practitioner verbal moves (frequent vs infrequent)
Evocativeness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Granularity of the pre-created structure
High practitioner "drive" of the session vs high participant "drive"
How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
How much of the shaping and process is emergent vs. pre-determined
How much practitioner adherence to the method during the session
How successful was the session?
Inclusiveness of the Narrative Framing (A.2.3)
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of focus aspects
Multiplicity/heterogeneity of move types/categories; diversity of move types
Narrative Consistency and Usefulness (A.2.2)
Openness and Dialogicity Pertaining to the Mediated Objects (A.5.1, A.5.2)
Practitioner willingness to intervene - frequency and depth of intervention
Resistance From Participants and Materials (A.7.3)
RG2 Sensemaking Moment Analysis
Where on the spectrum from "discussionish" to "mapish"
Session
RG2