Making Sense of Complexity: Using SenseMaker as a Research Tool

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors present SenseMaker and its usage as a research tool. If find paper has good style and presented properly. In Conclusion, authors give proper focus on narrative research and correctly stress proper usage. My only concern is that I do not agree with the material presented in sections 5.1 and 5.2 since I witnessed quite the opposite of what the authors stated. Social phenomena can be quantified, measured and that data can be used meaningfully. I'm familiar in detail with the established field of sociophysics where this is evident. But not to dwell on methodological differences one can accept that there are many ways and approaches to the analyze human narrative so my final decision is to accept paper and recommend that in proof stage editing of English language and style is required. 

Author Response

Point 1:

My only concern is that I do not agree with the material presented in sections 5.1 and 5.2 since I witnessed quite the opposite of what the authors stated. Social phenomena can be quantified, measured and that data can be used meaningfully. I'm familiar in detail with the established field of sociophysics where this is evident. But not to dwell on methodological differences one can accept that there are many ways and approaches to the analyze human narrative so my final decision is to accept paper...

I have rephrased the text to acknowledge the diverse schools of thought.

Point 2:

Recommend that editing of English language and style is required

A revision of the English language has been done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review on the manuscript:

Making sense of complexity: using SenseMaker as a

 research tool

The authors present a research tool named SenseMaker. The tool is developed over a framework named Cynefin, introduced about 18 years ago. The manuscript offres explanations about four steps in the implementation of SenseMaking.

General comments

The manuscript presents a thorough bibliographical revision. It serves as a reference framework I the field. In terms of English as language, the manuscript is well written. However, clear and concise content is difficult to find. The authors have made an effort to provide structure to a highly unstructured theme. In that effort, encountering four or five regions where the nature of a system can locate, may be considered an achievement. Nevertheless, the map of systems shown in Figure 1 is not resulting from this paper, but from the previous work of Cynefin’s creator.

Trying to scale the evaluation between 1 to 5, my opinion is:

Contribution to existing knowledge             2

Organization and readability`                         4

Soundness of methodology                            2

Evidence supports conclusión                        1

Adequacy of literature review                       4

Specific details to correct:

Material included as text in Table 1 is difficult to read. This content should be presented in a different way. Perhaps not a Table. Similar comment deserves Figure 3. If the idea is to covey content to reach the reader’s understanding –and I think that is the idea behind any publication– these element do not fulfill it.

There are two Figure 2. Also two Figure 3. I guess the second Fig. 2should be Figure 4 and the second Fig. 3 should be Figure 5.

Final comments:

The objective of this manuscript, as exposed in the abstract and in its introduction, is valuable purpose. The document offers explanations about four steps comprising the SenseMaking tool. The reader goes over these explanations with great interest because the authors install, with great ability, a perspective of real progress on the difficult deal of making sense of large systems and their evolution. Sadly, this perspective does not find a satisfactory end since the text presents only general paragraphs, and sometimes obvious, polyvalent meanings that do not comply with the initial offer. 

Author Response

Point 1:

The map of systems shown in Figure 1 is not resulting from this paper, but from the previous work of Cynefin’s creator.

I have dropped Figure 1 as it is not essential to the paper.

Point 2:

Material included as text in Table 1 is difficult to read. This content should be presented in a different way. Perhaps not a Table. Similar comment deserves Figure 3. If the idea is to covey content to reach the reader’s understanding –and I think that is the idea behind any publication– these element do not fulfill it.

I have revised the content as Tables 1 and 2.

Point 3:

There are two Figure 2. Also two Figure 3. I guess the second Fig. 2should be Figure 4 and the second Fig. 3 should be Figure 5.

I have carefully revised the numbering of the figures.

Point 4:

The objective of this manuscript, as exposed in the abstract and in its introduction, is valuable purpose. The document offers explanations about four steps comprising the SenseMaking tool. The reader goes over these explanations with great interest because the authors install, with great ability, a perspective of real progress on the difficult deal of making sense of large systems and their evolution. Sadly, this perspective does not find a satisfactory end since the text presents only general paragraphs, and sometimes obvious, polyvalent meanings that do not comply with the initial offer. 

I have reworked the abstract, introduction and conclusion to better align the objective of the article with what is delivered.

Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

I consider this paper can be published now. Be careful with the figures. The quality of the figures in the original paper were better than those in this version.