THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE SENSEMAKING
PROCESS DURING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: A
QUALITATIVE STUDY
Nienke Maathuis S2718758 17-01-2021
MSc BA Change Management Supervisor: dr. I. Maris – De Bresser Co-assessor: Prof. dr. J.D.R. Oehmichen
2
Abstract
The present study adds to the current literature by demonstrating the role of technology in the three phases of sensemaking (perceiving cues, creating interpretation and enactment). This study aims to fill in the gap as proposed by Maitlis & Christianson (2014), who pledge for studying the role of sociomateriality in sensemaking. The present study uses a qualitative approach in the form of interviews to answer the research question. Data was collected at a large employment agency in The Netherlands. The findings show a role of technology in each of the three phases of sensemaking. In the first stage of sensemaking, the role of technology is a transmitter, in the second stage technology had a combined role of transmitter and facilitator, and in the third stage technology has a role of facilitator. The findings show as well, that when using technology, employees engage in both individual and collective sensemaking. The study concludes with the statement that the type of sensemaking (individual or collective) is influenced by the technology used.
3
Introduction
For years now, change has been more of a rule than an exception in organizations. From innovation to integration, and from adaptation to complete transformations: organizations have to deal with changes all the time. Some changes are planned, which organizations and employees can prepare for. Others are sudden and unexpected, which means that these changes cannot be prepared for. A recent example of how organizations are forced to change is due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the pandemic and additional government restrictions, many employees are forced to work from home, which has led to changes in organizational life. This change is an example of a forced and unplanned change: organizations had to adapt to a situation that they have never been in before. Organizational actors were forced to change their ways of working, which results in certain responses to the change. Accordingly, to understand the responses of employees in times of sudden, forced and unplanned changes, understanding the process of sensemaking is essential.
According to Maitlis & Christianson (2014), sensemaking is a central activity in organizations, and lies at the core of organizing. The process of sensemaking relates to understanding and acting upon a novel situation. Sensemaking activities are particularly critical in dynamic and turbulent contexts (Weick, 1993). In the last decade, empirical research has been conducted on the topic of sensemaking. The ability of employees to make sense of novel situations has been linked to several organizational features (Maitlis, Vogus & Lawrence, 2013). For example, sensemaking has been linked to strategic change (Rerup & Feldman, 2011), organizational culture (Harris, 1994), innovation (Dougherty, Borrelli, Munir & O’Sullivan, 2000) and overall organizational performance (Thomas, Clark & Gioia, 1993). Next to these, prior research found some triggers for the process of sensemaking. For example, it has been long acknowledged that sensemaking occurs in times of discrepancy (Louis, 1980). Ambiguous and uncertain situations trigger sensemaking as well. According to Thiry (2001), the deeper the disjunction between the current state and future state, the more the sensemaking process is triggered. In this study, employees’ sensemaking triggered by the organizational changes following the COVID-19 pandemic will be studied.
4
actions. However, far too little attention has been paid to sociomateriality in sensemaking (Maitlis and Christianson 2014). This research suggestion is very relevant, since organizations rely on technology more than even during the pandemic. In this research, I will try to answer their call-to-research and focus on the role of technology in the sensemaking process.
Technology and its role in organizational structures, processes and outcomes has long been of interest to researchers (Orlikowski, 2000). Technology can be used in organizations to retrieve digital information from “machines” (Rice & Leonardi, 2014) and to communicate with others (Treem & Leonardi, 2013). This is relevant for the sensemaking process: to be able to make sense, people need information. Prior studies have reported the increasing importance of technology in organizations (Cascio & Montealegre, 2016; Larivière et al., 2017). One reason for this is that people are increasingly working from home (Foucreault, Ollier-Malaterre & Ménard, 2018), which is also a result of the pandemic. Working from home means that employees increasingly have to telecommunicate (Bick, Blandin & Mertens, 2020), and are more dependent upon technology. This is interesting in the field of sensemaking, since most research in this area is focused on face-to-face interactions. Given the fact that people are increasingly working from home, there will be less face-to-face interaction, and therefore a new theme in the field of sensemaking becomes important: the usage of technology. In this research, I will try to fill in this gap by researching the role of technology in the process of sensemaking. Therefore, this research focuses on the following research question:
How do people use technology to make sense of changes in their ways of working?
Research on the topic of technology usage in the sensemaking process contributes to the streams of literature on sensemaking and organizational change. The research aim is to contribute to the existing literature by answering the call-to-research by Maitlis & Christianson (2014) to study the role of sociomateriality in sensemaking. As indicated above, prior research on the sensemaking process focuses mainly on face-to-face interactions between people. However, in contemporary organizational life employees increasingly work from home, which diminishes face-to-face interactions. Therefore, it is interesting to research the sensemaking process where people do not interact face-to-face. Technology seems to play a role in this process, since technology is used to communicate with others (Treem & Leonardi, 2013) and search for information (Rice & Leonardi, 2014): two activities that are related to the sensemaking process. This research contributes to knowledge in the practical field as well. Practically, the contribution of this research is to understand, based on theoretical assumptions, how employees use technology to make sense of a change. This practical knowledge is needed since organizations and managers can use these insights to successfully implement a change. They can use this knowledge to support the sensemaking process of their employees.
5
section in which the research method, data collection and data analysis will be discussed. Then, the results of the interviews will be provided, thereafter the results will be discussed. The paper will end with theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Literature Review
SensemakingSensemaking is defined as “the process through which people work to understand issues or events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing, or in some other way violate expectations” (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 57). According to Weick (1993, p. 635), “the basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs.” The sensemaking process begins when discrepant events trigger the need for explanation, as during an organizational change (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Thus, sensemaking is used by employees to understand organizational change, since changes bring novel situations which have to be understood.
6
work environments. Sensemaking is a process through which employees try to act effectively (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). With other words, sensemaking enables employees to act and work in their interpreted world. Employees take their interpreted cues and decide for themselves how they have to work with it, that is what happens in the enactment phase.
As indicated by Maitlis & Christianson (2014), literature on sensemaking has become fragmented. There are divergent perspectives on sensemaking: as a cognitive, individual process, or a collective, social process. The first perspective views sensemaking as an individual process which focuses on schemata (Paul & Morris, 2011) and frames (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016). The individual perspective focuses on how individuals use their existing worldviews to explain and clarify ambiguity through sensemaking (Klein, Wiggins & Dominguez, 2010). In contrast, sensemaking as collective process focuses more on the social and collaborative establishment of sensemaking (Klein, Wiggins & Dominguez, 2010). This perspective argues that sensemaking is not an individual process, but takes place in group context. So, the collective perspective is more focused on collaboration, team processes and group decisions in the sensemaking process. There is not a generally accepted view on the process yet. However, in contemporary work the idea of sensemaking as a purely individual process has been disputed. In their paper, De Jaegher & Di Paolo (2007) compare the individual, cognitive perspective on sensemaking with the collective perspective. They argue that sensemaking is a relational and affect-laden process, with cognition as an embodied factor. According to Thiry (2001), sensemaking is a “system of interactions” (p. 72) between actors who try to individually make sense of a situation: they are building a collective understanding of a situation. Maitlis (2005) argues that sensemaking is a social process where “organization members interpret their environment in and through interactions with others, constructing accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act collectively” (p. 21). These findings are consistent with past studies of Weick (1993), which show the importance of creating and maintaining coherent understandings that sustain relationships and enable collective action. To conclude, these studies argue the importance of social aspects in the sensemaking process. The sensemaking process is, thus, not solely an individual process, and collective aspects play a large role in the process.
7
they mention that sensemaking is useful in understanding the “micro-processes that underly the macro-processes” (Zilber, 2007, p. 1049). Brown et al. (2015) acknowledge at the end of their paper, that sensemaking needs continuing research, since contexts are changing all the time. This research will indeed look at a specific context of change (unplanned change, where the dependency on technology is high). Both abovementioned studies do not rely their findings on a situation where employees do not physically sit together. This study is different from what has done before, since this study focuses on a situation of unplanned change, where employees are forced to work distanced from each other.
Accordingly, building on the existing literature described above, this study takes a sociomaterial perspective on the sensemaking process. Concretely, this study aims to answer the call-to-research by Maitlis & Christianson (2014) to study the role of sociomateriality in sensemaking. In their work, Maitlis & Christianson (2014) criticize the two viewpoints on sensemaking (collective and individual) and argue that there is no consensus on these two divergent viewpoints. They mention that these different viewpoints have important consequences for sensemaking literature (e.g., disagreement in research outcomes on sensemaking). Maitlis & Christianson (2014) suggest that future research should see sensemaking as a sociomaterial practice instead. This idea arises out of critiques of sensemaking as a “rational, intellectual process” (Cunliffe & Coupland, 2012, p. 65). Instead, research should consider the entanglement with sociomateriality while studying sensemaking. This study follows this suggestion and takes a sociomaterial perspective on sensemaking, by assessing the role of technology in sensemaking.
Technology in organizations
Before elaborating on the concept of technology, the field of sociomateriality will be explained. Sociomateriality is an umbrella term for a research genre that argues that the technical and social are inseparable (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). It is a fusion of the words ‘social’ and ‘material’ (Leonardi, 2013). According to (Orlikowski, 2007, p. 1437) “the social and the material are considered to be inextricably related – there is no social that is not also material, and no material that is not also social.” Leonardi (2013) agrees and argues that the social and the material are so fundamentally related that it makes no sense to talk about one without considering the other. Sociomateriality refers to the entanglement of humans with non-human agencies, such as computers, smart phones and algorithms. These have little meaning without interference of humans (Bhatt & De Roock, 2013). Other examples of sociomaterial aspects are artifacts, such as PowerPoints and other visual aids, and analytical tools (Balogun, Jacobs, Jarzabkowski, Mantere & Vaara, 2014). Sociomateriality thus refers to the unavoidable entanglement of humans and material practices.
8
also mention that these two phenomena are largely absent from the literature on sensemaking. However, they lack to answer what the exact roles of technology are in the sensemaking process. Another study by Abildgaard & Nielsen (2018) focused (among other subjects) on how sensemaking and materiality in an organization interact. This study was concentrated on sensemaking during interventions only and, again, lacks in indicating the exact roles of sociomateriality in it. These two examples show that there is theoretical interest in the study of the role of sociomateriality in sensemaking. However, as Balogun et al. (2014) argue, the relevance of sociomateriality in sensemaking is revealed, but in the background rather than as a focus of the study. This study will elaborate on this finding: sociomaterial practices will be addressed by assessing the role of technology in the three phases of the sensemaking process. In the following paragraphs, I will elaborate more on the concept of technology.
In this paper, the concept of technology will be focused on information and communication technology that is used in organizations. This includes hardware, software and applications (Bessen, 2017). These technologies most generally refer to hardware and software that distribute digital information, either between people and machines (as information) or among people (as communication) (Rice & Leonardi, 2014). Prior studies acknowledged the importance of technology in organizations. Orlikowski & Scott (2008) indicate that technology seems to be everywhere in the world of practice. According to Cameron & Green (2019), technology has become a significant part of people’s working life. Additionally, Orlikowski & Scott (2016, p. 3) argue that “all work is today being reconfigured in relation to digital technologies”. It can be concluded that technology is increasingly used in contemporary organizations.
Next to the increased use in organizations, technology in organizations has been a topic of interest in research as well. In terms of sociomateriality, the entanglement of technology and employees has been indicated in prior research. In the last few decades, the importance of humans in technology usage have been discovered and elaborated (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999). Literature does not only look at technology as an independent concept, but it acknowledges its entanglement with humans. Orlikowski (1992) was one of the first researchers that indicated an interaction between technology and organizations. A few years later Orlikowski (2000) continues and argues that social practices play a constitutive role in the use of technologies in the workplace. Other scholars agreed with this view. Williams & Edge (1996) compare technology with a “black box” in which all socio-economic patterns could be discovered. McCarthy & Wright (2004) agree and argue that technology on itself does not exist anymore: people live with technology, and it involves people emotionally. All these scholars have argued for social entanglement in technology, which makes technology more than just an independent concept. This finding, in combination with the increased use of technology in organizations, makes it an interesting topic to study. In the next paragraphs the main uses of technology in organizations will be discussed.
9
information” (Cameron & Green, 2019, p. 284). Moss (2001, p. 218) agrees and argues that the “processes of knowing and understanding are increasingly mediated by technology”. Technology can support in gathering information, which is vital in the process of sensemaking. The information can be gathered by retrieving digital information from “machines” (Rice & Leonardi, 2014). Ways through which this can be done, are for example digital archiving (Foster, Benford & Price, 2013) and searching for online information using search engines. The amount of information available in electronic form is exploded in the last couple of decades (Oates, Prasad & Lesser, 1997). This high amount of electronic information makes it attractive to use technology to gather information: there is little information that cannot be found in electronic form. The process of gathering information is interesting for the field of sensemaking, since “digital information changes attributes of information, including information quality and type” (Paul, 2015, p. 734). Thus, digital information may differ from other types of information, thereby changing the type and quality of the information, and the sensemaking process may be influenced by this.
10
Conceptual framework: Technology usage and sensemaking
Following the prior mentioned findings, that the view on sensemaking as an individual and social process is criticized by Maitlis & Christianson (2014), this study proposes to view sensemaking as a sociomaterial practice instead. The entanglement with sociomaterial practices is underdeveloped in existing literature on sensemaking, which resulted in the call-to-research by Maitlis & Christianson (2014) for studying sociomateriality in sensemaking. This study aims to answer this by studying the role of technology in the three phases of sensemaking. This proposal is in line with the increased use of technology in contemporary organizations. Several usages of technology were discussed above. I expect that these usages play a role in the sensemaking process as well. So, in this study I follow the call-to-research by Maitlis & Christianson (2014) on sensemaking as a sociomaterial practice. Specifically, I also adopt the view that sensemaking has three phases and as such, I examine the role of technology in each phase. The examination is open and exploratory, I try to find out what technologies employees use to engage in sensemaking and how those technologies support them in findings cues, interpretating them and in enacting on those interpretations. In the next section, I will elaborate on the methodology of the research, followed by the results and the discussion.
Methods
Research designThis study uses a qualitative approach to address the literature gap and answer the research question. Qualitative research is a suitable approach to this research question, since “qualitative research is great for addressing “how” questions” (Pratt, 2009, p. 856). Thereby, it is relevant for this research since qualitative research examines issues from the perspective of the employee (Maitlis, 2005), which is useful for this research since I want to study how employees use technology in sensemaking. Qualitative research studies social practices that make up social regularities (Alasuutari, 2010) and explains behaviors, interactions and social contexts (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002). This is relevant since both individual and collective (social) processes seem to play a role in sensemaking. The qualitative research in this study is based on interviews. Interviews are among the most often used approaches in collecting qualitative data (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). They involve gathering information and facts (Rossetto, 2014). Interviews give insights into “participants’ experiences and viewpoints of a particular topic” (Turner, 2010, p. 754). Thus, the aim of interviews is to get insights in the experiences of employees. Since this study concerns the usage of technology in the sensemaking process, interviews are appropriate to get a deeper understanding of the experiences of employees with technology in the sensemaking process. In the end, interviews enable seeing patterns in the practices and experiences of employees, and from that conclusions can be drawn on how employees use technology.
11
Graebner, 2007). This relates to the aim of this study: researching the role of technology in the process of sensemaking leads to a creation of theoretical propositions. With other words, the findings of this study lead to propositions of how technology is used during sensemaking.
Research setting
This research took place at a large employment agency, located in The Netherlands. The organization operates as the connecting link between people looking for a job, and organizations looking for employees. The organization provides HR support, career education, and recruitment and selection. The organization operates in the entire world, but has its headquarters in The Netherlands. In this research, employees spread over two locations (Heerenveen and Apeldoorn) are used as the case sample. These two teams were chosen, since I wanted to have a minimum of 16 interviewees, and one team would not be enough for this. Both teams work for the department of care, which means that they work together with healthcare institutions. The organization is chosen for this research, since it uses technology on a day-to-day basis and it experienced a major change: a shift from working at the office to working at home. This resulted in, among others, less face-to-face interaction between colleagues and clients and more reliance on technology. This change started in the beginning of March, and it was still happening during the research. In March, the employees had to work from home. During the summer period, the employees were allowed to go to the office occasionally. But, in October, the employees had to fully work from home again. Around 95% of the employees work fully from home. I got access to his organization, since it is an old employer of mine. This means that I already knew some of the interviewees. This is an advantage, since it gives prior knowledge about the organization and the ways of working, which can help in understanding the sensemaking process.
Research method: semi-structured interviews
12
interviewer from steering the interview. Yet, I needed to keep the interview on track by using the interview protocol.
The interviews were held online, for safety purpose in times of the pandemic. Although using the web-camera did not show the full body language of a participant, the interaction is comparable with face-to-face interviews in terms of nonverbal and social cues (Janghorban, Roudsari & Taghipour, 2014). Given the recent developments in software, online interviewing is a legitimate methodology in qualitative research (Crichton & Kinash, 2003). The interviews are recorded (with permission of the interviewees), to make sure that the data transcriptions are complete. The interview protocol for the employees can be found in Appendix A. I interviewed the manager of the teams as well, I used a different interview protocol during this interview, this protocol can be found in Appendix B.
The interview protocol for employees was focused as follows: first, I asked some general questions (“What do you do at this organization?”). Then I divided the interview in the three phases of sensemaking. An example of a question to address the perceiving cues-phase is: “How did the
organization inform you that you had to work from home?”. If the interviewees did not explicitly
mention technologies that were used by the organization, I would explicitly ask for it: “Which
technologies did the organization use to inform you?”. An example of a question to address the
interpretation-phase is: “How did you discuss the change with your colleagues?”. Again, if no explicit technologies were mentioned I would ask for it. An example question to address the enactment-phase is: “How did technology change your ways of working as a result of the change?”. At the end of the interview, I asked whether the employees appreciated the way in which they received information from the organization or not (“Generally, what did you think of the ways the organization informed you?”). This gives insights in the evaluation of the used technologies. The interview protocol of the manager existed of this structure as well. I added some questions on the role of the manager in the process (“How
did the employees approach you for asking questions?”; “What were most questions about during the change?”). The interviews were held in Dutch, since Dutch is the native language of both the
13 Data analysis
14
The data analysis was an iterative process, where codes were made, changed and deleted over time. As said before, memos were used during transcribing to write down the first impressions of possible codes. An example of a memo I wrote is: “The employees seem to appreciate technology for
its role in togetherness”, which eventually led to the code: ‘Creating the sense of unity’. An overview
of all codes is given in the codebook in Appendix C.
Research quality
The quality of the collected data of the interviews can be assessed in various ways. First, I used semi-structured interviews, which lead to better reciprocity between the interviewer and the participants (deMarrais & Lapan, 2003). deMarrais & Lapan (2003) argue that asking follow-up questions can contribute to a better understanding of what the interviewee wants to say. Thus, the type of interview used (semi-structured) seems to improve the research quality. During the interviews, I asked open questions as much as possible, and little leading questions. Asking open-ended questions encourage the interviewees to answer a question in his or her own words (Popping, 2015). This results in obtaining more rich information which adds to research quality. Another enhancement of research quality comes from the style of interviewing, which was an informal and personal style. I started most interviews with a little chit-chat, which made the interviewees feel comfortable before conducting the interview. A personal interviewing style is indeed characterized by spontaneity and natural interaction (Turner, 2010). West & Blom (2017) argue that there is a positive relationship between a personal interview style and the quality of the responses.
15
Findings
This chapter presents the findings of the data analysis. All three phases of the sensemaking process will be discussed separately. In each phase, the used technologies will be discussed, as well as their role in the process.
Organizational change: working from home
Before going straight into the findings on the sensemaking process, the organizational change will be introduced. As a result of the COVID-pandemic, the Dutch government imposed several restrictions to stop the spread of the virus. One of these restrictions was that, nationwide, organizations were forced to let their employees work from home as much as possible. Therefore, the organization in this study made their employees work from home. These government restrictions and measures were communicated towards inhabitants of The Netherlands during press conferences. These could be followed on television, as well as online on the Internet. This change started on March 16, 2020 and was still happening during the research. In the summer period of 2020, the employees were allowed to go to the office more often (the government restrictions were less tight during this period). However from October, the employees, again, were forced to fully work from home.
Perceiving cues
The initial announcement of the organization in March that the employees had to work from home was from their manager via WhatsApp. This was a very extensive WhatsApp message, in which the announcement was made that from Monday on, they were not allowed to work at the office anymore: “All [Name organization] employees work from home from Monday the 16th of March.” (Appendix D).
Further, there was an explanation on the reason why they had to work from home: “With these measures
– everyone working from home – the direction takes necessary responsibility for the company. [Name organization] is eminently a people-company. (…) Taking care of a save and healthy work environment is part of our business principles.”. The WhatsApp message also provided some concrete measures on
what to do with situations with little children (“Try to alternate with your partner (care, work) (…) Do
you not have a partner (…)? Please indicate this to your manager, so your tasks can be divided over your colleagues.” (Appendix D)). The manager used WhatsApp to communicate, since it was on a
Sunday, and using WhatsApp is a tool to reach the team in their spare time. As the manager explained: “The shortest way, and on that moment actually the only way, was to use the group WhatsApp that we
have. It was the best way to keep the speed, and to reach everyone as soon as possible.” (MAN016).
16
“The mail was very comparable with the WhatsApp message from the manager. So, why we had to work from home, where we should go to if we had questions and I think that it was also stated that we had to check intranet for updates. Not very much practical information, but more why we had to do it.”
(INT009). So the e-mail did not contain very specific rules yet, but it was an explanation of the situation, and it did contain instructions on how to handle questions the employees could have.
After receiving the first information from the organization, the employees were not shocked by the announcement: they saw the change coming. This means that the sensemaking process already started before the organization’s announcement. The global news led to a high sense of urgency: “I
watched all press conferences on television, at least all important press conferences. And when I saw an update on the internet or apps, I read that as well. For example, the infection rates.” (INT014). Next
to the press conferences and the news, social media played a role as well: “I usually check Facebook.
There, I see lots of news messages when there is news. (…) the news messages on Facebook, for example from the NOS, are my main source of information.” (INT012). So, news and social media played a role
in the first cues of the employees.
Next to the initial announcements of the organization, the employees were regularly updated by the organization by e-mail and intranet: “Via the intranet and the e-mail, we were kept up-to-date on
developments and how the organizations deals with the news that was communicated during the press conferences.” (INT009). The intranet had a page dedicated to the change: “On the intranet there is this special “COVID-page”, there you can find information about the policy, the measures, and the updates.” (INT008). The main difference in information on e-mail and intranet was the message: “In the mails you could find information regarding the point of view from the managing board. The mail is a bit more personal than the information on the intranet.” (INT007). The preferred way to receive
information differed. Some preferred the e-mail, since they get a notification of a new e-mail: “I think I
would prefer the e-mail. (…) On the intranet you can search back for information as well, of course, but if you have been absent for a day or a week, you missed all new information. And in the e-mail, you must read it, otherwise it stays an ‘unread message’.” (INT015). Others preferred the intranet, since they can
read that information at their own pace, whenever they have time for it: “I like intranet, since I can
search for information myself on moments that I want, and whenever I have time for it. We got more than enough e-mails at that time. So, to keep the overview for myself, I looked for information on the intranet, and I used the e-mail for my work itself.” (INT009).
17 Creating interpretations
Next, as a result of the announcement of the change, the employees had to come up with an idea what that means to them. This process started on the morning after the employees received the initial announcement. On this morning, an online meeting was organized by the manager. In the interview, the manager explained that during this online session (for which they used Google Hangout, a video-conferencing technology), they discussed facilitative- and communication-related occasions: “First, we
discussed globally: who expected this, who saw it coming? (…) I asked the question what everyone needed to work properly. So, partly facilitating. And on the other hand, we determined the moments of contact with each other. So, how many times we see each other.” (MAN016). The employees had the
opportunity to ask questions as well: “During this session, we also discussed what the change does with
everyone, what everyone encounters, where is any help needed?” (INT013). This means that if there
were any questions or anything that should be discussed within the teams, the employees could ask it during the session with the teams. One example that was discussed during the first Hangout-session, was that one employee had little children at home, and she mentioned that that might affect her work: “Well, in March all schools were closed. I have two little children at home, that had to be educated
from home and that had to be entertained. That was something I was not looking forward to. So, I discussed this (…) and made the agreement with my colleague that he would help me if I was too busy.”
(INT008). This was a concrete solution that was discussed during the first Hangout-session.
The employees mentioned that information targeted to their own working area helped in their understanding of the change. Information on intranet and e-mails from the managing board were targeted nationally: but what does it mean for the teams? The manager tried to tackle this beforehand, by altering some e-mails to her own words: “(…) some information was announced nationally. But the translation
of what that means for us, that is where I provided an explanation about. (…) So, I focused more on information that my team could practically use.” (MAN016). The employees indicated that they valued
this type of targeted information, so they would have concrete instructions on what to do: “When the
manager informed us, the information really applied to our team, instead of the entire organization.”
(INT008). One example was that the second time the employees had to work from home, one employee got stressed, since she was not in the opportunity to work from home that time: “And in the mail targeted
to our team, there was more information that we could use. First, my colleague panicked since she really did not want to work from home. But after reading the targeted mail, it became clear that there was more possible than we initially thought.” (INT005).
Another way in which the employees got information for their relevant area, was through Google Communities: “A Google Community is an online group where all kinds of messages can be
posted on. Just like the intranet, but with a personal touch.” (INT003). The Communities are groups of
colleagues that are in some way related to each other (not per se direct colleagues): “I am part of the
18
colleagues in an informal way: “Some informal posts. How a colleague arranged his or her workplace,
or how a colleague solved a situation… There are little movies on the pages as well, which show what is the best way to arrange your workplace.” (INT014). So, the employees could see how colleagues
outside their direct teams encounter and solve problems. They mentioned that the Communities offered very practical information: “Regarding the change, there was for example a colleague who posted about
how he digitally supported a new colleague in her onboarding-phase [the onboarding-phase is the
starting point of a new employee at the organization], which was definitely a struggle when working
from home. You read it, and certainly pick up some of that information. Or you write a reaction with “Well, this is good to know” (…) There is very practical information on the Communities.” (INT004).
The employees mentioned that they could post their own messages on the Communities, some did that and others not: “You can write your own posts, but I have to say that I do not do that very often. I do
post reactions, but not my own posts. Mainly because I do not know what I should post. But, you do communicate with others using the reactions.” (INT003). So, the Communities are a form of
communication between colleagues from other teams, where the employees could react on posts of others. The interpretations the employees made using the Communities were in the form of finding solutions to very practical problems.
Another interesting finding is that technology can contribute to creating a sense of unity. This happened in broadly two ways: Hangout-sessions with the national department of care and social media. Creating a sense of unity is part of the interpretation phase, since it helps to understand the situation, and to perceive that the employees are not alone in this situation. First, the Hangout-sessions. The employees had a few Hangout-sessions with all colleagues from The Netherlands of the department of care: “It was a session with employees from all over The Netherlands (…) The director was there as
well.” (INT012). During these Hangout-sessions, the director asked questions on what the employees
thought of the situation and what problems they encounter: “First, he gave a short explanation on the
information that we got. Later on, there was room for questions. (…) So, you had an idea of what everyone thought of the situation.” (INT012). Hearing the stories of others, as well as their experiences,
led to a feeling that the employees were not alone in this situation: “(…) it is nice to know that you are
not alone. (…) It was also about some recognition: a sort of confirmation that I am not the only one encountering difficulties. (…) It was a sort of “companion-meeting.” (INT015). Another way in which
the employees felt the sense of unity, was by using social media. The most used social media was LinkedIn. Most employees mentioned that they liked the feeling that they are not alone while reading posts of others: “The funny thing is that the struggle that I encounter, many others encounter it as well.
(…) on social media I liked reading the recognizable situations and personal experienced. Somehow, you feel ‘supported’ by it, and you get the feeling that you are not alone.” (INT004). So, both the national
19
Another important part of the interpretation-phase, is seeking understanding by solving questions. It became clear that the type of technology used to solve the questions, was dependent on the type of question: “If it [the question] was urgent, and I could really not think of an answer myself, then
I just call a colleague. And if I thought: I just do not know the answer yet, then I tried to search for an answer myself. And what I sometimes do: when a question is not urgent, and if I cannot figure something out myself, then I assembled all my questions and called a colleague at the end of a day, or the next day during our Hangout-session.” (INT014). Thus, when having a question, and the urgency to find an
answer is not high, the employees are more inclined to find an answer themselves. The employees mentioned that this would be different when working at the office: then, they would quickly ask a colleague. Reason for this, is that the employees experience a burden to ask questions when working apart, particularly the newer employees: “Since I am new, I need a more elaborated explanation than
other colleagues, so yes: I felt a burden. (…) When you physically sit together, I would easier address a colleague. (…) You do not know what the colleague is doing at that moment, or whether that colleague is very busy.” (INT010). The main technologies used to ask questions are phone calls, Hangout-sessions
and chat. The chat is mainly used for asking quick questions: “Via our accounts, we can send each other
chat messages. I do this most with the two colleagues that I work with most closely, to ask some quick questions.” (INT002). Phone calls are seen as a quick way to ask questions as well: “(…) but of course you can use the telephone, when you have a question you can have a quick call with a colleague.”
(INT012). The Hangout-sessions are moments that the employees can ask their questions as well, the manager provides room for asking questions.
So, questions are being asked using the three technologies just discussed, but what were most questions about during the change? According to the manager, most questions occurred when the organization announced a change in cost compensation and travel allowance: “(…) is the amount of
questions the team members had about the travel allowance and cost compensation that got withheld. (…) We worked very hard, so I got a lot of questions on that topic.” (MAN016). It became clear that the
number of questions was high on this topic, since they thought this change was unfair to the amount of work they did: “For a moment I was very busy with it. I asked my manager about it and read it on the
intranet. And that was because I indeed did not understand it in the beginning and wanted clarification. After all it is part of your monthly income.” (INT006). Next to this, most questions occurred about work
content: “Information about clients, whether or not the flexworkers were allowed to work there. What
do we have to do when someone is infected? What kind of measures do we take? That kind of questions.”
(MAN016). Indeed, work content-related questions were frequently mentioned during interviews: “(…)
it was mainly work-related. For example, if flexworkers were not ill but had to cough: were they allowed to work? Will they get paid if they do not work? Etcetera. That was information which I thought was important to know.” (INT002). Next to these work content-related questions, the summer period (when
they were allowed to partly work at the office again) raised some questions as well: “Obviously, I had
20
measures if employees go back to the office. The period before I went back to the office, I was wondering how things would go at the office: walking routes, how often to wash your hands, where you were allowed to sit and where not, those kinds of issues.” (INT008). These examples of questions indicate
what the employees were making sense of during the interpretation-phase.
The second phase of the sensemaking process included several technologies. Some technologies were static and used to read (e-mail, intranet), other technologies were dynamic and used to discuss (Hangout-sessions, telephone calls), and some were in between: written messages, but in an interactive way (Google Community, chat). Technologies that provide written information have the role of a transmitter: these technologies provided information that the employees could read themselves. The Hangout-sessions and phone calls have the role of facilitators: they facilitate the employees to interpret the situation, by discussing with their colleagues. The interactive, written technologies (Google Community, chat) have the role of facilitator as well: both technologies facilitated the employees to share information and communicate with others.
Enactment
After perceiving the cues, and creating an interpretation, the employees had to work with the change. The work activities did not change that much: “It went through like I always did. Calling and
writing vacancies can be perfectly done from home, so that just went on.” (INT001). However, the
employees were totally dependent on technology, which resulted in two major changes: the communication went from face-to-face to completely online, and the employees use some new technologies. First, the communication. One of the main technologies that occurred in each interview, were the Hangout-sessions. They had not used this technology very extensively before: “You simply use
it more than before. First, you could discuss issues face-to-face. Now, this is not possible anymore, so you use this kind of technology. (…) We did use it before, but not that extensively.” (INT011). The
tool is the technology that comes most close to face-to-face contact: “(…) those
Hangout-sessions were particularly nice since you got that “old” feeling that you are among your colleagues. It also felt a bit more as your work environment when you see your colleagues.” (INT008). During these
sessions, the employees could talk about both business and personal topics. One thing that was occasionally discussed during Hangout-sessions, were challenges that the employees encountered. The most occurring ones were keeping concentration during the day, and separating work and personal life. In the Hangout-sessions, the employees could help each other. It became clear that the employees helped each other unconsciously (“I notice that more and more colleagues are doing a walk every day. And
when I think back, I believe that one colleague and I started with this (…) it could be that they unconsciously picked this up from us.”, INT006), and consciously (“(…) we decided that we do not send each other messages in the evening about whether colleagues did particular tasks, so everyone could let their work go in the evenings.”, INT001). So, solving challenges happened both consciously and
21
The employees mentioned that, as a result of solely communicating by technology, broadly two changes occurred in communicating. First, at the office, the employees sit together, which makes it obligatory to talk with everyone. At home, this is different: “(…) you can pick the ones you have contact
with. When working at the office, this goes differently: you sit together with the entire group, so you speak to everyone.” (INT007). Since the employees only had contact with their colleagues using
technology, they could select the colleagues they wanted to have contact with. As an employee mentioned: “Another colleague thinks the same about the situation as I do, she has children at home as
well. So yes, I do reckon that you search the people that think alike you.” (INT007). So, sitting apart
and being dependent on technology makes that the employees could consciously select the colleagues they wanted to have contact with. Second, online contact is more about business than offline contact:
“Currently, it is very to-the-point: “I recon (…) that communication with colleagues is more about business. When I call someone, I call because I need something, or because I need to know something. But you don’t regularly call colleagues to ask how it is.” (INT009). When asking the reason for this,
most employees answered that when communicating via technology, it does not feel the same as communicating face-to-face: “(…) you cannot see how someone is doing. Body language is not
readable. Via Hangout, you can see the faces, that is something but not all. (…) If you sit next to someone, you can perfectly see and feel someone. Online you do not have that, or in a lesser extent.”
(INT011). Thus, as a result of communicating using technology, the conversations became more about business and less personal.
Another point of the enactment phase is that some new technologies were introduced during the change. An example is a tool named “You-Can-Book-Me”, which is mainly used by the recruiters and jobcoach. At the office, they were dependent on whether there were free spaces to conduct job interviews or performance conversations. When working from home, they were more free to make appointments. Via this new tool, people can make appointments by selecting time slots in the agenda of the recruiter or jobcoach: “We now have a program called You-Can-Book-Me. I can send an e-mail to flexworkers
with an invitation for a You-Can-Book-Me appointment. This way they can make an appointment in my own agenda.” (INT007). Another example of a new technology, is a scan-app. The employees
encountered the problem that they could not scan paperwork at home. Some employees do not have a printer at home (“I encountered the problem with scanning: that was quite difficult. How to scan things
when working from home?”, INT004). As a solution, the organization introduced a scan-app: “(…) at a certain moment, we received an e-mail from IT about the scan-app. In my team, we had not heard from this app yet, but I think that currently, the app is integrated in the entire organization.” (INT013). These
22
During the enactment-phase, the role of technology was that of a facilitator. Several technologies were used to facilitate the employees in doing their jobs. Some new tools were introduced, and other technologies were used more than before. These technologies facilitated the employees in doing their work. A conclusion that can be drawn on the findings, is that the role of technology in the three phases of sensemaking changes from a transmitter in the perceiving cues-phase, to partly transmitter, partly facilitator in the interpretation-phase, and a facilitator in the enactment-phase. An overview of the findings can be found in Table 2.
As Table 2 shows, each phase of the sensemaking process is conceptualized with the role of technology, the most used technologies, and whether it covers collective or individual sensemaking. In the remaining section of the findings, I will shortly elaborate on the observations on individual and collective sensemaking.
First, the perceiving cues-phase mostly links to individual sensemaking. That is, in this first phase, the employees mainly relied on written sources of information (e-mail, WhatsApp, intranet, news messages). As the employees mentioned, they read this information often on their own, and did not discuss this information immediately with their colleagues: “I have to say, we did not really discuss the
content of the mail. (…) The mail was clear, and yes, since I saw it coming, I did not feel the need to discuss it with others.” (INT010). This is in line with an observed finding: it became clear that the
employees did not actively search for new information. They took the information provided by the government and the organization for granted and were not triggered to search for additional information (“Further, I took the messages for granted. Both from the government, that is logical, and the
organization. So no, I did not search for additional information.”, INT004). This means that, in this
phase of the sensemaking process, the employees engaged in passive searching: the information on the news and social media was unavoidable and very clear (“It was already communicated by the
government, and it was a sort of obligation. It could not be clearer for me, actually”, INT007). They
23
Then, the second phase of sensemaking (creating interpretation) showed partly individual, partly collective sensemaking. The used technologies were both static and written, and dynamic and audio/visual. For example, the Hangout-sessions were used for group discussions and group decision making, which adds to their interpretation (“And of course we had longer Hangout-sessions with our
manager, about what it means for us as a team.”, INT015). Additionally, the Community pages were
used to share experiences and interact with colleagues. This points to collective sensemaking. On the other hand, the static written messages (e-mail, intranet) are part of individual sensemaking: the employees use written messages to understand the situation without discussing it with colleagues: “I
like it [e-mails] particularly when you want to read information thoroughly, or re-read something, and when you want specific information black-on-white.” (INT007).
Lastly, in the enactment-phase, both individual and collective sensemaking was reported as well. On the one hand, collective sensemaking was observed when the employees tried to solve challenges. As the findings indicated, solving challenges happened both consciously and unconsciously, but both ways happened collectively (often during a Hangout-session with the team). Therefore, this is part of collective sensemaking. On the other hand, individual sensemaking was observed with the new introduced technologies (scan-app, You-Can-Book-Me). These technologies were introduced by the organization but not used by all employees. This means that every employee had to decide for themselves whether to use these technologies or not. Indeed, during the interviews it became clear that every employee had to find their own way of working from home: “I think that everyone has to find
their own ways of working. Halfway everyone finds their own favorable way, and that is different with every colleague.” (INT001). This points to individual sensemaking. Thus, both individual and collective
sensemaking were reported in the three phases of sensemaking. In the next section I will discuss the findings and link it to existing literature.
Discussion
The main goal of this research was to fill in the literature gap as proposed by Maitlis & Christianson (2014). They argued for more extensive research on the role of sociomateriality in the process of sensemaking. To answer this call-to-research by Maitlis & Christianson (2014), this study took a sociomaterial perspective on sensemaking, instead of either a collective- or individual perspective. As defined in the introduction of this study, this research strives to answer the question:
How do people use technology to make sense of changes in their ways of working? As Maitlis &
24 Main conclusions
Before diving in the three phases of sensemaking, I will shortly elaborate on the change that the employees experienced. As mentioned in the findings, the employees had to work from home since the government restrictions made it obligatory. In prior research, government regulatory changes have been found to trigger the sensemaking process (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). The findings of this research indeed showed that the employees already received the first cues when the government presented the restrictions, either during press conferences or in written messages on news applications. The employees had easily access to this information, since there is a virtual limitless of news and public information available (Sundar, Knobloch-Westerwick & Hastall, 2007). Therefore, the first cues were perceived outside the boundaries of the organization. In the following section I will discuss the findings following the three phases of sensemaking and link it to existing literature.
Perceiving cues. In the perceiving cues-phase of sensemaking, technology showed the role of a transmitter and individual sensemaking was reported. The employees mainly relied on written information without the opportunity to have personal discussions, since all employees were working from home. This gave the employees little opportunity for collective interpretation in this phase. Thus, using written information in the perceiving cues-phase led to individual sensemaking. This is in line with previous findings. Stensaker, Falkenberg & Grønhaug (2008) argue that using only written information does not lead to a shared understanding, meaning that only using written information will not lead to collective sensemaking. Indeed, only reading written information can lead employees to create distinctive understandings of information (Brown, Stacey & Nandhakumar, 2008). Thus, the written information perceived by the employees, led to individual sensemaking.
25
cues from others. So, since the first cues were already perceived before the organization announced the change (the government restrictions), the message from the organization only became clearer since the employees already had indicated that something would happen.
Next, taking a sociomaterial perspective, employees thus mostly received cues through email, and they could look at the intranet to search for cues (which not all employees did). It seems that the type of technology and the functions they have (their materiality; Leonardi, 2013) influences how employees use the technologies in relation to cues. This is in line with argumentation from Orlikowski & Scott (2008), they argue that the materiality of technology shapes a set of specific uses. Intranet and e-mail are both seen as efficient mediums to spread information, since these technologies have the property of being cost- and time efficient (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). However, although the information on the e-mail and the intranet were comparable, the employees either preferred one of these two mediums because of their materiality. Prior findings indicated that e-mail notifications provide awareness of information, even when an employee is attending to another task (Iqbal & Horvitz, 2010). Not getting these notifications (as on the intranet) will thus not trigger awareness. To read the information on the intranet, the employees must engage in searching for cues. The results of this study showed that most employees engaged in passive searching for information, meaning that the employees were not actively searching for cues. This finding is not in line with prior research, which argued that employees search for information with the desire to create stability in an ambiguous situation (Klein & Eckhaus, 2017). The reason why they did not engage in active searching was that the reason why the employees had to work from home was clear to them. This passive searching resulted in that the employees were more attracted to read the information in the e-mail (since the notification created awareness). Others that were willing to search for information, could find information in the intranet. To conclude, the function (materiality) of the technology influences how employees use the technology in relation to cues.
26
downside of using mails to interpret the cues, is that sometimes the employees received so many e-mails, it became too much to read it all. This relates to “information overload” (Mock, 1999). Wainer, Dabbish & Kraut (2011) argue that because of information overload, employees will prioritize messages over others. This affects what employees focus on and, with that, the interpretation process and the actual interpretations they make. In this study, the employees mentioned they valued the targeted e-mails more than the general e-e-mails from the managing board, meaning that they focused more on the targeted e-mails in their individual sensemaking.
Next to individual sensemaking, collective sensemaking was reported in several technology usages. First, the employees extensively used Hangout-sessions to discuss, make group decisions and eventually create a shared understanding. The employees could ask questions about the cues that they had perceived, which leads to a shared understanding (Cash, Dekoninck & Ahmed-Kristensen, 2017). This indeed relates to collective sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Wolbers & Boersma, 2013). During these sessions, the manager could give a translation to the perceived cues on what it means for the team, which the employees appreciated. This is in line with prior research: as Maitlis & Sonenshein (2010) argue, middle managers can enrich the interpretation of events because of their proximity to the interpretations of the strategic managing board. Maitlis & Christianson (2014) elaborate on this and mention how the interpretation of middle managers are critical in translating high level aspirations into more local changes. Thus, the additional explanation the manager provided during Hangout-sessions is important for the interpretation of the team members.
Second, the findings showed that the Communities support collective interpretation during sensemaking as well. These Communities are explained as informal intranet platforms. Indeed, informal, social communication networks play a role in exchanging knowledge (Fischbach, Gloor & Schoder, 2009), which helps in collective interpretation of the situation. That is exactly what happened on those Communities: colleagues could share their own experiences on that page, which the employees could read and react on. This relates to collective sensemaking, since it enables the employees to interact with colleagues and to share and read experiences from other employees. This creates a shared understanding, which again leads to collective interpretation of the situation.
27
listening to the experiences of others. Creating this sense of unity relates to collective interpretation, since sharing experiences build sharing understandings (Hinds & Weisband, 2003). This, in turn, indicates collective interpretation (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
Next, taking a sociomaterial perspective, it seems that the type of technology used in this phase coheres both with the type of sensemaking (individual or collective) and the role it plays (transmitter or facilitator). The more static, written technologies (e-mail, intranet) have the role of a transmitter and relate to individual sensemaking. The more dynamic, interactive technologies (Hangout-sessions, social media) have the role of facilitator and relate to collective sensemaking. That is, the function (materiality) of the static technologies relate to reading information individually, especially since the employees work physically distanced from colleagues. This results in an individual interpretation since the employees cannot discuss the information instantly. The organization transmits their information by mail, since that is a way to reach a whole group at once (Mujtaba et al., 2017), especially when employees work from home. On the other hand, the function of the dynamic technologies relates to discussing information and interacting with others. This indeed is in line with collective sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). These technologies facilitate the employees to interact, which gives these technologies the role of facilitator in collective sensemaking.
Enactment. Lastly, in the enactment-phase, technology has the role of facilitator and both individual and collective sensemaking were reported. First, the types of sensemaking will be elaborated. The findings showed that in the phase of enactment, the employees made extensively use of Hangout-sessions. The employees did not work physically together anymore, so they had to find a solution to replace the face-to-face conversations. They chose Hangout-sessions as replacement. This is indeed in line with prior research, since videocalls come most close to face-to-face interactions (Pantelli & Dawson, 2001). During these sessions, the employees discussed challenges that occurred as a result of working from home (during enactment). Indeed, challenges (or new cues) may occur because of enactment (Weick, 1988). During the Hangout-sessions, the employees discussed about these challenges and collective solved these, which indicates collective sensemaking.
28
2003). Thus, employees share little information about their ways of working when working remote, which results in that employees need to individually decide what is the best way for them to work.
Next, taking a sociomaterial perspective, the findings show that technologies used in the enactment-phase only receive meaning if these are used by the employees. The organization introduced the new technologies that could facilitate the employees during working from home. However, as long as the employees do not use the technologies, these have little meaning. This is in line with prior research on sociomateriality: Bhatt & De Roock (2013) argue that technology has little meaning without interference of humans. So, the function (materiality) of the technologies only appeared when the employees actually worked with the technologies.
Theoretical contributions
This study aimed to fill in the research gap of studying the role of sociomateriality in sensemaking, by answering Maitlis & Christianson’s (2014) call-to-research to study the role of technology in the three phases of sensemaking. Some research on sociomateriality in sensemaking has been done before (Abildgaard & Nielsen, 2018; Berthod & Müller-Seitz, 2018). However, these studies lacked in indicating the exact role of sociomateriality in the sensemaking process. As Balogun et al. (2014) argue, the relevance of sociomateriality in sensemaking is revealed but in the background rather than as a focus of the study. The findings of this research add to the sensemaking literature, since limited research has linked technology that direct to the three phases of sensemaking. The role of technology in sensemaking has been examined in this study from a sociomaterial perspective (Orlikowski, 2010). Taking a sociomaterial perspective on the sensemaking process brings the several uses of technology to light. It shows that technology is used differently in the three phases of sensemaking, where both written and visual and audio technologies were used.
Next to the several uses of technology, this study adds to the fragmentation in sensemaking literature on collective and individual sensemaking, by showing that both individual and collective sensemaking takes place when having a sociomaterial perspective. Literature on these types of sensemaking has been fragmented (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014), and taking a sociomaterial perspective indeed showed that both types of sensemaking are facilitated by usage of technology. This study addressed a situation where employees worked remote, from home. Research showed already a trend that remote work happened more and more, which was amplified during the pandemic. Therefore, this research addressed a specific sensemaking-situation, where employees worked from home, and showed that both individual and collective sensemaking took place.
Practical contributions
29
to be informed during a change. In all three phases of sensemaking, this differs. Practically, organizations and managers could send cues to the employees using written technologies, such as e-mails or intranets. To help the employees interpret these cues, managers can use videocalls with their team to provide room for questions and help the employees interpret the situation. Finally, managers could make technologies available that could help the employees do their work. It is thereby good to know that when working remote, videocalls come most close to face-to-face interaction. So, to keep the team informed and committed, it is important to regularly organize a videocall with the team.
Another practical contribution is that the interpretations of the managers plays a role in the interpretation of the employees. It is, therefore, important for the manager to share his or her interpretation of the change with the employees. As the findings showed, the employees appreciated verbal explanation of the manager in the interpretation phase, using video conferencing. A very practical contribution is, thus, that managers should verbally explain the interpretation to the employees, to help the employees in interpreting the cues.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
Limitations to this study should be considered alongside the interpretation of its results. First, some limitations regarding generalizability will be made. This research is done in one specific organization (an employment agency) in The Netherlands. This makes the findings of this study in a lesser extent generalizable. Further research should consider the same research, but at a different organization or country, this would improve generalizability. Another limitation regarding generalizability is the change itself. The change is a very specific unplanned and forced change. For future research, it would be interesting to study what role technology plays in the sensemaking process during another type of change (unplanned, unforced, etc.). This would be interesting, since organizations and employees have more time to prepare for these changes and may use other features of technology (perhaps different artifacts, since there is more time to prepare). So, the role of technology may be different in sensemaking on planned change.
The next limitation of this study is the data collection method: this study only used interviews in data collection. Future research should consider using multiple data (triangulation) in their research for a more comprehensive connection between technology use and the sensemaking process. For example, secondary data regarding use on the intranet or e-mail, or observations during videocalls could lead to more rich data for research.
