The role of narrative in collaborative reasoning and intelligence analysis: A case study


Autoři: Morgan Saletta aff001;  Ariel Kruger aff001;  Tamar Primoratz aff001;  Ashley Barnett aff001;  Tim van Gelder aff001;  Robert E. Horn aff002
Působiště autorů: SWARM Project, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia aff001;  Human Science and Technology Advanced Research Institute (H-STAR), Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226981

Souhrn

This paper explores the significance of narrative in collaborative reasoning using a qualitative case study of two teams of intelligence analysts who took part in an exercise using an online collaborative platform. Digital ethnographic methods were used to analyze the chat transcripts of analysts as they reasoned with evidence provided in a difficult, fictional intelligence-type problem and produced a final intelligence report. These chat transcripts provided a powerful “microscope” into the reasoning processes and interactions involved in complex, collaborative reasoning. We found that Individuals and teams used narrative to solve the kinds of complex problems organizations and intelligence agencies face daily. We observed that team members generated what we term “micro-narratives”, which provided a means for testing, assessing and weighing alternative hypotheses through mental simulation in the context of collaborative reasoning. The creation of micro-narratives assisted in the teams’ reasoning with evidence, an integral part of collaborative reasoning and intelligence analysis. Micro-narratives were combined into, and compared with, an ideal or ‘virtual’ narrative which informed the judgements the team came to in their final intelligence report. The case study developed in this paper provides evidence that narrative thought processes play an important role in complex collaborative problem-solving, reasoning with evidence and problem-solving. This is contrary to a widespread perception that narrative thinking is fundamentally distinct from formal, logical reasoning.

Klíčová slova:

Analysts – Decision making – Gene transfer – Intelligence – Intelligence tests – Reasoning – Smart materials – Telecommunications


Zdroje

1. Bruner JS. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; 1986. xi, 201 p. p.

2. Dahlstrom MF. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2014;111(Suppl 4):13614–20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320645111 25225368

3. Donald M. Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition: Harvard University Press; 1991.

4. Pennington N, Hastie R. Evidence Evaluation in Complex Decision Making. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 1986;51(2):242–58.

5. Sugiyama MS. Food, foragers, and folklore: The role of narrative in human subsistence. Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior 2001;22(4):221–40.

6. Baber C, Smith P, Cross J, Hunter JE, McMaster RJP, Cognition. Crime scene investigation as distributed cognition. 2006;14(2):357–85.

7. Clark RM. Intelligence analysis: a target-centric approach. Fifth edition. ed: CQ Press; 2017.

8. Heuer RJ, Heuer RJ, Pherson RH. Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis: SAGE Publications; 2010.

9. Treverton GF. Theory and practice. 2018. p. 472–8.

10. Bex F, Koppen P, Prakken H, Verheij B. A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence2010. 123–52 p.

11. Vlek CS, Prakken H, Renooij S, Verheij B. Building Bayesian networks for legal evidence with narratives: a case study evaluation. 2014:375.

12. Bonabeau E. Decisions 2.0: The Power of Collective Intelligence. 2009:45.

13. Bhatt GD. Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. 2001:68.

14. Yates D, Paquette S. Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. International Journal of Information Management. 2011;31:6–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.10.001

15. Cress U, Kimmerle J. A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2008;3(2):105. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9035-z

16. Dillenbourg P, Järvelä S, Fischer F. The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology-enhanced learning: Springer; 2009. p. 3–19.

17. Vlek CS, Prakken H, Renooij S, Verheij B. Representing and Evaluating Legal Narratives with Subscenarios in a Bayesian Network. OpenAccess Series in Informatics [Internet]. 2013; Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative:[315–32 pp.].

18. Pennington N, Hastie R. Explaining the Evidence: Tests of the Story Model for Juror Decision Making1992. 189–206 p.

19. Mar RA, Oatley K. The Function of Fiction is the Abstraction and Simulation of Social Experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008;(3):173. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x 26158934

20. Oatley K, Djikic M. Psychology of Narrative Art. 2018:161.

21. Barnes JL. Imaginary Engagement, Real-World Effects: Fiction, Emotion, and Social Cognition. 2018:125.

22. Oatley K, Dunbar R, Budelmann F. Imagining Possible Worlds. 2018:121.

23. Prince G. Aspects of a Grammar of Narrative. Poetics Today. 1980;1(3):49–63.

24. Polanyi M, Sen A. The Tacit Dimension1983.

25. de Rozario R, Sinnott R, Bayliss C, Guest C, Jayaputera G, Karami G, et al. The Design and Development of a Cloud-based Platform Supporting Team-oriented Evidence-based Reasoning: SWARM Systems Paper2019.

26. Gelder Tv, Rozario RD Sinnott RO. SWARM: Cultivating Evidence-Based Reasoning. Computing in Science & Engineering. 2018;20(6):22–34. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2018.2873860

27. Kozinets RV. Netnography: Redefined, 2nd Edition. 2015.

28. Hutchins E. Cognition in the Wild: MIT Press; 1995.

29. Hutchins E, Klausen T. Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. Cognition and Communication at WorkCognition and communication at work. 1996.

30. Watson TJ. Ethnography, Reality, and Truth: The Vital Need for Studies of How Things Work in Organizations and Management. 2011:202.

31. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.

32. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.

33. Gibbs GR. Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing Qualitative Data. 2007;703:38–56.

34. Goray M, Mitchell RJ, Oorschot RAHv. Investigation of secondary DNA transfer of skin cells under controlled test conditions. Legal Medicine. 2010;12:117–20. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2010.01.003 20206575

35. Goray M, Ballantyne KN, Szkuta B, Oorschot RAH. Cale CM, Earll ME, Latham KE, Bush GL. Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime? J Forensic Sci 2016;61(1):196–203. 2016:1396. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12894 26331369

36. Bex F, Prakken H, Verhey B. Anchored Narratives in Reasoning about Evidence. In: van Engers TM, editor. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2006. p. 11–20.

37. Aristotle Butcher SH. Aristotle’s poetics. New York: Hill and Wang; 1961.

38. Donald M. Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition: Harvard University Press; 1991.

39. Scalise Sugiyama M. Food, foragers, and folklore: the role of narrative in human subsistence. 2001:221.

40. Edson Escalas J. Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2004;14(1):168–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_19.

41. Polkinghorne DE. Validity Issues in Narrative Research. Qualitative Inquiry. 2007;13(4):471–86. doi: 10.1177/1077800406297670

42. Press NA. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, 2019.

43. Verheij B, Bex F, Timmer ST, Vlek CS, Meyer J-JC, Renooij S, et al. Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning. Law, Probability and Risk. 2015;15(1):35–70. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgv013

44. Fahey L, Prusak L. The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review. 1998;40(3):265.

45. Augier M, Vendelø M. Networks, Cognition and Management of Tacit Knowledge1999. 252–61 p.

46. Herman K, Anthony JW. The Next Thirty-Three Years: A Framework for Speculation. Daedalus. 1967;96(3):705.

47. Wack P. Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review. 1985;63(5):73–89.

48. Bradfield R, Wright G, Burt G, Cairns G, Van Der Heijden K. The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. 2005:795.

49. Rao V, Mavrommati G, Thompson J, Duveneck M, Meyer S, Ligmann-Zielinska A, et al. Methods for translating narrative scenarios into quantitative assessments of land use change2016. 7–20 p.

50. Holstein JA. Jurors’ Interpretations and Jury Decision Making. Law and Human Behavior. 1985;9(1):83.

51. Cole A, Whitt JE. “Ficint”: Envisioning future war through fiction & intelligence (indo-pacific series) https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/special-series/indo-pacific-region/ficint-envisioning-future-war-through-fiction-intelligence-indo-pacific-series/2019.

52. Galbraith JR. Organization Design: An Information Processing View. Interfaces. 1974;4(3):28.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1