Researching the body and movement through artistic performative installations for collaborative digital sensemaking

When tackling digital transformation, Digital Sensemaking, as researched in the DIGI-Sense project, empowers humans to reflect on the meaning from an intertwined cognitive, aesthetic, and body perspective. Sensemaking is fundamental for meaningful (work) experience of individuals and organizations. Digital means can play a central role to give meaning to processes, shared experiences, and to rationalize established routines. As embodiment, materialities, movements, and aesthetics are core to sensemaking, we have designed and explored a corresponding artscience installation. It implements the idea that collective digital drawing is a form of participatory sense-making that emerges from embodied, dynamical and collaborative interactions between co-performers. Performers could exert control over expressing drawings, by coordinating their movements with one another. This functionality is integrated in a setting with increasing task complexity – to further stimulate social collaboration and create rich visual feedback. In this way digital sensemaking could become an essential means for the encounter between two persons to sketch a common ground of their activity spaces.


INTRODUCTION
In social contexts or in contexts of confrontation with new ideas, tools, or technologies, actors are often confronted with the challenge to not only learn what a situation or challenge is about, but also to make sense of ideas and requirements they are confronted with.In organizational studies, sensemaking theory has been explored to better understand such dynamics in organizations and work processes (often starting with the writings by Weick [48].Although sensemaking has been perceived as something social and cognitive, in the past few years calls for better understanding the role of the body and non-human factors in sensemaking have become strong, e.g., [27], [15].At the same time, research into performance and artistic approaches in media art are interested in including the embodiment and the body in sensemaking with digital media, moving away from an approach that is dominated by ideas of cognition as leading factor for sensemaking, overcoming the body-mind duality in sensemaking [35], [36].Moreover, making sense of information provided in new work environments such as Industry 4.0 and as key issue in discussions on digital transformation of work processes, e.g.[24], and to create meaningful experiences in the interaction with robotics [21], in HCI [31] and the creation of digital and hybrid work environments [41].The question arises not only how to understand sensemaking in digital environments, but also how to connect it to the body -through bodily experience, movement, embodiment, and sensible knowledge.With the Digital Sensemaking (DIGI-Sense) project we study both issues, sensemaking in digital environments and the role of the body in sensemaking at the crossroads of scientific and artistic research, transdisciplinary across organization studies, informatics, performance art, and aesthetics theory.

RELATED WORK
There are several reasons to employ artistic performance and dance to explore digital sensemaking in the context of digitalization of work processes, hybrid digital environments, or in the interaction of humans with IoT elements and robotics, specifically in researching embodiment, sensible knowledge, and aesthetic experience as part of the interaction and sensemaking process [5], [6]: performance artists are trained to focus on their sensory perception, are trained in being aware of their bodily development and changes throughout a process, and on the feedback of the body.Moreover, they can also create choreographies and interactions that address the bodily experience and embodied knowledge of others who participate in performances with them or choreographed by them.As sensemaking is also a collaborative process, collaborative performative experiences were envisioned in the second phase as performance is also understood as "relational practice" in performance research and by performers [23].In the field of organization studies which is a major discipline where sensemaking is discussed and researched, approaches to inquire this bodily component in organizational settings and work processes, dance and performance have been explored as suitable methodology, e.g., [4], [37].
In the fields of social robotics, creative robotics, humancomputer-interaction, and the development of creative user interfaces, a kaleidoscope of research projects (artistic and scientific ones) explore the potential of working with performance artists.Most influential are the works of Gemeinboeck and Saunders as well as the work realized at Radlab led by LaViers.Gemeinboeck and Saunders explore interaction with robotics and robotic movements through experiments with performance artists and dancers.Starting from working with dancers to draw from their kinesthetic awareness and kinesthetic knowledge to socialize with nonanthropomorphic robots [21], they developed various strategies and recommendations for performative design [19] and explored dramaturgy as entry point to guide human-robot relationships [20].LaViers and her group use metaphors, theories based in dance studies, and dance practices (e.g., ballet) and analysis of movement as based in dance and performance research (such as Laban Movement Analysis) for research in human-computer-interaction and the development of forms and movements in robotics, e.g., [28], [29].
As the performative installation presented in this paper also draws from the choreographic knowledge of the invited artist to create a performative installation, it is important to point out that [29] argue that choreographers can help to create and organize meaningful movements and encounters with others -individuals and other non-human elements to engage with.As part of the research group at Radlab [13] also successfully utilized this approach in an artistic performance installation as a basis for a study on humanrobot interaction which includes observation and self-evaluation.Other researchers in the field of social robotics, developers of robot movement, and development of automated evaluation systems of robotic movements have taken up approaches from dance and performance, e.g., [30].
Other notable research is developed in the field of development of tools, creativity support, and research into interactivity, such as artistic research into senses, bodily sensing and sensory feedback for the development of tools for drawing and interaction methods [12] and for creating interaction methods for human-to-robot interactivity [11].Drawing from performance and research with dance and movement studies has also strongly inspired research for the design of interactive systems within the arts, e.g., [10].

(DIGITAL) SENSEMAKING
DIGI-Sense (Digital Sensemaking) is a scientific research project that investigates the role of the human body in sensemaking processes in hybrid digital environments, such as Internet of Things, Digital Twins, Cyber-Physical-Systems (CPS).This project employs artistic research, specifically through the lens of performance art, in the context of digital technologies employed in industry and business processes, as researched and developed in the field of Business Informatics: How do we as humans make sense of the world, the processes we are part of, when the physical gets translated into digital representation?How important is bodily experience, sensible knowledge, and aesthetic information to sensemaking?The project is realized in three research phases that spread over two years.Approaching the research question from a Design Science perspective [26], [34], the research and engagement with the technologies connected to Business Informatics builds on the outcomes of the previous phase in order to become more specific and explore the open questions that have been raised in the previous phase.
In the first phase, two performance artists without previous knowledge about IoT elements, CPS, robotics, or programming were invited to engage in a joint sensemaking process by engaging with the digital technologies provided by the Institute of Business Informatics in performative research and micro-performances [5] throughout a period of 3 months.The main research focus of the scientists in the team was to find a set of moments that trigger sensemaking processes which link bodily experience, movement, and aesthetics with digital technologies [40].In this first phase two artists explored different approaches to technology and the digitization of the body and focused their processes on their bodily experience with the elements, the sensations, emotions, and the learning processes which entailed aesthetic elements, both as sensible knowledge [44] as well as in the form of feedback or responses from the technologies.
In the second phase the research team collaborated with an artist who has a background in creating media installations and in computer programming, in order to generate interactive experiences for performers to explore the outcomes of the first phase with a larger group of test persons.The decision was to create two performative installations where the test persons become the performers in the installation.One of the performances is focusing on sensemaking connected to visual feedback and bodily movement, which is called "Drawing Exercises", and is presented in this paper.The second performative installation focuses on sound, bodily movement and spatial awareness which is subject to ongoing research in summer 2023.In this second phase, the sensemaking moments that connect to movement, embodiment, and aesthetics are explored.
Additionally, the team aimed at inducing phases of sensebreaking and sensegiving in the experience of the test persons in the performative installation.Thereby, in the experiment the researchers consider aesthetic categories and the influence of aesthetics and embodied movements on sensemaking processes (e.g., rhythms, melodies, patterns, stillness).This aims at realizing experimentations that allow identifying the relevance of embodiment and aesthetics in terms of sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensebreaking [47], [22].The third phase aims to take the insights from the first two phases further, in order to connect the role of the body and aesthetics in sensemaking of change processes, entangling Weick's idea of change poets [49] with the role of the body and aesthetics in sensemaking.
The first performative installation of the second phase (Drawing Exercises) invites in each iteration a duo of test persons to become performers of the installation.In this setup they go through a collaborative sensemaking process with the digital technological setup provided as the starting point for the performative installation.It is divided into two different experimental, collaborative and interactive performances, in which people from different backgrounds are invited to explore, through movement, a series of tasks given by the artist.These tasks are created with the aim of visualizing a possible sensemaking process through digitization of the body, its movements and biofeedback, and studying the different ways in which aesthetic elements have an impact on the process.The resulting "performances" of the test persons are video recorded and observed by the artist and the research team.Afterwards, the test persons are also required to fill in a questionnaire and report in a semi-structured interview to one of the researchers about their experience throughout the performance.Details of the research method and data will be presented in the section "Research Methodology" below.
• Two central inputs were considered in the development of the performative installations in phase 2: the theoretical background of sensemaking theory with a specific focus to explore the body and aesthetics as well as moments of sensebreaking and sensegiving on the one hand, and on the other hand insights of the data analysis in the first phase of the DIGI-Sense project [38].This accumulated to the following aspects to be considered in the development in phase two: • The body as a main part of the sensemaking process through embodiment of aesthetic elements (for example, through repetition and movement, velocity, distance, the body understands how the situation is evolving and the steps it needs to make to fulfill the task).Since this is an embodied process, several aesthetic elements from the body are crucial: movement type, direction of the movement, velocity of the movement, rhythm and repetitions of the movement, amongst others.• Also, regarding the body, this phase takes into account the biofeedback of the bodies going through the sensemaking process: the heart rate and the stress level, are transformed into data and later used as part of the tasks (as disruptive and co-creating elements which are not possible to control).• The feedback of the system is a visual output in the first experiment and an auditive output on the second experiment, making them aesthetic elements as feedback (as seen during phase 1).

• Collaboration and different types of communication between
the people involved in the sensemaking process are crucial: verbal communication, communication through sound, touch, example, movement, etc.These allow the individuals to bodily perceive, make decisions and make sense of the situation.

THE ARTISTIC PERFORMATIVE INSTALLATION
The artistic performative installation Drawing Exercises was developed by the artist collaborating with the team to investigate the collaborative and embodied aspects of sensemaking with IoT and biofeedback sensors, the visualization of digital twins or shadows, Performance.Drawing Exercises is one of two performative installations developed by the artist for the second research phase of the DIGI-Sense project.The aim was to artistically explore different senses (visual information) and bodily movement for sensemaking with digital technologies.The artist developed performative installations for two test persons which can be experienced as artworks by the audience and provide valuable data to the scientists by observing and interrogating the movements, actions and sensemaking process of test persons who agreed to be part of the study.The test persons of Drawing Exercises wear custom-made sensor sets on their bodies, which are placed on their chest: a movement sensor, a heart rate sensor, and a stress sensor.In the first three tasks, the two test persons need to learn to collaborate through their movements to make sense of the interaction process between the sensors and the drawings they create through their movement shown in the projections.In the fourth task, the stress level starts to influence the drawing as a first challenge to the test persons.In the final task, the heart rate sensor influences the drawing process, which challenges the test persons to integrate a new factor that cannot be controlled actively into their embodied drawing process.As sensemaking is also understood as a social process, the duos of test persons in Drawing Exercises have to learn to collaborate with their movements to fulfill the following five tasks: draw a horizontal line, draw a vertical line, draw a circle, draw a landscape, draw a house.
The interaction differs from gesture interfaces which are well known in HCI because the research aims at understanding the connection between bodily movement and sensemaking of the process and content created through collaboration and interaction.
The result of the movement and biofeedback creates a visual output on the screen, and this output depends on the velocity, rhythm of each individual person, but also on the communication, collaboration and mutual understanding between the test persons.The two outputs are programmed to be visually different (one person's movement and data will create a certain type of output, and the second person another type of output).The challenge lies in the output created together, combining both movements, since the task is to create a collaborative form that will only be correct if the two persons move accordingly, if they understand each other's rhythms, and if they manage to connect their movements.
The first task is to draw a horizontal line on the screen by moving the body.The test persons will soon realize that there is only one point of origin for both lines, and they will also realize that when one of them moves in a certain way, the line is drawn horizontally, when the second person moves in a certain way, the same line is drawn vertically.After realizing that one of them is responsible for the line going up and down and the other one is responsible for the line going to the sides, and that the line follows the velocity of the movement, they will be asked to draw a circle together, finding the right rhythm, time, and velocity to do this together.Another layer of complexity is added when, besides the drawing exercises, the biofeedback of the body is introduced to impact the line of the drawing.Both test persons are connected to the software with sensors that capture their stress levels and their heart rate.They do not previously know that their lines are different, or that they will have different results.A task-chain is proposed to take them through the different states of getting to know the action and its results, although the main goal is that the two persons try to understand and make sense of the functioning of the system towards achieving the different tasks together.Established on two different levels, one physical (the bodies of the performers and the hardware of the project) and the second one digital (the software, and digital output of the physical movements), this phase takes data and information from the bodies (movement, velocity, biofeedback) and creates a digital visual output.
Through the interference of the biofeedback, sensebreaking is induced when the GSR (galvanic skin response) sensor starts to interfere with the shape of the line (jittering) in the fourth task ("draw me a landscape").The test persons need to learn to work with this new shape of the line, as they cannot actively control their biofeedback and its effect on the line.The test individuals are expected to learn from this incident and enter into another phase of sensemaking, giving sense to the visual output that they see.As they are aware of wearing a GSR sensor (the sensor sets that they wear in the performance are explained to them at the beginning of each performance) and the artistic intention was to translate a physical experience of "being shaky" when being stressed, which is known to many people, to the "shaky" or "jittering" line as seen in the visualization.Will the test persons be able to make this connection and to make sense out of it?
A second moment of sensebreaking appears in task 5 ("draw me a house").The influence of the GSR sensor on the line stops, but suddenly two blinking hearts appear on the top right and top left.These reflect the heart rate of the two test persons measured by the heart rate sensors they are wearing.Although the line and function of how to move in order to draw stays the same, the heart rates challenge the drawing as only when the two heart rates are aligned, a line will appear.Similar to task 4, the artist aimed to translate the heartbeat of the test persons into a simple visual clue: blinking hearts.After experiencing the sensebreaking moment through experience of the GSR sensor on the line, will it be easier for the test persons to understand this sensebreaking moment?
The sensemaking process takes place first individually, when the person starts realizing which type of line she/he is drawing with which type of movement, and moves on to become a collaborative sensemaking process, in which the two people need to understand and balance each other's rhythms and ways of moving, the direction of the movements, and the right moment to start the action (comparing the starting point of the second person).
Implementation The artist used VVVV to develop the software that translates the participants' movements into visual feedback, i.e., drawings that are projected in front of the two test persons.The movements are measured by motion sensors worn on the chest of each test person.The input measured by the sensors is combined as the two test persons need to work -or move -collaboratively to create the drawings and fulfill the tasks.The motion sensors are part of a custom-made wearable sensor-set that has been produced The hardware necessary for the performative installation consists of a laptop that is equipped with VVVV and a graphics card that can run the visualizations in real time, a projector to visualize the tasks and drawings in front of the two test persons of the performative installations, and two custom-made sensor sets, one for each person.These sensor sets consist of a body-harness made out of an elastic material or fabric which is positioned on the chest similar to a high belt, held by shoulder straps.In the middle of the chest is a plastic box (about 12x12cm and 5cm deep) which contains a microcontroller (AZDelivery ESP32 Dev Kit C V4), a motion sensor (BNO055 Absolute Orientation Sensor IMU F), a battery, a connector to charge the battery, a small display to facilitate calibration, and a reset button.The main translucent plastic box is connected to two further smaller plastic boxes on the belt.One contains the Grove GSR sensor and the second one contains the Grove Heart Rate Monitor with Ear-Clip.From the plastic box, cables connect with the stress sensors to be attached to the fingers, and from the heart rate sensor to be attached to the earlobe.The motion sensor combines an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, and orientation software.It senses the possible movements in three different axes: to the front and back, to the sides and facing the screen or the back of the room, whereas the orientation of the body in the room is the main input for the software of the performative installation.
The sensor sets are wirelessly connected to a small Wi-Fi router, which also connects them to the computer.This ensures a stable connection between the sensor sets and the computer and makes the installation easy to set up at different places.The reset button is used to calibrate the sensor sets every time the process starts with new test persons.This is needed to create a starting point for the software each time a new test person wears the sensor set, and to connect the input from the two test persons as an initial point of reference.Once the devices are turned on, they automatically connect to the computer and start sending data, using the OSC protocol, to the software developed in VVVV.The software was specially developed using the VVVV programming language and toolkit (visual programming language "vvvv is a visual live-programming environment for easy prototyping and development.It is designed to facilitate the handling of large media environments with physical interfaces, real-time motion graphics, audio and video that can interact with many users simultaneously." https://vvvv.org), is a digital platform that connects to the hardware and visualizes the biofeedback information, as well as the movement of the boxes in different axes.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Data: We had three main sources of data: Recorded videos of the performative installation, written questionnaires and verbal interviews, conducted at the end of the participation in the installation with each test person, with a total of 26 participants.In this paper, we focus our attention on the visual data, meaning the recorded videos, and the visual and qualitative analysis of these.
Recorded videos: Each round of the performative installation was performed by two test persons, with a total of 26 participants.The performative action took place at the Department of Business Informatics -Communications Engineering at Johannes Kepler University Linz.The test persons were students, professors, artists, and engineers.Over the course of around 5 hours in one afternoon, 13 videos were recorded.The videos range between 11 and 26.5 minutes, with a total of 197.5 Minutes recorded and analyzed.The videos were recorded from the back of the room, and contain the documentation of the actions (movements, voices, words, visible decisions) of the participants: • Entry to the room and recognition of the space.
• Put on the wearables with the help of the facilitators.
• First reaction to the installation: questions, movements, reading the task on the wall a.o.. • Documentation of the actions following the tasks of the installation.• Interaction between the participants.
• Input of the facilitators.
• In each video, we looked at: • The methods developed and chosen by the test persons to go through the action (whether they made decisions such as to move together, experiment different types of movements, whether they touched each other, counted, talked, etc.).• The ways in which the participants communicated with each other, i.e., through verbal communication, movement, touch, example.• How each of the tasks was accomplished by each test person, following their movements, moments of stillness, velocities, positions, etc. • Specific moments in the course of the performance: disruptive moments, aha moments, decision-making moments, etc.
Research Methods: For the data analysis we employed methods from qualitative research in social sciences such as qualitative interviews, and participatory observations, informed by the methods of data collection and analysis of [45], and research into organizational aesthetics [42], [45].For this phase, we also employed methods of visual studies and visual methods in organizational research [3], [39], [18] and strategies from visual research and performance research [2].The methodological design evaluating the video recordings and the "in situ performances" is based on observation as often used in research investigating sensemaking, combined with semi-structured interviews, and informal conversations to retrieve additional insights about the test persons' experience, e.g., [46].
The team of researchers of the DIGI-Sense project, together with the artist who built the installation, had an exchange of thoughts, comments, and impressions of the performances after the activity took place.Notes were taken on specific moments that had a potential impact on the research, and that could provide an insight into the body's role in the sensemaking process.These notes were considered during the data analysis process towards the results.
Visual data analysis of the videos: Each video documentation of the participatory performances was described as a rich description including the description of the movement process unfolding to the observer, the communication between the test persons (verbally and non-verbally), and the methods developed by the test persons to solve/approach the task.Notes were taken on specific moments, events, or movements that pointed to the sensemaking process, the cognitive or sensed decision-making processes and the role of the body for the development of each task.Finding connections between our bibliography, the previous phase and results of the project, and the aims of the current phase, we wrote comments to later focus on those specific moments of the videos.All videos were also coded using the qualitative evaluation software MAXQDA, which allowed us to look into repetitive actions, different methods employed by each test person, and aesthetic components in the process.
Once the data was fully described, we proceeded to compare the different results.The specific notes made on the data were compared to the notes taken by the team after the activity, and the previously established goals of the phase, and conclusions were drawn.

RESULTS
With a focus on the analysis of the video material, there are 4 main insights that stand out in the test persons' process engaging in this performative installation towards understanding the role of the body, embodiment, sensible knowledge, and aesthetics in the process of sensemaking: Different methods with different results: The test persons tried out different methods aiming at correctly generating the line.Most of the methods proposed were cognitive-based methods (Represented in the coding in MAXQDA in the following 3 codes "count to three to synchronize" -used 13 times, "talk to each other" to decide the movement before performing the movement -used 49 times, "mimicking" -used 19 times).Few of the methods were bodybased (represented in the coding in MAXQDA in the following 2 codes "bodies touch and move together" -used 3 times, "hold hands to synchronize" -used 4 times).In these methods, we recognize a predominance of cognitive methods over body -or sensible -methods.By further looking into these specific moments in the process, we recognize that the times in which the decision-making process was purely based on cognitive, pragmatic methods, the outcome of the line was usually different from what the participants imagined when planning the movements.Even when for the participants it seemed obvious that certain cognitively coordinated movements might end up in a desired drawing, i.e., a circle, the coordination led to hindering the flow of the movements and thus a completely different outcome was created, i.e., a square.The analysis showed that the drawing was better achieved when the movements were more sensed and thus fluid, than cognitively decided and verbally expressed for coordination.
Fluidity and sensed decision-making: 2 groups out of 13 performed using a method which did not follow the proposed idea of the performative installation.As described before, it was intended to take the test persons through a task-chain allowing them to find out the movements needed to create each line (e.g., one person needs to move his/her upper body to the sides, while the other stands still, to create the horizontal line).These 2 groups never found out which movements create which lines.The result of their method is anyway positive: they sense and mimic each other, move at the Figure 7: A square is created as the result of a cognitive, pragmatic decision-making process, in which every move, direction and rhythm was decided beforehand same rhythms, in the same directions, and at the same velocity, achieving all the drawings differently than intended.
These groups moved without instructions, and performed the drawings through bodily communication, mimicking and perceiving with their bodies, more than through a rational process of decision-making.Out of this process, we recognize, as proposed by Strati, the role of sensible knowledge in the sensemaking process [43].The process can also be made through and with the body, sensing the environment, the other person's body, following rhythms and through the input of visual feedback.They are bodily participating in the generation of meaning [19], generating the drawings through reaching a synchronized fluidity of the movements, and not through cognitive, planned, decided movements.
To embody the line: In the evaluation we recognized the tendency of some test persons to mimic, using their body, or parts of it, the line or drawing to be generated (represented in the coding in MAXQDA in the following code: "movement in space to create the line" -used 25 times).We recognized this as a way of embodying the line, meaning, for example, to draw the mountains in the landscape they would move their heads following the profile of a mountain.Some participants tried to use the hand to draw, similar to typical gesture interfaces, even though the hand was connected to the GSR sensor and the participants were told that it was not a movement sensor (Represented in the coding in MAXQDA in the following code: "drawing with the hand" -used 10 times).As we usually use the hands to draw, one of the first purposes of drawing the horizontal line was to move the hand in the air from one side to the other.Frequently, the participants also used parts of their bodies to draw that were not connected to a sensor, mimicking a line or a circle -moving, for example, their necks, knees or other parts of the body, in a circular or round way, embodying the line or the circle.
The art-backgrounds´impact on the process: As mentioned before, the 26 test persons, always working in teams of 2, had different backgrounds, and this was reflected in their movements, methods and processes of sensemaking.There were 2 tasks that made it visible, that, depending on the participants' background, the achieved drawing was more or less perceived as "correct".The last 2 tasks of the activity were "draw me a landscape" and "draw me a house".These 2 tasks showed two types of perspectives on the imagined result of the drawings.The participants with an artistic background showed an inclination to imagine, perform and create abstract representations that referred to and explored the tasks.On the other hand, participants with no artistic background often asked, "what do you mean by landscape?"or started drawing houses based on more learned and typical structures of a house: They drew a square, followed by a triangle on top, sometimes with a door, a window, or even a chimney.The test persons with an artistic background also had a tendency to explore more movement types, experimented with the limits of the body, of the line and even of the projection surface (Represented in the coding in MAXQDA in the following code: "both bodies touch and move together" -used 3 times).

Questionnaires and qualitative interview questions
Each test person was also asked to fill in a questionnaire composed of 18 questions to reflect on the experience throughout the performative installation, on the movements, aesthetic feedback, sensemaking process, and design of the wearables.Additionally, 4 open questions were discussed in semi-structured open interviews, in which the persons were asked to describe sensemaking moments (e.g., an "aha-moment"), their bodily experience throughout the performance, their cognitive reflection on the sensebreaking moments (influence of the GSR sensor on the line in task 4, and influence of the heart rate on the drawing process in task 5), and their emotions and feelings connected to becoming acquainted with the drawing process and the visual output -see results and questionnaire including open question here.
A main reason for the difference in behavior between test person with and without artistic background could be that the selfreflective practice, specifically in terms of reflecting on a process and a bodily experience while engaging in something challenging as this performative installation, was a task too challenging in the setup and for test persons who are not trained in this kind of self-reflective practice.The test persons were a mixed group of students, professors, doctoral students in Business Informatics, and artists.Many of them had difficulties elaborating on their experience, expressing their bodily and emotional experience in language, and to reflect the full process in the questionnaire and the interviews.Many of them focused on one moment only or reflected in hindsight after the full sensemaking process.This led to discrepancies between the statistics provided from the questionnaire in contrast to the documented process.For example, duos of test persons who held hands throughout most of the tasks or who pushed each other into certain movements as shown on the video reflected in hindsight that they never used touch as means of communication.Thus, we decided to address this issue in a separate publication that reflects on the influences of the process, embodiment, and challenging situations on self-perception and cognitive reflection on the experience.

DISCUSSION
The way in which the test persons move, perform and act during this participative performance, is not always derived from a conversation or a rational decision-making process.Often, their rhythms Figure 10: Since the test persons were the ones deciding if the drawing was "good enough" to move to the next task, the participants with no artistic background had a more difficult time deciding if, for example, the house was already finished.The participants with an artistic background, on the other side, easily saw a complete house in more abstract lines and representations and movements are a result of sensing and perceiving their surroundings.As Strati puts it, there is a sensible knowledge being generated and used in this performance."([S]ensible knowledge) is a form of knowing-and acting-profoundly diverse from the knowledge gathered and produced the logical and ratiocinative [sic!] cognitive faculty directed towards 'intelligible' worlds (tà noetà)" [44].In this case, sensible knowledge is being exchanged and created by the participants, arising perceptively, from a sensed experience [32].As seen in the videos, the test persons intend to mimic the line with the body, in a way embodying the line: they also stop moving once the line is finished or change their movements when the line needs to change directions.The visual feedback of the line gives the body the initial push to start moving, or to continue or stop a movement.Sensible knowledge [44], [9] is also the "sensible representations of absent objects, which are the fruit of the imaginative faculty" [9].The participants are thereby creating and exchanging sensible knowledge, through a series of sensed experiences and imagined outcomes of their movements.This phenomenon can be studied by looking at the participants' behavior while following, e.g., rhythms that they bodily perceive/sense from the other participants' bodies and movements.The line, drawing, or circle, does not exist before the movement of the participants' bodies.It arises out of the sensed, collaborative, decision-making process, which also includes the environment in which the participants are moving in.Information is sensed, and translated into movement: "Sensation, as said, is not the mere capacity to 'receive' the sensible qualities of people and artefacts-their presence/absence, visibility/invisibility, materiality/immateriality-but rather the capacity to enjoy them and understand them by experiencing them within ourselves [16].It is the fact that I perceive myself while I perceive the world." [43].
The results are also in line with Di Paolo, Rohde, and De Jaegher [17] who propose sensemaking as an inherently active process, in which people "participate in the generation of meaning through their bodies and action, often engaging in transformational and not merely informational interactions; they enact a world."[17].In this phase of the DIGI-Sense project, we recognize the active, collaborative, sensible and embodied aspects of the process, and the enactment of a world in the bodily actions to enact the digital representation of the movements in the lines and drawings.In this sense, based on the data we can identify sensemaking processes through the body and enactivism [17] that can be of relevance in digital transformation processes.
With respect to the process of sensemaking, the collected data allow to follow Weick's proposition.It focuses on the movement of flux to hunches, hunches to words, words to actions and actions back to flux [50].In this process, he states that "The movement from flux to hunches is a pragmatic simplification that creates a work-able level of certainty" [50], and that "The movement from hunches into words is crucial since 'there is no such thing as nondiscursive access to truth' [38]."[50].In the specific process of this performative installation, we notice the movement of flux to hunches: The test persons perceive, as previously explained, the rhythms, velocities, etc., and turn them into hunches on how to act.On the other hand, it is not explicit in this specific setting, that these hunches need to later be turned into language.They are, though, sometimes turned into other forms of non-verbal communication.In recent studies by [25], which employ feminists and posthuman research methods [7], [8], [1] to study the role of the workers' body/flesh in organizational processes, the body is explored as "vital, sensory material (. ..) that exceeds language" [25].This implies that bodies' "vast quantity of sensations, movements, reactions, and effects" [25] are often not 'translatable' into language, positioning them at "the boundaries of knowledge" [25].
In our performative installation, we did recognize that the movement and the correct line were more often achieved when language and verbal communication was not involved or was only involved in a phase before deciding the form, rhythm, and direction of the movement.It is recognizable, in the recorded data, that the test persons used language mostly to: 1. Propose movements that frequently did not work out the way they planned, 2. Inform the other participant that they found a correct movement, 3. Communicate their image of a "house" or a "landscape", or 4. Express their emotions, mostly excitement when something went right or frustration when something went wrong.Language was also used between the participants and the research team when something was not clear about the sensors or the tasks.Later on, while responding to the questionnaires, participants frequently commented on the difficulty of expressing what they felt/sensed/experience in written words, or, in the words of [25], finding "a way in which it is possible to translate flesh's 'speech' into words" [25].In this sense, the test persons' processes of flux-hunches-words-actions-flux, could also happen through other types of body-based communications, and not only through words."Body and language are not separate and distinct: the 'great deal of bodily signifying that happens prior to vocalization and speech' continues alongside vocalization: the body continues to 'talk', to signify" [25], from the perspective of sensible knowledge, this "talking" could take place through rhythms, velocities, and fluid movements.And from the perspective of sensemaking research, [33], in their study on intuition in sensemaking adopt the fact that we have, or better that "we are bodies" [33] as consequential for sensemaking.Other researchers working on a rather bodily and "holistic" approach to the sensemaking process, on which Meziani and Cabantous base their research, are: [14], [51], and [15], all of whom research the bodily perception and feelings in the construction of meaning and embodied sensemaking, pointing to the "sensate body", and the ability of the body to sense its surroundings [33].Gemeinboeck [19] states that "Much of our embodied, social meaning-making process involves movement and, in particular, movement qualities, allowing us to rhythmically coordinate with others through interaction [17]" [19].In the analysis of the data of this phase of the research and looking into different communication forms other than verbal language, we gathered a list of movement qualities, which, in the sensemaking process of the test persons, served as a bodily sensed/perceived language.Some of these qualities were: velocity, rhythm, repetitiveness, etc.These qualities had an influence on both participants' sensate bodies.The synchronization of these qualities, turning the movement of both participants into a single, fluid movement, allowed them to draw, using their bodies, the forms (horizontal lines, house, circle, etc.) that they aimed for.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Task 1 with two participants to draw a line

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Two participants moving from drawing a horizontal line into the phase of learning of how to draw a vertical line

Figure 3 :
Figure 3: A landscape created by two participants, the jittering line indicates the stress level measured by the GSR sensors, impacting the drawing

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: A house drawn by two participants, the hearts blink on the upper right and on the upper left.When the heartbeat is aligned, the hearts become red and the two participants can draw another line

Figure 5 :Figure 6 :
Figure 5: Impression of the sensor sets as mounted on the elastic straps

Figure 8 :
Figure 8: Although the circle was supposed to be drawn by two different movements by the two test persons, these two groups achieved the circle by sensing and later following the other persons' rhythm, velocity, and the quality of the movements

Figure 9 :
Figure 9: Participants often tried to draw the line either with their hand or imitate the desired outcome with the movement of the body (direct translation, often with the upper body)