Article #1
Citation: Dewdney, P. and Michell, G. (1997). Asking "why" questions in the reference interview: A theoretical justification. Library Quarterly 67 (1), 50-71.
Summary: The authors discuss certain elements of the reference interview, including questions asking "why," and how they may trigger negative responses from the user. Suggestions for improving these responses are made.
Analysis: Dewdney and Michell delve into the world on interpersonal communication, and show how it applies to the reference interview. The major focus is on the question "why," and how librarians determine what the user wants the information for. It's tricky to do, they point out, because of the possibility of the user not responding well; they ignore it or become upset because they do not see the relevancy of the question.
It's an element that I'm familiar with, thanks to my Reference Sources class. The key to a successful interview is to communicate effectively with the user (which Dewdney and Michell agree with). It's important to convey requests in a neutral and non-threatening manner, and to provide some kind of explanation to the user why you're asking them questions. For example, instead of asking a user, "Why do you want information on AIDS," say "It would help me if you could tell me what kind of information on AIDS you'd like to know." (This technique is especially useful if it's a controversial or potentially embarassing topic)
Discussion question(s): Is there any one best strategy for phrasing "why" to the user?
Implications: In the world of library science, consider well the old adage "it's not what you say but how you say it," but change the last part to "how you phrase it." It's important--and a little tricky--to phrase questions in a positive or neutral light. If you're going to get anywhere in the reference interview, you'll need to master all the ways that you can subtly probe the user for information...but subtly enough that they don't get upset.
Article #2
Citation: Mokros, H.B., Mulins, L.S., & Saracevic, T. (1996). Practices and personhood in professional interaction: Social identities and information needs. Library and Information Science Research 17, 237-257.
Summary: The authors examine two studies of speech patterns and conduct in online reference interviews, and study what effects communication (effective and noneffective) has on the user and librarian.
Analysis: Oh, dear, was this hard to get through. The pearls of wisom I managed to glean were thus... How you choose to handle a query effects the reference transaction. (Obvious, but let me explain) One section of the study examined the phrasing that the librarians used when responding to patron inquiries. The researchers focused on how the librarians did or did not provide a sense of legitimacy to the user. In one such transaction, a librarian states "There's nothing on here that tells me what you're looking for. I presume you're looking for something for a reason." Usage of those terms to reply to the user devalues the query, and by extension, the user's self-worth.
Discussion question(s): What are some good techniques to reassure users? What are some techniques to be avoided?
Implications: Again, another iteration of "not what you say but how you say it." Speaking in a straightforward and confident manner helps to establish rapport with the user and give a more confident image of the librarian. It also helps to encourage a sense of self-confidence in the user.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Article #1
Citation: Dilevko, J. (200). "My mother can't quite understand why I decided to go to library school": what patrons say about library staff when asking government documents reference questions at depository libraries. Journal of Government Information, 27, 299-323.
Summary: Results of a study are presented, analyzing the treatment proxy users received while asking reference questions and government depository libraries.
Analysis: Reading this article gave me a flashback to an earlier assignment for another LIS class; we students were tasked with crafting reference questions and asking them at various libraries, and analyzing the reponses given and how we were treated. (So, essentially, this entire study.) I found myself nodding along when the study's proxy users began discussing negative closure and how frequently the librarians they spoke to employed it (and the negative responses outweighed the positive ones, which is nothing short of shameful). I've been on the end of more than one negative closure tactic, and if I didn't already have the knowledge to use the library or find information on my own, I might be as bitter towards the information services as some of the users here were.
While I read these reponses, what boggles me the most is the sheer unwillingness and utter refusal of the librarians to do their JOB. If you are hired as a reference librarian, you ought to expect people to come in and ask questions. I don't walk in to the pharmacy, only to be told that the pharmacist thinks my perscription is too hard to refill; I don't order a meal at a restaurant and have the chef tell me to expect a subpar dinner because the ingredients for what I chose don't exist. The job of a reference (but really, any) librarian is to find answers to questions. If you're not sure what to do or where to go, that's one thing. But you need to TRY. It's what you're there to do, after all, and makes me wonder about these librarians' motivations.
Minor ranting aside, it's almost fascinating to see how the librarians themselves practice information avoidance. The librarians (and to be fair, here I'm referring to the ones giving negative impressions and using negative closure) are essentially blocking out any questions or information needs that these users toss at them. It doesn't matter that the information may be useful, they don't want to know it or look for it.
Discussion question(s): One participant mentioned his/her mother, after a bad reference encounter, not understanding why the partipant was enrolling in library school. Could these negative impressions have repercussions on the future of library schools and the number of attendees?
Implications: I cannot overemphasize the importance of training librarians in interpersonal communication. Much of the negative and discouraging behavior I have personally encountered stemmed from lack of a positive attitude or willingness to communicate. So much of a librarian's job revolves around being able to communicate well with patrons that it seems absurd to not develop these skills. Greater transparency in the reference interview is also essential. Many users come to the reference desk because of unfamiliarity with a topic or sources, and would benefit from learning how to solve these problems for future searches
Article #2
Citation: Kuhlthau, C.C. and Tama, S.L. (2001). Information search process of lawyers: a call for "just for me" information services. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 25-43.
Summary: This study provides further research on Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model, using the information-seeking behavior of lawyers as a focus.
Analysis: Looking at Kuhlthau's earlier study involving the business analyst, it's interesting to draw some parallels here. The focus here is on lawyers, presumed to already be experts in their field, as opposed to following a novice analyst. The factor of uncertainty, for example, is noted as being very different in both studies. For the novice group, uncertainty was interpreted as an indicator that something had not been done properly or that a mistake had been made. The expert group, however, viewed it as a factor that increased their interest in the task, and heightened the sense of challenge. It's very interesting to see how one factor can be interpreted so differently among groups.
Kuhlthau describes this user group as being the generation that grew up between exclusively relying on print sources and exclusively relying on digital sources. While they are used to both sources, they express frustration with the too-rapid pace of technology. Their complaints ring true with many members of their generation, and show the slow transition from print to digital. It will be interesting to see the transition from digital to whatever will be invented next, and see what effects that will have.
Discussion question(s): How do librarians account for and provide for different generations who are accustomed to using different types of resources?
Implications: Several of the lawyers in the study indicated that the expertise of a librarian helped enormously with the organization of their work. Law librarians are a vital part in the legal process, though they may not initially seem like it. According to the study, they seem to be under-utilized, which may be a point that the librarians have to push for.
Citation: Dilevko, J. (200). "My mother can't quite understand why I decided to go to library school": what patrons say about library staff when asking government documents reference questions at depository libraries. Journal of Government Information, 27, 299-323.
Summary: Results of a study are presented, analyzing the treatment proxy users received while asking reference questions and government depository libraries.
Analysis: Reading this article gave me a flashback to an earlier assignment for another LIS class; we students were tasked with crafting reference questions and asking them at various libraries, and analyzing the reponses given and how we were treated. (So, essentially, this entire study.) I found myself nodding along when the study's proxy users began discussing negative closure and how frequently the librarians they spoke to employed it (and the negative responses outweighed the positive ones, which is nothing short of shameful). I've been on the end of more than one negative closure tactic, and if I didn't already have the knowledge to use the library or find information on my own, I might be as bitter towards the information services as some of the users here were.
While I read these reponses, what boggles me the most is the sheer unwillingness and utter refusal of the librarians to do their JOB. If you are hired as a reference librarian, you ought to expect people to come in and ask questions. I don't walk in to the pharmacy, only to be told that the pharmacist thinks my perscription is too hard to refill; I don't order a meal at a restaurant and have the chef tell me to expect a subpar dinner because the ingredients for what I chose don't exist. The job of a reference (but really, any) librarian is to find answers to questions. If you're not sure what to do or where to go, that's one thing. But you need to TRY. It's what you're there to do, after all, and makes me wonder about these librarians' motivations.
Minor ranting aside, it's almost fascinating to see how the librarians themselves practice information avoidance. The librarians (and to be fair, here I'm referring to the ones giving negative impressions and using negative closure) are essentially blocking out any questions or information needs that these users toss at them. It doesn't matter that the information may be useful, they don't want to know it or look for it.
Discussion question(s): One participant mentioned his/her mother, after a bad reference encounter, not understanding why the partipant was enrolling in library school. Could these negative impressions have repercussions on the future of library schools and the number of attendees?
Implications: I cannot overemphasize the importance of training librarians in interpersonal communication. Much of the negative and discouraging behavior I have personally encountered stemmed from lack of a positive attitude or willingness to communicate. So much of a librarian's job revolves around being able to communicate well with patrons that it seems absurd to not develop these skills. Greater transparency in the reference interview is also essential. Many users come to the reference desk because of unfamiliarity with a topic or sources, and would benefit from learning how to solve these problems for future searches
Article #2
Citation: Kuhlthau, C.C. and Tama, S.L. (2001). Information search process of lawyers: a call for "just for me" information services. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 25-43.
Summary: This study provides further research on Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model, using the information-seeking behavior of lawyers as a focus.
Analysis: Looking at Kuhlthau's earlier study involving the business analyst, it's interesting to draw some parallels here. The focus here is on lawyers, presumed to already be experts in their field, as opposed to following a novice analyst. The factor of uncertainty, for example, is noted as being very different in both studies. For the novice group, uncertainty was interpreted as an indicator that something had not been done properly or that a mistake had been made. The expert group, however, viewed it as a factor that increased their interest in the task, and heightened the sense of challenge. It's very interesting to see how one factor can be interpreted so differently among groups.
Kuhlthau describes this user group as being the generation that grew up between exclusively relying on print sources and exclusively relying on digital sources. While they are used to both sources, they express frustration with the too-rapid pace of technology. Their complaints ring true with many members of their generation, and show the slow transition from print to digital. It will be interesting to see the transition from digital to whatever will be invented next, and see what effects that will have.
Discussion question(s): How do librarians account for and provide for different generations who are accustomed to using different types of resources?
Implications: Several of the lawyers in the study indicated that the expertise of a librarian helped enormously with the organization of their work. Law librarians are a vital part in the legal process, though they may not initially seem like it. According to the study, they seem to be under-utilized, which may be a point that the librarians have to push for.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Article #1
Citation:
Duff, W.M. & Johnson, C. A. (2002). Accidentally found on purpose: information-seeking behavior of historians in archives. Library Quarterly 72, 472-496.
Summary: Duff and Johnson report on the findings of a survey of historians' use of archives, examining how they orient themselves to the environment and resources and build their knowledge of material. While the historians did ask for aid from the information professionals, they were able to develop their own searching strategies to use.
Analysis: The various information-seeking behaviors that Duff and Johnson pinpointed all dovetail together. The user orients him or herself in the information center so as to locate material. Once familiarized, they search for known material, which can cement the information that they *do* know about a particular topic. Once the user has a idea of what it is they know, they can begin searching for information that will put their information into context: background information. With this further solidified piece of information in their mind, the user can now begin to search for information to satisfy their information need, and will be able to discern what is relevant to their topic. It's essentially a chain of events that all start with the user's orientation to the archive (or library, etc.)
Everything hinges on the user's ability to acclimate to the archive and learn how to use the resources. As Duff and Johnson point out, the historian incurs various costs (time and money) by using the archive, so efficiency is highly important. The user will utilize resources such as finding aids or the archivists themselves. One point of the study noted that some of the historians went to the archivists first for help, while some only went after looking unsuccessfully with the finding aids. It reminds me quite a bit of the typical pattern of library users, who may seek out the librarian for help right away, or try to utilize the various research tools and only ask a librarian if the first attempt fails.
Discussion question(s): To what degree are information professionals responsible for aiding findability and usability of an information center's resources? How do we best help the user learn to use them properly?
Implications: Utilizing an information center can be overwhelming and challenging, as Duff and Johnson show us. Users find their own way of adapting to the new environment and exploring it to find the information they need. While input from the librarians is helpful, it is also important to note that users will develop their own strategies and search in their own ways. It's important to recognize the autonomy that users want to wield.
Article #2
Citation: Jones, W. (2007). Personal information management. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, v. 41: 453-504.
Summary: Jones presents the concept of PIM, or "personal information management," the study of the activities a person performs when handling information that is needed for various tasks or duties.
Analysis: Reading Jones' discussion made me sit down and think about how I personally store and retrieve information. He points out that the process of finding information relies upon the user remembering to look, recalling pertinent details about the information, and recognizing the information when found. Whenever I acquired data or information to be stored, I would drop it into whatever storage I was using at the time, label it, and leave it. However, I could not always remember where I put it; Jones points out that many users miss opportunities to refind and reuse information because they do not know where to look or because the information is unorganized.
Jones continues by discussing the issue of visibility, and shows how many users attempt to find ways to keep information in sight at all times so as not to forget about it. But desktops clutter up, and constantly keeping up browsers of useful information can detract from work. The key is to successfully manage the information in a system that keeps them organized and visible. (I eventually devised a series of folders in my computer that neatly organized school information by year, class, and project, as well as seperate folders on my desktop for other topics. A similar system was applied to my bookmarks, and as soon as a bookmark was made, I added it into its proper folder. It took about ten seconds, and saved me endless trouble in the future.)
Discussion question(s): How can a user apply PIM to their information-seeking?
Implications: Successful management of information is key to any library or information center. The only difficulty is how to structure it so it appeals to many different users, all of whom may have differing opinions on how things should be organized.
Citation:
Duff, W.M. & Johnson, C. A. (2002). Accidentally found on purpose: information-seeking behavior of historians in archives. Library Quarterly 72, 472-496.
Summary: Duff and Johnson report on the findings of a survey of historians' use of archives, examining how they orient themselves to the environment and resources and build their knowledge of material. While the historians did ask for aid from the information professionals, they were able to develop their own searching strategies to use.
Analysis: The various information-seeking behaviors that Duff and Johnson pinpointed all dovetail together. The user orients him or herself in the information center so as to locate material. Once familiarized, they search for known material, which can cement the information that they *do* know about a particular topic. Once the user has a idea of what it is they know, they can begin searching for information that will put their information into context: background information. With this further solidified piece of information in their mind, the user can now begin to search for information to satisfy their information need, and will be able to discern what is relevant to their topic. It's essentially a chain of events that all start with the user's orientation to the archive (or library, etc.)
Everything hinges on the user's ability to acclimate to the archive and learn how to use the resources. As Duff and Johnson point out, the historian incurs various costs (time and money) by using the archive, so efficiency is highly important. The user will utilize resources such as finding aids or the archivists themselves. One point of the study noted that some of the historians went to the archivists first for help, while some only went after looking unsuccessfully with the finding aids. It reminds me quite a bit of the typical pattern of library users, who may seek out the librarian for help right away, or try to utilize the various research tools and only ask a librarian if the first attempt fails.
Discussion question(s): To what degree are information professionals responsible for aiding findability and usability of an information center's resources? How do we best help the user learn to use them properly?
Implications: Utilizing an information center can be overwhelming and challenging, as Duff and Johnson show us. Users find their own way of adapting to the new environment and exploring it to find the information they need. While input from the librarians is helpful, it is also important to note that users will develop their own strategies and search in their own ways. It's important to recognize the autonomy that users want to wield.
Article #2
Citation: Jones, W. (2007). Personal information management. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, v. 41: 453-504.
Summary: Jones presents the concept of PIM, or "personal information management," the study of the activities a person performs when handling information that is needed for various tasks or duties.
Analysis: Reading Jones' discussion made me sit down and think about how I personally store and retrieve information. He points out that the process of finding information relies upon the user remembering to look, recalling pertinent details about the information, and recognizing the information when found. Whenever I acquired data or information to be stored, I would drop it into whatever storage I was using at the time, label it, and leave it. However, I could not always remember where I put it; Jones points out that many users miss opportunities to refind and reuse information because they do not know where to look or because the information is unorganized.
Jones continues by discussing the issue of visibility, and shows how many users attempt to find ways to keep information in sight at all times so as not to forget about it. But desktops clutter up, and constantly keeping up browsers of useful information can detract from work. The key is to successfully manage the information in a system that keeps them organized and visible. (I eventually devised a series of folders in my computer that neatly organized school information by year, class, and project, as well as seperate folders on my desktop for other topics. A similar system was applied to my bookmarks, and as soon as a bookmark was made, I added it into its proper folder. It took about ten seconds, and saved me endless trouble in the future.)
Discussion question(s): How can a user apply PIM to their information-seeking?
Implications: Successful management of information is key to any library or information center. The only difficulty is how to structure it so it appeals to many different users, all of whom may have differing opinions on how things should be organized.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Article #1:
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1999). The role of experience in the information process of an early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction, and sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, 399-412.
Summary: Kuhlthau's study analyzes the information-seeking behavior and decision-making process of a Wall Street analyst, carried out over a period of 5 years. The study looks at how experience influences information workers' approaches to information-seeking tasks, and how proficiency can be attained.
Analysis:
The study examined the analyst's level of uncertainty in regards to his work as a "novice" and five years later as an "expert." The results were broken down into different categories, examining how uncertainty influenced the analyst's information seeking behavior, perceptions of tasks, and choice of information sources. Kuhlthau found that while uncertainty never went away, it greatly diminished over time as the analyst gained more experience and became more comfortable. Because of this, the analyst's perceptions changed, and he began using different approaches to his work.
While reading through the latter half of Kuhlthau's study, I was astonished at how much the analyst's "novice" information-seeking behavior mirrors my own behaviors and attitudes as a new MLIS student and library graduate assistant. When first thrust into a new work or scholastic environment, there is an urge to be "right," to prove your competence. But lack of experience hinders this, and leaves you feeling overwhelmed and anxious. There are too many options, and you simply don't know which are the right ones. Because of your unfamiliarity with the work, it may seem too complex or deceptively easy, and can frustrate you. It's a universal feeling that can be applied to many situations, not just the information science field.
Discussion Question(s):
Anxiety and uncertainty shape our perceptions, sometimes wrongly, towards our work. How can we best approach unfamiliar projects and view them objectively? How can we reduce anxiety of new workers or students?
Implications: To remedy situations like this, training combined with mentoring is key. At this stage, the new worker or student can benefit from the experience of an older coworker or classmate. A similar system might benefit the business environment as well.
Article #2
McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53(12), 1009-1018.
Summary: The concept of knowledge management is explored in context of the dynamic nature of knowledge itself. Critiques are made of knowledge management programs,along with suggestions for improvement.
Analysis: One of the key points McInerney raises for discussion is the separation of knowledge into two categories: tacit and explicit. The former is knowledge that is subconscious, perceived, and personal, while the latter is expressed, organized, and shared (One can also think of spoken and unspoken). McInerney states that when tacit knowledge is not expressed or recorded, the knowledge can be potentially lost. I immediately drew a mental parallel to numerous pieces of knowledge lost to the modern world (languages, skills, history, etc.) because the information was not widely shared or recorded. I further thought of how it applies to our field of work. Frequently, librarians do the bulk of work for a user without divulging their methods, or perhaps do not share information with a user for various reasons. Could that unshared information represent a "lost opportunity" for the user, as McInerney puts it? (1012)
Discussion Question(s): Is tacit knowledge truly useful if it is never taught or expressed?
Implications: Parallels can be made to the case for teaching users how to utilize and understand the library systems; our tacit knowledge, while useful to us, can be made more useful by expressing it and teaching others.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1999). The role of experience in the information process of an early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction, and sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, 399-412.
Summary: Kuhlthau's study analyzes the information-seeking behavior and decision-making process of a Wall Street analyst, carried out over a period of 5 years. The study looks at how experience influences information workers' approaches to information-seeking tasks, and how proficiency can be attained.
Analysis:
The study examined the analyst's level of uncertainty in regards to his work as a "novice" and five years later as an "expert." The results were broken down into different categories, examining how uncertainty influenced the analyst's information seeking behavior, perceptions of tasks, and choice of information sources. Kuhlthau found that while uncertainty never went away, it greatly diminished over time as the analyst gained more experience and became more comfortable. Because of this, the analyst's perceptions changed, and he began using different approaches to his work.
While reading through the latter half of Kuhlthau's study, I was astonished at how much the analyst's "novice" information-seeking behavior mirrors my own behaviors and attitudes as a new MLIS student and library graduate assistant. When first thrust into a new work or scholastic environment, there is an urge to be "right," to prove your competence. But lack of experience hinders this, and leaves you feeling overwhelmed and anxious. There are too many options, and you simply don't know which are the right ones. Because of your unfamiliarity with the work, it may seem too complex or deceptively easy, and can frustrate you. It's a universal feeling that can be applied to many situations, not just the information science field.
Discussion Question(s):
Anxiety and uncertainty shape our perceptions, sometimes wrongly, towards our work. How can we best approach unfamiliar projects and view them objectively? How can we reduce anxiety of new workers or students?
Implications: To remedy situations like this, training combined with mentoring is key. At this stage, the new worker or student can benefit from the experience of an older coworker or classmate. A similar system might benefit the business environment as well.
Article #2
McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53(12), 1009-1018.
Summary: The concept of knowledge management is explored in context of the dynamic nature of knowledge itself. Critiques are made of knowledge management programs,along with suggestions for improvement.
Analysis: One of the key points McInerney raises for discussion is the separation of knowledge into two categories: tacit and explicit. The former is knowledge that is subconscious, perceived, and personal, while the latter is expressed, organized, and shared (One can also think of spoken and unspoken). McInerney states that when tacit knowledge is not expressed or recorded, the knowledge can be potentially lost. I immediately drew a mental parallel to numerous pieces of knowledge lost to the modern world (languages, skills, history, etc.) because the information was not widely shared or recorded. I further thought of how it applies to our field of work. Frequently, librarians do the bulk of work for a user without divulging their methods, or perhaps do not share information with a user for various reasons. Could that unshared information represent a "lost opportunity" for the user, as McInerney puts it? (1012)
Discussion Question(s): Is tacit knowledge truly useful if it is never taught or expressed?
Implications: Parallels can be made to the case for teaching users how to utilize and understand the library systems; our tacit knowledge, while useful to us, can be made more useful by expressing it and teaching others.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Article #1
Todd, R.J. (1999) Utilization of heroin information by adolescent girls in Australia: a cognitive analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1) 10-23.
Summary: Todd's article discusses a study undertaken to understand how exposure to information effects existing knowledge structures. The study, examining how a group of teenage girls processed information about heroin, found five different types of effects.
Analysis:
I personally found the results of the study to be very interesting, far more than the rest of the article. In the examples, Todd shows the girls' prior knowledge, the new knowledge they gained, and how it altered their overall knowledge structure. He defined three cognitive techniques the girls used when altering their knowledge: appending, inserting, or deleting. The girls either added the new knowledge, used new knowledge to create relationships between prior knowledge pieces, or replaced old knowledge with new knowledge. These terms and techniques are reminiscent of data editing on a computer. This is fascinating because this is how our own minds operate, and to see it worked into a diagram is compelling.
The girls also spoke of their knowledge structures in terms of "pictures." Todd cites Dervin's work at this point, explaining that the "picture" is an organizing construct. He notes that the girls perceived the effects of knowledge gained as altering their "picture" of heroin, and that it was a dynamic and ongoing movement. This movement started with new information giving them a "complete" picture and moving to give them a "position" within their picture.
Discussion Question(s): We use the "picture" metaphor in everyday life to explain our knowledge structure regarding a piece of information. How can the librarian involve themselves in helping to change the user's mental picture of information?
Implications: Todd's work shows that new knowledge can alter the user's existing knowledge structure. Understanding what the user's knowledge structure is comprised of and how it's structured can help the librarian/information professional search for useful information to build on to that structure.
Article #2
Pettigrew, K.E. (1999) Waiting for chiropody: contextual results from an ethnographic study of the information behaviour among attendees at community clinics. Information Processing and Management, 35, 801-817.
Summary: In this article, Pettigrew investigates the role of community health nurses in providing information to the elderly. The importance of context within the flow of human services information (HSI) between the nurse and client is examined, as is the influence of context in creating an information ground.
Analysis:
Pettigrew ties together several interesting concepts in her study of the spread of HSI, such as social theory. The idea that she specifically utilizes is the "strength of weak ties theory" (the name of which had me initially confused). According to this theory, an individual's social network is composed of "strong" (family and close friends) and "weak" (acquaintances and distant friends) ties. However, the "weak" ties are more valuable regarding the flow of new information, since they interact with a variety of different individuals and thus will have access to new and different information. Pettigrew applies this to her HSI study, showing how the clinic patients gained a variety of different HSI through their contact with the clinic's health professionals and volunteers. Because of the variety of individuals and their own variety of information, the patients were able to access different information than they would acquire from the individuals they tended to interact with.
The information behavior of both groups, Pettigrew states, is also affected by different contextual factors. The physical environment, the clinic activity, and the situations of both the nurse and patient all influence the information shared. These contextual factors combine to transform the clinic into an information ground. The social atmosphere prompts conversation, which can be used as a vehicle to discover or share information. These contextual factors could also be applied to other situations to create information grounds (hair salons, grocery store, etc, etc.)
Discussion Question(s): Just as context is important to the nurses giving information, it is also important to the librarian giving information to a patron. How do we librarians establish context in these situations?
Implications: This study can also be applied to a library setting; while a library is not technically an information ground by definition, it can become one. (For example, parents bring their children to storytime and socialize in the meanwhile, exchanging information) This gives the librarians the opportunity to disseminate information, like the nurses in Pettigrew's study. This can allow us to serve our patrons in different but equally useful ways.
Todd, R.J. (1999) Utilization of heroin information by adolescent girls in Australia: a cognitive analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1) 10-23.
Summary: Todd's article discusses a study undertaken to understand how exposure to information effects existing knowledge structures. The study, examining how a group of teenage girls processed information about heroin, found five different types of effects.
Analysis:
I personally found the results of the study to be very interesting, far more than the rest of the article. In the examples, Todd shows the girls' prior knowledge, the new knowledge they gained, and how it altered their overall knowledge structure. He defined three cognitive techniques the girls used when altering their knowledge: appending, inserting, or deleting. The girls either added the new knowledge, used new knowledge to create relationships between prior knowledge pieces, or replaced old knowledge with new knowledge. These terms and techniques are reminiscent of data editing on a computer. This is fascinating because this is how our own minds operate, and to see it worked into a diagram is compelling.
The girls also spoke of their knowledge structures in terms of "pictures." Todd cites Dervin's work at this point, explaining that the "picture" is an organizing construct. He notes that the girls perceived the effects of knowledge gained as altering their "picture" of heroin, and that it was a dynamic and ongoing movement. This movement started with new information giving them a "complete" picture and moving to give them a "position" within their picture.
Discussion Question(s): We use the "picture" metaphor in everyday life to explain our knowledge structure regarding a piece of information. How can the librarian involve themselves in helping to change the user's mental picture of information?
Implications: Todd's work shows that new knowledge can alter the user's existing knowledge structure. Understanding what the user's knowledge structure is comprised of and how it's structured can help the librarian/information professional search for useful information to build on to that structure.
Article #2
Pettigrew, K.E. (1999) Waiting for chiropody: contextual results from an ethnographic study of the information behaviour among attendees at community clinics. Information Processing and Management, 35, 801-817.
Summary: In this article, Pettigrew investigates the role of community health nurses in providing information to the elderly. The importance of context within the flow of human services information (HSI) between the nurse and client is examined, as is the influence of context in creating an information ground.
Analysis:
Pettigrew ties together several interesting concepts in her study of the spread of HSI, such as social theory. The idea that she specifically utilizes is the "strength of weak ties theory" (the name of which had me initially confused). According to this theory, an individual's social network is composed of "strong" (family and close friends) and "weak" (acquaintances and distant friends) ties. However, the "weak" ties are more valuable regarding the flow of new information, since they interact with a variety of different individuals and thus will have access to new and different information. Pettigrew applies this to her HSI study, showing how the clinic patients gained a variety of different HSI through their contact with the clinic's health professionals and volunteers. Because of the variety of individuals and their own variety of information, the patients were able to access different information than they would acquire from the individuals they tended to interact with.
The information behavior of both groups, Pettigrew states, is also affected by different contextual factors. The physical environment, the clinic activity, and the situations of both the nurse and patient all influence the information shared. These contextual factors combine to transform the clinic into an information ground. The social atmosphere prompts conversation, which can be used as a vehicle to discover or share information. These contextual factors could also be applied to other situations to create information grounds (hair salons, grocery store, etc, etc.)
Discussion Question(s): Just as context is important to the nurses giving information, it is also important to the librarian giving information to a patron. How do we librarians establish context in these situations?
Implications: This study can also be applied to a library setting; while a library is not technically an information ground by definition, it can become one. (For example, parents bring their children to storytime and socialize in the meanwhile, exchanging information) This gives the librarians the opportunity to disseminate information, like the nurses in Pettigrew's study. This can allow us to serve our patrons in different but equally useful ways.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Article #1
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991) Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361-371.
Summary: Kuhlthau discusses the results of a series of studies focusing on the mental and emotion perspective of information-seeking users. She identifies the various stages of the information search process, and how the user's mental state affects it.
Analysis:
A lot of familiar names are mentioned here: Belkin, Taylor, etc. Kuhlthau discusses their research on the cognitive viewpoint of information seeking behavior. While these prior theories help to form the basis for her research, Kuhlthau fits her model of information seeking into Dervin's sense-making model, using it as a context. Once you keep the sense-making model in mind while reading this, it is a little easier to understand Kuhlthau's work.
I was most intrigued by Kuhlthau's discussion of emotions, and how they play a role in the information search process. In retrospect, it seems quite obvious: frustration can impair logical thinking and problem solving skills, etc. But Kuhlthau claims that anxiety, frustration, and so forth are a natural and integral part of information seeking. I also found her correlation between increase in user confidence and search results to be very interesting. From personal searching experience, I know that when I feel confident in my ability to obtain information, I am able to think more clearly and logically. Although I do wonder that she didn't address user overconfidence; being smugly pleased or cocky in one's abilities can cause you to reject or blind you to options ("I'm doing great with this, I can find anything I want, so why try this method?")
Discussion Questions:
Kuhlthau states that she did not use the data from "low achieving" students in her fourth study because it was incomplete, and focused on middle to high achieving students instead. I find it hard to believe that she would simply throw the data out without seeking to re-obtain new data, especially considering that there may possibly be an appreciable difference between the results of high and low achievers. It seems mildly irresponsible to not even try to find new participants for that area of the study. The research seems half-done as a consequence.
I wonder about Kuhlthau's claim that uncertainty is a "natural and necessary" part of the early stages of the information seeking process. What if you already know where to look and what to do? What if you are looking for information for fun and with no real goal or consequences in mind? I can hardly imagine anxiety and frustration taking place.
Implications: It's important to take the user's emotional state into account when aiding with the search process; frustration and anxiety may impair the user's judgment or problem-solving skills. Reassurement is just as important as showing them how to search effectively.
Article #2:
Talja, S. (1997). Constituting "information" and "user" as research objects: a theory of knowledge formations as an alternative to the information man-theory. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, and B. Dervin (eds.), Information Seeking in Context (pp. 67-80). London: Taylor-Graham.
Summary: Pointing out several weaknesses in the cognitive viewpoint (here also called the "information man-theory"), Talja offers an alternative called the "theory of knowledge formations."
Analysis:
Talja critiques the cognitive viewpoint for failing to include or address the socio-cultural context of users and/or information systems. She states, "It is widely recognized that both individual information needs and institutional information access are socially conditioned." However, the cognitive viewpoint only studies how individuals process information, not how their environment influences them. Talja points out that language and culture combine to create different knowledge formations in individuals. This causes a myriad of viewpoints that may not all translate well together.
I found Talja's argument (while very difficult to read through) to be very unique and interesting. In my readings for this class, I've gone from systems-oriented research to user-oriented research, with the argument "user-focused, cognitive studies are better" emphasized repeatedly. So, to encounter a criticism of the viewpoint is interesting. But Talja's point is extemely valid. Our environment (culture, society, etc.) does influence the way we think and view the world around us. Because of this, different individuals view the world differently, and think of information in different terms. Not all users will think of information the same way, or have the same ideas about how to obtain information. We all build our own bases of knowledge differently, so as she notes, it's hard to create systems that have multiple viewpoints incorporated in it.
Discussion Question: Talja claims that since librarians and users "...share language and culture with others, and since they have made us what we are, we have common ground on which to act and communicate." How does this common ground account for differences in culture and language, which are often viewed as barriers?
Implications:
Talja points out that information needs "arise more from selected interests and cultural expertise than from lack of knowledge." It seems that so much of our work as librarians is built around the assumption that people are trying to find information to solve problems. However, a lot of information searching is also done for just interest. Sometimes, it's important to keep that dichotomy in mind, because it influences how we approach these situations.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991) Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361-371.
Summary: Kuhlthau discusses the results of a series of studies focusing on the mental and emotion perspective of information-seeking users. She identifies the various stages of the information search process, and how the user's mental state affects it.
Analysis:
A lot of familiar names are mentioned here: Belkin, Taylor, etc. Kuhlthau discusses their research on the cognitive viewpoint of information seeking behavior. While these prior theories help to form the basis for her research, Kuhlthau fits her model of information seeking into Dervin's sense-making model, using it as a context. Once you keep the sense-making model in mind while reading this, it is a little easier to understand Kuhlthau's work.
I was most intrigued by Kuhlthau's discussion of emotions, and how they play a role in the information search process. In retrospect, it seems quite obvious: frustration can impair logical thinking and problem solving skills, etc. But Kuhlthau claims that anxiety, frustration, and so forth are a natural and integral part of information seeking. I also found her correlation between increase in user confidence and search results to be very interesting. From personal searching experience, I know that when I feel confident in my ability to obtain information, I am able to think more clearly and logically. Although I do wonder that she didn't address user overconfidence; being smugly pleased or cocky in one's abilities can cause you to reject or blind you to options ("I'm doing great with this, I can find anything I want, so why try this method?")
Discussion Questions:
Kuhlthau states that she did not use the data from "low achieving" students in her fourth study because it was incomplete, and focused on middle to high achieving students instead. I find it hard to believe that she would simply throw the data out without seeking to re-obtain new data, especially considering that there may possibly be an appreciable difference between the results of high and low achievers. It seems mildly irresponsible to not even try to find new participants for that area of the study. The research seems half-done as a consequence.
I wonder about Kuhlthau's claim that uncertainty is a "natural and necessary" part of the early stages of the information seeking process. What if you already know where to look and what to do? What if you are looking for information for fun and with no real goal or consequences in mind? I can hardly imagine anxiety and frustration taking place.
Implications: It's important to take the user's emotional state into account when aiding with the search process; frustration and anxiety may impair the user's judgment or problem-solving skills. Reassurement is just as important as showing them how to search effectively.
Article #2:
Talja, S. (1997). Constituting "information" and "user" as research objects: a theory of knowledge formations as an alternative to the information man-theory. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, and B. Dervin (eds.), Information Seeking in Context (pp. 67-80). London: Taylor-Graham.
Summary: Pointing out several weaknesses in the cognitive viewpoint (here also called the "information man-theory"), Talja offers an alternative called the "theory of knowledge formations."
Analysis:
Talja critiques the cognitive viewpoint for failing to include or address the socio-cultural context of users and/or information systems. She states, "It is widely recognized that both individual information needs and institutional information access are socially conditioned." However, the cognitive viewpoint only studies how individuals process information, not how their environment influences them. Talja points out that language and culture combine to create different knowledge formations in individuals. This causes a myriad of viewpoints that may not all translate well together.
I found Talja's argument (while very difficult to read through) to be very unique and interesting. In my readings for this class, I've gone from systems-oriented research to user-oriented research, with the argument "user-focused, cognitive studies are better" emphasized repeatedly. So, to encounter a criticism of the viewpoint is interesting. But Talja's point is extemely valid. Our environment (culture, society, etc.) does influence the way we think and view the world around us. Because of this, different individuals view the world differently, and think of information in different terms. Not all users will think of information the same way, or have the same ideas about how to obtain information. We all build our own bases of knowledge differently, so as she notes, it's hard to create systems that have multiple viewpoints incorporated in it.
Discussion Question: Talja claims that since librarians and users "...share language and culture with others, and since they have made us what we are, we have common ground on which to act and communicate." How does this common ground account for differences in culture and language, which are often viewed as barriers?
Implications:
Talja points out that information needs "arise more from selected interests and cultural expertise than from lack of knowledge." It seems that so much of our work as librarians is built around the assumption that people are trying to find information to solve problems. However, a lot of information searching is also done for just interest. Sometimes, it's important to keep that dichotomy in mind, because it influences how we approach these situations.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Week 4: Metaphors for Information Behavior
Article 1
Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13 (5), 407-424.
Summary: Bates introduces an information retrieval model called "berrypicking" that improves upon older models by modelling itself on actual human behavior.
In her 1989 article, Bates attacks the classic information retrieval model, pointing out its limitations that had become more evident with further studies. This model focuses on a single user-generated query matched to the contents of a database, which yields a single set of results; but what the model assumes is that the user's information need which prompted the query is unchanged by the results of the search (Bates 3). Bates charges that real-life searches do not follow the single-query form of the classic model, but instead begin at one source or reference and proceed to move through a variety of sources (Bates 4). While I agree with Bates to a fairly large extent based on personal experience, I would argue that the classic model does have its uses for searches where the user has a specific question in mind, and desires a single answer. Thus in a ready reference-type query—what year was the Eiffel Tower built, for example—the classic model would probably be more useful.
But Bates' view of information retrieval is undeniably on the mark. Each new piece of information that users discover helps to provide new ideas, and consequently, she explains, a new query. Just as berries are scattered on a bush, so is information in a search, and the user must gather them one at a time (Bates 4). I found this to be the most compelling section of Bates' article, as she describes the search process in organic terms. It shifts. It evolves. It is part of us, a reflection of how we digest and process information. We take in information, and we adapt ourselves accordingly, whether in lifestyle, beliefs, etc. So Bates' model, attempting to put information retrieval in organic terms (to reflect the beings that use it) rather than mechanical, makes perfect sense.
Implications: We can learn from Bates' berrypicking model that flexibility is crucial. The ability to adapt to difficulties or to new information is key to successful searching. We need to be able to think outside of the box and try different methods to meet our patrons' information needs. By using the berrypicking model, we can better understand our patrons' behavior, and thus, them.
Article 2
Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind's eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In Glazier, J.D. & Powell, RR. Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Summary: Dervin presents a new "sense-making" model to study human use of information and information systems. This model examines users and potential users and tries to determine what they want from the systems, what the get from the systems, and what they think about the process.
Analysis: I found the theoretical groundwork that Dervin used for the sense-making model to be too technical and dense to follow, especially considering my lack of experience with the social sciences. I found myself skipping ahead to study the diagrams and read through the interviews and then try to slog through Dervin's discussion. Oddly enough, it helped a little.
The sense-making model essentially tries to study human use of information and information systems by looking at human behavior. Its focus on user behavior makes it a little similar to Bates' berrypicking model, although instead of mimicking behavior, the sense-making model tries to understand the whys of user behavior. Dervin examines “the step-takings that human beings undertake to construct sense of their worlds,” comprised of internal and external behaviors (65). The main focus of the model is the information discontinuity, a gap in the user's knowledge. The user then tries to “bridge” this gap by defining the discontinuity and seeking information to answer it. Here, the focus is not on figuring out what information the user needs, but how they set about trying to fulfill that need.
I found the concept to be interesting, but ultimately my understanding was flawed because of the difficult language. I might be better served in trying to understand the concept by seeking another source that describes or paraphrases it.
Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13 (5), 407-424.
Summary: Bates introduces an information retrieval model called "berrypicking" that improves upon older models by modelling itself on actual human behavior.
In her 1989 article, Bates attacks the classic information retrieval model, pointing out its limitations that had become more evident with further studies. This model focuses on a single user-generated query matched to the contents of a database, which yields a single set of results; but what the model assumes is that the user's information need which prompted the query is unchanged by the results of the search (Bates 3). Bates charges that real-life searches do not follow the single-query form of the classic model, but instead begin at one source or reference and proceed to move through a variety of sources (Bates 4). While I agree with Bates to a fairly large extent based on personal experience, I would argue that the classic model does have its uses for searches where the user has a specific question in mind, and desires a single answer. Thus in a ready reference-type query—what year was the Eiffel Tower built, for example—the classic model would probably be more useful.
But Bates' view of information retrieval is undeniably on the mark. Each new piece of information that users discover helps to provide new ideas, and consequently, she explains, a new query. Just as berries are scattered on a bush, so is information in a search, and the user must gather them one at a time (Bates 4). I found this to be the most compelling section of Bates' article, as she describes the search process in organic terms. It shifts. It evolves. It is part of us, a reflection of how we digest and process information. We take in information, and we adapt ourselves accordingly, whether in lifestyle, beliefs, etc. So Bates' model, attempting to put information retrieval in organic terms (to reflect the beings that use it) rather than mechanical, makes perfect sense.
Implications: We can learn from Bates' berrypicking model that flexibility is crucial. The ability to adapt to difficulties or to new information is key to successful searching. We need to be able to think outside of the box and try different methods to meet our patrons' information needs. By using the berrypicking model, we can better understand our patrons' behavior, and thus, them.
Article 2
Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind's eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In Glazier, J.D. & Powell, RR. Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Summary: Dervin presents a new "sense-making" model to study human use of information and information systems. This model examines users and potential users and tries to determine what they want from the systems, what the get from the systems, and what they think about the process.
Analysis: I found the theoretical groundwork that Dervin used for the sense-making model to be too technical and dense to follow, especially considering my lack of experience with the social sciences. I found myself skipping ahead to study the diagrams and read through the interviews and then try to slog through Dervin's discussion. Oddly enough, it helped a little.
The sense-making model essentially tries to study human use of information and information systems by looking at human behavior. Its focus on user behavior makes it a little similar to Bates' berrypicking model, although instead of mimicking behavior, the sense-making model tries to understand the whys of user behavior. Dervin examines “the step-takings that human beings undertake to construct sense of their worlds,” comprised of internal and external behaviors (65). The main focus of the model is the information discontinuity, a gap in the user's knowledge. The user then tries to “bridge” this gap by defining the discontinuity and seeking information to answer it. Here, the focus is not on figuring out what information the user needs, but how they set about trying to fulfill that need.
I found the concept to be interesting, but ultimately my understanding was flawed because of the difficult language. I might be better served in trying to understand the concept by seeking another source that describes or paraphrases it.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Week 3--Analyzing Information Behavior
Process Journal, Entry #3
Article 1
Citation: Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 28, 178-194.
Summary: Dissatisfied with the lack of analytical work on the topic of the negotiation of reference questions, Taylor sets out to investigate the reference process from the viewpoint of librarian and user. The study analyzes the relationship between the user and library. Particularly, Taylor is concerned with the issue of communication between the two, and the process of negotiating a reference question either through a reference librarian or via self-help.
Critical Analysis:
I took a particular interest in Taylor's article, due to my job as a reference desk assistant. I liked seeing the reference interview broken down into a more scientific approach, since it seemed to make more logical sense that way. The organization of information was superbly done and very clear. Nice usage of actual interview transcripts, which helps to flesh out Taylor's arguments as well as give a feel for the environment and mindset of a reference librarian. True to his word, Taylor attempts to break down thought and communication processes in quantitative steps and filters. While the study's limitations to specialty librarians was understandable, I would have been more interested if Taylor looked at the librarian-user interaction in academic or public libraries. While the users of specialty libraries are usually more cognizant of what information they need and what is an acceptable answer, getting an insight into the typical student's mind (who is not sure of what they want nor how to get it) regarding information query might prove to be invaluable.
Taylor's description of the inquirer's question formation process (or the “4 Q's) reminded me of Bates' berrypicking model, at least in the respect of the query evolving. Rather than evolve due to new information, it becomes more formative as it moves from unconscious thought to a system-recognizable query (31).
Ultimately, Taylor argues in favor of “the dynamism of communication” as the driving force in reference work, rather than knowledge of collections and cataloging. Given that this article was written during the call for a user-oriented paradigm shift in the field, it's interesting to see the author approach such an 'organic' topic from an analytical, 'machine'-like approach.
Discussion Questions:
In his model of the user's pre-negotiation decision process, Taylor describes several alternatives and decisions that users ponder before visiting the reference center for help. How can we make the library more attractive as an information source in a user's eyes, instead of a source of last resort?
Implications:
Taylor states that the reference librarian is “an intermediary...between the inquirer and the system” and “a translator, interpreting and restructuring the inquiry so it fits the files as they are organized...in the library” (34). As information specialists/reference librarian's, it's important to remember just how big a role communication plays in our careers. We don't just need to know how to look up a book in the online catalog, or how to browse through a database. We need to discover information needs and transform them to match with available information.
Article 2
Citation: Belkin, N..J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 133-143.
Summary: Describing the perceived weaknesses of the best-match principle of information retrieval systems, Belkin attempts to provide a viable solution. He proposes a model called the ASK system, based in the cognitive viewpoint of information retrieval.
Critical Analysis:
The article is fairly dense and wordy, so an even closer reading than normal is called for to fully understand Belkin's arguments. This is not something I'd hand to a beginner in the field, as it gets fairly technical in areas. The part we were handed is only part one, explaining the background and theory of the model. The rest of the information is presented in part two, giving me an incomplete view of Belkin's study.
Belkin argues that the “best match” principle that most IR systems use is untenable, as it lies on the assumptions that the user is able to specify precisely what information they need and that the expressed information need is equivalent to a document text (63). And he does have a point: when we have an information need, frequently we don't know what it is that we don't know...just that there is some gap in our knowledge of subject X that needs to be filled. Now, best-match isn't totally unusable, as it is handy for ready-reference questions (What is George Washington's birthday, how tall is the Eiffel Tower, etc.) that have a definite answer. Belkin admits that out of the thirty-five subjects he studied, two had queries that could be answered by best match (61). But his point is that there's something better for the rest of those queries.
This is where his ASK model is introduced as an alternative to traditional best-match searches. An “ASK” is an anomalous state of knowledge: an information need that arose from an anomaly in a user's state of knowledge. The user is unable to specify what is needed to answer the anomaly; so it is often easier for the user to state the ASK than to parse their need into a formal request (62). The model is influenced by the cognitive viewpoint: humans' interactions with the world around them are mediated by their knowledge (of themselves, their environment, etc.) (65). So theoretically, users realize that there is a gap in their knowledge of a subject, and seek to fill that gap to obtain a more accurate picture of it.
This is all very interesting, but couldn't a human being also fulfill the same function as this proposed IR system? The description of the system—user-given statement of problem to be solved, search of database, information handed to user with an explanation of choice, and then feedback—sounds exactly like a standard reference interview. Clearly, I would need to read the rest of the article to understand the model fully.
Discussion Questions:
If the user is supposed to input a problem statement into the ASK's text analysis program, how will the program account for poor language skills? Unfamiliarity with English? People with vision impairments?
Implications:
My understanding of the ASK model is imperfect since not all the material is covered in part one. I did note that while reading through, Belkin discusses the user's interaction with the ASK model. No mention of a librarian or specialist is made as an intermediary. It makes me wonder what the information specialist's role is in this model, or if it is meant to replace the librarian...which would be tantamount to foolishness. Further reading will be necessary to understand the full impact that the ASK model is intended to have.
Article 1
Citation: Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 28, 178-194.
Summary: Dissatisfied with the lack of analytical work on the topic of the negotiation of reference questions, Taylor sets out to investigate the reference process from the viewpoint of librarian and user. The study analyzes the relationship between the user and library. Particularly, Taylor is concerned with the issue of communication between the two, and the process of negotiating a reference question either through a reference librarian or via self-help.
Critical Analysis:
I took a particular interest in Taylor's article, due to my job as a reference desk assistant. I liked seeing the reference interview broken down into a more scientific approach, since it seemed to make more logical sense that way. The organization of information was superbly done and very clear. Nice usage of actual interview transcripts, which helps to flesh out Taylor's arguments as well as give a feel for the environment and mindset of a reference librarian. True to his word, Taylor attempts to break down thought and communication processes in quantitative steps and filters. While the study's limitations to specialty librarians was understandable, I would have been more interested if Taylor looked at the librarian-user interaction in academic or public libraries. While the users of specialty libraries are usually more cognizant of what information they need and what is an acceptable answer, getting an insight into the typical student's mind (who is not sure of what they want nor how to get it) regarding information query might prove to be invaluable.
Taylor's description of the inquirer's question formation process (or the “4 Q's) reminded me of Bates' berrypicking model, at least in the respect of the query evolving. Rather than evolve due to new information, it becomes more formative as it moves from unconscious thought to a system-recognizable query (31).
Ultimately, Taylor argues in favor of “the dynamism of communication” as the driving force in reference work, rather than knowledge of collections and cataloging. Given that this article was written during the call for a user-oriented paradigm shift in the field, it's interesting to see the author approach such an 'organic' topic from an analytical, 'machine'-like approach.
Discussion Questions:
In his model of the user's pre-negotiation decision process, Taylor describes several alternatives and decisions that users ponder before visiting the reference center for help. How can we make the library more attractive as an information source in a user's eyes, instead of a source of last resort?
Implications:
Taylor states that the reference librarian is “an intermediary...between the inquirer and the system” and “a translator, interpreting and restructuring the inquiry so it fits the files as they are organized...in the library” (34). As information specialists/reference librarian's, it's important to remember just how big a role communication plays in our careers. We don't just need to know how to look up a book in the online catalog, or how to browse through a database. We need to discover information needs and transform them to match with available information.
Article 2
Citation: Belkin, N..J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 133-143.
Summary: Describing the perceived weaknesses of the best-match principle of information retrieval systems, Belkin attempts to provide a viable solution. He proposes a model called the ASK system, based in the cognitive viewpoint of information retrieval.
Critical Analysis:
The article is fairly dense and wordy, so an even closer reading than normal is called for to fully understand Belkin's arguments. This is not something I'd hand to a beginner in the field, as it gets fairly technical in areas. The part we were handed is only part one, explaining the background and theory of the model. The rest of the information is presented in part two, giving me an incomplete view of Belkin's study.
Belkin argues that the “best match” principle that most IR systems use is untenable, as it lies on the assumptions that the user is able to specify precisely what information they need and that the expressed information need is equivalent to a document text (63). And he does have a point: when we have an information need, frequently we don't know what it is that we don't know...just that there is some gap in our knowledge of subject X that needs to be filled. Now, best-match isn't totally unusable, as it is handy for ready-reference questions (What is George Washington's birthday, how tall is the Eiffel Tower, etc.) that have a definite answer. Belkin admits that out of the thirty-five subjects he studied, two had queries that could be answered by best match (61). But his point is that there's something better for the rest of those queries.
This is where his ASK model is introduced as an alternative to traditional best-match searches. An “ASK” is an anomalous state of knowledge: an information need that arose from an anomaly in a user's state of knowledge. The user is unable to specify what is needed to answer the anomaly; so it is often easier for the user to state the ASK than to parse their need into a formal request (62). The model is influenced by the cognitive viewpoint: humans' interactions with the world around them are mediated by their knowledge (of themselves, their environment, etc.) (65). So theoretically, users realize that there is a gap in their knowledge of a subject, and seek to fill that gap to obtain a more accurate picture of it.
This is all very interesting, but couldn't a human being also fulfill the same function as this proposed IR system? The description of the system—user-given statement of problem to be solved, search of database, information handed to user with an explanation of choice, and then feedback—sounds exactly like a standard reference interview. Clearly, I would need to read the rest of the article to understand the model fully.
Discussion Questions:
If the user is supposed to input a problem statement into the ASK's text analysis program, how will the program account for poor language skills? Unfamiliarity with English? People with vision impairments?
Implications:
My understanding of the ASK model is imperfect since not all the material is covered in part one. I did note that while reading through, Belkin discusses the user's interaction with the ASK model. No mention of a librarian or specialist is made as an intermediary. It makes me wonder what the information specialist's role is in this model, or if it is meant to replace the librarian...which would be tantamount to foolishness. Further reading will be necessary to understand the full impact that the ASK model is intended to have.
Week 2--Perspectives on information behavior
Process Journal, Entry #2
Article 1
Citation: Julien, H. & Duggan, L. (2000). A Longitudinal analysis of the information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science Research, 22, 291-309.
Summary: Julien and Duggan present the findings of their research in an attempt to validate the claims made by an earlier study on information needs and uses literature. Ultimately, they discover connections between the claims that support each other.
This study was conducted in an attempt to examine the work of Hewins in the field of information needs and uses literature. In her study, Hewins stated that she noted several trends: that the literature of information needs and uses was increasingly multidisciplinary, that more research was focusing on the cognitive processes of users, and that research methods were diversifying. Julien and Duggan sought to determine if the claims that Hewins made were valid, stating that they felt she based her analysis on subjective opinions rather than empirical data.
As a reader with extremely little to no scientific knowledge or background, I found the article to be too overwhelmingly technical to understand fully. Since my knowledge of research design is virtually nonexistent, I cannot comment on the validity or quality of the research conducted by Julien and Duggan. I will state, however, that I was repeatedly struck by the lack of explanation for choices made during the research process. No justification was made for their choice of methodology or the unit of analysis, when doing so might have illuminated some of the key elements of the research design process. By understanding the choices and rationale that scientists use when designing studies, a layperson with little scientific knowledge might be able to expand their comprehension. By making sense of how the system is processed and designed, the reader comes a step closer to understanding the system as a whole. As it is, the choices and procedures are presented at face value with little explanation for why the researchers presumed them to be superior over other options.
Julien and Duggan's conclusions overall supported Hewins' claims, finding that they supported each other. They found that while most information behavior literature still focused on work done within the library information science field, an increasing amount held an interdisciplinary focus. The resulting influx of perspectives from fields such as computer science and psychology, they claimed, led to the increase of interest in and literature about the affective aspects of information behavior and users' cognition.
This finding greatly interested me, as it shed some light on earlier readings. The article we earlier examined by Wilson glossed over some of the “why's” in the development of the field of human information behavior, particularly the shift in interest towards the user. Julien and Duggan point to increasing interdisciplinary contribution to the information behavior field as a factor.
Their final conclusion, that only modest progress is occurring in the development of research methods, is also noteworthy. Research continues to be traditional, they note, still focusing on methods such as surveys, and user groups such as scholars. This relative lack of diversification ultimately can cause some problems in the professional field. Data primarily focusing on certain groups are of little use to the information specialist working with more diverse user groups in the field. More studies, collecting information on more diverse groups, are necessary for these information professionals to serve the information needs of their patrons.
Article 2
Citation: Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. ARIST 21 (pp. 3-33). Knowledge Industry Publishers.
Summary: Dervin and Nilan examine and review post-1978 information behavior literature, concluding that much of it is inapplicable to practice. They critique several aspects of the field, offering suggestions for improvement.
While examining several studies based on information needs and uses, Dervin and Niles found several recurring themes. Primarily, the two found a growing tension between information science research and practice; mainly stemming from the former's inability to be usefully applied to the latter. The studies, claimed many of the authors they reviewed, did little to provide useful guidance to scholars or resolve real-life problems. Dervin and Niles concluded that the primary reason for this dissatisfaction stemmed from the changing understanding and nature of the information science field. They found a general interest among their sources in focusing information systems studies on the information needs and uses of library users. The general consensus of many authors, they found, was for an overall paradigm shift from a traditional system-based focus to a user-based focus.
This article was far more informative in regards to modern information behavior studies than Wilson's in its provision of explanations for developments in the field. Where Wilson says what happened, Dervin and Niles say why, and provide results. They explain, in detail, several proposed changes to assumptions and premises held in the study of information needs and uses, and how they fit into the user-based paradigm shift that many researchers were pushing for. This way, I could understand what a user-based approach would actually encompass.
Several alternative models of research direction were then introduced, both small-scale and comprehensive. These attempts to shift research out of the traditional paradigm attempt to create models that can be used in real-life practice. I found Dervin's sense-making model to be the most facile to comprehend out of these, and intriguing for its use of metaphor to help users work through difficulties in seeking information. Clarification of what “internal sense” is, and its relation to information need is, might have helped in understanding the process, though the explanation of the SITUATION-GAP-USE model is fairly clear. I was most intrigued by the fact that the sense-making model was developed over such a long period of time. Seeing its roots in everyday citizen-based life, and its application to such a diverse set of users and contexts, provided a very interesting contrast to the other models discussed.
Dervin's model provides several key elements that researchers might take note from, primarily by its use in a variety of contexts by a variety of users. Research has traditionally been done focusing on the academic user base of information systems, but not enough of other user groups. Doing so could provide vital insights into improvement of future systems.
Article 1
Citation: Julien, H. & Duggan, L. (2000). A Longitudinal analysis of the information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science Research, 22, 291-309.
Summary: Julien and Duggan present the findings of their research in an attempt to validate the claims made by an earlier study on information needs and uses literature. Ultimately, they discover connections between the claims that support each other.
This study was conducted in an attempt to examine the work of Hewins in the field of information needs and uses literature. In her study, Hewins stated that she noted several trends: that the literature of information needs and uses was increasingly multidisciplinary, that more research was focusing on the cognitive processes of users, and that research methods were diversifying. Julien and Duggan sought to determine if the claims that Hewins made were valid, stating that they felt she based her analysis on subjective opinions rather than empirical data.
As a reader with extremely little to no scientific knowledge or background, I found the article to be too overwhelmingly technical to understand fully. Since my knowledge of research design is virtually nonexistent, I cannot comment on the validity or quality of the research conducted by Julien and Duggan. I will state, however, that I was repeatedly struck by the lack of explanation for choices made during the research process. No justification was made for their choice of methodology or the unit of analysis, when doing so might have illuminated some of the key elements of the research design process. By understanding the choices and rationale that scientists use when designing studies, a layperson with little scientific knowledge might be able to expand their comprehension. By making sense of how the system is processed and designed, the reader comes a step closer to understanding the system as a whole. As it is, the choices and procedures are presented at face value with little explanation for why the researchers presumed them to be superior over other options.
Julien and Duggan's conclusions overall supported Hewins' claims, finding that they supported each other. They found that while most information behavior literature still focused on work done within the library information science field, an increasing amount held an interdisciplinary focus. The resulting influx of perspectives from fields such as computer science and psychology, they claimed, led to the increase of interest in and literature about the affective aspects of information behavior and users' cognition.
This finding greatly interested me, as it shed some light on earlier readings. The article we earlier examined by Wilson glossed over some of the “why's” in the development of the field of human information behavior, particularly the shift in interest towards the user. Julien and Duggan point to increasing interdisciplinary contribution to the information behavior field as a factor.
Their final conclusion, that only modest progress is occurring in the development of research methods, is also noteworthy. Research continues to be traditional, they note, still focusing on methods such as surveys, and user groups such as scholars. This relative lack of diversification ultimately can cause some problems in the professional field. Data primarily focusing on certain groups are of little use to the information specialist working with more diverse user groups in the field. More studies, collecting information on more diverse groups, are necessary for these information professionals to serve the information needs of their patrons.
Article 2
Citation: Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. ARIST 21 (pp. 3-33). Knowledge Industry Publishers.
Summary: Dervin and Nilan examine and review post-1978 information behavior literature, concluding that much of it is inapplicable to practice. They critique several aspects of the field, offering suggestions for improvement.
While examining several studies based on information needs and uses, Dervin and Niles found several recurring themes. Primarily, the two found a growing tension between information science research and practice; mainly stemming from the former's inability to be usefully applied to the latter. The studies, claimed many of the authors they reviewed, did little to provide useful guidance to scholars or resolve real-life problems. Dervin and Niles concluded that the primary reason for this dissatisfaction stemmed from the changing understanding and nature of the information science field. They found a general interest among their sources in focusing information systems studies on the information needs and uses of library users. The general consensus of many authors, they found, was for an overall paradigm shift from a traditional system-based focus to a user-based focus.
This article was far more informative in regards to modern information behavior studies than Wilson's in its provision of explanations for developments in the field. Where Wilson says what happened, Dervin and Niles say why, and provide results. They explain, in detail, several proposed changes to assumptions and premises held in the study of information needs and uses, and how they fit into the user-based paradigm shift that many researchers were pushing for. This way, I could understand what a user-based approach would actually encompass.
Several alternative models of research direction were then introduced, both small-scale and comprehensive. These attempts to shift research out of the traditional paradigm attempt to create models that can be used in real-life practice. I found Dervin's sense-making model to be the most facile to comprehend out of these, and intriguing for its use of metaphor to help users work through difficulties in seeking information. Clarification of what “internal sense” is, and its relation to information need is, might have helped in understanding the process, though the explanation of the SITUATION-GAP-USE model is fairly clear. I was most intrigued by the fact that the sense-making model was developed over such a long period of time. Seeing its roots in everyday citizen-based life, and its application to such a diverse set of users and contexts, provided a very interesting contrast to the other models discussed.
Dervin's model provides several key elements that researchers might take note from, primarily by its use in a variety of contexts by a variety of users. Research has traditionally been done focusing on the academic user base of information systems, but not enough of other user groups. Doing so could provide vital insights into improvement of future systems.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Week 1 -- Introduction to Human Information Behavior
Process Journal, Entry #1
Article 1
Citation: Wilson, T. (2000). Human Information Behavior. Information Science, 3(2), 2000, pp. 49-55.
Summary: In this article, Wilson presents a brief history of the
study of human information behavior, examining its evolution from system-based to
human-based models as well as identifying landmark studies. He also briefly
discusses human information use in multidisciplinary contexts, and introduces new
topics that have emerged from current research.
Analysis: Human information seeking behavior, a subset of
information behavior, is a relatively young field of study that dates back to the
middle of the 20th century. As such, there is relatively less history to cover than
other fields. Wilson succinctly describes the origins of human information seeking
behavior research, at the 1948 Royal Society Conference, and then traces the field
to the study of information behavior in the 1970s and 1980s, and finally to the
present day.
Wilson doggedly emphasizes the key concept to understanding the history of
human information seeking behavior: the shift from system-focused models to user-
focused models. But nowhere does he explain the most crucial element of that
concept: why the shift occurred. Wilson frequently explains the rationale behind
the original thinking of information systems scholars: to determine how people used
systems to access information, so as to make information sources more useful. But as
he begins to describe the later, “person-centered” studies undertaken by researchers
such as Mote and Dervin, he glosses over their motivations. Wilson explains the
studies themselves in detail, but not the intentionality behind them. The reader is
left to speculate why the researchers began to investigate user behavior, whether
because of certain circumstances, increased library use, or any number of other
factors. A discussion of the reason for the shift in information studies would
provide more insight into both the nature of the field, and the evolution of
information technology.
Thoughts for Discussion: During his discussion of information needs
studies, such as the 1972-73 Baltimore study, Wilson states that researchers
conducting these studies found it difficult to define the concept of “information
need.” He then suggests that “information need” is not a primary need such as food
or shelter, but a secondary need that developed from a desire to fulfill primary
needs. However, the article that Wilson quotes himself from dates back to 1981.
In the thirty years that have passed, society has adjusted to both the rapid
development and proliferation of technology. I would argue that at the very least,
the perception of information needs, if not the value of these needs, has changed
dramatically. With the explosion of information that the Internet has made possible,
the current generation views information, and access to information, as an inalienable right. This generation of “Millennials,” who have grown up alongside digital technology, see the need for information on the same level as food and shelter. Society has adjusted accordingly; it is difficult to complete activities and tasks such as booking an airplane flight or filling out government forms without access to information at some level.
Article 2
Citation: Meltzoff, J. (1998). Critical Reading (Chapter 1) In J. Meltzoff Critical Thinking about Research p. 3-12. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Summary: Meltzoff discusses the process of critically reading and critiquing literature. He reviews different methods used to find and assess truth, and talks about how these methods affect readers' attitudes towards the material.
Analysis: The crux of this chapter is that successful critical reading of scientific material depends greatly upon familiarity with research design principles. While Meltzoff also stresses the importance of interactive reading, he states that knowledge of research design ultimately has more importance. He claims that a reader who knows a lot about a topic, but little about research design principles, is in a worse position to evaluate an article critically than a reader who has little subject knowledge but is able to “evaluate the design and execution of the research.” He points out correctly that research design is essentially similar, no matter the content field. Whether a study is for biology, psychology, or even library science, the basic steps of the scientific method still apply.
Meltzoff also makes an interesting point as he points out that reverence for the written word has significantly decreased over time, especially in the past century. As technology made the method of writing simpler and more accessible, and literacy became more common, the power to express thoughts publicly became available to virtually everyone. The written word was no longer the sole province of the educated upper classes, who were automatically assumed to be correct. This is still somewhat the case today. Digital tools such as blogs and Twitter make it easy for anybody to share their opinions and thoughts with the world. Since virtually anyone can make claims or assertions online without the knowledge or evidence to support it, many people have learned to not automatically assume everything published on the internet is true. The written word, in the case of the internet, does not carry the same amount of value that it would have centuries ago.
Thoughts for Discussion: Meltzoff claims that, when critiquing a scientific article, knowledge of the subject materials is almost irrelevant compared to knowledge of the principles of research design. Could this claim possibly apply to humanities articles, such as history or literature?
Implications: Meltzoff points out that publication of an article in a refereed journal does not “guarantee excellence.” While many scholars tend to already be cognizant of this fact, younger students and laypeople are not always aware of it. As librarians, it is one of our duties to gently make our patrons and users aware that simply because a source exists, that does not make it valid or useful.
Article 1
Citation: Wilson, T. (2000). Human Information Behavior. Information Science, 3(2), 2000, pp. 49-55.
Summary: In this article, Wilson presents a brief history of the
study of human information behavior, examining its evolution from system-based to
human-based models as well as identifying landmark studies. He also briefly
discusses human information use in multidisciplinary contexts, and introduces new
topics that have emerged from current research.
Analysis: Human information seeking behavior, a subset of
information behavior, is a relatively young field of study that dates back to the
middle of the 20th century. As such, there is relatively less history to cover than
other fields. Wilson succinctly describes the origins of human information seeking
behavior research, at the 1948 Royal Society Conference, and then traces the field
to the study of information behavior in the 1970s and 1980s, and finally to the
present day.
Wilson doggedly emphasizes the key concept to understanding the history of
human information seeking behavior: the shift from system-focused models to user-
focused models. But nowhere does he explain the most crucial element of that
concept: why the shift occurred. Wilson frequently explains the rationale behind
the original thinking of information systems scholars: to determine how people used
systems to access information, so as to make information sources more useful. But as
he begins to describe the later, “person-centered” studies undertaken by researchers
such as Mote and Dervin, he glosses over their motivations. Wilson explains the
studies themselves in detail, but not the intentionality behind them. The reader is
left to speculate why the researchers began to investigate user behavior, whether
because of certain circumstances, increased library use, or any number of other
factors. A discussion of the reason for the shift in information studies would
provide more insight into both the nature of the field, and the evolution of
information technology.
Thoughts for Discussion: During his discussion of information needs
studies, such as the 1972-73 Baltimore study, Wilson states that researchers
conducting these studies found it difficult to define the concept of “information
need.” He then suggests that “information need” is not a primary need such as food
or shelter, but a secondary need that developed from a desire to fulfill primary
needs. However, the article that Wilson quotes himself from dates back to 1981.
In the thirty years that have passed, society has adjusted to both the rapid
development and proliferation of technology. I would argue that at the very least,
the perception of information needs, if not the value of these needs, has changed
dramatically. With the explosion of information that the Internet has made possible,
the current generation views information, and access to information, as an inalienable right. This generation of “Millennials,” who have grown up alongside digital technology, see the need for information on the same level as food and shelter. Society has adjusted accordingly; it is difficult to complete activities and tasks such as booking an airplane flight or filling out government forms without access to information at some level.
Article 2
Citation: Meltzoff, J. (1998). Critical Reading (Chapter 1) In J. Meltzoff Critical Thinking about Research p. 3-12. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Summary: Meltzoff discusses the process of critically reading and critiquing literature. He reviews different methods used to find and assess truth, and talks about how these methods affect readers' attitudes towards the material.
Analysis: The crux of this chapter is that successful critical reading of scientific material depends greatly upon familiarity with research design principles. While Meltzoff also stresses the importance of interactive reading, he states that knowledge of research design ultimately has more importance. He claims that a reader who knows a lot about a topic, but little about research design principles, is in a worse position to evaluate an article critically than a reader who has little subject knowledge but is able to “evaluate the design and execution of the research.” He points out correctly that research design is essentially similar, no matter the content field. Whether a study is for biology, psychology, or even library science, the basic steps of the scientific method still apply.
Meltzoff also makes an interesting point as he points out that reverence for the written word has significantly decreased over time, especially in the past century. As technology made the method of writing simpler and more accessible, and literacy became more common, the power to express thoughts publicly became available to virtually everyone. The written word was no longer the sole province of the educated upper classes, who were automatically assumed to be correct. This is still somewhat the case today. Digital tools such as blogs and Twitter make it easy for anybody to share their opinions and thoughts with the world. Since virtually anyone can make claims or assertions online without the knowledge or evidence to support it, many people have learned to not automatically assume everything published on the internet is true. The written word, in the case of the internet, does not carry the same amount of value that it would have centuries ago.
Thoughts for Discussion: Meltzoff claims that, when critiquing a scientific article, knowledge of the subject materials is almost irrelevant compared to knowledge of the principles of research design. Could this claim possibly apply to humanities articles, such as history or literature?
Implications: Meltzoff points out that publication of an article in a refereed journal does not “guarantee excellence.” While many scholars tend to already be cognizant of this fact, younger students and laypeople are not always aware of it. As librarians, it is one of our duties to gently make our patrons and users aware that simply because a source exists, that does not make it valid or useful.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Introduction Post
Greetings! Welcome to my Process Journal. This blog will contain my work for my Human Information Behavior class. This journal will be updated weekly, containing summaries and analyses of articles assigned, as well as progress updates on class projects.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)