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.
Monday, September 27, 2010
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)