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.
No comments:
Post a Comment