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.
No comments:
Post a Comment