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.
No comments:
Post a Comment