Dewdney's "Asking 'Why' Questions" deals with the linguistics behind reference questions. We learned in Taylor that the reference interview can be long and convoluted; it's a process to understand a user's true information need. However, while Taylor discusses the positive aspects of these conversations, namely how by understanding the user a librarian can understand the information need, Dewdney ponders the flip-side of this. Prodding into a person's background may be an invasion of his or her privacy. When one takes into consideration the often personal reasons why someone needs information, such as health issues, it's no wonder that "why" questions can be offensive or discourage people from using a librarian to help solve their problems.
Mokros et al. found similar results during their studies on interviews captured on tape in their article "Practice and Personhood." In fact, in the first step, which is called Analysis, the librarians who were doing the reference interviews asked questions that might put the patrons on the defense. Mokros warns, asking questions about the patrons' context "carries the danger of being misunderstood" (Mokros 1999, pg. 244). This disconnect caused by different interpretations of questions and needs. Dervin's sense-making model seems to apply here: individual people view context differently. This is something that is constantly changing and is almost impossible to define; and since we each experience life and interpret it in so many different ways, it's only natural that misunderstandings or disconnects occur.
To overcome these disconnects, the libraries used "we" during much of the search. I found this interesting, though I admit that I didn't understand all the statistics that were included in the paper. Librarians have to walk a fine line between personal interest and neutral business attitudes; they can't be too interested or too disinterested in their patrons. By using the pronoun "we," the librarians were grouping themselves together with their patrons, which could help remove boundaries and ease the stress of the situation.
I was also struck by the observation that "[we] are always communicating about [our]selves, about one another, and about the immediate context of communication” (Mokros 1999, pg. 254). This relates direct to what Jones discussed in "Personal Information Management": we constantly share information and learn; our clothes, cars, actions all gives information about ourselves (Jones 2007, pg. 461). In the case of a reference interview, the librarian can learn about his/her patron not only by listening and asking questions about the person's information need, but also from all the other cues the person gives out. Of course, a librarian also has to be careful not to make assumptions, particularly based on how the patron looks or talks.
While Dewdney nor Mokros did not discuss this, these article made me wonder if these concerns over privacy and patrons' rights to information without having to defend those needs are becoming outdated. I recently read an article on CNN.com about how Web 2.0 has effectively destroyed people's boundaries. Private information is shared - gleefully - through a variety of sites and applications. There are even sites that allow the users to publish their most recent credit card purchases. Facebook, Twitter, and Four Squares allow you to be tracked through your posts so people know not only what you are doing, but where you are doing it. As Internet use spreads, so will the use of these sites; it's possible that within the next few years, our views of privacy will completely change. With this is mind, I'm curious if this will affective the information we share with people face-to-face.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
11) Kuhlthau: Information Search Process of Lawyers and 11) Dilevko "My Mother"
Kuhlthau et al. studied the ISP model in terms of the needs and practices of lawyers. This was one of my least favorite papers by Kuhlathau. Not only was her research pool limited to eight lawyers, but the whole article was basically a rehash of "The Role of Experience."
Kuhlthau found "that experience was the only individual characteristic to influence an analyst’s effectiveness in his or her work" (Kuhlthau 2001, pg. 4). Here Kuhlthau is quoting her paper "The Role of Experience" - In that she discusses how workers can be groups into two levels, expert and novice, and how these two groups respond to complexity and uncertainty differently. Even there goals were different: "As a novice, his emphasis was on getting the 'right' conclusion. As an expert, he emphasized interpreting and constructing for the purpose of ‘adding value to the client’s knowledge" (Kulhthau 2001, pg. 4). I found it interesting how the concept of information changes as a worker, or lawyer, here, gains new experience and knowledge. Information goes from being a simple right or wrong fact, to a
Like the doctors and nurses who I read about for my group's presentation, lawyers seem to come to librarians for help only a limited degree; when they did rely on a librarian, it was to locate a particular piece of material (Kuhlthau 2001, pg. 15). There is a disconnect between professionals and librarians, as we've seen again and again with each presentation.
More interesting than Kuhlthau's rehash was Dilevko's "My Mother Can't Quite Understand Why I Decided to go to Library School." Unlike Kuhlthau's article on lawyers and the other papers we read on professionals, Dilevko's paper dealt with the failure of librarians to communicate with their patrons, rather than the other way around. While I found this article engaging, not only because it covered a new topic but also because the writing style reminded me more of a humanities paper than a science one, the results found by Dilveko's paid proxies were disappointing. As I mentioned, the other articles focused on librarian's lamentations that professionals did not take advantage of a library's myriad learning opportunities. here, however, we have evidence as to why they do not: librarians don't provide any help. Of the 488 questions, complete answers were provided less than 30% of the time (Dilevko 2000, pg. 302).
To connect this to Kulhthau, it is possible to look at the librarians who didn't pursue the questions as novices. That is, perhaps the librarians saw the proxies; questions as have a right or wrong answer, and it wasn't worth attempting to delve deeper. Librarians who followed up or who check multiple sources for the patrons might be considered experts: information was retrieved that was hoped would enhance the proxies' learning experience.
ASKs can be complicated, and it's possible that some librarians don't want to put in the time or effort into discovering the patron's (or proxy) specific problem, goal, or intention. As Taylor discussed in "Question Negotiation," a patron's true need sometimes needs to be coaxed out; question negation is key to a successful relationship between librarian and patron. This can be exhausting, especially when a librarian has responsibilities over a number of other tasks. Dilveko's proxies did complain that the librarians didn't seem to be busy, but it's possible that they simply didn't understand the other tasks that the librarians' had. However, librarians should be aware that they are failing patrons and that with cutbacks and dwindling support, they can't afford to alienate potential users.
To move away from the week's readings, I was intrigued by the group presentation on law. Erin and Marissa's portions of the project were particularly interesting. I hadn't considered the ways that people use the library to interact with or learn about our government and laws. As we move toward more digital and electronic resources, we run the risk of leaving behind large portions of the population; not everyone can afford a computer or a reliable Internet connection. I support eGovernment - I approve of the attempts to make the government more transparent - but replacing live help with machines can also cause problems. As Erin mentioned, not only is the American population serevely uneducated about the workings of our government, those who are information poor will not take advantage of the wealth of information online due to their distrust not only in the government, but of the Internet itself.
Kuhlthau found "that experience was the only individual characteristic to influence an analyst’s effectiveness in his or her work" (Kuhlthau 2001, pg. 4). Here Kuhlthau is quoting her paper "The Role of Experience" - In that she discusses how workers can be groups into two levels, expert and novice, and how these two groups respond to complexity and uncertainty differently. Even there goals were different: "As a novice, his emphasis was on getting the 'right' conclusion. As an expert, he emphasized interpreting and constructing for the purpose of ‘adding value to the client’s knowledge" (Kulhthau 2001, pg. 4). I found it interesting how the concept of information changes as a worker, or lawyer, here, gains new experience and knowledge. Information goes from being a simple right or wrong fact, to a
Like the doctors and nurses who I read about for my group's presentation, lawyers seem to come to librarians for help only a limited degree; when they did rely on a librarian, it was to locate a particular piece of material (Kuhlthau 2001, pg. 15). There is a disconnect between professionals and librarians, as we've seen again and again with each presentation.
More interesting than Kuhlthau's rehash was Dilevko's "My Mother Can't Quite Understand Why I Decided to go to Library School." Unlike Kuhlthau's article on lawyers and the other papers we read on professionals, Dilevko's paper dealt with the failure of librarians to communicate with their patrons, rather than the other way around. While I found this article engaging, not only because it covered a new topic but also because the writing style reminded me more of a humanities paper than a science one, the results found by Dilveko's paid proxies were disappointing. As I mentioned, the other articles focused on librarian's lamentations that professionals did not take advantage of a library's myriad learning opportunities. here, however, we have evidence as to why they do not: librarians don't provide any help. Of the 488 questions, complete answers were provided less than 30% of the time (Dilevko 2000, pg. 302).
To connect this to Kulhthau, it is possible to look at the librarians who didn't pursue the questions as novices. That is, perhaps the librarians saw the proxies; questions as have a right or wrong answer, and it wasn't worth attempting to delve deeper. Librarians who followed up or who check multiple sources for the patrons might be considered experts: information was retrieved that was hoped would enhance the proxies' learning experience.
ASKs can be complicated, and it's possible that some librarians don't want to put in the time or effort into discovering the patron's (or proxy) specific problem, goal, or intention. As Taylor discussed in "Question Negotiation," a patron's true need sometimes needs to be coaxed out; question negation is key to a successful relationship between librarian and patron. This can be exhausting, especially when a librarian has responsibilities over a number of other tasks. Dilveko's proxies did complain that the librarians didn't seem to be busy, but it's possible that they simply didn't understand the other tasks that the librarians' had. However, librarians should be aware that they are failing patrons and that with cutbacks and dwindling support, they can't afford to alienate potential users.
To move away from the week's readings, I was intrigued by the group presentation on law. Erin and Marissa's portions of the project were particularly interesting. I hadn't considered the ways that people use the library to interact with or learn about our government and laws. As we move toward more digital and electronic resources, we run the risk of leaving behind large portions of the population; not everyone can afford a computer or a reliable Internet connection. I support eGovernment - I approve of the attempts to make the government more transparent - but replacing live help with machines can also cause problems. As Erin mentioned, not only is the American population serevely uneducated about the workings of our government, those who are information poor will not take advantage of the wealth of information online due to their distrust not only in the government, but of the Internet itself.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
10) Jones: Personal Information Management and 10) Duff: Accidentally Found
Jones' "Personal Information Management" is a brick of an article. The sheer size of this paper makes me wonder if he was being paid by the word. Personal Information Management (or PIM), as defined by Jones, is "the practice and the study of the activities a person performs in order to acquire or create, store, organize, maintain, retrieve, use, and distribute the information needed to complete tasks" (Jones 2007, pg. 453). To simplify that, its how we deal with our tasks. We live in an age of information; we constantly check, update, store, retrieve information to deal with the myriad issues of our day. From the weather to traffic to birthdays to school assignments, we are constantly bombarded with information.
What I found interesting about the way that Jones uses the term "information" is that by his definition, it seems as if there is no such thing as information poverty. We can't escape information. Even without computers and the Internet, and the types of documents that we get from them, there are still "the clothes we choose to wear, ...the car we choose to drive, ...the way we choose to act. We send information ...with every sentence we speak or write" (Jones 2007, pg. 460). Information items, as Jones calls documents, are not just Web sites, email messages, or pieces of paper, but also "paragraphs or even individual sentences," depending on a person's definition of information (Jones 2007, pg. 461).
With so much information, and so many information items and information forms, it's no wonder we need PIM activities. According to Jones, there are essentially three PIM activities: finding/refinding, keeping, and meta-level (i.e., organizing personal information collections themselves) (Jones 2007, pg. 464). The “finding/refinding” aspect is interesting: as Jones notes, we need to remember where to look. In fact, we need to remember to remember. As an absent-minded sort of person, this is often what holds me back. Keeping an assignment book aids me in tracking homework, but I need to remember to check it, too. In addition to the difficulties of memory, Jones discusses fragmentation: we save information in various forms in various places. Tagging is one way to link information items, though this is obviously limited to digital information.
Duff and Johnson's "Accidentally Found" deals with the searching methods of historians, specially in an archival setting. I believe these two articles go hand in hand because “Accidentally Found” deals with the information forms and information collections of historians. Instead of librarians attempting to help other professionals or people in different groups, “Accidentally Found” focuses on historians attempting to understand other historians (i.e., the archivists), and how they have organized the information in the archive. While Jones PIM is about an individual's methods of management his or her individual information, I believe that it can be applied in some form to Duff's article: the historians share an innate love and understanding of the information items and the messages that they contain.
Fragmentation as discussed by Jones relates to the Duff's historians' ability to locate material through indirect means (Duff 2002, pg. 491). Because information documents could be placed under a variety of categories, a historian had think of different places to look.
One historian mentioned something that I found particularly striking: he would "chat" with the archivist, keeping it "open-ended so as not to limit the archivist's responses" (Duff 2002, pg. 490). This is a switch from our other readings in which the librarian was the one careful not to direct or judge a person's reference questions, and rather to listen without assumptions to discover what the person was really asking. Here it is the person asking the reference questions who is concerned about misdirecting the conversation or ending it before s/he has learned everything.
The articles on the searching behaviors of other professionals emphasized the lack of communication between them and librarians. The articles on doctors and nurses in particular showed the gaps between the groups. Zoe presentation uncovered the same results; however, I believe librarians should have an easier time communicating with them. Archivists a bridge between the librarian and the historian, surely the divide between the groups can't be so expansive. The soft sciences often go hand in hand, and librarians have no excuse for not understanding the literature or the topics, which may be the case when dealing with medicine or law.
What I found interesting about the way that Jones uses the term "information" is that by his definition, it seems as if there is no such thing as information poverty. We can't escape information. Even without computers and the Internet, and the types of documents that we get from them, there are still "the clothes we choose to wear, ...the car we choose to drive, ...the way we choose to act. We send information ...with every sentence we speak or write" (Jones 2007, pg. 460). Information items, as Jones calls documents, are not just Web sites, email messages, or pieces of paper, but also "paragraphs or even individual sentences," depending on a person's definition of information (Jones 2007, pg. 461).
With so much information, and so many information items and information forms, it's no wonder we need PIM activities. According to Jones, there are essentially three PIM activities: finding/refinding, keeping, and meta-level (i.e., organizing personal information collections themselves) (Jones 2007, pg. 464). The “finding/refinding” aspect is interesting: as Jones notes, we need to remember where to look. In fact, we need to remember to remember. As an absent-minded sort of person, this is often what holds me back. Keeping an assignment book aids me in tracking homework, but I need to remember to check it, too. In addition to the difficulties of memory, Jones discusses fragmentation: we save information in various forms in various places. Tagging is one way to link information items, though this is obviously limited to digital information.
Duff and Johnson's "Accidentally Found" deals with the searching methods of historians, specially in an archival setting. I believe these two articles go hand in hand because “Accidentally Found” deals with the information forms and information collections of historians. Instead of librarians attempting to help other professionals or people in different groups, “Accidentally Found” focuses on historians attempting to understand other historians (i.e., the archivists), and how they have organized the information in the archive. While Jones PIM is about an individual's methods of management his or her individual information, I believe that it can be applied in some form to Duff's article: the historians share an innate love and understanding of the information items and the messages that they contain.
Fragmentation as discussed by Jones relates to the Duff's historians' ability to locate material through indirect means (Duff 2002, pg. 491). Because information documents could be placed under a variety of categories, a historian had think of different places to look.
One historian mentioned something that I found particularly striking: he would "chat" with the archivist, keeping it "open-ended so as not to limit the archivist's responses" (Duff 2002, pg. 490). This is a switch from our other readings in which the librarian was the one careful not to direct or judge a person's reference questions, and rather to listen without assumptions to discover what the person was really asking. Here it is the person asking the reference questions who is concerned about misdirecting the conversation or ending it before s/he has learned everything.
The articles on the searching behaviors of other professionals emphasized the lack of communication between them and librarians. The articles on doctors and nurses in particular showed the gaps between the groups. Zoe presentation uncovered the same results; however, I believe librarians should have an easier time communicating with them. Archivists a bridge between the librarian and the historian, surely the divide between the groups can't be so expansive. The soft sciences often go hand in hand, and librarians have no excuse for not understanding the literature or the topics, which may be the case when dealing with medicine or law.
9) Kuhlthau: The Role of Experience and 9) McInerney: KNowledge Management
Kuhlthau's "The Role of Experience in the Information Search Process of an Early Career Information Worker: Perceptions of Uncertainty, Complexity, Construction, and Sources" deals with the evolution of the professional in terms of his/her ability to and expectations with the search process.
Her main discovery is that people have different skills, ambitions, and tasks depending on their level of experience. The novice in a job deals with uncertainty and complexity (Kuhlthau 1999, pg. 403). While they may have the same sources and even roles as experienced workers, the novices use the sources and do their tasks different. As they become accustomed to their job, these complex tasks become routine. What struck me the most in this article was that it is the "perception of complexity" that creates uncertainty; in reality, a task can actually be quite simple or easy (Kuhlthau 1999, pg. 407). Here I can see where a librarian can help: having a person to oversee and direct an action (such as a search), this perception of complexity can be eased. Kuhlthau discusses this; novices relied on the help of mediators to assist them learn their tasks and overcome difficulties. In this sense, mediators, who were simply more experienced workers, had relationships with novices that reminded me of those within the information grounds studied by Pettigrew. Like the nurses and seniors in the chiropody clinic, knowledge was shared not only about health problems, but about topics that the nurses simply had more experience with, such as services for seniors.
The workplace can be a community of knowledge. In "Knowledge Management," McInerney calls it a "knowledge culture." Like Pettigrew's information ground, a knowledge culture encourages learning and sharing of knowledge. Also like an information ground, a knowledge culture requires trust and sociability to function: people must feel secure that they can speak without reprisal (McInerney 2002, pg. 1014). In fact, these two terms and ideas are almost interchangeable, with only one slight difference that I could see: an information ground can be spontaneous and form without outside forces encouraging it, while a knowledge culture, since it is in terms of a workplace, can be structured by the management.
To develop knowledge culture within an organization, McInerney discusses the theory of knowledge management: "an effort to increase useful knowledge within the organization. Ways to do this include encouraging communication, offering opportunities to learn, and promoting the sharing of appropriate knowledge artifacts" (McInerney 2002, pg.1014). Once again, I'm struck at how obvious this observation is. People in an enclosed area are going to talk to one another; that's simply human behavior. And if that enclosed area is their work place, they're probably going to discuss matters relating to work. If they enjoy their job to some degree, they might discuss ways they're trying to improve or help the company. However, I do agree with McInerney that it is important for management to create a dynamic and innovative environment for their workers. Having worked a number of jobs before coming to graduate school, I've had bosses who seem to be actively fighting against their workers.
Libraries can embrace these ideas not only to improve the workplace situations for their own staff, but for their patrons. By understanding that communication and knowledge can be nurtured in environments where trust, rewards, accountability, and flexibility are elements that are encouraged and propagated. For example, a library could create what Pettigrew would call an information ground by grouping computers together in clusters and allowing people to communicate while using the machines, which might encourage them to help one another with whatever work or questions they might have.
Her main discovery is that people have different skills, ambitions, and tasks depending on their level of experience. The novice in a job deals with uncertainty and complexity (Kuhlthau 1999, pg. 403). While they may have the same sources and even roles as experienced workers, the novices use the sources and do their tasks different. As they become accustomed to their job, these complex tasks become routine. What struck me the most in this article was that it is the "perception of complexity" that creates uncertainty; in reality, a task can actually be quite simple or easy (Kuhlthau 1999, pg. 407). Here I can see where a librarian can help: having a person to oversee and direct an action (such as a search), this perception of complexity can be eased. Kuhlthau discusses this; novices relied on the help of mediators to assist them learn their tasks and overcome difficulties. In this sense, mediators, who were simply more experienced workers, had relationships with novices that reminded me of those within the information grounds studied by Pettigrew. Like the nurses and seniors in the chiropody clinic, knowledge was shared not only about health problems, but about topics that the nurses simply had more experience with, such as services for seniors.
The workplace can be a community of knowledge. In "Knowledge Management," McInerney calls it a "knowledge culture." Like Pettigrew's information ground, a knowledge culture encourages learning and sharing of knowledge. Also like an information ground, a knowledge culture requires trust and sociability to function: people must feel secure that they can speak without reprisal (McInerney 2002, pg. 1014). In fact, these two terms and ideas are almost interchangeable, with only one slight difference that I could see: an information ground can be spontaneous and form without outside forces encouraging it, while a knowledge culture, since it is in terms of a workplace, can be structured by the management.
To develop knowledge culture within an organization, McInerney discusses the theory of knowledge management: "an effort to increase useful knowledge within the organization. Ways to do this include encouraging communication, offering opportunities to learn, and promoting the sharing of appropriate knowledge artifacts" (McInerney 2002, pg.1014). Once again, I'm struck at how obvious this observation is. People in an enclosed area are going to talk to one another; that's simply human behavior. And if that enclosed area is their work place, they're probably going to discuss matters relating to work. If they enjoy their job to some degree, they might discuss ways they're trying to improve or help the company. However, I do agree with McInerney that it is important for management to create a dynamic and innovative environment for their workers. Having worked a number of jobs before coming to graduate school, I've had bosses who seem to be actively fighting against their workers.
Libraries can embrace these ideas not only to improve the workplace situations for their own staff, but for their patrons. By understanding that communication and knowledge can be nurtured in environments where trust, rewards, accountability, and flexibility are elements that are encouraged and propagated. For example, a library could create what Pettigrew would call an information ground by grouping computers together in clusters and allowing people to communicate while using the machines, which might encourage them to help one another with whatever work or questions they might have.
Friday, December 10, 2010
7) Hamer: Coming Out
Hamer's study on the coming-out behaviors of men who identified as gay was interesting, though again I feel like it was too small of a sample group. Only 8 men volunteered to take part in the interviews; there is no way that this small group can give answers indicative of the entire population. However, her findings were interesting and her research important to not only the library field, but to the LGBT community, so her paper should not be dismissed on that ground alone.
Like Chatman's paper, Hamer found that information blunting and secrecy involving information need were used to protect the men from perceived dangers of the outside world (Hamer 2003, pg. 84). Hamer notes that the second and sixth findings in Chatman's Theory of Information Poverty did not apply to the men in the study (Hamer 2003, pg. 84-85). Again, I believe that Hamer's very small subject pool may account for this. Had Hamer interviewed more men, the findings may have been different. By limiting the study to university students (Hamer 2003, pg. 70), who are often from the middle and upper classes, Hamer's findings were skewed from the beginning, which may explain why she didn't find evidence that "[o]utsiders contribute to information poverty, which is linked to class distinction, by preventing information access" (Hamer 2003, pg. 84). It's possible she found no evidence for number six, which deals with new information on daily issues, because of similar reasons: being university students, the subjects have a wide variety of news sources and therefore don't rely singly on TV news or other people within a limited community for information.
Information poverty was noted as a barrier to gay men looking to better understand their sexuality and the gay community. I found this fascinating - Even in this world of immediate access of information through the Internet, there are sill significant impediments to information. In addition to the "perceived void" of topics relating to homosexuality, these men also mentioned a fear of disclosure, homophobia, poor classification and inefficient retrieval/finder systems as barriers (Hamer 2002, pg. 87). In these ways librarians have this portion of their patrons. I believe this is an egregious fail; people who identify as LGBT are already a vulnerable population, having to worry about discrimination or even violence directed at them. By failing to provide them with a library environment where they feel safe and are able to locate relevant resource materials, libraries are essentially saying that people who are LGBT aren't equal to heterosexual patrons, for whom the bulk of resources (if not all resources) are intended.
I agree with all of Hamer's suggestions for how libraries should proceed in light of her research, such as include pamphlets or self-check out methods (Hamer 2003, pg. 86). I would also add that it's time for libraries to fight actively and directly against discrimination. While it is important for a library to save and make available all sort of information, including that which may be homophobic, it's ridiculous and disgusting that in this day and age, hatred directed at people who identify as LGBT can be protected as freedom of speech. By standing up against this vocal minority of fear mongers, the library could become a haven not only for the LGBT community, but other people who have been discriminated against.
Like Chatman's paper, Hamer found that information blunting and secrecy involving information need were used to protect the men from perceived dangers of the outside world (Hamer 2003, pg. 84). Hamer notes that the second and sixth findings in Chatman's Theory of Information Poverty did not apply to the men in the study (Hamer 2003, pg. 84-85). Again, I believe that Hamer's very small subject pool may account for this. Had Hamer interviewed more men, the findings may have been different. By limiting the study to university students (Hamer 2003, pg. 70), who are often from the middle and upper classes, Hamer's findings were skewed from the beginning, which may explain why she didn't find evidence that "[o]utsiders contribute to information poverty, which is linked to class distinction, by preventing information access" (Hamer 2003, pg. 84). It's possible she found no evidence for number six, which deals with new information on daily issues, because of similar reasons: being university students, the subjects have a wide variety of news sources and therefore don't rely singly on TV news or other people within a limited community for information.
Information poverty was noted as a barrier to gay men looking to better understand their sexuality and the gay community. I found this fascinating - Even in this world of immediate access of information through the Internet, there are sill significant impediments to information. In addition to the "perceived void" of topics relating to homosexuality, these men also mentioned a fear of disclosure, homophobia, poor classification and inefficient retrieval/finder systems as barriers (Hamer 2002, pg. 87). In these ways librarians have this portion of their patrons. I believe this is an egregious fail; people who identify as LGBT are already a vulnerable population, having to worry about discrimination or even violence directed at them. By failing to provide them with a library environment where they feel safe and are able to locate relevant resource materials, libraries are essentially saying that people who are LGBT aren't equal to heterosexual patrons, for whom the bulk of resources (if not all resources) are intended.
I agree with all of Hamer's suggestions for how libraries should proceed in light of her research, such as include pamphlets or self-check out methods (Hamer 2003, pg. 86). I would also add that it's time for libraries to fight actively and directly against discrimination. While it is important for a library to save and make available all sort of information, including that which may be homophobic, it's ridiculous and disgusting that in this day and age, hatred directed at people who identify as LGBT can be protected as freedom of speech. By standing up against this vocal minority of fear mongers, the library could become a haven not only for the LGBT community, but other people who have been discriminated against.
7) Chatman: Impoverished Life-World Outsiders
What struck me most about Chatman's "Impoverish Life-World Outsiders" was the concept of how expensive information can be. I use the word "expensive" to refer to economics, some people simply don't have the money to access information, but also in a more abstract manner: some people can't afford information mentally or emotionally. As someone who has been fortunate to attend not only college by now graduate school, I took for granted that I could always access information; it was a non-issue. I realize now that information poverty is an expansive and insidious issue.
Chatman's argues that there are separations and inequalities between groups of people in regard to information searching and sharing. Rather than forming tight-knit groups, the people with whom Chatman worked isolated themselves from their peers in an attempt to protect themselves and their jobs. Information was not shared or disseminated, as we found when we read Pettigrew's "Waiting for Chiropody"; in fact, the janitors, elderly women, and CETA members did the opposite of creating an information ground: they lied and hid information. Chatman describes four concepts that are associated with information poverty: secrecy, which serves to protect a person from "an unwanted intrusion of any source" (Chatman 1996, pg. 195). Information, which I'd always viewed as a means to freedom, is now an intrusion that can be harmful.
The other articles we're read in class have dealt with the ways to help people overcome ASKs (or situations, gaps, etc), but all have made the assumption that the person needs and wants assistance in achieving knowledge through information. People who are information poor through information blunting do not fit within this category. How can librarians help people who are actively avoiding sharing and gathering information? Chatman discusses how the subjects in the study maintained an "us vs them" ideology (Chatman 1996, pg. 205); therefore, perhaps librarians could try to approach people who suffer from information poverty by emphasizing the similarities they share. Employing more people who come from similar backgrounds could be one way, but it may also be helpful to illustrate how common and normal their problems are, which would hopefully remove some of the stigma.
I was also struck how although the people in this study can be viewed as completely opposite of those we studied for our project on the behaviors of medical professionals, both janitors et al. and the doctors and nurses both did not use the library or seek help from librarians. Both groups did not believe that a librarian had the knowledge or experience to assist them. Librarians are placed in a perilous situation: they've proved the old adage "jack of all trades, master of none."
Chatman's argues that there are separations and inequalities between groups of people in regard to information searching and sharing. Rather than forming tight-knit groups, the people with whom Chatman worked isolated themselves from their peers in an attempt to protect themselves and their jobs. Information was not shared or disseminated, as we found when we read Pettigrew's "Waiting for Chiropody"; in fact, the janitors, elderly women, and CETA members did the opposite of creating an information ground: they lied and hid information. Chatman describes four concepts that are associated with information poverty: secrecy, which serves to protect a person from "an unwanted intrusion of any source" (Chatman 1996, pg. 195). Information, which I'd always viewed as a means to freedom, is now an intrusion that can be harmful.
The other articles we're read in class have dealt with the ways to help people overcome ASKs (or situations, gaps, etc), but all have made the assumption that the person needs and wants assistance in achieving knowledge through information. People who are information poor through information blunting do not fit within this category. How can librarians help people who are actively avoiding sharing and gathering information? Chatman discusses how the subjects in the study maintained an "us vs them" ideology (Chatman 1996, pg. 205); therefore, perhaps librarians could try to approach people who suffer from information poverty by emphasizing the similarities they share. Employing more people who come from similar backgrounds could be one way, but it may also be helpful to illustrate how common and normal their problems are, which would hopefully remove some of the stigma.
I was also struck how although the people in this study can be viewed as completely opposite of those we studied for our project on the behaviors of medical professionals, both janitors et al. and the doctors and nurses both did not use the library or seek help from librarians. Both groups did not believe that a librarian had the knowledge or experience to assist them. Librarians are placed in a perilous situation: they've proved the old adage "jack of all trades, master of none."
Monday, November 15, 2010
8) Pettigrew: Waiting for Chiropody and 8) Todd: Utilization Heroin Information
While I did find Todd's "Utilization of Heroin Information" to be less sound that Pettigrew's, in that his subject pool was so limited, the process that the four subjects went through during the study was interesting. Once again, this theory fits in nicely with the other readings we've done during this semester: the search for information is a process, one that can change over its course. Additionally, Todd suggests that our knowledge structure itself is a fluid thing capable of changing. This sits exactly into Brooke''s model of knowledge structure:
Todd describes five types of effects or stages: get a complete picture, get a changed picture, get a clearer picture, get a verified picture, and finally get a position in a picture (Todd 1999, pg. 15).
What is interesting about this study is that the participates were almost the exact opposite than those we discussed during information poverty. That is, the four students were very willing to learn new things about incorporate what they discovered during their searches into their knowledge. Unlike people who practice information blunting and/or are information poor, the students absorbed a variety of information and then actively sought more information based on what they had learned.
Pettigrew's article was almost the opposite of this individual and interior focused study. Information grounds puts the importance on a group of people, rather than on the individual user, as is the focus of the cognitive viewpoint.
The theory that people can create information grounds for sharing and disseminating information is an interesting one. These informal meetings can lead to a learning setting that can compare to an academic setting. This method of sharing information seems particularly helpful when taking into consideration some of the other theories we've learned this semester, namely that people aren't always able to define what information they need, if they recognize it at all. By placing people in an informal learning center, information needs that might go unrealized can be solved. In this particular setting studied by Pettigrew, the nurses were able to not only answer questions but in some case provide the care that the senior citizens needed.
I believe that this sort of information community can be replicated in the cyber world. Message boards, chat rooms, blogs, and email groups allow people to gather to discuss a variety of topics. And because the Internet is available to search a large portion of the population, conversation is varied. Like Pettigrew's observations that communication between nurses and seniors could be subtle (Pettigrew 1999, pg. 808), conversation online can too be indirect and open-ended. Medical websites like WebMD is an example of this sort of online information grounds: along with articles and news relating to health, there are also discussion boards for people to share questions and information. Like the clinic, there are medical experts present to answer questions, but a lot of information comes from other users.
Pettigrew doesn't mention this in "Waiting for Chiropody," but when I was reading this article and working on our presentation about information needs and behaviors in the medical field, I was struck about how little attention is given to wrong information. The nurses in this study of course have medical training, but in these informal information grounds, there is the possibility that people without experience or knowledge in medicine are giving out their opinions as fact. There's also a chance that people could share private information, as well as private information about someone else.
Todd describes five types of effects or stages: get a complete picture, get a changed picture, get a clearer picture, get a verified picture, and finally get a position in a picture (Todd 1999, pg. 15).
What is interesting about this study is that the participates were almost the exact opposite than those we discussed during information poverty. That is, the four students were very willing to learn new things about incorporate what they discovered during their searches into their knowledge. Unlike people who practice information blunting and/or are information poor, the students absorbed a variety of information and then actively sought more information based on what they had learned.
Pettigrew's article was almost the opposite of this individual and interior focused study. Information grounds puts the importance on a group of people, rather than on the individual user, as is the focus of the cognitive viewpoint.
The theory that people can create information grounds for sharing and disseminating information is an interesting one. These informal meetings can lead to a learning setting that can compare to an academic setting. This method of sharing information seems particularly helpful when taking into consideration some of the other theories we've learned this semester, namely that people aren't always able to define what information they need, if they recognize it at all. By placing people in an informal learning center, information needs that might go unrealized can be solved. In this particular setting studied by Pettigrew, the nurses were able to not only answer questions but in some case provide the care that the senior citizens needed.
I believe that this sort of information community can be replicated in the cyber world. Message boards, chat rooms, blogs, and email groups allow people to gather to discuss a variety of topics. And because the Internet is available to search a large portion of the population, conversation is varied. Like Pettigrew's observations that communication between nurses and seniors could be subtle (Pettigrew 1999, pg. 808), conversation online can too be indirect and open-ended. Medical websites like WebMD is an example of this sort of online information grounds: along with articles and news relating to health, there are also discussion boards for people to share questions and information. Like the clinic, there are medical experts present to answer questions, but a lot of information comes from other users.
Pettigrew doesn't mention this in "Waiting for Chiropody," but when I was reading this article and working on our presentation about information needs and behaviors in the medical field, I was struck about how little attention is given to wrong information. The nurses in this study of course have medical training, but in these informal information grounds, there is the possibility that people without experience or knowledge in medicine are giving out their opinions as fact. There's also a chance that people could share private information, as well as private information about someone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)