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.
Monday, October 11, 2010
6) Dervin: Given a context by any other name and 6)Talja: The production of "context" in information seeking research
Dervin's "Given a context by any other name" and Talja et al,'s "The production of "context" in information seeking research" both wrestle with the difficult task of giving the definition and implications of "context" in the field of information science.
Talja: The production of "context" in information seeking research
- Definition of "context"
Talja et al. have multiple definitons of context. quotes Alajoutsijarvi and Pettigrew to define it as "some kind of a background for something the researcher wishes to understand and explain" (Talja 1999, pg. 752). They add that in terms of information science, conext generally refers to the "factors or variable" that influence a user's behavior during information seeking. They go on to note that they build upon these accepted definitions with Dervin's themes; in this article, context is broad and complex concept that is the "source of meaning" but temporary and inconsistent, and also a part of the user. Finally, at the end of their paper they define the term as "the frame of reference which allow us to choose the relevant elements for study" (Taljda 1999, pg. 761).
- Key scholars
The scholar that Talja et al. reference the most is Dervin, but they also quote Alasuutari numerous times.
- Key assumptions
This is just a guess, but I think Talja et al.'s key assumptions are that the older method, based on external behavior, of interpretating users' behavior is out-dated and doesn't take into consideration all the factors that influence a user.
- Key methodologies
Talja et al. looked at studies about context. Barry's method was to do full inductive qualitative, which included research interviews. Informal discussions are singled out as good methods, since this method might retrieve more truthful results, even if it can be complex and inconsistent. Fact-based viewpoints, or objectified approaches, are considered not as helpful.
- Key claims
I believe the key claims in this article seem to be that the meaning and value of research done in the information science field is found in the social background of the research subjects/users of an IR system. The more studies are done and the more varied the studies, the better understanding we'll have of this nebulous concept.
- Why study "context"
Talja et al. give a clear reason for studying concept: research is needed to "improve the field's self-understand" (Talja 1999, pg. 762). For information science to have a better definition of itself and of its role in this information age.
- Implications
I believe that the implications this are related to the reasons for studying context: as we learn more about the compliexities of our users/patrons, the better we can understand how to serve them and what we can offer them. As we learn more about them, we learn more about our field.
6) Dervin: Given a context by any other name
- Definition of "context"
Dervins a relatively simple definition of context: "a label for the site of struggle" (Dervin 1997, pg. 113). She later explains it with a metaphor: "context is something you swim in like a fish" (Dervin 1997, pg. 130).
Defining context is problematic, however, since the definition of context depends on the context. It's a catch-22.
- Key scholars
She might agree with me: Dervin is a key scholar. She includes a long list of camps of scholars on page 118, giving credit to people falling within three groups: those who work with text analysis, those who focus on Bates, and those who rely on contextual psychology.
- Key assumptions
- Key methodologies
There seem to be two key methodologies: the multiplicity of approaches (also known as method pluralism) and its opposite, transactional pragmatism, which focuses on honing methods (Dervin 1997, pg. 121).
- Key claims
Dervins seems to make the claim that context is a useful concept to investigate, despite it generally not be the focus of studies.
- Why study "context"
Dervin suggests we study context because it is a "source of meaning" (Dervin 1997, pg. 117).
- Implications
The implications of this articles are that by focusing on context and understand its importance, we redefine "reality, structure, person, and information" as just the "noun manifestations of the situated actions/practices which are attributes of context" (Dervin 1997, pg. 128). Experience is not separate from information; one is not the consequence of the other.
The library/information science field needs to incorporate more and more varied voices and use multiple methods, approaches, or sources in order to get a broader and more individualistic perspective on information behavior.
Talja: The production of "context" in information seeking research
- Definition of "context"
Talja et al. have multiple definitons of context. quotes Alajoutsijarvi and Pettigrew to define it as "some kind of a background for something the researcher wishes to understand and explain" (Talja 1999, pg. 752). They add that in terms of information science, conext generally refers to the "factors or variable" that influence a user's behavior during information seeking. They go on to note that they build upon these accepted definitions with Dervin's themes; in this article, context is broad and complex concept that is the "source of meaning" but temporary and inconsistent, and also a part of the user. Finally, at the end of their paper they define the term as "the frame of reference which allow us to choose the relevant elements for study" (Taljda 1999, pg. 761).
- Key scholars
The scholar that Talja et al. reference the most is Dervin, but they also quote Alasuutari numerous times.
- Key assumptions
This is just a guess, but I think Talja et al.'s key assumptions are that the older method, based on external behavior, of interpretating users' behavior is out-dated and doesn't take into consideration all the factors that influence a user.
- Key methodologies
Talja et al. looked at studies about context. Barry's method was to do full inductive qualitative, which included research interviews. Informal discussions are singled out as good methods, since this method might retrieve more truthful results, even if it can be complex and inconsistent. Fact-based viewpoints, or objectified approaches, are considered not as helpful.
- Key claims
I believe the key claims in this article seem to be that the meaning and value of research done in the information science field is found in the social background of the research subjects/users of an IR system. The more studies are done and the more varied the studies, the better understanding we'll have of this nebulous concept.
- Why study "context"
Talja et al. give a clear reason for studying concept: research is needed to "improve the field's self-understand" (Talja 1999, pg. 762). For information science to have a better definition of itself and of its role in this information age.
- Implications
I believe that the implications this are related to the reasons for studying context: as we learn more about the compliexities of our users/patrons, the better we can understand how to serve them and what we can offer them. As we learn more about them, we learn more about our field.
6) Dervin: Given a context by any other name
- Definition of "context"
Dervins a relatively simple definition of context: "a label for the site of struggle" (Dervin 1997, pg. 113). She later explains it with a metaphor: "context is something you swim in like a fish" (Dervin 1997, pg. 130).
Defining context is problematic, however, since the definition of context depends on the context. It's a catch-22.
- Key scholars
She might agree with me: Dervin is a key scholar. She includes a long list of camps of scholars on page 118, giving credit to people falling within three groups: those who work with text analysis, those who focus on Bates, and those who rely on contextual psychology.
- Key assumptions
- Key methodologies
There seem to be two key methodologies: the multiplicity of approaches (also known as method pluralism) and its opposite, transactional pragmatism, which focuses on honing methods (Dervin 1997, pg. 121).
- Key claims
Dervins seems to make the claim that context is a useful concept to investigate, despite it generally not be the focus of studies.
- Why study "context"
Dervin suggests we study context because it is a "source of meaning" (Dervin 1997, pg. 117).
- Implications
The implications of this articles are that by focusing on context and understand its importance, we redefine "reality, structure, person, and information" as just the "noun manifestations of the situated actions/practices which are attributes of context" (Dervin 1997, pg. 128). Experience is not separate from information; one is not the consequence of the other.
The library/information science field needs to incorporate more and more varied voices and use multiple methods, approaches, or sources in order to get a broader and more individualistic perspective on information behavior.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
5) Tuominen: A social constructionist approach to the study of information use as discursive action.
Tuominen's A social constructionist approach to the study of information use as discursive action argues that language is not random or an "abstract system" (Tuominen 1999, pg. 82), but rather a lens through which people make sense of the world. This is a completely different method of studying information behavior; rather than basing the model on the context of the information need situations, like sense-making and Kuhlthau's ISPs, or the cognitive models.
In Extract 1, Tuominen makes an interesting claim: we try to make our opinions as factual as possible by affecting an air of disinterest and thus impartiality. To relate this is library and information science, we draw upon our vast array of previous experience when we interact with information, and we turn that information into knowledge in order to be able to use it in our conversations. In the example that Tuominen gives, the mother refers back to things she's watched and read to defend her opinion that long hair is out of style. Her interaction with this information was converted into knowledge which she then exploited to try to convince her son to cut his hair. I believe that since social constructionism asserts that we use language to construct our individual realities, it is possible that in this scenario, the mother has interpreted the information to fit her original reality.
Since reality is therefore inconsistent, possibly even incorrect, and each person creates his or her own reality, this concept seems to fit in with our previous readings that champion user-centered systems. Each person - or user, in the case of information science - is not only coming from different backgrounds and has different situations that need to be solved, but each has a different constructed reality. What she or he needs and expects are complex puzzles that shouldn't be simplified into generalizations or demographics.
I believe that Bates' berrypicking method would fit in very well with this theory, as Bates' method never makes assumptions about the user or his/her background, situation, or reality. Unlike some IR systems which make assumptions about the user, making judgments about what s/he is really looking for, the berrypicking method relies completely on the decisions that the user makes.
In Extract 1, Tuominen makes an interesting claim: we try to make our opinions as factual as possible by affecting an air of disinterest and thus impartiality. To relate this is library and information science, we draw upon our vast array of previous experience when we interact with information, and we turn that information into knowledge in order to be able to use it in our conversations. In the example that Tuominen gives, the mother refers back to things she's watched and read to defend her opinion that long hair is out of style. Her interaction with this information was converted into knowledge which she then exploited to try to convince her son to cut his hair. I believe that since social constructionism asserts that we use language to construct our individual realities, it is possible that in this scenario, the mother has interpreted the information to fit her original reality.
Since reality is therefore inconsistent, possibly even incorrect, and each person creates his or her own reality, this concept seems to fit in with our previous readings that champion user-centered systems. Each person - or user, in the case of information science - is not only coming from different backgrounds and has different situations that need to be solved, but each has a different constructed reality. What she or he needs and expects are complex puzzles that shouldn't be simplified into generalizations or demographics.
I believe that Bates' berrypicking method would fit in very well with this theory, as Bates' method never makes assumptions about the user or his/her background, situation, or reality. Unlike some IR systems which make assumptions about the user, making judgments about what s/he is really looking for, the berrypicking method relies completely on the decisions that the user makes.
Friday, October 8, 2010
5) Kuhlthau: Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective.
Kuhlthau's Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective combines the theories of Taylor and Belkin along with Kelly (which we haven't read) to create what she calls the ISP, the Information Search Process. Like the models from our other readings, the ISP is user-based and describes the search for information as an on-going process.
According to Kuhlthau, information seeking is a process that moves through particular stages, each of which has feelings that coincide with each phase. In this way Kuhlthau differs from the other researchers we've read so far: while some mention that the search can make people confused, even upset, Kuhlthau was the first to equate specific, changing feelings to her stages. I don't agree with all her emotions; I find her "thought" section (i.e., vague evolving into focused) more realistic and true to my own experiences. Her feelings are far too melodramatic. Kuhlthau also expanded her stage to include a phase of reflection, where the information that a person retrieved is converted into knowledge. Kuhlthau limits her model to the educational/academic world, and while I agree that general searches do not need to have that final step where we construct meaning from the information we found, I believe that Kuhlthau isn't giving enough credit to users doing searches outside of a school setting. For example, I did a lot of research before deciding on a career, and the information I gathered was converted into knowledge as I evaluated all my resources. Even when faced with a less complex information need, like deciding on what to make for dinner or picking out a movie, I need to do some exploration, formulation, comparisons, and then assessments. In this way Kahlthau is too dismissive of people who aren't working in an academic or academic-related field.
Once again, Belkin's ASK model fits in with Kuhlthau's model. In this case, an ASK is like the activity that a person undertakes in order to fulfill a gap in their knowledge or a perceived need. Unlike Belkin, Kuhlthau specifically notes that this need can be imposed by an outside force, such as a teacher assigning homework. Her stages include initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, presentation, and finally evaluation. These stages are much like Taylor's four levels of information need. Initiation, selection, and even exploration are much like the unconscious and conscious needs. Once the person moves into the stage of formulation, collection, and presentation, the search begins to take place, much like in Taylor's formalized and compromised needs.
According to Kuhlthau, information seeking is a process that moves through particular stages, each of which has feelings that coincide with each phase. In this way Kuhlthau differs from the other researchers we've read so far: while some mention that the search can make people confused, even upset, Kuhlthau was the first to equate specific, changing feelings to her stages. I don't agree with all her emotions; I find her "thought" section (i.e., vague evolving into focused) more realistic and true to my own experiences. Her feelings are far too melodramatic. Kuhlthau also expanded her stage to include a phase of reflection, where the information that a person retrieved is converted into knowledge. Kuhlthau limits her model to the educational/academic world, and while I agree that general searches do not need to have that final step where we construct meaning from the information we found, I believe that Kuhlthau isn't giving enough credit to users doing searches outside of a school setting. For example, I did a lot of research before deciding on a career, and the information I gathered was converted into knowledge as I evaluated all my resources. Even when faced with a less complex information need, like deciding on what to make for dinner or picking out a movie, I need to do some exploration, formulation, comparisons, and then assessments. In this way Kahlthau is too dismissive of people who aren't working in an academic or academic-related field.
Once again, Belkin's ASK model fits in with Kuhlthau's model. In this case, an ASK is like the activity that a person undertakes in order to fulfill a gap in their knowledge or a perceived need. Unlike Belkin, Kuhlthau specifically notes that this need can be imposed by an outside force, such as a teacher assigning homework. Her stages include initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, presentation, and finally evaluation. These stages are much like Taylor's four levels of information need. Initiation, selection, and even exploration are much like the unconscious and conscious needs. Once the person moves into the stage of formulation, collection, and presentation, the search begins to take place, much like in Taylor's formalized and compromised needs.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
4) Dervin: From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology.
According to Dervin in "From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology," sense-making is "a set of assumptions and propositions" about the process through which people understand and apply meaning to their everyday experiences (Dervin 1992, pg 52). In terms of information need and retrieval, sense-making is based on a concept that we've seen in the other readings: when a person realizes there is a "discontinuity" (Dervin 1992, pg. 53) - a gap (or ASK, as Belkin calls it) in his/her knowledge bank, s/he will attempt to bridge it through learning, either though communication with another person or, in terms of library science, through the aid of an information retrieval system. It is important to note that Dervin's sense-making can be applied to any moment in an individual's life, not just when s/he is interacting with an IR system. To bring up Belkin again, I believe that Dervin would agree that an IR system should help the user, not solve the situation. Since the sense-making gaps are more open ended than a yes/no or fact-based information need, it might even be impossible for an IR system to bridge the gap.
Dervin's sense-making is a user-centered theoretical model. In fact, to Dervin there is no one more important than the individual user. Rather than relying on human patterns, sense-making structure is "energized by, maintained, riefied, changed, and created by individual acts of communication" (Dervin 1992, pg. 55/67). However, it is not just the individual's behavior, but the individual's behavior at a particularly moment in time that is the key to the sense-making theory (Delkin 1992, pg. 55/66). An individual can change tactics or strategy at any moment, to the point where s/he may be seen as "capricious" (Dervin 1992, pg. 55/66). While I find much of Dervin confusing and not entirely convincing, I agree with her on this point: humans are complex creatures who contradict each other and even themselves. When faced with a problem or gap, we will engage in a variety of methods to create a bridge to get ourselves to the other side. It is this adaptability which has allowed the species to survive and thrive. Again, this is so obvious, I'm not sure why a study had to be done on it.
Unlike Taylor, who argued in "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries" that there was a process that an information need went through, Dervin's "circling the experience" triangular model has no clear steps: the situation, gap, and help/use all occur simultaneously (Dervin 1992, pg. 56/69). Taylor comes from the cognitive viewpoint school of thought, while Dervin is more interested in looking at the user information need from the viewpoint of that particular situation (and not the cognitive viewpoint of the user). However both would agree that librarians need to make good use of the reference interview, utilizing open-ended questions, to help their patron/user fulfill their information need.
Dervin's sense-making is a user-centered theoretical model. In fact, to Dervin there is no one more important than the individual user. Rather than relying on human patterns, sense-making structure is "energized by, maintained, riefied, changed, and created by individual acts of communication" (Dervin 1992, pg. 55/67). However, it is not just the individual's behavior, but the individual's behavior at a particularly moment in time that is the key to the sense-making theory (Delkin 1992, pg. 55/66). An individual can change tactics or strategy at any moment, to the point where s/he may be seen as "capricious" (Dervin 1992, pg. 55/66). While I find much of Dervin confusing and not entirely convincing, I agree with her on this point: humans are complex creatures who contradict each other and even themselves. When faced with a problem or gap, we will engage in a variety of methods to create a bridge to get ourselves to the other side. It is this adaptability which has allowed the species to survive and thrive. Again, this is so obvious, I'm not sure why a study had to be done on it.
Unlike Taylor, who argued in "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries" that there was a process that an information need went through, Dervin's "circling the experience" triangular model has no clear steps: the situation, gap, and help/use all occur simultaneously (Dervin 1992, pg. 56/69). Taylor comes from the cognitive viewpoint school of thought, while Dervin is more interested in looking at the user information need from the viewpoint of that particular situation (and not the cognitive viewpoint of the user). However both would agree that librarians need to make good use of the reference interview, utilizing open-ended questions, to help their patron/user fulfill their information need.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
4) Bates: The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for online search interface.
In "The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for online search interface," Bates' discuses a new model of interacting with IR systems, once which Bates' argues is closer to humans' natural method of searching. Unlike the classic model, berrypicking takes into consideration "the nature of the query, the nature of the search process, the range of search techniques used, [and]the information 'domain' where the search is conducted" (Bates 1989, pg. 409). This shift from a system-central model to a user-central one was revolutionary.
A user's information need may not be articulate at the start of the query, or never fully articulated at any point. According to Belkin et al. in "Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval," a search beings when a person realizes s/he has an ASK, or gap in his/her knowledge that can be resolved through communication (Belkin 1982, pg. 62). It is important to note that Belkin does not include anything about the query being formed or articulated. This connects also to Taylor, who argues in "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries" that it is not until the last stage of the search process that a query is developed. Despite this imprecise information need, the classic model of information retrieval was static and rigid: once an information need was translated into a query, the system retrieved a document representation that best matched the query. According to Bates, this single result system is too constrictive. Rather than confirm one's search need to the limitations of the system, Bates discusses a model that allows for the query to evolve as the search proceeds; this she calls "berrypicking," in reference to people's method of literally picking berries off a bush. This connects to Bates in another way: a "berry bush" is like a bunch of ASks; every new cluster of berries that the user finds might answer a part of the ASK or lead to a new ASK.
She differentiates this from "browsing": browsing is part of berrypicking, not the entire method. Berrypicking in manual environments includes browsing, as well as footnote chasing (in which a person looks up the sources that the author used), citation searching (to find other articles that use the same source), searching abstracts and indexes, and author searching (to find other articles written by the author)(Bates 1989, pg. 412). Bates argues that these strategies could also be used when searching with in IR system; time has proved her correct and with the web at searchers' fingertips, we can now utilize berrypicking during our online searches. Hyperlinks allow users to jump from document to document, adapting one's query as one searches through citations on Google Scholar, then through wiki articles, then through references. This way even if a person's information need isn't directly resolved, it may be narrowed down into a searchable query.
Though this method may be inconsistient compared to the more rigid search structures of classic IR retrieval systems, it harkens back to the quote that Taylor opens "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries" with: "You should be sloppy enough so that the unexpected happens, yet not so sloppy that you cannot figure out what happens after it has happened" (Eiduson, in Taylor 1968, pg. 28).
A user's information need may not be articulate at the start of the query, or never fully articulated at any point. According to Belkin et al. in "Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval," a search beings when a person realizes s/he has an ASK, or gap in his/her knowledge that can be resolved through communication (Belkin 1982, pg. 62). It is important to note that Belkin does not include anything about the query being formed or articulated. This connects also to Taylor, who argues in "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries" that it is not until the last stage of the search process that a query is developed. Despite this imprecise information need, the classic model of information retrieval was static and rigid: once an information need was translated into a query, the system retrieved a document representation that best matched the query. According to Bates, this single result system is too constrictive. Rather than confirm one's search need to the limitations of the system, Bates discusses a model that allows for the query to evolve as the search proceeds; this she calls "berrypicking," in reference to people's method of literally picking berries off a bush. This connects to Bates in another way: a "berry bush" is like a bunch of ASks; every new cluster of berries that the user finds might answer a part of the ASK or lead to a new ASK.
She differentiates this from "browsing": browsing is part of berrypicking, not the entire method. Berrypicking in manual environments includes browsing, as well as footnote chasing (in which a person looks up the sources that the author used), citation searching (to find other articles that use the same source), searching abstracts and indexes, and author searching (to find other articles written by the author)(Bates 1989, pg. 412). Bates argues that these strategies could also be used when searching with in IR system; time has proved her correct and with the web at searchers' fingertips, we can now utilize berrypicking during our online searches. Hyperlinks allow users to jump from document to document, adapting one's query as one searches through citations on Google Scholar, then through wiki articles, then through references. This way even if a person's information need isn't directly resolved, it may be narrowed down into a searchable query.
Though this method may be inconsistient compared to the more rigid search structures of classic IR retrieval systems, it harkens back to the quote that Taylor opens "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries" with: "You should be sloppy enough so that the unexpected happens, yet not so sloppy that you cannot figure out what happens after it has happened" (Eiduson, in Taylor 1968, pg. 28).
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
3) Belkin: Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval.
In "Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval," Belkin, Oddy, and Brooks describe the results of their study for the British Library Research and Development Department on the interaction of users with the systems on which they searched with a focus on ASKs. They concluded that that best-match answering system, which was information retrieval (IR) systems’ primarily means of organizing retrieved answers, was not an efficient way of attempting to resolve a user’s ASK and that an ASK-match system would be more appropriate (Belkin 1982, pg. 61).
ASK, or anomalous states of knowledge, is when a person realizes that there is a gap or anomaly in his or her knowledge (Belkin 1982, pg. 62). Belkin's ASK hypothesis is that an information need is created when a person realizes that he or she has a gap or anomaly, and attempts to fill or fix it through communication - In the terms of information retrieval, this achieved with the help of an information system. To connect to the other reading from this week, an ASK is similar to the information need described by Taylor. In Taylor's "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries," he describes how a user or patron develops, with a librarian's aid, an indistinct desire for information into a searchable question (Taylor 1968, pg. 31). This first stage of information need can be the result of an ASK: a user is aware that s/he needs to know more about a topic and begins the process of resolving that need. Returning to Belkin, because IRs returned a best-match answer, that is, the “best possible… representation [that] most closely matches… a representation of a request for information” (Belkin 1982, pg. 63). According to Belkin, this method has two substantial weaknesses: the user may not be able to articulate his or her specific need in a pithy query capable of being entered into the IR system and because of this, the information retrieved may not be relevant (Belkin 1982, pg. 63). I can't help but think that Belkin, as well as some of our other readings, are just explaining the obvious. While I agree that IR systems are sometimes overly simplistic in their approaches to searching, I feel like Belkin et al. aren't doing much but stating the obvious.
An IR system able to uncover the user’s real information need would serve as a better model, according to Belkin. The IR should help the person solve the problem, not solve it for him/her. While this might be an ideal model, this article shows its age by dismissing best match. Much progress has been made since 1982, and Google, by far the most popular search system, currently utilizes best-match retrieval with great success. Also, I think that best match can be helpful: if you don't know what exactly you're looking for, the computer's retrieved results (and its interpretation of what you meant) might help you better define your need.
ASK, or anomalous states of knowledge, is when a person realizes that there is a gap or anomaly in his or her knowledge (Belkin 1982, pg. 62). Belkin's ASK hypothesis is that an information need is created when a person realizes that he or she has a gap or anomaly, and attempts to fill or fix it through communication - In the terms of information retrieval, this achieved with the help of an information system. To connect to the other reading from this week, an ASK is similar to the information need described by Taylor. In Taylor's "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries," he describes how a user or patron develops, with a librarian's aid, an indistinct desire for information into a searchable question (Taylor 1968, pg. 31). This first stage of information need can be the result of an ASK: a user is aware that s/he needs to know more about a topic and begins the process of resolving that need. Returning to Belkin, because IRs returned a best-match answer, that is, the “best possible… representation [that] most closely matches… a representation of a request for information” (Belkin 1982, pg. 63). According to Belkin, this method has two substantial weaknesses: the user may not be able to articulate his or her specific need in a pithy query capable of being entered into the IR system and because of this, the information retrieved may not be relevant (Belkin 1982, pg. 63). I can't help but think that Belkin, as well as some of our other readings, are just explaining the obvious. While I agree that IR systems are sometimes overly simplistic in their approaches to searching, I feel like Belkin et al. aren't doing much but stating the obvious.
An IR system able to uncover the user’s real information need would serve as a better model, according to Belkin. The IR should help the person solve the problem, not solve it for him/her. While this might be an ideal model, this article shows its age by dismissing best match. Much progress has been made since 1982, and Google, by far the most popular search system, currently utilizes best-match retrieval with great success. Also, I think that best match can be helpful: if you don't know what exactly you're looking for, the computer's retrieved results (and its interpretation of what you meant) might help you better define your need.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
3) Taylor: Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries.
In "Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries,” Taylor summarized and described the ways that librarians interact with their patrons to help uncover and solve their information need. While not an empirical study, Taylor's article was a valuable resource: his four levels of information need and five filters are attempted to explain the rather nebulous ways that a user/patron's information need was discovered and solved.
The librarians that Taylor interviewed for his study were described as "special librarians and information specialists" (Taylor 1968, pg. 29). These people were dealing with users/patrons who, Taylor suggested, were at a higher level of education and intelligence than a typical library patron. Even with this advantage, the librarians found that often people weren't sure what they wanted - And even when they did, it was difficult to articulate. I think that this is where a librarian or information specialist shines; they can comprehend and do things that are impossible for a computer or system. Through the five filters Taylor described how a librarian was able to extract the patron's true need. A computer, as advanced as search engines and systems are currently, can only anticipate a user's need to a limited degree and the AI as it is now doesn't have the knowledge or experience of a human with a library background. By determining the subject (filter #1), understanding the motivation and characteristics of the patron (filter #2 and #3), the search system itself and its strengths and limitations in terms to the query (filter #4), and what sort of answer the patron will deem acceptable (filter #5), the librarian can guide the search (Taylor 1968, pg. 31-32). These five filters are not without flaws, however; human error can affect every stage of the search. In the first filter, the librarian runs the risk of misinterpreting the user's desired topic or not discovering it at all. In the second and third, the librarian's biases may come into effect when s/he attempt to judge what the user's motivation and background are. In the fourth, the librarian or the search system can misinterpret the query. Finally in the fifth, the librarian can give the user an incorrect or incomplete search result.
I found Taylor's four levels of information need (Taylor 1968, pg. 32) very interesting. The first stage is the visceral need; the user might be unconscious of his or her true need at this point. In the second level, the conscious need, the query exists in some form in the user's mind, although s/he might not have a clear or firm searchable question. The third level, which Taylor calls the formalized need, has a developed query; the user has a distinct question which can be inputted into an information retrieval system. By the fourth level, or the compromised need, the user has taken the limits of the search system into consideration when phrasing his/her question. At this point, the original query has traveled from a vague idea into a fully formed, articulate question that can inputted into a system with the anticipation of retrieving results.
Taylor's article is as important research for me as a potential librarian because it portrays an information need as a process, and as a process that needs a librarian to guide it.
The librarians that Taylor interviewed for his study were described as "special librarians and information specialists" (Taylor 1968, pg. 29). These people were dealing with users/patrons who, Taylor suggested, were at a higher level of education and intelligence than a typical library patron. Even with this advantage, the librarians found that often people weren't sure what they wanted - And even when they did, it was difficult to articulate. I think that this is where a librarian or information specialist shines; they can comprehend and do things that are impossible for a computer or system. Through the five filters Taylor described how a librarian was able to extract the patron's true need. A computer, as advanced as search engines and systems are currently, can only anticipate a user's need to a limited degree and the AI as it is now doesn't have the knowledge or experience of a human with a library background. By determining the subject (filter #1), understanding the motivation and characteristics of the patron (filter #2 and #3), the search system itself and its strengths and limitations in terms to the query (filter #4), and what sort of answer the patron will deem acceptable (filter #5), the librarian can guide the search (Taylor 1968, pg. 31-32). These five filters are not without flaws, however; human error can affect every stage of the search. In the first filter, the librarian runs the risk of misinterpreting the user's desired topic or not discovering it at all. In the second and third, the librarian's biases may come into effect when s/he attempt to judge what the user's motivation and background are. In the fourth, the librarian or the search system can misinterpret the query. Finally in the fifth, the librarian can give the user an incorrect or incomplete search result.
I found Taylor's four levels of information need (Taylor 1968, pg. 32) very interesting. The first stage is the visceral need; the user might be unconscious of his or her true need at this point. In the second level, the conscious need, the query exists in some form in the user's mind, although s/he might not have a clear or firm searchable question. The third level, which Taylor calls the formalized need, has a developed query; the user has a distinct question which can be inputted into an information retrieval system. By the fourth level, or the compromised need, the user has taken the limits of the search system into consideration when phrasing his/her question. At this point, the original query has traveled from a vague idea into a fully formed, articulate question that can inputted into a system with the anticipation of retrieving results.
Taylor's article is as important research for me as a potential librarian because it portrays an information need as a process, and as a process that needs a librarian to guide it.
2) Duggan: Longitudnal analysis and 2) Dervin: Information needs and uses
Duggan and Julien's "Longitudinal analysis" is an empirical study that tested the claims by other researchers: Is information behavior multidisciplinary? what are the methods of the studies?, and Are these studies dealing with cognitive activities? They created content analysis categories in which to place literature published between 1984-1989 and 1995-1998.
While it seems like they did extensive research to determine if articles could apply to library science or information behavior, it is possible that Duggan et al. missed some sources, which would skew their results. As this paper was published more than 10 years ago, certain resources were not available to Duggen. A follow-up to this paper would be interesting; even if new search engines and databases don't make a difference in the ease of locating and categorizing documents, there certainly have been more work published that might change their results.
However, the results that Duggan did find were interesting: articles relating to library science were not often cited by papers in other fields and methods of research were generally still based on questionnaires, rather than more quantitative methods. It is possible that the relative youth of the field is a reason for these results, as librarians were not always concerned with the concept of information behavior. I also believe that that concept itself might be why there were so few scientific papers and why the papers were restrained to a few fields. The manner of how people search or the idea that someone's question might be just a part of a bigger information need seem to be abstract concepts.
I believe that more studies in the theories of information behaviors should be done. It remains a relevant field: with more content being made available online, it's not only librarians who need to remain focused on how people interact with all the information we have access to in this Information Age, but any company, organization, or person with a website who wants it to be findable. I agree with Dervin and Nilan, who in "Information needs and uses" argue that the field of information behavior needs to continue to define its theories and expand in new directions. They use seven criteria to establish a shift in mindset: the way we view information, the user, and the user experience; predict user behavior; our method for determining information needs; our approaches to research; and a new importance on the individual. The older methods of system-centered research and literature was unhelpful then, now it's practically irrelevant.
Since the Internet is available to such a wide spectrum of people, users can come from an array of backgrounds and situations (as Dervin calls them in "From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology") or ASKs (as Bates call them); information retrieval systems need to be approachable and usable by people with a variety of education, intellect, experience with IR systems, and expectations. By doing more research into the user as an individual, IR systems will be be able to adapt to better serve those who use them. The system-focused paradigm relies too heavily on stereotypes and assumptions about the users. And while demographics may seem like an appropriate method of distinction in a small library system, in a library that serves a large population, like the one I patronize in Brooklyn, the patrons can't be placed into neat groups.
To return to Duggan and Julien, I believe it's important that articles written about and for library science or information behavior should cross-reference and be cross-referenced by other fields. Users draw from a vast and complex network of experience and knowledge, and not just from their understanding of library/information science. Information behavior is not exclusive to one field since the users aren't exclusive.
While it seems like they did extensive research to determine if articles could apply to library science or information behavior, it is possible that Duggan et al. missed some sources, which would skew their results. As this paper was published more than 10 years ago, certain resources were not available to Duggen. A follow-up to this paper would be interesting; even if new search engines and databases don't make a difference in the ease of locating and categorizing documents, there certainly have been more work published that might change their results.
However, the results that Duggan did find were interesting: articles relating to library science were not often cited by papers in other fields and methods of research were generally still based on questionnaires, rather than more quantitative methods. It is possible that the relative youth of the field is a reason for these results, as librarians were not always concerned with the concept of information behavior. I also believe that that concept itself might be why there were so few scientific papers and why the papers were restrained to a few fields. The manner of how people search or the idea that someone's question might be just a part of a bigger information need seem to be abstract concepts.
I believe that more studies in the theories of information behaviors should be done. It remains a relevant field: with more content being made available online, it's not only librarians who need to remain focused on how people interact with all the information we have access to in this Information Age, but any company, organization, or person with a website who wants it to be findable. I agree with Dervin and Nilan, who in "Information needs and uses" argue that the field of information behavior needs to continue to define its theories and expand in new directions. They use seven criteria to establish a shift in mindset: the way we view information, the user, and the user experience; predict user behavior; our method for determining information needs; our approaches to research; and a new importance on the individual. The older methods of system-centered research and literature was unhelpful then, now it's practically irrelevant.
Since the Internet is available to such a wide spectrum of people, users can come from an array of backgrounds and situations (as Dervin calls them in "From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology") or ASKs (as Bates call them); information retrieval systems need to be approachable and usable by people with a variety of education, intellect, experience with IR systems, and expectations. By doing more research into the user as an individual, IR systems will be be able to adapt to better serve those who use them. The system-focused paradigm relies too heavily on stereotypes and assumptions about the users. And while demographics may seem like an appropriate method of distinction in a small library system, in a library that serves a large population, like the one I patronize in Brooklyn, the patrons can't be placed into neat groups.
To return to Duggan and Julien, I believe it's important that articles written about and for library science or information behavior should cross-reference and be cross-referenced by other fields. Users draw from a vast and complex network of experience and knowledge, and not just from their understanding of library/information science. Information behavior is not exclusive to one field since the users aren't exclusive.
First post
This is the blog I'll be using to post my responses to the readings for 17:610:510:501 Human Information Behavior.
Jackie Coffeyjgcoffey@eden.rutgers.edu
Jackie Coffeyjgcoffey@eden.rutgers.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)