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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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