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.

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.

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.