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.
No comments:
Post a Comment