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.
No comments:
Post a Comment