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.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)