NOTE: Part of response to readings for week 3, Sep 10th 2004, LIS 501 (1 of 2 required courses) last fall.
This week’s reading focus on uses and users of information. Wilson’s article looked at this topic through the lens of an "overview of the field of human information behavior" (49). This article for me had a positive sense to it for several reaons. First, it provides me with an avenue into the literature of the field of human information behavior. Secondly, it points out that this is a growing, and more importantly, an interdisciplinarily growing field. Thirdly, it points to further research and the possible integration of research into information searching and information seeking. Lastly, it provides a first stab at a "global model" of the field. My main problem with Wilson is that he assumes a purely individualistic, non-social, concept of knowledge.
"In all of this, the term knowledge is avoided, on the grounds that knowledge is knowable only to the knower. It cannot be transmitted–only information about the knowledge I have can be recorded and accessed by another person, and that information can only ever be an incomplete surrogate for knowledge" (50).
This simply is not always the case. Certainly any experiential, first-person knowledge fits this description. What it is like for me to know that I am enjoying the scent of the beeswax candle burning next to me can only be surrogate knowledge for others. But a very large amount of knowledge is socially constructed. All knowledge, in my opinion, falls along a continuum of being completely solipsistic to completely socially constructed. Brown and Duguid linked practices of document construction and use to social practices.
Another good entry into the literature of social epistemology is Helen Longino’s The Fate of Knowledge. Longino looks at "scientific knowledge as the core model or notion of knowledge" and persuasively argues that it is social, and pluralistic.
Choo looks at environmental scanning as a strategy of information
acquisition and awareness. While Choo focuses entirely on the
organizational aspects of environmental scanning, which I agree are
critically important, I prefer to relate the concept to the individual
information professional who is trying to keep current with all of the
various influences of their information environment. Use of RSS,
mailing lists, scanning weblogs, professional journal and monograph
reading, conference attendance, and many other activities can all be
considered environmental scanning. Whether or not the scanning process
is for the organization or the individual, the four modes of viewing
and searching must be used as Choo claims. Another point I agree with,
is that "scanning should be managed as a strategic activity" (packet,
3). Profesional development should be undertaken as a strategic
activity.
Tenopir’s article looked at the use of electronic resources using a
meta-analysis of other studies. It is longitudinal and involves a large
sample. This methodology sets a firm foundation of generalizable
results. This study provides some important findings, many of which are
found across different studies. One key example is that there is no
"single typical "user" of information systems" (packet 3). While all
findings of this study may not be generalizable outside of its higher
education sample, this one certainly is. If all academics cannot be
lumped into a typical user profile, then the concept of typical user
can only broaden and not narrow when non-academics are included.
Another key finding is that professors and librarians can influence
students use of resources (packet 9). This bodes well for the
profession as it implies that we can , in fact, apply our judgments of
quality and value that go into collection development to influence
students’ use of quality resources. Tenopir’s finding that "The most
effective way for students to learn about important resources in
academic libraries seems to be for librarians to work directly with
faculty to bring relevant electronic resources into the classroom
(packet 9). This feeds directly into Leckie’s article. [My comments on Leckie's article.]
I would only broaden it to include "relevant resources" of all kinds,
not just electronic ones. Not at all surprising to me was the finding
that people still prefer print to electronic to actually curl up with
and read. I also personally appreciate the caution that reporting lower
"gate counts" in our libraries as reduced usage is a disservice. Having
worked in an academic library for several years, with hours continually
reduced due to the budget situation, I have seen this exact form of
usage statistic mis-used. Almost all other measures of "use" were up,
and use during hours of operation was up, so what is so magical about
"gate counts?" They are only one very simplistic measure of use that
should never be allowed to stand in isolation; particularly by anyone
who is supposed to be an advocate of the library.
Kuhlthau’s model of the information search process is the key idea
that I want to focus on. As to the article at large, I think it a
wonderful piece that puts research that has had a deep impact on
user-centered services into a context of how it can be helpful to
designers of information retrieval (IR) systems. This type of research
into how users actually search should be critical to good IR design; my
concern is that systems designers rarely think from this perspective.
Maybe with the growing interdisciplinarity that Wilson mentions we will
begin to see systems designers who can think from the user-centered
perspective.
I enjoyed this article because it had me engaged, thinking, making
notes,and responding to it. I am quite leery of models in all
"sciences" but this one speaks to me in many ways. It may not be
universalizable, but it makes a serious contribution to the process of
information searching. Not all information needs require such a complex
model; the stages can in fact be collapsed or missing entirely for
simple information "searches," which she clearly acknowledges (packet
2).
I fully understand and quite frequently feel "the dip" in my own
information search process (ISP). For me, lifelong-learning is one big
ISP. There are so many connections; and the more I learn, the more I
learn and know that there is still to more learn, and that I will never
be done. The uncertainty never goes away; it just shifts around the
question domains. The "dip" in all of its’ affective glory is how I
seem to live much of my life–"…increasingly uncertain until a focus
is formed to provide a path for seeking meaning and criteria for
judging relevance" (packet 2). In coming to GSLIS I have changed jobs,
educational focus, physically moved, and left my friends and family.
All of this has led to much confusion and uncertainty as I try to seek
the information and meaning that will allow me to put my life in
context, while looking for the relevant criteria by which I can judge
my own unfolding life, or ISP. As an aside, I must say that I love the
"Uncertainty Principle." It is so Douglas Adams and reminds me of the
Infinite Improbability Drive that powers the starship Heart of Gold.
"Please do not be alarmed," it said, "by anything
you see or hear around you…We are now cruising at a level of two to the
power of two hundred and seventy-six thousand to one against and
falling, and we will be restoring normality just as soon as we are sure
what is normal anyway. Thank you…" (Adams, 1979).
In class we were asked, in regards to limitations of the ISP model,
if searching is really a linear process. It most certainly is not! But,
I believe that Kuhlthau has not ruled that out, at least not in this
piece we read. "Searching is a process over time rather than a single
event. Searching is a holistic experience rather than just an
intellectual activity" (packet 3). If we merge this idea with Leckie’s
"view of research as a non-sequential, non-linear process with a large
degree of ambiguity and serendipity" we get a fuller model of the
research-oriented ISP (202). I find nothing in Kuhlthau that suggests
her ISP model is uni-linear. Maybe some singular threads within the
process are linear, but as a holistic whole the process is not. As one
of our authors said (sorry, can’t find the reference–will keep
looking), the question constantly keeps shifting during the search
process. I find this to be the case in all of my research. One idea
always leads to others. These may generate new questions, or change the
current question.
I also like Kuhlthau’s idea of "zones of intervention" (packet 4). I just recently read Vygotsky’s Mind in Society
for a reading/discussion group and came across his idea of the zone of
proximal development. This is a very important concept in understanding
learning and has critical applications in education. It certainly
deserves attention in any theory of (mediated) information searching. I
am looking forward to being able to devote some time to reading
Kuhlthau’s Seeking Meaning in the hopefully near future.
One limitation of Kuhlthau’s ISP model is that it applies to active
searching; but there are other non-active forms of information seeking
to which it probably does not apply. I have no problem with this state
of affairs as I do not believe in overarching "theories of everything."
They are rarely applicable to any real world situations, especially
human situations. To be so overarching they must incorporate a large
amount of ceteris paribus clauses. In human affairs, "all
things being equal" is never the case. I believe that Kuhlthau’s ISP
model, particularly with a Leckiean description of the research
process, provides an excellent model of the research oriented ISP. How
broadly it can be applied to non-research processes of information
searching is an empirical question; but no matter, there may well be
better models for other active, non-research oriented ISPs. That is one
of the strengths of social epistemology; we can agree to be pluralistic
in our search for "truth."
Citations
Adams, Douglas. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. New York: Harmony, 1979. Found at: Technovelgy LLC. "Technovelgy.com: where science meets fiction." Technovelgy LLC. 2004 <http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=134>.
Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. "The Social Life of Documents." First Monday (1996). (My source: LIS 501 Palmer Course Packet)
Choo, Chun Wei. "The Art of Scanning the Environment." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 25(3): 21-24. (1999).
Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. "Accommodating the User’s Information
Search Process: Challenges for information retrieval systems
designers." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 25(3): 12-16. (1999).
Leckie, Gloria J. "Desperately Seeking citations: Uncovering Faculty Assumptions About the Undergraduate Research Process." Journal of Academic Librarianship 22(3): 201-208. (1996)
Longino, Helen E. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2002.
Tenopir, Carol. "Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources: An
Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studies." Washington, D.C.:
Council on Library and Information Resources, 2003. CLIR Reports. <http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub120abst.html>.
Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1978.
Wilson, T.D. "Human Information Behavior." Informing Science 3(2) (2000).
