6.3 The production of ‘context’ in information seeking research: a metatheoretical view

6.3 The production of ‘context’ in information seeking research: a metatheoretical view

Sanna Talja, Heidi Keso and Tarja Pietiläinen

This article by Talja, Keso and Pietiläinen takes some of the ideas lain out by Dervin in her context article and applies them to information needs and seeking research (INS). They discuss the idea of objectified context, or context used only to explain the motivation or behavior of a user. I don’t think this is an inherently incorrect way to use context in relation to information seeking. Context does affect the way a user will interact with information, and the way he or she will react to it. As I stated in my last entry, if you can understand the context surrounding the user, you can assist in finding appropriate pieces of information.

Talja et al also discuss research studies. Stronger context, they say, makes a study seem more reliable. When multiple methods of data collection are used and more outside variables are considered, the results seem more trustworthy. I think that the extended context given to research data allows the interpreter it to decide if it has value or not. Talja and friends mention that this viewpoint seems to put already existing articles as less worthy, as there has already been an interpretation of reality. I think that is an interesting notion. They are not less worthy, but simply have more contexts applied to them, as you must look at the context the writer applies as well as the context you bring with your reading.

The article seems to focus on the idea that knowledge is contextually constructed. With this theory, knowledge is different for each person, even if they are exposed to all of the same sources of knowledge. It is important to note that knowledge is not only affected by the learner’s personal context, but by whatever context existed in the creation of the document or source of knowledge. This can be connected to social constructivism, and the idea that knowledge is constructed by our own personal discourse. The social discourse that affects knowledge in social constructivism is very similar to the social contexts of knowledge. In both theories, the outside world exists, we simply create our own reality within it.

6.2 Given a Context by Any Other Name: Methodological Tools for Taming the Unruly Beast.

6.2 Given a Context by Any Other Name: Methodological Tools for Taming the Unruly Beast.

Brenda Dervin

Dervin’s article discusses the idea of context, and that it has tons of definitions. She defines it in many ways, confusing the reader, but also explains how it is important. The article closes on the idea that context is “untamable”, because it is everywhere and is fluid instead of stagnant.

The idea of context is a very broad one. When I think of context, I define it as the circumstances surrounding something. Now, while that is very vague, I think my definition is clearer than Dervin’s. Dervin struggles to give context a specific meaning, and instead gives it many. She states that every attribute of people, situations, organizations, and has been defined as context. At first, this was troubling to me, the idea that context is in a sense absolutely everything. Why bother having a term to define everything? But, as I considered it, I realized Dervin’s definition melded well with mine. The circumstances surrounded a piece of literature include not only the time period in which it was written, but the author’s gender, education, political leanings, etc. In my definition, I was thinking of circumstances and context in a very narrow way, defining the situation instead of in the broader terms Dervin uses to define context.

In human information behavior, context is everything. Context can define what kind of prior knowledge the user possesses, and the way they interpret the information they are given. It can also affect the ability of a user to use a system, whether it be a librarian or a computer system. It is our job, as information professionals, to be aware of the affect of context. When assisting a patron in obtaining information, we need to understand what factors may affect their ability to search information as well as comprehend the information. With a child in this situation, you would need to know not only their age and grade in school, but their reading level and if possible, if there are any reading restrictions put in place by their parents. While some 12 year olds may not understand a scholarly journal, others may, and it would be good to be able to provide the information.

5.2 A Social Constructivist Approach to the Study of Information Use as Discursive Action

5.2 A Social Constructivist Approach to the Study of Information Use as Discursive Action

Kimmo Tuominen and Reijo Savloinen

This article by Touminen and Savloinen discusses the theory of social constructivism and discourse in terms of information use. Social constructivism looks at conversation and everyday communication as information use. Through the conversations we have, we construct a reality to take information from. Through social constraints of what is acceptable and not, as well as true or false, we create a view of the world in which we can exchange information.

Social constructivism didn’t make much sense to me until we talked about it in class. In many ways, it is so theoretical that it is hard to give a practical example to it. If every time we talk to someone, we are exchanging and using information, then much of life is about information behavior. I don’t think we consciously seek information when communicating with other people, at least not every time we communicate. If every conversation is considered information use, then we are unconsciously receiving and passing on information. It makes sense that all forms of communication are information use, but it seems as though there are lots of situations where this kind of information use should not really be looked at in a scholarly manner.

Discourse is supposed to create what we consider objects of knowledge. Through communication, we are supposed to construct a view of the world, but the world still exists outside of our view. We are using communication as a way to understand the world. Within this idea of a constructed view of the world, it seems to imply that everyone’s view is incomplete, that no one can have a full knowledge of the world. I suppose that is correct, but it seems strange that it is inherent in the way we process knowledge.

Although they are different theories, the idea of discourse as information use relates back to Dervin. In her sense-making method, she speaks of every moment being an opportunity for sense making. Therefore, every moment is an opportunity for information use. With the idea of communication as information exchange, it isn’t that every moment is an opportunity, because we are not constantly communicating with other people, but it is very similar. Both of these theories look at information use and seeking as a common occurrence, not just used in a focused research scenario.

5.1 Inside the Search Process: Information seeking from the User’s Perspective

5.1 Inside the Search Process: Information seeking from the User’s Perspective

Carol C. Kuhlthau

The article by Kuhlthau looks at stages of information use. Within the article, Kuthltahu combines the theories of 3 different information scholars into a model for information use. She connects Kelly’s phases of construction to Taylor’s levels of need, Belkins levels of specificity and expression. Out of this theoretical foundation, she created a 6 stage information search process. These phases follow the user through his or her search for information and information use, and addresses the thoughts, feelings and actions of the user.

It was nice to read an article that combined many of the theories we have been using. Kuhlthau’s combination helped to re-explain the major stages of the different theories in relation to each other. I connect strongly with the idea of stages of information use. I can relate to the uncertainty and stress related to the first phase, initiation. The most stressful part of embarking on any kind of research project is the moment before you have started, when the vastness of the knowledge available overwhelms you. The phases help to progress past this stage. This set up of phases can be used quite effectively in a library situation. When dealing with a patron who is having trouble searching and getting more and more frustrated, you can use this model not only to explain that the frustration and rate of progress is normal, but also to help guide the patron to the next stage. I think these stages can be related strongly to Bates’ theory of berrypicking. To get from the stage of initiation to the stage of selection, the user must go through berrypicking to find information that is interesting and relevant to them. Berrypicking is also used in the transition from exploration to formulation.

What would be very interesting would be a computerized system designed to follow the stages of this information process and use. Giving the user options to narrow or widen the search or to view articles within similar realms of interest could be very helpful. This could allow a user to make a search on one specific term but still be able to navigate to a related but equally specific term without researching. The biggest flaw with this idea is that it would require a strict hierarchy of search keywords and a high degree of interconnectedness within the database. It is also possible that a system designed to do this would only cause more problems in the search process and that it would limit users ability to search effectively.

4.2 The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface

4.2 The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface

Marcia J. Bates

Bates’ article looks at the idea of berrypicking, a new (in 1989) technique for both online and offline system searching. The system of berrypicking is supposed to closely mimic the way most people search for information. When a set of results is given, the best results are not usually clumped together, but are scattered throughout, and the user must pick and choose. Satisfaction with the search is attained through careful selection of information that fulfills the need. Bates also discusses desired capabilities of a search interface designed for berrypicking. The resulting interface would have many strategies available for best searching. This system would allow the search to evolve, not expect the user to have a finite destination at the beginning of the search.

From the articles we have read so far, I feel like this article is written most clearly. It lays out in the beginning of the writing the two big points covered, and it has clearly labeled sections. Beyond readability, however, the process described was very easy for me, as a student, to understand. When posing a search query, even on a simple system such as Google, a user has to use his or her own knowledge to determine what bits of information are worthwhile and related to their information need. If I am searching for a recipe on Google, and I simply put in “boiled chicken,” I am going to get a lot of different results, some of which may be for specific dishes. To find a simple recipie for boiled chicken, I have to look at a few recipes to find what most fulfills my information need.

Bates’ idea of giving many search mechanism in a system to facilitate berrypicking seems very strong. If the user has many options of ways to search a database, they can use the type that seems most comfortable. I also like that these search methods would work together. If I found an article I really liked via one method, I could both search that author to find out what else they had published, and do a citation search to look at the information the author has cited in his piece. Having browsing capabilities also allows for casual searching that can become more directed the information need persists. A berrypicking search system would be very useful within a library situation, especially in use for children. Having multiple ways to explore knowledge within the same system is both interested and beneficial to a child just learning to research.

I am curious, really, why it took so long to come up with this method of organizing a search system. It would seem that in the effort to become more user oriented, that the systems would try to more closely mimic the search patterns of users.

4.1 From the Minds Eye of the User: The Sense-Making Qualitative-Quantitative Methodology

4.1 From the Minds Eye of the User: The Sense-Making Qualitative-Quantitative Methodology

Brenda Dervin

Dervin discusses the “sense making” methodology of information seeking. The sense making model is explained as a methodology to study situations involving communication. It involves even the most basic forms of information gathering, such as talking to another person. In sense making, when a situation or problem is reached, the user must try to bridge the gap to get to the desired solution on use The underlying theories are based on the nature of information and the use of that information. It is also based on the idea of discontinuity, that when the mind reaches a discontinuity, it will try to bridge the gap. Dervin also discusses a number of “exemplars” in which real situations put to use the sense making model.

Sense making is probably one of my favorite theories of Human Information Behavior, because, conveniently enough, it makes the most sense. The idea of a gap in information or even life is a simple one, and fairly easy to understand. I like the idea that “each moment is potentially a sense-making moment”. This theory approaches information need and use as an everyday occurrence, which it is. Many of the other theories we have looked at are significantly more formalized and seem to apply to a specific information need situation. If we look at life where every moment is an opportunity to need and use information, it makes the profession seem even more important.

It thought the use of the exemplars was very helpful, I wish all of the articles would have such clean cut and explained examples of their theories. I appreciated the example of the girl choosing to go back to school after having a child. It was a real world kind of situation, and her sense making process was based mostly on knowledge she already possessed. This was different compared to the second exemplar, the blood donation, where the questions and answers were not internal. The donor had to communicate with someone else to bridge their gap, instead of internalizing the process.

I would be curious to know how much sense making is actually put into process in information seeking situations. The exemplars guide people through the process, but I wonder if it is used outside of studying its effectiveness. It seems as thought it would be a good methodology to put to use with children.

3.2 ASK for Information Retrieval: Part I Background and Theory

3.2 ASK for Information Retrieval: Part I Background and Theory

N.J. Belkin, R.N. Oddy and H.M. Brooks

This article discusses the background and theory of information need (IR) systems in relation to the “anomalous state of knowledge”. This state means that there is an anomaly in one’s knowledge that causes the information need. Belkin et al. discuss the idea that IR systems should be oriented as such that they can connect the information request to the information to solve the anomaly. The early IR systems used the idea of “best-match” which did not often solve the information need, especially if the need was poorly expressed. Like much of the literature we have read, this piece calls for a more user oriented system.

The biggest flaws I can see within the best match system assume that the user knows exactly what he or she wants, and can state it perfectly. The average person, even after using a particular system many times, may still have to try multiple queries before getting the desired result. In the best match situation, unless you only want information on the specific thing you ask for, you will not obtain as much information as you want. I know that if I want information on one topic that does not have many results; I will sometimes search another, related topic. Through a best match system it can be harder to get results.

Belkin and friends once again prove that a shift towards more user oriented systems need to be developed. While I’m sure there has been improvement since 1982, I can see some of their problems still within the information systems used today. Users often become very frustrated in trying to utilize many systems. I encounter this myself often at my job. I work with an online database and archive, and I often have to use a search function. However, the way this search function is designed, if you don’t enter works in the exact order they appear in the document, the document will not be found. Even two words searched but out of order, nothing will be found. I have to know exactly what I am looking for in order to find anything. It can be very frustrating, but I still have to use the database. In a library situation, the frustration could cause a withdrawal from using the automated systems. While librarians can be very useful, I feel like the goal is to get patrons to be able to use the systems effectively.

When reading the actual structure of the ASK system, I wonder if there are any databases used by libraries that function on an approximation of this system. As I know little to nothing about programming, I don’t know how possible or impossible this would be. If there is a system that uses something similar, does it work as well as Belkin and friends seem to think it will? Does it solve the problems it hopes to solve?

3.1 Question Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries

3.1 Question Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries

Robert S. Taylor

This article discusses the search for information through two different means: contact with information professionals (librarians) and self help. The article discusses the difficulties people may have in getting the correct information through these means. Taylor interviewed information specialists and reference librarians about the way they help “inquirers” to find the answer to their questions. Taylor also discusses the idea of self help and the information seeking strategies of users. He wants make the systems more user-oriented but still on a similar framework to question negotiation through an information specialist.

Taylor describes the different stages of question formation. He describes the actual but unexplained need as the visceral need. The weird thing about this stage is it seems very hard to quantify it within an example of the situation. As it is seemingly unconscious, it is hard to explain. Following this is the conscious realization of the need, appropriately called the conscious need. For most users, this would be the first stage of question formation. The average person wouldn’t even consider the moment between the occurrence and the realization of the need. The formal statement of the need, or the formalized need, seems as though it would be the most useful stage to information professional. While the context in which the user gained the conscious stage of need is helpful, the formalized stage seems to be when the user can explain the need to another person. The stage that follows, the compromised need, seems as more of an extension of the formalized need. If the expression of the formalized need does not yield results, the user must explain it to the system differently. While I feel like this process makes a lot of sense, it seems like an awkward conversation to lead a patron through to help with their information needs. While it may make sense to someone with a college education (especially someone who has taken a class similar to this) it doesn’t seem like it would be beneficial to go through these kinds of question with a child. As I plan to work primarily with children I am trying to look at these theories and apply them to working with children.

The section on information strategies was very interesting to me. While we have discussed that systems are becoming more user oriented, Taylor mentions that most systems are not oriented towards a new user, that the options offered within the system are not always clear in their intent. I sympathize with this idea. While earning an undergraduate degree in English, I spent a fair amount of time using my school library’s article databases and searching mechanisms. By senior year, I was a pro, but when I was just starting out, it was very hard for me to use the system accurately. As I had to use it more and more, my searches were more accurate to what I wanted. I had to learn the specifics of the system first. Taylor calls for a more adaptable interface, to better express to users what certain options will do. This seems like an obvious solution, but it seems as though many systems are still tricky for the average person to use.

2.1 A Longitudinal Analysis of the Information Needs and Uses Literature

2.1 A Longitudinal Analysis of the Information Needs and Uses Literature

Heidi Julien & Lawrence J. Duggan

This article discusses a study done by Heidi Julien and Lawrence J. Duggan concerning the information needs and uses literature published between 1984-1989 and 1995-1998. Their study, based on a review done in 1990 by Hewins, analyzed the degree of interdisciplinarity within the literature. They used citation reviews as well as analyzing the content of the literature itself to determine if any improvement was made across the time periods evaluated. At the end of the article (and the end of the study) Julien and Duggan determined that some progress has been made, but they indicate that the progress does not seem sufficient. They also admit that their study has not analyzed the progress as deeply as it could, and suggest that further analysis can be done through literature with its basic ideas outside of the realm of information science.

I agree with the reasoning behind the study itself. Hewins’ review had no scientific backing and was based on scholarly opinion. It makes sense to feel the need to evaluate if the claims made by the review could be backed with data. It does seem, however, that no matter how much evaluation of literature is done, that the study will always be complete. The bank of literature reviewed may be incomplete. It would be hard to locate all of the published literature dealing with information needs and uses even from a concrete time period. Still, I think that the study was as conclusive as possible, given the circumstances.

Improving the interdisciplinary nature of information science literature is important because many different aspects of the user can affect their information need. Hewins discussed the need for more integration research wise within the fields of psychology and computer science, to relate to the cognitive processes of information needs and use. Julian and Duggan discovered that computing and science were second and third in percentage of citations outside of LIS in the 1984-1989 time period, but shifted to third and 5^th during the 1995-1998 time period. It seems interesting that computing would have fewer citations, as much of computer use is related to information use. I would have guessed that with the increase of home computer use, and computing becoming a more common activity, the research and literature would have increased. During the two time periods analyzed, the distribution of the citations did change to even out slightly, so that would seem to note some improvement. I would be interested to see what an analysis of the literature from the past four years would yield, especially whether or not there was an increase in references in the computing field, based on the technological advances in the past 10 years.

Information Theory Models

We talk a lot in class about what the works by the information theory scholars mean to us as information professionals. Sometimes, I struggle to answer that question. When reading the articles, I try to think of the various models and theories in terms of working with children in a public library setting. With children, the base of knowledge is different, and their ability to use systems (both in the specific and broad sense) can be limited. Based on what we have looked at so far, the model that seems as though it would work the best with children is Brenda Dervin's "Sense Making" model. I'm sure part of the reason it seems as though it would apply so well to children is the cute diagram it evokes: a man on one side of a ravine, with his goal on the other. If I were to try to explain to a child how to seek information, this seems like the easiest one for him or her to understand. Taylor's idea of question negotiation would also work well with children, in some ways. While the questioning may be the best way to get the intent out of the child, depending on the age and temperment, the child may become easily frustrated or lose interest in the information. In a school library setting where the child may often have to have the information for an assignment, the loss of interest could be detrimental to their grades. However, it could also cause problems in the public library setting by potentially stifling an intellectually curious child. I think to maintain interest of the child as well as spark independent research, it is important for libraries to have "kid friendly" systems that are easily searchable with or without assitance for elementary age children. That would go along with the idea of systems being user oriented, but also oriented towards a specific group of users.

2.5, Information Needs and Uses

2.5 Information Needs and Uses

Brenda Dervin and Michael Nilan

This article, “Information Needs and Uses” by Brenda Dervin and Michael Nilan discusses the pre 1978 literature on “Information Needs and Uses” and considers where advancements need to be made. It also discusses six different categories related to information behavior in the traditional paradigm, as well as a few “alternative” approaches to information behavior.

This article seemed to give a very broad overview of lots of different ideas about information from before a certain time period. Because it was so broad, it was a little hard to understand at first and pick out what the article was actually about. Dervin and Nilan spend a long time talking about what kind of scholarship already exists, in theory to make it clear what needs to be improved upon. The section “The Practice Mandate for User-Need Oriented Studies” discussed different “calls” made in the previously published literature. These subheadings seem to summarize the advances needed more than the rest of the article. I wish the section on “The Call for Capitalizing on Technology” was better explained. Because of the date of the article and the literature it is reviewing, I have a hard time figuring out what technology should be better utilized. Interestingly enough, the same thing could be said now about our use of technology in information seeking.

Although this article was published in 1986, the categories relating to information behavior fit seamlessly with my perceptions of information systems. That is interesting because my default perception of an information system involves technology that was not in common use (and much of it not in existence) during that time period. I realized while reading this that my idea of information systems is very narrow, and I naturally just think of computers and databases, occasionally card catalogues. The article itself doesn’t do anything to clarify the idea of information systems, and I think it makes it harder to read receptively. When I re-read it after the class discussion with your note that it uses the broader sense of the term “system,” it was a little easier to understand.

While there have been some technological advances towards a more user-oriented systems, many users still have to be taught to use the systems correctly. Because of this, many use the system that seems the easiest. When it comes to using a computer for information retrieval, this is often a simple search engine such as Google. While they are still coming up with information, it is not always going to be the most reliable information, and it may take lots of browsing to find the information desired. If a similar study of literature was done now, I wonder what gaps would be found, and what improvements have been made? Aside from the technology available, it doesn’t seem that there has been much progress. Many of the computerized systems utilized by libraries are difficult to use, and require that patrons are taught to use them properly. Ideally we could reach the state where the average person could use an information system without assistance.

This is a Journal for the course Human Information Behavior, 610.510, taught by Ya-Ling Lu. I figured this would be the easiest way to have all of my entries in one place. Of course, it doesn't work when I forgot to post them. Backlog coming soon.