10.1 Kuhlthau, C.C. (1999). The Roles of Experience in the Information Search Process of an Early Career Information Worker: Perceptions of Uncertainty, Complexity, Construction, and Sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(5), 399-412.
Within this body of research, Kuhlthau only worked with one participant. While it was beneficial for her to have worked longitudinally with the same person, the transferability of this data is debatable. It is uncertain whether all members of the participant's industry have similar reactions to uncertainty, or if the lone interviewee happens to have specific preferences that are characteristic of him as an individual. As such, it seems unwise to have focused so narrowly. Based on the intensive amount of research required for this study, I would not suggest the pool of candidates be larger than five to ten. Even those few extra people would paint a more accurate depiction of the information behavior of experts compared to novices in security analysis.
Another aspect of this article that I find troubling is the organization of the literature review. A smaller detail, perhaps, but the ease of reading is certainly important. Whether the intended reader is a current student or a practitioner in the library field, an enormous amount of reading is required to stay current. As such, literature reviews should be as succinct and clear as possible. Many times, the models discussed are familiar to the reader and they should not have to waste precious time by rereading something they are already aware of. Bulleted lists or bold key terms would certainly be a sufficient way to alert the reader as to the intended theory or model discussed and would serve as a precise refresher to one already accustomed to the literature.
One of Kuhlthau's findings that I found to be interesting is the difference of opinion between the novice and expert searcher's comfortability level when dealing with uncertainty. Prior to reading this article, I would hypothesize that the expert would be more comfortable in projects and situations filled with uncertainty. I would also suggest that the novice would be anxious and nervous in new and unfamiliar environments. However, Kuhlthau's qualitative data suggests that it is the other way around instead. Again, I am not entirely sure how much conviction can be placed in this study, as only one participant is involved; but it is still worth noting that the novice is more comfortable than the expert in unfamiliar territory.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Section Eight
8.2 Todd, R.J. (1999). Utilization of Heroin Information by Adolescent Girls in Australia: A Cognitive Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 10-23.
In the discussion section, Todd suggests that when providing information to adolescents, we must understand how the cognitive effects of individual patrons will process the information received. That is, of course, the ideal situation but is very rarely ever able to be actualized. Parents and other guardians certainly have this luxury, as they are most likely to know what method best impact their children. Even teachers are at an advantage, because of the sheer repetition of dealing with the students. However, as librarians, we are more likely than not in a position where we must interact with several patrons. And while I am confident that we will be able to build trust with the patrons and know their names and some background (especially in a school setting), it is unlikely we will be able to know the best way to reach each individual child. Todd's suggestion is definitely something to strive towards, but not necessarily feasible in execution.
Something distinct that I discovered about Todd's model is the application of terms from the study participant's own mouths. Instead of framing his body of research around a preconceived notion of how he would develop this theory, he opted to create a theory based on pictures. During the course of the study, the girls would employ the word pictures to describe several different things, and it is from this that Todd gets the model. When a researcher is aware of what they wish to find in the data before even collecting it, no matter what results come back, the researcher will find something to support their hypothesis. Therefore, I find it advisable to conduct the research first, as Todd has showcased in this article.
In the discussion section, Todd suggests that when providing information to adolescents, we must understand how the cognitive effects of individual patrons will process the information received. That is, of course, the ideal situation but is very rarely ever able to be actualized. Parents and other guardians certainly have this luxury, as they are most likely to know what method best impact their children. Even teachers are at an advantage, because of the sheer repetition of dealing with the students. However, as librarians, we are more likely than not in a position where we must interact with several patrons. And while I am confident that we will be able to build trust with the patrons and know their names and some background (especially in a school setting), it is unlikely we will be able to know the best way to reach each individual child. Todd's suggestion is definitely something to strive towards, but not necessarily feasible in execution.
Something distinct that I discovered about Todd's model is the application of terms from the study participant's own mouths. Instead of framing his body of research around a preconceived notion of how he would develop this theory, he opted to create a theory based on pictures. During the course of the study, the girls would employ the word pictures to describe several different things, and it is from this that Todd gets the model. When a researcher is aware of what they wish to find in the data before even collecting it, no matter what results come back, the researcher will find something to support their hypothesis. Therefore, I find it advisable to conduct the research first, as Todd has showcased in this article.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Section Nine
9.1 Chatman, E.A. (1996). The Impoverished Life-World of Outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47(3), 193-206.
The portrait of the outsiders' world showcased in this article is dizzying and confusing. I could not even begin to understand the various rules and relationships underlying the outsiders and their needs. While this article presents general guidelines for working with this user group, it appears as if it is only scratching upon the surface of those plagued by information poverty. The very fact that they are outsiders would lead one to suspect the information collected by the researchers in the first place. How much is given truthfully to the authors if secrecy and deception dictate this group's behaviors?
One thing that I found very interesting from the article is that sources of information are filtered and judged throughout the outsider's community before the outsider will accept it. Even if it can recognize that it will be beneficial. This relies on the people that the outsider trusts to gauge what is acceptable and what is not. But, again, the secrecy and deception that occurs within this group might lead one to pretend as if a source is not worth consulting, in order to consult that same source for him or herself. Is there anyway for the librarian to get over the barrier of this intermediary? We must address the problem of the outsiders without being too demanding. That much is clear, but how would we gain trust? The only thing I can think of would be for librarians to make the library some place that is comfortable, yet confidential. A place outside of reference volumes and is filled with friendly faces. By helping outsiders with situations that are less relevant to their life and less personal, we can begin to forge a bond of trust.
The portrait of the outsiders' world showcased in this article is dizzying and confusing. I could not even begin to understand the various rules and relationships underlying the outsiders and their needs. While this article presents general guidelines for working with this user group, it appears as if it is only scratching upon the surface of those plagued by information poverty. The very fact that they are outsiders would lead one to suspect the information collected by the researchers in the first place. How much is given truthfully to the authors if secrecy and deception dictate this group's behaviors?
One thing that I found very interesting from the article is that sources of information are filtered and judged throughout the outsider's community before the outsider will accept it. Even if it can recognize that it will be beneficial. This relies on the people that the outsider trusts to gauge what is acceptable and what is not. But, again, the secrecy and deception that occurs within this group might lead one to pretend as if a source is not worth consulting, in order to consult that same source for him or herself. Is there anyway for the librarian to get over the barrier of this intermediary? We must address the problem of the outsiders without being too demanding. That much is clear, but how would we gain trust? The only thing I can think of would be for librarians to make the library some place that is comfortable, yet confidential. A place outside of reference volumes and is filled with friendly faces. By helping outsiders with situations that are less relevant to their life and less personal, we can begin to forge a bond of trust.
Section Twelve
12.1 Kuhlthau, C.C., Tama, S.L. (2001). Information Search Process of Lawyers: A Call for 'Just for Me' Information Services. Journal of Documentation 57(1), 25-43.
My senior year of high school, I worked as a receptionist in a very small law office. One of my responsibilities was to take closed files and box them according to their closing number and then place them in cardboard filing cabinets. These then went into the dingy basement that smelled too moist to be the home of hundreds of precious legal documents. And sure enough, one day the basement flooded and scores of files were lost to a watery and ink-smeared grave. Gone were several previous cases that could have provided more information to Mr. Miller in his subsequent cases. I open with this anecdote because the entire time I read the article, I imagined Mr. Miller and his extreme aversion to technology. Not that the office lacked computers, I even had a popular model for computers right at my desk. Did I mention it was popular during 1994?
The lawyers interviewed for this article definitely remind me of my former boss, as they too hoard all sorts of information that might be useful one day. And while they have all the information they might possibly need, there is no uniform way of cultivating this, as documented by the authors' findings. I wonder if this is necessarily still true, as these interviews were conducted in 2001. With technology on the rise and Web 2.0 taking over, I am uncertain that there is not at least one database that can help the lawyers find exactly what they are looking for. As this is related to technology, it is something that should be revisited at least every three years to provide the most accurate results.
In my Principles of Searching class, we discussed how lawyers would be more inclined to sift through a bigger pool of information in order to get the highest recall and ultimately "the smoking gun" that could win the case. However, some of the lawyers interviewed would rather have a smaller, more precise results instead. I would imagine that a more efficient search engine could improve the precision without losing the obscure, but probably most relevant results.
My senior year of high school, I worked as a receptionist in a very small law office. One of my responsibilities was to take closed files and box them according to their closing number and then place them in cardboard filing cabinets. These then went into the dingy basement that smelled too moist to be the home of hundreds of precious legal documents. And sure enough, one day the basement flooded and scores of files were lost to a watery and ink-smeared grave. Gone were several previous cases that could have provided more information to Mr. Miller in his subsequent cases. I open with this anecdote because the entire time I read the article, I imagined Mr. Miller and his extreme aversion to technology. Not that the office lacked computers, I even had a popular model for computers right at my desk. Did I mention it was popular during 1994?
The lawyers interviewed for this article definitely remind me of my former boss, as they too hoard all sorts of information that might be useful one day. And while they have all the information they might possibly need, there is no uniform way of cultivating this, as documented by the authors' findings. I wonder if this is necessarily still true, as these interviews were conducted in 2001. With technology on the rise and Web 2.0 taking over, I am uncertain that there is not at least one database that can help the lawyers find exactly what they are looking for. As this is related to technology, it is something that should be revisited at least every three years to provide the most accurate results.
In my Principles of Searching class, we discussed how lawyers would be more inclined to sift through a bigger pool of information in order to get the highest recall and ultimately "the smoking gun" that could win the case. However, some of the lawyers interviewed would rather have a smaller, more precise results instead. I would imagine that a more efficient search engine could improve the precision without losing the obscure, but probably most relevant results.
Section Nine
9.4 Agosto, D.E., Hughes-Hassell, S. (2005). Toward a Model of the Everyday Life Information Needs of Urban Teenagers, Part 1:Theoretical Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1394-1403.
Something I find respectable about research articles is personally addressing the limitations of their study. I take that to be an admission that they are not the ultimate voice in terms of the group or item being researched. Not only do these authors acknowledge the barriers preventing their study from being more generalizable, but they describe them and engage the reader to attempt transferability. The authors of this article also located the limitations at the end, rather than the beginning, of the methodology. This allows the reader to more easily tackle all of the data with a grain of salt, as it is one of the last things read in this article.
This body of research is helpful for the library community to garner a more holistic understanding of our teenage patrons. And while I personally find teenagers to be too obnoxious to work with, I recognize that the elementary students I will be teaching will develop into teenagers. By understanding the needs of what they are to be, I can create strategic lesson plans to lead them to become better information seekers when they reach that age. The authors assert that librarians need to think of the teenager as a whole person, not just someone with curriculum needs to be met and I wholly agree with this sentiment. It is not enough for librarians to instruct students on finding reference answers, but guide them to take charge of their entire searching needs.
Beyond assisting teenagers in such a way that they can solve their everyday life information needs, it is helpful for librarians to understand the world of teenagers. Outside of storm and stress and the negative connotations associated with teenagers, research like this reminds us of what teenagers are interacting with on a daily basis. Currently, I am still close enough in age with high schoolers that I can assess these needs based on my own memory, but that will not always be the case. Data provided by the authors suggests an easy way for librarians to remember what teenagers are going through, once they can no longer remember for themselves. And especially as new technology and situations influence teenagers, it is good to have these concepts readily available to those who could not even fathom these new scenarios.
Something I find respectable about research articles is personally addressing the limitations of their study. I take that to be an admission that they are not the ultimate voice in terms of the group or item being researched. Not only do these authors acknowledge the barriers preventing their study from being more generalizable, but they describe them and engage the reader to attempt transferability. The authors of this article also located the limitations at the end, rather than the beginning, of the methodology. This allows the reader to more easily tackle all of the data with a grain of salt, as it is one of the last things read in this article.
This body of research is helpful for the library community to garner a more holistic understanding of our teenage patrons. And while I personally find teenagers to be too obnoxious to work with, I recognize that the elementary students I will be teaching will develop into teenagers. By understanding the needs of what they are to be, I can create strategic lesson plans to lead them to become better information seekers when they reach that age. The authors assert that librarians need to think of the teenager as a whole person, not just someone with curriculum needs to be met and I wholly agree with this sentiment. It is not enough for librarians to instruct students on finding reference answers, but guide them to take charge of their entire searching needs.
Beyond assisting teenagers in such a way that they can solve their everyday life information needs, it is helpful for librarians to understand the world of teenagers. Outside of storm and stress and the negative connotations associated with teenagers, research like this reminds us of what teenagers are interacting with on a daily basis. Currently, I am still close enough in age with high schoolers that I can assess these needs based on my own memory, but that will not always be the case. Data provided by the authors suggests an easy way for librarians to remember what teenagers are going through, once they can no longer remember for themselves. And especially as new technology and situations influence teenagers, it is good to have these concepts readily available to those who could not even fathom these new scenarios.
Section Seven
7.3 Todd, R.J., Kuhlthau, C.C. (2005). Student Learning Through Ohio School Libraries, Part 1: How Effective School Libraries Help Students. School Libraries Worldwide, 11(1), 63-88.
I am hesitant to fully critically analyze this. As someone focused on becoming a school media specialist, it would seem counterproductive to go against an article suggesting what a great influence my intended profession has within the education community. An article written by respected members of the library community, no less. And while I am certain very few people within the blogosphere actually read this process journal, I would be foolish to think that only people within my Human Information Behavior class are going to read this. I would love more than anything to be able to suggest what a clear, unbiased representation of school libraries is found within the pages of this article, but I also do not like lying.
That being said, I found the framing of the survey used to collect the data highly biased. No where can students imply that the school library did not help them whatsoever. A phrase with less negative connotations, "Does not apply," is given, yet that may or may not encompass that the library was counter-productive to the students' needs. I believe in representing the library positively, but I also propose that we are able to do so while allowing patrons the possibility of putting us down. It is only with such an option that the true opinions of library users can be properly documented. A section where I feel a fully fleshed out survey would have been really helpful is in Block 5 (p. 71). With reluctant readers on the rise, I would like to know more about the 15-25.6% of students that found the library did not apply to them in terms of their general reading interests. If certain areas are graded more negatively, then so much the better for us as a profession because only then can we utilize the data to become even better librarians instead of showboating data that suggests we already are doing the best job we can.
The actual commentary on the findings was more helpful by far. The inclusion of qualitative data to supplement the interpretation of the raw quantitative data definitely increased the credibility of the research, as it added several students' extrapolations of exactly what way the library was helpful. And yet, the general reading block is still skewed to paint the best possible picture of school libraries. Even though a large percentage of students found that the library either somewhat helped, helped a little or did not apply to them in this category, all of the qualitative evidence provided suggests otherwise. In fact, there are five student responses all describing how the library has helped their reading outside of the curriculum. Again, I wish I knew what the students that did not find it to be very helpful said in order to step up to the challenge of becoming a great media specialist.
I am hesitant to fully critically analyze this. As someone focused on becoming a school media specialist, it would seem counterproductive to go against an article suggesting what a great influence my intended profession has within the education community. An article written by respected members of the library community, no less. And while I am certain very few people within the blogosphere actually read this process journal, I would be foolish to think that only people within my Human Information Behavior class are going to read this. I would love more than anything to be able to suggest what a clear, unbiased representation of school libraries is found within the pages of this article, but I also do not like lying.
That being said, I found the framing of the survey used to collect the data highly biased. No where can students imply that the school library did not help them whatsoever. A phrase with less negative connotations, "Does not apply," is given, yet that may or may not encompass that the library was counter-productive to the students' needs. I believe in representing the library positively, but I also propose that we are able to do so while allowing patrons the possibility of putting us down. It is only with such an option that the true opinions of library users can be properly documented. A section where I feel a fully fleshed out survey would have been really helpful is in Block 5 (p. 71). With reluctant readers on the rise, I would like to know more about the 15-25.6% of students that found the library did not apply to them in terms of their general reading interests. If certain areas are graded more negatively, then so much the better for us as a profession because only then can we utilize the data to become even better librarians instead of showboating data that suggests we already are doing the best job we can.
The actual commentary on the findings was more helpful by far. The inclusion of qualitative data to supplement the interpretation of the raw quantitative data definitely increased the credibility of the research, as it added several students' extrapolations of exactly what way the library was helpful. And yet, the general reading block is still skewed to paint the best possible picture of school libraries. Even though a large percentage of students found that the library either somewhat helped, helped a little or did not apply to them in this category, all of the qualitative evidence provided suggests otherwise. In fact, there are five student responses all describing how the library has helped their reading outside of the curriculum. Again, I wish I knew what the students that did not find it to be very helpful said in order to step up to the challenge of becoming a great media specialist.
Section Ten
10.3 McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of Knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1009-1018.
Something that I found to be interesting about this article is that it does not focus on information, but knowledge. Since knowledge is personal to the owner of said knowledge, it is impossible to transfer it without the aid of information. Within our studies in this class, we have placed a heavy emphasis on what people do to get information, but have not specifically looked at how they internalize it outside of Brenda Dervin's Sense-Making model. And while this article focuses on the business aspect of knowledge, it is certainly helpful in gaining a better understanding of the fluid and ever-changing life cycle of knowledge.
I found many of the concepts discussed in this article to be self-evident. Perhaps that is not necessarily so for all individuals, but then again, some people often seem to lack common sense. For example, on page 1014, McInerney describes in a lengthy fashion the need for trust in order for knowledge to be transferred. This is not ground breaking news. My five year old sister rarely believes a thing her best friend tells her because, as she puts it, "Rachel tells stories." My sister has long since discovered that Rachel's credibility is shot, and she did not have to read a lengthy article in order to reach that conclusion. That is just one of many points that McInerney makes that I felt were collective knowledge without any discussion.
And while that is so, her description of tacit and explicit knowledge was certainly clear and easily understood. On top of that, she included a very self-explanatory chart to further detail this process. As a visual learner, the chart was an ideal way for me to internalize the major concept of the article and transform it into knowledge. It will also be helpful to refresh my memory, as it is much easier to absorb a diagram than to pinpoint exactly where the key concepts are in a body of text. Plus, the chosen labels ease the comprehension of the chart. As far as journal articles are concerned, not much is worse than including a chart that is so incomprehensible that it makes the concept even more complicated instead of easier.
Something that I found to be interesting about this article is that it does not focus on information, but knowledge. Since knowledge is personal to the owner of said knowledge, it is impossible to transfer it without the aid of information. Within our studies in this class, we have placed a heavy emphasis on what people do to get information, but have not specifically looked at how they internalize it outside of Brenda Dervin's Sense-Making model. And while this article focuses on the business aspect of knowledge, it is certainly helpful in gaining a better understanding of the fluid and ever-changing life cycle of knowledge.
I found many of the concepts discussed in this article to be self-evident. Perhaps that is not necessarily so for all individuals, but then again, some people often seem to lack common sense. For example, on page 1014, McInerney describes in a lengthy fashion the need for trust in order for knowledge to be transferred. This is not ground breaking news. My five year old sister rarely believes a thing her best friend tells her because, as she puts it, "Rachel tells stories." My sister has long since discovered that Rachel's credibility is shot, and she did not have to read a lengthy article in order to reach that conclusion. That is just one of many points that McInerney makes that I felt were collective knowledge without any discussion.
And while that is so, her description of tacit and explicit knowledge was certainly clear and easily understood. On top of that, she included a very self-explanatory chart to further detail this process. As a visual learner, the chart was an ideal way for me to internalize the major concept of the article and transform it into knowledge. It will also be helpful to refresh my memory, as it is much easier to absorb a diagram than to pinpoint exactly where the key concepts are in a body of text. Plus, the chosen labels ease the comprehension of the chart. As far as journal articles are concerned, not much is worse than including a chart that is so incomprehensible that it makes the concept even more complicated instead of easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
