3.2 Belkin, N.J., Oddy R.N., Brooks, H.M. (1982). ASK for Information Retrieval: Part 1. Background and Theory. The Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.
This article presents an initial understanding of the ASK model, which describes the user's anomalous state of knowledge when entering the search. This anomalous state is here defined as approaching the searching process without knowing explicitly what information is being sought, but realizing that the information need is there. It challenges the best-match system, which requires the user to already be aware of what he or she wishes to seek. The authors go on to suggest that what is needed in a ASK moment is a dialogue between the system and the user.
I found the anomalous state of knowledge concept hard to grasp at first. The presentation of this article confused me, as the authors begin their description of ASK as if I was already familiar with it. Before I got past the first page, I had to seek out the definition of it online in order to make sense of the first page and a half. It was not until the middle of the second page that the model was defined and explained in a manner I could comprehend.
While I was reading this explanation, I was reminded of various times I sought information in my daily life. One time in particular involved seeing lyrics from a Beatles song that I found impactful embedded into a piece of artwork. The problem was, the song was not cited and I only knew the artist at all because someone at the loud art show I attended informed me when prompted. For the life of me I could not hear the name of the song, and felt bad asking her a fourth time so I dropped it. I knew that I needed to find this song, but with all of the songs they created, how on Earth would I find it? I Googled a few of the words with the terms "Beatles" and "lyrics," but the only lyrics I really retained were noise words and were lost any way. Eventually I found the song, but it was very frustrating working with Google's best match system, since it only returned titles extraordinarily well known, such as Yesterday.
I think that this article is going to be helpful in a few years when I am practicing librarianship because little kids are not always the most articulate beings, especially when they are trying to solve problems. My five year old sister is a perfect example, as she often speaks in a manner that suggests I am around her at all times. Recently, she started to describe something and then became exasperated, exclaiming "Don't you remember? Madison's new dog!" The first time I ever learned of her friend's new pet was in that very moment. Knowing that younger children tend to be very egocentric and focused on their own state of knowledge, I will work at incorporating Belkin's research into the library to try and emphasize on the communication process to assist the younger user.
Showing posts with label B. Section Three. Show all posts
Showing posts with label B. Section Three. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Section Three
3.1 Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question Negotiation and Information Seeking In Libraries, College & Research Libraries, 28, 178-194. American Library Association
This insightful report incorporates the answers of several librarians interviewed in the hopes of furthering the understanding of the user and the user's needs in the library. Throughout the text, Taylor weaves the responses from the interviews alongside his theory that library users gain the knowledge they seek by conforming their information need to match the system. This notion of "question-negotiation" is broken down into four phases of differing needs: the visceral need, the conscious need, the formalized need and the compromised need (p31). Underlying the question-negotiation process is a dialogue involving the user and the system. Taylor also describes five filters that the reference interview most likely will pass in order to satisfactorily answer the users queries.
The qualitative aspect of this document speaks more to meeting user needs than the previous week's quantitative study, as it focuses on the variability of dealing with individual human beings and their queries. While I may not have the exact experiences the interviewed librarians shared, I find their contributions to the document priceless because it shows that flexibility and a strong knowledge base are the best ways to do my job. One librarian's reference interview concludes with his reflection that his "practical experience in radio engineering is helpful, because I can visualize these things" (32). I do not forsee myself ever having a background in this subject matter, but I find the account more useful in improving my librarianship than statistics since the essence of the comment expresses a need for the librarian to anticipate the needs of the user and prepare oneself accordingly. Over the summer I began browsing the stacks in youth services to begin a knowledge base, anticipating the inevitable question in the school library for book recommendations. I am personally not a fan of sports fiction, but I grabbed a few titles, knowing that some of my future users will consume sports fiction like candy.
Something Taylor finds that relates to my own information-seeking history is that there is "a large number of users of information systems who, for a variety of reasons, will not ask a librarian for assistance" (p29). I vividly recall my poor high school librarian reiterating yet again the many avenues of information possible to the young researchers she was speaking to--yet we were doing everything in our power to ignore her. We already heard her speech freshman year and were expert EbscoHost users. The problem was when we would begin our research and have absolutely no idea how to connect to the appropriate program. Instead of asking her (or even one of her associates) for help, we instead asked one another hoping someone paid attention. Finally one person figured it out and passed instructions along the row of computers, so no one had to ask the librarian for help. In that instance, it was fortunate that the interfaces were perfect for the know-it-all adolescents that frequented the media center, so that we could figure it out ourselves even if we failed to hear the librarian's fairly simple instructions. As a future librarian, I find this sad; but as an ex-high school student, I also find it understandable and appreciate Taylor's approach to information behavior. It is necessary to assume that there will be many users that would rather manipulate the system on their own, without the aid of the librarian.
This insightful report incorporates the answers of several librarians interviewed in the hopes of furthering the understanding of the user and the user's needs in the library. Throughout the text, Taylor weaves the responses from the interviews alongside his theory that library users gain the knowledge they seek by conforming their information need to match the system. This notion of "question-negotiation" is broken down into four phases of differing needs: the visceral need, the conscious need, the formalized need and the compromised need (p31). Underlying the question-negotiation process is a dialogue involving the user and the system. Taylor also describes five filters that the reference interview most likely will pass in order to satisfactorily answer the users queries.
The qualitative aspect of this document speaks more to meeting user needs than the previous week's quantitative study, as it focuses on the variability of dealing with individual human beings and their queries. While I may not have the exact experiences the interviewed librarians shared, I find their contributions to the document priceless because it shows that flexibility and a strong knowledge base are the best ways to do my job. One librarian's reference interview concludes with his reflection that his "practical experience in radio engineering is helpful, because I can visualize these things" (32). I do not forsee myself ever having a background in this subject matter, but I find the account more useful in improving my librarianship than statistics since the essence of the comment expresses a need for the librarian to anticipate the needs of the user and prepare oneself accordingly. Over the summer I began browsing the stacks in youth services to begin a knowledge base, anticipating the inevitable question in the school library for book recommendations. I am personally not a fan of sports fiction, but I grabbed a few titles, knowing that some of my future users will consume sports fiction like candy.
Something Taylor finds that relates to my own information-seeking history is that there is "a large number of users of information systems who, for a variety of reasons, will not ask a librarian for assistance" (p29). I vividly recall my poor high school librarian reiterating yet again the many avenues of information possible to the young researchers she was speaking to--yet we were doing everything in our power to ignore her. We already heard her speech freshman year and were expert EbscoHost users. The problem was when we would begin our research and have absolutely no idea how to connect to the appropriate program. Instead of asking her (or even one of her associates) for help, we instead asked one another hoping someone paid attention. Finally one person figured it out and passed instructions along the row of computers, so no one had to ask the librarian for help. In that instance, it was fortunate that the interfaces were perfect for the know-it-all adolescents that frequented the media center, so that we could figure it out ourselves even if we failed to hear the librarian's fairly simple instructions. As a future librarian, I find this sad; but as an ex-high school student, I also find it understandable and appreciate Taylor's approach to information behavior. It is necessary to assume that there will be many users that would rather manipulate the system on their own, without the aid of the librarian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
