Section Ten

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.

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.