I_Evidence_3

Townsend-Crow_Unit4_ CriticalReadingNotes

LIBR 200

September 19, 2012

Sheldon and Haycock Ch. 4

Introduction

·         Evaluation:  refers to systemic study of a service or program

·         Evaluative research:  used to guide funding decisions; shares commonality with information seeking or information behavior

·         Information seeking common human cycle of needing, looking for, choosing, and using information if some kind

·         Information seeking behavior changes with urgency of the need to know

“Librarians have been primarily concerned with searches that involve library collections and services, yet examples of information seeking are infinite and extend well beyond the library …” (How can librarians meet information needs outside the scope of their own collection(s)? Perhaps by teaching people how to conduct effective/accurate searches unassisted?)

·         An information need is recognition that one’s current knowledge is inadequate to satisfy a goal

·         Information seeking is a conscious effort to acquire knowledge necessary to satisfying a goal

·         Information behavior includes active information seeking as well as other unintentional or passive behaviors and deliberate behaviors like avoiding information

Implications of the Web

Internet as metaphor for information behavior:

·         Before the World Wide Web (WWW), information was found in physical format

o   Books, minds, paper documents, file folders, etc.

·         Divided by source

o   Location,

o   Person

o   Channel

More browsing for information that active or formal searches

·         Information on the WWW is “more abundant, less segregated, and often not as carefully indexed or cataloged

·         Keyword searches vs. specific queries

Reasons that libraries and books will not be replaced by internet searches and documents:

·         People still have difficulty navigating and finding information on the WWW

·         People still prefer physical materials over digital

Theory

“Principle of Least Effort” (PLE): 

·         Book by George Zipf (linguistics professor at Harvard)

·         Comes from patterns noted in language usage by Professor Zipf

·         “individuals adopt a course of action that will expend the … least effort” (38)

·         Ease of use

·         As knowledge of a source increases, so does its use

·         Zipf’s theory is especially relevant in studying the lack of use of libraries and library materials because what it tells us is that accessing relevant and accurate information through library sources because of the thoroughness of the searching process, is too much work for people accustomed to the convenience and ease of internet search engines which may or may not provide accurate information.

What Have We Learned About Information Seeking?

·         People tend to settle for the first answer they receive instead of the best answer (39)

·         We tend to rely easily available sources instead of the most reliable and objective ones

·         Facts that are disseminated out of context tend to be ignored

·         “having information” and “being informed” are not the same thing

·         Satisfying one information need may give rise to another as information seeking is “rarely a simple, linear process” (40)

·         Institutions focus on finding solutions to problems and try to answer every request; the answers provided will always be limited by the resources that are available

·         Not all information seeking is driven by the perception of a problem; it may be inspired by something that piques our interest or something subconscious

Conclusion

Information seeking is innate human behavior

In a world where there is too much information available, librarians are there to teach people, especially students, the skills needed to weed through the irrelevant and inaccurate sources of information

Rubin Ch. 7

I.                    Introduction

This chapter is about how and why people engage in information seeking. The key idea throughout is that LIS professionals must understand how and why people use information so that they can assist user to find the information that they seek.

II.                 Character of Information Science

a.        Documentalism is about the organization and distribution of non-print format information. It focuses on the creation, distribution, and use of all information in all formats.

b.      "Documentalists" (pre-WWII) à Information scientists (present)

c.        Defining Information Science

                                                              i.      focuses on information, regardless of format or context

                                                           ii.      entire information cycle (creation to use)

                                                         iii.      interdisciplinary nature

                                                         iv.      science of the properties, nature, use, and vehicles of information

                                                            v.      includes creation, distribution, accessibility, use, collection, storage, retrieval, and interpretation

d.      "Information Science comprises a library without walls; its 'collection' is the entire world of information …" (p. 273) – this sentiment, while sweeping and perhaps, to some, inspiring, begs the questions, Can there be a library without actual books? "Library" from the Latin "liber”= book just would not, in this reader's opinion, anyway, be without actual books.

e.       Three "Big Questions" addressed by Information Science:

                                                              i.      Physical

                                                           ii.      Social

                                                         iii.      Design

III.              Features of Information Science

a.      Understanding Information Needs, Seeking, Use, and Users

                                                              i.      Information need = information is required to solve a problem

                                                            ii.      Information want = a desire that can only be satisfied with information

                                                          iii.      volume of information vs. quality of information

                                                          iv.      most people seek information to solve daily issues

1.      Job related

2.      Consumer issues

3.      Household issues

4.      Educational issues

                                                            v.      Information seeking vs. Information Gathering

1.      Information Seeking = immediate need for information

2.      Information Gathering = deferred need for information

3.      information not an end in itself, but in context to some other need

a.      Not just "what", but "how" and "why" (see articles by Ross and Isaacson)

b.      Face value rule vs. seeking the context of the information need to better serve the user

                                                         vi.      Personal vs. Institutional Sources

                                                       vii.      Librarians "invisible" (see Ross article)

1.      Users see library, not librarian as source of reference assistance

2.      Changing the lack of visibility of librarians may cause increased library use

                                                    viii.      Kulthau's Six Stages:

1.      Initiation

2.      Selection

3.      Exploration

4.      Formulation

5.      Collection

6.      Presentation

                                                          ix.      Varying Abilities Among Information seekers

1.       improves with age, although technology is not user friendly to older users

2.      intelligence

3.      analytical ability

4.      manual dexterity

5.      marginalization

                                                            x.      Principle of least Effort

1.      Physical

2.      Policy and Procedure

3.      Legal

4.      Social

                                                          xi.      Search Behavior on the web

1.      Nature of the Web:

a.      Exceeding large

b.      constantly changing

c.       not indexed

2.      Three types of Web search:

a.      navigation to a specific website

b.      information searches related to specific information

c.       searches to a service that allows additional information

3.      "Spoke and Hub" or backtracking allows user to go back to initial page of search results as frame of reference

4.      Personal attributes of searchers:

a.      cognitive style

b.      level of confidence

c.       previous experience

d.     gender

e.      expertise

5.      Academic User Behavior is diverse but may include:

a.      Horizontal information seeking (skimming academic site, then out)

b.      Navigators (spend as much time figuring out the system as they do actual searching)

c.       Viewers (average time spent on looking at electronic sources[e-books digital journals] is short

d.     Squirreling (save information by downloading for later use – this is me!)

e.      Checkers (assess authority and credibility of a source very quickly by cross checking with reliable or trusted sites  -- also me!)

6.      Younger users

a.      students use web for everything

b.      length of searches vary

c.       skills very, but students may assess themselves higher than their actual skills reflect

d.     may give discussion lists as much credibility as academic (peer-reviewed) journal articles

e.      prefer search engines over other means

f.        find it difficult to locate and use few academic resources

g.      will sacrifice quality to save time and effort (Principle of Least Effort)

h.      set standards of expectation for other sources to those of search engines

b.      Information Storage and Retrieval

                                                              i.      Relevance – capturing what is wanted and filtering what is not

1.      User defined relevance – user finds it useful

2.      item relevance – the item is related to the subject

                                                           ii.      Evaluating Information retrieval systems

                                                         iii.      Search Models

                                                         iv.      Database and File Structure

                                                            v.      Human-Computer Interface

                                                         vi.      Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Expert Systems

c.       Defining the Nature of Information

                                                              i.      Data

                                                           ii.      Information

                                                         iii.      Knowledge (Wisdom)

d.      Value

e.       Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis

f.       Management and Administrative Issues

                                                              i.      Identifying and Selecting Information Technologies

                                                           ii.      Human Factors

                                                         iii.      Information Systems Managing Organizations

                                                         iv.      Evaluating Information Services

IV.              Emerging Fields in Information Science

a.      Informatics

b.      User Experience Design

                                                              i.      Information Architecture

                                                           ii.      Usability Engineering

c.       Knowledge Management

d.      Competitive Intelligence

Ross Article

Reference interview: 

·         series of questions to help determine, specifically, what information is being sought

·         creative collaboration between the information seeker and librarian helping him/her

·         short exchange

·         starts with librarian acknowledgement followed by questions designed to elicit specificity in the information seeker's quest

·         allows the person to narrow and clarify in his or her own mind the scope and type of information s/he needs

Librarians as "keystone species" -- one of the species in an ecology whose loss leads

to the extinction of other species in the ecosystem. The article doesn't really articulate what other "species" are dependent on the survival of the librarian unless it is in this phrase, "I am convinced that the institutions (libraries?) that will survive into the twenty-first century and beyond are those that serve their clients and give them the help they need."

The author writes, "If libraries don't provide helpful information services, users will turn to other, more service-oriented, service-providers." Like … Google? One still needs to form a specific query to obtain the information they are seeking. How will people know how to clarify and narrow search terms without someone trained to show them? (i.e. the librarian)

Why do a reference interview?  Less time is wasted:

1.      Hunting down the wrong sources

2.      processing requests for the wrong materials (and in our library where I work, there is a fee for ILL paid by the patron)

3.      time spent directing patrons to the wrong sources, only to have to start the search over

"Face value" rule – take what the customer says at "face value" and do no more to help them find what they seek. (Note:  This seems like a lazy way and not a very service oriented one, either. Since the mission of the public library is to serve the public, I don't think this is a very good method.)

Besides the "face value" rule, the article lists four more less than desirable information seeking encounters:

1.      without-speaking-she-began-to-type maneuver – this would be skipping the acknowledgement part of the interview and making an assumption of what the person is looking for without asking any clarifying questions

2.      Bypassing the Reference Interview – which usually leads to delivering the wrong information or reference sources

3.      Taking a System-Based Perspective – instead of user based one. In other words, the librarian expects the patron to gave already done most of the work by looking up the references him/herself

4.      Unmonitored Referral – giving the patron a call number and directing them to the general area where those books are shelved, but not assisting in any other way or making certain that the information hunt was successful

Librarians who don't want to be bothered to do their job (or those who work in libraries that understaffed and very busy) may employ the following off-putting practices:

      Unmonitored referral

      Sending the patron to another department or even another library altogether

      implying that patron hasn't done enough of the search on his/her own

      taking the east way out by not digging deep enough to help the patron find the  information s/he really wants or needs, but referring them to a (possibly) somewhat related subject that isn't what the patron really wants

      tells the user that what he or she wants to know is too hard to find

      uses nonverbal clues to cut off the encounter before the customer is finished with his/her search

      claims that the library does not have the information that the patron is seeking or that the information s/he is seeking doesn't exist anywhere and can't be found

      leaves the desk, ostensibly to go look for the information elsewhere in the library and doesn't return to the patron with the information, if at all  

Essentially, the most important function of a reference encounter is helping the customer find what s/he is seeking. There are valid reasons why this may not happen sometimes, but it should not be for a lack of effort or caring on the part of the librarian.

Richardson Article

Introduction

Reference researchers seek to answer the following questions:

      What is good reference service?

      What are the desirable outcomes?

      Is the quality of reference service most dependent on:

      the library?

      the librarian?

      the user?

      Edith Guerrier

      Charles Bunge

       Thomas Childers

      Terry Crowley

      Herbert Goldhor

quality reference service is most often defined by these researchers in three ways:

·         accuracy

·         utility

·         user satisfaction

 (are these really unrelated? driven by underlying factors)

Herbert Goldhor's alternative:   Performance = Accuracy = Staff Ability+ Library Collection

Bunge:  Performance-= Efficiency = Accuracy/ Time = Staff Ability + Library Collection

Crowley:  Performance = Accuracy = Library Collection + Staff Ability = Budget

Inconsistent Reference Studies

"55 percent rule" = the notion that studies measured reference accuracy at 55%. The studies included surveys of students ranging in answers of their questions being "completely answered" to "not answered at all." Even when students expressed high satisfaction with the service, the rating remained at "half-accurate."

·         lack of agreement on definitions of reference service

·         inconsistent operational definitions of variables

·         bias due to lack of randomness in samples

·         too small samples

·         little repetition of previous testing procedures (leading to a lack of consistency?)

·         no attention to theory behind testing

Unrelated Outcomes

three outcomes:  accuracy, utility, and user satisfaction seem unrelated; high customer satisfaction seems inconsistent with half-accuracy

Source, Strategy:  90% Right

Re-testing in 12 California libraries show that the accuracy is closer to 90%; what was not included in the factors was the difficulty of the users' query which was found to be the most important factor in predicting accuracy of the study.

New Measures, New Methods

New studies using newer statistical methods and larger samples show the inaccuracy of the 55% rule.

"library users are more satisfied by those librarians who actively practice the reference skills outlined in the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) ":

v  inviting queries

v  expressing interest

v  listening critically

v  verifying user satisfaction.

Highlighted quote:  "the probability of an individual finding valuable and complete information is not only dependent on the librarian's reference skills but is also predicted by the user's familiarity with the library and his/her level of education."

Does this still stand true with people's ability to use search engines from home, such as Google? ("Disintermediation")

Questions for future thought:

Is it that the library's search engines faster, more efficient, library access to more databases or the librarian's expertise assistance that makes the difference in user satisfaction? What is the value of these studies?

Isaacson Article

This article goes to great lengths (5 pages!) to anecdotally articulate that sometimes thoroughness and accuracy doesn't always lead to customer satisfaction.

  

References:

Case, D. (2008). Information Seeking. In K. Haycock & B. Sheldon (Eds.), The Portable MLIS: Insights from the experts (pp. 35-41). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Isaacson, D. (2004). Is the correct answer the right one?. Journal of information ethics, 13(1), 14-18.

Richardson Jr, J. V. (2002). Reference is better than we thought. Library Journal, 127(7), 41-42.

Ross, C. S. (2003). The reference interview: Why it needs to be used in every (well, almost every) reference transaction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 38-43.

Rubin, R. E. (2010). Foundations of Library and Information Science., Third Edition (Paperback) New York: Neal-Schuman.