Describe the fundamental concepts of information-seeking behaviors and how they should be considered when connecting individuals or groups with accurate, relevant and appropriate information.
In order to better connect library patrons with the information and resources they “need” or are seeking – or, as is often the case, with information and resources that they don’t yet know that they “need” – informational professionals ought to try to understand the impetuses that frequently set people off on their information seeking paths. These impetuses shape and drive patron behaviors and search patterns. There are a number of theories which attempt to describe the psychological and social aspects of information needs and information seeking. While there are important common denominators in play, it’s also wise to acknowledge that the particular approaches information seekers follow are often very individualistic. Influential information science researchers have established concepts which describe shared dimensions in information seeking like “berry-picking” (Marcia Bates), “sense-making” (Brenda Dervin), and “information search process” (Carol Kuhlthau).
Bates compared information seeking to berry picking. Searchers engaged in berry picking find berries one at a time rather than in bunches. This technique entails refining the search process as one goes based on the already discovered berries: the information gleaned from one successful search result alters the next search, clarifying the question of what to look for and / or where next. Information is often scattered widely, so a meta strategy is needed that maximizes learning as you go (1989). Bates describes six of many tactics that are widely used by searchers:
- Footnote chasing (“backward chaining”): Asking what other sources does a relevant source cite?
- Citation searching (“forward chaining”): Asking what other sources cite this relevant one?
- A journal run: The searcher looks at the run of volumes in a specific journal where a useful article was found
- Area Scanning: The searcher ask what other possible sources are stored in physical proximity to this one?
- Subject Searching in bibliographies and abstracting or indexing services
- Author Searching: The researcher looks for other works by the author of a relevant source
Of course, this is a model geared to a scholarly research context, though one might usefully try to adapt it to a more generic purpose based on the principle that the strategy of the information-seeker will evolve as he or she finds new information. Bates’ analysis of information seeking is meant to inform the design of Information Retrieval systems. She calls our attention to the way in which “browsing is undirected, while berrypicking is more directed” (1989). By describing both the searching and browsing preferences and patterns of information seekers, she foregrounds the fact that a panoply of search and browsing techniques are practiced by IR system users, and that IR developers need to fold this fact into their understanding of user behavior into the tools they create.
Dervin has been developing a multi-decade long area of inquiry to studying and experimenting with human sense making that she calls “Sense making.” This theoretical lens or approach has been primarily grounded in discourses among library and information science practitioners. Dervin asserts that “sense making” and “sense unmaking” deeply shape our basic human situation living in a “gappy” reality that changes across time and space, and has profound implications for how we understand knowledge. She proposes a new approach to viewing “knowledge as a verb, always an activity, embedded in time and space” (1998). She approaches the topic of information needs / information seeking using the following example of an interview between a reference librarian and a patron:
An alternative mode of questioning, called Sensemaking questioning, makes minimal use of nouns and ask the user instead: What happened that brought you here? What question are you trying to answer? What help would you like? If I was able to help, what would you do with it?
While no large-scale formal study has been executed, practitioners – primarily reference librarians – who use the Sense-making questioning approach swear by it, saying that it makes their interchanges with users both more efficient and more effective.
The takeaway from me from this demonstration of Sensemaking at work is that neither librarians or patrons are well served by a rigidly articulated and transactional expression of a “need” that can always be met with the right “answer.” I would argue that sometimes – perhaps even the majority of times – such a transaction would be the fastest way to deliver the appropriate help, but clearly that is not always the case. For a reference services class I observed several interviews between patrons and reference librarians. While on that day most of the questions were pointedly transactional, the librarian talked about how she loved the kind of longer form conversations which involved deeper dives into the patrons’ interests and a degree of creative collaboration. I’m not entirely sure whether this description would fit with Dervin’s Sensemaking but I think there is some interesting overlap there.
A third model of information seeking is presented by Carol Kuhlthau: the “Information Search Process,” another six-stage process. This model emphasizes the frequent complexity of the information-seeking journey. It’s typical for researchers to experience a variety of thoughts and feelings during this process. As with Bate’s berry picking, Kuhlthau’s information seekers also adjust their strategies as they progress in their search. Acknowledging this dialectic as well as the emotional experience of information seeking can assist librarians in connecting patrons to more accurate, relevant and appropriate information. According to Kuhlthau, information seeking is a complex endeavor, and involves a number of factors beyond simply choosing a topic and searching through the relevant literature. The six-stages are:
- Initiation: The recognition of a need for information; the searcher may feel uncertain or apprehensive
- Selection: The searcher identifies a general topic or approach to their search, they might feel optimistic
- Exploration: The searcher begins exploring their topic, they become more informed and have to integrate the new information they are finding into their schema. At this point the searcher may be feeling confusion, frustration, or uncertainty.
- Formulation: At this point the searcher has been able to focus their search, they have found specific elements of the topic that they can identify with and understand. The searcher may feel a sense of clarity around what it is they are really looking for.
- Collection: The searcher gathers information that is related to their focused aspect of the topic, this allows them to be more efficient in their searches. The searcher may feel increased confidence and a renewed energy around the project.
- Presentation: The searcher prepares a presentation of their findings. Their feelings (relief, satisfaction, disappointment) are likely related to their perception of how the project has gone.
References
Bates, M. (1989). The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface. Retrieved April 15, 2021 from https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html
Dervin, Brenda. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36-46.
Kuhlthau, C. (n.d.) INFORMATION SEARCH PROCESS. Retrieved April 15, 2021 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.721.4091&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Evidence for Competency I / J
For a course on Information Communities (INFO 200) I did a semester long research project on the online community of urban gardening organizations. I found a wealth of resources related to the subject ranging from NGOs with global reach and strong research capacities to municipal groups working with their mayors and local governments, and countless websites of specific community gardens. In spite of all this activity – information sharing, collaborations on the ground, resource provisioning, social media organizing, and scholarship, to name just a few facets – there was not a clear online path for the novice gardener who wished to learn more about urban community gardening in terms of sites or groups online. Certainly in many cases it’s fairly trivial to find out names and numbers of local gardeners and caretakers, but it’s not so easy to learn how to become more informed and skilled in a general way, or to see how you might progress over time if you dedicated yourself to the vocation. My assumption is that there is a lot of “informal” knowledge alongside the more pragmatic and science based data and know how that resides in local gardening projects.
INFO-200-final-paper