Reading: Info. Needs and Uses

Main Points of Dervin & Nilan's piece:

They are concerned with "definitional work." This encompases the idea that, "Human subjectivity results in a reality in which information does not transmit constant meaning" (13)-- originally expressed by Farradane. In order to deal with this inconsistant state, researchers have called for a shift in paradigm which focuses on studying the user, rather than the system. Some even suggest taking the system entirely out of the picture: "Dervin (1980) calls for looking at information behaviors outside system contexts so that they can be examined indepenently of system constraints" (15).

The "alternative" paradigm: "information as something constructed by human beings" (16)
Approaches to this shifting paradigm:

• "User-values approach": searching for two understandings: "1) of problems (or cognitive criteria) users bring to bear on systems; and 2) of different charactersistics of information and information bases that would allow users to locate whatever might serve their criteria" (21)


• "Sense-making": "situation-gap-use"


• "ASK": focuses on "people in problematic situations with views of the situations that are incomplete or limited in some way" (24)

Reflections
All of the "alternative" approaches all try to take into account multiple factors in the user's information need, including internal (cognitive) and external (time/place/etc) factors. None of them picture the user as a passive entitiy. The alternative approach makes sense to me, but I have difficulty imagining how all of these variables could be accounted for and considered when designing library services. Obviously it requires flexibility on many levels, but I can't quite conceptualize what it would look/feel/sound like in practice. Perhaps I have the "traditional" view stuck in my head that that individuality is a chaotic thing. Of course I embrace and acknowlegde the uniqueness of all individual's viewpoints and needs, and hope to be able to accommodate them in professional practice. I am just struggling to imagine how to implement these theories.

Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. ARIST 21, pp. 3-33. Knowledge Industry Publishers.

Signs of user-centered institutions?

Listening to Ross's description of the library he visited in Singapore that included a pastry shop, a room with loud music for teens, and big comfortable chairs for the "chronologically enriched," brought to mind the small ways in which libraries I've been to have catered to the user's needs. The public library where I volunteered last year had a book return box by the door of the grocery store-- somewhat similar to Ross's supermarket library idea. If they couldn't take the whole library to the supermarket, at least they gave users a convenient way to return materials. Then again, it could just be a ploy for librarians to get back their "precious" items.

My undergraduate library at The College of William and Mary underwent renovation while I was there and many of the changes they made were aimed at making it more student-friendly. To the side of the front entrance is a 24-hour study lounge with a coffee shop and comfortable rolling chairs. I know someone who spent the night there because she was too tired to walk home at 5 a.m. Just inside the front door is the "information commons" where students can stand under a sound cone to hear news being played on the T.V., or use one of many computer terminals located in the center of the library. This area is almost always at least 2/3 full of students. All over the library there are comfortable chairs and couches where many students (including myself on more than one occasion) stop to take a nap during the day, though I'm not sure that was the intention of the library design. The third floor is designated for quiet study, while the first and second floors allow quiet conversation. There are also closed-off rooms for group projects. My favorite part is that they allow covered drink containers, so you can have your coffee and drink it too. The reference librarians draw students' attention to oft overlooked resources by publishing a newsletter called "The Throne" and posting it in all of the bathroom stalls of the library. They use amusing anecdotes and tie them in to the library. Is any better place to take advantage of a person's undivided attention?

I worked as a circulation assistant at this library and found that not only were the surroundings accommodating for students, but the staff was committed to making students' lives easier, not punishing them unnecessarily. They routinely canceled fines if the student gave a good excuse, and encouraged those working the front desk to come out from behind it to help patrons find items or teach them how to use electronic services. As an employee, I enjoyed the permission to leave the lair of the huge marble counter topped desk in order to physically show students the layout and structure of the library. I was surprised to find how many people were baffled by the prospect of finding a book in the stacks. I was also amazed at how many of my friends -- all very intelligent people, and good students -- asked me to show them various parts of the library.

I am beginning to see how important it is for librarians to understand how the human mind works. For instance, the idea that a user probably doesn't know how to express the gap in their knowledge that brought them to the library is important to understand so I will be able to figure out a way to help the user effectively despite their lack of succinctness. Also, as in my above example, it's important to realize that people can be intimidated by someone sitting behind a desk, so that you can go around it to help them.

Reading: Question-Negotiation, Berry Picking and ASK

R.S. Taylor (1968), M. Bates (1989), and N. Belkin (1980) all deal with the information seeking that arises from a perplexing situation in which one is without a piece of information one needs in order to continue with one's life. Belkin describes the anomalous state of knowledge (ASK) that occurs on the occasion of this information lack. According to Belkin, the user encounters an information gap, and is then expected to describe what is missing, though that piece is an incoherent anomaly to the user. Because of the incoherent nature of the need, the user does not come to the reference desk and perfectly articulate his/her query with exactly perfect subject terms and connecters, nor should he/she have to! The role of the librarian in conjunction with the IR system is to ease the transition of the user's ASK into a well-articulated question, into a query which eventually allows them to overcome the gap in their world. Taylor, writing in 1968 was concerned with the system-focused IR research, and the lack of attention to user processes in needs in libraries, and writes that he hopes an outcome of his research will be that, "The evolution of libraries from passive warehouses to dynamic communication centers will be less traumatic and more effective" (124). This dynamism is a theme that occurs in all three authors’ articles, and all seem focused on improving libraries in a way that reflects the user’s real-life needs and behaviors.

The first key in changing the IR process is to understand the user’s inability to express his/her need adequately. Belkin writes, "No need which is at the lower end of the cognitive spectrum will ever be at the upper end of the linguistic spectrum" (1980: 137). The “lower” end he refers to is the end in which the user’s need is least clear or specific. As nice as it would be for this vague need to magically morph into a sophisticated linguistic output, this is not possible. So with the understanding that the user’s need is unclear even to him/her, how does the librarian draw out some form of usable articulation of the user’s need? This is where Taylor’s idea of negotiation comes into play. It is through open-ended questioning, and getting a better picture of the impetus for the inquiry that the librarian can help the user move into the “upper” end of the cognitive spectrum, and thus the “upper” end of the linguistic spectrum. One tactic Taylor suggests is asking the user why he/she feels he/she needs this information: "Inquirers frequently cannot define what they want, but they can discuss why they need it" (1968:129). This seems like an excellent tactic. If the user can explain what was going on when he/she encountered this Anomalous State of Knowledge, perhaps the librarian can determine a direction in which to proceed with the conversation. Moving in what seems the most fruitful direction, and asking open-ended questions, the librarian might extract a kernel of a query with which to begin.

It is important to understand that this “kernel” of a query is not a question to be input into the system and then answered directly with an output of information. From this beginning kernel, the IR process continues in a non-linear and ever-shifting fashion described by Bates as “Berrypicking.” Bates describes it in this way: "Each new piece of information they encounter gives them new ideas and directions to follow and, consequently, a new conception of the query" (1989: 409-410). Bates’ description closely matches the experiences I’ve had searching for information. For example, as an undergraduate I was working on a paper on Virginia Woolf’s view of the domestic sphere, but did not have my topic narrowed down adequately. Throughout my research as I found different journal articles and monographs and explored the ideas within them, my topic shifted and narrowed into: The elevation of social art and devaluation of domestic work in Woolf’s novels. This process was not at all linear for me. Taylor also addresses the mutable nature of the search process, referring to an article by Makay: "An inquiry is merely a micro-event in a shifting non-linear adaptive mechanism" (1968: 125). I think as a librarian it is critical to recognize that the person before you with the question, even after an interview process in which the question has been better articulated and defined, will probably change and expand his/her search as he/she goes along. The librarian must be a willing and enthusiastic passenger on this journey. This is an iterative process, and as Belkin points out that the IR process must be willing to accommodate iterations: “"Iterative interaction is the most appropriate mode for the IR system" (1980: 140).

These iterations will not always constitute the same type of search strategy, however. Bates describes the different strategies that users employ along the way as: footnote chasing, area scanning, subject searches in bibliographies and abstracting and indexing services, and author searching. Any one or more of these tactics may be useful in an iteration of the search, and may lead the user in a new direction. Both Bates and Belkin assert the importance of these multiple strategies. Bates writes, "The searcher with the widest range of search strategies available is the searcher with the greatest retrieval power" (1989: 414). Belkin states: “"Different retrieval strategies may be necessary for different kinds of ASKs" (1980: 93). As the librarian assists the user, he/she must be able to identify a fruitful technique, and help the user employ it, but at the same time be willing to switch to a different technique at any given stage any number of times. This negotiation and adaptation is at the heart of what Taylor, Belkin, and Bates view as the ideal IR process.


Bates, M.J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for online search interface. Online Review 13, 407-424.

Belkin, N.J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 133-143.

Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 28, 178-194.

Reading 1: Second-Hand Knowledge/ Critical Reading

Wilson (1983) argues that individuals determine who they will regard as a cognitive authority — a person whose opinion the individual values and whose statements of fact he or she would consider to be truth — based on a number of factors, including competency and trustworthiness, and whether the potential authority's views make sense to the individual. While he posits that more than one person can certainly be a cognitive authority for an individual, he also briefly explores the idea of a universal authority: "If our authority is not supposed to know everything already, but simply to be able to find out what others know, then one might indeed have some reason to think him worth taking seriously on all subjects . . . And are not libraries supposed to be storehouses of knowledge, in which one might be able to find answers to any question that can be answered at all?" (20). After raising this potential for libraries as the source of the universal authority, Wilson quickly moves on to another topic, but the question he raises should be considered more fully. Just because a person has access to all of the information available in the library, or even in the world, does that make them a universal authority?

I would argue that there is a great difference between having access to any and all information and being able to competently evaluate that information. The kind of critical evaluation of sources Meltzoff (1998) suggests is key for judging scientific studies is also imperative for the assessment of all other types of information. Just as Meltzoff argues that one's ability to evaluate the scientific method used by a researcher is paramount to critical consideration — "Principles of research design transcend content areas" — I would suggest that the ability to analyze the legitimacy and background of a source is key in the critical consideration of who or what one considers authoritative. It is because of this that teaching individuals the skills they need to make good use of their sources is one of the most important tasks for the reference librarian. Of course, each person is automatically his or her own universal authority — it is the individual who decides which opinions to trust and which facts are "true," and the individual's decision regarding these matters is in his or her mind the final word on the subject. The role information professionals play in the individual's evaluation of sources is to help them become a more competent expert on choosing which expertise to trust. Practically, this has many consequences. It can make the information seeker a better scholar, lead him or her to more accurate medical information when he or she is sick, and even help him or her to better understand news events occurring around the world.

Wilson is right to suggest that the library is a potential source of universal authority, but not because it allows for the possibility of finding out every available piece of information in the world. The library’s role in its patron’s information seeking and evaluating needs is one of instructional center, and though the librarian is not the universal expert because he or she is able to find out what others know, the librarian can assist patrons in becoming their own best universal authority through helping them hone their critical evaluation skills.



Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand Knowledge: An Inquiry Into Cognitive Authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp.vii-viii, 13-37.

Meltzoff, J. (1998). Critical thinking about Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. pp. 3-12.

Urgent Information Behavior

Listening to NPR yesterday, I heard a story dealing with an urgent type of information need I had never though of before. The story*, "Data on Survivors Hard to Find, Collect," highlights human information need in an extreme situation, a situation in which the need for information has become urgent because it is a matter of finding loved-ones in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Refugees have been dislocated from their homes and in some cases from their relatives. As they reside in temporary shelters, their information needs are not what a typical information professional might encounter on an everyday basis, but are nonetheless more practically important than most. The problem is, according to the NPR piece, that while there are some databases at individual shelters and ad hoc blogs aimed at helping people connect, there is no integrated database. One group in the Astrodome has formed to demand that their information need be met. This seems a rather unusual information behavior to me, clearly one that has sprung from desperation. People that might never have cared about databases or search strategies before are suddenly finding it neccessary to fight for access to these things.

*Del Barco, M. (2005). Data on Survivors Hard to Find, Collect. National Public Radio: All Things Considered. (2005, September 8). Retrieved September 8, 2005,