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.
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.
posted by Camille at 11:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home