Describe the fundamental concepts of information-seeking behaviors.
“True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information.”
– Winston Churchill
EXPLICATION
In the interest of intellectual freedom, librarians are duty-bound to ensure the citizenry’s access to information. Access can be, and is, provided through reference assistance, which ranges from helping patrons find a particular book on the shelves to assisting patrons searching for information that fulfills more complex information needs. Part of assisting patrons with fulfilling their information needs entails showing and teaching patrons how to locate information for themselves. In order to do this effectively, librarians need to understand information-seeking behaviors, i.e., how patrons search for and process information. While there is no universal model describing the information-seeking behaviors of all people, numerous studies have revealed commonalities in information-seeking behaviors. These commonalities have been used to formulate models of behavior that librarians should consider when designing services. Patrons seeking information naturally have a gap in their knowledge; information-seeking behavior theories allow librarians to identify the cognitive, emotional, and physical realms that patrons experience during specific stages of the search process and design services and intervention strategies that are best suited to assist patrons at any point in the search process.
According to Ranganathan’s fourth law of library science, patrons’ time should be considered when organizing and operating a library. Following on this law, Mann (1993) proposes that libraries and librarians must “‘save the time of the reader, or the reader will save his/her own time by taking the shortest route to information, regardless of its quality’” (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2009, p. 88). This reflects the “Principle of Least Effort” (PLE) put forth by George Zipf. As applied to information seeking, Zipf’s PLE posits that people will seek information in a manner that takes the least amount of time and effort (Case, 2008). The plausibility of this principle is painfully apparent when considering the current national election cycle, where sound bites and headlines from news sources shared in social media posts “fulfill” the information needs of many voters. People are inundated with information all day, every day. This inundation of information creates information anxiety, as people become overwhelmed with the volume of information available and the time it would take to wade through all that information. Couple this with the myriad ways information can be located—many of which are more complex than users can manage without difficulty or effort—and it becomes easy to see why people default to the PLE.
Another point of the PLE is that people are creatures of habit, including using the same sources for information. As Case (2008) point out, “a number of empirical studies have found that as knowledge of a source and its potential contents and capabilities increases, the use of the source tends to increase” (p. 38). This is evident in the fact that “google” has been added not only to the lexicon but also to The Oxford English Dictionary. Many people think that if they need information, they merely have to “google it.” Unfortunately, this is not a reliable or best way to get accurate and relevant information. Understanding the PLE helps librarians organize library resources and design finding tools that are easier to use than conventional means such as subscription databases, allowing patrons to fulfill information needs without expending too much time and effort.
In working with college students, I have often been asked by them why I think they cannot find the information they need on Google. I explain to them that they probably can find the information they need but that there is no guarantee that the information will be accurate, current, relevant, reliable, etc. I try to play on Zipf’s PLE by explaining to students that in the long run, learning how to use sources that provide accurate and reliable information—in their case, subscription databases—that it will save them the time of hunting through literally millions of “hits” returned for any Google search as well as the time required to evaluate the information for currency, relevancy, accuracy, reliability, because information in the databases has already been vetted.
Because academia requires research, synthesis, and utilization of information, identifying information-seeking behaviors of students has become a primary focus for many researchers. Carol Kuhlthau’s empirical studies have looked at the information-seeking behaviors of students in both high school and college. Based on the commonalities found across her studies, Kuhlthau developed the “Information Search Process” (ISP) model. The ISP is divided into six stages based on where a user is in the search process:
- Initiation: an information need is identified, e.g., a homework assignment
- Selection: a topic for research chosen, although at this point it is general in nature
- Exploration: exploration of information about chosen topic
- Formulation: synthesis of information leads to formulation of a more focused topic based on researchers’ perspective.
- Collection: research is conducted based on the focused topic
- Presentation: student prepares the final product (paper, presentation, etc.)
Each stage is defined in terms of “three realms of experience: the affective (feelings), the cognitive (thoughts), and the physical (actions)” (Kuhlthau, 1994). Obviously, feelings of apprehension and uncertainty are higher in the early stages of the ISP. As users move through the ISP and research brings their topic into focus, their feelings of confidence grow, their topic of research becomes more focused, and their actions for finding information on that topic become more deliberate. Familiarity with what users are experiencing in each stage allows librarians to assess the level of intervention required for any given stage.
User’s information needs are classified on a continuum known as the “Five Zones of Intervention.” Each zone is defined by the level of help the user needs and the role the librarian must play in providing that information, ranging from basic help such as providing an organized and accessible collection (Stage 1) to systematic intervention over time such as organized information literacy instruction (Stage 5). Understanding the needs of users in each zone allows librarians to develop services, strategies, and tools that provide the appropriate level of help or remedy.
Brenda Dervin’s “Sense-Making” theory deals with how people create meaning. Sense-making is a knowledge-building model involving the concepts of situation, gap, and use. In other words, a situation requiring information is presented, but a gap in knowledge hinders progression through the situation. This gap spurs information seeking. Use refers to what is done with information after sense-making has occurred. Presented with the same information, different people may make different sense of that information depending on the situation for which they need the information. Sense-making is situational, meaning that how users’ make sense of information is directly dependent upon the perspective they already have, the reason they need the information, and how they will use the information. Sense-making is particularly relevant to reference librarianship. Because reference interactions often begin with a vague or general queries because patrons do not know what their real question is or how to express it, negotiating the question is key to locating relevant information. Negotiating the question involves listening and inquiring in order to understand the patron’s situation and how he or she plans to use the information. According to Dervin and Dewdney (1986), “the kind of answers they [patrons] want is dependent on how they expect to use or be helped by the answers” (p. 507). Dervin and Dewdney (1986) developed the concept of neutral questioning, which allows discovery of the true nature of the question. Understanding the patron’s situation and how he or she plans to use information that will fill a knowledge gap helps librarians develop strategies for locating “the right” information to meet the patron’s information need.
Marcia Bates’ “Berry-Picking” model illustrates the iterative nature of information seeking. Anyone who has picked berries knows that berries are selected based on how closely they fit the perception of the perfect berry, i.e., the largest, juiciest berries are picked first, no matter where on the vine they are located. The concept of “the perfect berry” constantly changes as the options are narrowed and continues until enough berries have been picked to make a pie. The same is true of Bates’ model: information is selected based on the user’s perception of how well it meets his or her information needs. Users may start by selecting one source. After reading and processing the information offered by that source, the user’s perception of what information is needed (i.e., the perfect berry) may change. This choosing and consuming continues until the user determines he or she has enough information to fulfill his or her information need. Berry-picking recognizes that the search process is dynamic, that user queries evolve as understanding of the topic evolves, and that multiple search strategies are necessary to access resources in a variety of formats and content that ultimately fulfill the user’s information need (Xie, 2010).
COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT
My first exposure to the concepts of information-seeking behavior came in INFO-202, Information Retrieval System Design. Awareness and understanding of different information seeking behaviors is an important factor for consideration when designing information retrieval systems. A contributing factor of information anxiety is intimidation of using subscription databases for searching, as they are considerably more complex to use than Google. Designing systems that are more user friendly, i.e., more like Google, has the potential to decrease information anxiety. My understanding of information-seeking behavior increased in INFO-244, Online Searching. Developing effective and efficient search strategies require an understanding of how and why information is needed as well as how it will be used. It was in INFO-244 that I became familiar with the berry-picking model, which I soon realized is my most-used method of information seeking. I was introduced to Kuhlthau’s ISP in both INFO-250, Design and Implementation of Instructional Strategies for Information Professionals, and INFO-254, Information Literacy and Learning. Understanding information-seeking behavior, particularly in the context of the ISP, is essential to designing and implementing effective learning tools and instruction sessions for searchers. In INFO-210, Reference and Information Services, I became familiar with Dervin’s sense-making theory and the use of neutral questions as a means of negotiating the question for reference interactions. I have given consideration to each of these models of information-seeking behavior when tailoring information instruction sessions for students at a local community college. It is important that students also understand information-seeking behaviors and that the process of information-seeking is iterative. As Rutherford, Hayden, and Pival (2006) note, “recognition of the process can enable the students to plan ahead, to develop effective strategies to assist their progress, to be prepared for challenges and frustration, and to learn from both their successes and missteps” (p. 440). If students are not taught about, and accept the notion of, the iterative nature of information seeking, they are likely to revert to information-seeking behaviors represented by Zipf’s “Principle of Least Effort,” which will naturally have an effect on their grades, not to mention hinder their information literacy.
EVIDENCE
1. INFO-202 Discussion Post: Attributes and Memberships of Information Seekers
Information-seeking behavior is often studied and explained in terms of the attributes and memberships of information seekers, e.g., age, gender, field or discipline, occupation, and other social and cultural characteristics. For this first part of the discussion post, I analyze my own information-seeking behaviors, noting the influence of my field of study—English—in shaping my attitude towards research and how I search for information. Assignments for English majors often involve learning about a topic in order to provide their perspective. Interactive scanning is a behavior often used by those who must produce such assignments, as it involves perusing “a large set of results retrieved on a broad concept on a particular topic … [and] as you scan retrieved items, the concept becomes progressively clearer” (Booth, 2008, p. 316). This reflects the behavior modeled in the early stages of Kuhlthau’s ISP (particularly stage 3) but also reflects Dervin’s concept of sense-making.
Sense-making plays a part in the second portion of the post, which discusses the subjectiveness of relevance. As previously discussed, sense-making is situational, meaning that how users’ make sense of information is directly dependent upon the perspective they already have, the reason they need the information, and how they will use the information. Choosing relevant documents during a search “is a process of utility or value judgment and decision making” (Wang and Soergel, 1993, p. 87). In other words, users decide what information is relevant to their situation based on how it will be used. Users may be researching the same topic but relevance of specific information depends on user perspective. The subjectiveness of relevance is an important consideration when assigning subject terms for information organization purposes.
2. INFO-244 Discussion Post: Web-Scale Discovery
Web-scale discovery refers to the concept of a central index “‘that provides a single search across a library’s local, open access, and subscription collections’ (Hoeppner, 2012)” (Thompson, 2014, p.8). Web-scale discovery is based on the information-seeking behaviors of users, particularly Zipf’s “Principle of Least Effort.” In teaching students how to use academic databases, one of the common complaints is the amount of time it takes to search first one database, then another, until all relevant information has been gathered. Web-scale discovery would potentially reduce anxiety and uncertainty in users by allowing the sort of “one stop shopping” for information that Google searches provide, and ultimately, allow students to spend time consuming and processing information rather than searching for it.
3. INFO-254 Discussion Post: Information Literacy Instruction
Part of Kuhlthau’s “Information Search Process” is the concept of “Five Zones of Intervention,” which identifies when in the search process assistance should be provided and the level of assistance that is likely to be required. Mediation for zones four and five is considerably more intensive than those of the first three zones, thus requiring more time and effort. In an academic setting where librarians are helping literally thousands of students with complex information needs, this type of intervention can be time-consuming to the point of daunting. One possible remedy for the need of such intensive mediation is posed in this discussion post: a stand-alone information literacy course. The course lasted half a semester and provided scenario-based assignments that allowed students to not only practice research skills but to think about how different scenarios may require different approaches to research. I also advocate for curriculum-integrated information literacy instruction for the same reason.
4. INFO-254: Instruction Observation Report and Analysis
The most common form of intervention offered to searchers in the academic setting is the library orientation session. These one-shot sessions seek to ease information and library anxiety in students by showing students how to locate information using library resources, and particularly, how to use academic databases for locating information. While this is a common form of intervention, having sat through my share of these sessions during my college career I can safely conclude that not all library orientation sessions are created equally. One of the final assignments for INFO-254, Information Literacy and Learning, required me to analyze and report on an instruction session I had observed. This piece of evidence demonstrates my understanding of how consideration of information-seeking behaviors is important to the design of information instruction sessions that actually help students. As demonstrated by the library orientation described in this item of evidence, structuring these sessions based on the stages of Kuhlthau’s ISP helps librarians provide assistance based on the three realm’s of student experience in each stage of the research process.
CONCLUSION
The process of research necessarily involves “evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information” (Winston Churchill). This process can affect information-seeking behaviors by causing anxiety, uncertainty, self-doubt, providing another type of barrier users must overcome to locate information that fulfills an information need. Librarians need to have an understanding of various models of information-seeking behavior in order to design programs and services that are best suited to assist patrons at any point in the search process. This is a key component in ensuring the information literacy of the citizenry. The discussion and evidence provided demonstrates my understanding and mastery of the fundamental concepts of information-seeking behavior and how those concepts are used to inform and shape the design of services, programs, and information systems that allow users to fulfill their information needs.
References
Booth, A. (2008). Using evidence in practice. Health and Information Libraries Journal, 25, 313-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00825.x
Case, D. O. (2008). Information seeking. In K. Haycock & B. E. Sheldon (Eds.), The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts (pp. 35-41). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Dervin, B., & Dewdney, P. (1986). Neutral questioning: A new approach to the reference interview. Research Quarterly, 25(4), 506-513. Retrieved from https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis521/ zennezdervindewd86nq-1.pdf
Grassian, E. S., & Kaplowitz, J. R. (2009). Information literacy instruction: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: Neal-Schuman.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2006). Students and the information search process: Zones of intervention for librarians. In I. P. Godden (Ed.), Advances in librarianship (Vol. 18, pp. 57-72). Retrieved fromhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S0065-2830%281994%290000018004# (Original work published 1994)
Rutherford, S., Hayden, K. A., & Pival, P. R. (2006). WISPR (workshop on the information search process for research) in the library. Journal of Library Administration, 45(3-4), 427-443.http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J111v45n03_08
Thompson, J. (2014). Practical Guides for Librarians: Vol. 9. Implementing web-scale discovery services. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Xie, I. (2010). Information searching and search models. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed., pp. 2592-2604). Retrieved fromhttps://pantherfile.uwm.edu/hiris/www/publication.html#book_chapters
Wang, P. & Soergel, D. (1993). Beyond topical relevance: document selection behavior of real users of IR systems. American Society for Information Science, 30. 87-92
Kristin Lehigh 