Competency J

The first concept that comes to mind when contemplating Competency J, is identifying an information need. An effective way to understand how subliminal and ubiquitous our information needs have become is to lose your cell phone. The last time I was without a phone, I ended up keeping a paper list of all the information I needed to look up when I could start my computer at the end of the day. I noticed an urge to know that was not present a decade ago. In years past, it may have been acceptable to have admitted gaps in knowledge, but Ikoja-Odongo and Mostert assert the contrary as information gathering is at least as old as paleolithic humans because all animals need to know where food, danger and shelter are (2006). Indeed, religion and mythology are evidence of humanity’s refusal to accept gaps is knowledge. Because fundamental concepts of information seeking behavior synthesize: beliefs, decision-making, marketing, consumer behavior, personality, and communication studies and information needs, research is vast and multidisciplinary.

The second part of information-seeking behavior is action. According to Internet Live Stats, a data visualization service, Google fields 40,000 queries per second (2017). This implies that many people turn to search engines to fulfill their information needs. The American Library Association (ALA) reported on a nationwide Harris Interactive poll that found 68% of Americans held a library card in 2006 and 76% used them. For the same period, 8% of users reported using their card to access the internet and 39% used their card to borrow books (Petersen, 2008). These statistics represent some of the action taken by information seekers. Outside of user statistics, seeking behavior can be difficult to quantify because it often manifests as calling a friend or reviewing a sent e-mail. At work, information seeking can mean texting a colleague or consulting a manual, database or file folder.

The third part of information seeking behavior is use. The ALA reports that… “families are increasing their access to digital media, but they lack the knowledge to use it effectively in a way that enables learning” (2015). This comment represents a substantial opportunity for literacy education. The last step of information seeking behavior needs to be evaluating information’s credibility and relevance. Authority, authorship and sources must be emphasized by all information professionals. The ALA comment also encapsulates why the study of information seeking behavior (ISB) is important to me: Truth. I expand on the importance of the third stage of ISB in an assignment for LIBR 202; Information and Society.

The Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Frames, released in 2016, expanded user-behavior concepts beyond their former bounds by addressing socially focused interactions with information. Synthesizing information across platforms, judging website authenticity, and using social media to access, research and digest information are new behaviors reflected in the Frames. INFO 230; Issues in Academic Libraries, emphasized the new service guidelines that apply to users’ information seeking behavior in academic library environments. We learned that ISB is changing drastically to accommodate new attitudes about information: Authority is constructed, information is contextual, information creation is a process, information has value, research is sustained inquiry, think of scholarship as conversation and interpret searching as strategic exploration (ACRL, 2016). The guidelines were the current issue impacting academic librarians’ interactions with clientele at the time. The coursework taught me to think of information seeking behavior as an increasingly social activity that requires context at each stage.

INFO 250; Design and implementation of Instructional Strategies for Information Professionals with Dr. D. Loertscher, addressed learner needs and motivation, which maps to the first stage of IRS. Then we studied learning strategies; the action, or stage two. We used that information to design learner-centered instructional materials and learner assessment tools, which correlate to stage three, evaluation and use. The coursework taught techniques for assessing curriculum and faculty needs so that library materials and services could better meet them and become partners in fostering better information evaluation, use and query outcomes. It addressed the learner personality, communication and decision-making skills used to find information. Moreover, the course emphasized helping learners assess their knowledge, so they could fill the gap with the appropriate lessons, saving time and increasing learner engagement. The first assignment was to design an assessment of student knowledge. Its purpose was to quantify how much of the course information students already knew, where their interests lingered and how they learn.

LIBR 200; Information and Society explored information’s impacts on society. Because of the changing availability of information; identifying user needs, motivations and understanding were considerable themes of the course. We learned about the role information professionals play in aiding the information seeker. Assignments included a literature review, analytical essay, bibliography and research project. Later, these lessons were reinforced in LIBR 210; Reference .

While LIBR 202 primarily taught principles of information retrieval, it also emphasized “models of user information-seeking behavior, human information processing and their relationship to retrieval models in information systems” (Liu, 2013). I studied models from Wilson’s 1981 outline to current trends in specific disciplinary models. I learned about underlying factors that shape information behavior such as the significance of cognitive skill and self-efficacy on affective interactions with information. Assignments included critiquing the usability of an OPAC, using the literature to lead a discussion and reporting on emerging information seeking trends, technology and use.

I included one of the reports as evidence for Competency J because it expresses knowledge of fundamental concepts along with the newest modes of information seeking behavior (at the time of its writing in 2013) and closes with a topic about which I am passionate; truth seeking. The assignment’s primary purpose was to introduce the history and potential future of ISB studies.

During the research, I was struck by how intriguing the models and theories were, because before they were published, were not the ideas obvious? The exercise was an opportunity to think again about what humans are ignoring right now that will eventually find its way into an esteemed, peer reviewed journal. Granted, the completeness of defining terms and articulating their relationships have value, they just seem like apriori expressions. The work by Murtonin and Jarvelin (1995) echoed this sentiment, I believe. Krikelas’ “The Meaning and Value of Theory” 1983, quenched my curiosity about superfluous ISB model origins by framing the issue as being about definition-unity, not permutations of ISB studies.

Preparation for the summary began with a literature review limited to peer-reviewed articles written between 2010 and 2013, but early works were so influential, I soon widened the scope to feature them. Current research often referred to Wilson (1981), Devin, Taylor and Bystrom, so I altered my initial course and focused more on the early works. Only works that addressed information seeking behavior’s fundamental concepts were selected. Because I had just begun graduate school, I began by taking time to view several tutorials about using King Library and RefWorks.

Early models of ISB grew out of computer science, so translating those early concepts from the Royal Society Science Conference, for example, to the library purview required some attention. They were trimmed from the final draft. ISB search results were so plentiful, I used number of citations to narrow the field. Then, I sorted the results by author frequency. The resulting handful of researchers were summarized in the LIBR 202 assignment.

Writing the LIBR 202 Summary showed me the increasing complexity of thinking around information seeking behavior in the last few decades. Each successive researcher layered more values, attributes and categorizations into their research. I learned to use prior research as a jump-off point for new ideas. I will look for opportunities to apply this lesson at work. I will enjoy studying old records for clues to future information needs, trends and research opportunities.

I have learned to emphasize the last stage of information seeking: Check for user understanding. Just because a user has found material, does not mean he can derive meaning from it. I look forward to employing this lesson during my internship as a virtual reference desk librarian by listening for opportunities to audit understanding without offending users. One technique is to offer continuing support so that users feel comfortable returning to the virtual service as soon as their information need outpaces their resources and if they discover an unmet aspect of the need post visit.

And finally, as in other competency summaries, I affirm the urgency of staying current. The way I ignored social media five years ago, while writing the ISB summary, was unacceptable. Because the pace of technology growth has been a consistent concern, I intend to organize a system for sharing information about new technology and trends with coworkers. The initiative may be as simple as delegating articles from journals like, Information Technology and Libraries, among coworkers to share over time.

References

Association of College Research Libraries. (2016). Frames. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards

American Library Association. (2015). Faqs. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Ikoja-Odongo R., Mostert J. (2006). Information seeking behaviour: A conceptual framework. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275332332_Information_seeking_behaviour_A_conceptual_framework

Internet Live Stats. (2017). Google search statistics. Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/google-search-statistics/

Liu G., (2013). Greensheet. Retrieved from http://ischoolapps.sjsu.edu/gss/ajax/showSheet.php?id=5421

Petersen J. (2008). New national poll shows library card registration reaches historic high. American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/news/news/pressreleases2008/September2008/ORSharris

Evidence

LIBR 202; Summary: Information Seeking Behavior

The first modern-era information seeking behavior studies emerged around 1945 with the rise of computing. By 1948 the Royal Society Scientific Conference had conducted several surveys on ISB (Wilson & Wanghsh, 1981; Vickery, 1998). Growth of information seeking behavior models was slow, but by the 1980s models conformed to a basic formula: Define terms, attempt to predict seeker behavior based on descriptions of circumstance, usually beginning with a gap in knowledge. Then, models describe a sequence of cognitive events that lead to behaviors. Early models are characterized by their assumption of active searching, rigid guidelines and omissions of some social factors, context, interpretation and verification. Later models explored these attributes in depth.

Wilson began developing his model in 1971 with students at the University of Maryland. By the 1981 publish date, he had wrestled with user factors and been reporting his findings for ten years (Wilson & Wanghsh). His work is foundational because it carefully defines the terms of user-related debates and categorizes motivations for seeker behavior. He noted ambiguity in the terms used to debate user-studies, such as information and facts, opinions and advice, as well as vaguery surrounding channels of communication. He noted that conceptual differences between need and want; expressed demand and satisfied demand, were not explicit.

His initial model is not intended to model, but suggest interrelationship between concepts (Wilson & Wanghsh). Wilson arrived at the relationship between ISB and information exchange and between ISB and demands on other information sources, through sociological studies in information science contexts. He acknowledges the complexity of defining the user by referring to her life-world, which encompasses sub-worlds such as employment: peer groups, reference groups, groups of superiors, and colleague groups. He laments the inadequacy of two-dimensional paper for such socially complex, relationship-dependent ISB analysis.

As a response to complexity, Wilson creates a Venn diagram of relationships and seeker paths titled, “Universe of Knowledge.” Through it, he solves one of his definition problems by referring to documents and people as “embodiments of knowledge.” He identifies four paths through information: search strategies that are independent of information systems, search paths that involve a mediator or computer, strategies employed by a mediator on the user’s behalf, and strategies employed by technology on behalf of a mediator on behalf of a user. He observes that, when tracing users through the paths, behavior is clearly the focus: not cognitive processes (Wilson & Wanghsh). Figure three, “Information Needs and Seeking,” depicts seekers’ internal motivations and various barriers for ISB. Barriers are environmental, interpersonal and cultural.

Krikelas was also concerned by the lack of homogenous definitions in information science (1983). In the Meaning and Value of Theory (1983), Krikelas uses prior scholars’ work to demarcate continuous and discrete problem-solving, demand versus want and need; kinetic and potential need. Krikelas posits the time a need is recognized is essential because previously, it was internalized, and therefore exempt from empirical examination. Similarly, he considers information gathering and information seeking divided by when they occur, rather than any denotive difference. He defines information gathering as “those activities in which stimuli are accepted and held in storage to be recalled on demand” (Krikelas). Thus, Krikelas crawls through information science, examining facets of terms; clarifying definitions. He describes gathering information as a continuous attempt to construct a cognitive environmental map to deal with future uncertainty. Then, because people efficiently file information away in their memories, and recall it as needed, Krikelas begins to examine how people anticipate what information need they will have in the future. Ultimately, he concludes that internalized processes are difficult to observes and returns to behavior studies.

Leckie, Pettigrew and Sylvain (1996), launched from their predecessors’ foundation by keeping the majority of their models and definitions the same, but conceiving of new, simultaneous interactions of user variables. Their 1996 work focuses on a generalizable ISB model for professionals. The model identifies six categories: work roles, associated tasks, characteristics of information needs combined with the factors affecting information seeking, sources and outcomes. They move the conversation away from rigid, remote, impersonal ISB to a more communal, networked view of ISB that embraces informal and formal exchange (Leckie, Pettigrew, Sylvain, 1996). The team attributed much of the interest in user studies to database vendors who intended to market their products to professionals. Indeed, their model reflects this opportunity.

Figure 1, A Model of Professionals’ Information Seeking (Leckie, Pettigrew, Sylvain), depicts work roles at the top of the diagram, followed by tasks, under which is the category; characteristics of information needs, which branches into sources of information and awareness of information. This is followed by the feedback mechanism, which is represented by the word, “outcomes” and arrows traveling to and from sources of information, awareness of information and the words, “information is sought,” and back again, presumably, until the information need is filled. Outcomes, information sought, sources of information, and awareness of information are depicted as simultaneous categories. Some researchers, however, desired ever more specific methodology.

Part of Murtonin and Jarvelin’s, purpose was to improve research methods surrounding ISB. Most previous surveys, they assert, were conducted after, not during task performance. Moreover, sometimes communication was used generically in place of information seeking. They intended to complete a more comprehensive empirical analysis of the relationships between task types and the information needed to complete those tasks. Their research was drawn from diaries and questionnaires. Task complexity, information types, channels and sources informed their qualitative analysis of ISB in administrative settings. The findings were categorized into work charts and process description tables for each of five complexity classes (Murtonin and Jarvelin, 1995).

The team employed a systems development tac to categorize information into domains: known scientific facts, problem characteristics and problem-solving information. These are applied to information as a thing, structure and as a process. Tasks were divided into multiple subtasks. Subtasks were judged to be apriori or decision tasks. The study omits affective data, preferring data on cognitive and physical interactions. The team finds that information needs and processes differ by the task because the tasks impose different information requirements. Murtonin and Jarvelin worked to quantify the gap between the information need and subjects’ ability to satisfy it (1995).

The information seeking and evaluation studies above lead to behaviors. Sample behaviors that result from information needs and successful information seeking campaigns include buying a product, adopting an exercise plan, applying for a job, visiting a library or forming a fantasy football team. They all benefit from prior research. The Murtonin-Jarvelin work created a process for measuring each behavior against the substantial cognitive activity that preceded it using a complex system of categorization.

Then, as scholars added nuance to the field, they dropped the “seeking” in Information seeking behavior to form: information behavior (IB). IB refers to unintentional or passive behaviors; avoiding or skimming information. It contains a subset of information behavior such as glimpsing or encountering, which is termed passive or unintentional behavior (Heinstrom, 2005). It includes the study of browsing, scanning, serendipitous discovery and divides these into either aimless or goal oriented categories. IB concepts include ignoring and filtering information versus information poverty issues such as knowledge insufficiency, and cultural barriers. IB encompasses information overload, distraction, errors, queuing and omissions (Wilson, 2000).

In later models, end-processing was increasingly incorporated into ISB models. Verification became an explicit feature in a late version of Ellis’ 1989 model. Then scholars considered mental contamination and correction (Wilson, 1994) Psychology, marketing and affective studies and applications increased (Marton & Choo, 2012; Heidar, Mohammad-Reza D., Mohammad-Hossein & Mohammad-Reza A., 2013). Explicit focus on information gaps and how users are affected by navigating the gap are gaining attention (Heinstrom). Today, information behavior studies are often specialized.

Information seeking behaviors of specific subjects, for example; social service, law and education information seeking models, are plentiful (Marton & Choo). Risk information and health information have developed their own models. Examples of the former include Risk Information Seeking and Processing model (RISP), Framework for Risk Information and Seeking (FRIS), and Planned Risk Information Seeking Model (PRISM) (Kellens, Zaalberg, De Maeyer, 2012). RISP purports that people are motivated by insufficient information, a condition which can be predicted by observing a set of characteristics: individual traits and risk perception (affective response). PRISM is a psychologically centered model that factors trust, engagement and self-efficacy. PRISM is a planned-behavior model that measures perceived risk, perceived information insufficiency, affective risk response and perceived knowledge, but does not succeed in tying these characteristics to a relationship between information insufficiency and information seeking behavior (Kellens, Zaalberg, De Maeyer).

Within specializations, information seeking behavior is compared to other behaviors. One out of many examples of such specialization is the comparison of ISB to students’ need for cognition (NFC) by Heidar, Mohammad-Reza D., Mohammad-Hossein and Mohammad-Reza A., (2013). This study identifies psychological traits that underlie ISB. The current research on information seeking behavior, seems like Russian nesting dolls in that, scholars have looked further and further inward, first defining terms, then roles, categories, personality and affectation until at last, there is very little material to divide.

Future information seeking behavior models need to include bias and belief. Just as initial models omitted aspects of context and PRISM failed to tie information insufficiency to seeking behavior, a new model that incorporates bias is needed to neutralize inaccurate information such as hoaxes, propaganda and aggressive marketing that stretches the truth. Such a model might start with attributes and characteristics that predict an information need, followed by information seeking strategies followed by behaviors, but then, instead of being done, the seeker evaluates the information for source, authority, author, trustworthiness, consistency across platforms; confirmation by other sources. Seekers must be educated about their need to seek out information that confirms their bias rather than the truth. Information literacy needs to expand to envelope truth training. It should help users seek cognitive strategies and behaviors that support truth seeking over bias confirmation.

References

Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval design. Journal of Documentation, 45(3), 171-212

Heidar M., Mohammad-Reza D., Mohammad-Hossein D., Mohammad-Reza A., (2013). Students' need for cognition affects their information seeking behavior, New Library World. 114(11/12), 542-549, https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-07-2013-0060

Heinström J., (2005). Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: The influence of personality and study approach on students' information‐seeking behavior, Journal of Documentation. 61(2), 228-247, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510585205

Kellens W., Zaalberg R., De Maeyer P. (2012). The Informed Society: An Analysis of the public's information-seeking behavior regarding coastal flood risks. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(8), 1369-1381.

Krikelas, J. (1983). Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly; Foundations of library practice. 19(2), 5-20 Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/doc/67935845/krikelas-information-seeking

Leckie G., Pettigrew K., Sylvain C. (1996). The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy

66(2), 161-193. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/stable/4309109?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Marton C., Choo W., C., (2012). A review of theoretical models of health information seeking on the web. Journal of Documentation. 68(3), 330-352, https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211225575

Murtonin K., Jarvelin K., (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.20.3317&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Vickery B., (1998). The Royal Society scientific information conference of 1948, Journal of Documentation. 54(3), 281-283, https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007170

Wilson D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(1), 49-55. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/2000HIB.pdf

Wilson D., Wanghsh. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation. 37(1), 3-15. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30666204/On_user_studies_and_information_needs.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510858613&Signature=dTQWNjsBAhtwCuKfAxNWMmfiyXk%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOn_user_studies_and_information_needs.pdf