What's in a Word?

6.1 Cool, C. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. ARIST 35, 5-42.

This article serves as a basic primer, if you will, on the published writings, both theoretical and empirical, of researchers in the field of Information Science [IS], and others in related disciplines, where the concept of situation or to use another, related term, context, is applicable. From the start, Cool observes that the terms, in spite of being used (one could justifiably say over-used) repeatedly for upward of twenty years, no one in IS to date has attempted to define what is meant by either term. In many of the IS writings, the two terms are often used interchangeably, and this, in addition to the lack of precise definitions for each term, has led to misunderstandings and unnecessary confusion. This article, in the attempt to rectify what the author acknowledges as a basic oversight, is therefore long overdue. As a laundry list of the writings useful to IS researchers interested in the varied applications and varieties of situation studies it is invaluable; as a clarification of the two terms, the article comes up short. It appears that the unraveling of the relationship of situation and context as it occurs in the literature proved to be more daunting than the author expected and she abandons the evaluation and concentrates on the role of situation, alone.

The article serves up six basic perspectives on what situation means in IS research. Breaking the issues down into Problematic Situation (essentially a phenomenological approach), Social Interaction Theory, The Situated Action Model, The Theory of Situation Awareness, the Person-In-Situation Model and the Situation as Information Environment, Cool presents the leading articles associated with each theoretical approach, and in those instances where she is heavily invested in the theory, she gives an extensive analytic investigation, providing probing insights and explanations. Theories of situation in IS that Cool does not warm to are less aggressively discussed, often presented as a running list of titles with no additional insights offered. As an example, it appears that Cool, in spite of her own contribution to the discussion of Social Interaction Theory (an application I am particularly interested in due to the curious questions suggested by the personal associative contexts between say, a “school library clerk” and a school child, or the social interaction required between an researcher and an impersonal data base) she only devotes a scant three pages, while her assessment of the Problematic Situation, the lead off discussion, is given four and a half. I must admit, that the phenomenological approach represented here by the work of Schutz & Luckmann, Taylor, Dervin, Kuhlthau, and heavily on the investigations of Belkin and his colleagues whose definition of the concept of the anomalous state of knowledge (discussed in reading 3.2) is key to an understanding of IS in general, are some of the more original theoretical writings in the field. (In the interest of avoiding redundancy I am not going to discuss the various points presented in each of the six theoretical approaches outlined by Cool as the purpose of the article itself is to do that. In many cases, moreover, the writings Cool presents here are the subjects of other readings in this journal exercise.)

There are a few things that kept grating on me while reading the review list. Cool consistently refers to “the IS literature” and that certain concepts “(have) a long tradition in IS” as if IS is a pedagogical field with a pedigree equivalent to history, geology, philosophy or any of the other disciplines. This in spite of the disclaimer in the introduction that “the theoretical literature reviewed spans several disciplines, including sociology, psychology, anthropology, and communication.” A head count of Cool’s bibliography bears this disclaimer out. All the entries relating to IS date from the late 80s to 2000, with the exception of Belkin’s contributions from the early 80s. All bibliographic entries dated earlier (one can safely assume the seminality of these) come from other disciplines including the ones cited by Cool. I am reminded of Bates’s concept of “berry-picking” here, in the tendency of “new sciences” like IS to play hopscotch through existing disciplines for ideas. (Have you ever spoken to someone with a PhD in History from Harvard about how they feel about Yale’s American Studies program? If you have, then you know what I mean.)

For the record:
According to Webster's:

context is defined as "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning" (think New York Times here, they way they "surround a story".)
situation is defined as " the way in which something is placed in relation to its surroundings"

Take the sentence "The fish is in the frying pan."

The frying pan is context.

The fish is in the situation.

What if someone wrote the truth about these readings?

To be honest, I am about three weeks behind in my responses, not my readings, to be sure, just my responses. I just find it so difficult to write with any intelligence when I am writing about or to them. I just spin off onto other topics, like now. I read a terrific review of a book I will run off and get, Home Land by Sam Lipsyte, and do you know why? Because the review says that it is the first time that a character writes honestly about himself on one of those high school reunion forums. In other words, if life has failed us, we write about it. Well, that's what communication should be like, honestly. This blog will hopefully make an honest writer of me. But how can it, when I am (now, look at the heading of the page, dear reader) doing this for a grade? I would rather be honest and gradeless, but that is not the context here. More later. Much later.

The Search Goes On

Dr. Marcia Bates, a UCLA professor, designed a theoretical system that leaves the classic IR model in the dust, and rightly so. Bates, continues in the direction that Belkin began paving earlier in the research, and questioned by Bates and others, “Why cannot the system make it possible for the searcher to express the need directly as they would ordinarily, instead of in an artificial query representation for the system’s consumption?” (409)
This is the basis for the berrypicking model, which is simply the act or art of searching in a way closely related to the way in which real people search for real information, and in what Bates feels is a model that an IR system must design and imitate to accommodate a human search, rather than designing a system that is more sophisticated in itself, but more difficult or ineffective for a human to use. In essence, like HDTV, the sharper image is not the most sophisticated picture.
Bates understands the nature of the human search and describes it simply as a “bit-at-a-time” retrieval, like berrypicking. This technique is far different from the linearity of previous models in that it acknowledges the shifting needs of the searcher as the search progresses, the various sources that must be consulted throughout the search, the various methodologies that are employed by most searchers when looking for something, and even the change in the nature of the search. Bates distinguishes between browsing and berrypicking, and advances our appreciation for browsing, not as a waste of time, but as a productive part of searching, and one that has meaning for search engines. But, how can browsing be incorporated into an online search to retrieve meaningful “hits” when the searcher is not quite certain about the search itself? Well, it’s a matter of serendipitous discovery, and stumbling upon information that changes the nature of the search, and gives the curvy shape to the journey.
Of course, not everyone is capable nor willing to be so intuitive, nor so brave as to admit that one’s initial thesis stinks, and one should take a new and better path in complete contradiction to one’s original ideas. I have and will, but some (most?) would rather stick with heartless ideas and at least finish within a reasonable time. Like Castaneda, I would rather choose the path with heart. Even if it means I have a heap of notes after 15 years? Yup. W.B. did, but maybe for different reasons. His briefcase was much heavier than mine.
Bates incorporates her findings into practical design aspects, which in the last 15 years have actually been built into some of our best search engines, and some which are yet to come, and some which seem at best, impractical and useless.
In 1989, the idea of flipping through a book on screen was not a reality as far as I know, and when Amazon first announced its page-turning tool in 2003 or 2004, everyone was amazed. Was this thanks to Bates? I have to think that the universe thinks of things together like some giant world brain (thanks to H.G. Wells for that idea).

4.2 Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.

It Is Our Pleasure To Serve You

Puritanical approach: do your own work ethos. Taylor’s work takes place at the reference desk. Reference today is in cyberspace, sometimes. This is a theoretical model for reference librarians. Based upon observations of people. Far from the single event model. Terrible illustrations. Reference librarians are involved in negotiating information. communication. Although there is a structure to the interview, there are also compromises due to language and communication, which at best, is a miracle. If I ask,
where is the water fountain, I may get a concrete answer, but if I ask what were the causes of the Civil War, a reference librarian may need to know at what level I need info and for what purposes. Taylor has five filters (see p 128) which describe an information seeker and the stages through which a question passes. these are not absolute or fixed (p 85). These filters help the librarian find the answer that is appropriate to the task of the info seeker. The only problem is that all of these filters will not help if the info seeker can not get past the first stage, determining a subject. Actually, one can browse for info and find it. when one needs info, the question must fall into a category for someone else to find it in the system. Those categories are limited by the controlled vocabulary of a system OPAC or the limitations of either the info seeker or intermediary in narrowing. Taylor’s analysis is early (1968) in the science of information seeking, but is built upon by others, such as Nick Belkin. His focus on background information of the user is not the most useful information in 2004. Also, it assumes that librarians are apt at understanding human behavior, when some librarians are completely clueless as to the motivations and behavior of a user. Especially if they have had no socialization at an early age. Librarians who have not had much human interaction outside of their careers bring little to the negotiating table because they do not understand human behavior. Those who have studied psychology may be able to benefit from the discipline.
In Taylor’s system, the seeker and librarian are in a dynamic act of communication, but it can be studied and made more effective from an LIS standpoint. Taylor stresses that more interaction is needed between the librarian and the info seeker. Librarians should not just jump to an answer, but must first find the right question. One of the most rushed info sessions is the “Ask a Librarian” type session or any one of its many forms. Without in-person clues, most librarians will simply jump to a conclusion and refer the patron to a couple of web pages. Bah, humbug!!!
Questions are different from commands. Commands can only happen in later stages of info seeking.

Taylor, R.S. (1968) Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries. College and Research Libraries, 28, 178-194. American Library Association (ALA).

You Can't Always Get What You Want

This little blurb was from an article I read online while searching for some information myself, about hmmmmm... natural language processing. which, as it turns out is really about human information behavior, or where it leads in the real world – search engines and the Internet:

“Probabilistic or statistical systems use probability and statistics to predict what might be not only exact, but close matches to a query. In these systems, you get what you ask for, but you might also get what you should have asked for. Unfortunately, you also retrieve other documents that contain your query terms, but not the information you wanted.”

NLP meets the jabberwocky, Susan Feldman, 5/1999, Online. accessed through www.highbeam.com on 1/27/2005.

We had thought all along that all roads led to Rome, when in actuality, they all lead to Mick Jagger.

I Thought You'd Never ASK

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

Dr. Nick Belkin, who is credited with the theory known by the clever acronym ASK is one of the theorists who moved away from IR theory focused on system to theory based on the synthesis of previous schema, mainly Taylor’s and Kochen’s, both based on the user’s recognition that something is wrong in the situation of the user.
The original audience for this concept was IR specialists. Now the audience is both library students and IR specialists. The basic nagging question is: how do we make sense of a vague question and be of service to a user of information?
There are things that we know completely, and other things which we would like to know, but we do not have the ability to transform them from their blurry (anomalous) state into a coherent question of 25 words or less. Theoretically, people do not want information; they want to solve problems. that brings information seeking behavior to another level. All library work and information seeking is built on this foundation. But, what is information -- something that comes in packets, knowledge communicated, something that contains a message. Sounds elementary. But it isn’t. New ways to look at info seeking as purpose oriented or task oriented. HIB differs from person to person depending on the level (from individual to cultural); context ( environmental, long-term short-term, important or unimportant; kinds ( generating, disseminating, collecting, etc.).
Nick Belkin is famous for developing the ASK model (anomalous state of knowledge), which has been cited and built upon by current scholars in LIS. It is a cognitive model, which means that theoretically its focus is concerned with the mental activities of users, not the capabilities of the machines/systems that serve human needs for information seekers.
Process of information seeking is not linear, but circuitous or iterative. ASK changes by receiving information. That is, the answer (intermediate search) will and can change the question and change the direction of the user and his/her behavior.
Belkin believes that the ASK framework brings up more problems than answers, but that is the nature of LIS today, to attract more researchers to work on solutions to non-specifiable needs and how to translate them into commands which locate the right information, which can be complex and abstract or concrete.
Much work still needs to be done on retrieving information, but Google is still the best for most people’s money. After all, your librarian even “googles,” although an admission in writing may be a stretch.
What other search engine has its own dictionary entry? Well, what other search engine has become part of our everyday vocabulary, and has its own dictionary entry? Google is God, some say. Regardless of what some say, what Webster says, matters.
Terms to take away from this article: human generator, human user, non-specifiability of need
Despite the fact that there is little explanation of basic definitions by the author and the diagrams do not support the material, this is an early article that paved the way for further research (just as the author had hoped it would 25 years ago).

Context is No Con

Finally! Human information behavior is vogue. All the work that Belkin, Todd, Wilson, and Dervin did has finally made an impact on the world of searching. Implications are that students in library school are learning relevant skills, and will actually be able to transfer those skills to the workplace. Google and Yahoo! and MSN, too, are in need of matching users to answers and coming up with more relevance in their searches. Here, read the headlines for yourself. Yahoo! launches 'contextual' search Let's hope I learn to use RSS technology soon, so I can feed my readers some really relevant info I come across in my everyday life. The key to context is relationships, and although human relationships are by far the most difficult, they are also the most sublime. Hypertext has come a long way in making new relevancies and new meanings. The new search engines represent a true step forward in moving theory off the pages of our texts and into our query boxes. When our search engines can actually come up with answers to questions that we ourselves barely state in an adequate way, then our dreams and accomplishments in human information behavior measure high on the scale.

Groundhog Day and Predictability

2/2/2005
Groundhog Day
6 more weeks of winter. I don’t know what is worse, six more weeks of winter or 12 more weeks of HIB readings. I guess people want to know the future, but especially if the news is good. Groundhog Day is about knowing the future and appraising truth. Is it scientific? Do people consider it valid, or is it just another silly ritual that people have invented?
Certainly proof is not prognostication. The tortoise shell was once an ancient oracle used by the Chinese to prognosticate. But I think we have to realize that the groundhog argument is an appeal to the feelings rather than to reason.
Meltzoff discusses many reasons to believe, but his main ideas, and ones that should long ago have been hammered into our brains in English Composition 101, when writing our first essays, or evaluating our first articles with an ounce of critical reasoning, would be captured in the bold headings that Meltzoff uses to organize his methods for seeking truth: Faith, Reason, Feeling, Sensory Information, Legal Methods, and Empirical and Experimental Methods. Meltzoff also offers his own methodology for reading scientific studies critically. If Meltzoff’s own advice holds up to criticism then it will be of great help in a course where scrutinizing and critiquing theory is at its heart. Basically, Meltzoff’s ideas are quite basic, which is in fact quite helpful. Unfortunately, we cannot select articles to read simply because the title sounds as “though it might be of interest.” In fact, one of the least interesting aspects of the readings is the titles. Meltzoff offers a basic checklist for approaching research articles, and that is to be interactive, say, speak to the text by writing back to it, and look for the three components, the hypothesis, the data, and the discussion, and if all the parts are not there, or if there are some inconsistencies, then trust your judgment. The research can be flawed, even if it has passed the discerning red pen of the editor, when the editor is the first cousin of the author who owes them a favor.

1.2 Critical Thinking about Research by J. Meltzoff