Introduction
Subject analysis is a vastly important and challenging area of information organization. The literature reviewed in this week's reading assignments has not only outlined the process of subject analysis but brought to the fore several difficult aspects that have kept information professionals unsatisfied with its current condition in general, and with indexing for information retrieval systems specifically. According to Taylor & Joudrey (T&J)(pg. 303), being able to identify “precisely an item’s subject matter (often referred to as aboutness . . .)” is of significant value. Of equal value, and generally less definitively accomplished is then carefully and accurately assigning appropriate terms in an index to represent that aboutness. In this reading response, a brief synthesis is provided of the M. J. Bates (not so brief) article and the Taylor & Joudrey text. They are supportive of one another in their discussions of aboutness and the difficulties in achieving a database and retrieval system design that is completely satisfactory to its users. The conclusion is that there have been many changes in the subject analysis space since Bates wrote her article, and there is yet more on the near horizon that will further solve some of the inherent challenges.
Synthesis of Concepts
T&J informs that much literature is extant that points out that aboutness is more than just the words in the text used by an author. Accurate aboutness takes into consideration, among other things, the intentions of both the author and the users of the resource. This suggests there must be a connection between the person developing the vocabulary of the index and the end user, or at least an understanding of the latter by the former. Otherwise, the index is of great value to the indexer, but less so to the user. Bates (pg. 4) reinforces this concept by pointing out that the information seeking user doesn’t know what the resource is yet. The user has no idea what it is about, or what it can answer, or even how to ask for it. The indexer doing the analysis has the record in hand. There is no gap in understanding the resource. The main challenge for the indexer is to add to that “hands-on” knowledge by anticipating how the user will search for the resource. Even to the point of anticipating which terms the searcher might use, based on the information need. If the user’s guesses in the search don’t match the indexer’s description, then the resource is not found in the search and it is of little value to the user.
Further, Bates contrasts the indexer’s experience (with the subject analysis process) to the information seeking experience of the user. The indexer is highly trained and educated in the subject analysis arena, whereas the user is not, and may not even be experienced in the search process. So, having their thought process match is unlikely, unless the indexer thinks in terms of the potential searcher.
The main points of the Bates article are that human, database and domain factors impact the subject analysis and search processes. Those impacts can be negative if indexers don’t follow careful and well thought-out methodologies. Inherently, the indexer wishes to build something of great intellectual and scholarly value. Potentially, the more logical and sophisticated the retrieval system design is, the less it will resemble the inexperienced searching techniques of the user. The indexer must take into account the user community as well as the domain or environment of the users.
T&J describes the process of analysis and assigning terms. The text gives three examples of approaches (or methodologies) to the process, which are identified by their authors, Langridge, Wilson and Lancaster (as a representative of the Use-based Approach). Each approach consists of steps that generally follow a basic outline of asking questions. These questions begin in a sort of general arena and move to more specific characteristics of the information resource being analyzed. For instance, “What is it?”; “What is it for?”; and “What is it about?” in Langridge’s approach. Wilson describes in his approach four methods, which similarly work from generalities to specifics. First (Purposive), “What was the author’s purpose?”; second (Figure-Ground), “Is there a central figure that stands out?”; third (Objective), counting references to determine which vastly outnumber the others; and fourth (Cohesion), “what holds the work together?”. This general to specific question-tree approach was likened by Bates (pg. 14) to the same way library users approach the reference desk. They start with a general opening question and, based on the librarian’s interviewing skills, the interview moves to specifics until the librarian has determined what the user really wants and provides a path to that information. It seems that the database searcher follows this same approach of trying general terms and getting more specific until the search has been narrowed to relevant and desired information.
The impetus for following methodologies such as those presented in the text and article under review here is to overcome the many challenges inherent in communication of information. People from different environments, cultures and background simply think of things differently. Anticipating those differences will aid in overcoming them. The suggestion by Bates to build a user-friendly front-end to attach to the logically developed database makes good sense and since the time of her writing, this suggestion has been implemented by most developers of retrieval systems.
In today’s Web 2.0 environment, retrieval systems are advancing to the stages of incorporating user generated aboutness, or tagging, which will take the process a step further in overcoming some of the challenges identified in the Bates article and the T&J text. According to Rolla (pg. 178), user tagging such as is present in LibraryThing has added richness beyond the library catalog. This is the positive result that Bates, in particular, and the T&J chapter suggest we must pursue in the information organization profession as we overcome inherent challenges of subject analysis.
Conclusion
Many studies have been conducted and much has been written about the subject analysis process (see Notes in T&J, Chapter 9, pp. 328-332) which has added to the discussion before and since the 1998 Bates article. These studies and the literature have helped to formulate new methodologies and to enhance existing approaches to subject analysis. As approaches and methodologies, like those considered in this week’s reading material, continue to develop with an eye on solving the aboutness challenges discussed, the search process will only improve.
References:
Taylor & Joudrey, Chapter 9, Subject analysis (pp. 303-332) and Appendix A. An approach to subject analysis (pp. 419-427)
Bates, M.J. (1998). Indexing and access for digital libraries and the Internet: human, database, and domain factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(13): 1185-1205.
Rolla, P. J. (2009). Can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? Library Resources & Technical Services 53(3): 174-184.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Reference Interview Analysis
This paper will identify and discuss five reference transactions through a variety of modes between a library and information sciences student (me) and multiple information centers providing reference services. The personal interactions will be reported from the student’s point of view and the services rendered will be analyzed in terms of the LIS literature studied in the LIS 504 class at the Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of Illinois. In some transactions, the specific points recommended in the literature on the reference interview were present and obvious. In others, they were obviously missing. This paper will attempt to make that connection between the transactions and the LIS literature.
The Information Centers and Reference Providers:
Four different centers or reference services were accessed. They include the Crystal Lake Public Library in Crystal Lake, Illinois, (my closest public library relationship), the Arlington Heights Memorial Library in Arlington Heights, Illinois, the University Library at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign campus, and the online resource “Yahoo! Answers” at http://answers.yahoo.com/.
The transaction at the UIUC University Library was conducted via instant messaging through their AIM connection on the website home page and of course, the Yahoo!Answers transaction was conducted online through their website. All other transactions were face to face.
The Transactions:
Transaction #1 - On September 6, 2009, the on-duty reference desk librarian at Crystal Lake Public Library (CLPL) was asked about dictionaries and their usage. The original question was, “Where are the dictionaries located?” A specific question was asked later of the same librarian about a quotation, the source of which had eluded the student.
Transaction #2 - On September 29, 2009 in regard to geographic sources a different librarian at the CLPL reference desk was asked if she knew what an atoll is and where one might find information about any atolls that belong to the United States.
Transaction #3 - On September 26, 2009, a visit to the Arlington Heights Memorial Library (AHML) was made in an effort to access a larger (than CLPL) reference section of print sources to support a project in the LIS 501 class centered on the development of a digital collection. My introductory question of the reference librarian on duty was, “Do you have any sources that would assist me in a project in one of my LIS classes to develop a digital collection?”
Transaction #4 - On October 14 an instant message transaction was undertaken with the main library at the University of Illinois on the Urbana-Champaign campus. My initial question was, “Can you help me request a book to be picked up this weekend?”
Transaction #5 - The questions submitted were, “What can be done to stop North Korea from further developing nuclear weapons?” and “What is an “Illini” and why is that the mascot of the University of Illinois athletic teams?”
The Analysis:
Transaction #1 - As I approached the reference desk from the corridor directly before the desk, the librarian didn’t see me coming as she was engaged with the computer screen in front of her, which takes her gaze away from the corridor. When I arrived, however, she immediately looked up, smiled and acknowledged me. (I volunteer at this library, so she knew me by name.) When I explained my assignment and asked about dictionaries, she asked if I wanted to look for something specific, or just a tour of the section. At that point, I had no specific questions and asked for the tour.
She guided me to the section and identified all of the various types of dictionaries. She did not show me, and I did not notice, that the section extended past the end of the stacks we were viewing and continued on the next stack behind us. I’m not sure if she was aware of that physical attribute of the section and I think she thought she had shown me the entire collection of dictionaries. However, I came back later and was stumped that there were not more books on quotations. The answer was found online through an unfamiliar source. A classmate was consulted to see if she had found the answer. She identified a source. When I came back to the reference desk a week later, I asked specifically for that source and was told that it was in the collection. That’s when I looked past the end of the first set of shelves and found additional sources on the next section and specifically the very source that held my answer.
In the first week’s encounter, I had returned to the desk and asked where I might find the specific quotation. The librarian immediately started an online search and had to ask a few times for the quote. She asked me to repeat it so many times that I had it memorized for several weeks thereafter. She never did find the answer, but asked me several times before my departure that day if I had because she was now interested in knowing who had said it.
The librarian did not think to recommend some excellent quotations books in the collection, but conducted a cursory search online and then indicated that she could not find an answer for me. The librarian seemed sure that it could be found online (which it was), but when she was unable to do so, didn’t finish the reference interview and became too engrossed in the actual search to be of service to me any longer. She lost focus of the interview by not following through to figure out what I really needed. See Ross, Chapter 3 information.
Transaction #2 - During my sources assignment on geographical sources, I found the print versions of atlases, gazetteers and other sources without assistance and had answered most of the questions. Thinking of this assignment I decided to ask another librarian at the reference desk to assist me on finding information about atolls belonging to the United States. She asked, “What is an atoll?”, which is perfectly understandable – after all; not everyone in the Midwestern United States has heard of an atoll. After explaining to her what it is, she indicated she wasn’t sure where to look for such a source. She was aware of what I had been doing with the atlases and gazetteers and asked if I had reviewed all of them. I hadn’t yet, so I went back to an atlas still on the shelf (I had most of the books of the section on my table) and found that it was an excellent source for the specific subject. I later found the World Fact Book to be quite helpful as well.
I think this librarian felt a little uncomfortable trying to help when she hadn’t known what an atoll is and she held back from assisting any further. Truthfully, I may not have needed her assistance and it was probably appropriate for her to send me back to the sources and refrain from doing it for me. The information in chapter 1 of Ross suggests that not bothering with the interview leads to a failed transaction. That seems applicable here. The librarian did not follow the interview through to a close. However, once again, maybe that’s exactly what I needed in this case – to be sent back to my own search.
Transaction #3 - After entering the AHML (which was somewhat unfamiliar to me), I found signs leading to a reference desk, which was called the “Questions and Answers Desk”. That seemed an apt place to start. Two librarians were seated there, one male and the other female. The female was engaged in a project at her computer and the male was on the phone. As I approached the desk the male librarian was just finishing his transaction on the phone and asked if he could help me.
I asked my question on digital collection development. He thought for a moment and then said, “Okay, just a moment,” and turned to his computer. He typed in a few key words and I assumed by his actions and apparent thinking process that he was checking for call numbers to identify a section where such books might be found. As it turns out, that’s exactly what he was doing. I know he asked me a couple of questions to confirm some things about the assignment, but the specifics now escape me. But suffice it to say, he was narrowing things down in his search for answers to my question.
Once he had a location, he took me to several shelves filled with a large variety of books on digitization, digital library collections, online library services, etc. Some of the collection was specifically related to my needs and much of it was not. He started identifying options and quickly pulled two likely suspects from the shelves. I suddenly had in my hands Cataloging and Organizing Digital Resources and Developing Library and Information Center Collections. He then suggested I look through the section, gave me some instructions and indicated he would be right back.
No other books met my needs. When the librarian returned he asked if anything else had been found, and was told not yet. He had in his hands a copy of The Whole Digital Library Handbook, with a colored slip of paper inserted into its pages, with “Checkout 7 Days Only” printed on it. He explained that this book might be useful, but it was part of their reference office collection and did not normally circulate. He indicated I could take it for a week and review it.
He then offered to assist further if I needed it and as he prepared to excuse himself from me, he encouraged me to stop up at the desk later if there was more he could do for me.
This librarian immediately acknowledged my arrival at the reference desk, listened carefully to my question, confirmed my needs with an encourager, “Oaky, just a moment”, and then took me to the sources and identified several options that matched exactly what I had requested. He verified my satisfaction with these results and offered more assistance if needed in his closing statement with me. In short, he practically delivered a text book response to my request as outlined in Ross, chapter 3.
Transaction #4 - The instant messaging service was new to me and it took some time to figure out how to use it. There were some instructions about downloading the AIM service onto my computer and at first I thought I would have to do that. After starting that process, I noticed it was not required and I started over. My initial request drew a response in about 5 minutes. The whole transaction was running smoothly, until I accidentally pressed a wrong key on the keyboard and then had to connect all over again. Thus, the simple question about how to request a book from the library online took almost 30 minutes to complete.
A more complex question may have taken longer, and then again, a more complex question may have been more difficult to figure out on one’s own. All in all, IM was a good experience, as I did get the answer and accomplished a remote book request, which I had wanted to do for some time, but never quite figured it out on my own, as I had lost my patience in previous attempts.
However, my experience supports the claims made by Sam Stormont that technical reference must become simpler and more convenient in order for it to become more widely used.
Transaction #5 – Two questions were asked on the Yahoo! Answers site on October 10, 2009. I did not consider this a normal “reference” transaction, since there was no collection attached to it, and was unsure of formulating appropriate questions. Although, I did review the site and read many of the thousands of questions that were already solved and found that they were focused on various cities, people and things. Nonetheless, my feelings were to ask broad questions and see what came of it.
The answers started arriving within minutes and by the second day there were about a dozen responses to my question on North Korea and just three responses to my Illini question. It was interesting that most answers were strongly held opinions and given in that manner, at least on North Korea. Also, the answers slowed down and stopped just as abruptly as they had started, even though the question remained open for four days. It appeared to me that once a perceived “best” answer was given, other potential respondents stopped.
On the Illini question, for instance, the third posting included a link to Wikipedia’s entry on Chief Illiniwek, which must have seemed sufficient because there were no more answers delivered.
It became apparent that this service could be useful in the right setting and for the right information seeking need. It was prompt in delivering answers, from which the questioner may select a “best” answer. Anonymity is maintained, if desired, and no harm is done in the asking. If the question is not asked perfectly to elicit desired responses, it may be rephrased and resubmitted for a fresh round of answers. It is really quite simple, and more useful than I at first thought it could be.
Conclusions:
In transaction #3, almost all prescribed attributes of the reference interview were demonstrated by the librarian. In transactions #1 and #2, the librarians were pleasant, inviting of the questions, but slightly less than supportive of the process. In each case, they did not pinpoint exactly what was needed and why. Thus, they did not guide me to an answer and didn’t close the interview positively. They knew me personally before my arrival at their desk, and my questions were not complex. Both conditions may have factored into their responses. But, in both cases, the reference interviews were somewhat lacking, in comparison to the recommended methods in the LIS Literature, and as a result, the outcomes fell somewhat short of desirable.
The IM transaction, #4, with the University Library went well from the perspective of the librarian’s interviewing skills. Through IM questions and responses, the librarian confirmed what I needed, where I was in the process already and then guided me to the next step and then the next, until I had accomplished the purpose of my service request. The interview was closed with confirmation that I was satisfied and had no other needs, and was finally ended with an invitation to come back to the librarian if I needed anything in the future. Only the mechanics of the transaction caused some dissatisfaction.
Transaction #5 surprised me in its promptness and efficiency and is encouraging to see that such a simple approach can deliver good and mostly satisfactory answers to a multitude of questions. Authoritative answers were not expected and many of the answers I reviewed to other questions on this site were ridiculous, opinionated and lacked any authority whatsoever.
As is pointed out in the literature, attributes of the information seeker weigh heavily on the outcome of the interview. The better questions are articulated, the better chance of getting a satisfactory answer. However, much of the success of the interview rests on the librarian’s ability to draw this information from the seeker through an effective interview.
References:
Ross, Catherine Sheldrick; Nilsen, Kristi; and Radford, Marie L. Conducting the Reference Interview, Second Edition. 2009. Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Stormont, Sam. “Looking to Connect: Technical Challenges that Impede the Growth of Virtual Reference.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 47:2 (Winter 2007): 114-9
The Information Centers and Reference Providers:
Four different centers or reference services were accessed. They include the Crystal Lake Public Library in Crystal Lake, Illinois, (my closest public library relationship), the Arlington Heights Memorial Library in Arlington Heights, Illinois, the University Library at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign campus, and the online resource “Yahoo! Answers” at http://answers.yahoo.com/.
The transaction at the UIUC University Library was conducted via instant messaging through their AIM connection on the website home page and of course, the Yahoo!Answers transaction was conducted online through their website. All other transactions were face to face.
The Transactions:
Transaction #1 - On September 6, 2009, the on-duty reference desk librarian at Crystal Lake Public Library (CLPL) was asked about dictionaries and their usage. The original question was, “Where are the dictionaries located?” A specific question was asked later of the same librarian about a quotation, the source of which had eluded the student.
Transaction #2 - On September 29, 2009 in regard to geographic sources a different librarian at the CLPL reference desk was asked if she knew what an atoll is and where one might find information about any atolls that belong to the United States.
Transaction #3 - On September 26, 2009, a visit to the Arlington Heights Memorial Library (AHML) was made in an effort to access a larger (than CLPL) reference section of print sources to support a project in the LIS 501 class centered on the development of a digital collection. My introductory question of the reference librarian on duty was, “Do you have any sources that would assist me in a project in one of my LIS classes to develop a digital collection?”
Transaction #4 - On October 14 an instant message transaction was undertaken with the main library at the University of Illinois on the Urbana-Champaign campus. My initial question was, “Can you help me request a book to be picked up this weekend?”
Transaction #5 - The questions submitted were, “What can be done to stop North Korea from further developing nuclear weapons?” and “What is an “Illini” and why is that the mascot of the University of Illinois athletic teams?”
The Analysis:
Transaction #1 - As I approached the reference desk from the corridor directly before the desk, the librarian didn’t see me coming as she was engaged with the computer screen in front of her, which takes her gaze away from the corridor. When I arrived, however, she immediately looked up, smiled and acknowledged me. (I volunteer at this library, so she knew me by name.) When I explained my assignment and asked about dictionaries, she asked if I wanted to look for something specific, or just a tour of the section. At that point, I had no specific questions and asked for the tour.
She guided me to the section and identified all of the various types of dictionaries. She did not show me, and I did not notice, that the section extended past the end of the stacks we were viewing and continued on the next stack behind us. I’m not sure if she was aware of that physical attribute of the section and I think she thought she had shown me the entire collection of dictionaries. However, I came back later and was stumped that there were not more books on quotations. The answer was found online through an unfamiliar source. A classmate was consulted to see if she had found the answer. She identified a source. When I came back to the reference desk a week later, I asked specifically for that source and was told that it was in the collection. That’s when I looked past the end of the first set of shelves and found additional sources on the next section and specifically the very source that held my answer.
In the first week’s encounter, I had returned to the desk and asked where I might find the specific quotation. The librarian immediately started an online search and had to ask a few times for the quote. She asked me to repeat it so many times that I had it memorized for several weeks thereafter. She never did find the answer, but asked me several times before my departure that day if I had because she was now interested in knowing who had said it.
The librarian did not think to recommend some excellent quotations books in the collection, but conducted a cursory search online and then indicated that she could not find an answer for me. The librarian seemed sure that it could be found online (which it was), but when she was unable to do so, didn’t finish the reference interview and became too engrossed in the actual search to be of service to me any longer. She lost focus of the interview by not following through to figure out what I really needed. See Ross, Chapter 3 information.
Transaction #2 - During my sources assignment on geographical sources, I found the print versions of atlases, gazetteers and other sources without assistance and had answered most of the questions. Thinking of this assignment I decided to ask another librarian at the reference desk to assist me on finding information about atolls belonging to the United States. She asked, “What is an atoll?”, which is perfectly understandable – after all; not everyone in the Midwestern United States has heard of an atoll. After explaining to her what it is, she indicated she wasn’t sure where to look for such a source. She was aware of what I had been doing with the atlases and gazetteers and asked if I had reviewed all of them. I hadn’t yet, so I went back to an atlas still on the shelf (I had most of the books of the section on my table) and found that it was an excellent source for the specific subject. I later found the World Fact Book to be quite helpful as well.
I think this librarian felt a little uncomfortable trying to help when she hadn’t known what an atoll is and she held back from assisting any further. Truthfully, I may not have needed her assistance and it was probably appropriate for her to send me back to the sources and refrain from doing it for me. The information in chapter 1 of Ross suggests that not bothering with the interview leads to a failed transaction. That seems applicable here. The librarian did not follow the interview through to a close. However, once again, maybe that’s exactly what I needed in this case – to be sent back to my own search.
Transaction #3 - After entering the AHML (which was somewhat unfamiliar to me), I found signs leading to a reference desk, which was called the “Questions and Answers Desk”. That seemed an apt place to start. Two librarians were seated there, one male and the other female. The female was engaged in a project at her computer and the male was on the phone. As I approached the desk the male librarian was just finishing his transaction on the phone and asked if he could help me.
I asked my question on digital collection development. He thought for a moment and then said, “Okay, just a moment,” and turned to his computer. He typed in a few key words and I assumed by his actions and apparent thinking process that he was checking for call numbers to identify a section where such books might be found. As it turns out, that’s exactly what he was doing. I know he asked me a couple of questions to confirm some things about the assignment, but the specifics now escape me. But suffice it to say, he was narrowing things down in his search for answers to my question.
Once he had a location, he took me to several shelves filled with a large variety of books on digitization, digital library collections, online library services, etc. Some of the collection was specifically related to my needs and much of it was not. He started identifying options and quickly pulled two likely suspects from the shelves. I suddenly had in my hands Cataloging and Organizing Digital Resources and Developing Library and Information Center Collections. He then suggested I look through the section, gave me some instructions and indicated he would be right back.
No other books met my needs. When the librarian returned he asked if anything else had been found, and was told not yet. He had in his hands a copy of The Whole Digital Library Handbook, with a colored slip of paper inserted into its pages, with “Checkout 7 Days Only” printed on it. He explained that this book might be useful, but it was part of their reference office collection and did not normally circulate. He indicated I could take it for a week and review it.
He then offered to assist further if I needed it and as he prepared to excuse himself from me, he encouraged me to stop up at the desk later if there was more he could do for me.
This librarian immediately acknowledged my arrival at the reference desk, listened carefully to my question, confirmed my needs with an encourager, “Oaky, just a moment”, and then took me to the sources and identified several options that matched exactly what I had requested. He verified my satisfaction with these results and offered more assistance if needed in his closing statement with me. In short, he practically delivered a text book response to my request as outlined in Ross, chapter 3.
Transaction #4 - The instant messaging service was new to me and it took some time to figure out how to use it. There were some instructions about downloading the AIM service onto my computer and at first I thought I would have to do that. After starting that process, I noticed it was not required and I started over. My initial request drew a response in about 5 minutes. The whole transaction was running smoothly, until I accidentally pressed a wrong key on the keyboard and then had to connect all over again. Thus, the simple question about how to request a book from the library online took almost 30 minutes to complete.
A more complex question may have taken longer, and then again, a more complex question may have been more difficult to figure out on one’s own. All in all, IM was a good experience, as I did get the answer and accomplished a remote book request, which I had wanted to do for some time, but never quite figured it out on my own, as I had lost my patience in previous attempts.
However, my experience supports the claims made by Sam Stormont that technical reference must become simpler and more convenient in order for it to become more widely used.
Transaction #5 – Two questions were asked on the Yahoo! Answers site on October 10, 2009. I did not consider this a normal “reference” transaction, since there was no collection attached to it, and was unsure of formulating appropriate questions. Although, I did review the site and read many of the thousands of questions that were already solved and found that they were focused on various cities, people and things. Nonetheless, my feelings were to ask broad questions and see what came of it.
The answers started arriving within minutes and by the second day there were about a dozen responses to my question on North Korea and just three responses to my Illini question. It was interesting that most answers were strongly held opinions and given in that manner, at least on North Korea. Also, the answers slowed down and stopped just as abruptly as they had started, even though the question remained open for four days. It appeared to me that once a perceived “best” answer was given, other potential respondents stopped.
On the Illini question, for instance, the third posting included a link to Wikipedia’s entry on Chief Illiniwek, which must have seemed sufficient because there were no more answers delivered.
It became apparent that this service could be useful in the right setting and for the right information seeking need. It was prompt in delivering answers, from which the questioner may select a “best” answer. Anonymity is maintained, if desired, and no harm is done in the asking. If the question is not asked perfectly to elicit desired responses, it may be rephrased and resubmitted for a fresh round of answers. It is really quite simple, and more useful than I at first thought it could be.
Conclusions:
In transaction #3, almost all prescribed attributes of the reference interview were demonstrated by the librarian. In transactions #1 and #2, the librarians were pleasant, inviting of the questions, but slightly less than supportive of the process. In each case, they did not pinpoint exactly what was needed and why. Thus, they did not guide me to an answer and didn’t close the interview positively. They knew me personally before my arrival at their desk, and my questions were not complex. Both conditions may have factored into their responses. But, in both cases, the reference interviews were somewhat lacking, in comparison to the recommended methods in the LIS Literature, and as a result, the outcomes fell somewhat short of desirable.
The IM transaction, #4, with the University Library went well from the perspective of the librarian’s interviewing skills. Through IM questions and responses, the librarian confirmed what I needed, where I was in the process already and then guided me to the next step and then the next, until I had accomplished the purpose of my service request. The interview was closed with confirmation that I was satisfied and had no other needs, and was finally ended with an invitation to come back to the librarian if I needed anything in the future. Only the mechanics of the transaction caused some dissatisfaction.
Transaction #5 surprised me in its promptness and efficiency and is encouraging to see that such a simple approach can deliver good and mostly satisfactory answers to a multitude of questions. Authoritative answers were not expected and many of the answers I reviewed to other questions on this site were ridiculous, opinionated and lacked any authority whatsoever.
As is pointed out in the literature, attributes of the information seeker weigh heavily on the outcome of the interview. The better questions are articulated, the better chance of getting a satisfactory answer. However, much of the success of the interview rests on the librarian’s ability to draw this information from the seeker through an effective interview.
References:
Ross, Catherine Sheldrick; Nilsen, Kristi; and Radford, Marie L. Conducting the Reference Interview, Second Edition. 2009. Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Stormont, Sam. “Looking to Connect: Technical Challenges that Impede the Growth of Virtual Reference.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 47:2 (Winter 2007): 114-9
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Interacting With Retrieval Systems
A common theme in the primary readings on Evaluation of Retrieval Systems centered on the weaknesses of search engines in general and full-text searching specifically. The supplemental readings followed the same theme. I found some humor in Matthew Koll’s report on Information Retrieval and some insightful suggestions from Daniel Tunkelang in his Reconsidering Relevance and Embracing Interaction. The retrieval systems of the not-too-distant future will undoubtedly require more interaction from information seekers, but will likewise be more powerful and deliver more relevant results in return.
The Evaluation of Retrieval Systems literature makes well the point that information seekers go about the search process with different interests and bring different experiences and knowledge to their search attempts. Koll suggests that too many searches fail because searchers are looking in the wrong place and that casual searchers don’t have time for a lot of interaction and may not even be able to provide all of the information the system requires for a successful search. With some levity, Koll suggests that in future information conferences (like the one he reports on) the classes should be made available by full-text search to see if attendees find the session they truly want. In spite of the noted progress, the basic challenge of retrieval systems providing successful search results continues to be a difficult problem.
Contrasting Koll’s opinion that casual searchers will not take the time to be more interactive, Tunkelang predicts that perhaps the truly ranked search era is coming to a close and we will soon be interacting much more with search engines. He cites the relaunch of Microsoft’s “Bing” web search engine as evidence. Bing offers users an interactive exchange permitting quicker refinement of the search results in categories of applicable data related to the original search terms. Google has likewise made steps in this direction on their advanced and experimental interfaces.
Further evidence for the close of an era is given by Tunkelang by discussion of his company’s (Endeca’s) long ago development of faceted search technology, which is now used by, or simulated in the proprietary systems of web retailers (such as Amazon and eBay). This approach adds to the conventional text search the ability to refine queries in such a way that users can navigate the content in more than one way at once. On shopping sites, for example, product searches are refined by such facets as brands, price or product type.
Tunkelang progresses through a discussion of Human-Computer Information Retrieval (HCIR), a system approach (which includes faceted searching) that calls for computing tools that augment the search process with human interaction to take advantage of human intelligence and attention. The objective of this approach is to give information seekers the chance to clarify or elaborate on their intended search. Ultimately, searches will be more focused and more easily refined, leading to more relevant results. The focus comes from the system asking or prompting the user, so that the information seeker need not yet “know what they don’t know”, as Koll might say it. They just have to be able to answer the questions or prompts from the system.
The concluding statement of this article is that users seem ready for a new interface that utilizes the intelligence and attention of the seeker to guide and refine the in-progress search leading to more successful outcomes.
Retrieval systems will certainly become better as developers invest in new interfaces and technologies. The question remains, will information seekers embrace the responsibility to take control of the search process and become more engaged in their casual searches.
Koll, Matthew. (2000) Annual Meeting Coverage - Track 3: Information Retrieval. Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science and Technology. 26:(2).
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jan-00/track_3.html
Tunkelang, Daniel. (2009) Reconsidering Relevance and Embracing Interaction. Bullletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 36:(1). 20-23http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Oct-09/OctNov09_Tunkelang.pdf
The Evaluation of Retrieval Systems literature makes well the point that information seekers go about the search process with different interests and bring different experiences and knowledge to their search attempts. Koll suggests that too many searches fail because searchers are looking in the wrong place and that casual searchers don’t have time for a lot of interaction and may not even be able to provide all of the information the system requires for a successful search. With some levity, Koll suggests that in future information conferences (like the one he reports on) the classes should be made available by full-text search to see if attendees find the session they truly want. In spite of the noted progress, the basic challenge of retrieval systems providing successful search results continues to be a difficult problem.
Contrasting Koll’s opinion that casual searchers will not take the time to be more interactive, Tunkelang predicts that perhaps the truly ranked search era is coming to a close and we will soon be interacting much more with search engines. He cites the relaunch of Microsoft’s “Bing” web search engine as evidence. Bing offers users an interactive exchange permitting quicker refinement of the search results in categories of applicable data related to the original search terms. Google has likewise made steps in this direction on their advanced and experimental interfaces.
Further evidence for the close of an era is given by Tunkelang by discussion of his company’s (Endeca’s) long ago development of faceted search technology, which is now used by, or simulated in the proprietary systems of web retailers (such as Amazon and eBay). This approach adds to the conventional text search the ability to refine queries in such a way that users can navigate the content in more than one way at once. On shopping sites, for example, product searches are refined by such facets as brands, price or product type.
Tunkelang progresses through a discussion of Human-Computer Information Retrieval (HCIR), a system approach (which includes faceted searching) that calls for computing tools that augment the search process with human interaction to take advantage of human intelligence and attention. The objective of this approach is to give information seekers the chance to clarify or elaborate on their intended search. Ultimately, searches will be more focused and more easily refined, leading to more relevant results. The focus comes from the system asking or prompting the user, so that the information seeker need not yet “know what they don’t know”, as Koll might say it. They just have to be able to answer the questions or prompts from the system.
The concluding statement of this article is that users seem ready for a new interface that utilizes the intelligence and attention of the seeker to guide and refine the in-progress search leading to more successful outcomes.
Retrieval systems will certainly become better as developers invest in new interfaces and technologies. The question remains, will information seekers embrace the responsibility to take control of the search process and become more engaged in their casual searches.
Koll, Matthew. (2000) Annual Meeting Coverage - Track 3: Information Retrieval. Bulletin of The American Society for Information Science and Technology. 26:(2).
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jan-00/track_3.html
Tunkelang, Daniel. (2009) Reconsidering Relevance and Embracing Interaction. Bullletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 36:(1). 20-23http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Oct-09/OctNov09_Tunkelang.pdf
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
To Cognate or To Socialize?
In this response, my purpose is to identify a particular feature of Elmborg’s argument for a constructivist approach to reference desk services, which is significant in the acceptability of his argument. Without this feature, his argument could lose credibility and merit with some educators.
Elmborg’s argument that the reference desk can be a powerful teaching station is based on the learning theory called constructivism, which posits that people generate knowledge from their experiences. Further, this theory states that the learner learns best when in charge of the learning activities. Elmborg quotes from five scholars who studied and reported on the librarian in the reference services process during the 1990’s. All five authors emphasized the shift of academia to the “student-centered pedagogies”, known as constructivist pedagogies.
In the era of these studies and analyses the constructivist learning theory was quite popular and a movement existed throughout the United States to adopt the constructivist principles in public school curriculum and teaching methods. At that time, my children were in elementary and middle school and the community where we lived became embroiled in significant political debate over this movement. In fact, the school board president and another member of the board were voted out of office to counteract this movement. Because of that emotional experience, I became increasingly interested in Elmborg’s arguments.
On pg. 457 of his article, he makes a distinction of moving from cognitive constructivism to social constructivism. The ‘cognitive’ requires an emphasis on the mental models of the learner and the teacher having some understanding of those models, whereas the ‘social’ “emphasizes the social nature of knowledge formation”. His reasoning for this adoption of the ‘social’ is that “very few librarians are comfortable in making the sophisticated diagnoses required in a cognitive interview.”
Monday night, September 28, 2009, I listened to a radio program in the Chicago area called Extension 720, on WGN 720, wherein two renowned experts in the field of education were in a discussion with the program’s host about education in inner-city schools and in particular they espoused the adoption of more charter schools. A caller to the program (himself an educator) took issue with one of the guest panelists, Herb Walberg, who had somewhat denounced constructionism (a form of constructivism theory). Mr. Walberg, however, defended his position by citing studies that had proven some errors in constructivism. For one thing, the theory is weak when applied with a population of novice learners. The panelist accepted the value of constructivism for experienced or high IQ learners, but suggested it is not appropriate for general populations. The Wikipedia article on constructivism also identifies some opposition to the theory.
It occurred to me as I read Elmborg’s article, that his argument gains strength when he emphasized the social constructivism , which sets the learner in a social environment, rather than remaining alone. A novice learner in a cognitive constructivist environment must be highly capable and motivated in order to effectively learn. The social constructivism approach not only frees the reference librarian from making the difficult diagnoses spoken of, but also allows for another party to be involved with the learner. In fact, this other party is to be engaged with the learner from a position of one with special knowledge who can guide the learning process. This model fits well for a novice learner and is much more apt to be effective at the reference desk.
Elmborg, James K. “Teaching at the Desk: Toward a reference pedagogy.” Portal: libraries and the academy 2 (2002): 455-464.
Constructionism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning, 30 Sep 2009
Constructivism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29, 30 Sep 2009
Extension 720 Broadcast of 28 September 2009
http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/wgnam-x720-uncut090928a,0,6044235.mp3file
Elmborg’s argument that the reference desk can be a powerful teaching station is based on the learning theory called constructivism, which posits that people generate knowledge from their experiences. Further, this theory states that the learner learns best when in charge of the learning activities. Elmborg quotes from five scholars who studied and reported on the librarian in the reference services process during the 1990’s. All five authors emphasized the shift of academia to the “student-centered pedagogies”, known as constructivist pedagogies.
In the era of these studies and analyses the constructivist learning theory was quite popular and a movement existed throughout the United States to adopt the constructivist principles in public school curriculum and teaching methods. At that time, my children were in elementary and middle school and the community where we lived became embroiled in significant political debate over this movement. In fact, the school board president and another member of the board were voted out of office to counteract this movement. Because of that emotional experience, I became increasingly interested in Elmborg’s arguments.
On pg. 457 of his article, he makes a distinction of moving from cognitive constructivism to social constructivism. The ‘cognitive’ requires an emphasis on the mental models of the learner and the teacher having some understanding of those models, whereas the ‘social’ “emphasizes the social nature of knowledge formation”. His reasoning for this adoption of the ‘social’ is that “very few librarians are comfortable in making the sophisticated diagnoses required in a cognitive interview.”
Monday night, September 28, 2009, I listened to a radio program in the Chicago area called Extension 720, on WGN 720, wherein two renowned experts in the field of education were in a discussion with the program’s host about education in inner-city schools and in particular they espoused the adoption of more charter schools. A caller to the program (himself an educator) took issue with one of the guest panelists, Herb Walberg, who had somewhat denounced constructionism (a form of constructivism theory). Mr. Walberg, however, defended his position by citing studies that had proven some errors in constructivism. For one thing, the theory is weak when applied with a population of novice learners. The panelist accepted the value of constructivism for experienced or high IQ learners, but suggested it is not appropriate for general populations. The Wikipedia article on constructivism also identifies some opposition to the theory.
It occurred to me as I read Elmborg’s article, that his argument gains strength when he emphasized the social constructivism , which sets the learner in a social environment, rather than remaining alone. A novice learner in a cognitive constructivist environment must be highly capable and motivated in order to effectively learn. The social constructivism approach not only frees the reference librarian from making the difficult diagnoses spoken of, but also allows for another party to be involved with the learner. In fact, this other party is to be engaged with the learner from a position of one with special knowledge who can guide the learning process. This model fits well for a novice learner and is much more apt to be effective at the reference desk.
Elmborg, James K. “Teaching at the Desk: Toward a reference pedagogy.” Portal: libraries and the academy 2 (2002): 455-464.
Constructionism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning, 30 Sep 2009
Constructivism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29, 30 Sep 2009
Extension 720 Broadcast of 28 September 2009
http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/wgnam-x720-uncut090928a,0,6044235.mp3file
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Digital Collections Assessment
A Collection Featuring Created Surrogates from Existing Holdings
The Darlington Digital Library was created from the first major collection of materials donated to the University of Pittsburgh. This donation included books, manuscripts, atlases, images and maps that had been assembled by William M. Darlington, an attorney and native son of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, born in 1815. His family and estate made the donation in 1918, some 29 years after his death. The online collection is made up of surrogate digital images created by the university from its physical holdings in a special collection called the Darlington Memorial Library, and is presented on the website http://digital.library.pitt.edu/d/darlington/.
Of particular note, the collection includes two major works of John James Audubon: a complete set of Birds of America and a companion work, Ornithological Biography. Both books are a prized part of the assembled materials of Mr. Darlington. Audubon created these two important works simultaneously, and they were acquired by Darlington in the mid 1800’s. The collection website states that “The University of Pittsburgh is fortunate to own one of the rare, complete sets of John James Audubon’s Birds of America. It is considered to be the single most valuable set of volumes in the collections of the University Library System. Indeed, only 120 complete sets are known to exist.”
Because of the singular nature of these books, a special Audubon Website was created, http://digital.library.pitt.edu/a/audubon/, to dipslay them. The quality of the artwork and of the scientific data contained in this site is impressive. I am not an ornithologist, nor have I had any real interest in the study of birds. However, exploring this site was captivating. The available viewing tools allow the user to enlarge the images to a significant degree and the detail of these prints is astounding. Further, the variety and breadth of Audubon’s work is obvious and easily detected immediately, even for one as unschooled and inexperienced as I am in this field of study.
The main body of the Darlington Digital Library reveals Mr. Darlington’s interest in the colonial history of the United States, particularly the development of Pennsylvania and Ohio. The materials are eclectic in nature and cover areas of interest from civil war soldier escapades, 18th and 19th century methods of advertising and publishing announcements, and correspondence between British noblemen and American colonists. The maps provide an historical view of the development of the United States, as populations moved westward. The scope of the collection is large and varied.
The material is organized into category headings and is searched by these headings: Atlases, Books, Broadsides, Images, Manuscripts and Maps. Users will also find a detailed description of the digitization process executed by the library staff, and a helpful background explanation on how the collection came to be. The site also provides links to published overviews of the collection and the Darlington family, which places the materials in an historical context and helps to explain its eclectic nature.
The 1,680 books in the collection can be searched by author, title and subject. Bibliographic, Boolean and proximity searches are also available, and a general search box on the books page offers a general word search. All search attempts provided quick results, whether broad or targeted in scope. In addition to the books, there are only 5 atlases, 51 broadsides, but 1,825 images and 853 maps in the digital collection. Digitization of the manuscripts is still underway, and none are available digitally at this time. Each of these categories offers similar search features and organization structure, where applicable, as the books category.
A researcher desiring information on a specific period or episode of US history can easily
determine if it exists in this collection, and, if extant, locate it in the collection. Certainly, it is not a comprehensive collection on any one subject, but the organization of the materials makes each item easy to find. An ornithologist will definitely enjoy a review of the special Audubon Website appendage to the collection.
A Collection Featuring Third-party Domain Sources
From the Internet Public library main page, various collections are available for selection. The “Special Collections” section includes an interesting and informative collection about US Presidents, called POTUS, accessed through the URL: http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/.
On the POTUS site main page the forty-four presidents are listed and linked to articles containing information on the IPL site under the following standardized category headings: Presidential Election Results, Cabinet Members, Notable Events, and Internet Biographies, Historical Documents, Media Resources, Other Internet Resources and points of Interest. Clicking on a president’s name will display that president’s page with detailed information under those headings.
Within those category sections, links are available to third-party sites that give extensive and detailed information about the president selected. These third-party sites are not standard on each president’s page, but are similar in nature. The Media Resources category doesn’t provide any links for presidents prior to Grover Cleveland, since recording technology was only just being developed in the 1880's.
The user can easily find much detailed information about each president. The format is simple to understand and it takes only a few seconds to a minute for the user to identify the structure of the information. From that understanding a search strategy can be formulated and executed leading to a significant volume of web information. A searcher will have to verify authority of the third-party sites, which can be done through corroboration of the multiple sources of information. Cross-checking with encyclopedias and other reference sources, some of which are linked to this site, may be necessary to achieve full confidence in the veracity of the information, if the need exists. For less than in-depth research, significant information about a president is available through this collection.
The collection is remarkably current. Complete video of President Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations General assembly given today, September 24, 2009, is already accessible from this site by cyberlink.
The Darlington Digital Library was created from the first major collection of materials donated to the University of Pittsburgh. This donation included books, manuscripts, atlases, images and maps that had been assembled by William M. Darlington, an attorney and native son of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, born in 1815. His family and estate made the donation in 1918, some 29 years after his death. The online collection is made up of surrogate digital images created by the university from its physical holdings in a special collection called the Darlington Memorial Library, and is presented on the website http://digital.library.pitt.edu/d/darlington/.
Of particular note, the collection includes two major works of John James Audubon: a complete set of Birds of America and a companion work, Ornithological Biography. Both books are a prized part of the assembled materials of Mr. Darlington. Audubon created these two important works simultaneously, and they were acquired by Darlington in the mid 1800’s. The collection website states that “The University of Pittsburgh is fortunate to own one of the rare, complete sets of John James Audubon’s Birds of America. It is considered to be the single most valuable set of volumes in the collections of the University Library System. Indeed, only 120 complete sets are known to exist.”
Because of the singular nature of these books, a special Audubon Website was created, http://digital.library.pitt.edu/a/audubon/, to dipslay them. The quality of the artwork and of the scientific data contained in this site is impressive. I am not an ornithologist, nor have I had any real interest in the study of birds. However, exploring this site was captivating. The available viewing tools allow the user to enlarge the images to a significant degree and the detail of these prints is astounding. Further, the variety and breadth of Audubon’s work is obvious and easily detected immediately, even for one as unschooled and inexperienced as I am in this field of study.
The main body of the Darlington Digital Library reveals Mr. Darlington’s interest in the colonial history of the United States, particularly the development of Pennsylvania and Ohio. The materials are eclectic in nature and cover areas of interest from civil war soldier escapades, 18th and 19th century methods of advertising and publishing announcements, and correspondence between British noblemen and American colonists. The maps provide an historical view of the development of the United States, as populations moved westward. The scope of the collection is large and varied.
The material is organized into category headings and is searched by these headings: Atlases, Books, Broadsides, Images, Manuscripts and Maps. Users will also find a detailed description of the digitization process executed by the library staff, and a helpful background explanation on how the collection came to be. The site also provides links to published overviews of the collection and the Darlington family, which places the materials in an historical context and helps to explain its eclectic nature.
The 1,680 books in the collection can be searched by author, title and subject. Bibliographic, Boolean and proximity searches are also available, and a general search box on the books page offers a general word search. All search attempts provided quick results, whether broad or targeted in scope. In addition to the books, there are only 5 atlases, 51 broadsides, but 1,825 images and 853 maps in the digital collection. Digitization of the manuscripts is still underway, and none are available digitally at this time. Each of these categories offers similar search features and organization structure, where applicable, as the books category.
A researcher desiring information on a specific period or episode of US history can easily
determine if it exists in this collection, and, if extant, locate it in the collection. Certainly, it is not a comprehensive collection on any one subject, but the organization of the materials makes each item easy to find. An ornithologist will definitely enjoy a review of the special Audubon Website appendage to the collection.
A Collection Featuring Third-party Domain Sources
From the Internet Public library main page, various collections are available for selection. The “Special Collections” section includes an interesting and informative collection about US Presidents, called POTUS, accessed through the URL: http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/.
On the POTUS site main page the forty-four presidents are listed and linked to articles containing information on the IPL site under the following standardized category headings: Presidential Election Results, Cabinet Members, Notable Events, and Internet Biographies, Historical Documents, Media Resources, Other Internet Resources and points of Interest. Clicking on a president’s name will display that president’s page with detailed information under those headings.
Within those category sections, links are available to third-party sites that give extensive and detailed information about the president selected. These third-party sites are not standard on each president’s page, but are similar in nature. The Media Resources category doesn’t provide any links for presidents prior to Grover Cleveland, since recording technology was only just being developed in the 1880's.
The user can easily find much detailed information about each president. The format is simple to understand and it takes only a few seconds to a minute for the user to identify the structure of the information. From that understanding a search strategy can be formulated and executed leading to a significant volume of web information. A searcher will have to verify authority of the third-party sites, which can be done through corroboration of the multiple sources of information. Cross-checking with encyclopedias and other reference sources, some of which are linked to this site, may be necessary to achieve full confidence in the veracity of the information, if the need exists. For less than in-depth research, significant information about a president is available through this collection.
The collection is remarkably current. Complete video of President Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations General assembly given today, September 24, 2009, is already accessible from this site by cyberlink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)