Models and standards work well when agreement is reached on which models and which standards to use for an activity or process. An additional requirement for enabling models and standards to meet the objectives of their design is that those working within the models should also adhere to the standards. This paper will synthesize the concepts found in the text with the comments from two information researchers about metadata quality and the problems of not adhering to standards.
In recent weeks, our class discussion focused on the description of information resources using metadata that allows for retrieval of data related to names, titles and subjects. Further, in order for relevant, or the best, information resources to be retrieved, the metadata and the retrieval system have to be subject to the same description process and authority control. As the vast volumes of information resources expanded, it became necessary to develop models and standards for this authority control.
Over time, superior models have been adopted and eventually accepted by the professional community of information scientists, managers and users. So that today, we have the general bibliographic models of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD). These two models outline the way that resource titles, their associated names, and associated subjects are related to one another and to other resources and also establish the way that those relationships are organized, categorized and classified. Like the models, the standards have also experienced lengthy development over time by way of constant improvement and upgrading until today several general standards exist. They are: Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition, 2002 Revision (AACR2); Dublin Core Agents, Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS) and the soon to be launched Resource Description and Access (RDA) and the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. These models and standards have been established, among other reasons, in order to improve metadata quality.
Many studies (cited in the Park and Salo articles) have shown that following these models and standards make retrieval of information, especially about bibliographic resources, possible and more accurate than if there were no standard methods of organization and classification. When the models and standards are followed, metadata quality is enhanced and information seekers have greater success in their information searches as more relevant information and greater amounts of information are found.
Examples of information sources that have been lacking in metadata quality and thus have led to ineffective searching for users are digital repositories and institutional repositories. Jung-ran Park identifies a number of studies on metadata quality that identify principles of “good metadata” and several other studies that help to identify the problems with metadata in digital repositories.
According to the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) there are six principles of good metadata, which are found on pg. 215 of the Park article. These principles are heavily related to standards and authority control. Obviously, following a standard makes the retrieval of data more successful because the standard has been intelligently established over time and will lead to better results in a search than if the data is organized, classified and indexed in a haphazard way. The essential key is to get submitters of data and the catalogers of data to follow the prescribed standards consistently and avoid making errors.
As mentioned, Park cites studies that uncover the problems with metadata quality in repositories. In summation of the many different problem criteria cited by the studies, Park simplifies our thinking on the subject by consolidating them into three common criteria: completeness, accuracy and consistency. She explains that by completeness she means that the metadata is complete enough to facilitate its purpose of making the resource to which it refers fully accessible in a search. Accuracy means correct entry of metadata and avoidance of mismatched metadata that is imported from data providers. She calls for consistency to be measured on two levels, the conceptual or semantic level and looking at the data format on the structural level.
Dorothea Salo, in her article “Name Authority Control in Institutional Repositories”, highlights these same problem criteria by showing how the methodology designed for the institutional repository did not protect against them. She may not use the same words, but she is emphasizing throughout her comments the problems with incomplete, inaccurate and inconsistent metadata.
According to Salo, the factors causing the problem in institutional repositories include the process of self-archiving by submitters of resources, ingesting material possessing no metadata control, and harvesting materials from aggregators and e-indexers which possess inconsistent metadata.
Obviously, Park’s recommendations for the improvement of repositories are to establish methods to improve the completeness, accuracy and consistency of metadata. Her recommendations include establishing metadata guidelines as a best practice for information organizations. This suggestion also applies to mechanized or automatic generation of metadata, leading into the further development of the semantic web technology. She cites several projects currently underway towards this objective. While Salo mentions several barriers to solutions to these problems with metadata inconsistencies, she does recommend finding a method to pass corrected metadata around between generators and managers of metadata. (I might add even involving users.) Salo suggests that use of the Open Archives Initiative and JISC are two paths to pursue vigorously.
Finding solutions to these problems is the challenge for the current generation of information scientists. Launching RDA and developing the Semantic Web will no doubt be the main focus for the near term. Establishing guidelines as best practices is one way, but this only gets results when others follow along. Development of the semantic web provides hope on the horizon, but again, information professionals engaged in the organization, cataloging and indexing of information resources must individually contribute to the completeness, accuracy and consistency of metadata in every aspect of their jobs in order for models and standards to take hold and take full effect. It will take personal commitment and engagement of all concerned.
Resources:
Taylor & Joudrey, Chapter 8. Metadata: Access and authority control (pp. 245-301).
Park, J.-R. (2009). Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the current state of the art. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 47(3/4): 213-228.
Salo, D. (2009). Name authority control in institutional repositories. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 47(3/4): 249-261.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Reader's Advisory Services
In the Catherine Ross text on Conducting the Reference Interview (pg. 237), Joyce Sarick is quoted as having said, “There are fifty thousand answers to the request, ‘Give me a good book’.” Sarick further suggests that the readers advisory interview requires some knowledge development activity before the patron ever arrives. I suppose in the past this was done by reading a lot of books, book commentaries, reviews, etc.. It seems to me that today, this process of knowledge development requires the same activity of reading like it did in the past, although today, for the most part, it is done by using electronic resources. By becoming familiar with the many different electronic resources, a librarian can understand the strengths and weaknesses of each and deftly use the right resource when the requests are made. In this regard, reader’s advisory is exactly the same as the reference advisory, in that knowing the best resource for the real information need makes the advisory process so much more efficient and efficacious.
Sarick goes on to describe the reader’s advisory interview as having a fun conversation about books, primarily by getting the patron to do most of the talking and the interviewer doing some careful listening. This approach makes the process seem much less daunting and after all, aren’t most librarians and information specialists in the field exactly because they enjoy having this kind of conversation about books? What a perfectly appealing way to describe it.
Another key point for me in this weeks’ reading was the cautionary advice to refrain from falling into the trap of responding with one’s own opinions about a book or an author. Although the question sometimes comes out that way, the requester is not really asking for the librarian’s opinion on another “good author”, “good book” or “good read”. What the librarian might like may not be what the requester will like. Staying focused on finding out what the patron likes came across to me as very sound and key advice.
Sarick goes on to describe the reader’s advisory interview as having a fun conversation about books, primarily by getting the patron to do most of the talking and the interviewer doing some careful listening. This approach makes the process seem much less daunting and after all, aren’t most librarians and information specialists in the field exactly because they enjoy having this kind of conversation about books? What a perfectly appealing way to describe it.
Another key point for me in this weeks’ reading was the cautionary advice to refrain from falling into the trap of responding with one’s own opinions about a book or an author. Although the question sometimes comes out that way, the requester is not really asking for the librarian’s opinion on another “good author”, “good book” or “good read”. What the librarian might like may not be what the requester will like. Staying focused on finding out what the patron likes came across to me as very sound and key advice.
Friday, October 30, 2009
About Aboutness
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)