Definition of Competency or Understanding of Competency
Fulfilling our needs by adapting our behaviors to the physical world is an ancient human trait—for instance the need to know where we are, to not get lost, was advanced by modern map making and cartography, but arguably had pre-lingual origins (Lynch, 2016, p 23). At the beginning of the 20th century, librarians were at the forefront of designing and providing reference services to fulfill those needs, but had advanced to the point where scholars were looking for a “suitable theoretical foundation” for the practice of subject specialization in reference services (Deng, 2014, p 258). Early in the century, three approaches to reference service were identified: conservative, moderate, and liberal, and by the 1960's this was streamlined into the idea of “minimum,” “middling,” and “maximum” information services (Deng, 2014, p 259).
The concept of a “librarian-user conversation” or the reference interview, developed in the 1950's from principles derived from business and psychology (Kern & Woodard, 2016, p 63). In the 1980's, quantitative studies revealed that reference service librarians were providing correct answers to specific questions only 55% of the time (Tyckoson, 2008, pp 141-142). While researchers reasoned that improving accuracy rates would improve reference services, Joan Durrance theorized that a questioner’s willingness to return might be a better gauge of whether services were successful (Fisher et al, 2005, p 383). Her early studies demonstrated that patrons were more likely to return to 1) those who used open questions and who communicated with them, 2) appeared to have time to assist them, 3) who appeared to assist others, and 4) could be identified by name (Fisher et al, 2005, p 383). Not only was approachability seen as more important than being able to negotiate a question, she showed that users equated librarian success with them a) showing interest in the question, b) listening, c) using open questions, and d) getting to the real need behind the query (Fisher et al, 2005, p 383).
Based on Durrance’s willingness-to-return research, which indicates that users value the interaction with the librarian over the specific answer received to their question (Kern & Woodard, 2016, p 64), a task force within the Reference & User Services Association (RUSA) developed the Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers in the 1990's. These guidelines provided behavioral indicators that correlated to positive patron satisfaction (Tyckoson, 2012, p 597): approachability, interest, listening/inquiry, searching, and follow-up (Tyckoson, 2008, p 139; RUSA, 1996). Information seeking and behavior can be both active or passive or, as with curiosity, may be somewhere in between (Case, 2008, pp 35- 36). Information seeking is a concept broad enough to cover activity not just in the library or workplace, but all of everyday life. The concept of information behavior takes into account an even wider and diverse array of human phenomena, for instance accidental encounters; the term “information behavior” arose because scholars had moved away from a preoccupation with “library use and user studies” and its emphasis on institutional sources and searches, and toward a focus on how individuals encounter and make sense of their environment (Case, 2008, p 36).
To be able to discuss the theories and applications surrounding the study of information-seeking behaviors, it helps to have some definitions:
The Internet is a metaphor for how information behavior has changed historically. We browse much more than perform formal searches. It is commonly considered inevitable that physical documents will disappear and that the physical format is obsolete. We have become more content with search results that “satisfice” that is, we are much more willing to accept a result as acceptable, simply because the result is available, a behavioral phenomenon that has been described as “The Principle of Least Effort” (PLE) (Case, 2008, pp 36-37).
In 2001, Pettigrew, Fidel, and Bruce surveyed how information behavior theory had progressed since moving to a more user-centered approach in the 1980's. The authors found that theory was on an upswing, and that emerging theories most often cited Kuhlthau’s information search process and Dervin’s Sense-Making approach, and that they could be categorized by three different approaches:
Because they approach the level of general frameworks that can be utilized as the basis of future studies, Cognitive Work Analysis, and Dervin’s Sense-Making have emerged from this period as dominant information behavior theories that provide “concrete guidance for system design” (Pettigrew et al, 2001, pp 63-69).
One behavior ascribed to reference librarians can also be said to describe their professional literature: they aggregate and organize information. One sterling example of aggregation and organization of information is Fisher, Erdelez, and McKechnie’s book Theories of Information Behavior (TIB), an alphabetically organized, comprehensive reference guide to disparate LIS information theories (Fisher et al, 2005). In the context of the advances in theory observed by Pettigrew and company, TIB should be considered a seminal work that brings together competing information behavior theories from that period. One can look at later theoretical efforts and draw parallels to this watershed moment. For instance, in 2013 Amy VanScoy published a study on the thoughts and feelings behind the behaviors of reference and information service professionals. She deployed a qualitative “interpretative phenomenological analysis” (IPA) approach through the use of in-depth interviews (2013, p 3). This method seems to be an updated version of Limberg’s little utilized “Phenomenography” of information behavior which emphasized approaching a subject qualitatively, interviewing subjects for data analysis, and studying subjects “ways of experiencing” (Fisher et al, 2005, p 281), and her emphasis on psychology and “affective behavior” strongly recalls Nahl’s theory of Affective Load (Fisher et al, 2005, p 39). VanScoy’s study is a good illustration of how the literature refreshes itself with new, updated, and above all self-reflective methods of evaluation and research.
Another example is a 2014 article paper by Dewan, in which she pulled together evidence from over 100 research sources to understand the implications of “distractions and multitasking for reference librarians,” recalling Dresang in the way she observes how reference librarians interact, communicate, and set boundaries with emerging technologies (Dewan, 2014, p 108; Fisher et al, 2005, pp 298-299). The principles of interactivity, connectivity, and access, found in Dresang’s theory of Radical Change, have been used as a lens through which digital-age patrons might be studied (Fisher, et al, 2005, pp 298-302). Her proscription that reference librarians cultivate undivided attention (Dewan, 2014, pp 109-110), is an important echo of Palmer’s seminal response to resist “technostress,” the influential speech Creating Our Roles as Reference Librarians of the Future: Choice or Fate, which touched on a topic rarely broached in the literature: what are the information needs of reference librarians? (Palmer, 1999).
RUSA continues to study reference librarian’s behavior quantitatively (Miles, 2013, pp 320-323), relying heavily on RUSA guidelines and behavior studies like Dervin and Kuhlthau’s work on neutral questioning (Simmons, 2015). A recent RUSA study of reference service behavior utilizing a “mixed-method” analysis, may show the scholarly community responding to changes within reference services and vice versa; the study linked “deep dissatisfaction” with current evaluative (statistical) practices with “changing service models” (LeMire, Rutledge, & Brunvard, 2016, pp 230-238). RUSA President Anne Houston’s 2016 declaration that reference librarians are “increasingly called on to justify our values through statistics, surveys, and other kinds of data” (Houston, 2016, p 186), indicates that contentious studies and community self-reflectivity will continue.
I have used reference services as my model here for discussing the fundamental concepts of information seeking behaviors, and the emerging theories that aid in the design of new services and means to access information, but reference services is simply one, traditional way that users access information within an information environment. For instance, databases, ILS interfaces, signage within libraries, or library programs are all points through which patrons might access information. Understanding patron and staff behaviors, and theory that emerges from this understanding, can inform our decisions when designing how services are accessed. To create working systems that are truly user-centered and that reflect the foundations of information behavior theory, greater dialogue and collaboration are sorely needed between theories of information behavior and designers of information systems (Pettigrew et al, 2001, p 69). Core community behaviors for reference service providers remain, for the moment— serving others; collaboration; action for the greater good; and an iterative and holistic way of approaching the educational process (Gorman, 2008; Gorman, 2012; Garnar, 2016). Whether these behaviors continue to be valued and promoted, depends a great deal on keeping lines of communication open between not only theorists and system designers, but between information professionals, the organizations for which they work, and most importantly, the general public.
Preparation to Understand Competency J: Coursework and Work Experience
Throughout my courses at San Jose State I have paid attention to reference services as an information community, in part because my present employment as a public services assistant is a constant reminder of information behaviors on both sides of the reference desk, and thus serves as a good focal point for study and analysis. In both my Information Communities (INFO 200) and Reference and Information Services (INFO 210) classes, I was able to flesh out my understanding of the history or histories behind reference services. In several blog posts and papers I was able to see its predominance and abiding influence reflected in studies about information-seeking behaviors associated with the reference desk, but also how reference services offered a convenient model for the designing of myriad information retrieval schemas. Furthermore, several articles in the general textbooks assigned for my MLIS classes touch upon information behavior theories, from a number of angles, and these articles enabled me to piece together a rough, mental history of how information theory has evolved over time, and the role that it has played within the information profession.
I was also greatly influenced by my reading of Jack Lynch’s magisterial 2016 book You Could Look It Up: The Reference Shelf from Ancient Babylon to Wikipedia, which helped me discern the antecedents of modern informational design and provision, and deepened my understanding of what we mean when we talk about information seeking and information behaviors.
My evidentiary items are ordered chronologically. The first two are both reflective of my ongoing reference services focus. The first evidentiary item is a blog post from my INFO 200 class that dealt with the information behaviors of reference service professionals considered as an information community, and the research attached to that community. My next piece of evidence from INFO 210, is a combined observation and interview with a reference service professional in the field, in this case a veteran library associate providing virtual reference services. My final evidentiary item, Working with Reference Sources from INFO 210, consists of 34 reference questions I answered using traditional print and digital sources, as well as more modern, free Internet resources. I included it because answering reference inquiries in this way, without a patron present, allowed me to evaluate the design and provision of these information sources, which are the building blocks of a quality reference service.
Evidence
Behavior Problems: Information Seeking Behaviors of Reference Librarians
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Add874a1c-64e8-4078-badb-58227ecd3b16
I wrote this blog post on the information-seeking behaviors of reference librarians, and some theories of information behavior related to this community, for my INFO 200 class. I drew most of my material from Fisher, Erdelez, and McKechnie’s 2005 book Theories of Information Behavior, and Spencer, VandeCreek, and Wright’s 2015 book The Psychology of Librarianship. I begin my exploration with a rather broad definition of information behavior, in order to get an overall sense of both this communities’ behaviors and their information needs. I delve into history in order to tease out a few well-known behaviors of reference service professionals like a willingness to help as a means of promoting the library, a natural aptitude for teaching, and taking on the role of counselor. I describe the professional shift from being subject specialists to more generalized research assistants, how the efficacy of the behaviors exhibited within the reference interview eventually were called into question by quantitative research, and how behaviors of the information services professional came to be quantified and made measurable with a series of guidelines issued by RUSA.
I describe the fallout from this quantification of behavior and explore within the literature for alternative information behavior theories describing this community. While I had not as yet correlated Durrance’s willingness-to-return research with a return to a more qualitative theoretical approach to reference services, I nevertheless found a number of theories that seek not only to rethink the information behaviors of reference librarians, but also the patrons with whom they interact. For instance, I mention one study which describes both patrons and librarians use stereotyping to reduce anxiety (Posner, 2015, p 231). I illustrate that theories such as Posner’s can be correlated to theories described a decade earlier. I describe other theoretical works on behavior, such as Dewan’s behavioral study of the effects of multi-tasking on reference librarians (Dewan, 2014). I connect some of these nascent theories to philosophical push-back against the quantification of behavior, using Palmer as a prime example (Palmer, 1999).
This blog post shows that I am capable of researching theories of information behavior over time, that I understand how to properly link research to a specific information community, and that I know how to articulate and compare disparate ideas, distilling how these ideas affect the users in question. I show that I am able to think critically and apply my thinking theory as it relates to the provision and design of user services, in this case how reference services are imagined.
Reference Observation Assignment
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:e0b85050-2b30-484b-aab2-f524da0b7a1a
In this assignment for my INFO 210 class I arranged to observe a reference librarian over the course of a single “shift” and observe their interactions with patrons, where I would keep a field journal of notes on the reference desk experience and reference interviews, followed by an analysis of what I observed, including how the service was designed and delivered, and any examples of patron feedback. Part of the assignment was to keep the librarian, the user, and the myself (the observer) in mind. I chose to observe a virtual reference service assistant performing phone interviews at XXXX, a virtual chat service.
I decided to filter my observations for this assignment through the IFLA and RUSA guidelines for reference service professionals (Guidelines, n.d.; RUSA, 1996). I observed over 15 phone interactions, at least 3 of which involved long technical inquiries, and 4 which were with regular callers. I note only one call involving patron behavioral issues— when a caller appeared to be lying about her child’s age in order to include them in a program appropriate for an older age range. An observation of some informal chatting among the library associates brought up the value (behavior) of “passionate curiosity” as one to more important than the special quality that involves verifying (accuracy) quotations online. I describe how XXXX’s reference services are structured but am unclear as to the theoretical reasoning behind its design. In the second half of the paper I spend several pages revisiting my observations of the reference interviews and matching the library associate’s behavior to IFLA and RUSA recommendations. For instance, I observed the reference librarian explaining her search strategy, citing authoritative sources, rephrasing questions, sending prompt replies, avoiding jargon, and maintaining objectivity.
I note how the library associate did not consider most of the interactions I witnessed (even the lengthy technical inquiries) as properly formal reference interviews and did not consider them to be indicative of her professional best. I build a case that virtual reference services have become more complex than subject searching of old, requiring more specialized multi-tasking behaviors: I point out that the librarian associate I observed had 13 windows open on their computer desktop, including circulation software, browsers, phone and interfaces, email accounts, search engines, document software, web-based software, and website pages. I could only observe one instance of patron satisfaction, but this can be explained by the format.
I provide suggestions for redesigning the chat service including the idea that a return to mentoring might reinvigorate a simple reliance on IFLA/RUSA guidelines, allowing for behaviors like being “passionately curious” to be properly valued in actual service delivery. I describe how virtual reference services can be seen as the end point in an evolution from generalized to specialized, from face-to-face to a more mediated experience. I argue that when we have two information behavior data sets to draw upon (the user and the library associate) we can plan and design superior reference services. Conversely, I argue that human-machine interfaces are more likely to result in access to information that is perceived as being inferior in quality, because the human element is now missing.
This assignment shows that I am able to deconstruct an actual working instance of reference services, articulate the information-seeking behaviors within that experience, critique the accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness of the information provided by that service, and then give an informed opinion on how services might be improved by design. Furthermore, I show that I understand how documents like the IFLA/RUSA guidelines, are the end-result of intense theorizing and research, and that I can apply these in the field to evaluate information behavior. Finally, I show that I know that guidelines themselves are not behavior, and that a continuous questioning of information-seeking behaviors is the best way to improve our metrics.
Working with Reference Sources
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A30986869-9d07-4618-af5c-73f55eda691b
In this elaborate and involved exercise for my INFO 210 class, I replied to 34 textual inquiries utilizing both traditional print and digital sources, as well as free online reference sources. I provided answers and replies to each “patron,” cited and explained why my sources were credible, current, and/or authoritative, and then led the patron through my search path, and the reasoning behind my results. Throughout this paper I question my own information-seeking behaviors, asking myself how I parsed out particular inquiries, re-examining the reasoning behind my search paths, weighing the merits of the choices I made with regard to sources, and teasing out all my reasons for replying to a patron in a particular manner.
I describe my overall search methodology as taking its orientation from a reference interview framework but use other guideposts such as search simplicity or complexity, and various search limitations such as gaps in the literature, usability/accessibility issues, and avoiding information overload. My own particular search behaviors are delineated as being of importance, including my fundamental attitude to searching which includes “intellectual curiosity.” I ask how one can know that one’s research is adequate if the inquirer is not present, and answer that an important aspect of my search methodology is communicating back to the patron, present or not. Toward this end my replies have a narrative quality that replicate the dialogue of a traditional reference interview. I speak to some information behaviors that I can “read” in the inquiries, such as “misplaced self-assurance,” and demonstrate that it is not enough to know that information is accurate, relevant, and appropriate— one must know how to use the information sources, sometimes in various combinations, to achieve any of the resultant qualities desired.
Through an analysis of my own search results I am able to evaluate and compare certain reference sources and both reference resource types. For instance, I compare the John Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism, and the Cambridge History of Latin American Literature to Wikipedia. But I also describe instances in which free online research sources are able to perform more ably than traditional sources. I articulate how both resource source types can inform the other, depending on the search, and how one cannot and should not be predisposed to favor one kind of source over another. I reiterate the truism that what is accurate, relevant, and appropriate is not always so simple as a single, factual answer, but is more often what lies at the basis of the initial search inquiry. For instance, I show that one query was not about providing a definition, so much as it was about understanding how to look up difficult, specialized terms.
I reaffirm that without a face-to-face interaction, it is even more important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of research tools like reference books and databases, or search engines and online encyclopedias, and be able to judge them on an ad hoc basis. I compare some of these research tools based on currency versus how well-researched they were or weigh their convenience versus how transparent they were regarding aims, methodology, philosophy, fact-checking or staff credentials. Finally, I return to best practices for reference services in light of my experience, reiterate the positive professional behaviors I witnessed in myself, and reflect on how these add value to providing information services.
This evidentiary item shows that I am capable of providing information services and feel comfortable accessing a wide array of reference sources to find credible, current, and authoritative results for patrons. My work here also demonstrates an ability to intuit information-seeking behavior from the point of view of the patron, the reference librarian, and even from the perspective of the designer of an information retrieval system. Moreover, my reflections on my searches and search results reveals that I am capable of evaluating not only search results and methodology, but also the tools with which one conducts those searches.
Conclusion
A grounding in the foundational and evolving theories of information behavior provides me with a basis for researching information communities and, when combined with my critical thinking and writing skills, give me tools with which I can assess and evaluate the design and provision of information services. Being able to observe, analyze, and break down the performance of reference services into component parts, being able to accurately, fairly, and impartially be able to evaluate those service components, and then being able to give an informed opinion on how services might be improved, design-wise, are concrete abilities I can offer in many different information environments. My ability to illustrate how theory and research lead to policy and guidelines, and conversely how both practicing and questioning policies and guidelines leads to informed theory and improved metrics, can be used in the planning, designing, or providing stages of information services. Having provided information services in both the virtual and physical spheres, utilizing both traditional physical and digital reference sources, as well as free online resources, qualifies me to evaluate not only search results and methodology, but also the tools with which one conducts those searches. This experience puts me in a strong position to be able to critique the design of information retrieval systems, a skill I can bring with me in future professional endeavors.
References
Case, D.O. (2008). Information seeking. In Haycock, K. & Sheldon, B.E. (Eds.). The portable
MLIS. Wesport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Deng, L. (2014). The evolution of library reference services: From general to special, 1876-
1920s. Libri: International Journal of Libraries & Information Services, 64(3), 254-262.
Dewan, P. (2014). Can I have your attention? implications of the research on distractions and
multitasking for reference librarians. Reference Librarian, 55(2), 95-117. Retrieved from https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=lib_pub
Fisher, K. E., & McKechnie, L. (2005). Theories of information behavior. Information Today,
Inc.
Garnar, M. (2016, March 8). Ethical Issues and Information Communities. [Video lecture].
Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JQPF8BoHJk&
Gorman, M. (2008). Professional ethics and values in a changing world. In Haycock, K., &
Sheldon, B. The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited
Gorman, M. (2012).The Prince’s Dream. SCONUL Focus, 54, pp.11-16. Retrieved from
https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/4_0.pdf
Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information service providers. (n.d.).
Retrieved June 26, 2016, from: http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Houston, A. (2016). From the president of RUSA: What’s in a name? toward a new definition of
reference. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(3), 186-187. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A150ce4cf-83e3-4dd4-85e7-2eab398c4dfe
Kern, M.K. and Woodard, B.S. (2016). The reference interview. In Smith, L.C. and Wong, M.A.
(Eds.). Reference and information services: An introduction. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited
LeMire, S., Rutledge, L., & Brunvand, A. (2016). Taking a fresh look: Reviewing and
classifying reference statistics for data-driven decision making. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(3), 230-238. Retrieved from https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156124/Taking%20a%20Fresh%20Look.pdf?sequence=1
Lynch, J. (2016). You could look it up: The reference shelf from ancient babylon to wikipedia.
New York: Bloomsbury
Miles, D. B. (2013). Shall we get rid of the reference desk?. Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 52(4), 320-333. Retrieved from https://journals.ala.org/index.php/rusq/article/viewFile/2899/2972
Palmer, S. S. (1999). Creating our roles as reference librarians of the future: Choice or
Fate? Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 1-12.Retrieved from https://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/palmer99.pdf
Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST), 35(43-78). Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/fidelr/RayaPubs/ConceptualFrameworks.pdf
Posner, B. (2015). The use of psychological defense mechanisms— by librarians and the
public— in response to traditional and binary librarian stereotypes in popular culture. In Spencer, L.G., VandeCreek, L., and Wright, H.S. (Eds.). The psychology of librarianship. (pp 215-241). Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.
Reference and User Services Association. (1996). Guidelines for behavioral performance of
reference and information services professionals. RQ, 36(2), 200-203. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Simmons, Michelle H. (2015). In Information Services Today, Chapter 13: Finding Information:
Information Intermediation and Reference Services.
Spencer, L.G., VandeCreek, L., Wright, H.S. (Eds.). (2015). The psychology of librarianship.
Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.
Tyckoson, D. A. (2011). Issues and trends in the management of reference services: A historical
perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 51(3), 259-278. Retrieved from https://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=503012446&S=R&D=lls&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeprU4y9fwOLCmsEieprBSsa64SbWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGtsVCuprFLuePfgeyx4YXr2QAA
Tyckoson, D. A. (2008). Reference Service: The Personal Side of Librarianship. In The Portable
MLIS, 127-46.
Fulfilling our needs by adapting our behaviors to the physical world is an ancient human trait—for instance the need to know where we are, to not get lost, was advanced by modern map making and cartography, but arguably had pre-lingual origins (Lynch, 2016, p 23). At the beginning of the 20th century, librarians were at the forefront of designing and providing reference services to fulfill those needs, but had advanced to the point where scholars were looking for a “suitable theoretical foundation” for the practice of subject specialization in reference services (Deng, 2014, p 258). Early in the century, three approaches to reference service were identified: conservative, moderate, and liberal, and by the 1960's this was streamlined into the idea of “minimum,” “middling,” and “maximum” information services (Deng, 2014, p 259).
The concept of a “librarian-user conversation” or the reference interview, developed in the 1950's from principles derived from business and psychology (Kern & Woodard, 2016, p 63). In the 1980's, quantitative studies revealed that reference service librarians were providing correct answers to specific questions only 55% of the time (Tyckoson, 2008, pp 141-142). While researchers reasoned that improving accuracy rates would improve reference services, Joan Durrance theorized that a questioner’s willingness to return might be a better gauge of whether services were successful (Fisher et al, 2005, p 383). Her early studies demonstrated that patrons were more likely to return to 1) those who used open questions and who communicated with them, 2) appeared to have time to assist them, 3) who appeared to assist others, and 4) could be identified by name (Fisher et al, 2005, p 383). Not only was approachability seen as more important than being able to negotiate a question, she showed that users equated librarian success with them a) showing interest in the question, b) listening, c) using open questions, and d) getting to the real need behind the query (Fisher et al, 2005, p 383).
Based on Durrance’s willingness-to-return research, which indicates that users value the interaction with the librarian over the specific answer received to their question (Kern & Woodard, 2016, p 64), a task force within the Reference & User Services Association (RUSA) developed the Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers in the 1990's. These guidelines provided behavioral indicators that correlated to positive patron satisfaction (Tyckoson, 2012, p 597): approachability, interest, listening/inquiry, searching, and follow-up (Tyckoson, 2008, p 139; RUSA, 1996). Information seeking and behavior can be both active or passive or, as with curiosity, may be somewhere in between (Case, 2008, pp 35- 36). Information seeking is a concept broad enough to cover activity not just in the library or workplace, but all of everyday life. The concept of information behavior takes into account an even wider and diverse array of human phenomena, for instance accidental encounters; the term “information behavior” arose because scholars had moved away from a preoccupation with “library use and user studies” and its emphasis on institutional sources and searches, and toward a focus on how individuals encounter and make sense of their environment (Case, 2008, p 36).
To be able to discuss the theories and applications surrounding the study of information-seeking behaviors, it helps to have some definitions:
- An information need is a recognition that your knowledge is inadequate to satisfy a goal you have.
- Information seeking is a conscious effort to acquire information in response to a need or gap in your knowledge.
- Information behavior encompasses information seeking as well as the totality of other unintentional or passive behaviors (such as glimpsing or encountering information), as well as purposive behaviors that do not involve seeking, such as actively avoiding information (Case, 2008, p 36).
The Internet is a metaphor for how information behavior has changed historically. We browse much more than perform formal searches. It is commonly considered inevitable that physical documents will disappear and that the physical format is obsolete. We have become more content with search results that “satisfice” that is, we are much more willing to accept a result as acceptable, simply because the result is available, a behavioral phenomenon that has been described as “The Principle of Least Effort” (PLE) (Case, 2008, pp 36-37).
In 2001, Pettigrew, Fidel, and Bruce surveyed how information behavior theory had progressed since moving to a more user-centered approach in the 1980's. The authors found that theory was on an upswing, and that emerging theories most often cited Kuhlthau’s information search process and Dervin’s Sense-Making approach, and that they could be categorized by three different approaches:
- cognitive (focusing on individual cognitive and emotional motivation regardless of context),
- social (focusing on interpersonal relationships, the dynamics of information flow, and human communication as information sharing), and
- multi-faceted (which combine the previous two approaches) (Pettigrew et al, 2001, pp 47-63).
Because they approach the level of general frameworks that can be utilized as the basis of future studies, Cognitive Work Analysis, and Dervin’s Sense-Making have emerged from this period as dominant information behavior theories that provide “concrete guidance for system design” (Pettigrew et al, 2001, pp 63-69).
One behavior ascribed to reference librarians can also be said to describe their professional literature: they aggregate and organize information. One sterling example of aggregation and organization of information is Fisher, Erdelez, and McKechnie’s book Theories of Information Behavior (TIB), an alphabetically organized, comprehensive reference guide to disparate LIS information theories (Fisher et al, 2005). In the context of the advances in theory observed by Pettigrew and company, TIB should be considered a seminal work that brings together competing information behavior theories from that period. One can look at later theoretical efforts and draw parallels to this watershed moment. For instance, in 2013 Amy VanScoy published a study on the thoughts and feelings behind the behaviors of reference and information service professionals. She deployed a qualitative “interpretative phenomenological analysis” (IPA) approach through the use of in-depth interviews (2013, p 3). This method seems to be an updated version of Limberg’s little utilized “Phenomenography” of information behavior which emphasized approaching a subject qualitatively, interviewing subjects for data analysis, and studying subjects “ways of experiencing” (Fisher et al, 2005, p 281), and her emphasis on psychology and “affective behavior” strongly recalls Nahl’s theory of Affective Load (Fisher et al, 2005, p 39). VanScoy’s study is a good illustration of how the literature refreshes itself with new, updated, and above all self-reflective methods of evaluation and research.
Another example is a 2014 article paper by Dewan, in which she pulled together evidence from over 100 research sources to understand the implications of “distractions and multitasking for reference librarians,” recalling Dresang in the way she observes how reference librarians interact, communicate, and set boundaries with emerging technologies (Dewan, 2014, p 108; Fisher et al, 2005, pp 298-299). The principles of interactivity, connectivity, and access, found in Dresang’s theory of Radical Change, have been used as a lens through which digital-age patrons might be studied (Fisher, et al, 2005, pp 298-302). Her proscription that reference librarians cultivate undivided attention (Dewan, 2014, pp 109-110), is an important echo of Palmer’s seminal response to resist “technostress,” the influential speech Creating Our Roles as Reference Librarians of the Future: Choice or Fate, which touched on a topic rarely broached in the literature: what are the information needs of reference librarians? (Palmer, 1999).
RUSA continues to study reference librarian’s behavior quantitatively (Miles, 2013, pp 320-323), relying heavily on RUSA guidelines and behavior studies like Dervin and Kuhlthau’s work on neutral questioning (Simmons, 2015). A recent RUSA study of reference service behavior utilizing a “mixed-method” analysis, may show the scholarly community responding to changes within reference services and vice versa; the study linked “deep dissatisfaction” with current evaluative (statistical) practices with “changing service models” (LeMire, Rutledge, & Brunvard, 2016, pp 230-238). RUSA President Anne Houston’s 2016 declaration that reference librarians are “increasingly called on to justify our values through statistics, surveys, and other kinds of data” (Houston, 2016, p 186), indicates that contentious studies and community self-reflectivity will continue.
I have used reference services as my model here for discussing the fundamental concepts of information seeking behaviors, and the emerging theories that aid in the design of new services and means to access information, but reference services is simply one, traditional way that users access information within an information environment. For instance, databases, ILS interfaces, signage within libraries, or library programs are all points through which patrons might access information. Understanding patron and staff behaviors, and theory that emerges from this understanding, can inform our decisions when designing how services are accessed. To create working systems that are truly user-centered and that reflect the foundations of information behavior theory, greater dialogue and collaboration are sorely needed between theories of information behavior and designers of information systems (Pettigrew et al, 2001, p 69). Core community behaviors for reference service providers remain, for the moment— serving others; collaboration; action for the greater good; and an iterative and holistic way of approaching the educational process (Gorman, 2008; Gorman, 2012; Garnar, 2016). Whether these behaviors continue to be valued and promoted, depends a great deal on keeping lines of communication open between not only theorists and system designers, but between information professionals, the organizations for which they work, and most importantly, the general public.
Preparation to Understand Competency J: Coursework and Work Experience
Throughout my courses at San Jose State I have paid attention to reference services as an information community, in part because my present employment as a public services assistant is a constant reminder of information behaviors on both sides of the reference desk, and thus serves as a good focal point for study and analysis. In both my Information Communities (INFO 200) and Reference and Information Services (INFO 210) classes, I was able to flesh out my understanding of the history or histories behind reference services. In several blog posts and papers I was able to see its predominance and abiding influence reflected in studies about information-seeking behaviors associated with the reference desk, but also how reference services offered a convenient model for the designing of myriad information retrieval schemas. Furthermore, several articles in the general textbooks assigned for my MLIS classes touch upon information behavior theories, from a number of angles, and these articles enabled me to piece together a rough, mental history of how information theory has evolved over time, and the role that it has played within the information profession.
I was also greatly influenced by my reading of Jack Lynch’s magisterial 2016 book You Could Look It Up: The Reference Shelf from Ancient Babylon to Wikipedia, which helped me discern the antecedents of modern informational design and provision, and deepened my understanding of what we mean when we talk about information seeking and information behaviors.
My evidentiary items are ordered chronologically. The first two are both reflective of my ongoing reference services focus. The first evidentiary item is a blog post from my INFO 200 class that dealt with the information behaviors of reference service professionals considered as an information community, and the research attached to that community. My next piece of evidence from INFO 210, is a combined observation and interview with a reference service professional in the field, in this case a veteran library associate providing virtual reference services. My final evidentiary item, Working with Reference Sources from INFO 210, consists of 34 reference questions I answered using traditional print and digital sources, as well as more modern, free Internet resources. I included it because answering reference inquiries in this way, without a patron present, allowed me to evaluate the design and provision of these information sources, which are the building blocks of a quality reference service.
Evidence
Behavior Problems: Information Seeking Behaviors of Reference Librarians
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Add874a1c-64e8-4078-badb-58227ecd3b16
I wrote this blog post on the information-seeking behaviors of reference librarians, and some theories of information behavior related to this community, for my INFO 200 class. I drew most of my material from Fisher, Erdelez, and McKechnie’s 2005 book Theories of Information Behavior, and Spencer, VandeCreek, and Wright’s 2015 book The Psychology of Librarianship. I begin my exploration with a rather broad definition of information behavior, in order to get an overall sense of both this communities’ behaviors and their information needs. I delve into history in order to tease out a few well-known behaviors of reference service professionals like a willingness to help as a means of promoting the library, a natural aptitude for teaching, and taking on the role of counselor. I describe the professional shift from being subject specialists to more generalized research assistants, how the efficacy of the behaviors exhibited within the reference interview eventually were called into question by quantitative research, and how behaviors of the information services professional came to be quantified and made measurable with a series of guidelines issued by RUSA.
I describe the fallout from this quantification of behavior and explore within the literature for alternative information behavior theories describing this community. While I had not as yet correlated Durrance’s willingness-to-return research with a return to a more qualitative theoretical approach to reference services, I nevertheless found a number of theories that seek not only to rethink the information behaviors of reference librarians, but also the patrons with whom they interact. For instance, I mention one study which describes both patrons and librarians use stereotyping to reduce anxiety (Posner, 2015, p 231). I illustrate that theories such as Posner’s can be correlated to theories described a decade earlier. I describe other theoretical works on behavior, such as Dewan’s behavioral study of the effects of multi-tasking on reference librarians (Dewan, 2014). I connect some of these nascent theories to philosophical push-back against the quantification of behavior, using Palmer as a prime example (Palmer, 1999).
This blog post shows that I am capable of researching theories of information behavior over time, that I understand how to properly link research to a specific information community, and that I know how to articulate and compare disparate ideas, distilling how these ideas affect the users in question. I show that I am able to think critically and apply my thinking theory as it relates to the provision and design of user services, in this case how reference services are imagined.
Reference Observation Assignment
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:e0b85050-2b30-484b-aab2-f524da0b7a1a
In this assignment for my INFO 210 class I arranged to observe a reference librarian over the course of a single “shift” and observe their interactions with patrons, where I would keep a field journal of notes on the reference desk experience and reference interviews, followed by an analysis of what I observed, including how the service was designed and delivered, and any examples of patron feedback. Part of the assignment was to keep the librarian, the user, and the myself (the observer) in mind. I chose to observe a virtual reference service assistant performing phone interviews at XXXX, a virtual chat service.
I decided to filter my observations for this assignment through the IFLA and RUSA guidelines for reference service professionals (Guidelines, n.d.; RUSA, 1996). I observed over 15 phone interactions, at least 3 of which involved long technical inquiries, and 4 which were with regular callers. I note only one call involving patron behavioral issues— when a caller appeared to be lying about her child’s age in order to include them in a program appropriate for an older age range. An observation of some informal chatting among the library associates brought up the value (behavior) of “passionate curiosity” as one to more important than the special quality that involves verifying (accuracy) quotations online. I describe how XXXX’s reference services are structured but am unclear as to the theoretical reasoning behind its design. In the second half of the paper I spend several pages revisiting my observations of the reference interviews and matching the library associate’s behavior to IFLA and RUSA recommendations. For instance, I observed the reference librarian explaining her search strategy, citing authoritative sources, rephrasing questions, sending prompt replies, avoiding jargon, and maintaining objectivity.
I note how the library associate did not consider most of the interactions I witnessed (even the lengthy technical inquiries) as properly formal reference interviews and did not consider them to be indicative of her professional best. I build a case that virtual reference services have become more complex than subject searching of old, requiring more specialized multi-tasking behaviors: I point out that the librarian associate I observed had 13 windows open on their computer desktop, including circulation software, browsers, phone and interfaces, email accounts, search engines, document software, web-based software, and website pages. I could only observe one instance of patron satisfaction, but this can be explained by the format.
I provide suggestions for redesigning the chat service including the idea that a return to mentoring might reinvigorate a simple reliance on IFLA/RUSA guidelines, allowing for behaviors like being “passionately curious” to be properly valued in actual service delivery. I describe how virtual reference services can be seen as the end point in an evolution from generalized to specialized, from face-to-face to a more mediated experience. I argue that when we have two information behavior data sets to draw upon (the user and the library associate) we can plan and design superior reference services. Conversely, I argue that human-machine interfaces are more likely to result in access to information that is perceived as being inferior in quality, because the human element is now missing.
This assignment shows that I am able to deconstruct an actual working instance of reference services, articulate the information-seeking behaviors within that experience, critique the accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness of the information provided by that service, and then give an informed opinion on how services might be improved by design. Furthermore, I show that I understand how documents like the IFLA/RUSA guidelines, are the end-result of intense theorizing and research, and that I can apply these in the field to evaluate information behavior. Finally, I show that I know that guidelines themselves are not behavior, and that a continuous questioning of information-seeking behaviors is the best way to improve our metrics.
Working with Reference Sources
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A30986869-9d07-4618-af5c-73f55eda691b
In this elaborate and involved exercise for my INFO 210 class, I replied to 34 textual inquiries utilizing both traditional print and digital sources, as well as free online reference sources. I provided answers and replies to each “patron,” cited and explained why my sources were credible, current, and/or authoritative, and then led the patron through my search path, and the reasoning behind my results. Throughout this paper I question my own information-seeking behaviors, asking myself how I parsed out particular inquiries, re-examining the reasoning behind my search paths, weighing the merits of the choices I made with regard to sources, and teasing out all my reasons for replying to a patron in a particular manner.
I describe my overall search methodology as taking its orientation from a reference interview framework but use other guideposts such as search simplicity or complexity, and various search limitations such as gaps in the literature, usability/accessibility issues, and avoiding information overload. My own particular search behaviors are delineated as being of importance, including my fundamental attitude to searching which includes “intellectual curiosity.” I ask how one can know that one’s research is adequate if the inquirer is not present, and answer that an important aspect of my search methodology is communicating back to the patron, present or not. Toward this end my replies have a narrative quality that replicate the dialogue of a traditional reference interview. I speak to some information behaviors that I can “read” in the inquiries, such as “misplaced self-assurance,” and demonstrate that it is not enough to know that information is accurate, relevant, and appropriate— one must know how to use the information sources, sometimes in various combinations, to achieve any of the resultant qualities desired.
Through an analysis of my own search results I am able to evaluate and compare certain reference sources and both reference resource types. For instance, I compare the John Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism, and the Cambridge History of Latin American Literature to Wikipedia. But I also describe instances in which free online research sources are able to perform more ably than traditional sources. I articulate how both resource source types can inform the other, depending on the search, and how one cannot and should not be predisposed to favor one kind of source over another. I reiterate the truism that what is accurate, relevant, and appropriate is not always so simple as a single, factual answer, but is more often what lies at the basis of the initial search inquiry. For instance, I show that one query was not about providing a definition, so much as it was about understanding how to look up difficult, specialized terms.
I reaffirm that without a face-to-face interaction, it is even more important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of research tools like reference books and databases, or search engines and online encyclopedias, and be able to judge them on an ad hoc basis. I compare some of these research tools based on currency versus how well-researched they were or weigh their convenience versus how transparent they were regarding aims, methodology, philosophy, fact-checking or staff credentials. Finally, I return to best practices for reference services in light of my experience, reiterate the positive professional behaviors I witnessed in myself, and reflect on how these add value to providing information services.
This evidentiary item shows that I am capable of providing information services and feel comfortable accessing a wide array of reference sources to find credible, current, and authoritative results for patrons. My work here also demonstrates an ability to intuit information-seeking behavior from the point of view of the patron, the reference librarian, and even from the perspective of the designer of an information retrieval system. Moreover, my reflections on my searches and search results reveals that I am capable of evaluating not only search results and methodology, but also the tools with which one conducts those searches.
Conclusion
A grounding in the foundational and evolving theories of information behavior provides me with a basis for researching information communities and, when combined with my critical thinking and writing skills, give me tools with which I can assess and evaluate the design and provision of information services. Being able to observe, analyze, and break down the performance of reference services into component parts, being able to accurately, fairly, and impartially be able to evaluate those service components, and then being able to give an informed opinion on how services might be improved, design-wise, are concrete abilities I can offer in many different information environments. My ability to illustrate how theory and research lead to policy and guidelines, and conversely how both practicing and questioning policies and guidelines leads to informed theory and improved metrics, can be used in the planning, designing, or providing stages of information services. Having provided information services in both the virtual and physical spheres, utilizing both traditional physical and digital reference sources, as well as free online resources, qualifies me to evaluate not only search results and methodology, but also the tools with which one conducts those searches. This experience puts me in a strong position to be able to critique the design of information retrieval systems, a skill I can bring with me in future professional endeavors.
References
Case, D.O. (2008). Information seeking. In Haycock, K. & Sheldon, B.E. (Eds.). The portable
MLIS. Wesport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Deng, L. (2014). The evolution of library reference services: From general to special, 1876-
1920s. Libri: International Journal of Libraries & Information Services, 64(3), 254-262.
Dewan, P. (2014). Can I have your attention? implications of the research on distractions and
multitasking for reference librarians. Reference Librarian, 55(2), 95-117. Retrieved from https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=lib_pub
Fisher, K. E., & McKechnie, L. (2005). Theories of information behavior. Information Today,
Inc.
Garnar, M. (2016, March 8). Ethical Issues and Information Communities. [Video lecture].
Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JQPF8BoHJk&
Gorman, M. (2008). Professional ethics and values in a changing world. In Haycock, K., &
Sheldon, B. The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited
Gorman, M. (2012).The Prince’s Dream. SCONUL Focus, 54, pp.11-16. Retrieved from
https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/4_0.pdf
Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information service providers. (n.d.).
Retrieved June 26, 2016, from: http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Houston, A. (2016). From the president of RUSA: What’s in a name? toward a new definition of
reference. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(3), 186-187. Retrieved from https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A150ce4cf-83e3-4dd4-85e7-2eab398c4dfe
Kern, M.K. and Woodard, B.S. (2016). The reference interview. In Smith, L.C. and Wong, M.A.
(Eds.). Reference and information services: An introduction. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited
LeMire, S., Rutledge, L., & Brunvand, A. (2016). Taking a fresh look: Reviewing and
classifying reference statistics for data-driven decision making. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(3), 230-238. Retrieved from https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156124/Taking%20a%20Fresh%20Look.pdf?sequence=1
Lynch, J. (2016). You could look it up: The reference shelf from ancient babylon to wikipedia.
New York: Bloomsbury
Miles, D. B. (2013). Shall we get rid of the reference desk?. Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 52(4), 320-333. Retrieved from https://journals.ala.org/index.php/rusq/article/viewFile/2899/2972
Palmer, S. S. (1999). Creating our roles as reference librarians of the future: Choice or
Fate? Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 1-12.Retrieved from https://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/palmer99.pdf
Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST), 35(43-78). Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/fidelr/RayaPubs/ConceptualFrameworks.pdf
Posner, B. (2015). The use of psychological defense mechanisms— by librarians and the
public— in response to traditional and binary librarian stereotypes in popular culture. In Spencer, L.G., VandeCreek, L., and Wright, H.S. (Eds.). The psychology of librarianship. (pp 215-241). Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.
Reference and User Services Association. (1996). Guidelines for behavioral performance of
reference and information services professionals. RQ, 36(2), 200-203. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral
Simmons, Michelle H. (2015). In Information Services Today, Chapter 13: Finding Information:
Information Intermediation and Reference Services.
Spencer, L.G., VandeCreek, L., Wright, H.S. (Eds.). (2015). The psychology of librarianship.
Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.
Tyckoson, D. A. (2011). Issues and trends in the management of reference services: A historical
perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 51(3), 259-278. Retrieved from https://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=503012446&S=R&D=lls&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeprU4y9fwOLCmsEieprBSsa64SbWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGtsVCuprFLuePfgeyx4YXr2QAA
Tyckoson, D. A. (2008). Reference Service: The Personal Side of Librarianship. In The Portable
MLIS, 127-46.