Towards collaboration between information seeking and information retrieval

Introduction. The conceptual framework of librarianship and information science has developed rapidly over the past decade with the prospect of application in other fields. However, transfer of concepts across branches within the field remains problematic and severely limits ability to address important information problems. Requirements. A conceptual framework is needed that will integrate the diverse areas of interest. Imperatives. An integrated framework requires sustained attention to a problem area; the application of the evolving framework to the area; the development of projects that are of relevance to more than one interest group in the field; and evolving the findings of research into the implementation of systems and services. Conclusion. The challenge facing librarianship and information science today is to bring together the allied areas of the field into an overarching conceptual framework that represents the unified whole. This paper suggests a strategy to accomplish this. Introduction: a developing framework for library and information science For many years researchers in library and information science have borrowed theory from other fields to provide insight into our research findings. We are moving from this borrowed theory approach to creating a conceptual framework that has been tested, refined and adapted specifically for application in our field. Towards collaboration between information seeking and information retrieval http://www.informationr.net/ir/10-2/paper225.html[11/12/2015 4:28:09 PM] The conceptual framework has developed rapidly during the past ten years with early signs of application in other fields. An important contribution of the research reported at the ISIC conferences is the development of the user-centred approach. This research offers understanding of information seeking and use within the various contexts of people's lives. Important meta-theories, such as Dervin's sense-making (1983) and models, such as Wilson's model of information seeking (1999) and the Information Search Process model (Kuhlthau 1991) have been developed in this research area. New ways of looking at information seeking have emerged, such as Savolainen's (1995) work on Everyday Life Information Seeking. These have substantially contributed to the conceptual framework of the field and form the basis for extensive research in user studies. However, transfer of concepts across branches within the field of library and information science remains problematic. Scholars in different areas of library and information science do not usually talk to each other, attend each other's conferences, read each other's journals or even read each other's articles in the same journal. Ellis et al. (1999)found that even within the concentration of information science, scholars do not cite across the three overlapping areas of information systems, user studies and information retrieval. This unfortunate situation severely limits our ability to solve users' information problems. There is a critical need for a broad view of library and information science incorporating concepts of each branch of the field into a unified whole. Four imperatives for building the conceptual framework The expansive field of library and information science incorporates the great traditions of librarianship, the insights of user studies, and the innovations of information retrieval and information systems. The time is right for a major initiative of collaboration across the branches of the field. I propose four imperatives for fostering collaboration and for continuing to build the conceptual framework of the field. 1. Stay with a problem long enough to verify findings and draw concepts from the findings. 2. Apply the broad conceptual framework of library and information science to inform the findings of our studies. 3. Develop research projects that incorporate concepts of interest to more than one area of the field. 4. Design application of the concepts for implementation into systems and services. Stay with a problem to develop concepts The first imperative is to stay with a problem long enough to test and verify the findings of an initial study in order to draw concepts from the findings. Sustained research is essential for developing concepts. Sustained research involves not only seeing an initial investigation through to completion but staying with a problem to verify findings and to expand understanding of that problem beyond the narrow confines of a single study. Once we are on to something we need to Towards collaboration between information seeking and information retrieval http://www.informationr.net/ir/10-2/paper225.html[11/12/2015 4:28:09 PM] follow up with further investigation applying a variety of methods to exploit the full implications of our research for the field. When we study information seeking in context it is easy to concentrate on the results specific to that context and to lose sight of underlying concepts that more generally informs physical and intellectual access to information and ideas. Here is an example from my own research on the information search process. In my first study of secondary school students I found that forming a focus in the process of information seeking was the main task rather than merely gathering information related to a topic (Kuhlthau 2004). A student who did not form a focused perspective described great difficulty writing and presenting her work. Here is how she described her dilemma. I had a general idea not a specific focus, but an idea. As I was writing, I didn't know what my focus was. When I was finished, I didn't know what my focus was. My teacher says she doesn't know what my focus was. I don't think I ever acquired a focus. It was an impossible paper to write. I would just sit there and say, 'I'm stuck'. If I learned anything from that paper it is, you have to have a focus. You have to have something to center on. You can't just have a topic. You should have an idea when you start. I had a topic but I didn't know what I wanted to do with it. I figured that when I did my research it would focus in. But I didn't let it. I kept saying, 'this is interesting and this is interesting and I'll just smush it altogether'. It didn't work out. (Kuhlthau 2004: 40). Other students talked about forming a point of view and gaining a personal perspective of the topic. From this study I drew the concept of formulation within the constructive process of information seeking. Later, in longitudinal case studies of information seeking in the workplace, I found further evidence to support the concept (Kuhlthau 2004). The securities analyst talked about finding an angle to present to his clients and the lawyers sought a strategy for presenting a case. The securities analyst explained the main problem many novice analysts had in gathering and gathering information but not being able to write the report or as he said 'get out the product'. Over and over the concept of the constructive process of forming a focus provided the insight for explaining the findings of my users' studies. Without these extensive studies the work would be interesting but not very useful for contributing to the conceptual framework of the field. Sustained, longitudinal research supports collaboration across branches of library and information science by providing confirmed findings that lead to concepts that can apply in more than one context and that more than one area of the field can use for further study and application. Apply the conceptual framework of the field The second imperative is to use the concepts developed across the field of library and information science to inform and illuminate the findings of our research Towards collaboration between information seeking and information retrieval http://www.informationr.net/ir/10-2/paper225.html[11/12/2015 4:28:09 PM] studies. Once a concept is discovered in one context it is important to study that concept in other contexts with different users. Major concepts in library and information science such as relevance, anomalous state of knowledge, and uncertainty as well as models of information seeking behavior and theoretical frameworks such as sensemaking have been examined in a variety of contexts with different types of users to ground the concept for more general application. The studies on relevance that build on Saracevic's (1975, 1996) work are an excellent example. Taylor's (1991) levels of information need and information use environments are another. These concentrations of research not only verify but also extend and develop the concepts for increased understanding and insight that make important contributions to the conceptual framework of library and information science. The concept of task complexity, developed by Bystrom and the Tampere team (Bystrom and Jarvelin 1995, Bystrom 2000, Vakkari 2001) has provided insight in my own research. I am often asked if I think that people always experience the stages of the ISP in every information seeking task. Clearly they do not. But how to differentiate between tasks was a problem for me. In my recent studies I introduced the concept of task complexity and found that workers could easily distinguish between different types of information use in complex tasks and in routine tasks. These studies revealed simple straight-forward information seeking in routine work tasks and a process of construction and formulation in those tasks identified by the user as complex (Kuhlthau 2004). One person explained that complex tasks involve a dynamic change in thinking referring to these tasks as, 'the really good ones that you lose sleep over'. These projects were found to take an extended period of time. A participant explained, 'Those are the ones that are really time consuming because you are changing your entire thinking on an industry'. And went on to explain the uncertainty in connection with complex tasks in this way, 'You feel anx