Public Librarians as Users of Information Kuhlthau’s ISP and the Public Librarian LI810 Erika Zeitz

Research Aims  Examine how public reference librarians respond to patron queries.  Not intended to entirely replicate Kuhlthau’s (1999) longitudinal study of an information worker, it hopes to build on it  Most literature focuses on those served by librarians. It is hoped this work would be an aid to the profession in two ways: helping to enhance public services, and adding to the body of work on cognitive processes as well.

The Information Search Process: a quick review  Kuhlthau (1993):  Built on constructivist theories, especially Kelly, 1963: phases of construction and Taylor, 1968: levels of need.  Examination of thoughts and feelings during research process.  Research done on students.

Kuhlthau continued  1. Task Initiation: preparing for a topic, feeling apprehensive and uncertain.  2. Topic Selection: considering & choosing topic, some elation, some confusion.  3. Prefocus Exploration: investigating information: inability to express precise information needed, confusion.

Kuhlthau continued  4. Focus Formulation: focus on topic from information gathered, insight and optimism.  5. Information Collection: gathering material that relates to focus, organizing, confidence.  6. Search closure: information search is over, resources exhausted, satisfaction or disappointment

Background (literature review)  Prior research tends to focus on patron as information user.  Librarians use information too.  Especially public librarians engaged in reference work.

Literature Review Non Librarians and Librarians in the Information Search Process

A little bit about cognition theory and library and information science  Kuhlthau & constructivist perspective  Response to systems studies:  LIS studies tended to be focused on things:  Materials (books), sources (reference works), information retrieval systems (OPACs, etc).  (still useful, but…)  Adding the human element:  Thought processes (cognition)  Emotions (psychology)

We’re human, we seek information Kuhlthau’s model: learning process (how we relate to information providers) is best explained by constructivist theories. Kelly (1963): Personal Construct Theory: --personal --phases marked by emotional states: Confusion< New Experience; More confusion< not enough information; Tentative hypothesis< direction; Testing & assessing< possible outcome; Reconstructing< assimilating new construct.

Perception is essential to learning Bruner (1973): Interpretive Task -- absolutely no positivism—we are all interpreting as we learn. --from individual’s perspective and perceptions:  Perception—encountering something new; selection— recognizing patterns; inference—joining clusters and categories; prediction—going beyond information given; action—creating products of the mind

Literature Review Information Workers: Non-Librarians Kulthau, C.C. (1999). The Role of Experience in the Information Search Process of an Early Career Information Worker: Perceptions of Uncertainty, Complexity, Construction, and Sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v. 50. pp

Literature Review, Non-Librarians continued   Choo, C.W., Detlor, B. & Turnbull, D. (1999). Information Seeking on the Web—An Integrated Model of Browsing and Searching. ASIS Annual Meeting Contributed Paper. html   Cole, C. and Kuhlthau, C.C. (2000). Information and Information Seeking of Novice Versus Expert Lawyers: How experts add value. New Review of Information Behaviour Research, v.1, pp

Literature Review, Non- Librarians continued   Duff, W. and Johnson, C.A. (2002). Accidentally Found On Purpose: Information-seeking behavior of historians in archives. Library Quarterly, v. 72, p

Literature Review: What about Librarians? C’mon…we’re users too!

Librarians continued:  Budd, J. (2001). Information Seeking in Theory and Practice: Rethinking public services in libraries. Reference & User Services Quarterly, v. 40, no. 3 pp  Explores dialogic communication theory proposed by M.M. Bakhtin.  Phenomenological approach to communication.

Librarians, continued  Dewdney, P. & Ross, C. S. (1994)  Focus on the user’s experience in the reference interview.  Note, however, user’s impression of what a professional librarian looked like.  Auster, E. et al. (2004)  Study of over 700 reference libraries in public libraries.  Focus on professional development opportunities.

Librarians, continued  Kirton, J. & Barham, L. (2005)  Literature review of information literacy needs in the work place.  Role of the special library (specific to organization).  Comparison of role librarians have with students to relationship of librarians with colleagues in an organization.

Librarians, continued:  Radford, M. (1996, 1998)  Studies in academic library settings  Communication studies, not ISP in particular.  Non-verbal aspects (i.e. what is involved in approaching a reference librarian)  Murphy, S. (2005)  Librarian-user interaction as “narrative.”  Hermeneutic theory: understanding and interpretation required.  Compares reference with medicine.

Yet more librarians… Campbello et.al. (2005):  Examine school librarians and information literacy.  “An information-literate person must master the abilities needed to perform the search process,” (p.37).  Undergraduates (96 students)  in a LIS program in Brazil  “future mediators of information…” (p.39)  Participants looked at assignment completed as part of their LIS program.  Future librarians may not be fully prepared to do research…(p.49)

Hey what about public librarians… We got cognition and affect, too!

Measuring Expert Librarians  Use measure of self-efficacy (Tella et al, 2005).  Ask managers to identify “top performers.”  Reflect RUSA (2003) competencies:  enceguide/professional.htm enceguide/professional.htm enceguide/professional.htm (at the top is Responsiveness--to user needs)

Interview Questions  Think of one of your most challenging user interactions.  What made it challenging? (I’ll be trying to see if it’s the question, the patron or the way the question is posed).  What sources did you use to answer it?  How did you determine user satisfaction?  Describe your own sense of how the transaction went from start to finish. (e.g. were you happy? Confused? Did the outcome bring a sense of relief) (I won’t feed these words, though)

Kuhlthau’s Methodology  Kuhlthau (1993) “Making inferences about the reasoning behind an act by merely observing the act is inadequate.” (Seeking Meaning, p.79).  Qualitative, longitudinal, field work to focus on the user’s experience.

My Methodology  Seek out & find expert/professional reference librarians in public libraries  Interview or observe?  Interview  Pro: Direct contact, deeper communication  Con: I might not be a good interviewer…

Methodology continued  Observation:  Pro: Natural setting, if unobtrusive can see some interesting interactions  Con: Says nothing about cognitive process.

Timeline: assume a year for a thesis  Nov-Dec 2006: Iron out kinks in proposal  Dec-Jan 2007: Get final approval. Start getting approval from subjects.  Jan-March: Conduct Interviews  March-April: Start analyzing material  April-July: Write, rewrite, write  Mid-late-July: Summer break  August-October: Write final draft and present.

Research questions that may translate into interview or questionnaire questions:   --who are the expert reference librarians?   --what kind of time frame makes someone an expert or especially skilled?   --what kind of education would an expert reference librarian need for work in a public library?

Example (mine)  Readers advisory challenge:  Parent says child hates to read, but needs a good book for school.  Info-pro-to-be (IPTB) asks questions: what does child like to do? (sports) Is there anything child liked to read recently at all? What’s child’s reading level? Above, below or at grade-level?  Hands sports fiction to child who pages through it listlessly and hands it back.

ISP of Info-Pro-to-be (IPTB)  Task Initiation: user needs book, IPTB needs help!  Topic selection: helped by asking questions  Prefocus: Grade level? Sports?  Uncertain, need to ask questions, anxious to please.  Still uncertain, wonder if these are the right questions.  Thinking of possibilities, a little more positive in outlook

ISP of IPTB continued…  Focus formulation: pick out a book…  Information Collection: Both user and IPTB  Optimistic that material might be right for user.  User looks through material, IPTB looks at user. Initial confidence gives way to frustration (not expressed!)

ISP of IPTB continued…  Search Closure: None  Perhaps need to ask new questions.  Mediation might be required.  IPTB realizes that process needs to start again. Not happy, but feels determined…

What’s next?  More focusing  Decide on methodology and questions  Librarian in relation to user  Librarian in relation to question  Or is there some way to look at both?