Scrapbook - Unit 3

Chatman's idea of 'life in the round' is that we each live in our own small world - we are defined by the rules of this world we have created for ourselves. I think what she is saying goes along with the idea that we use trusted information sources such as friends and family before we may use a search engine or the library. I especially like her comment that information in this context has 'very little' to do with data and that it has to be "a part of a system of related ideas, expectations, standards, and values" (p. 208) … she goes on to say that sharing "common ideas about an experience allows meaning to occur" (p. 208). I think Dr. Chatman is saying that giving meaning to data makes it information and that everyone has their own way of giving meaning to something. I think we can support people's "rounding" by remembering that our way of information seeking isn't "one size fits all". How people find information and trust that information differs from person to person based on their beliefs, experiences, and their own "round".

Kuhlthau brings up an excellent point - when people are searching for information, they don't know what they are searching for. Also, they're not just searching for information, rather they are searching for meaning. I like the idea of the holistic theory of information seeking because people (users) are more than just a process. Last week we read about how each individual brings their own thoughts and experiences into their searches; and Chatman talks about everyone being in their own 'small world'; Kuhlthau puts these ideas together with the holistic theory of information seeking. By taking into account thoughts, feelings, and actions into one process we can design better information systems.

I think one huge disagreement between Marchionini and Kuhlthau is that he (Marchionini) defines the information seeking processes as quantitative and Kuhlthau reports that quantifying the processes is too scientific for users. Marchionini says that the information seeking processes is related to sub-processes, each effected by the one before it (here I think Kuhlthau would agree). He does state that the problem definition stage lasts throughout the information seeking processes until the user has completed their searching.

I think Marchionini's theory of one processes effecting the next one would translate into the non-electronic world; if I'm browsing the shelves at Davis and find a book that looks to be what I'm searching for, I would check to see who is in the reference portion of the book and go find their titles. The first book I pick up would determine my next set of sources. However, I think only in electronic systems do we have an issue of "knowing the language". Expert systems are obviously the best to use but if you don't know the language, you can't very well search it. However, in most non-electronic environments there is a person there if you can't understand the LOC subject headings.

Dervin argues that technologies have not changed how we get information or how we search for information before we had the technologies. Rather, technology has allowed us to do what people once did faster and with a much greater amount of information. This means that we haven't made any huge technological discoveries or changed how we seek information. This is an interesting standpoint and, now that I think about, seems to be true. Even though the method we use to search for data (electronically versus by a human) has changed, the principles behind this idea has not. I'm not sure what the next way to solve information queries will be, but Dervin's sense-making theory is quite different from the others we have read about. Her theory attempts to bridge the gaps between order and chaos that exist both in our lives and in our information needs; furthermore, it implies that the information seeker is constantly solving information needs and that they are theorists in understanding their own worlds.

While her theory seems strange to me, I do like the way Dervin attempts to look at every angle of the problem: what brought the user to the problem, what kind of answer they want, etc. Also, the idea of bridging connections between readers makes things more personal and I think it would help the user feel like they have been truly helped - i.e., they haven't just found the information they were looking for, they have found an information resource.

Dr. Solomon brings up the idea of information mosaics as they were discovered using colored sticky-notes. This made me think of my 'to do' list system. I have 3 colored notebooks - green is for work, blue is for school, and pink is for home. On top of this I have a monthly calendar which details appointments and meetings for all three places. Until this semester, I had all 3 combined in one book, making things very confusing. I had important work information and my grocery list in the same place; this system had me constantly flipping pages to find what I was looking for. (Yes, lots of people have suggested I get a PDA but I prefer my lists for now.) My new system is ideal - I know where everything that I need is located. These 3 books are my personal information mosaics and they are (for the time being) my essence - flipping through them you would get to know a lot about me. Also, if you combine them you could see the roundness of my information needs.

The theories life in the round and information mosaics stood out the most to me in this last set of readings. As in my above example, we all have different aspects of our lives that require very different types of information. Putting all these aspects together, I can see how both authors developed their theories. I also like the idea in this unit of making information seeking more personal - every author seems to be writing in this context. They are not just speaking of an end-user trying to find the answer to a single question, but rather, they talk about how a person has different parts of their lives that need different kinds of information. Instead of designing systems around the information, these theories bring up the idea of designing them around the user. Finally, I like that Solomon talks about learning as we design information systems. We, as information professionals, must learn about our users in order to design more effective systems.