Thoughts on Time/Timing. . .
The readings from this week(10/31) focus on the impact of time/timing on information use. Solomon provided two articles that discussed some issues related to how users change over time (particularly the evolving behavior of the children searching the OPAC) and what impact time has on the information seeking process. The third article by Taylor lays out a framework for defining information use by professionals and does include time/change as a component of that definition. I was left wondering how successful Taylor was in pursuing this research over the course of the last decade and whether or not anyone found his definitions relevant. In retrospect, I wondered how some of the seemingly artificial distinctions (focus on 'active' information seeking, structured definition of goals) would impact the relevance of the research. Taylor seemed to be building on Dervin/Nilan's work though and mentioned some important concepts which have been reflected in more recent research, notably the idea of context and the concept that 'problems change over time'.
In relation to the time/timing articles Solomon asks a few questions. 'Why gather data over time, what does it give us?', 'How is time incorporated into methods, frameworks, theories?', and 'where would a time based perspective lead us?'. Clearly longitudinal studies appear to give us some valuable data about how users 'change' over time. Solomon was able to observe the learning of the elementary school children' use of the OPAC by introducing a time element to the study where a single point study might have missed important interactions/learning actions. Taylor mentions an important point though in discussing how problems change over time. Given the difficulty that a researcher would have in defining a single point of a user/problem, I would imagine that preserving/updating that definition over a longitudinal study would prove difficult.
A number of the cognitive/affective theories include some idea of change in state of the user (iterative seeking actions, the result of 'realization') but do these count as 'time' based? For instance, does Dervin's gap succeed in describing a discrete moment as well as a long term wrangling with a large issue? Is the issue on the other side of the gap static in Dervin's model? What about Bate's berrypicking model? While it is easy to infer a time component there (berries tend to be picked individually or in small groups after all), does the model ever revisit the user state, problem definition, or think about changing solutions?
In relation to the tangible concepts of metadata/technology that have been discussed at LITA, how have the solutions that are being discussed (new types of OPACs, internet site archiving, web 2.0 technologies) addressing the impact of time on the user/question/solution? An interesting discussion in a session about how to use Worldcat as your local catalog (implications for staffing, user seeking, etc) revisited the idea that libraries have had a flawed user model to base their ILS on for some time. There was a significant amount of frustration in the room regarding possible solutions, conflicting ideas of who/what the user is/wants, and the best/most efficient/most permanent way of addressing these needs. What was interesting was a concept which was universal here but not openly discussed: the impact/conflict that the different timelines of the web and library world are having on the ILS. In the commercial/open web world, technologies & indexes come and go in six months. In the library/bureaucratic world, technologies / indexes are multi-year/decade investments. The assumption in the room was that our users were changing at the web rate of time, while libraries were (by comparison) standing still. As a result, the group discussion wound around the idea that we had to do something quick (taking little time to define best solution was, and recognizing the idea that in web 2.0 solutions move on a much faster scale). Is there an issue here with the idea of non-normal time progression? When we discuss time in these senses, the discussion does not center on measured time but rather perceived state changes/events which only occur as time moves.
Let's think Internet archive for a moment & the impact of time. The IA looks to separate content from a timeline (and marks it) for posterity. In this way, they help define state/sense in a way that perhaps other information sources cannot. In relation to the mechanisms of social software in use now, the Internet Archive, is providing discrete snapshots of user states (however well defined) that are not susceptible to the changing vagaries of the web. Does this introduce a new research methodology?
In relation to the time/timing articles Solomon asks a few questions. 'Why gather data over time, what does it give us?', 'How is time incorporated into methods, frameworks, theories?', and 'where would a time based perspective lead us?'. Clearly longitudinal studies appear to give us some valuable data about how users 'change' over time. Solomon was able to observe the learning of the elementary school children' use of the OPAC by introducing a time element to the study where a single point study might have missed important interactions/learning actions. Taylor mentions an important point though in discussing how problems change over time. Given the difficulty that a researcher would have in defining a single point of a user/problem, I would imagine that preserving/updating that definition over a longitudinal study would prove difficult.
A number of the cognitive/affective theories include some idea of change in state of the user (iterative seeking actions, the result of 'realization') but do these count as 'time' based? For instance, does Dervin's gap succeed in describing a discrete moment as well as a long term wrangling with a large issue? Is the issue on the other side of the gap static in Dervin's model? What about Bate's berrypicking model? While it is easy to infer a time component there (berries tend to be picked individually or in small groups after all), does the model ever revisit the user state, problem definition, or think about changing solutions?
In relation to the tangible concepts of metadata/technology that have been discussed at LITA, how have the solutions that are being discussed (new types of OPACs, internet site archiving, web 2.0 technologies) addressing the impact of time on the user/question/solution? An interesting discussion in a session about how to use Worldcat as your local catalog (implications for staffing, user seeking, etc) revisited the idea that libraries have had a flawed user model to base their ILS on for some time. There was a significant amount of frustration in the room regarding possible solutions, conflicting ideas of who/what the user is/wants, and the best/most efficient/most permanent way of addressing these needs. What was interesting was a concept which was universal here but not openly discussed: the impact/conflict that the different timelines of the web and library world are having on the ILS. In the commercial/open web world, technologies & indexes come and go in six months. In the library/bureaucratic world, technologies / indexes are multi-year/decade investments. The assumption in the room was that our users were changing at the web rate of time, while libraries were (by comparison) standing still. As a result, the group discussion wound around the idea that we had to do something quick (taking little time to define best solution was, and recognizing the idea that in web 2.0 solutions move on a much faster scale). Is there an issue here with the idea of non-normal time progression? When we discuss time in these senses, the discussion does not center on measured time but rather perceived state changes/events which only occur as time moves.
Let's think Internet archive for a moment & the impact of time. The IA looks to separate content from a timeline (and marks it) for posterity. In this way, they help define state/sense in a way that perhaps other information sources cannot. In relation to the mechanisms of social software in use now, the Internet Archive, is providing discrete snapshots of user states (however well defined) that are not susceptible to the changing vagaries of the web. Does this introduce a new research methodology?
posted by Erik Mitchell at 6:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home