de Stricker

Are Information Seeking Modes and Styles Associated with Professions?

In discussions with knowledge workers about their information requirements, several distinct modes of looking for something tend to surface.  Two common ones are "I need to stay on top of every new publication, conference paper, and blog post dealing with X" or "I want to trace the evolution of current opinion regarding Y".  In the first case, the driver is a desire to insure against missing information.  The second case represents a look back to benefit from accumulated evidence or accumulated context - something may not have grabbed our attention when it first appeared, but now it does.  (The looking-back mode is, of course, illustrated in end-of-year and end-of-decade top-10 lists in which commentators review events or  developments to assess what, in retrospect, stands out or appears to have future implications.)  Information professionals are well positioned to serve information seekers in those two modes.

 

 

In a third mode, it's trickier: "I don't know what I'm looking for, but I'll recognize it when I see it".  Here, the information seekers typically wish to mine a wide range of information sources for nuggets triggering ideas or connections, and information professionals rely on their understanding of the clients' projects and concerns, and on "more-like-that" and "forget-that" feedback, to refine their ability to serve up candidate material potentially containing items of interest.

 

 

To these seeking modes we then add individual seeking styles:  On one end of a spectrum, some seekers have high tolerance for volume and don't mind scanning through a lot of stuff and following links "just in case something interesting turns up" - in fact appreciate the serendipity - while on the other end, seekers look for information in a systematic way using a set of tried-and-true sources, aiming to isolate quickly a specific answer for the question at hand.  Seeking style has a further component associated with  how much experience a knowledge worker has, how intensely he or she communicates with the peer  community, and other aspects influencing confidence that "enough evidence has been collected for the purpose".

 

 

Are the various modes and styles associated with subject matter or professions?  Shannon Wills thinks so, based on her experience with the way engineers go about looking for information.  shannonwills23@gmail.com writes for toponlineengineeringdegree.com and  sent me this comment:

"Those with formal training in an engineering discipline look for and apply information differently from the rest of us.  They look for information in a logical sequence, first researching potential sources and then deciding if these sources are viable and reliable.  Once they have confirmed the authoritativeness of sources, they go about looking for the information they want in a rational and ordered way. Engineers know what to discard and what to retain, and they’re adept at putting together all they glean from different sources into a form that makes sense and is true to what they need in a given situation. An engineer would prefer a map rather than verbal or written directions."  

 

It could be argued that a preference for precision or comfort with ambiguity might simultaneously inform an individual's choice of academic study and his or her preferred mode and style of information seeking.  On the other hand, so many other factors play a role that it may be impossible to connect information seeking behavior to professions beyond some generalizations. (Thesis topic, anyone?)

As information professionals, we need a hefty dollop of insight into our clients' individual information seeking modes and styles - and we need to recognize how those modes and styles might change over time as project life cycles evolve, as extrinsic events impinge on policy making, as experts acquire experience, and so on.  That's why I use the term "information diagnostic" when describing the activity of getting to know the daily reality in which our current and potential clients work:   We diagnose not only what they (think they) need, but also how they prefer to ingest any information we may provide, how much they can absorb at any given time, how wide a net to cast in order to be able to draw their attention to items they would likely never see on their own, etc.  Understanding the information seeking modes and styles of the individuals we serve, quite apart from our professional expertise in the relevant information sources, is key to building the trust-based professional relationship we wish to have with them.

"Constructive Bragging" - a fine art deserving more attention

When information professionals perform "miracles" for their clients, they sometimes modestly refrain from touting the accomplishment.  That's a pity - for the organization in question, for the information profesional in question, and for the profession overall.  Good news stories - how the investment in the expertise and content in the information center or library paid off in helping the organization move toward its goals or addressing its challenges - deserve to become well known, and it is our job to make that happen.  But fear not - we can raise awareness without any 'cringe factor'.  I know of one special library whose bulletin is eagerly read by constituents because it regularly brings stories about how a specific situation was addressed by the staff or by the tools made available.  The "you can, too" value is high and the factual nature of the stories secures credibility.  So let's not be modest and think "well, it's all in day's work" ... instead let's think "how can we tell others about this success in such a way as to add to the overall awareness of what is available in that mysterious entity called the library."  Go ahead, brag away.

"Do not crush" - Information may be clear and accurate yet still ambiguous!

Every day offers lessons in the nuances of communication from the point of view of the recipent's experience.  As dealers in information, we need to be sensitive to any potential ambiguity arising from such experience.

Familiar with the implications of some tablets being "enteric coated" and thus not intended for cutting or crushing because the active ingredients need to be released in a specific way, I recently asked a pharmacist (I got the bug like everyone else) regarding the huge antibitotic tablets she'd just dispensed, "may I crush or cut them into tiny pieces so I can swallow them?'. The accompanying literature said "do not crush or chew" but referred only to a bitter taste, not to efficacy. She advised that I could go ahead - but it would have been nice if the literature had been unambiguous.  It's if you crush the tablet, the medication won't be effective or else it's if you crush the tablet, the medication will still be effective (but there will be a terrible taste sensation).  Either way, I would have been in a position to decide independently what to do with those tablets (for example, ask for the liquid formulation!).

The information is the drug sheet was not incorrect.  It just did not take into account the experience a reader might have (in my case, having been told previously that efficacy could be negatively impacted by crushing tablets).  When we create messages, our task is to provide the appropriate information for recipients to make a decision.  As in ... "please join us Thursday for a quick demonstration of X new resource; it has come to light that complications have arisen in the past due to a misunderstanding about how to use the content on the intranet".

Do people in fact prefer to get information from a trusted person rather than from a database?

During a discussion about "information habits" I recently heard a comment that in some organizational cultures, obtaining information from a trusted colleague is preferred over obtaining it from an impersonal source - regardless how authoritative that impersonal source may be.  Reflecting on the popularity of story telling as a topic at conferences, I considered the comfort there is in hearing information from someone we consider to be an expert and someone we know would not go with less than solid information:  "If Anna relies on that number, so can I". What is the implication for information professionals?

Hearing information live from a trusted colleague offers the opportunity to ask questions or probe for more detail - something we can't do in front of a list of search results.  Moreover, when we don't personally know the reputations of authors of particular items ... how can we avoid the experience of pointing to a document only to be told by a subject matter expert, "that author is known to hold some unusual views"?

Of course, there's the experiential factor.  Sure, in preparing for the upcoming conference in London, I could have found out on the relevant website about the tube's recent innovation, the refillable Oyster card ... it was a lot faster and more enjoyable to hear it straight from my niece, complete with her own personal tips.  It is understandable that knowledge workers seek each other out.

The trick for those who work in supplying information to knowledge workers is to work both avenues.  If the right information lands on the right desks at the right time ... we may hope the owners will eventually talk to each other.  But it is essential that we act as 'people connectors', linking one person with another who can take the role of trusted colleague.  In both ways, we will then be part of the 'oral culture' in a manner consistent with our professional practice.

80s eyeglasses? The unthinkable is suddenly thinkable

Imagine, those cover-half-the-face eyeglass frames we used to wear in the 80s are once again seen in trend setting fashion circles.  (Is the fad of the wide temples, cutting off peripheral vision, over so soon?)  Hm, let's not forget that the larger the frame, the better it handles progressive lenses with triple corrections ... how's that for a consideration we never had back then!

The unthinkable becoming thinkable may take us by surprise now and then.  But it shouldn't.  In fashion, as in our work lives, we are prepared for the darndest things when it comes to new work practices on the part of our clients, new expectations in terms of how we communicate with them, new demands for corporate strategies in knowledge support, and so on.  My recent re-reading of Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point reinforced for me the need for us to be constantly on the alert for small and subtle signs how things are changing - so that we may be ready, turning on a dime, to work with clients whose work styles have evolved or are evolving to be very different from what we were accustomed to in the past.  Then again: Certainly we are prepared to accommodate "thumb generation" preferences for dealing with information through evolving always-on mobile tools - but what do we then make of articles written by Gen-X/Yers who cut themselves off from 24/7 connectivity, at least for a time, in an effort to preserve sanity?  Old fashioned information packages in print to be read at leisure, anyone? 

As time rolls on, our profession is learning that multiple and sometimes opposite changes happen quickly.  We roll on too, and embrace the old and the new, and the old as the new, as the case may be.  Perhaps we'll even need to go get a pair of eyeglass frames we swore we'd never go near again ... just so it's clear we are NOT stuck in the past!

Jargon Cleanup: Communicating to non-insiders

A spa has recently opened in my neighborhood. I went in to get a price list and was impressed (I could use some of these services) and disappointed (I don't understand what some of the services are).  I guess what "St. Tropez" is about, but within the categories in the brochure, I am lost as to what some of the spa jargon might mean.  Not to worry, Google later tells me.  But still:  Would a well established business not want to appeal to a new clientele unfamiliar with the 'insider' words?

The Spa brochure - intended as a sales tool but speaking mostly to the initiated - reminded me how much attention we need to pay to the way we communicate with our own clients.  Just as I am going back to the spa counter to tell the owner that the brochure is not fully informative for new clients, so I remind everyone in the information profession to be mindful of jargon and constantly ask "will non-insiders know what we mean?" 

Worthwhile reminders

Recently I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Ken Haycock of the San Jose State University School of Library and Information Science (slisweb@sjsu.edu) speak on the topic of leadership.  He is an amazing communicator whose subtle humor delivers some zingy truths, including some I found relevant for librarians and other professionals who work in environments requiring political finesse:

- Don't confuse consultation and collaboration (seeking input does not imply future adherence to the input)

- Don't confuse congeniality and collegiality (we can have differences yet still work together to achieve the team's goals)

- With all the attention to ROI, don't forget ROTI (return on time invested)

- and, for all who prepare business cases:  "The budget is the plan."  What is in the budget is what senior management supports ... period.  We need not take it personally if our proposals are not approved ... we just need them to match the overall strategic goals.

Many thanks Dr. Haycock!

Step stools and post-it notes

On a lighter note this week:  Freepint solicited an article for a "paperless office" theme issue and, based on standing on a step stool in my office, I did a whimsical piece on the continued utility of paper (in small amounts) - http://www.freepint.com/issues/010207.htm#feature

After submitting the piece, I kept thinking about the challenge of imparting information in a format-unpredictable environment.  Just as an example:  How would you tell the next owner of your condo that "owing to the kitchen renovation, access to the electricals for the dishwasher is at the back wall of the guest room" without affixing a (plastic encased) note in the circuit breaker cabinet? Any PDF and paper manual you were to prepare for new owners - I have in the past - will get lost or become inaccurate over time.  I have hopes my plastic encased note will survive for the duration (if it ever is lost, the future owners and their electricians will figure it out, but time wll be wasted).

Translation to our work:  Haven't we all encountered "Oh, we changed the process and now instead we ..." information that got lost in the mists of email and did not get to the equivalent of a plastic covered notice? 

Unlike a discontinouos condo resident change, most work places are fluid and continuous in personnel so that practice information is passed on.  But it's not a given.  I'm sure some knowlege workers have felt, as they started their jobs, just like the condo owners who had to seek out help to obtain the water shutoff valve tool the previous owners never knew they needed!

So from the step stool:  How can we help others by alerting them appropriately, via paper or acrylic signs if need be, to information they might not see on the screen?

More on schmoozing: Value for the conference dollar

A colleague commented recently "isn't it amazing how people at conferences spend their time lined up for the internet cafe?"  Personally, I'm too busy at professional meetings to get in that line (there are other ways to handle one's mail while out of the office) - but it struck me how bang on that observation was.  Every minute spent NOT getting to know new people at a conference is a precious opportunity lost.  Just the other week (at the Internet Librarian International event in London) I spoke to a stranger across the lunch table who didn't seem to know those around her.  A few sentences later, I knew just who she needed to meet and wasted no time getting that to happen!  As I headed for the airport, I spotted the two of them in the coffee shop, deep in conversation ... how else could this US-European connection have been made?