Information Mosaics: Patterns of Action that Structure Paul Solomon School of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill*
[email protected] ________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION There is a research tradition in the information field of focusing on information seeking— particularly people’s strategies and sources, information retrieval— particularly the abilities of information systems to retrieve ‘relevant’documents, or other physically countable things such as a citations, co-citation, or acknowledgement. These research traditions seem to have been shaped both by the history of research funding and the objective nature of information sources, retrieved items, and citations. Yet, these research foci get at only a small portion of the role that information plays in people’s lives (cf., Chatman (1996) and Savolainen (1995). Alternatively, the idea of information seeking in context offers encouragement to loosen the structures of terminology, research foci, methods, and assumptions about ideal behavior to discover what the role of information in people’s lives is. The seemingly simple addition of the notion of in context permits a joining of not only user and system views but adds the potential of grounding both understanding and the products of the information profession in work’s tasks, life’s problems, and people’s strategies for coping. Through such grounded discovery, it seems that there is a better chance of creating supports that fit the tasks and problems that people regularly face. Too, such grounding may suggest a somewhat different view of how information professionals might contribute and on what information systems might focus.
*
The paper was in part written while the author was Fulbright Professor at the University of Tampere for the 1997-98 academic year.
There are no better examples of this sort of research in context than the stream of research by Elfreda Chatman on the information poor. In her most recent work, Chatman (1999) describes the lives of women prison inmates and the role of information in those lives. On that basis and her previous research stream, this work expresses a Theory of Life in the Round, where the context shapes an individual’s definition of what information is as well as appropriate ways of seeking information and using it. The notion of roundness seems to capture very well the difference between a focus on just information seeking, which expresses a professional ideal and applies a model developed for scientists and engineers to all, and information seeking in context, which tries to express the roundness created by individuals in interaction with the variety of systems (e.g., social, technological) that they find situationally relevant. This brings together individual and social views in a dynamic of actions that unfold over time to structure and constrain what people see and do— a mechanism for managing information overload (Neill, 1992) in its various instantiations through construction of a small information world. Savolainen’s (1995) concepts of way of life and mastery of life also seem to capture the ways in which people define their small worlds. I find this notion of roundness (my shorthand for Chatman’s Theory of Life in the Round) also attractive because it seems to tie broad theories of the constitution of society (e.g., Luhmann’s (1995) autopoietic systems and Giddens’ (1984) structuration) to the interests of the information field. For in describing roundness and rounding (i.e., how roundness is made), the selfperpetuating nature of social systems is grounded in the interaction of resources and rules regarding information seeking and use, which promote some actions and limit or cut off others. In a series of papers under the general title of Discovering Information Behavior in Sensemaking (Solomon, 1997a, b, c, d), I explored some of the contributors to roundness— the person, the social, and time and timing (broadly construed)— in connection with the work planning process of a unit of a public agency. While the broad view of time and timing was rooted in the configuration of individual communicative events, especially meetings, I also did some preliminary exploration of the time relations of the individual participants’ information and other task-related actions. I began this process of preliminary exploration by recording actions on sticky notes of different colors for the general classes of actions and arranging these sticky notes on a large tabletop. The chronological placement of actions, the colors of the sticky notes, and the specific actions suggested two things. First, I had something that from a distance looked like a mosaic. Then, a closer view
indicated patterns of actions both within an individual mosaic, across mosaics for an individual participant, and, particularly with respect to sources, channels, and the attributes of information, for individuals within the task group. It occurred to me that these mosaics represented the rules and resources that were relevant to the individuals in question in connection with their organizational roles, their current tasks, the history of the work planning process, etc. And now getting around to the idea of roundness, the mosaics provided insights into how individuals defined their lives in the round during the situations where they collected information. These, what I call information mosaics, represent the actions of doers (Byström, 1999)— not just users— in connection with their tasks, roles, knowledge, and other situational or contextual aspects. Analysis of these information mosaics may also help in understanding how people make their small worlds. As Dervin (in press) suggests, people move from order to chaos and back in making their worlds, and consequently “… it may be more powerful to conceptualize human beings not as information seeking and finding, but as information designing” (p. 7). Since the work planning study, I have collected data and developed associated information mosaics for two other contexts. These include: college students as they employ information technology and other information resources to satisfy both their course-related needs, and people as they proceed through a process of making travel arrangements. This paper utilizes the information mosaics occurring in the three contexts to explore the idea of roundness. The paper also explores how contexts in the form of tasks, rules and resources for social sense making, and individual participants work together to form life in the round. The presentation proceeds to briefly consider some recent examples of researchbased efforts to describe information actions, introduce the three contexts and methods employed for data collection, and consider what this exploratory analysis of information mosaics reveals.
INFORMATION ACTIONS There are instances of reported research that have at least in part focused on actions (primarily information seeking). These instances also employ microlevel data that is grounded in people’s actual existence. Two of these are briefly highlighted in order to address the questions of what describing and classifying information actions helps us do and to what the identification of patterns of relationship among such actions might contribute.
In contrast to the information mosaic approach taken here of trying to maintain actions at a very basic level to study relationship and patterning of individual actions, the approach taken by Ellis and his colleagues (Ellis, 1988; Ellis, Cox, & Hall, 1993; Ellis & Haugan, 1997) identified patterns of information seeking actions. These patterns included such series of actions as chaining, browsing, monitoring, and extracting for academic social and physical scientists (in Great Britain) and engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment (in Norway). Table 1 arrays the information seeking patterns that were identified in these studies. As can be noted by browsing Table 1, the researchers found a great deal of consistency in the patterns identified across the different study domains. The roles of these patterns in the subjects' work tasks shows some domain differences and some additional information seeking patterns were found for physical scientists and research scientists and engineers than for social scientists (i.e., verifying, filtering, and ending). The patterns themselves represent configurations of actions that bring together a series of particular information seeking actions. Knowing about these patterns, including at least some of their variations is useful for designing supports to information seeking. Presumably, social, physical, or research scientists and engineers have the option of selecting and ordering these patterns within these categories in any way that they choose. If this is so, it may be that knowing something about how people make such patterns will shed light on those features of information retrieval systems that would help people shift from one pattern to another or, for repetitions of a given pattern, reconstruct where they have been and allow adjustments. Consideration of the ordering and interrelationship of information designing patterns was not an outcome of these studies but is an interest of this paper. In contrast, Kuhlthau’s (1991, 1993) stream of research focused on people’s processes of sense making during an information seeking task. This work led her to specify and test an information search process (ISP) model. Key features of this model include: 1) the recognition that information search is seldom a one-shot thing but unfolds over time; 2) the solidification of a place for affect in the information field as people’s feelings are both associated with ISP stages and potentially influence the outcome of information seeking within a given stage; 3) the understanding that people’s thoughts vary with ISP stage as people move from unfocused and ambiguous thinking about their task to something that is focused and specific;
4) the recognition that as focus is achieved people’s motivation and interest tend to increase; and 5) the realization that the ideal approach or strategy of the information professional and the actual practice of the doer may not match. This last point is particularly important as it focuses attention on one of many forms of gap between system and doer.
Ellis (1989, p. 178) Academic Social Scientists Starting: “activities characteristic of the initial search for information” Chaining: “following chains of citations or other forms of referential connection” Browsing:“semi-directed searching in an area of . . . interest” Differentiating: “using differences between sources as filters” Monitoring— “maintaining awareness of developments in a field” Extracting— “systematically working through a source to locate material of interest”
Ellis, Cox, & Hall (1993, p. 359) Physical Scientists Starting
Ellis & Haugan (1997) Engineers & Research Scientists (Industrial)
Chaining
Surveying: “initial search for information to obtain an overview of the literature . . . or to locate key people” (p. 395) Chaining
Browsing
Browsing
Differentiating
Monitoring
Distinguishing: “sources are ranked according to their relative importance” (p. 399) Monitoring
Extracting
Extracting
Verifying— “checking the accuracy of information”
Filtering— “use of certain criteria as mechanisms . . . to make the information as relevant and precise as possible” (p. 399) Ending— “finishing the information seeking process” (p. 400)
Ending— “information seeking at the end of a topic or project”
Table 1: Comparison of Information Seeking Patterns
It is important to note that the ISP is not itself static and invariant. Kuhlthau (1991) notes that this model is “an approximation of common experiences” (p. 370). As an approximation it emphasizes similarities over differences as a means of focusing attention on key aspects that are meaningful to the doer as well as the researcher: “Although the findings in these studies reveal a more recursive, iterative process than described in the model, the stages summarize users’ experiences in ways they can recognize and express” (p. 370). Kuhlthau’s emphasis on similarities was essential in showing that different strategies and sources may fit with different stages in an ISP. This is an example of what Kaplan (1964) labeled a reconstructed logic, which could serve as a guideline for doing, in the context of Kuhlthau’s action research program, information search. A reconstructed logic has an element of rationality in it— an attempt to streamline and to impart the wisdom of the expert or professional to the novice. A reconstructed logic is in contrast to logicin-use, which is how and what people actually do. A logic-in-use captures how people make or design (not should make) their small worlds. As such, it preserves the learning, evolution, creativity, breakdowns, and recovery from breakdown that are part of rounding. This is what I will be trying to capture and maintain in analyzing information mosaics.
TASK CONTEXTS, METHODS, AND ANALYTICAL STRATEGIES From a methodological point of view, there are many challenges in trying to capture logic-in-use— people’s designing or rounding. There is the necessity of getting as much detail about an information intensive task or problem solving effort as possible in order to understand how people create their lives in the round and the definition and place of information in it. There is the desirability of having contrasting cases both within the same task domain and across other domains in order to identify similarities and differences in the making or creating process. There is the problem of bringing the details of individual cases together with other available cases with the inevitable loss of detail, insight, and the trials, tribulations, and excitements of an ongoing process. In this section methods, contexts, and analytical strategies are indicated. As previously noted the idea of information mosaics flowed out of the work planning study. This study focused on the actions and interactions of seven primary participants in the evaluation and selection of projects for funding in a public agency concerned with natural resource conservation. As the study organization was a public agency, its funding was via annual appropriations of the legislature. Uncertainty regarding the level of funding and the realizability
of the proposed projects made the work-planning task uncertain and ambiguous for the study participants. The study continued through three annual iterations of the work planning process to provide data about the evolution of a complex, information intensive task. The college student study is still in process— three of the four years of data collection have been completed. This study is tracking 20 students over their four years of undergraduate education in a small liberal arts college, which has heavily invested in information technology and has integrated library, computing, and other information services and resources. A major emphasis of this study, then, is on understanding how technology and electronic information resources contribute to and inhibit the educational process. The task possibilities for the college students are many. Curricular tasks are the focus of attention here. These tasks include, for example, course papers ranging from short essays exploring a topic to the term paper or multi-semester honors thesis, supplementary material for class discussions or presentations, and exploration in follow-up to course related reading, lectures, or discussions. The travel planning study grew out of a conversation with an acquaintance who had received a research grant to cover travel expenses associated with her research. As the funds were limited and she wanted to make them go as far as possible, she expressed an interest in abandoning her normal approach of asking the secretary to make arrangements and doing more extensive search of alternatives. I followed this subject’s travel planning over about nine months and that of two others for shorter time periods. In each of these contexts the methodological emphasis was the naturalistic collection of the facts of the participants, situations, tasks, and the associated role of information in the sense making that occurred. Table 2 provides an overview of the methodology. First, the data collection approaches for the three contexts were similar in that they all employed multiple methods. Interviews, written products and other documentation, and participant generated task diaries were common methods for all three contexts. Observation was used extensively for the work planning study, during a few sessions for travel planning, and minimally (to observe specific problem situations) for the college student study. The college student and travel planning contexts also employed computer logs where access to information was via a workstation and networks. The basic sources— observation, task diaries, computer logs, and documentation generated through the task or problem solving process— as appropriate— were checked for consistency and tied together through interviews. Thus, the trails of actions that are the information mosaics were grounded in the physically observable leavings of the processes being studied and supplemented by the
participants’ recordings of and comments on those actions. Nevertheless, it is not possible to capture every action associated with a task/subtask or problem solving effort. Also, some of the individual actions can be broken into more elementary component actions. The fundamental emphasis of the analysis here is on the ongoing nature of the subjects’ actions. While breakdowns, barriers, stops, and gaps are of interest within the whole of the task or subtask, the concern here is with what drives the doer to continue or move on to another action. Thus, the analytical emphasis is on how the doer makes sense and uses one action or series of actions to select or make further actions. Exclusion and inclusion are both of analytical interest. Understanding when and why someone repeats a series of actions— a pattern— or transitions from one pattern to another also receive analytical attention. The push to start and why and how someone puts on the breaks to end the task or subtask are also matters for analytical attention. Finally, an emphasis on the role of information as made by the participant leads to an interest in what the participants define as information. I abandoned my physical tabletop and sticky notes for the metaphorical tabletop provided by the Inspiration computer program (Helfgott, D., Helfgott, M., & Hoof, B., 1996). Space and length considerations also limit the number of information mosaics that are displayed and the detail that is offered.
Tasks
Contexts
Methods
Duration
Work Planning
Public Agency Staff
Observation (extensive) Task Logs Interviews Documentation
3 years
Courserelated Tasks Class assignments including term papers
College Students
Task Logs Computer Use Logs Group Interviews Individual Interviews Problem Calls Documentation
Assignments ranged in duration from from several days to most of a semester
Travel Planning Work-related travel
Professionals
Observation (limited) Task Logs Computer Use Logs Interviews
Intermittent; spread over nine months
Documentation Table 2: Summary of tasks, contexts, & methods
THREE CONTEXTS The primary concern of the analysis and presentation of findings is in understanding the making or remaking of roundness. As a general pattern the findings for a context first address overall patterns of similarity, difference, and evolution or learning within and between individuals. Then, a sample information mosaic (or mosaics) from the context is discussed and insights gained from the analysis are pointed out. Work Planning The look and feel of the information mosaics for the participants in the work planning process were remarkably stable over the three years of the study. That is, when participants were confronted by a particular subtask (e.g., making a decision, updating the details of a proposed project) within the work planning process, the patterning of their actions over time did not change. Within an information mosaic associated with a given type of often-repeated subtask, certain patterns of action recurred. Thus, not only was there a consistency among information mosaics for the same subtask over time, but within these information mosaics there were sequences of actions that were repeated, though the numbers of iterations of the within mosaic pattern were variable. The patterns of action taken by the participants seemed to incorporate their personal approaches to making their lives in the round. These approaches seem to be influenced by how the participants processed information (e.g., holistically, analytically), reacted to the positive and negative in work life (e.g., anger, laughter, frustration), and what they looked forward to or avoided doing as part of their jobs (e.g., collecting data, getting things done, processing data, trying out ideas). Also influential were the nature of the task at hand, the role of the individual in the work planning task and the overall sense of what makes information relevant and what constituted appropriate sources within the particular organization and situation. In considering how the work planning process participants created roundness for themselves, it seems that individual and organizational factors mediated by interpersonal and group interactions all made a contribution to both individual and organizational rounding.
In comparing information mosaics across participants, it is difficult to tease out the contributors to similarity and difference. The participants all had different roles, jobs, or positions with respect to the work planning process. Their preferences and dispreferences regarding work differed considerably. What seemed to be very similar across the work planning process participants, however, was what constituted appropriate information and sources of that information. For instance, human sources were valued much more highly than forms containing project information. This preference was very much based on the time value of information— “I have much more confidence in what someone told me 10 minutes ago than what is contained on a piece of paper with stuff on it that we got a month ago.” Yet, it is more than that. The relative richness of a telephone conversation with the sound of a person’s voice, pauses, etc. or even an e-mail message with the possibility of easy further interchange and questioning for additional details over a piece of paper is substantial. “There is something about the way they answer that tells me when they aren’t telling me the whole story. Then, right then, I can ask for details or additional support for comments.” Thus, there are good reasons why a person as a source would be preferred in this context. Beyond preferences, there seems to be a norm within this work group regarding who or what constitutes an acceptable source. That is, while the “best stuff” came from people, not all people were seen as good sources. The participants did not deviate from this norm. Lee (1995) makes the point, in a study entitled “Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication,” that “… the medium of e-mail is, in itself, neither rich nor lean. Rather, when richness occurs, it is an emergent property of the interaction of the e-mail medium with its organizational context… ” (p. 156). This finding suggests that at least part of what makes a communication medium rich is how it supports the normal information and communication interactions that are part of the roundness of organizational life. It also seems that one of the things that operationally define what information is in work contexts involves the essential characteristics of that information. In the work-planning context here, fundamental information characteristics are timeliness and lack of ambiguity. The realization of the role of these information characteristics leads to restrictions on what constitutes information in this context, which were not accommodated by existing formal information systems. A sample work planning information mosaic, which is given in Figure 1, illustrates some of the points already mentioned. This is one of many very similar mosaics created by the manager of the organization. It involves the decision-making subtask in the work planning process, one that was invoked many times over the course of the three years of the study. In these decision-
making maps, he repeatedly begins by creating a course of action. He, then, tests his proposed solution by thinking about his proposal to prepare himself for the reactions of others. He, then, sequences though a series of actions: to gather the reactions of others to his initial idea, organize these reactions by grouping this data by topic or issue, and examine the proposal in light of the reactions. Another round of thinking, which focuses on how to accommodate the negatives and keep the positives, is next. Subsequent actions specify the decision requirements in the light of this data gathering and create usually several decision alternatives. Following this in the sample information mosaic are two repetitions of the gather, organize, and examine pattern, which are followed by further thinking about the information collected and finally the selection of an alternative. It is interesting that this manager repeatedly employs the same approach to making a decision and that within the overall mosaics of this type, he uses a repetitive pattern of gather, organize, and examine, punctuated by thinking. While the number of sequences of this pattern range from a minimum of two to a maximum of five repetitions, the sample mosaic captures how this decisionmaker goes about making and remaking his small world. Information in this sample is defined as the reactions, insights, facts, opinions, etc. of the set of people who the decision maker sees as having something to contribute to make the ultimately selected course of action better. The analysis suggests several insights that may have broader applicability. What is labeled here as thinking, which incorporates information use, seems essential for making sense or defining life in the round. Information gathering, collection, seeking are simply means to an end that are not of themselves rounding. There are many examples in the work planning study where “stuff” was collected in the name of information, but which never entered into anyone’s thinking process and, consequently, had no influence. It is when the participants in the work planning process stopped information collection and processing to think and use the available information that the individual and organization had the possibility of making sense or designing what was to be information. This process has an existential feeling to it. As such, it can only give hints of how the use of information in hand feeds this thinking, which, in turn, may lead to modifications in what information is in that context. Physical evidence of use of information and the products of such thinking and associated information use provide hints. To the extent that the thinking process and what constitutes information in that process are visible, paying attention to thinking and what the thinker does physically (information use) may give some important clues for both process and information support.
The previous discussion suggests that the designing depicted by the information mosaics of the work planning process seem to be influenced by many factors. Figure 2 offers a schematic of these factors. The doers start with their knowledge, experience, action preferences, way of thinking, and way of responding to the actions of others. This is not usually a self-contained system. Doers interact with others. The reactions and comments of others, in turn, provide input to the making of the doers. Thus, various organizational, social (e.g., interpersonal and group interactions), and individual factors come into play in the making process. There was not much in the way of change, evolution, or learning evident in the information mosaics of the work planning process. While the process did evolve, the participants maintained their patterns of action within the evolution of overall work planning process. One possible explanation for this lack of change in information mosaics is that the participants were all well established in their jobs and as professionals. That is, the participants’ ways of work were well rounded and the structures of dependency that tied the individuals together in a work process were also well structured. Occasional discussions about including new sources or tying in other
Basic Black Process for Making a Decision
Think (about consequences)
Create (course of action)
Select (couse of action)
Gather (opinions/reactions of those involved)
Think (about problem, alternatives, strenghts, weaknesses)
Organize (arrange and classify)
Examine (reactions: positives, negatives, alternatives)
Examine (alternatives)
Organize (arrange & classify)
Think (about decision requirements & actions)
Brainstorm (with those involved regarding alternatives, strengths, weaknesses)
Specify (key requirements of selected alternative)
Think (about problem needing solution)
Examine (alternatives for strengths & weaknesses)
Create (alternative variations)
Organize (arrange & classify)
Gather (costs & benefits of alternatives + reactions)
Figure 1: Sample Work Planning Mosaic
Way of Thinking (Cognitive)
Action Preferences
Others
Knowledge about task, problem, etc.
Response to the Actions of Others (Affective)
Doer
Interactions with others
The Organization: Rules (e.g., norms) and Resources (e.g., support tasks) Others
Others
Figure 2: Schematic of factors that influence rounding organizations led to statements like: “Yes, we need to involve some of these other public interest groups.” Yet, no action ever took place to try to establish such relationships. Consideration of information mosaics from college student and travel planning contexts, where participants started off in a learning mode may shed light on the evolutionary or learning aspects of rounding. College Students Observing the role of information in the lives of students as they move through their college years is not quite like seeing them start from scratch. They all arrived with baggage of various sorts. At the start of the study, all 20 of the student subjects had some experience with computers. Many had taken a computer-programming course in high school. All had used the WWW in its earliest state, not so much for seeking and finding related to schoolwork, but,
for instance, to follow personal interests or assist in their college search. They all had excellent records of performance in high school and in the college entrance examinations. Yet, for trying to understand how making or rounding of information behavior occurs, this situation of a new beginning provided an eye on their intellectual development in the context of an environment rich in technology as well as electronic and other information resources. The data provides a rich set of information mosaics that show how these students start with their own particular approaches to shaping their information worlds. In turn, the broad learning opportunities of a liberal arts education and the theoretical and methodological traditions of major and minor fields of study help to shape the information worlds of these students. How does this happen? The data support the idea that what people like to do will win out over what they would rather avoid. While all students took a required freshman seminar with the same assignments, what constituted information and the approaches that students employed to gather that information varied considerably reflecting, for instance, what they like and do not like to do. For example, a typical assignment for this course involved reading a couple of texts and writing a comparative essay on some theme. Some students who enjoy gathering information would seek other sources of commentary to add spice to their argument. Others who avoided this information gathering performed detailed content analyses of the texts and organized the evidence to form arguments. A few focused on planning and scheduling, sometimes to the detriment of their product. Such inclinations as gathering, analyzing, and organizing information and completing the plan continued to frequent these students as they moved through the semesters. Thus, there appears to be something very strong inside us that I think of as action instincts that shape how we design our small information worlds. The task, which in the college context consists of assignments and associated requirements formally and informally given by course instructors, continues to be a strong force in rounding. For whatever students’ proclivities are, they will take actions that they would prefer to avoid to meet the assignment. Thus, students who would naturally create a response to an assignment on their own without considering the writings of others will seek other sources if other sources are required, though they minimized such data collection. An individual’s action instincts seem to be stronger though than this task shaping, as students tend to revert to their action preferences. The exception seems to be with respect to the rounding exerted by a concentration (major or minor) in a particular area of study. It is evident in the data that what constitutes an acceptable product (e.g., paper, brief, proof,
experiment, presentation, performance) varies considerably by discipline. Thus, students either conform to the shaping of their selected major or move on to another if the disciplinary approach is too far from their liking. A particularly interesting case involves a student who majors in political science and minors in anthropology. This student likes to collect data and has an analytical bent— enjoys data manipulation. In political science at this college there is a strong emphasis on quantitative data and analysis. Instructors are happiest with a student’s work when the work, especially papers, specify hypotheses, measure independent and dependent variables, perform statistical tests, and where the exposition is logical, concise, and to the point. As this student moved through the courses in the political science major, particularly the methods course, it is interesting to see a focusing or sharpening of actions to conform with what is expected by political science instructors. Another factor here is the ever-increasing body of political science knowledge that comes with the completion of each course and the development of interests. The earlier mosaics (Figure 3a provides a first semester sample information mosaic; Figure 3b offers one for this student as a junior) were characterized by more iterations of information gathering. This sort of exploration was fun for this student with consideration of both information in print (i.e., books, journal articles, popular press) and electronic forms (i.e., WWW). Anything of possible relation to the topic was of interest. As the student accumulated courses in her major, she became much more selective. She focused on sources likely to mirror the quantitative research reports that showed up on the course reading lists. In addition, she sought quantitative data sets that could be employed in statistical analyses of variables of interest or would collect her own data if there were no existing data set. In short, part of majoring in a subject area is learning about what constitutes the acceptable or as one student put it “the good stuff.” This learning also seems to change the shape of actions taken to gather information, to focus attention on certain types of information contained in texts, and to highlight types of data that were not initially part of the student’s consciousness (e.g., variables and their quantitative measurement). The anthropology minor provides an interesting contrast, as there is a contrasting tendency to emphasize the qualitative in anthropological study. While methods such as ethnography or participant observation do not preclude the collection of quantitative data, recording of observed behavior and informants’ responses to questions is much more the norm. Also, the necessary emphasis on a small number of cases because of the intensive character of such research leads to different sorts of analytical strategies. This student’s enjoyment in data collection and analysis seemed to lead to a natural accommodation of the quantitative and qualitative. This led to seeking both
sorts of data and incorporation of both types of analytical strategies into work in both political science and anthropology.
First Semester Information Mosaic
Assignment (term paper Comparative Politics class)
Discussion (in class about assignment)
Think (about general topic area Latin America)
Discussion (with instructor, initial references, places to look)
Browse/Read & Take Notes (on materials)
Get/Search (f or materials)
Text Search & Processing Pattern
Follow-up (on interesting citations)
Refine (topic)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (Books)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (Article Index)
Think (about readings & discussion)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (WWW)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (Books-New Headings)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (Full-text article database)
"I can't look anymore. The due date is in three days."
Think (about which texts will help make argument; organization of paper
Outline of Paper
Review (notes)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (Full-text article database)
Read (paper draft)
Think (what's missing?)
Write (fill in outline)
Revise (paper draft)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (WWW)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (WWW)
"I spent too much time looking for stuff. I can't do that anymore!
Proof Read (paper)
Print (final version & turn in
Figure 3a: Comparison of information mosaics for a political science major – first semester
The role of information technology and electronic information resources within the information mosaics had several aspects: 1) learning about use, 2) learning about resources, and 3) understanding how these tools and resources contribute to rounding. The first two are troublesome for doers as they are constantly changing with the use aspect somewhat less changeable because the evolution is either gradual (e.g., software updates) or when it is major, support is given. For example, the College switched its computer labs from MAC to PC during the second year of the study and encouraged students to do so also with their personal computers. As part of this change, workshops were offered and instructional e-mail was sent to all students. The second aspect is much more difficult to support as adding a new electronic resource may mean adding hundreds of links to other resources in a broad area (e.g., social sciences, arts, humanities, and biology). Typically, information on contents in these gateways
Figure 3b: Comparison of information mosaics for a political science major – sixth semester (end of junior year) Sixth Semester Information Mosaic
Assignment (term paper)
Discussion (in class about assignment)
Think (about general topic area Latin America)
Discussion (with instructor, initial references, places to look)
Think (about organization of paper; what is missing)
Rev iew (notes)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (follow-up)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (initial)
Think (about where to look, what alternative terms to use)
Outline of Paper (initial)
Outline of Paper (rev isel)
Write (fill in outline)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (follow-up)
Write (complete draft)
Text Search & Processing Pattern (follow-up)
Rev ise
Print (final version & turn in
Proof Read
Search Pattern may be repeated
Read (draft)
Rev ise
Read (paper draft)
Think (what's missing?)
to information resources is very broad and sketchy, requiring exploration and use by the doer to note contents. This relates to the general problem of the WWW: that there is an abundance of “stuff” available, but finding it may not be easy. Then, there is the issue of judging quality.
With regard the third point of contribution to rounding, trial and error was a fundamental strategy. “I try things and see how they feel and move on from there.” Besides the trial and error of the students, the greatest force for learning about how to use the technology and the availability of information resources was instruction in the classroom either by the regular instructor or a guest from the campus information resources organization. This approach provides another mechanism for rounding in that the instructor selected what to demonstrate and how to relate it to the material of the course. The result is that students tend to incorporate what they are shown into their repertoires of acceptable search approaches and sources and not be aware of other possibilities. Similarly, what appears on the first search screen of electronic information resources, both focused and limited these students’ attention to included features. They seldom followed links to the more detailed use and search instructions on other screens. Thus, inclusion and exclusion during courses or in other computer-based information systems is an important rounding device. The result is a constraining and structuring, which in one sense is what courses are all about— helping students to focus on issues and resources that are critical to the subject matter. On the other hand, this structuring and limiting is one of the primary mechanisms for shaping. As with work planning the thinking actions in the information mosaics of college students were critical to the shaping of information behavior. The interesting take on this in the college student context is that the nature and character of thinking actions changed as the students proceeded through the first three years of college. For example, for those who favored data collection, items were initially selected without much ado. As one student said: “I was trying to get everything I could.” Thinking, including interaction with things collected, only happened when time was running out and data collection had to stop. Later on, data collection actions became more focused and the thinking action or actual information use became a pattern in follow-up to the sequence of data collection actions. The data collection pattern itself became more refined and richer in information search strategies (e.g., looking for more recent works by an author, following citations found in useful materials, and even using citation indexes when this option was added to the campus network and demonstrated in classes.
These highlights from the college student study support and extend those of the work planning study. The factors of Figure 2 contribute to rounding for the college students also. The tracking of college students over time and as they gain the greater knowledge and expertise of concentration in major and possibly
minor areas of study offers some initial insights into how these factors work together to create life in the round. Learning is rounding and has both individual and social dimensions. Learning is also the means of changing roundness. In short, what these insights from college students adds to the schematic of Figure 2 is that it needs to be visualized as in motion as the choices of doers, others, organizations, etc. include and exclude to round. The last case, which considers a travel-planning task, provides some insight into why and how people find cause to recreate their life in the round. Travel Planning This study in this context started because the first subject was looking forward to doing considerable travel. In the past she had only traveled occasionally— once or twice a year— and had had a secretary make the arrangements, telling her only when she needed to arrive and depart. Her decision to break out of this pattern was motivated by her desire to have more control over departure times, airline choice, seating selection, and meal selection. In addition, she wanted to make certain that she was at least aware of fare options as she wanted to accomplish what she needed to accomplish in the travel within a limited budget. Contributing to her motivation was that she had recently been given personal access via her computer to the WWW and no longer needed to go to a special machine for Web access. Also, she had read a newspaper article that touted several WWW sites as offering cheaper rates. Overall, she wanted more flexibility; this flexibility came at a price, however. Figure 4 captures her first information mosaic. Her plan was to use the WWW to identify options and, then, use a travel agent to book the flight. Her first foray used Travelocity (http://www.travelocity.com/) as the weapon. The typical pattern of first use was to explore the features of the Web site using whatever trip she was planning as the test vehicle. For Travelocity, she tried the Three Best Itineraries (low fare search engine), Flights and Prices (shows available flights and prices selected schedule and offers alternatives), and Timetables. She moved on to the other WWW travel sites available at the time (i.e., FLIFO (http://www.flifo.com/) and Internet Travel Network (http://www. itn.net/)), compared their features and found their cheapest prices. It turned out that Travelocity offered a much cheaper price at the time of this particular comparison. She then called several travel agents in turn. Each took her requirements over the phone with a promise to get back to her; none of them ever did. Finally, she tried the AAA Travel Service and was given a quote that was several hundred dollars higher than the lowest WWW quote. Ultimately, she purchased the cheap ticket via the WWW.
In reflecting on the experience of the first information mosaic, the subject said: “This is great. I’ve found the ideal site. It shows me schedule options. Gives me alternatives. Offers a low fare search engine. I don’t need to look any further.” She ended up changing her mind. On the occasion of her next airline travel requirement, she again tried Travelocity, selected a flight, and tried to make a reservation, but got hung up in some technical glitch. She tried the other available sites and also got hung up and figured that there was a problem with the database. So, she called the airline in question directly and bought the ticket over the phone at the price quoted on the WWW.
Exploration Pattern Initial Travel Planning Mosaic
Access (Travelocity)
Exploration Pattern (repeat for Internet Travel Network)
Register (as "Member")
Explore (site features using actual trip parameters)
Organize (printouts of travel options)
Search (using fine-tuned parameters) Repeated as Necessary
Exploration Pattern (repeat for FLIFO)
Access ("best site"-Travelocity)
Check (options)
Read (introductory material)
Think (about travel options--cost vs. time vs. airline--to fine tune parameters)
Organize (printouts of travel options from exploration)
Reserve (flight)
Figure 4: Sample Information Mosaic for Travel Planning Soon after this second experience she discovered Expedia,(http://www. expedia.com) went through her usual exploratory routine, liked the feel of it, and adopted it as her starting point for any travel search. Travelocity continued to be used to see the available options as the Flights and Prices display provides many (if not all) feasible flight options. This feature is not as flexible or complete in Expedia. Other travel search sites are also checked “just in case.”
Her combined experience with the various travel search options has shown that what appears on the screen, as lowest cost options may not actually be the lowest cost. She, consequently, added a variation to her search pattern by limiting the search to airlines that she has identified as having convenient schedules from her Travelocity search. With this approach she frequently finds cheaper flights than by using the low cost search option. Also, as individual airlines have developed their own web sites and begun to offer bonus frequent flyer miles for ticketing though the site, she added the step of checking these sites and using them for ordering as appropriate. This travel search thing has turned into a hobby for the subject and she often tries new travel search sites that come to her attention. She also employs hotel and rental car search features of these travel web sites as appropriate for the trip. It seems that this subject’s drive to collect data and know what her travel options are, coupled with her experiences in using travel web sites, has led her to a pattern of travel information search that in rounding incorporates learning. Her experiences have led to the realization that the situation changes rapidly with the WWW as new sites appear and hidden policies miss cheaper flights. The resulting skepticism and successful experience with a variety of selfdeveloped checking patterns have led her to an acceptance of both change and variety in her approach. It seems that this positive learning pattern that is contained in the subject’s information mosaics would not have happened if her early attempt to order air travel tickets had not failed. This suggests that it is possible that when things go well and a particular pattern of flight search continues without breakdown, changes in rounding are less likely to occur than when breakdowns or inconsistencies occur. Similar patterns were found with the other two travel site WWW users. However, while adaptive patterns of rounding were evident for these subjects, they did not make travel search a hobby and more quickly chose a flight option without the more intricate patterns or strategies invented by the first subject. Also, these other two travel-planning cases did not have the negative experiences of the first travel planning case. They, consequently, showed much less complex information mosaics without checking and alternatives such as calling an airline. This result, in part, reflects their somewhat less interest in data collection and lack of incentive to invest in search for the cheapest flights. Continuity seems to be a critical thing in rounding. If the structure— resources and rules— works well enough not to cause much pain, then the thinking and focusing necessary to develop new patterns of action is not likely to occur. On the other hand, when breakdown in the ongoing process meets some frustration level, which is likely to vary depending on how an individual responds to
frustration, the doer is more likely to take some action ranging from abandonment to invention. Overall, it seems that roundness is the way that we simplify the world enough that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish. Rounding or designing, in turn, is a continuing process. This change is either gradual in that it flows from the continuing interaction that is defined by roundness (i.e., learning), or somewhat more sudden when a major event in life or some particularly frustrating experience leads us to the realization that redesign is required.
PUTTING THE PIECES BACK TOGETHER A comparative look at the contexts suggests some differences. For the workplanning task, the complex, uncertain, and ambiguous nature of the task presented the participants with numerous challenges. Yet, the seven primary participants were well established in their professional careers and had wellestablished approaches to problem solving. Thus, the process evolved, but the participants’ information mosaics were remarkably stable. The tasks for college students (e.g., term papers, getting the informational inputs for class discussions) were a bit less uncertain and ambiguous. The major uncertainties and ambiguities arose from trying to figure out what the instructor wanted and, then, developing an argument or position that would fit within the constraints of the assignment, topic of the course, and interests of the student. The students in this study all went through the range of feelings and problems associated with reaching a focus described by Kuhlthau (1993). Yet, the cycles (e.g., semesters, course sequences), structures (e.g., majors, minors, required courses,), and time pressures of college life seemed to help students get through all of this with increasing alacrity as they moved through the semesters and years of college. For instance, during the first year of college, the students were novices both in the use and knowledge of information resources (e.g., online catalogs, e-mail, the World Wide Web) and technology and what constituted appropriate data, sources, and strategies for presenting information. They, consequently, had many problems typical of novices at the beginning. As they overcame these problems and learned what to do when things did not work, they began to see both the strengths and weaknesses of the tools that were at their fingertips: that the Web was a major time trap and they needed to be careful not to be consumed by the joy of following hyperlinks around the world. While the travel planners were experienced in their fields, they had relied on others to make travel arrangements in the past. So, they had not thought about or experienced for themselves what it means to define a context for a trip and
the influence of that context on cost, timing, alternative modes of travel and sources of accommodations. They, also, had only limited experience with electronic access to information: all had e-mail access and employed e-mail regularly. All had done some World Wide Web searching, but they considered themselves novices. This placement of the information mosaics from the three contexts in juxtaposition suggests that the influence of task complexity on information behavior suggested by Byström & Järvelin (1995) (cf., Vakkari, 1998) may be evolutionary. What an expert might judge as a simple task, may initially be complex for a novice. Similarly, even those tasks that are judged by all as complex may evolve toward a lesser degree of complexity. It appears that these happenings are a consequence of rounding— the designing of what constitutes information, the specifying of appropriate ways of informing, and the shaping of how information is employed. This exploratory analysis of what I have termed information mosaics provides some empirical evidence from three contexts of how people round their information worlds. Rounding and roundness influence what, where, when, why, and how people need, gather, seek, or use information. The result is far from static, but is dynamic and makes things happen. As people engage in rounding, a key question is whether what constitutes information and informing evolves with the rounding or remains untouched. In the work-planning context learning about information and informing was seldom seen in the information mosaics. In the college student and travel planning contexts, the contexts contributed to the learning of the participants. Thus, while information mosaics represent patterns of action that structure, the consequences of that structure may be limiting or expanding. It is not that one is always preferred over the other. Rounding and roundness may have positive and negative influences from the point of view of the information field. In a positive sense, roundness permits people to cope with their daily life and to deal with information overload. In a negative sense, it cuts people off from seeking and using relevant information, which from the outsider point of view of the information professional and the products of the information field that make life in the round for information professionals (e.g., classification schemes, bibliographic databases, indexes), ought to be relevant. Rounding is important in helping people focus on doing what needs to be done and bringing order out of chaos. On the other hand it may be helpful to provide for learning in rounding. This feedback may at times lead from order to chaos, but it appears continued rounding leads to order again. Figure 2 displays
factors that played a role in rounding for the three contexts explored in this paper. The static picture of Figure 2 misses the influence of movement through time and space. How does this help us in training or being information professionals? First, we need to recognize that what defines our life in the round may not correspond to the doer’s. We need to also realize that what we design as information may not be what the doer has designed as information. In fact, when such differences are apparent, they can serve as clues that we need to pay attention both to what information as process and as thing mean for the doer. Whatever we learn in making this attempt will help us to better design our round to fit their round or at least understand why the two seem irreconcilable. Second, since the process of informing and what constitutes information are possible factors in rounding or designing, our systems and what they carry need to encourage learning. As doers use the information systems and information that they do, we may be able to help them learn about and possibly come to redesign their life in the round. Third, in understanding what constitutes information for doers, we need to understand the qualities or characteristics that such information needs to possess. That is, what doer’s design as information may be more than just the existence of some fact or bibliographic item, but involve such characteristics as timeliness, accuracy, or who created the information. Fourth, thinking is a critical constituent of rounding. Incorporating or supporting thinking as we support informing seems an essential way of adding value in the information field.
CONCLUSION The paper looks at information mosaics from three contexts. In doing this it employs both summary description and specific examples to illustrate how context, task, and individual action preferences come together to create patterns of information behavior. In overview, the individual subjects were happy to repeatedly create information mosaics that were very similar, which indicated a set of preferred strategies. Yet the mosaics did change when the nature of the task required a departure from the comfortable and participants needed to design information and informing actions to bring order out of chaos. For the
college students and travel planners, social (e.g., the major or minor, conversations among peers) and individual mechanisms (e.g., search for options and trial and error) for rounding or designing information actions and what those actions attended to showed an evolution. That is, learning maybe one outcome of the actions represented by an information mosaic. Comparison of information mosaics across individuals involved in the same task showed considerable difference in strategy and pattern. In connection with differences across individuals who were working together in work planning, situations of impasse showed conflicts in understandings, purposes, information collected, and collection strategies; comparisons of mosaics when task flow went smoothly showed greater harmony and correspondence. For instance, one participant would start an information search process at the end with a decision that he would seek to either justify or recant through an iterative process of data gathering, organizing, displaying, and reflecting. In contrast, another participant would emphasize the editing, correction, organizing, and reporting of information without consideration of how and where such information fit into the process. While professionals and researchers in the information field tend to focus on single behaviors and information seeking itself, the information mosaics identify a much broader range of information behaviors. These actions included: understanding and defining information requirements, gathering or selecting data, and processing, editing, organizing, displaying, examining, judging, thinking about, and acting on the information that was gathered. Whatever the result of these actions, it is their use in support of thinking that results in rounding or designing. From this perspective we obtain a very different view of the trials and tribulations that people face in fitting information into their tasks, the roles of different sorts of information resources, and how people utilize information and information resources to help them make sense of their situations. Related to this is the question of how information characteristics such as uncertainty, ambiguity, information richness, etc. might contribute to this rounding or designing of information intensive tasks or problems. There is another analytical point: While these information mosaics are often interrupted by other tasks and events (e.g., lunch time, time to go home, other tasks, meetings), for the purposes of this paper these interruptions have not been addressed. It is perhaps useful to note that this embeddedness of an information mosaic in the roundness of which these tasks are just one out of many often leads to such transitional series of actions as: picking up the pieces, reinventing the wheel, and overtaken by events. Study of these may provide further insights
into rounding and roundness. Finally, there is the question of what role the information field can play in this information designing and rounding? It is not that what we offer is terrible. It is that what we have to offer may not fit. Just understanding that our ideal set of information may not be what others have designed for themselves would be a step forward. It seems to me that we can do better than this. The more we learn about information behavior in context, the better job we can do of supporting the rounding of others. What I am suggesting is nothing more than incorporating learning in our designing and rounding.
REFERENCES BYSTRÖM, K. 1999). Information seekers in context: An analysis of the 'doer' in INSU studies. In T. D. Wilson, & D. K. Allen Exploring the contexts of information behaviour (pp. 82-95). London, UK: Taylor Graham. BYSTRÖM, K., & JÄRVELIN, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing and Management, 31, 191-213. CHATMAN, E. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 193-206. CHATMAN, E. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 207-217. DERVIN, B. (in press). Chaos, order, and sense-making: a proposed theory for information design. In: R. Jacobson. ed., Information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Also available as: (http://edfu.lis.uiuc. edu/allerton/95/s5/ dervin.draft.html (draft dated 3/6/95, accessed 4/6/98)). ELLIS, D. (1989). A behavioral approach to information retrieval systems design. Journal of Documentation, 45, 171-212. ELLIS, D., COX, D., & HALL, K. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 49, 356-369. ELLIS, D., & HAUGAN, M. (1997). Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation, 53, 384-403. GIDDENS, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. HELFGOTT, D., HELFGOTT, M., & HOOF, B. (1996). Inspiration (Version 4.0) Portland, OR: Inspiration Software, Inc. KAPLAN, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: methodology for behavioral science. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
KUHLTHAU, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361-371. KUHLTHAU, C. C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. LEE, A. S. (1994). Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Quarterly, 143-157. LUHMANN, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. NEILL, S. D. (1992). Dilemmas in the study of information: exploring the boundaries of information science. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. SAVOLAINEN, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: approaching information seeking in the context of ‘way of life’. Library and Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294. SOLOMON, P. (1997a). Information behavior in sense making: A three-year case study of work planning. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin, eds., Information seeking in context. London: Taylor Graham, 290-306 SOLOMON, P. (1997). Discovering information behavior in sense making. 1. Time and timing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 1097-1108. SOLOMON, P. (1997). Discovering information behavior in sense making. II. The social. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 1109-1126. SOLOMON, P. (1997). Discovering information behavior in sense making. III. The person. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 1127-1138. VAKKARI, P. (1998). Growth of theories on information seeking: An analysis of growth of a theoretical research program on the relation between task complexity and information seeking. Information Processing and Management, 34, 361-382.
