0% found this document useful (0 votes)
415 views16 pagesBrenda Dervin - Information Needs and Uses
Artigo de Brenda Dervin sobre Necessidade de Informação e uso da informação.
Uploaded by
Bernardo ArribadaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
415 views16 pagesBrenda Dervin - Information Needs and Uses
Artigo de Brenda Dervin sobre Necessidade de Informação e uso da informação.
Uploaded by
Bernardo ArribadaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
OO
41 Information Needs and
Uses
a
BRENDA DERVIN
Ohio State University
MICHAEL NILAN
Syracuse University
es
INTRODUCTION
‘This chapter reviews the post-1978 literature on information needs and
ues, Since prior ARIST chapters on this topic have considered such studies
to have included victually all user studies, we have taken that stance as this
chapter's normative mandate,
‘With this mandate at a baseline, # review of relevant databases yielded
‘more than 300 potentially useful citations since 1978. This finding agrees
with earlier aasesuments of the immensity of the relevant literature base
(CRAWFORD; KRIKELAS).
Faced with such an immense task, we sought to narrow our focus in a way,
that would be generally iluminating of the state of information needs and
uses research, We declded to focus on lsues relating to the conceptuallzations
thet drive the research, This cholee was made for two ressons Fist, it seemed
the natural outgrowth of the ertiques of the stale of research presented In
prlor ARIST chapters. Second, t seemed the logical cholee suggested by the
literature since 1978. Explanations of the basis for these two reasons follow.
‘A coneem for conceptual impoverishment in the Information necds and
wes literature has run through past ARIST chapters ke a thin but obvious
threed of many colors. The concern has manifested Itself as cals to: 1) take
‘advantage of theory from the social sclenees (MENZEL); 2) develop theories
‘The authors are grateful to Kathleen Clark (graduate student, Ohio State
University) Jae Chul Shim (graduate students University of Washington),
Gordon Miter (graduate student, Rutgers Ur fand Richard Pusater
(undergraduate, University of Washington) for thelt aalatance with libeay.
‘Annual Review of Information Scene and Technology (ARIST), Volume 2, 1908
Narva. Wilms, Etter
Publied forthe Amrian Society fr Information Seance (ASIS)
‘by Knowiedp Industry Ptenony, In, 4 BRENDA DERVIN AND MICHAEL NILAN
‘and conceptual frameworks (CRANE; CRAWFORD; LIN & GARVEY;
PAISLEY, 1968); and 3) improve the predictive value of theory (LIPETZ),
{In addition, i issues of methodologieal choice and attitudinal perspective are
Seen as rooted in conceptualization, ARIST authors ALLEN, HERNER &
HERNER, and MARTYN can also be defined as making a eall for conceptual
attention,
‘Three quotes typify the strongest of the tatements from prior ARIST
chapters:
there is a growing realization. .of the Inek of and need for a
‘conceptual framework within which the enormous amount of
ata, . can be meaningfully Integrated (LIN & GARVEY, p. 6).
Information iss human asset that can be exploited for the
Improvement of the human condition. In order to explolt this
resource fully, a change In the attitudes ofthe whole community
{e, Information selence community}, of the seale of a sock!
revolution, is required. MARTYN, p. 21)
‘The predictive value of theory In this fleld Is tl extremely poor.
But it seems clear that, at least fr the next few yeas, the pre
valing path to information system development will continue to
bbe through only dimly enlightened trial and error, (LIPETZ, p.28)
‘The second reaton for focusing on conceptuslization here is rooted in our
observation of the current information needs and uses Ilterature, Ths itera:
ture exhibits a tension, On the one hand, mott of the empitial studies look
very much like those reviewed in past ARIST chapter. On the other, «
umber of detalled critial eatays have emerged calling for fundamental
‘eastesaments of what information needs and uset reearch Is about, These
‘essays address, in particular, « concern for conceptualization and, more
Darticulary, a coneem for the nature of basle astumptions and deffnitions,
‘These estays (BELKIN, 1978; BELKIN ET AL., 19824; DERR; DERVIN,
19834; WERSIG & WINDEL; THOMAS D. WILSON, 1981, 1984) prov
views of the tretment of basic concepté such as information and Informa.
tion need and/or underlying premises about the nature of Information service
tnd use and conclude that confusion about basle concepts is widespread and
underlying premises may be untenable, Typlcal statements include these:
assumptions underlying {typleal information retleval systems]
sre sufficiently divorced from reality to make them quite unten
able, (BELKIN ET AL,, 19824, p63)
+ +.the problem {in information needs research} seems to le not
#0 much with the lack of a single definition as with a fllure to
{wo a definition appropriate to the. nvestigaion. (THOMAS D.
WILSON, 1981, p. 3)
INFORMATION NEEDS AND USES 5
the empirically supported theoretical basis of information
Science, as far as users are concemed, is extremely poor
(OWERSIG & WINDEL, p. 12)
In the above erticisms, the term “coneeptualzation™ Is used in two senses.
‘The fist refers to what is usually more commonly called theorizing, the
need for statements of expected relationships between variables. The second
refers to laek of definition and clear premises for focusing on variables and
(enerating research questions,
Here conceptualization is used In the second sente for two reasons. Fint,
efinitional conceptualiztion ls seen ax a necessary precursor to forming
theories. Second, the Innovative work in the iterature since 1978 emphasizes
efiniton. Its this definitional work that ts the primary focus of this chapter,
‘In Implementing this focu, this chapter deviate from prior ARIST reviews
‘in two significant ways. Fit, little mention is made In this review of the
itferences between information systems (e.., catalog, brary, online system),
subsets of users (6, students or adult, sclentsts or lay people), or contexts
of use (e., occupational, recreational, or educational), These distinctions
ste referred to only if they aid understanding. Otherwise, we igore them to
highlight those features common to the conceptual isues addressed,
‘The second major deviation is that thls chapter reviews both erticalesays
and empirical work. To focus only on emplrical work since 1978 would mis-
‘present the Iterature because so mitch of the attention (9 information
needs and wes research hat been essentially ealing for a change in these
‘emprial approaches,
‘THE IMPETUS FOR CONCEPTUAL GROWTH
‘The recent spurt of emphasis on conceptual growth does not appear to
result only from eritclams of reearch per ve. Rather, the literature points to
‘4 major tension between information tclence research and_pracice, The
tension results from the charge that studies have not informed practice. The
tension so dominates the recent literature and 40 influences recent advances
‘that it deserves special review.
‘THE PRACTICE MANDATE FOR USER-NEED ORIENTED STUDIES
In a series of crtiea! exays, a number of authors have assessed the utlty
ot these studies to date, They agree that the research has provided litle
‘guidance. STONE, for example, aserts thatthe literature gives little guldance
to lbrarians on how to meet the needs of humanities scholars and is more
UUkely to confuse than elucidate. THOMAS D. WILSON (1984) states that the
tervice implications from past work have not been cler. WHITE concludes
that the studies have reiterated only what information systema have put in
‘were’ minds and have not helped us to deal with real problems. Others have 6 BRENDA DERVIN AND MICHAEL NILAN
made related charges (BELKIN, 1984; BELKIN ET AL., 1988; CRONIN;
DERVIN, 1977, 1983b; MARON; MICK BT AL; ZWEIZIG),
‘The eal for research wseful to practice arses also from the changing funds-
‘mental understandings of the nature of the services provided by information
systems and services
Not everyone agrees with these propositions, and the dissenting voles are
reviewed below. Nevertheles, the agreement is so strong in the current
critical iterature that it constitutes & kind of rallying call for research on ine
formation needs and uses,
‘Thete fundamental understandings en be summarized in four propositions:
(© Information systems could serve users betterincrease their
ty to ther ellnts and be more accountable to them.
© To serve clientele better, user needs and uses must become &
central focus of system operation
‘© Serving clientele better may requlre Implementation of a
system redesign mandate
‘© Information systems have not capitalized on technology to
help them serve clientele better.
‘The dlacoune relevant to each proposition is reviewed below through a
felection of germane authors,
‘The Call for Serving Clientele Batter
Several intersecting trends appear to be driving thls call. One Isa wish to
decrease the marginality (THOMAS D. WILSON (1981) used this term) of
‘many Information serices—in eatence, to increase use. Based on empirical
‘evidence, a host of authors decry the low use of virtually every kin of Infor-
‘ation system. Examples include: CHEN & HERNON (1982), DERVIN
(1980), and WHITE on the low use of librales by eitizens; MENDEZ on the
low wie of information services by humanits; and STIEG on the low ute of
Information sources by historians. Other authors (BALLARD; COOPER,
19760; MOHR; THOMAS D. WILSON, 1981) make the same observations in
teneral terms,
‘Another trend lending tothe cll to serve clientele betters the concer for
tmplrieal evidence showing imbalances in Information flows to traditionally
‘underserved cllentele (BARUGH; DERVIN, 1980; DURRANCE, 1982).
A third trend ls the increased call for accountability to elentsle commu
nities maniested in shifts in ystem performance measurement from pretcrp
tive professional standards to measures based at last partly on assessments of
‘how well clientele needs have been served (BALLARD; BRENNER ET AL.
BENGE; BLAGDEN, 1980s, 19805; BOOKSTEIN; COOPER, 1978:
DELIA, 1980b; DETWEILER; DUMONT & DUMONT: FORD: HEIM:
LYNCH, MOHR; PALMOUR’ ET AL, 1980; ROBERTSON; SELL;
PATRICK WILSON, 1978, 1983),
INFORMATION NEEDS AND USES 1
‘The Call for the Centrality of
User Datined Information Needs and Uses
In a related series of crtieal easays, a general call has been to make Infor-
‘mation needs and uses a central focus of Information eystems and, for many
authors, the central focus (BELKIN, 1984; GARVEY ET AL; MICK ET ALj,
‘THOMAS D, WILSON, 1981). Tas call ls lustrated by two quotes
--lt becomes Increasingly clear that the success of information
services Is more likely to be achleved through adjusting the
services to meet the specific needs of an individual rather than
trying to adapt the individual user to match the wholesale out-
Dut of an Information system. (GARVEY ET AL.,p. 256)
Ettective transition Into the information age will require ewiteh-
‘ing from Information systems that are technology and content
driven to Information systems that are user driven, (MICK ET
‘AL. p. 355)
‘These calls have generally focused on a recognition that both research and
practice now look at users in terms of the information system orientations
and that we need to focus on the users themselves. Among those who have
called for the switch to user orientations In information ryttom practice and
research are: BELKIN (1964), BELKIN ET AL. (19824; 19620), BRETON,
CRONIN, DERVIN (1977; 1980; 19834; 19830), DURRANCE (1984),
FORD, GARVEY BT AL., JARVELIN & REPO, KRIKELAS, LOWRY,
MACMULLIN & TAYLOR, MARON, OFORL-DWUMFUO, PAISLEY (1980),
ROBERTSON, VERMUELEN, WHITE, WILLIAMSON, and WOOSTER,
Other terms uted to describe this switch are user orientations vs. technology,
content, document, service, data, and observer orfentatlons.
These calls point to the lack of user orlentations as « major (for many the
‘major) stumbling block to more effielent and effective service, ‘The tauto-
logteal relationship between practice and research in thie regard was emphe-
sized by DERVIN (1983p) and by MARON. System orientations generate
the research, which in turn generates findings that rity system orientations
‘The Call for Implementing » System Invention Mandate
‘An important aspect of the general all for refocusing attention on users
a the potential for the results to be used in reinventing and redesigning
systems, For most of the volces, the call for user-oriented emphases in
systems is weak. No specific implication for service or system design result.
mn contrast, a few scholar converge in crltleal exsays on explicit calls for
‘making information systems user oriented and seo user research s the way to
Implement the changes. 8 BRENDA DERVIN AND MICHAEL NILAN
‘The call for system changes includes virtually every aspect of wit touches
the uier—ie., the way that documents and materials are stored, the records
that ae created to locate documents and materials, and the person-machine
‘or person-person links. Proposed useroriented changes include:
‘© ‘Treating documents in various ways to make the system more
‘meaningful to users (SWIFT ET AL.).
© Devising new indexes based on userrlevant criteria to supple-
‘ment subjectorented indexes (BRETON; DERVIN, 19836;
MACMULLIN & TAYLOR).
‘© Including emotionally oriented indexes that address emotional
imensions of experience among the ways to access materials,
(DERVIN 1983p; MCMULLEN),
‘© Changing the procedures by which uter needs are assessed in
practice, from keyword, symbol-matching, and subject orienta.
tons to userproblematie situations (BELKIN ET AL., 19824,
1982; DERVIN & DEWDNEY; HOLLNAGEL: ODDY;
OFORL-DWUMFUO),
(© Presenting information In whatever form the end user requires
(DAVIES).
Many of these calls imply a mandate fo responsive, flexible system design
‘that is orfented toward user needs, LANS, for example, asks for systems thet
fre flexible and able to adapt Lo changing user needs. BRENNER ET AL.
‘usert that Information systems must constantly respond to end users and
change as the users do. BELKIN (1980), DERVIN & DEWDNEY, and ODDY
call for systems that can elicit user need statements through an interactive,
respontive dialog.
‘The Call for Captalizing on Technology
In this context, many authors view technology as the way to reotlent
systems to users. Many also belleve that this potential has remained potential
id that despite technological power, information ystems remain mainly
“giant matching devices" (BRENNER ET AL,;JARVELIN & REPO).
1 Recognition of « Research Gap
IIs n the context of these calls for eortenting the practice and evaluation
of information systems to users thatthe ertilsm of the avallable research on
Information needs and uses is weverest. Among thet eles there Is agreement
that reeareh has not yet provided guidance for the reotentation. Yet, most
believe that the quest is stil hopeful and Issue a challenge for the com
decades of research on information needs and uses. Three author lustrate
this hope (BRENNER ET AL.; HEIM; MOHR).
INFORMATION NEEDS AND USES 9
‘Counter Voleet
Dissenting volces are also heard, SHINEBOURNE, for example, challenges
that there Is “something rather absurd in being constantly enjlned to mest
the needs of the users” (p. 197) and elts studles suggesting that when libra.
Jes have probed needs, the outcomes have been wore rather than bette,
Suggesting that the field has been “charmed by incantations about use?
heeds,” he calls for efforts to develop better procedures to more fully
describe the features of texts and materials,
While SHINEBOURNE presents the most fully cast distenting argument,
‘others agree with him. LANCASTER and MARTYN & LANCASTER dismiss
Information needs assesment studies as weak or “largely a waste of time”
(LANCASTER, p. 308); ABRAHAM warns against exaggerating user assess:
‘ments in brary evaluation; BALLARD cautions against expectations that are
too high, refering to numerous socal sclence studies that heve shown how
hard its to change behavior.
‘A diferent counter volce from those above suggests that what is involved
In these lasues ts not having to choose between user vs. system orlentatlons
but rather understanding when a particular orentation will be most produ.
tive, THOMAS D. WILSON (1981) makes thi point when he cll for use of
research definitions that are appropriate to the purpote. DERVIN (1983)
‘makes the same point when she sugges that there are utiles to be derived
from both orientations.
BASELINE PORTRAIT OF INFORMATION
NEEDS AND USES STUDIES
Without the context above, it would be difficult to make sense of the in-
formation needs and uses literature since 1978. At best, one would beable to
‘observe a certain schizophrenia. On the one hand, the brunt of the work
looks much like work reviewed in prior ARIST chapters, On the other, «
‘small but significant portion of the work is going off In seemingly unrelated
rections,
In terms of the discussion above, it seems that mott of the studies con-
tine to observe users in terms of ystems while a few studes are finding wayt
to observe users in terme of users,
‘The system-oriented studies are reviewed briefly here because they provide
‘8 baseline portal of the context within which some researchers are forging
ahead, against tradition, to provide conceptual alternatives,
‘A typleal study Inthe systemsoriented gente examines the extent to
‘which a respondent (user of potential wer of an information system) hs: 1)
wed one oF more information systems, used one ot more diferent kinds of
Information services or materials; 2) sees one or more buries to the use of
{he information system; and 3) reports satlfaction with various attributes of
the aystem and access to It 10 BRENDA DERVIN AND MICHAEL NILAN
A typleal study has tried to explain differences among respondents of
these “information behavior” dimensions with such predictors as demo-
traphle (¢., age, education, sex), soclologeal (eg, group membership), life
style (eg, Interests and activities), and task description (e.g, purpove for con.
tacting system).
Many studies since 1978 fit primarily Into this systemortented genre,
Examples include those by: AIYEPEKU (1982s; 1982b; 1982c), BEAL,
BLACKIE & SMITH, BISHOP & LEWIS, BREMBER & LEGGATE, CHEN &
BURGER, CHEN & HERNON (1950; 1982), FISCHER, HIBBERD &
MEADOWS, HODOWANEC, MANCALL & DROTT,’ MOREHEAD,
PALMOUR BT AL. (1980), SELL, SINGH, STIEG, SUMMERS, and
SUMMERS ET AL.
Since an emphasis on user needs permeates the mandate for user-oriented
research and system design as described In eatler sections of this chapter, a
description of how these studies have dealt with the concept of “information
needs" is appropriate.
‘Most of these studies imply thatthe “Information behaviors” obeerved are
{indexing information needs and uses, Usually, the studies have left the terms
“information needs” and “Information uses" undefined, and it is implied that
by knowing how users have or might ue systema, one knows what thelr needs
‘are or might be.
Because various fundamental terms are used Interchangesbly and not
defined n these studs, extracting definitional patterns isnot straightforward.
By focusing on what the studies seem Wo imply to be evidence of need, it
‘becomes possible to extract six afferent approaches to “Information necds
‘assessment” that underlethisrystem-orlentedlterature, These sx approaches
fare described below, each iustrated with a typleal study thet Incorporates
‘the approach. No study was found that uted only one of these approaches;
the typleal study used three or more. The studes selected provide particularly
‘lear examples of Implementation,
‘The Demand on System/Resources Approvch
‘This approach measures the extent to which users use different kinds of
sources, media, systems, documents, materials or channels. Need is Implied as
‘assented from portalts of where demand is greatert or where It les than it
‘ught to be, by profesional judgment. A typical example isthe study by
STIEG of the information needs of historians, which focused primary on
how much the histortans used different information channels.
‘The Awareness Approach
‘Thete measurements focus on determining respondent awareness of
ccurent services. Need Is implied as assesed where areat of awarenest are
