4B: Addressing User Vulnerability in Information Search Models

Sorting through my collective experiences conducting the reference interactions, I remembered just how tenuous my perception was of an entire store or organization based on the single interaction I had with a staff member. One off-putting answer is enough to shake the confidence of any customer or patron that is invested in a particular store or organization. So I found it no surprise when the readings this week focused on how people act and feel while asking a difficult question and the sort of existential crisis that Jones refers to when discussing changing reference processes and the effect on the library. The fact that Jones admits that ready reference may no longer be a major component in the work of future librarians [1] demonstrates that the profession must be prepared to tackle user inquiries that cannot be resolved through a Google search. And the more complicated a question becomes, the more vulnerable a user feels for asking it, as I discovered in my reference interactions.

The separate models that Taylor and Kuhlthau propose are useful in assessing and addressing this vulnerability. I thought it was interesting that Taylor, when explaining the question filters in which librarians gather data, highlighted that dialogue was crucial in subject determination. Taylor specifies that “for the librarian, the important thing is this awareness of the fact that you will need feedback in order to make sure of what you’ve got.” [2] The importance of the back and forth in a reference interaction runs parallel with my experiences, as the initial follow-up questions were essential in articulating the need I was expressing. Yet, if a user is feeling vulnerable in this interaction, they may fail to articulate the question they truly need to ask in order to accomplish their reference goal. That is where Kuhlthau’s findings come in handy. The development of information search process models is fruitful in determining how a user might feel during a stage like question formation, or in Kuhlthau’s case, topic selection. [3] If a user is experiencing anxiety and confusion when approaching a reference professional like a librarian, who might be able to address their complex query, it becomes imperative that these feelings are assuaged during the interaction. The ability to demonstrate confidence in a reference interaction, therefore, becomes a means of satisfying the concerns of a user while moving the dialogue to a place where the librarian and user can negotiate the information that can be provided.

A recurring question keeps appearing at the forefront of my mind each week: how do we convince people that the library is a place worth going to? While Smith and Wong can argue that reference librarians are sorely needed [4], how can we articulate that need to our users? How do we position ourselves as the next step in research when a search algorithm cannot solve the problem alone? I believe the reference interaction is the best start. By demonstrating the capabilities in solving and alleviating users’ concerns during the question process, we as information professionals can embark on the process of solidifying ourselves even further in our communities so as to be ever-more relevant in the ongoing digital age.

--

[1] Janes, J. (2003). “What is reference for?” Reference Services Review, 31(1), p. 24.

[2] Taylor, R. S. (1968). “Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries.” College and Research Libraries, 29, p. 185.

[3] Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). “The Information Search Process” in Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services (2nd Ed). (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited): p. 46.  

[4] Smith, Linda C., and Melissa Autumn Wong. (2017). Reference and Information Services: An Introduction. 5th edition. Santa Barbara, CA. ABC-CLIO.