by Barbara J. Hampton
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of ILS 537-70
under the supervision of Dr. Mary Brown
at Southern Connecticut State University,
November 2003
Using data from 416 participants in a nation-wide wrtitten survey concerning information seeking behavior ("ISB"), this paper analyzes differences associated with job status (student, professional, clerical/trade, not employed, and retired workers). Users most often reported going to the library to find a specific item or research a specific topic. Few will be surprised by the respondents' naming the Internet as their first choice for personal information, although some variations can be noted among the various job status categories. Accesibility was the reason given for preferring the Internet as a first resource. The most frequent choice for learning "better ways of finding information" was for "figure out how to search" while searching.
Survey research has been used in the information field as a useful technique for providing generalized descriptions of certain aspects of information-seeking behavior. Analysis of responses and patterns is also useful in designing future research studies by identifying issues and terminology meaningful to a particular group of individuals. The survey method utilized in this research is the questionnaire.
A convenience sample was used by 17 researchers distributing paper or electronic questionnaires to participants in the northeastern, northwestern, southeastern, southwestern, south central, and mid-western sections of the United States.
Four hundred sixteen adults participated in the study. Participants were not paid for their participation. Of the participating adults, 65% were female. Respondents' reported highest educational levels were 31% high school, 38% bacchelor's degree, 20% master's degree, and 9% doctoral degree. Age groups represented were disproportionately older middle-aged (46-55 years) 28% ; other groups included: 18-25 years, 19%; 26-35 years, 19%; 36-45 years, 18%; 56-65 years, nine per cent; and over 65 years, 6%. Predominantly, respondents resided in the northeastern United States (61%). All other regions of the country were also represented, excepting the north central: northwest, 13%; southwest, 6%; midwest, 1%; south central, 6%; south east, 12%. The majority of respondents described themselves as professionals (51%). Students comprised the next largest (19%) portion of the sample. Clerical, sales, and trade workers were 12% of the group, retired seniors 8%, and 8% were not employed.
One instrument, delivered either in printed or electronic format, was used for collecting data. No personally identifying data was collected, although most respondents were acquainted with the researcher requesting their participation. The instrument consisted of a cover letter of welcome and directions and 38 items, organized into 8 single and 7 multi-part questions and 7 demographic questions. Each of the 8 single and 7 multi-part questions was designed to elicit information about various aspects of the individual’s information behavior. Data collected by this researcher from a subset of respondents involved in education of gifted and talented students is reported separately in "How Is Information-Seeking Mentored to Gifted and Talented Children?"
This survey was not conducted as a random sample survey but rather represents the family, friends, school and professional acquaintances of the gradudate library school students enrolled in this class. One may anticipate, therefore, that the participants were likely to be better-educated and better acquainted with libraries and librarianship than a true cross-section of American adults would be. While the overall sample was fairly large (416 completed surveys), subgroups were much smaller. For example, only 6 individuals identified their job status (Item 17) as "Professional - Law", with the change of a single response constituting a large percentage shift among the choices.
From the written comments and questions posed by respondents, it is apparent that some were uncertain as to the boundaries between different answers. For example, what is the difference between a "student" and a "student-traditional" or "student-returning"? Who is included in "Professional" and who in "Professional-Other"? Several noted that their choices depended upon the nature of information sought.
The overwhelming impression given by the data collected in this survey is that, when it comes to receiving professional instruction in information-seeking, most users, like Melville's Bartleby the Scrivner, would prefer not to. When asked to choose a method for "learning better ways of finding information", the prevailing answer was to figure it out while searching. See Table 4, Preferred Method of Bibliographic Instruction by Job Status. This held true across most job groups, with the exception of students (unspecified), professionals (unspecified), and professionals-law. Clerical, sales, and trade workers selected online tutorials and "figure it out" with equal frequency.
An important question for future research will be to learn whether those choosing a self-taught trial-and-error method acquire sufficient information skills efficiently. To the extent that a more formalized bibliographic instruction would benefit users, library professionals need to know why these efforts are not received more enthusiastically by users. Does the lack of interest reflect deficiencies in the design, promotion, or presentation of bibliographic instruction? Can such programs be made more convenient or more engaging? Is better public relations sufficient, or are expert teachers needed?
Lawyers, whose careers revolve around intensive and precise library research, had the greatest interest in formal bibliographic instruction. This small subset of respondents (six individuals) selected classes and workshops (67%) and online tutorials (100%). Professionals (unspecified) also favored online tutorials (42%).
Those who more often chose to figure it out themselves included groups at either end of the age and experience spectrum: students and the retired and not employed groups. Perhaps these groups represented those with more time available to explore information sources, particularly on the internet. Current students have probably received bibliographic instruction as a part of their schooling, as do many professionals. Another area for further study would be to identify the extent to which these groups have already received some bibliographic instruction and their evaluation of their experience. Access to information resources (including the Internet) and time spent in information seeking would also be useful factors to correlate to users' preferences in bibliographic instruction.
Ultimately, library professionals must address two important user concerns in seeking assistance from a librarian. First, many are embarrassed by their lack of sophistication in modern information technology. Second, professionals with advanced degrees in sxpert fields such as law, medicine, and engineering may assume that the librarian lacks the necessary grounding in the substance of the field and the methodology of their research requirements. Thus, ISB research needs to address the prevalence of these user perspectives and effective methods for addressing them, both in user training and in subject-specific librarianship. See, e.g.,
The Internet was confirmed as the preferred source of information for personal research by 52% of respondents overall. See Table 2. Among Traditional Students and Students (unspecified), this preference rose to two-thirds of respondents or more. None of the small group of Professionals - Law responding selected the Internet as their first choice for personal information, however.
The next most popular choice of information sources was People (24% of respondents overall). Only those identifying themselves as "Not Employed" did not select this source at all. This may reflect the isolation of those without the traditional conveninet interpersonal contacts that school, work, or long-term social groups.
While 13% overall chose "Books" as their preferred source, only 5% identified "Browsing in Libraries" as the preferred source. While the boundaries of these terms was not stated, one might infer that the former category included books from personal collections or bookstores, while the latter category would inlcude library books.
Sadly, these choices are a reflect of the spectre that haunts libraries: the public library has lost its dominance as a source of information. While one can argue that library professionals can provide superior information resources, this will have little affect unless libraries can compete more successfully for the hearts and minds of users.
Accessibility was the most common reason for choosing a first source of information in the cases of People (44%), Periodicals (25%) and Internet (84%). See Table 3. Users who chose libraries first as information sources cited Reliability (35%) and Confidence in Using It (40%); however these comprised only 5% of respondents overall. Those who named Books and Periodicals first also noted their Reliability (32% and 25%, respecitively). But again, these were a small part of the respondents (13% and 7%, respectively). In the case of People and the Internet as sources, which comprised 24% and 52% of the first choices, Accessibility was identified as the reason for their choice by 44% and 84%, respectively.
Of course, all of the resources noted as first choices (People, Books, Periodicals, and Internet) are, in fact, available at the Library, often both onsite and via remote Internet Access to online public access catalogues, virtual reference services, interlibrary loan, and subscription databases. Research is needed to measure the extent to which Internet access is now used as library access and the public's awareness of this resource.
When asked to identify the primary purpose of library visits, the dominant response was in search of something particular, either by title or topic, together accounting for 71%. See Table 1. Only 6% reported that they do not visit libraries (although it is unclear whether this also excludes remote access to libraries via the Internet). Programs and Bringing Someone Else to the Library appeared as providing only rare impetus for library visits, 3% and 4%, respectively.
Those who identified themselves as "Professionals-Law" cited the search for a particular book or item as the reason for a library visit more often (67%) than other respondents. Students - Traditional (65%), and Students -Returning (32%), Professionals (39%), and Professionals - Education (39%) were most likely to be searching for a particular topic.
Given the importance that users ascribe to finding specific resources and topics at libraries, we find a serious disconnect between users' stated intentions and their reluctance to make use of bibliographic instruction to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their search. One approach that might bridge this gap is improved bibliographic instruction of the captive audiences in school, although dissatisfaction with these experiences may make users even more reluctant to seek out professional library instruction once the school mandate is removed. Alternatively, a new model for bibliographic instruction may be needed.
The willingness of users to turn to people as a first source of information (24% of users overall), second only to the internet, together with a preference for the in-context instruction of "figure it out" while searching (37% of users overall) suggest that a personalized approach to bibliographic instruction might appeal most to users. Libraries need to develop a mechanism to deliver bibliographic instruction in a "just-in-time" format. Reference librarians can become personal guides on the information highway and in the library, demonstrating best practices in the search process while solving a user's information problem.
Further research, experimentaion, and feedback could be used to create classes, workshops, and online tutorials that will attract more users. One aspect of this redesign could incorporate public relations campaigns to inform users of the benefits of bibliographic instructions to meet their immediate needs and interests, thus bringing group instruction closer to the "just-in-time" personalized model.
While the 416 respondents in this survey created a fairly large data pool, the difference among the subgroups have also highlighted relationships that merit analysis and explanation. Random sample surveys with targeted questions and expanded pools of respondents would allow the use of inferential statistics to develop statistical correlations between factors.
Question? Problems? Suggestions? Please contact page owner, Barbara J. Hampton.
Last revised 11 November 2003.