E- Government: Two Steps Forward, One Step Backwards?
V. Discussion
prefer to talk in person with a librarian at the business school. These results are not surprising. The preference for electronic communication seems to fit with the overall trends in electronic communication in general and among business school students. However, to serve the broadest range of business school students, librarians would have to be available from all communication channels to some extent.
The survey also sought feedback on the level of interest in workshops conducted by librarians. Approximately 70% of the respondents (n¼241) indicated an interest in workshops related directly to course assignments;
64% of the respondents indicated an interest in workshops on specific business topics; 61% indicated an interest in workshops that focus on specific databases.
However, to reach a broader audience given the usage of electronic communication channels, perhaps librarians should pursue alternative approaches to in-person user instruction sessions.Flanagan (1999)captured this idea when she created an instructional tool that could be used “any time, any where.” However, librarians would do well to heed Stoan’s (1991) warning that library instruction tends to ignore the “broader intellectual and social context in which scholars function as information-generating and information seeking individuals (p. 238).” In other words, librarians should create instruction opportunities that fit into the information seekers communication patterns. Table I, which focused on the differences in information seeking behaviors among members of different generations, should be taken into consideration in developing methods of instruction.
Based on the literature review and the data presented above, what can we conclude about how information seekers in general and business school students in particular perceive librarians and libraries? While Taylor’s and Zweizig’s models of information seeking are still valid to some extent, they are in need of updating to reflect the various technological, lifestyle and demographic trends. Rather than consider the user, this model considers the information seeker in his or her environment.Figure 1presents a proposed updated model of information seeking from the perspective of an information seeker that reflects technological advances and combines sources and channels from both the Taylor and Zweizig model as well as additional sources and channels.
The updated model incorporates information received by the infor- mation seeker from the media as well as various agencies and institutions.
Unsolicited information received from the media and agencies influences Table VI
ARL Statistics on User Education Median number of group sessions
Median number of participants
1997 700 9,311
1998 736 9,786
1999 714 9,585
2000 721 9,799
2001 696 10,657
2002 757 11,712
Source:ARL Statistics Interactive Edition.
Available at: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?
task¼setupstats,Accessed February 7, 2004..
overall information seeking behavior. In addition, the information seeker may turn to the media for information, for example, to learn about election results, or news regarding world events.
In the updated model, the notion of personal files has greatly expanded.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the information seeker would have checked the file cabinets and print books and journals on nearby bookcases. Today, information seekers check both print and electronic files, including documents stored on personal computers, laptops and other electronic devices. Technology now allows information seekers to search beyond their own personal files without leaving their offices or homes; information seekers search the World Wide Web for information. Thus, an information seeker may access resources near or far with a computer and network connection
Fig. 1 Model of information seeking.
close at hand. The updated model assumes that the first stop in information seeking is the Internet.
In the 1960s and 1970s, consultation with colleagues primarily would have occurred face to face or perhaps by telephone. Now, of course, communication may also occur via electronic mail and chat. It seems that the librarian is not considered among the first interpersonal sources to be consulted and for that reason, in this model, the librarian is placed within the confines of the library.
The proposed updated model places interpersonal sources after consultation of the Internet, however, the role of interpersonal sources is not clear and further research is needed to validate the model and to determine where interpersonal sources fit into the information seeking process.
Consulting the library formerly required a trip to the library or, perhaps, a telephone call to a librarian. As was the case with the Taylor model, a larger group of information seekers will visit a library, either in-person or virtually, than will consult with a librarian. Consultation with librarians does not require an in-person visit or even a telephone call; information seekers may send an e-mail message to a librarian or in some cases, may chat real-time with a librarian.
VI. Conclusions
Different groups of information seekers have different perspectives of libraries and librarians. Librarians cannot impose their perspective upon the information seeker. Moving away from the notion of user/non-user to information seeker moves a library-centric perspective to the perspective of the information seeker.
Research that has been conducted to date suggests that:
† The Internet has become central to information seeking by many groups of information seekers.
† Libraries and librarians are not central to information seeking in general.
† Academic library “users” view the library as place and the librarian as instructor.
† Factors, such as ease of use and accessibility, continue to influence information seeking.
Librarians must continue to monitor technology and lifestyle changes.
Whatever technology libraries and librarians adopt should fit the culture of the organization and the information seeking behavior of those in the setting.
Adoption of technology should be based on evidence that supports adoption;
evidence that validates the information seekers’ perspective. Further research is needed to fully develop and validate the current model of information
seeking and to determine differences in the model based on different demographic groups. Most importantly, the librarians need to accept the broader framework of the information seeker and develop services that integrate the library and the librarian into this framework.
References
Abels, E. G., Liebscher, P., and Denman, D. W. (1996). Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions.
Part I. Queries.Journal of the American Society for Information Science47(2), 146–158.
Allen, T. J., and Gerstberger, P. G. (1967).Criteria for Selection of an Information Source.
(Working Paper No. 284-67). Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachu- setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Angwin, J., Peers, M., and Squeo, A. M. (2004). Drive force behind offer: technology tears up old business models.Wall Street Journal, 12 February 2004, 1A.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology(1966). Learned Information, Inc., Medford, NJ. v. 1.
ARL Statistics Interactive Edition. (On-line), Available at:http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/
cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task¼setupstats(accessed February 7, 2004).
Auster, E., and Choo, C. W. (1993). Environmental scanning by CEOs in two industries.Journal of the American Society for Information Science44(4), 194 –203.
Bell, S. J. (1998). Weaning them from the Web: teaching online to the MBA Internet generation.Database21(3), 67.
Bjorner, S., and Ardito, S. C. (2003). Online before the Internet: early pioneers tell their stories.Searcher11(6), 36 –46.
Breeding, M. (2003). Instant messaging: it’s not just for kids anymore. Computer in Libraries23(10), 38–40.
Carlson, S. (2001). The deserted library.Chronicle of Higher Education48(12), A35.
Casey, T. (2000).Where People Turn for Information. Paper presented at the Association for Library Trustees and Advocates Program, American Library Association Conference, Chicago, IL, July 9, 2000.
Coffman, S. (2003).Going Live. American Library Association, Chicago.
Crawford, W. (2003). Fleeing the Internet: time to call it quits?Econtent26(11), 42 –43.
CyberAtlas (2003).Global Usage. (On-line), Available at:www.cyberatlas.internet.com (accessed 23 January 2004).
De Rosa, C., Dempsey, L., and Wilson, A. (2004). The 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition: A Report to the OCLC Membership. OCLC, Dublin, OH. (On-line) Available at: http://www.oclc.org/membership/escan/toc.htm (accessed 26 January 2004).
Dewald, N. W. (1999). Web-based library instruction: what is good pedagogy?
Information Technology and Libraries18(1), 26 –31.
Fagan, J. C., and Ruppel, M. (2002). Instant messaging reference: users’ evaluation of library chat.Reference Services Review30(3), 183 –197.
Flanagan, D. L. (1999). Learning anytime, anywhere: designing Web-based business tutorials.Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship4(4), 19 –31.
Goodman, L. M. (2003). E-Commerce (A special report): Consumer guide – writing tools: for students researching a paper, online libraries are increasingly the way to go; Here’s how they stack up.Wall Street Journal, 16 June 2003, R11.
Gunderson, L. (1991). Teaching business sources to MBA students.Colorado Libraries 17, 31 –32.
Harmon, A. (2003). More consumers reach out to touch the screen.New York Times, 17 November 2003, Section 1, Page 1, Column 2.
Horn, J. (2001). The Future is now: reference service for the electronic era. In:Crossing the Divide: Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 15–18 March 2001, Denver, CO. Available at:http://www.ala.
org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/horn.pdf(accessed 20 April 2004).
iProspect survey finds search engines beat all other media for driving visitors to Web sites with 77% of Internet users employing search engines to find Web sites.PR Newswire, 16 September 2002, (On-line). Available at:http://www.findarticles.com/
cf_dls/m4PRN/2002_Sept_16/91531798/p1/article.jhtml (accessed 23 January 2004).
Jackson, M. (2002). A rush to serve: digital reference services and the commitment to 24/7.Advances in Librarianship26, 299 –317.
Judd, V. C., and Tims, B. J. (1996). Integrating bibliographic instruction into a marketing curriculum: a hands-on workshop approach using interactive team- teaching.Reference Services Review24(1), 21–30 and 56.
Katzer, J., and Fletcher, P. (1992). The information environment of managers.Annual Review of Information Science and Technology27, 227 –263. Learned Information, Inc.
Medford, NJ.
Keller, M. A., Reich, V. A., and Herkovic, A. C. (2003). What is a library anymore, anyway? First Monday, (On-line). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/isseus/
issue8_5/keller/(accessed 23 January 2004).
Kilcullen, M. (1998). Teaching librarians to teach: recommendations on what we need to know.Reference Services Review26(2), 7–18.
Lancaster, L. C. (2003). The click and clash of generations. Library Journal, 36–39.
Lenhart, A.et al.(2003). The ever-shifting Internet population: a New look at Internet access and the digital divide. Pew Internet & American Life Project, (On-line).
Available at:http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report¼88(accessed 23 January 2004).
Lipow, A. G. (1999). Serving the remote user: reference service in the digital environment. Keynote address at the Ninth Australasian Information Online and On Disc Conference and Exhibition in Sydney, Australia, January 1999. Available at: http://www.csu.edu.au/special/online99/proceedings99/200.htm/ (accessed 20 April 2004).
Mintzberg, H. (1989).Mintzberg on Management. Free Press, New York.
Morrison, J. L., and Kim, H. (1998). Student preference for cybersearch strategies:
Impact on critical evaluation of sources. Journal of Education for Business 73(5), 264 –268.
Patterson, C. D. (1987). Librarian as teachers: a component of the educational process.Journal of Education for Library and Information Science.28(1), 2–8.
Rose, K. (2003). Network, rest and play: Offering your customers wireless Internet access may mean that they spend more time, and money, in your venue.Technolgy – WiFi Leisure Report18(1), 1–8.
Rosenberg, V. (1967). Factors affecting the preference of industrial personnel for information gathering methods.Information Storage and Retrieval3, 119 –127.
Sackett, J. H. (2001). Planning the new central academic library.New Library World 102(6), 207.
Shill, H. B., and Tonner, S. (2003). Creating a better place: physical improvements in academic libraries, 1995–2002.College and Research Libraries64(6), 431 –466.
Stoan, S. K. (1991). Research and information retrieval among academic researchers:
implications for library instruction.Library Trends39(3), 238 –257.
Sullivan, D. (2003).Searches Per Day, 25 Feburary 2003, (On-line). Available at:http://
www.searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156461.
Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question-Negotiation and information seeking in libraries.
College & Research Libraries29, 178 –194.
Wiegand, W. (1998). Mom and me: a difference in information values. American Libraries29(7), 56.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., and Filipczak, C. (1999). Generation gaps in the classroom.
Training36(11), 48–54.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., and Filipczak, B. (2001). Generation markers.Across the Board 39(4), 20.
Zweizig, D. L. (1976). With our eye on the user: needed research for information and referral in the public library.Drexel Library Quarterly12, 48 –58.
Competition or Convergence? Library and Information Science Education at a Critical Crossroad
Joan C. Durrance
Margaret Mann Collegiate Professor of Information, School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA