This study will examine how institutional values relate to the values reflected by the public space of a library environment. The public space is the ‘‘con- structed environment of the organization’’ (Schein, p. 3) that includes both artifacts and public documents. In theoretical terms, the elements being investigated revolve around the notion of how the process of organizing and structuring space reflects the cultural values of the organizers.
Just as users are engaged in a sense-making process (Dervin, 1992) during their quest to reduce uncertainty in their situations, organizations also engage in a similar process, albeit from a different perspective (Weick, 1991).
Sense-Making from an Institutional Perspective
Sense-making in organizations is grounded in the creation of identity (Weick, p. 22). Individuals within the organization act within a particular sociocultural context that is bounded by the rules and visions of the insti- tution. Although an organizational member is still an individual, in an or- ganizational context he or she works within the parameters set forth by the collective. The individual’s role is a dual one, where that person is his or her own agent as well as a representative of the institutional value and belief system (Weick, p. 23). Individuals ‘‘simultaneously try to shape and react to the environments they face’’ (Weick, p. 23). As institutional members and proponents of institutional culture and norms, librarians and other indi- viduals responsible for the operation and design of the system, create a system that essentially reflects those values and norms.
Another facet of sense-making is the notion of retrospect (Weick). The present is really a moment that culminates a particular history of a par- ticular environment. When any individual (sense-maker) within an institu- tion needs to make a decision he or she basically makes that decision within a historical context created by the institution over time while bringing in
elements of the future. Decisions are not necessarily made in situations where uncertainty is lowered by demands for more information.
Winograd and Flores (1986) similarly pointed out that one cannot ask how objects are defined without understanding the role of tradition in the process. People and situations exist ‘‘ywithin a pre-understanding deter- mined by the history of our interactions with others who share the tradi- tion’’ (Winograd & Flores, p. 7). The way that people see things depends on their ‘‘traditions,’’ or world-view. How librarians create, define and discuss their world is also bounded by tradition. Part of this investigation is an effort to describe the traditions that shape the environment in relation to the values that emerge from those traditions.
The notion of ‘‘retrospect’’ (Weick, p. 24) in organizational sense-making suggests that any one individual is not necessarily responsible for any one element that exists within the information system – be it a physical entity or an institutional rule. The role of information provision does not need to be examined in the present but as a culmination of concepts and ideas that are based in historical evidence. The process of creating an organizational re- ality is not one that exists in any particular moment in time. Librarians don’t just do their tasks as a knee jerk response to a situation that is focused in a present context. Their actions are inextricably linked to the library’s fundamental belief system that is grounded in institutional and professional ideologies, policies, rules and norms. Weick postulates, the stronger and more defined the value and belief structure is within an institution the more the guidance it provides to the individuals acting within.
Objects exist in environments. These objects can be meaningful or not depending on if and how they are perceived, ordered, and named. Once meaningful order is created, it is considered as being socially constructed. In turn, the socially created world becomes a constraint upon its creators in that it serves as a framework of rules that maintain order and give distinct boundaries to the environment. Environments are ‘‘enacted’’ (Weick, p. 30) by people, meaning that certain elements out of a potentially infinite range of possibilities are brought to the foreground and given ‘‘life’’ and meaning.
The relevance of this to the library environment is particularly evident when thinking about the nature of library collections. On the one hand, infor- mation providers define and bring into a system a variety of information bearing objects that they feel are potentially useful to the user community.
On the other hand, those objects serve as constraints that ultimately define the system in terms of content/subject matter and, at the same time, affect the actions of information providers with respect to classifying and organizing that environment in a meaningful way. Information objects are
‘‘enacted’’ by individuals who are part of an institutional history. In turn, the cultural values create a framework within which those objects are enacted.
As much as sense-making is often viewed as an individual process, Weick reminds us that it is also a very social one. Even though individuals make choices, in an institutional context they are made within previously estab- lished social norms and boundaries. It is a given that in some way the choices made will have to be ‘‘implemented, or understood, or approved by others’’ (Weick, p. 39). This becomes an interesting issue in the library environment because the ‘‘other’’ is a group that is not resident within the institution, but is a critical factor in the decision-making processes of the library. A collection development librarian works within her institutional constraint (budget, space, etc) as well as within constraints that are related to users, and the knowledge and perception the library has about users. The librarian’s decision is made in relation to a socially constructed ‘‘other.’’
‘‘Sense-making is never solitary because what a person does internally is contingent on others. Even monologues and one-way communications pre- sume an audience’’ (Weick, p. 40). This element of the sense-making theory brings the user into the system in a theoretical way.
Institutional sense-making is an ongoing process. It is assumed that peo- ple are always in the middle of doing something that is essentially a frame temporarily extracted from a larger continuum of action. If a person is in the middle of doing a project, then his vision is basically focused on elements in his ongoing environments that affect those projects.
A response to the reference question is a frame that is merely a moment in time extracted from a larger process, such as reference service. And reference service is a part of the process of organizational ideology that frames the importance of such a service, and so forth. It is suggested that everyday action is linked to a value system that is part of a larger frame. This element of the sense-making theory puts action within a contextual frame.
Finally, Weick writes that plausibility is more of a goal in the sense- making process than accuracy. ‘‘The strength of sense-making as a per- spective derives from the fact that it does not rely on accuracy, and its model is not object perception. Instead, sense-making is about plausibility, prag- matics, coherence, reasonableness, creation, invention, and instrumentality’’
(Weick, p. 57). The sense-making theory, as a theoretical framework, sug- gests that the process of information retrieval and its result are negotiable and not always based in precision or exact response.
These principles of institutional sense-making have been applied to an information provision environment in the following way. Once information
providers enact a process or product, a tangible outcome results. That out- come, for the purposes of this study, will be examined as an artifact within the public space of the information system. These outcomes are inextricably linked to the social context from which the information provider community is derived. This project will attempt to explain the relationship between outcome and social context. The providers’ plans and efforts to define themselves in the institutional context also serve as cues in understanding the goals and ideals of the community that, in turn, are instantiated within the processes and products of information provision.
Artifacts
Information providers create a context of information provision that in- volves making sense of their environments in relation to a defined user community. The artifact, or the system, is the result of their efforts. It is also assumed that the values of information providers are instantiated in the artifact. This section will briefly discuss how artifacts are viewed in this study.
An artifact is, asGagliardi (1992, p. 3)writes, ‘‘y(a) product of human action which exists independently of its creator; (b) intentional, it aims, that is, at solving a problem or satisfying a need; and (c) perceived by the senses, in that it is endowed with its own corporeality or physicality. In this sense, the information system is viewed as an artifact and my objective is to un- derstand how values shape and define that artifact as well as what priorities are projected by that artifact.
Artifacts can be considered as physical expressions of cultural values.
Gagliardi suggests that artifacts have both practical and hermeneutic di- mensions. The system is both a functional unit and a product of human action. The information system can be viewed as an entity with a functional purpose. It is a place where one goes to get information, a book, read the paper, etc. At another level, the information system is a purposefully de- signed physical environment that embodies and reflects the beliefs and ef- forts of the people who created it as well as assumptions about the people for whom the system is designed. Values underscore and guide the processes of institutional creation and maintenance. Artifacts embody some part of those values and assumptions.
Information providers make choices that create rules (such as policies, procedures, etc) and they make choices that affect the order of the infor- mation system. Their rules govern their choices and, in turn, those choices
serve as guidelines for action within the environment. The choices providers make are also constrained by internal and external forces (e.g. finance, space, ideology, etc). Systems cannot include everything. The act of selection is a value-laden process that is further embedded within an institutional sense-making framework
Arranging Physical and Cognitive Space
Just as physical space represents thoughts, purpose and evokes, meaning and action, so does the construction of the cognitive elements of an information retrieval system. In a way, placing concepts, words, thoughts, and ideas in logical order is not unlike the arranging space in the physical domain.
The purpose of such classification and demarcation is to make order out of an otherwise chaotic world. Order, however, is often taken for granted.
Boundaries appear fixed only because our minds perceive them as being so.
How the world is ‘‘cut up’’ is really an action that is bounded by social norms and rules.
A library is an example of a place that creates an image of order. The way any library is organized is only one alternative out of a potentially limitless possibility of choices. Zerubavel (1997, p. 3)points out that ‘‘the way we draw lines’’ varies considerably from one society to another as well as across historical periods within the same society. He further suggests that, to un- derstand social order, it is critical to understand how those lines are drawn.
Finally, those lines are only real and visible to the social entity that creates them and to those who understand their purpose.
Classification is both a personal and social act. Zerubavel (1997)writes that ‘‘[a]fter all, the way we happen to draw the line between ‘‘classical’’ and
‘‘popular’’ music or between ‘‘drama’’ and ‘‘comedy’’ is remarkably similar to the way others do, despite the fact that it is neither natural nor logical’’
(Zerubavel, 1997, p. 53). The act of creating an information system is part of a larger social/historical context. The process of making sense within the institution is relative to the institution, in a collective sense, as well as to the constituents of that institution for whom it is designed. Those who create order make the choices that define that order.
Where there is classification and division in a social environment, it is not uncommon to find ‘‘border disputes’’ (Zerubavel, 1997, p. 64).
Zerubavel (1997, p. 64)writes that such boundary disputes can range from legislative battles over speed limits to ‘‘academic debates over the bound- aries between species.’’
Research in IR literature points out that people can’t find what they seek in IR systems. Such problems are typically viewed as retrieval problems (e.g. the system didn’t produce because the search strategy was off; the user didn’t use the right key words; something technical went wrong, etc.).
Perhaps it is also possible to view these problems as emerging from a mental
‘‘border dispute’’ between users and providers. The problem of system use need not reside only at the point of contact a user makes with the system. This proposed theoretical framework facilitates examination of borders that are created by information providers. In short, the battles fought on the grounds of the information system might well be cognitive ones that arise out of some kind of misunderstanding that arises per- taining to how the system presents itself to users and their interpretation thereof.
Culture, Artifacts, and Values
The purpose of this section is to show the relationship between artifacts, culture and values. Schein’s (1984) model will be used in a modified form (see Figure 1) to discuss and integrate the theoretical elements previously discussed into one framework. Culture is defined as:
ythe pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, p. 3).
Culture exists within the norms and structures that are taken for granted and that constitute a groups’ existence. Part of a group’s culture can be found in the visible elements of its environment that exist as visible artifacts.
Schein (p. 3) defines these artifacts as ‘‘the constructed environment of the organization, its architecture, technology, office layout, manner of dress, visible or audible behavior patterns, and public documents such as charters, employee orientation materials, and stories.’’ From the study of artifacts one can begin to understand how a group constructs its reality and gain insight into ‘‘how’’ the reality is constructed in that specific way. To begin to understand why a group does certain things one needs to examine the values that define and are defined by the group.
Values are typically unobservable but they can be inferred from objects and behaviors that exist within the context in question. Institutional values are, more often than not, articulated in some way. The value system
is the result of conscious thought and rationalization of the group’s everyday reality. Values result from ‘‘ywhat people say is the reason for their behavior, what they ideally would like those reasons to be’’ (Schein, 1984, p. 3).
But to truly understand a culture, its tacit, unspoken and taken for granted elements need to be discovered. Values, once enacted, often result as a ‘‘yunderlying assumption (s) about how things really are. As the as- sumption is increasingly taken for granted, it drops out of awareness’’
(Schein, 1984, p. 4).
Such assumptions are very powerful because it becomes less possible to confront and debate something that is considered so fundamental to the belief system of the group that it is virtually unchallengeable. For instance, if one were to ask a librarian why one should read one would most certainly be considered odd, at best. Yet, this notion exists as a basic value as well as an assumption of the library environment. A value that is non-debatable is
Fig. 1. Cultural levels, adapted from Schein, 1984.
probably best considered as a cultural assumption, while a debatable state- ment is probably best defined as a value (Schein, 1984).
METHODOLOGY
Objectives, Definitions, and Assumptions
The first objective of this investigation is to identify values that are reflected in the physical space of a library and the texts produced by the library about itself. The second objective is to classify and analyze the values discovered.
In order to answer the research questions, it was determined that the sources of data would be twofold. First, in order to characterize the physical/in- tellectual space of the library I would require access to the physical envi- ronment. Second, I needed to identify and gain access to institutional documents that would potentially contain statements from which institu- tional values could be derived.
Although use is not studied in this investigation it is always assumed that the environment is designed for users and, therefore, must reflect certain values and assumption that information providers make about users. Meth- odologically, this limits my investigation to only those areas that are directly accessed by users.
Information providers, based on theoretical premises presented, are not viewed as only those people who are currently working at the library. The term ‘‘information providers’’ is used generally to represent all the people who, in the past and present, had some input into the design and function of the system. It is assumed here, that, over time, the institutional identity is made more concrete in organizational documents that essentially define the visions, functions, processes, goals, objectives, and future directions of the institution.
Setting
The site selected for this study is a public library located in central New Jersey. This specific site was selected for several reasons: it was convenient;
the administration was supportive, thus alleviating many issues of access;
and the administrative organization was excellent, so documentation was readily available. Furthermore, the actual physical space was small enough to be investigated within a reasonable period of time.
Access
In general, access did not present any problematic issues since most of the objects being investigated were part of the public domain. None of the information requested contained any sensitive material. Human subjects were not a consideration in this project since the objective was to understand how human values are embedded in the physical/textual environment rather than in human behavior. Unexpectedly, the primary obstacle in this study was that of information overload. Library X holds so much information about itself, its history, its users, etc. that it was important to be specific with respect to what information was relevant to this study. The issue of overload was resolved as the parameters of the study became more focused.
Researcher’s Role
The primary obstacle encountered was trying to distance myself from my knowledge of libraries and the issues within. Having once been a manager of an information center as well as a student, I found I had many preconceived notions about how information space should be designed, what the issues were, etc. Even though it was sometimes difficult to hold biases in check (particularly when sometimes it is difficult to see one’s own biases), my a priori knowledge was more of an asset because it enabled me to get right into the environment without having to learn the ropes of an unfamiliar territory. Fortunately, my experience was outside of public libraries, thus putting me in a more objective position with respect to the issues within.
Attaining distance from the subject matter was a challenge in that it was unclear how much distance was necessary. With time and with the help of outside literature, a comfortable distance was attained. The outside liter- atures served as different lenses from which the library could be viewed.
Research Approach
The research questions and issues in this study required a qualitative ap- proach. The primary objective is twofold: (1) to identify values and priorities as they are reflected in a physical artifact; and (2) to identify the values/
priorities represented in institutional documents that specifically defined the elements of the public space. The data structure would emerge from the sources examined rather than configured into predetermined categories.