Lilia Pavlovsky
INTRODUCTION
It has been suggested that ‘‘space and artifacts constitute systems of com- munication which organizations build up within themselves’’ (Gagliardi, 1992a, b, p. vi) and reflect the cultural life within that organization. This is a study of how the ‘‘landscape’’ of a public library (‘‘Library X’’), as an information retrieval system, relates to the values of the people who created it. The efforts here are geared towards understanding the physical instan- tiation of institutional culture and, more specifically, institutional values as they are reflected through the artifact.
Statement of the Problem
Information retrieval (IR) systems can be intimidating to users. In this context, an information retrieval system is loosely defined as a place that is intentionally created for a user population to which they can go for par- ticular types of information. It is also not clear why some systems do not appeal to the populations for whom they are designed. It is speculated that mismatches exist between the actual design of systems and how those sys- tems are perceived and navigated by users.
Advances in Library Administration and Organization
Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 22, 157–274 Copyrightr2005 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1016/S0732-0671(05)22005-9
157
It is suspected that designers and users of IR system are perhaps mis- understanding each other’s goals through their respective understanding of the information-seeking environment. It is not clear how or at what point such misunderstandings occur. Since the physical environment is typically the first point of entry into the information system it becomes the focal point for this study. It is the place where the users interact with information providers either directly or through objects that were placed into the system with certain objectives in mind.
It is in this space that objects that are perceived to be of value to users are placed. In turn, users are expected to locate such objects and use them for their information-seeking objectives. Both information providers and users have distinctly separate yet inextricably intertwined priorities that converge within the public space of the IR system. Such priorities and values are the focus of this investigation.
Research Goal
The goal of this study is to define, describe, and understand values as they are instantiated within the artifact (the information system) as well as how they are articulated in the institutional text that fundamentally defines the artifact.Gagliardi (1992a, b, p. 9)writes ‘‘ythe social scientist finds himself entirely at ease when analyzing written or verbal communi- cations, but flounders in the attempt to grasp the language of things.’’
Part of this study is focused on classifying and understanding the language and the meaning of the artifacts in the public space of a library.
Since artifacts do not exist outside the social groups that create them, the other part of this study will focus on analyzing and discussing the in- stitutional text that defines the role of information provision within an in- stitutional context.
Research Questions
This study will address the following research questions:
1. How can the physical and intellectual space of an information system be characterized with respect to the types of values that it represents?
2. What are the values of the information providers?
3. What is the relationship between the values discovered?
4. What do the values that are discovered suggest about perceptions of users and use of the system?
This study takes an interpretive approach towards understanding how environments and text can reveal institutional value structures. The role of values in system design is unclear and this project sets forth to understand this role as well as to create a methodological approach that addresses this issue.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This is a review of the literature that defines environments as being socially constructed entities. Within this context I will present studies that have examined the symbolic aspects of artifacts. Environmental aspects of library design will also be examined.
Defining Space
The impact of physical environments is not often viewed with the same amount of significance as cultural, social, or institutional environments, yet a large proportion of resources are allocated towards the development and maintenance of physical settings (Canter, 1975). Most spaces are designed with functional issues in mind. This should not suggest that symbolic mean- ings are not present. People do not only experience space in a functional way.
Some suggest that spaces become what they are because meanings are ap- propriated to them (Parker Pearson & Richards, 1994a, b, c). The way we divide space is ‘‘yprobably the most fundamental manifestation of how we divide realityy’’ (Zerubavel, 1991, p. 6). This division is culturally bounded.
‘‘The relationship between spatial form and human agency is mediated by meaning. People actively give their physical environments meanings, and then act upon those meanings’’ (Parker Pearson & Richards, p. 5). By ap- propriating function to an object, one also appropriates meaning. Meaning, however, is not universal. Often concepts ‘‘ysuch as utility or comfort’’ are taken as being universal principles even though they are ‘‘culturally specific, relative values.’’ (Parker Pearson & Richards, pp. 6–7).
Where there is space there are borders that define it. Physical allocation of space, as well as classification of functions within, facilitates environ- mental control. Boundaries can be fixed or fluid, physical, or negotiated.
Boundaries serve to stabilize social relationships (Jackson, 1984) and, from sociological perspectives, can be viewed as outcomes of social agreement about where they should be. Boundaries serve to define the natural land- scape in social terms – they transform natural space into public space.
Environmental meanings stem from familiarity with the way the envi- ronment is structured as well as from an understanding of physical and social boundaries. Jackson’s point suggests that cultural knowledge is im- portant in evoking a feeling of familiarity in environments. The premise presented in this research is that even though information providers may intend for a system to be utilized in a certain way by a certain group of people, it may not actually end up being utilized in that way. This notion stems from the idea that if creators’ values underscore the creation of an environment (and it is assumed that they do) then there may be elements in that environment that are unfamiliar to those for whom it is designed.
Zerubavel (1991)discusses the complexity of drawing the ‘‘fine lines’’ that distinguish various elements of the social world. To define something is to give that thing a boundary; an act that is first mental before it is instantiated in physical form (Zerubavel, p. 2). Understanding how those lines are drawn, Zerubavel claims, will enable us to understand the social world that created them. The creation of any entity suggests both a conscious and a tacit effort to determine what should go into that entity and what should not.
With respect to information systems, boundaries define what goes in and what stays out of the system (Turner, 1987a, b). Boundaries define the system’s scope. If they are set too broadly, then the system becomes overly complex. If they are too narrow, then it becomes trivial (Turner, p. 105).
Symbolic Nature of Artifacts
Space is defined not only with respect to the borders drawn around it but also by the artifacts placed within. Artifacts are physical entities that are
‘‘products of human nature’’ (Gagliardi, 1992, p. 3) and exist independently of their creator. To study artifacts is to study what has been referred to as ‘‘a fundamental category of experience: space’’ (Gagliardi, p. 4). Artifacts are both functional and symbolic. They are used and they are interpreted (Gagliardi).
In the literature there is a tension between architectural perspectives on space and those of social scientists studying that space. Hall (1976, p. 160) states that, ‘‘architects traditionally are preoccupied with the visual patterns
of structures – what one sees. They are almost totally unaware of the fact that people carry around with them internalization of fixed-feature space learned early in life.’’
In this context, environments need not be viewed as being of one culture.
Instead, it is suggested that a variety of value structures, norms, rituals, beliefs, etc. exist within the boundaries of an institution not unlike those suggested by Shibutani’s (1955, 1986) notion of ‘‘reference group.’’ This concept emerges from the observation that ‘‘ypeople who occupy a com- mon habitat do not necessarily share a common culture’’ (Shibutani, 1986, p. 109). Instead, it is posited that ‘‘modern mass societies are made up of a bewildering variety of social worlds (Shibutani, p. 109). The social worlds can coexist in one physical domain, such as an institution. This idea further suggests that differing value structures can coexist within an institutional context though they may not necessarily be given equal prominence within the physical space of the environment.
Although this is not a new idea, it is one that has not had much attention in studies of institutional culture (Gagliardi, 1990). ‘‘The idea that concrete forms can incorporate mental and value structures has been asserted by various writers, students of symbolism, art historians, and anthropologists’’
(Gagliardi, p. 28). The archeological study of relics suggests the notion that certain understandings of cultures can be interpreted from the study of physical expressions of that culture. Institutional image and its instantiation in physical form is an important element of institutional identity.
Berg and Kreiner (1990)examine buildings (architecture) as artifacts that reflect institutional values. They suggest that some buildings are actually designed to evoke a certain type of behavior within (e.g. places of worship) given certain physical cues that are encountered outside and inside. Build- ings are also viewed by Berg and Kreiner (p. 49) as ‘‘totems’’ and symbols of
‘‘strategic profile.’’ Selection of sites and de´cor is done very carefully in a conscious effort to represent the organization’s value structure. It is also said that design in de´cor and architecture does affect how organizations themselves are viewed and preferred over their competitors. Berg and Kreiner (p. 61) conclude that meaning can be ‘‘‘read’ from physical aspects of an artifact.’’
Thomas (1996) similarly suggests that buildings can be ‘‘read’’ by those who interact within them. Thomas (p. 9) studied a variety of library en- vironments with the perspective that ‘‘yinteractions between people and institutions arise in social situations created through communicationy’’
and that ‘‘libraries have within them embedded social, political, and cultural values which are recoverable in aspects of their material presentation.’’
Thomas found that the different institutions reflected different values, depending upon their positions, ideology, purpose, functions, etc. The com- plexity of institutional values is underscored as it is reflected in day-to-day practices. ‘‘Even though these practices provide clues for library users, ar- chitectural and environmental aspects of facilities may go largely ‘unseen’ as a part of the ‘woodwork’ by library staff members who encounter them on a daily basis’’ (Thomas, p. 465). Thomas suggests that culture is that which is often taken for granted by its members and perhaps, that librarians may not quite ‘‘see’’ their environment from the same perspective as their users.
Berg and Kreiner (1990, p. 62)further note that ‘‘ycorporate buildings are seldom left to speak for themselves. They are described, reviewed, and interpreted over and over again in direct communications from the organ- izations. In such communications a custom-made code is established, a ru- dimentary code which links a specific message to that particular building directly, and, a code which will not be applicable to other corporate build- ings.’’ The implication of this observation is the idea that the inhabitants of the building have some element of control over the environment through organized rhetoric.
Rosen, Orlikowski and Schmahmann (1990)argue that physical design of space is also a way in which institutions can use space to attain discipline and control. Space is also used as a demarcation of status.
In a study of computer systems, Ciborra and Lanzara (1990, p. 149) propose the following premise: ‘‘ycomputer-based information systems are embodiments not of just data flows and work routines, but also of organ- izational cultures and archetypes.’’ Ciborra and Lanzara introduce the con- cept of ‘‘formative contexts’’ that suggests interaction unfolds in two directions.
What Ciborra and Lanzara suggest is that seemingly benign ‘‘plastic’’
systems can change institutional realities in permanent ways. Systems mod- ify behavior not only in physical ways but also in basic, culturally driven ways that are taken for granted. Their research addresses the taken for granted elements of institutional culture that in this case are behaviors of individuals in the throes of change. They argue that people have deep rooted, pre-existing notions of institutional arrangements, situations, etc.
Systems are not static artifacts, and the current way of examining them must change. Their agenda proposes a need to focus beyond economics and efficiency toward how systems relate to cognitive and institutional frameworks.
Scholz (1990) also points to the existence of complex relationship between social and technological factors. His effort is to understand how
information is processed within the institution in relation to cultural factors.
An institution is seen as an interaction between subjective (symbolic) and objective (empirical objects and events) realities. The seemingly objective functions of a system are made subjective by people who give meaning to those functions.
Sassoon (1990) found specific elements such as color to be linked to institutional ideology. Dougherty and Kunda (1990) studied how photo- graphs can portray organizational culture. Institutional cultures can also be found in stories and texts that are created by the leaders of those institu- tions. In turn the myths and stories are instantiated in artifacts and symbols within the institutions.
Raspa (1990) studied how the Domino’s pizza culture is very carefully presented in images created by its CEO and integrated within the operating environments of the franchises. The notion of metaphor is introduced as a mechanism by which an institution’s culture can be described and inter- preted.
Larsen and Schultz (1990, p. 300)present themselves as ‘‘cultural Geiger counters’’ in their study of bureaucracy of The Danish Ministry of Domestic Affairs that has been metaphorically converted to a Monastery. The met- aphor was used as a tool in the research process (as presented inMorgan’s (1986)work as well) to enable the researchers to get at what they considered to be the more ‘‘fundamental features of the culture’’ (Larsen & Schultz, p. 300). Although the usage of the metaphor in the study of symbolic elements within institutions may provoke a variety of biases, it still provides a lens through which to view elements from a different perspective.
Perspectives on Library/System Design
It is difficult to present a cohesive body of literature on the topic of library and system design. At first glance, it would appear that the two literatures are unrelated. Yet in a broader context, when the subject matter is addressed at a basic level (as opposed to system specifics) it becomes easier to see the relationships between the ‘‘systems’’ and the ‘‘library’’ literatures.
A Departure from User Studies – Examining the System
Over the last several decades there has been a shift in the literature from a
‘‘system’’ oriented perspective to a ‘‘user driven’’ one. Dervin and Nilan
(1986)identified this shift in perspective, and research continued to build on the ideas presented in their review. The trends they observed were focused on the importance of defining and understanding information-seeking proc- esses in sociological, cognitive, affective, and behavioral areas (e.g.
Kuhlthau, 1991; Dewdney & Ross, 1994; Chatman 1991, 1996; Belkin &
Vickery, 1985; Dervin, 1980;Taylor, 1986; Bodker, 1991). Much research has fallen out of this model that highlights users’ requirements, perspectives and behaviors – the users’ point of view.
Systems have been examined with respect to their ability to fulfill the users’ requirements in terms of specific search behaviors (e.g.Chang &
Rice, 1992); thought processes and problematic situations (e.g. Belkin, 1980, 1987); affective/emotional elements (e.g. Kuhlthau, 1991); and ele- ments/conditions that affect users outside of the system which could be potentially responded to by the system (e.g. Chatman, 1991, 1996;
Dervin, 1980).
The system is typically regarded as a tool that contains potentially rel- evant information items. The system’s objectivity is not often questioned, nor is its configuration with respect to how, by definition and default, it tends to impose a particular framework upon its respective environment as pointed out by Boland (1987). By definition a system defines and shapes activities within its boundaries, yet this particular effect of the design is not often investigated.
Lyytinen (1987, p. 4)states that ‘‘despite impressive advances in technol- ogyyIS misuse and rejection are more frequent than acceptance and use.’’
Some research points out that systems are not always used to capacity (e.g. Borgman, 1996), if at all (Chatman 1991). It is possible that the technologies, as powerful as they are, are not the only solution to a system’s problems. It is also possible that ‘‘ylittle is really known about what design is or how people go about doing it’’ (Turner, 1987a ,b, p. 97). Turner (p. 97) points out the ‘‘yproblem of understanding design is not unique to information systems’’ specifically citing problems in architecture and engineering.
Many information systems fail because of ‘‘yconceptual problems, data problems and people problems’’ (Lyytinen, 1987, p. 35). Lyytinen and oth- ers (Banbury, 1987) strongly argue that any arrangement or change of a system will affect how that system will be absorbed (or rejected) into the community. In order to account for these issues, researchers need to take into account the ‘‘cultural, social, political, and moral aspects of system design (Lyytinen, p. 5). Systems are embedded in a social and cultural milieu and that relationship needs to be understood.
Library Design
There is a large literature that discusses various aspects of library design.
Primarily, the focus is on standards (architectural; design elements; technical issues) and anecdotal experiences. The purpose of this section has been to pull out the literature that is most closely related to the topic of this project.
This review is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of all the literature because this is not possible given the diversity and scope of the topics addressed.
The impact of physical environments is often not assigned with the same amount of significance as cultural, social, or institutional environments, yet substantial resources are allocated towards the development and mainte- nance of physical settings (Canter, 1975). In short, use of space remains a relative mystery (Sommer, 1969a). In library and information science lit- erature there is a distinct focus on how information resources are used but not as much attention has been placed on how the systems themselves im- pact use (Thomas, 1996).
Bazillion and Braun (1994) suggest that libraries should be teaching in- struments and call for libraries to ‘‘move beyond their custodial role and to become an integral part of the teaching process’’ (p. 14). Others note the challenges faced in the process of design (Jones, 1993) where the focus is on elements of design, structure, lighting, etc. The ‘‘human element’’ (Jones, p. 221) focuses on physical elements that are convenient (‘‘no revolving doors, no turnstiles’’); accessibility (‘‘accessible to users of all ages, irre- spective of any disabilities’’) (p. 222); and other factors revolving around measurable elements such as increases in demand, furniture design, etc.Line (1998)presents the position that libraries have gone from the ‘‘bulk’’ service attitude towards designing systems around people. Rather than design around groups, individual facts need to be taken into account. Yet it is not clear how, exactly can a system can be made to do everything for everyone.
Many factors influence how libraries are designed and redesigned.Sutton (1996) points out that as technologies and work habits change so does design. ‘‘Click-free’’ zones have been introduced into library environments with the advent of portable computers. Other spaces those are separate from the primary library space that support collaborative work is another exam- ple. Libraries are also involved in user training as a result of technological growth (Sutton 1996). It is argued that library space should adapt to changes in user work behaviors.
Jones (1993, p. 214) lists ‘‘flexibility, cabling, lighting, environ- mental controls, accessibility and user-friendliness’’ as factors that should be