1. Diagnosis Prescription Treatment Barriers Evaluation! Introvert or Extrovert? Some skills that Katie exhibited (as per her graduate studies) were: a favorability towards communicating in writing, the ability to work on one project for a long time without interruptions, the ability to work alone, the preference towards quietness for concentration, and the tendency towards learning through reading rather than through talking or experiencing (class handout, February 29, 2008). Katie stated, “I have always loved going to libraries because it is where I could go to find a quiet area for concentration. Because I come from a family with 8 kids, I enjoyed the long periods of time in which I could work without someone bothering me” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie mentioned that nowadays she prefers to do most of her research online as it seems easier to stay home in her pajamas then to go to the library. She feels it has become “a hassle to go [to the library],” and that she “does not like the interior” of most libraries anymore. She feels they aren’t “as friendly” as they should be (personal communication, April 15, 2008). +/- Overall, Katie has proven to be an intelligent and well-read researcher with strong ideas regarding what type of information she wants to find. She appears to be confident in her knowledge and is sure of her ability to bring an entire project together. So how will this suit her when it comes to actually searching for information? This is where we enter the prescription stage. Here I will examine which materials will be most appropriate for Katie by reviewing materials that were deemed appropriate by her and how they relate to her personality, learning style and communication style. I will also discuss which theorists seem to best account for Katie’s search style at this point in the investigation. If Katie were to approach an information professional and explain her information needs it would be logical for the professional to deduce that Katie is most likely in need of legitimate, peer reviewed materials. Even though Katie is writing a fictional piece, she is also a graduate student whose academic rigor would demand an accurate and comprehensive history of the subject in question. Katie herself suggested that she only looks for peer reviewed professional pieces; whether they are on databases, journals or texts is of no matter. However, Katie did note that she prefers not to use sources that cite other people’s work excessively because she feels that an authors work “should be able to stand on its own merit” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie described her search techniques by saying: “I tend to do things backwards from most people. Most people have a general idea of what they want to research and they start from there—determining their claim based on the information they find. I usually start my research with a claim already in mind…and if the information I find does not support the claim, I keep looking until I find some that does. I rarely change my claim. That might be my ego flaring up, but I know what I want to write about…” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). At this point, it would be helpful to begin a discussion about Kuhlthau’s Research Moods. Kuhlthau suggests that there are two types of attitudes: Invitational and Indicative. “When information seekers are in an invitational mood, they are open to exploring their topics, and they eagerly seek and consider new ideas, information, and information sources. When students decide that they have enough information to meet their research needs, they move into an indicative mood, which allows them to end the search…” (Thomas, 2004, p.33). My concern about Katie is that she never quite fits directly into either of these moods. This may just mean that this particular aspect of Kuhlthau’s theory does not fit Katie search process, but I believe that this arrogant attitude towards research negatively affects her chances of having a successful search. As I have mentioned before, Katie has come to believe that going to the library has become tedious and often times an exercise in futility (see Introvert or Extrovert?). Katie also mentioned in our interview that she rarely asks a librarian for help, and that if she does, it is usually via email when requesting an interlibrary loan. With this in mind, one of Katie’s most severe criticisms of library professionals is (in her experience), their lack of ability to assist students in narrowing their search criteria. I would argue then, that if Katie would allow herself to truly be in an invitational mood, perhaps she would be willing to ask an information professional for help and allow them to guide her into a more appropriately timed indicative mood. Whether or not this is possible, I’m not sure. According to my tentative Meyers-Briggs analysis of her personality, she should be willing to accept such help, being able to intuit that this is a way to find a higher level of understanding—but perhaps the ego that promotes such a strong writing voice is not a part of her that I was able to tap into for more than a few minutes at a time. As a neophyte to Arab culture in America, it is vital to the success of her story that Katie is able to write from an authentic voice. In order to obtain such a voice, I would suggest that Katie needs to receive a “value added” library experience. “The concept of value added…distinguishes a novice from an expert…” (Cole & Kuhlthau, 2000, p.103). Ultimately, this is why, when you look at the overview of my mind map, you can see that I have added a calculation for ascertaining if a value added experience indeed occurred for Katie. With that eventual requirement in mind, I would suggest that an appropriate “prescription” for Katie would be: lots of peer reviewed articles, journals and texts with a healthy “dose” of informational professional thrown into the mix—although the latter did not exist in this situation. Introduction The person I chose to interview is a Masters of Fine Arts student at Virginia Tech University. Specifically, she is studying Creative Writing and she aspires to becoming a successful fiction author. She had previously earned her Bachelor’s of Science degree in Gender Studies from the University of Utah and has a special interest in writing on socio- cultural women’s issues. In this particular information search, Katie is researching information about Arab women in the United States. Specifically, she was looking for information that would lead to her understanding the “identity” of Arab women living in America. As a neophyte to Arab culture (especially in the U.S), it was vital to the success of Katie’s story that she would be able to write with an authentic voice. To highlight the importance of this knowledge, the underlying goal of my mind map is to present whether or not Katie received a “value-added” experience. The interview took place April 15, 2008 from approximately 8:00-9:00 pm. A follow-up interview was conducted April 23, 2008 over the phone in order to clarify some details pertinent to my evaluation. For the purposes of this project I will refer to the interviewee as Katie. I will be examining Katie’s information search process by using Robert Grover’s Diagnostic Model of search needs. Through Diagnosis, Prescription, Treatment and Evaluation I will account for the interviewees’ thinking and learning styles and analyze both the consistency and/or discrepancy of these styles as they relate to several ISP theories. Ultimately, Grover’s Diagnostic Model will then aid in revealing whether or not Katie was achieved a “value added” research experience. Kuhlthau’s ISP As per Kuhlthau identified, Katie begins her search process with a research question. Katie was to find out about Arab culture in America so she could write a story from an authentic perspective. Kuhlthau suggests that this is “a time of uncertainty and/or anxiety, particularly when [the user] lack[s] knowledge of the subject…” (Thomas, 2004, p.32). When asked about what emotions she felt, if any, during her search process, Katie answered, “In the beginning, I feel overwhelmed due to the vagueness of a subject. Often times, if I’m getting nowhere, I resort to Google-ing the information to see if it will help me generate ideas. When I get the idea in my mind, I spend a lot of time running through the different scenarios of how I can find information. In this particular case, I was kind of intimidated by the subject material I chose, so I ended up speaking directly with my professor in order to get some ideas of where to start in terms of authors that write on the subject” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie confirms the normal feelings of irrational fear that are often felt by information seekers. Despite these feelings, she manages to successfully move into the next two stages of Kuhlthau’s ISP—selection and exploration. The selection stage occurs at “the point at which a student chooses a question to explore or a topic in which they have interest…” (Thomas, 2004, p.32)—in this case, female Arab culture in America. Next, as Kuhlthau indicates will likely happen, Katie becomes aware that she feels optimistic about her decision. Katie evidenced this by stating that at this point she likes to start running search “scenarios” through her head. If Katie were not excited about the subject that she had chosen, she would not be planning her course of action outside of research time. Her “feelings of optimism fade” as she begins to encounter “feelings of confusion” regarding this new information (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Kuhlthau refers to this time period as “the dip” (Kuhlthau as cited in Thomas, 2004, p.32). In order to combat these feelings, Katie went to her professor for guidance. After this session, Katie was able to figure out which direction to focus her research on because, as she described earlier in the interview, she began this search with a specific claim in mind. At that very moment, Katie has moved into the focus formulation stage. Kuhlthau notes that “students with a clear idea of where they were headed at this stage in the search process showed an increase in interest regarding the topic and the project” (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Katie concurs with this statement saying, “The more specific my claim gets, the more confident I feel” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Next, Katie moves into the collection stage. This is the time in which she gathers relevant information. When I began comparing Katie's experience to Kuhlthau’s theory, my first assumption was that the model would not fit Katie’s search style. I realize now, that I fell into the same trap that Kuhlthau noticed other searchers do as well—I confused the exploration stage with the collection stage! Even Katie explained that her method of researching was backwards from how most people would approach a question (see Prescription, paragraph 5). Katie and I let ourselves believe that the exploration and collection stage were one in the same. What we did not realize is that Katie was in fact going through an exploration stage; it just might not have been a physical act. By that I mean, she performed the actions mentally—thus creating a feeling of neglect in that stage simply because it did not feel as tangible as other, more physical stages (i.e. the collection stage). After that, Katie will enter the presentation stage. Katie mentioned in her interview that she has gotten straight A’s in her graduate program, so I can reasonably assume that means she is able to successfully connect ideas and present them in an appropriate format (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Katie did not mention specifically that she correlates her reaction of satisfaction with focus formulation, but I would suggest that she would agree with that line of reasoning. There is one last point I would like to consider. Katie made a point of saying that she rarely changes her claim; this leaves the door open to assume that there are times where in fact, she does need to do so. This coincides with Kuhlthau’s idea that “individuals move through the stages of ISP at different rates,” and “students engage the stages recursively, moving back and forth between them, depending on the situation” (Thomas, 2004, p.33). Joyce and Tallman’s I-Search Model If Katie had to choose a model that best fit her style of research, Joyce and Tallman’s I-Search Model would most likely be her pick. The “I-Search Web,” as it is called, is comprised of four different levels: selecting a topic, researching the topic, using the information found, and completing the research project. First, look at the language used in the model. The very use of the word “web” indicates a feeling of reflexivity and flow. It indicates an applicable metaphor for students of academia—or rather, students that often feel the confusion of linking several innate concepts together. Secondly, the appearance of the model is straightforward and allows for a broad interpretation of the levels. A novice to research might interpret “broad” as meaning “simple”; but as students of academic rigor can attest, “broad” often means—linking many, many complicated concepts in a way that is logical and creative. Taking a closer look at the levels themselves, “selecting a topic” is a good example of how this model works well for Katie. This level includes (but is not limited to): identifying interests, preliminary investigation and most importantly, sharing topics and conferencing with teachers, peers, and students. Katie was explicit in stating that asking her professor for help was a significant step in her search process. This meeting helped clarify ideas and formulate a game plan that is germane to step two. “Researching the topic” is another great example of how this model reflects academia. It not only suggests generating research questions and general and in-depth reading—but, here’s a new one—interviewing! “In all the other [models] there is an explicit or implicit assumption that the topics of research attention are either assigned by a teacher or chosen by students within the context of subject domains or curricular content and that the resulting reports and projects are formally and traditionally presented. In the case of the I-Search model, the research topic is chosen by the students on the basis of special personal interest or personal connection” (Thomas, 2004, p.54). Finally, there is an attempt to establish guidelines that encourage an individual’s creativity and scholar, rather than the status quos of traditional assignment. As a creative writing student, Katie would definitely appreciate this facet of the ISP. In the last two steps, the user is asked to “use the information found” by extracting important information from texts. The user must then reflect upon all pertinent facts and data; thus, going on to fuse the concepts together as one. At this point, the user prepares to “complete the research project,” or rather, transfer the information into a creative project of some kind. Bates’ Berry-Picking Marcia Bates describes her berry-picking strategy as one that was created for information seekers who begin their project with broad subject matter and gradually narrow down their thesis as they sort through the various information that they find (Thomas, 2004, p.121). Bates further extends her definition of berry-picking to include those “searchers who engage in this kind of process [that] may not seek an overview of a research domain at all, nor desire a wide range of resources; instead they employ a ‘serialist’ approach, searching for ‘just enough’ information to answer their specific information need or research process” (Thomas, 2004, p.121). For the above mentioned reasons, this model does not fit with Katie’s approach to information seeking. Yes, Katie does create a more specific thesis as her research continues, but she is certainly not looking for “just enough” information. Also, while Katie’s thesis narrows, it does not change its general focus. Bates’ model suggests that “information providers can assist users in their searches by suggesting or teaching strategies to use when searchers get ‘stuck’ or when their search strategies do not produce the desired results” (Thomas, 2004, p.121). This simply is not the case for Katie. You could say that Katie did employ many of Bates’ “Idea Tactics” because she did benefit from the guidance of her professor, however, she was never so “lost” in her search that she needed physical help (or, “Jolting”) to get back on track. Overall, the model seems to serve novice researchers better than it does experienced ones. Ellis’ Research Strategies Ellis identifies six research strategies that a user can employ to ensure a productive search experience. They are: starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, and extracting (Thomas, 2004, p.123). While it appears that these are just another way to describe steps already defined, there are two in particular, that I feel warrant special consideration—chaining and monitoring—because of their significant role in Katie’s search method. The act of chaining “refers to a strategy for using citations as clues to other information on the same topic” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). It can then be broken down into two sub-categories: forward chaining and backwards chaining. Forward chaining refers to the “perusal of citation indexes to find articles or research based on the original study or publication” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). This type of chaining was not evident in Katie’s search method as she was not researching a particular event, but rather a more general understanding of a culture. Backwards chaining refers to when “searchers follow up citations listed at the end of the documents they initially find” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). This is the type of chaining that Katie explicitly described utilizing. Katie stated, “Often times I find a materials that are relevant…and then see where they got their information from…this helps me come up with resources I would otherwise never come by…” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). With that in mind, Katie was equally concerned about the quality of information she was using from her resources (see Prescription, paragraph 3). This is where the second strategy, monitoring, comes in handy. As defined by Ellis, monitoring “requires that searchers check to see that the most recently published information in a field is not overlooked” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). While Ellis only suggests checking the publication date, I would argue that by merely setting aside time for resource appraisal, much time and energy will be saved by eliminating inappropriate materials. Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 While the general search process of Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 is comparable to most other models, it does have two features that create a particularly user friendly tool for the interviewee—teacher/student interactions, and an intuitive format. Similar to the I-Search model, the Big6 emphasizes cooperation between teachers and students (again, this was a significant step in Katie’s process). The teacher or librarian would be utilized to help connect cerebral levels of knowledge regarding ISP understanding to the physical steps taken to complete the ISP. The “knowledge level” would be the stage at which Katie accepts and understands her assignment. The “comprehension level” would be the process of defining search strategies. Katie mentioned that she like to begin this progression by mentally sifting through how to begin her research. Later she would either Google the subject in order to stimulate ideas; or, as she did in this case, illicit help from her professor to improve her grasp (or frame of reference) about the assignment. At this point, she would begin to locate and access materials (“comprehension level”) level while simultaneously “using” or determining the relevancy of the information (“application level”). She would then fuse the entirety of her research into an appropriate format (“synthesis level”). From there, she would escalate to the “evaluation level”—where she can determine if her search was successful or not based on its ability to meet the requirement stated in the assignment (Thomas, 2004, p.49). The second significant aspect of this ISP is the physical layout of the model—or the “Super 3” (beginning, middle, and end), the “Big 6” (described above), and the “Little 12” (specific actions within the Big 6) (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990 as cited in Thomas, 2004, p.50). I believe Katie would respond well to this model because of its likeness to the steps in traditional writing. The familiarity of thesis, body and conclusion would likely resonate and serve as an instinctive guide to the ISP. Foster’s Non-Linear Model All of the past models have suggested that their processes are reflexive and recursive. Allen Foster (2004) argues that they are in fact linear and intended to be performed in that fashion. The purpose of Foster’s Non-Linear model is just as the name suggests— being non-linear. Foster wanted to create a truly pliant model that allows for instinctual transitions between contextual interactions and the core processes of ISP (p.228). Foster (2004) described three specific contextual interactions as: “External context” or the project itself, “Internal context” or the user’s feelings and knowledge, and the “Cognitive approach” which refers to either the flexibility or rigidity of the user as applied to either new knowledge or the assignment itself. Next, Foster cross-pollinates these interactions with core information search processes. He describes these as: “Opening” or subject breadth and depth exploration, “Orientation” or thesis definition and/or building, and “Consolidation” or the act of producing a finished product (p.232). While I do believe this model has achieved its goal of being a malleable representation of ISP, I don’t really see its usefulness when it comes to application. For that reason, I don’t find it conducive to Katie’s search methods because she struck me as a person that wouldn’t waste her time with fancy theories; but would rather employ a more practical and detailed model. Overall Evaluation So did Katie experience a “value-added” search process? The simplest answer is no. Since Katie did not invoke the assistance of a librarian, how could she? Collaboration with information professionals and their ability to provide service beyond expectations are the most integral aspects of Dervin’s perspective. Radford notes that library research indicates “a librarian is reported to be difficult” (Larason & Robinson, 1984; Swope & Katzer, 1972; cited in Radford, 1998, p.700) to approach and is often done only as a “last resort” (Gotherberg, 1977, p.2 cited in Radford, 1998, p.700). So how can we avoid misunderstandings in future interactions? Radford (1998) suggests: “Traditional education of reference librarians is often task oriented, primarily focused on learning the information sources and systems. Results suggest that education in the interpersonal dimensions of the reference interaction, including study of nonverbal communication behavior, must also be included in the curriculum” (p.715). That is good advice for educators of Library Science. On the other hand, it is important to think about what Katie could have done differently to ensure a higher quality experience. Ultimately, it would have been helpful for Katie to embrace the beginner role of a “novice researcher”—in this case, of female Arab culture in America. The downfall of Katie’s confident attitude is that it tended to create a pattern of behavior that consistently resists the acceptance of assistance from others. Katie’s suggestion that it would be helpful if librarians could “help refine a claim” (personal communication, April 15, 2008) is a good one; but we must consider that it will be quite difficult for the information professional to accomplish this task if they are never approached. As Katie acknowledges her role as “novice” it would elicit a natural transition to the goal of “expert” status in the subject being researched (The definitions of novice and expert are defined by Dervin). If she was able to communicate this need to a librarian, ideally, they could then provide a “value-added” experience. This is not to say that Katie was not successful with her search process. She most definitely was. Katie was pleased with the completion of her assignment and looks forward to the opportunity to submit the story for publishing. In Katie’s evaluation, her ISP was a success. It could be argued then, that since she is left feeling satisfied and the presentation was a success, that she truly did receive a “value-added” experience. After all, if there is one constant among all theories considered, it is that the ultimate definition for success, is whether or not the user has been satisfied. Barriers: Physical, Emotional and Environmental By discovery that Katie was confident and successful in her information search process, I was led to believe (by my own bias) that she did not encounter any barriers along the way. I found this to be quite an inaccurate assumption. Katie recalled three central barriers: those that were environmental—or the physicality of the library itself; those that were physical—or the verbal and/or nonverbal actions of the library employees, and those that were emotional— those that presented during the research process itself as psychological and/or physical stress. As previously described in the Myers-Briggs section of this map (see Sensitive or Intuitive?), Katie often sensed a feeling of trepidation when faced with needing to go to the library for research. First, she was dissatisfied with the architecture of the building. She found it out-dated and uninviting. “I can’t stand that it is covered in marble floors…its loud and distracting…” (Katie, personal communication, April 15, 2008). The next criticism Katie referred to was directly related to the library’s philosophy of service. Katie compared the experience of going to the library to visiting the “local video store.” Perhaps it is the introvert coming out to play or the combination of such with a slightly arrogant self-image; but Katie was definitely not pleased to be comingling a place of research with a place of entertainment (hence, the eye rolling). The last environmental complaint is also related to the verbal and nonverbal actions of the libraries employees. Katie was often frustrated that many materials that the library advertised were not on site. Katie wondered, “Why can’t the catalog just say when an item is in storage?” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). The next barrier that Katie described was that of the verbal and non/verbal cues she felt coming from the reference staff. Although she did not entertain their services for this particular search, Katie’s overall experience of reference professionals can be summed up as follows: “Working in a library is essentially about customer service. Why would you bother if you didn’t want to provide that?" (personal communication, April 15, 2008). It can be deduced from this statement that Katie has definitely had some negative interactions with this reference staff before. So why is that relevant to this particular search? Marie Radford (1998) explains that the two most important types of information that determine whether or not a user will approach a librarian are: “(1) an impression of the librarian presently attending the reference desk informed by their appearance and nonverbal behavior; and (2) previous experience with and/or opinions of librarians” (p.700). The combination of both environmental and physical barrier thus produces emotional and/or psychological barriers. This in turn, influenced Katie’s decision not to employ the services of the information professional. At this point, the effects that these barriers have had on Katie are important because they directly coincide with whether or not she receives a “value-added” research experience. The concept of a Brenda Dervin’s “value-added” experience is dependent upon the information professionals’ ability to (1) find appropriate data, (2) construct knowledge and understanding from the data, (3) package the data and knowledge in a way that is effectively communicated to the user; as well as, (4) the user must be able to immediately “act” on the package provided (Cole & Kuhlthau, 2000, p. 111). Along with the user’s recognition of a “gap” in knowledge or the experience of “dilemmas, confusions, or uncertainties,” all four aspects previously mentioned must be provided. In essence, Dervin suggests that a library’s goal should be to provide customized service for each individual user (Thomas, 2004, p. 65). +/- Professional Responsibility It can be concluded then, that Katie’s library is not implementing a very user friendly approach to service. I will examine the importance of Barbara Gutek’s business perspective as well as a comparison of service to Kuhlthau’s Intervention Model and Grover’s Cycle of Service. Gutek argues that libraries should employ a business perspective to their service model. By this she means, that as providers of service we should acknowledge and respect the fact that the access requests to information are what’s driving the need for preservation. It is therefore pertinent that libraries demonstrate value through service and show concern for the bottom line through appropriate leadership skills. Specifically, professionals should aim to create customized, intuitive and reflective service to users through service planning and sensitivity to cultural and contextual needs. Kuhlthau’s Intervention Model urges that “students and librarians will come to understand that assistance is appropriate and necessary in providing intellectual as well as physical access to information resources” (Thomas, 2004, p.35). Kuhlthau suggests that this should occur through any of 5 levels of intervention. At the “organizer level” of intervention, the librarian would provide a suitable environment for self-service. There would mean appropriate guidance/instructional materials made readily available to the public and an appropriate amount of work space for the users. In addition, the librarian would be available for questions and/or assistance if needed. The second level (or Lecturer level) is when the librarian provides user’s with an overview of their services. The third level (or Instructor level) is when the librarian actually teaches user’s how to use specific resources. The fourth level (or Advisor level) is when the librarian plans a specific research event to demonstrate the entire ISP to a novice researcher. And the final level (or Counselor level) is a type of intervention that would occur over an extended amount of time. In essence, the librarian would be available to a user as they learned about the information search process to answer any questions or concerns (Thomas, 2004, p.37-38). Katie’s library did accomplish some of these levels. She was aware of general services they provided and was able to utilize their resources to complete her project. One compliment Katie paid to the reference staff was that each interlibrary loan transaction she had every completed had been a “wonderful” experience (personal communication, April 15, 2008)—so the library isn’t completely failing! They might just want to step up their verbal and nonverbal communication skills and maybe start roving the library a bit. In addition, they should keep in mind that each service encounter is a social event. If we are careful in the beginning of the service cycle (i.e. Grover’s Diagnostic Model—diagnosis, prescription, treatment and evaluation) we may be able to avoid repeating the cycle due to mistakes. Information professionals should be “proactive and seeking to provide information” as well as compelled to “accept responsibility for outcomes” (class notes, February 29, 2008). The best way to accomplish this task is to strictly follow an appropriate model of service. If one is not followed, the user may end up giving a negative evaluation. Speaking of evaluations, Grover describes this stage as a time for the “librarian to assess the service process in light of the user’s satisfaction with the resources provided” (Thomas, 2004, p. 63). This is something that Katie’s library simply did not do. As she was doing research, the reference staff could have made an effort to approach her and ask if they could help. Perhaps she wouldn’t have accepted at the time, but it may have influenced her decision at a later date. Again, each interaction is a social event—it never hurts to spread good PR. and / or Thinking or Feeling? After interviewing Katie twice, I am torn between whether or not she is a “thinker” or a “feeler.” Katie has set ways that she likes to approach research. For example, she stated that often times she starts a project with a set thesis and builds her research evidence around the thesis. She stated, “Most people do the opposite…if I’m not finding what I need, I never change my thesis, I just change where I’m looking for my information” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). This can be viewed as being rigid in her approach to learning, but it could also be a fierce loyalty to her subjective evaluation of a topic. So, it’s a toss-up for me. Although, due to her gender studies background and her obvious tendency towards decision making based upon value evaluation, I would put my money on being a “feeler.” Sensing or Intuitive? Katie stated, “I am particularly fond of writing because I feel that I can communicate important ideas that way. Better than I could say them, you know?” She seemed to feel that it is through her writing that she could express her intuitive nature and her ability to empathize with others. Katie seemed to enjoy the challenge of experiencing others’ cultural differences and speaking about them through her writing. She appeared to think of it is a constant challenge—she is continually focused on improving her point of view and enjoys acquiring such skills. Because of these traits and what I would call the unwavering desire to know why the world does what it does, or rather, “an interest in theories” (class handout, February 29, 2008). I would definitely say that Katie is more intuitive than she is sensing. Kohlberg’s Moral Development While I didn’t specifically ask Katie any morally ambiguous questions, I did ask her some simple questions that could have been satisfied with simple answers. For example, I asked, “Can you describe the process or steps you took in order to fulfill your search?” Katie answered with a slur of responses ranging form her mental state, to her physical actions. She specifically mentioned the key words she would use when searching for her subject and how she came up with other words as that would be helpful. She stated that she would use other author’s bibliographies to get more resources that would be applicable to her search. In the context of the information search process, this is a highly developed answer from a layperson. I would say that if her answers to morally ambiguous questions mimicked this answer, she would rate highly on Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Judger or Perceiver? Again, this was a tough decision for me to make based on two interview sessions. However, due again to the nature of her chosen profession—one of creativity and vision—I would suggest that Katie is more flexible and spontaneous than she seems. Her body language and appearance suggest that she is conservative and controlled, but her actions suggest otherwise. When Katie started her research about Arab women, she stated that she would prepare somewhat in her mind of how she planned to proceed but that she most often played most things by ear. She would start her search and fix what went wrong as it happened rather than get committed to a specific plan of attack (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie’s description of her actions led me to believe that she was much more comfortable to leaving her options open rather than creating an outline that she stuck to exclusively Kolb’s Learning Mode’s-- Reflective Observation “An orientation toward reflective observation focuses on understanding the meaning of ideas and situations by carefully observing and impartially describing them” (class handout, February 29, 2008). I don’t know to what level Katie is able to “impartially describe” her observations, but I know that she views this ability as key to her writing success. Kolb’s definition furthers that, “People with a reflective orientation enjoy intuiting the meaning of situations and ideas and are good at seeing their implications…[and] they like to rely on their own thoughts and feelings to form opinions” (class handout, February 29, 2008). Perhaps this aspect of Katie’s personality is what inspires her to be an avid storyteller and creative writer while also allowing her to remain strong in her opinions and convictions. Katie stated early in our interview that she never changes her claim and that the research she finds will have to suit her needs rather than vice versa. = Library Style!!

2. Diagnosis Prescription Treatment Barriers Evaluation! Introvert or Extrovert? Some skills that Katie exhibited (as per her graduate studies) were: a favorability towards communicating in writing, the ability to work on one project for a long time without interruptions, the ability to work alone, the preference towards quietness for concentration, and the tendency towards learning through reading rather than through talking or experiencing (class handout, February 29, 2008). Katie stated, “I have always loved going to libraries because it is where I could go to find a quiet area for concentration. Because I come from a family with 8 kids, I enjoyed the long periods of time in which I could work without someone bothering me” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie mentioned that nowadays she prefers to do most of her research online as it seems easier to stay home in her pajamas then to go to the library. She feels it has become “a hassle to go [to the library],” and that she “does not like the interior” of most libraries anymore. She feels they aren’t “as friendly” as they should be (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Introvert or Extrovert? Some skills that Katie exhibited (as per her graduate studies) were: a favorability towards communicating in writing, the ability to work on one project for a long time without interruptions, the ability to work alone, the preference towards quietness for concentration, and the tendency towards learning through reading rather than through talking or experiencing (class handout, February 29, 2008). Katie stated, “I have always loved going to libraries because it is where I could go to find a quiet area for concentration. Because I come from a family with 8 kids, I enjoyed the long periods of time in which I could work without someone bothering me” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie mentioned that nowadays she prefers to do most of her research online as it seems easier to stay home in her pajamas then to go to the library. She feels it has become “a hassle to go [to the library],” and that she “does not like the interior” of most libraries anymore. She feels they aren’t “as friendly” as they should be (personal communication, April 15, 2008). +/- Overall, Katie has proven to be an intelligent and well-read researcher with strong ideas regarding what type of information she wants to find. She appears to be confident in her knowledge and is sure of her ability to bring an entire project together. So how will this suit her when it comes to actually searching for information? This is where we enter the prescription stage. Here I will examine which materials will be most appropriate for Katie by reviewing materials that were deemed appropriate by her and how they relate to her personality, learning style and communication style. I will also discuss which theorists seem to best account for Katie’s search style at this point in the investigation. If Katie were to approach an information professional and explain her information needs it would be logical for the professional to deduce that Katie is most likely in need of legitimate, peer reviewed materials. Even though Katie is writing a fictional piece, she is also a graduate student whose academic rigor would demand an accurate and comprehensive history of the subject in question. Katie herself suggested that she only looks for peer reviewed professional pieces; whether they are on databases, journals or texts is of no matter. However, Katie did note that she prefers not to use sources that cite other people’s work excessively because she feels that an authors work “should be able to stand on its own merit” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie described her search techniques by saying: “I tend to do things backwards from most people. Most people have a general idea of what they want to research and they start from there— determining their claim based on the information they find. I usually start my research with a claim already in mind…and if the information I find does not support the claim, I keep looking until I find some that does. I rarely change my claim. That might be my ego flaring up, but I know what I want to write about…” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). At this point, it would be helpful to begin a discussion about Kuhlthau’s Research Moods. Kuhlthau suggests that there are two types of attitudes: Invitational and Indicative. “When information seekers are in an invitational mood, they are open to exploring their topics, and they eagerly seek and consider new ideas, information, and information sources. When students decide that they have enough information to meet their research needs, they move into an indicative mood, which allows them to end the search…” (Thomas, 2004, p.33). My concern about Katie is that she never quite fits directly into either of these moods. This may just mean that this particular aspect of Kuhlthau’s theory does not fit Katies search process, but I believe that this arrogant attitude towards research negatively affects her chances of having a successful search. As I have mentioned before, Katie has come to believe that going to the library has become tedious and often times an exercise in futility (see Introvert or Extrovert?). Katie also mentioned in our interview that she rarely asks a librarian for help, and that if she does, it is usually via email when requesting an interlibrary loan. With this in mind, one of Katie’s most severe criticisms of library professionals is (in her experience), their lack of ability to assist students in narrowing their search criteria. I would argue then, that if Katie would allow herself to truly be in an invitational mood, perhaps she would be willing to ask an information professional for help and allow them to guide her into a more appropriately timed indicative mood. Whether or not this is possible, I’m not sure. According to my tentative Meyers-Briggs analysis of her personality, she should be willing to accept such help, being able to intuit that this is a way to find a higher level of understanding—but perhaps the ego that promotes such a strong writing voice is not a part of her that I was able to tap into for more than a few minutes at a time. As a neophyte to Arab culture in America, it is vital to the success of her story that Katie is able to write from an authentic voice. In order to obtain such a voice, I would suggest that Katie needs to receive a “value added” library experience. “The concept of value added…distinguishes a novice from an expert…” (Cole & Kuhlthau, 2000, p.103). Ultimately, this is why, when you look at the overview of my mind map, you can see that I have added a calculation for ascertaining if a value added experience indeed occurred for Katie. With that eventual requirement in mind, I would suggest that an appropriate “prescription” for Katie would be: lots of peer reviewed articles, journals and texts with a healthy “dose” of informational professional thrown into the mix— although the latter did not exist in this situation. Overall, Katie has proven to be an intelligent and well-read researcher with strong ideas regarding what type of information she wants to find. She appears to be confident in her knowledge and is sure of her ability to bring an entire project together. So how will this suit her when it comes to actually searching for information? This is where we enter the prescription stage. Here I will examine which materials will be most appropriate for Katie by reviewing materials that were deemed appropriate by her and how they relate to her personality, learning style and communication style. I will also discuss which theorists seem to best account for Katie’s search style at this point in the investigation. If Katie were to approach an information professional and explain her information needs it would be logical for the professional to deduce that Katie is most likely in need of legitimate, peer reviewed materials. Even though Katie is writing a fictional piece, she is also a graduate student whose academic rigor would demand an accurate and comprehensive history of the subject in question. Katie herself suggested that she only looks for peer reviewed professional pieces; whether they are on databases, journals or texts is of no matter. However, Katie did note that she prefers not to use sources that cite other people’s work excessively because she feels that an authors work “should be able to stand on its own merit” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie described her search techniques by saying: “I tend to do things backwards from most people. Most people have a general idea of what they want to research and they start from there— determining their claim based on the information they find. I usually start my research with a claim already in mind…and if the information I find does not support the claim, I keep looking until I find some that does. I rarely change my claim. That might be my ego flaring up, but I know what I want to write about…” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). At this point, it would be helpful to begin a discussion about Kuhlthau’s Research Moods. Kuhlthau suggests that there are two types of attitudes: Invitational and Indicative. “When information seekers are in an invitational mood, they are open to exploring their topics, and they eagerly seek and consider new ideas, information, and information sources. When students decide that they have enough information to meet their research needs, they move into an indicative mood, which allows them to end the search…” (Thomas, 2004, p.33). My concern about Katie is that she never quite fits directly into either of these moods. This may just mean that this particular aspect of Kuhlthau’s theory does not fit Katies search process, but I believe that this arrogant attitude towards research negatively affects her chances of having a successful search. As I have mentioned before, Katie has come to believe that going to the library has become tedious and often times an exercise in futility (see Introvert or Extrovert?). Katie also mentioned in our interview that she rarely asks a librarian for help, and that if she does, it is usually via email when requesting an interlibrary loan. With this in mind, one of Katie’s most severe criticisms of library professionals is (in her experience), their lack of ability to assist students in narrowing their search criteria. I would argue then, that if Katie would allow herself to truly be in an invitational mood, perhaps she would be willing to ask an information professional for help and allow them to guide her into a more appropriately timed indicative mood. Whether or not this is possible, I’m not sure. According to my tentative Meyers-Briggs analysis of her personality, she should be willing to accept such help, being able to intuit that this is a way to find a higher level of understanding—but perhaps the ego that promotes such a strong writing voice is not a part of her that I was able to tap into for more than a few minutes at a time. As a neophyte to Arab culture in America, it is vital to the success of her story that Katie is able to write from an authentic voice. In order to obtain such a voice, I would suggest that Katie needs to receive a “value added” library experience. “The concept of value added…distinguishes a novice from an expert…” (Cole & Kuhlthau, 2000, p.103). Ultimately, this is why, when you look at the overview of my mind map, you can see that I have added a calculation for ascertaining if a value added experience indeed occurred for Katie. With that eventual requirement in mind, I would suggest that an appropriate “prescription” for Katie would be: lots of peer reviewed articles, journals and texts with a healthy “dose” of informational professional thrown into the mix— although the latter did not exist in this situation. Introduction The person I chose to interview is a Masters of Fine Arts student at Virginia Tech University. Specifically, she is studying Creative Writing and she aspires to becoming a successful fiction author. She had previously earned her Bachelor’s of Science degree in Gender Studies from the University of Utah and has a special interest in writing on socio- cultural women’s issues. In this particular information search, Katie is researching information about Arab women in the United States. Specifically, she was looking for information that would lead to her understanding the “identity” of Arab women living in America. As a neophyte to Arab culture (especially in the U.S), it was vital to the success of Katie’s story that she would be able to write with an authentic voice. The interview took place April 15, 2008 from approximately 8:00-9:00 pm. A follow-up interview was conducted April 23, 2008 over the phone in order to clarify some details pertinent to my evaluation. For the purposes of this project I will refer to the interviewee as Katie. I will be examining Katie’s information search process by using Robert Grover’s Diagnostic Model of search needs. Through Diagnosis, Prescription, Treatment and Evaluation I will account for the interviewees’ thinking and learning styles and analyze both the consistency and/or discrepancy of these styles as they relate to several ISP theories. Ultimately, Grover’s Diagnostic Model will then aid in revealing whether or not Katie achieved a “value added” research experience. Kuhlthau’s ISP As per Kuhlthau identified, Katie begins her search process with a research question. Katie was to find out about Arab culture in America so she could write a story from an authentic perspective. Kuhlthau suggests that this is “a time of uncertainty and/or anxiety, particularly when [the user] lack[s] knowledge of the subject…” (Thomas, 2004, p.32). When asked about what emotions she felt, if any, during her search process, Katie answered, “In the beginning, I feel overwhelmed due to the vagueness of a subject. Often times, if I’m getting nowhere, I resort to Google-ing the information to see if it will help me generate ideas. When I get the idea in my mind, I spend a lot of time running through the different scenarios of how I can find information. In this particular case, I was kind of intimidated by the subject material I chose, so I ended up speaking directly with my professor in order to get some ideas of where to start in terms of authors that write on the subject” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie confirms the normal feelings of irrational fear that are often felt by information seekers. Despite these feelings, she manages to successfully move into the next two stages of Kuhlthau’s ISP—selection and exploration. The selection stage occurs at “the point at which a student chooses a question to explore or a topic in which they have interest…” (Thomas, 2004, p.32)—in this case, female Arab culture in America. Next, as Kuhlthau indicates will likely happen, Katie becomes aware that she feels optimistic about her decision. Katie evidenced this by stating that at this point she likes to start running search “scenarios” through her head. If Katie were not excited about the subject that she had chosen, she would not be planning her course of action outside of research time. Her “feelings of optimism fade” as she begins to encounter “feelings of confusion” regarding this new information (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Kuhlthau refers to this time period as “the dip” (Kuhlthau as cited in Thomas, 2004, p.32). In order to combat these feelings, Katie went to her professor for guidance. After this session, Katie was able to figure out which direction to focus her research on because, as she described earlier in the interview, she began this search with a specific claim in mind. At that very moment, Katie has moved into the focus formulation stage. Kuhlthau notes that “students with a clear idea of where they were headed at this stage in the search process showed an increase in interest regarding the topic and the project” (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Katie concurs with this statement saying, “The more specific my claim gets, the more confident I feel” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Next, Katie moves into the collection stage. This is the time in which she gathers relevant information. When I began comparing Katie's experience to Kuhlthau’s theory, my first assumption was that the model would not fit Katie’s search style. I realize now, that I fell into the same trap that Kuhlthau noticed other searchers do as well—I confused the exploration stage with the collection stage! Even Katie explained that her method of researching was backwards from how most people would approach a question (see Prescription, paragraph 5). Katie and I let ourselves believe that the exploration and collection stage were one in the same. What we did not realize is that Katie was in fact going through an exploration stage; it just might not have been a physical act. By that I mean, she performed the actions mentally—thus creating a feeling of neglect in that stage simply because it did not feel as tangible as other, more physical stages (i.e. the collection stage). After that, Katie will enter the presentation stage. Katie mentioned in her interview that she has gotten straight A’s in her graduate program, so I can reasonably assume that means she is able to successfully connect ideas and present them in an appropriate format (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Katie did not mention specifically that she correlates her reaction of satisfaction with focus formulation, but I would suggest that she would agree with that line of reasoning. There is one last point I would like to consider. Katie made a point of saying that she rarely changes her claim; this leaves the door open to assume that there are times where in fact, she does need to do so. This coincides with Kuhlthau’s idea that “individuals move through the stages of ISP at different rates,” and “students engage the stages recursively, moving back and forth between them, depending on the situation” (Thomas, 2004, p.33). Kuhlthau’s ISP As per Kuhlthau identified, Katie begins her search process with a research question. Katie was to find out about Arab culture in America so she could write a story from an authentic perspective. Kuhlthau suggests that this is “a time of uncertainty and/or anxiety, particularly when [the user] lack[s] knowledge of the subject…” (Thomas, 2004, p.32). When asked about what emotions she felt, if any, during her search process, Katie answered, “In the beginning, I feel overwhelmed due to the vagueness of a subject. Often times, if I’m getting nowhere, I resort to Google-ing the information to see if it will help me generate ideas. When I get the idea in my mind, I spend a lot of time running through the different scenarios of how I can find information. In this particular case, I was kind of intimidated by the subject material I chose, so I ended up speaking directly with my professor in order to get some ideas of where to start in terms of authors that write on the subject” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie confirms the normal feelings of irrational fear that are often felt by information seekers. Despite these feelings, she manages to successfully move into the next two stages of Kuhlthau’s ISP—selection and exploration. The selection stage occurs at “the point at which a student chooses a question to explore or a topic in which they have interest…” (Thomas, 2004, p.32)—in this case, female Arab culture in America. Next, as Kuhlthau indicates will likely happen, Katie becomes aware that she feels optimistic about her decision. Katie evidenced this by stating that at this point she likes to start running search “scenarios” through her head. If Katie were not excited about the subject that she had chosen, she would not be planning her course of action outside of research time. Her “feelings of optimism fade” as she begins to encounter “feelings of confusion” regarding this new information (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Kuhlthau refers to this time period as “the dip” (Kuhlthau as cited in Thomas, 2004, p.32). In order to combat these feelings, Katie went to her professor for guidance. After this session, Katie was able to figure out which direction to focus her research on because, as she described earlier in the interview, she began this search with a specific claim in mind. At that very moment, Katie has moved into the focus formulation stage. Kuhlthau notes that “students with a clear idea of where they were headed at this stage in the search process showed an increase in interest regarding the topic and the project” (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Katie concurs with this statement saying, “The more specific my claim gets, the more confident I feel” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Next, Katie moves into the collection stage. This is the time in which she gathers relevant information. When I began comparing Katie's experience to Kuhlthau’s theory, my first assumption was that the model would not fit Katie’s search style. I realize now, that I fell into the same trap that Kuhlthau noticed other searchers do as well—I confused the exploration stage with the collection stage! Even Katie explained that her method of researching was backwards from how most people would approach a question (see Prescription, paragraph 5). Katie and I let ourselves believe that the exploration and collection stage were one in the same. What we did not realize is that Katie was in fact going through an exploration stage; it just might not have been a physical act. By that I mean, she performed the actions mentally—thus creating a feeling of neglect in that stage simply because it did not feel as tangible as other, more physical stages (i.e. the collection stage). After that, Katie will enter the presentation stage. Katie mentioned in her interview that she has gotten straight A’s in her graduate program, so I can reasonably assume that means she is able to successfully connect ideas and present them in an appropriate format (Thomas, 2004, p.32). Katie did not mention specifically that she correlates her reaction of satisfaction with focus formulation, but I would suggest that she would agree with that line of reasoning. There is one last point I would like to consider. Katie made a point of saying that she rarely changes her claim; this leaves the door open to assume that there are times where in fact, she does need to do so. This coincides with Kuhlthau’s idea that “individuals move through the stages of ISP at different rates,” and “students engage the stages recursively, moving back and forth between them, depending on the situation” (Thomas, 2004, p.33). Joyce and Tallman’s I-Search Model If Katie had to choose a model that best fit her style of research, Joyce and Tallman’s I-Search Model would most likely be her pick. The “I-Search Web,” as it is called, is comprised of four different levels: selecting a topic, researching the topic, using the information found, and completing the research project. First, look at the language used in the model. The very use of the word “web” indicates a feeling of reflexivity and flow. It indicates an applicable metaphor for students of academia—or rather, students that often feel the confusion of linking several innate concepts together. Secondly, the appearance of the model is straightforward and allows for a broad interpretation of the levels. A novice to research might interpret “broad” as meaning “simple”; but as students of academic rigor can attest, “broad” often means—linking many, many complicated concepts in a way that is logical and creative. Taking a closer look at the levels themselves, “selecting a topic” is a good example of how this model works well for Katie. This level includes (but is not limited to): identifying interests, preliminary investigation and most importantly, sharing topics and conferencing with teachers, peers, and students. Katie was explicit in stating that asking her professor for help was a significant step in her search process. This meeting helped clarify ideas and formulate a game plan that is germane to step two. “Researching the topic” is another great example of how this model reflects academia. It not only suggests generating research questions and general and in-depth reading—but, here’s a new one—interviewing! “In all the other [models] there is an explicit or implicit assumption that the topics of research attention are either assigned by a teacher or chosen by students within the context of subject domains or curricular content and that the resulting reports and projects are formally and traditionally presented. In the case of the I-Search model, the research topic is chosen by the students on the basis of special personal interest or personal connection” (Thomas, 2004, p.54). Finally, there is an attempt to establish guidelines that encourage an individual’s creativity and scholar, rather than the status quos of traditional assignment. As a creative writing student, Katie would definitely appreciate this facet of the ISP. In the last two steps, the user is asked to “use the information found” by extracting important information from texts. The user must then reflect upon all pertinent facts and data; thus, going on to fuse the concepts together as one. At this point, the user prepares to “complete the research project,” or rather, transfer the information into a creative project of some kind. Joyce and Tallman’s I-Search Model If Katie had to choose a model that best fit her style of research, Joyce and Tallman’s I-Search Model would most likely be her pick. The “I-Search Web,” as it is called, is comprised of four different levels: selecting a topic, researching the topic, using the information found, and completing the research project. First, look at the language used in the model. The very use of the word “web” indicates a feeling of reflexivity and flow. It indicates an applicable metaphor for students of academia—or rather, students that often feel the confusion of linking several innate concepts together. Secondly, the appearance of the model is straightforward and allows for a broad interpretation of the levels. A novice to research might interpret “broad” as meaning “simple”; but as students of academic rigor can attest, “broad” often means—linking many, many complicated concepts in a way that is logical and creative. Taking a closer look at the levels themselves, “selecting a topic” is a good example of how this model works well for Katie. This level includes (but is not limited to): identifying interests, preliminary investigation and most importantly, sharing topics and conferencing with teachers, peers, and students. Katie was explicit in stating that asking her professor for help was a significant step in her search process. This meeting helped clarify ideas and formulate a game plan that is germane to step two. “Researching the topic” is another great example of how this model reflects academia. It not only suggests generating research questions and general and in-depth reading—but, here’s a new one—interviewing! “In all the other [models] there is an explicit or implicit assumption that the topics of research attention are either assigned by a teacher or chosen by students within the context of subject domains or curricular content and that the resulting reports and projects are formally and traditionally presented. In the case of the I-Search model, the research topic is chosen by the students on the basis of special personal interest or personal connection” (Thomas, 2004, p.54). Finally, there is an attempt to establish guidelines that encourage an individual’s creativity and scholar, rather than the status quos of traditional assignment. As a creative writing student, Katie would definitely appreciate this facet of the ISP. In the last two steps, the user is asked to “use the information found” by extracting important information from texts. The user must then reflect upon all pertinent facts and data; thus, going on to fuse the concepts together as one. At this point, the user prepares to “complete the research project,” or rather, transfer the information into a creative project of some kind. Bates’ Berry-Picking Marcia Bates describes her berry-picking strategy as one that was created for information seekers who begin their project with broad subject matter and gradually narrow down their thesis as they sort through the various information that they find (Thomas, 2004, p.121). Bates further extends her definition of berry-picking to include those “searchers who engage in this kind of process [that] may not seek an overview of a research domain at all, nor desire a wide range of resources; instead they employ a ‘serialist’ approach, searching for ‘just enough’ information to answer their specific information need or research process” (Thomas, 2004, p.121). For the above mentioned reasons, this model does not fit with Katie’s approach to information seeking. Yes, Katie does create a more specific thesis as her research continues, but she is certainly not looking for “just enough” information. Also, while Katie’s thesis narrows, it does not change its general focus. Bates’ model suggests that “information providers can assist users in their searches by suggesting or teaching strategies to use when searchers get ‘stuck’ or when their search strategies do not produce the desired results” (Thomas, 2004, p.121). This simply is not the case for Katie. You could say that Katie did employ many of Bates’ “Idea Tactics” because she did benefit from the guidance of her professor, however, she was never so “lost” in her search that she needed physical help (or, “Jolting”) to get back on track. Overall, the model seems to serve novice researchers better than it does experienced ones. Bates’ Berry-Picking Marcia Bates describes her berry-picking strategy as one that was created for information seekers who begin their project with broad subject matter and gradually narrow down their thesis as they sort through the various information that they find (Thomas, 2004, p.121). Bates further extends her definition of berry-picking to include those “searchers who engage in this kind of process [that] may not seek an overview of a research domain at all, nor desire a wide range of resources; instead they employ a ‘serialist’ approach, searching for ‘just enough’ information to answer their specific information need or research process” (Thomas, 2004, p.121). For the above mentioned reasons, this model does not fit with Katie’s approach to information seeking. Yes, Katie does create a more specific thesis as her research continues, but she is certainly not looking for “just enough” information. Also, while Katie’s thesis narrows, it does not change its general focus. Bates’ model suggests that “information providers can assist users in their searches by suggesting or teaching strategies to use when searchers get ‘stuck’ or when their search strategies do not produce the desired results” (Thomas, 2004, p.121). This simply is not the case for Katie. You could say that Katie did employ many of Bates’ “Idea Tactics” because she did benefit from the guidance of her professor, however, she was never so “lost” in her search that she needed physical help (or, “Jolting”) to get back on track. Overall, the model seems to serve novice researchers better than it does experienced ones. Ellis’ Research Strategies Ellis identifies six research strategies that a user can employ to ensure a productive search experience. They are: starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, and extracting (Thomas, 2004, p.123). While it appears that these are just another way to describe steps already defined, there are two in particular, that I feel warrant special consideration—chaining and monitoring—because of their significant role in Katie’s search method. The act of chaining “refers to a strategy for using citations as clues to other information on the same topic” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). It can then be broken down into two sub-categories: forward chaining and backwards chaining. Forward chaining refers to the “perusal of citation indexes to find articles or research based on the original study or publication” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). This type of chaining was not evident in Katie’s search method as she was not researching a particular event, but rather a more general understanding of a culture. Backwards chaining refers to when “searchers follow up citations listed at the end of the documents they initially find” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). This is the type of chaining that Katie explicitly described utilizing. Katie stated, “Often times I find a materials that are relevant…and then see where they got their information from…this helps me come up with resources I would otherwise never come by…” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). With that in mind, Katie was equally concerned about the quality of information she was using from her resources (see Prescription, paragraph 3). This is where the second strategy, monitoring, comes in handy. As defined by Ellis, monitoring “requires that searchers check to see that the most recently published information in a field is not overlooked” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). While Ellis only suggests checking the publication date, I would argue that by merely setting aside time for resource appraisal, much time and energy will be saved by eliminating inappropriate materials. Ellis’ Research Strategies Ellis identifies six research strategies that a user can employ to ensure a productive search experience. They are: starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, and extracting (Thomas, 2004, p.123). While it appears that these are just another way to describe steps already defined, there are two in particular, that I feel warrant special consideration—chaining and monitoring—because of their significant role in Katie’s search method. The act of chaining “refers to a strategy for using citations as clues to other information on the same topic” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). It can then be broken down into two sub-categories: forward chaining and backwards chaining. Forward chaining refers to the “perusal of citation indexes to find articles or research based on the original study or publication” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). This type of chaining was not evident in Katie’s search method as she was not researching a particular event, but rather a more general understanding of a culture. Backwards chaining refers to when “searchers follow up citations listed at the end of the documents they initially find” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). This is the type of chaining that Katie explicitly described utilizing. Katie stated, “Often times I find a materials that are relevant…and then see where they got their information from…this helps me come up with resources I would otherwise never come by…” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). With that in mind, Katie was equally concerned about the quality of information she was using from her resources (see Prescription, paragraph 3). This is where the second strategy, monitoring, comes in handy. As defined by Ellis, monitoring “requires that searchers check to see that the most recently published information in a field is not overlooked” (Thomas, 2004, p.123). While Ellis only suggests checking the publication date, I would argue that by merely setting aside time for resource appraisal, much time and energy will be saved by eliminating inappropriate materials. Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 While the general search process of Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 is comparable to most other models, it does have two features that create a particularly user friendly tool for the interviewee—teacher/student interactions, and an intuitive format. Similar to the I-Search model, the Big6 emphasizes cooperation between teachers and students (again, this was a significant step in Katie’s process). The teacher or librarian would be utilized to help connect cerebral levels of knowledge regarding ISP understanding to the physical steps taken to complete the ISP. The “knowledge level” would be the stage at which Katie accepts and understands her assignment. The “comprehension level” would be the process of defining search strategies. Katie mentioned that she like to begin this progression by mentally sifting through how to begin her research. Later she would either Google the subject in order to stimulate ideas; or, as she did in this case, illicit help from her professor to improve her grasp (or frame of reference) about the assignment. At this point, she would begin to locate and access materials (“comprehension level”) level while simultaneously “using” or determining the relevancy of the information (“application level”). She would then fuse the entirety of her research into an appropriate format (“synthesis level”). From there, she would escalate to the “evaluation level”—where she can determine if her search was successful or not based on its ability to meet the requirement stated in the assignment (Thomas, 2004, p.49). The second significant aspect of this ISP is the physical layout of the model—or the “Super 3” (beginning, middle, and end), the “Big 6” (described above), and the “Little 12” (specific actions within the Big 6) (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990 as cited in Thomas, 2004, p.50). I believe Katie would respond well to this model because of its likeness to the steps in traditional writing. The familiarity of thesis, body and conclusion would likely resonate and serve as an instinctive guide to the ISP. Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 While the general search process of Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 is comparable to most other models, it does have two features that create a particularly user friendly tool for the interviewee—teacher/student interactions, and an intuitive format. Similar to the I-Search model, the Big6 emphasizes cooperation between teachers and students (again, this was a significant step in Katie’s process). The teacher or librarian would be utilized to help connect cerebral levels of knowledge regarding ISP understanding to the physical steps taken to complete the ISP. The “knowledge level” would be the stage at which Katie accepts and understands her assignment. The “comprehension level” would be the process of defining search strategies. Katie mentioned that she like to begin this progression by mentally sifting through how to begin her research. Later she would either Google the subject in order to stimulate ideas; or, as she did in this case, illicit help from her professor to improve her grasp (or frame of reference) about the assignment. At this point, she would begin to locate and access materials (“comprehension level”) level while simultaneously “using” or determining the relevancy of the information (“application level”). She would then fuse the entirety of her research into an appropriate format (“synthesis level”). From there, she would escalate to the “evaluation level”—where she can determine if her search was successful or not based on its ability to meet the requirement stated in the assignment (Thomas, 2004, p.49). The second significant aspect of this ISP is the physical layout of the model—or the “Super 3” (beginning, middle, and end), the “Big 6” (described above), and the “Little 12” (specific actions within the Big 6) (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990 as cited in Thomas, 2004, p.50). I believe Katie would respond well to this model because of its likeness to the steps in traditional writing. The familiarity of thesis, body and conclusion would likely resonate and serve as an instinctive guide to the ISP. Foster’s Non-Linear Model All of the past models have suggested that their processes are reflexive and recursive. Allen Foster (2004) argues that they are in fact linear and intended to be performed in that fashion. The purpose of Foster’s Non-Linear model is just as the name suggests—being non-linear. Foster wanted to create a truly pliant model that allows for instinctual transitions between contextual interactions and the core processes of ISP (p.228). Foster (2004) described three specific contextual interactions as: “External context” or the project itself, “Internal context” or the user’s feelings and knowledge, and the “Cognitive approach” which refers to either the flexibility or rigidity of the user as applied to either new knowledge or the assignment itself. Next, Foster cross-pollinates these interactions with core information search processes. He describes these as: “Opening” or subject breadth and depth exploration, “Orientation” or thesis definition and/or building, and “Consolidation” or the act of producing a finished product (p.232). While I do believe this model has achieved its goal of being a malleable representation of ISP, I don’t really see its usefulness when it comes to application. For that reason, I don’t find it conducive to Katie’s search methods because she struck me as a person that wouldn’t waste her time with fancy theories; but would rather employ a more practical and detailed model. Foster’s Non-Linear Model All of the past models have suggested that their processes are reflexive and recursive. Allen Foster (2004) argues that they are in fact linear and intended to be performed in that fashion. The purpose of Foster’s Non-Linear model is just as the name suggests—being non-linear. Foster wanted to create a truly pliant model that allows for instinctual transitions between contextual interactions and the core processes of ISP (p.228). Foster (2004) described three specific contextual interactions as: “External context” or the project itself, “Internal context” or the user’s feelings and knowledge, and the “Cognitive approach” which refers to either the flexibility or rigidity of the user as applied to either new knowledge or the assignment itself. Next, Foster cross-pollinates these interactions with core information search processes. He describes these as: “Opening” or subject breadth and depth exploration, “Orientation” or thesis definition and/or building, and “Consolidation” or the act of producing a finished product (p.232). While I do believe this model has achieved its goal of being a malleable representation of ISP, I don’t really see its usefulness when it comes to application. For that reason, I don’t find it conducive to Katie’s search methods because she struck me as a person that wouldn’t waste her time with fancy theories; but would rather employ a more practical and detailed model. Overall Evaluation So did Katie experience a “value-added” search process? The simplest answer is no. Since Katie did not invoke the assistance of a librarian, how could she? Collaboration with information professionals and their ability to provide service beyond expectations are the most integral aspects of Dervin’s perspective. Radford notes that library research indicates “a librarian is reported to be difficult” (Larason & Robinson, 1984; Swope & Katzer, 1972; cited in Radford, 1998, p.700) to approach and is often done only as a “last resort” (Gotherberg, 1977, p.2 cited in Radford, 1998, p.700). So how can we avoid misunderstandings in future interactions? Radford (1998) suggests: “Traditional education of reference librarians is often task oriented, primarily focused on learning the information sources and systems. Results suggest that education in the interpersonal dimensions of the reference interaction, including study of nonverbal communication behavior, must also be included in the curriculum” (p.715). That is good advice for educators of Library Science. On the other hand, it is important to think about what Katie could have done differently to ensure a higher quality experience. Ultimately, it would have been helpful for Katie to embrace the beginner role of a “novice researcher”—in this case, of female Arab culture in America. The downfall of Katie’s confident attitude is that it tended to create a pattern of behavior that consistently resists the acceptance of assistance from others. Katie’s suggestion that it would be helpful if librarians could “help refine a claim” (personal communication, April 15, 2008) is a good one; but we must consider that it will be quite difficult for the information professional to accomplish this task if they are never approached. As Katie acknowledges her role as “novice” it would elicit a natural transition to the goal of “expert” status in the subject being researched (The definitions of novice and expert are defined by Dervin). If she was able to communicate this need to a librarian, ideally, they could then provide a “value-added” experience. This is not to say that Katie was not successful with her search process. She most definitely was. Katie was pleased with the completion of her assignment and looks forward to the opportunity to submit the story for publishing. In Katie’s evaluation, her ISP was a success. It could be argued then, that since she is left feeling satisfied and the presentation was a success, that she truly did receive a “value-added” experience. After all, if there is one constant among all theories considered, it is that the ultimate definition for success, is whether or not the user has been satisfied. Overall Evaluation So did Katie experience a “value-added” search process? The simplest answer is no. Since Katie did not invoke the assistance of a librarian, how could she? Collaboration with information professionals and their ability to provide service beyond expectations are the most integral aspects of Dervin’s perspective. Radford notes that library research indicates “a librarian is reported to be difficult” (Larason & Robinson, 1984; Swope & Katzer, 1972; cited in Radford, 1998, p.700) to approach and is often done only as a “last resort” (Gotherberg, 1977, p.2 cited in Radford, 1998, p.700). So how can we avoid misunderstandings in future interactions? Radford (1998) suggests: “Traditional education of reference librarians is often task oriented, primarily focused on learning the information sources and systems. Results suggest that education in the interpersonal dimensions of the reference interaction, including study of nonverbal communication behavior, must also be included in the curriculum” (p.715). That is good advice for educators of Library Science. On the other hand, it is important to think about what Katie could have done differently to ensure a higher quality experience. Ultimately, it would have been helpful for Katie to embrace the beginner role of a “novice researcher”—in this case, of female Arab culture in America. The downfall of Katie’s confident attitude is that it tended to create a pattern of behavior that consistently resists the acceptance of assistance from others. Katie’s suggestion that it would be helpful if librarians could “help refine a claim” (personal communication, April 15, 2008) is a good one; but we must consider that it will be quite difficult for the information professional to accomplish this task if they are never approached. As Katie acknowledges her role as “novice” it would elicit a natural transition to the goal of “expert” status in the subject being researched (The definitions of novice and expert are defined by Dervin). If she was able to communicate this need to a librarian, ideally, they could then provide a “value-added” experience. This is not to say that Katie was not successful with her search process. She most definitely was. Katie was pleased with the completion of her assignment and looks forward to the opportunity to submit the story for publishing. In Katie’s evaluation, her ISP was a success. It could be argued then, that since she is left feeling satisfied and the presentation was a success, that she truly did receive a “value-added” experience. After all, if there is one constant among all theories considered, it is that the ultimate definition for success, is whether or not the user has been satisfied. Barriers: Physical, Emotional and Environmental By discovery that Katie was confident and successful in her information search process, I was led to believe (by my own bias) that she did not encounter any barriers along the way. I found this to be quite an inaccurate assumption. Katie recalled three central barriers: those that were environmental—or the physicality of the library itself; those that were physical—or the verbal and/or nonverbal actions of the library employees, and those that were emotional— those that presented during the research process itself as psychological and/or physical stress. As previously described in the Myers-Briggs section of this map (see Sensitive or Intuitive?), Katie often sensed a feeling of trepidation when faced with needing to go to the library for research. First, she was dissatisfied with the architecture of the building. She found it out-dated and uninviting. “I can’t stand that it is covered in marble floors…its loud and distracting…” (Katie, personal communication, April 15, 2008). The next criticism Katie referred to was directly related to the library’s philosophy of service. Katie compared the experience of going to the library to visiting the “local video store.” Perhaps it is the introvert coming out to play or the combination of such with a slightly arrogant self-image; but Katie was definitely not pleased to be comingling a place of research with a place of entertainment (hence, the eye rolling). The last environmental complaint is also related to the verbal and nonverbal actions of the libraries employees. Katie was often frustrated that many materials that the library advertised were not on site. Katie wondered, “Why can’t the catalog just say when an item is in storage?” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). The next barrier that Katie described was that of the verbal and non/verbal cues she felt coming from the reference staff. Although she did not entertain their services for this particular search, Katie’s overall experience of reference professionals can be summed up as follows: “Working in a library is essentially about customer service. Why would you bother if you didn’t want to provide that?" (personal communication, April 15, 2008). It can be deduced from this statement that Katie has definitely had some negative interactions with this reference staff before. So why is that relevant to this particular search? Marie Radford (1998) explains that the two most important types of information that determine whether or not a user will approach a librarian are: “(1) an impression of the librarian presently attending the reference desk informed by their appearance and nonverbal behavior; and (2) previous experience with and/or opinions of librarians” (p.700). The combination of both environmental and physical barrier thus produces emotional and/or psychological barriers. This in turn, influenced Katie’s decision not to employ the services of the information professional. At this point, the effects that these barriers have had on Katie are important because they directly coincide with whether or not she receives a “value-added” research experience. The concept of a Brenda Dervin’s “value-added” experience is dependent upon the information professionals’ ability to (1) find appropriate data, (2) construct knowledge and understanding from the data, (3) package the data and knowledge in a way that is effectively communicated to the user; as well as, (4) the user must be able to immediately “act” on the package provided (Cole & Kuhlthau, 2000, p. 111). Along with the user’s recognition of a “gap” in knowledge or the experience of “dilemmas, confusions, or uncertainties,” all four aspects previously mentioned must be provided. In essence, Dervin suggests that a library’s goal should be to provide customized service for each individual user (Thomas, 2004, p. 65). Barriers: Physical, Emotional and Environmental By discovery that Katie was confident and successful in her information search process, I was led to believe (by my own bias) that she did not encounter any barriers along the way. I found this to be quite an inaccurate assumption. Katie recalled three central barriers: those that were environmental—or the physicality of the library itself; those that were physical—or the verbal and/or nonverbal actions of the library employees, and those that were emotional— those that presented during the research process itself as psychological and/or physical stress. As previously described in the Myers-Briggs section of this map (see Sensitive or Intuitive?), Katie often sensed a feeling of trepidation when faced with needing to go to the library for research. First, she was dissatisfied with the architecture of the building. She found it out-dated and uninviting. “I can’t stand that it is covered in marble floors…its loud and distracting…” (Katie, personal communication, April 15, 2008). The next criticism Katie referred to was directly related to the library’s philosophy of service. Katie compared the experience of going to the library to visiting the “local video store.” Perhaps it is the introvert coming out to play or the combination of such with a slightly arrogant self-image; but Katie was definitely not pleased to be comingling a place of research with a place of entertainment (hence, the eye rolling). The last environmental complaint is also related to the verbal and nonverbal actions of the libraries employees. Katie was often frustrated that many materials that the library advertised were not on site. Katie wondered, “Why can’t the catalog just say when an item is in storage?” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). The next barrier that Katie described was that of the verbal and non/verbal cues she felt coming from the reference staff. Although she did not entertain their services for this particular search, Katie’s overall experience of reference professionals can be summed up as follows: “Working in a library is essentially about customer service. Why would you bother if you didn’t want to provide that?" (personal communication, April 15, 2008). It can be deduced from this statement that Katie has definitely had some negative interactions with this reference staff before. So why is that relevant to this particular search? Marie Radford (1998) explains that the two most important types of information that determine whether or not a user will approach a librarian are: “(1) an impression of the librarian presently attending the reference desk informed by their appearance and nonverbal behavior; and (2) previous experience with and/or opinions of librarians” (p.700). The combination of both environmental and physical barrier thus produces emotional and/or psychological barriers. This in turn, influenced Katie’s decision not to employ the services of the information professional. At this point, the effects that these barriers have had on Katie are important because they directly coincide with whether or not she receives a “value-added” research experience. The concept of a Brenda Dervin’s “value-added” experience is dependent upon the information professionals’ ability to (1) find appropriate data, (2) construct knowledge and understanding from the data, (3) package the data and knowledge in a way that is effectively communicated to the user; as well as, (4) the user must be able to immediately “act” on the package provided (Cole & Kuhlthau, 2000, p. 111). Along with the user’s recognition of a “gap” in knowledge or the experience of “dilemmas, confusions, or uncertainties,” all four aspects previously mentioned must be provided. In essence, Dervin suggests that a library’s goal should be to provide customized service for each individual user (Thomas, 2004, p. 65). +/- Professional Responsibility It can be concluded then, that Katie’s library is not implementing a very user friendly approach to service. I will examine the importance of Barbara Gutek’s business perspective as well as a comparison of service to Kuhlthau’s Intervention Model and Grover’s Cycle of Service. Gutek argues that libraries should employ a business perspective to their service model. By this she means, that as providers of service we should acknowledge and respect the fact that the access requests to information are what’s driving the need for preservation. It is therefore pertinent that libraries demonstrate value through service and show concern for the bottom line through appropriate leadership skills. Specifically, professionals should aim to create customized, intuitive and reflective service to users through service planning and sensitivity to cultural and contextual needs. Kuhlthau’s Intervention Model urges that “students and librarians will come to understand that assistance is appropriate and necessary in providing intellectual as well as physical access to information resources” (Thomas, 2004, p.35). Kuhlthau suggests that this should occur through any of 5 levels of intervention. At the “organizer level” of intervention, the librarian would provide a suitable environment for self-service. There would mean appropriate guidance/instructional materials made readily available to the public and an appropriate amount of work space for the users. In addition, the librarian would be available for questions and/or assistance if needed. The second level (or Lecturer level) is when the librarian provides user’s with an overview of their services. The third level (or Instructor level) is when the librarian actually teaches user’s how to use specific resources. The fourth level (or Advisor level) is when the librarian plans a specific research event to demonstrate the entire ISP to a novice researcher. And the final level (or Counselor level) is a type of intervention that would occur over an extended amount of time. In essence, the librarian would be available to a user as they learned about the information search process to answer any questions or concerns (Thomas, 2004, p.37-38). Katie’s library did accomplish some of these levels. She was aware of general services they provided and was able to utilize their resources to complete her project. One compliment Katie paid to the reference staff was that each interlibrary loan transaction she had every completed had been a “wonderful” experience (personal communication, April 15, 2008)—so the library isn’t completely failing! They might just want to step up their verbal and nonverbal communication skills and maybe start roving the library a bit. In addition, they should keep in mind that each service encounter is a social event. If we are careful in the beginning of the service cycle (i.e. Grover’s Diagnostic Model—diagnosis, prescription, treatment and evaluation) we may be able to avoid repeating the cycle due to mistakes. Information professionals should be “proactive and seeking to provide information” as well as compelled to “accept responsibility for outcomes” (class notes, February 29, 2008). The best way to accomplish this task is to strictly follow an appropriate model of service. If one is not followed, the user may end up giving a negative evaluation. Speaking of evaluations, Grover describes this stage as a time for the “librarian to assess the service process in light of the user’s satisfaction with the resources provided” (Thomas, 2004, p. 63). This is something that Katie’s library simply did not do. As she was doing research, the reference staff could have made an effort to approach her and ask if they could help. Perhaps she wouldn’t have accepted at the time, but it may have influenced her decision at a later date. Again, each interaction is a social event—it never hurts to spread good PR. It can be concluded then, that Katie’s library is not implementing a very user friendly approach to service. I will examine the importance of Barbara Gutek’s business perspective as well as a comparison of service to Kuhlthau’s Intervention Model and Grover’s Cycle of Service. Gutek argues that libraries should employ a business perspective to their service model. By this she means, that as providers of service we should acknowledge and respect the fact that the access requests to information are what’s driving the need for preservation. It is therefore pertinent that libraries demonstrate value through service and show concern for the bottom line through appropriate leadership skills. Specifically, professionals should aim to create customized, intuitive and reflective service to users through service planning and sensitivity to cultural and contextual needs. Kuhlthau’s Intervention Model urges that “students and librarians will come to understand that assistance is appropriate and necessary in providing intellectual as well as physical access to information resources” (Thomas, 2004, p.35). Kuhlthau suggests that this should occur through any of 5 levels of intervention. At the “organizer level” of intervention, the librarian would provide a suitable environment for self-service. There would mean appropriate guidance/instructional materials made readily available to the public and an appropriate amount of work space for the users. In addition, the librarian would be available for questions and/or assistance if needed. The second level (or Lecturer level) is when the librarian provides user’s with an overview of their services. The third level (or Instructor level) is when the librarian actually teaches user’s how to use specific resources. The fourth level (or Advisor level) is when the librarian plans a specific research event to demonstrate the entire ISP to a novice researcher. And the final level (or Counselor level) is a type of intervention that would occur over an extended amount of time. In essence, the librarian would be available to a user as they learned about the information search process to answer any questions or concerns (Thomas, 2004, p.37-38). Katie’s library did accomplish some of these levels. She was aware of general services they provided and was able to utilize their resources to complete her project. One compliment Katie paid to the reference staff was that each interlibrary loan transaction she had every completed had been a “wonderful” experience (personal communication, April 15, 2008)—so the library isn’t completely failing! They might just want to step up their verbal and nonverbal communication skills and maybe start roving the library a bit. In addition, they should keep in mind that each service encounter is a social event. If we are careful in the beginning of the service cycle (i.e. Grover’s Diagnostic Model—diagnosis, prescription, treatment and evaluation) we may be able to avoid repeating the cycle due to mistakes. Information professionals should be “proactive and seeking to provide information” as well as compelled to “accept responsibility for outcomes” (class notes, February 29, 2008). The best way to accomplish this task is to strictly follow an appropriate model of service. If one is not followed, the user may end up giving a negative evaluation. Speaking of evaluations, Grover describes this stage as a time for the “librarian to assess the service process in light of the user’s satisfaction with the resources provided” (Thomas, 2004, p. 63). This is something that Katie’s library simply did not do. As she was doing research, the reference staff could have made an effort to approach her and ask if they could help. Perhaps she wouldn’t have accepted at the time, but it may have influenced her decision at a later date. Again, each interaction is a social event—it never hurts to spread good PR. and / or Thinking or Feeling? After interviewing Katie twice, I am torn between whether or not she is a “thinker” or a “feeler.” Katie has set ways that she likes to approach research. For example, she stated that often times she starts a project with a set thesis and builds her research evidence around the thesis. She stated, “Most people do the opposite…if I’m not finding what I need, I never change my thesis, I just change where I’m looking for my information” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). This can be viewed as being rigid in her approach to learning, but it could also be a fierce loyalty to her subjective evaluation of a topic. So, it’s a toss-up for me. Although, due to her gender studies background and her obvious tendency towards decision making based upon value evaluation, I would put my money on her being a “feeler.” Thinking or Feeling? After interviewing Katie twice, I am torn between whether or not she is a “thinker” or a “feeler.” Katie has set ways that she likes to approach research. For example, she stated that often times she starts a project with a set thesis and builds her research evidence around the thesis. She stated, “Most people do the opposite…if I’m not finding what I need, I never change my thesis, I just change where I’m looking for my information” (personal communication, April 15, 2008). This can be viewed as being rigid in her approach to learning, but it could also be a fierce loyalty to her subjective evaluation of a topic. So, it’s a toss-up for me. Although, due to her gender studies background and her obvious tendency towards decision making based upon value evaluation, I would put my money on her being a “feeler.” Sensing or Intuitive? Katie stated, “I am particularly fond of writing because I feel that I can communicate important ideas that way. Better than I could say them, you know?” She seemed to feel that it is through her writing that she could express her intuitive nature and her ability to empathize with others. Katie seemed to enjoy the challenge of experiencing others’ cultural differences and speaking about them through her writing. She appeared to think of it is a constant challenge—she is continually focused on improving her point of view and enjoys acquiring such skills. Because of these traits and what I would call the unwavering desire to know why the world does what it does, or rather, “an interest in theories” (class handout, February 29, 2008). I would definitely say that Katie is more intuitive than she is sensing. Sensing or Intuitive? Katie stated, “I am particularly fond of writing because I feel that I can communicate important ideas that way. Better than I could say them, you know?” She seemed to feel that it is through her writing that she could express her intuitive nature and her ability to empathize with others. Katie seemed to enjoy the challenge of experiencing others’ cultural differences and speaking about them through her writing. She appeared to think of it is a constant challenge—she is continually focused on improving her point of view and enjoys acquiring such skills. Because of these traits and what I would call the unwavering desire to know why the world does what it does, or rather, “an interest in theories” (class handout, February 29, 2008). I would definitely say that Katie is more intuitive than she is sensing. Kohlberg’s Moral Development While I didn’t specifically ask Katie any morally ambiguous questions, I did ask her some simple questions that could have been satisfied with simple answers. For example, I asked, “Can you describe the process or steps you took in order to fulfill your search?” Katie answered with a slur of responses ranging from her mental state, to her physical actions. She specifically mentioned the key words she would use when searching for her subject and how she came up with other words that would be helpful. She stated that she would use other author’s bibliographies to get more resources that would be applicable to her search. In the context of the information search process, this is a highly developed answer from a layperson. I would say that if her answers to morally ambiguous questions mimicked this answer, she would rate highly on Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Kohlberg’s Moral Development While I didn’t specifically ask Katie any morally ambiguous questions, I did ask her some simple questions that could have been satisfied with simple answers. For example, I asked, “Can you describe the process or steps you took in order to fulfill your search?” Katie answered with a slur of responses ranging from her mental state, to her physical actions. She specifically mentioned the key words she would use when searching for her subject and how she came up with other words that would be helpful. She stated that she would use other author’s bibliographies to get more resources that would be applicable to her search. In the context of the information search process, this is a highly developed answer from a layperson. I would say that if her answers to morally ambiguous questions mimicked this answer, she would rate highly on Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Judger or Perceiver? Again, this was a tough decision for me to make based on two interview sessions. However, due to the nature of her chosen profession—one of creativity and vision—I would suggest that Katie is more flexible and spontaneous than she seems. Her body language and appearance suggest that she is conservative and controlled, but her actions suggest otherwise. When Katie started her research about Arab women, she stated that, to some extent, she would prepare in her mind how she planned to proceed but that she most often played things by ear. She would start her search and fix what went wrong as it happened rather than get committed to a specific plan of attack (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie’s description of her actions led me to believe that she was much more comfortable with leaving her options open rather than creating an outline that she stuck to exclusively. Judger or Perceiver? Again, this was a tough decision for me to make based on two interview sessions. However, due to the nature of her chosen profession—one of creativity and vision—I would suggest that Katie is more flexible and spontaneous than she seems. Her body language and appearance suggest that she is conservative and controlled, but her actions suggest otherwise. When Katie started her research about Arab women, she stated that, to some extent, she would prepare in her mind how she planned to proceed but that she most often played things by ear. She would start her search and fix what went wrong as it happened rather than get committed to a specific plan of attack (personal communication, April 15, 2008). Katie’s description of her actions led me to believe that she was much more comfortable with leaving her options open rather than creating an outline that she stuck to exclusively. Kolb’s Learning Mode’s-- Reflective Observation “An orientation toward reflective observation focuses on understanding the meaning of ideas and situations by carefully observing and impartially describing them” (class handout, February 29, 2008). I don’t know to what level Katie is able to “impartially describe” her observations, but I know that she views this ability as key to her writing success. Kolb’s definition furthers that, “People with a reflective orientation enjoy intuiting the meaning of situations and ideas and are good at seeing their implications…[and] they like to rely on their own thoughts and feelings to form opinions” (class handout, February 29, 2008). Perhaps this aspect of Katie’s personality is what inspires her to be an avid storyteller and creative writer while also allowing her to remain strong in her opinions and convictions. Katie stated early in our interview that she never changes her claim and that the research she finds will have to suit her needs rather than vice versa. Kolb’s Learning Mode’s-- Reflective Observation “An orientation toward reflective observation focuses on understanding the meaning of ideas and situations by carefully observing and impartially describing them” (class handout, February 29, 2008). I don’t know to what level Katie is able to “impartially describe” her observations, but I know that she views this ability as key to her writing success. Kolb’s definition furthers that, “People with a reflective orientation enjoy intuiting the meaning of situations and ideas and are good at seeing their implications…[and] they like to rely on their own thoughts and feelings to form opinions” (class handout, February 29, 2008). Perhaps this aspect of Katie’s personality is what inspires her to be an avid storyteller and creative writer while also allowing her to remain strong in her opinions and convictions. Katie stated early in our interview that she never changes her claim and that the research she finds will have to suit her needs rather than vice versa. = Library Style!!