Theories of Information Behavior and Problem Solving
From Jsarmi
These two areas of research run in parallel (show it in literature mapping) and have provided very closely related models. Surprising because the most common model of problem-solving is the "information-processing" model.
Contents |
Objects of Study
What is information behavior? What are information problem solving (IPS) tasks ? The archetypical information behavior is an information question or a case of decision making (e.g what printer to buy) What is problem solving? The stereotypical problem is a puzzle (e.g. the nine-dots problem)
Defintions by Wilson: http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol3/v3n2p49-56.pdf (This paper provides a history and overview of the field of human information behavior, including recent advances in the field and multidisciplinary perspectives.)
Models
Different models have been proposed to describe both information behavior and human problem solving activity. here we review the most developed and used of these models and reflect on their similarities and differences.
Information Behavior Models
In information science: Nice review in http://informationr.net/ir/9-1/paper164.html Also http://ship.nime.ac.jp/~miwamaki/dissertation02.htm Some IPS task models have been developed for users’ self-searching processes (Kuhlthau, 1992; Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1995; Marchionini, 1995), Information problem solving (IPS) is: 'the active search for and processing of information over a period of time, with specific goals or tasks to be accomplished, and not completely taken for granted.
Other terms such as “information-seeking” (Hert, 1996; Allen, 1996) and “information search” (Kuhlthau, 1992) are used to represent the same concept. 2.2.1.1 Information Problem Solving As a Process
The term IPS was originally coined by Eisenberg and Berkowitz (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1995) to present a model of an information-oriented problem-solving approach to library and information skills instruction called the “Big 6.” They proposed that IPS is a process consisting of six stages: (1) task definition; (2) information-seeking strategies; (3) location and access; (4) use of information, (5) synthesis, and (6) evaluation[1].
Similar models consisting of slightly different stages are proposed by several other researchers. For example, Kuhlthau (1985, 1988, 1992) proposes a six-stage model of the “information-seeking process (ISP)” based on a series of empirical studies of high-school and college students. Irving (1985) presents a nine-stage model of “information skills.” Striping and Pitts (1988) propose a 10-step model of a “thinking process” for library research. Eisenberg and Brown (1992) found an “overriding similarity” among these process models and advocates a “common process approach to library and information skills education” (p. 105). Problem-solving: Book review
Derwin's sense-making approach:
Dervin developed the sense-making approach, which is implemented in terms of four constituent elements - a situation in time and space, which defines the context in which information problems arise; a gap, which identifies the difference between the contextual situation and the desired situation (e.g. uncertainty); an outcome, that is, the consequences of the sense-making process, and a bridge, that is, some means of closing the gap between situation and outcome (Dervin, 1983).
Notice that sense-making is an approach not a "model". The approach also promotes:
1) The use in both data collection and analysis of conceptualizations which focus not on nouns nor substances but rather on verbs and processes. Sense-Making's focus on what Dervin calls "verbings" (Dervin, in press) is an attempt to free the approach from the use of "system mirrors" for studying users. By making the interface between researcher and researched one based on assumed universals of the human condition -- moving through time-space, facing gaps, bridging barriers, and so on -- Sense-Making removes the researchers' imposition of nouns.
2) An emphasis on movement and change across time-space. By introducing this assumption, Sense-Making is not suggesting that there will not be constancies across time-space. Rather, the assumption is that researchers should not impose constancy by applying methodological frameworks which do not allow change across time-space to emerge. Dervin explicitly emphasizes that Sense-Making assumes that there are patterns to be found in changes in movement across time-space and that when research relegates all such changes to error by not explicitly allowing the potential to exist methodologically, the result is the reduction of our understanding of users to solipsistic individualism.
3) The conceptualization of the underlying information need as defined by both the material and phenomenological horizons of the actor, past, present, and future. By employing the Sense-Making Triangle, "information need" is re-conceptualized as a discontinuity in movement through time-space whereby people perceive themselves as being in a moment of gap and needing to bridge that gap in some way. The information need is, thus, defined by a combination of the three components of the Sense-Making triangle, namely, gap (i.e. the questions or muddles people have), situation (i.e. the situation as embedded in time both past and present) and use/help (i.e. the kind of help people construct out of bridges across gaps). In the context of the interface between users and information systems mandated to serve their needs, the bridge may be information stored among the systems' informational resources. From the perspective of Sense-Making, however, the bridge is anything that informs and assists sense-making and can include both internal phenomena (e.g. ideas, emotions, feelings, memories, hunches) and external phenomena (e.g. a helping hand, a fact retrieved from a data base, a change in someone's behavior).
4) Expansion of the focus on user "information needs" to any gap in movement, and forces and constraints which impede movement. This is an important aspect of how Sense-Making mandates treating information needs holistically in terms of users' lived experiences and how users see both the so-called objective and the so-called subjective aspects of those experiences. In this way, Sense-Making attempts to transcend the objective-subjective polarization that Dervin suggests has led to a portrait of users as chaotically solipsistic.
From: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC$$319732909782$$/009/2/009215.html
Problem-solving Models
Classic Problem-solving Cycle
(p.3) Psychologists have describe the problem-solving process in terms of a cycle (Bransford & Stein, 1993, Hayes, 1989, Sternberg, 1986). The cycle consists of the following stages:
- Recognizing or identifying the existence of a problem
- Defining the nature of the problem and representing it mentally
- Developing a solution strategy
- Organizing his or her knowledge about the problem
- Allocating mental and physical resources for solving the problem
- Monitoring progress toward the goal
- Evaluating the solution to the problem
This cycle is descriptive, and does not imply that all problem solving proceeds sequentially through all stages in this order (p.4) Problem recognition/finding, defining the scope and goals, Representing information, Solving (following a solution path or working out a solution)
Problem-solving as Information Processing
Simon's own presentation of the history of PS: http://dieoff.org/page163.htm
- The dual nature of problem solving -that it can be viewed as a sequence of internal mental events or as an actual series of movements through, or actions on, an external environment (or perhaps more profitably as an interaction between these two levels or realities)- does not usually receive much overt attention or analysis. This important part of Simon legacy has not been explored to the same extent as the separate levels have been. The focus has been on problem solving as cognition and representation to a much greater extent than on problem solving as action in the environment or on the interaction of the cognating organism with that external environment. (p.378) This is probably from the final chapter on the handbook on Problem Solving?
Four stage model of Insight
Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, and Verification
3-part model of Insight
Selective encoding, Selective combination, Selective comparison
Factors, processes and stages, approach
Intersections
Finally, some degree of integration of different models is now taking place. Wilson (Wilson, 1999) has proposed a problemsolving model as a way of integrating the research in the field and has also proposed a global model of the field (Wilson, 1997). The former perceives information seeking, searching and use as associated with the different stages of a goaldirected problem-solving process, the stages being: problem recognition, problem definition, problem resolution, and (where needed) solution statement. He suggests that both Kuhlthau’s stages and Ellis’s characteristics can be related to this model.
Wilson, T. D. (1997). Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective. Information Processing and Management, 33(4), 551- 572. Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-270.
(from Human Information Behavior T.D. Wilson University of Sheffield)
Relevance?
Clues?
Interactivity?
The term interactivity is defined as: The propensity to act in unison with external objects or other people (Marchionini, 1995).
