PIK Week 2 - Key Concepts: What is Information? Knowledge?

I would like to begin today's journal by looking into T.D, Wilson's work: Human Information Behavior.

Without beginning my analysis with too much of a critique, I would like to note that Wilson has made a very important contribution to Information science. Wilson drew attention to the fact that information science was only one of the disciplines that dealt with the subject and he gave examples of a number of fields that contained relevant work. He drew attention to useful models, theoretical concepts and research instruments that might be employed in future work from an Information Science perspective and consequently had a significant impact on the field of Information Science as we know it today.

His article; Human Information Behavior is a good one to begin with as it goes over baseline definitions and visits various theories that are prominent in Information Science today.

Wilson defines information as a piece of datum that is capable of informing a user. He goes into further detail by identifying four definitions of behavior that users utilize to subsume data into information:

 

He defines Information Behavior as a general term that defines the totality of human behavior as it relates to all sources and channels of information.

He defines Information Seeking Behavior as the intention of a user to seek out information due to a need to satisfy a goal or objective.

He defines Information Searching Behavior as the ‘micro-level’ techniques
that users employ in their search for information from information systems of all kinds.

And he defines Information Use Behavior as the physical and mental acts involved in bringing together the information found into the person's existing knowledge base.

He also maintains that Knowledge can only be known by the knower, and that only information can be transmitted.

Although these definitions seem useful as the building blocks for the field of information science I can't help but feel they are limited on several levels. It sounds as though the term 'Information Behavior' is used by Wilson in a context limited strictly to the field of information and library science. However, the 'totality' of information behaviour as it relates to all sources of information could potentially be anything - and I don't get the sense that Wilson is encompassing the full scope of the word (would Wilson, say, be inclined to define someone's interaction with smell of milk as information behaviour?). Furthermore, in contrast to his rather broad definition of Information use, his definitions regarding information seeking/searching seem very specific and precise (revealing Wilson's strong focus towards a more active form of information interaction). Finally, I'm not sure I completely agree with his position that Knowledge can only be known by the 'knower'. To me, this position indicates that Knowledge is an objective entity divorced from meaning that can be held only within an individual.  I would much prefer to visit  and the wider social influences on knowledge and our relation to it before I accept Wilson's position. It also raises the question of how meaning is created in relation to knowledge which came up in my previous post.

Wilson visits Dervin's sense-making approach in the article. The fact that Dervin's work has been so influential in the Information Science field and given that it is first time I've been exposed to it, I thought it apt to bring up the theory here. I found an excellent illustration by Dervin herself which illustrates the ideas of sense-making:

 

For someone who has changed the face of discipline towards a more user centered approach, Dervin has certainly put a lot of effort into illustrating the user in the above model. But more to the point, what is particularly interesting about this model is its much more holistic approach to information. A model which I'd argue would be much more capable of predicting 'information behaviour' as defined above by Wilson.

Wilson also briefly touches on multidisciplinary approaches to information science, by visiting research on cognitive, marketing and healthcare oriented approaches to information science (Cacioppo, Petty & Kao (1984), Timko and Loyns (1989) and Krohne (1993) respectively). He concludes that the study of human information behavior has become well-placed within information science. I feel that this focus on people as opposed to a systems oriented approach (as was the focus in the discipline earlier) opens up the field to a broad collection of theories and approaches that will ultimately help move the field forward. 

It is worth analyzing why I feel this way. I believe that the more diversity of approaches and theories a field contains, the more likely it will be to yield a resilience to the knowledge that characterises it. A field with diverse theories and approaches will be more likely to contain contradictions and oppositions and I argue that these qualities are an important factor in developing progressive knowledge. My perspective here is strongly influenced by Hegel, and more over a Zizekian interpretation of Hegel's concept of Aufhebung (or sublation). Zizek claims that it is not a matter of having one pole, then the other pole, and through the meeting of these poles we arrive at a broader perspective and bring them together through synthesis. He claims that for Hegel it is not about re-establishing the symmetry and balance of the two opposing principles, but to recognize in one pole, the symptom or the failure of the other.

Where Wilson is trying to synthesize all the different approaches and theories under a balanced framework, I would argue that it is more important to in fact draw an opposite conclusion. Wilson argues that there is evidence that shows  "some degree of integration of different models is now taking place." (he even goes on to cite his global model as a way of integrating the field). I would argue that precisely his ability to develop such a 'global' model of the field is evidence that these 'integrated' approaches and theories can now start to be described as hegemonic and that it is important that the field should focus towards opening up more opportunities to accommodate different and opposing theories and approaches.

In an earlier publication, Wilson (1994) identifies that " a great deal of user behavior is dependent upon the nature of the system being used." He goes on to say that "Any integrated, theoretical model must also find a place for the changing character of information systems." What is interesting to me here is the relationship between integrated models and the information systems it creates. Furthermore, I would argue the 'integrative' model ought not to be about accommodating for the changing character of information systems, but rather the field should accommodate for opposing models that challenge this 'integrative' model that is gaining so much acceptance across the field.

Moving on from Wilson, I wouldn't be able to complete this week's journal without a critical look at Buckland's article as well - especially after the active discussion in class about the idea of information as a 'thing'.

Buckland makes interesting distinctions when referring to information:

Information as a Process (the act of informing - becoming informed),
Information as Knowledge (information that serves to reduce ignorance and uncertainty) Information as a Thing (an object through with Information as knowledge can be accessed)
Information as Data Processing (When data is processed in an information system)

I find the first three of these distinctions problematic. First of all, thinking of information as a process is a difficult one to get my head around - I want to be careful here and not simply limit my understanding of 'information as a process' to 'learning'. I'd like to think of it as a much broader and all encompassing process that involves a person's interaction with the world around them.

Secondly, I find the idea that knowledge is simply that which reduces ignorance or uncertainty rather limited. Again the assumption here seems to be that knowledge is a objective abstraction that is devoid of meaning - an assumption that I'm not readily willing to accept. Furthermore, where does 'misinformation' fit in Buckland's idea of information? or does he not regard misinformation to influence knowledge at all?

Finally, I find the idea of information as a physical thing problematic. Fundamentally, information objects (as Buckland describes them) are MEDIUMS through which information is accessed, they are not information themselves. Though the medium has a lot of influence in the way information is understood by people, I would be reluctant to say that the Medium itself is information.

Buckland does raise an interesting point about original artifacts and I would hold these as separate from 'information objects'. Clearly, when one interacts with, say a dinosaur bone, this is a more direct relationship with information then a representation of a dinosaur bone in a book. Of course the situation and context in which a person interacts with such a piece of information must be taken into account but I'm inclined to believe that there is a clear distinction between this direct relationship with information and information that has been re-interpreted, reproduced and appropriated by someone else through a text. I argue that the original relationship between the subject and the object is compromised through the act of communication.

Professor Olsson also introduced John Perry Barlow in class and I am finding his ideas extremely appealing. So much so that I think the ideas he talks about deserve a separate post. I'll finish up this post with a lecture by Barlow introducing some of the ideas he talks about:

Sources:

Buckland, J. P. (1991) Information as a Thing. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 42 (5), 351-360.

Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty, et al. (1984). The efficient assessment of
need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 306-
307.

Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in
coping research. Attention and Avoidance: Strategies in Coping
with Aversiveness. H. W. Krohne. Seattle, Hogrefe and Huber:
Chapter 2.

Timko, M. & R. M. A. Loynes (1989). Market information needs for
prairie farmers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 37,
609-627.

Wilson, T. (2000). Human Information Behaviour. Informing Science 3 (1), 49-55.

Wilson, T.D. (1994). Information needs and uses: 50 years of progress?
In: Vickery, B.C. (ed.), Fifty years of information progress: a Journal of Documentation Review, 15- 51 London: ASLI