Exploring the Relationship Between Information and Individuals, Organizations, and Society
We’re deviating from my pattern of more casual posts to give you readers a deeper dive into a topic I’ve been exploring in my Information Science class. I will admit that this also serves as a midterm project for said-class, but the reason I chose to do this in the form of a blogpost (as opposed to the many other options / open-ended prompt offered) is because I find this topic genuinely interesting and wanted to share with you all what I have learned about it.
A note to any fellow MLIS students: Feel free to use this post for inspiration and exploring resources I’ve linked. However, you do not have my permission to use this post word-for-word to pass off as your own work in an assignment.
Before getting into the main topic, I think it’s important we are all on the same page when it comes to how we define a few terms, namely information and society. Now yes, we could just as easily pull definitions from Merrium-Webster and call it a day, but in studying this topic more deeply, I’ve found there is more to be communicated in how we define a term based on our knowledge around (and subsequent worldview about) it.
In this class, we have the ongoing task to define and re-shape our definition of information based on what we are learning, so there is a fair chance my definition will change once again as the second half of the semester progresses. However, here is my current working definition:
Information: Data acquired through observation and/or communication which is then processed by the mind to form knowledge
There are a couple things I want to note about this definition based on the discussions we’ve had in class trying to define information. First, I find that while they are separate concepts, it is helpful to use the term “knowledge” when defining “information” in order to demonstrate the two in context with one another. Just like how cells are the building blocks of the human body, I understand bits of information to be the building blocks for knowledge bases in individuals, organizations, and society.
Second, I chose not to include a specific method for acquiring data, like using a computer, because I wanted my definition to be open enough to include all forms of information seeking (like internet searches, finding books in a physical library, personal observation of one’s surroundings, and oral narration / discussion of information previously acquired by other community members).
Now the term “society” hasn’t been explored quite as much in this class, but I wanted to include my definition of the word because it is the second half of the equation when talking about the relationship between information and people. Since I (or any information professional) am unable to speak to each individual’s relationship to information, what we are really talking about in our broad-sweeping statements is how we understand the average, or society at large, to interact with / have a relationship with information.
As a former journalist, I think it’s always important to disclose a bias when you know one exists. While I have done my best to present this topic in a way that is relevant to an array of people, I know that in the back of my mind I tend to have a very specific image in my head when I imagine “society.” Namely, it’s the society I grew up in which was a part of the Southeastern United States that was majority middle class, white, and conservative. Especially as I get into my personal theories on the relationship between information and society, there is a chance this background experience will seep into how my subconscious views "society". However, my conscious, running definition of the word is:
Society: A group of people who live, work, communicate, and/or regularly interact with one another. This can be in a physical and/or digital space.
With those definitions and acknowledgements in place, it’s time to get into the meat and potatoes of this post: the relationship between information and individuals, organizations, and society. This is still a fairly broad topic that could have whole books written about them. In fact, there have been like Seeing What Others Don't by Gary Klein.
That being said, I want to focus on three key aspects of this relationship: information creation, information seeking, and the point of interaction between the two. Through this, my hope is you all will gain a better understanding of the importance of information in our lives and how it deserves a deeper study by everyone (and not just those getting an MLIS 😉).
Information Seeking
While some theories on information, such as the Shannon-Weaver model, see information as a straightforward path of input and output, there are other concepts I align with more such as Lai Ma’s critique that “With the misconstrued concept of information, Weaver’s general theory of communication neglects the complexities in human communication”. There is a cyclical nature to people’s relationship with information when we look closer at the process of creation, consumption, and processing.
While I could begin at any point in the process, I want to meet you where you’re literally at with information seeking. Whether I find you here on more casual terms or as part of the research process for work/class, reading my blog post is a form of information seeking.
Amanda Spink in the Journal of Documentation (2005) stated, “Human information behavior (HIB) is a basic element of human existence. Humans have sought, organized, and used information for millennia as they evolved and learned patterns of HIB to help resolve their human problems and continue to survive.”
There are several elements of information seeking behavior discussed in the LIS field. One article, from which I will be referencing in this section, lists 17 theoretical concepts. For the sake of brevity, I am going to focus on two: the principle of least effort and preference of channel plus highlight some issues in information access.
The principle of least effort is something you can likely guess the meaning of by its name. When seeking out information, people tend to expend the least amount of energy that seems necessary in order to get the answer they are looking for. A great example of this is when someone looks up physical symptoms online in order to try to figure out if they have a certain condition. Rather than more in-depth methods like reading medical journals (or consulting a doctor / specialist), many rely on websites like WebMD, Healthline, and Mayo Clinic for at least an initial search.
Another element that affects information seeking behavior is “preference of channel.” A channel just means, “...a mechanism through which a person can search, find, select, and receive information” (Jansen, Rieh) By leaning on these preferred channels too heavily, a person may limit themselves with the sources of information they will be able to find. Depending on what (or who) the preferred source is, there can also be a greater lens of bias when delivering said information which cannot be caught as easily if the information seeker does not cross reference with other sources. The graphic below is a little dated (originally created in 2018), but it highlights how news sources can have a bias in the way they present information (sometimes to an extreme effect).
The last aspect of information seeking I wanted to cover is less so a theory and more so a practical observation I’ve made in my own experience: information access. This could also be a whole post on its own, but I’d feel remiss not mentioning it at least briefly while covering the relationship between information and information seekers.
The concept of access comes in many forms. Is a certain resource accessible to those with visual impairments? Is it behind a paywall or in an expensive textbook? Are there print versions of the information to begin with or is Internet access required to know about it?
Depending on the information seekers' situation, there may be major barriers in place to finding quality sources. This is something that I became far more aware of after starting my job as a prison librarian. For the most part, my patrons don’t have access to the Internet (or computers period, save for certain exceptions), so their relationship to information is quite different from mine. I am used to being able to find answers to simple questions pretty quickly whereas they can go quite a while before happening upon that right book or person. Part of my job is helping to expand their information access where I can, but security restrictions make it to where I can’t do this to the same degree I could say in a public or academic library.
This reduction in access to information affects the two concepts discussed before, the principle of least effort and preference of channel, as well as many of the theoretical concepts in the original article cited above. For patrons like mine, the entire cycle of information seeking, processing, and creation is very different from your average person here in the States.
Information Creation
There is a bit of a meta element throughout this post I have yet to acknowledge. In doing this project, I have gone through the cycle of information seeking, processing, and creating multiple times myself (for every fact and idea you will read here and then some).
So far, when looking at the relationship between people and information, LIS studies and theory appears to focus on the information seeking part of the cycle (hence, far more references in the section above than you may see in this next one). However, I argue that information creation is just as important to consider. The point where information seeking becomes information creation is even more fascinating to me, but I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s save that for our final section.
How is information created in the first place? Going back to my original definition of information, I note, “Data acquired through observation and/or communication…” While I find it sufficient enough for a definition, it doesn’t cover the follow-up question of why a person might engage in the process of observation and/or communication in the first place in order to acquire knowledge.
Like I mentioned with my quote of Spink. Information seeking is an old practice based on survival needs. However, we did not form as a society instantly having all of the answers to any question that popped in our heads (we still don’t!). So by that logic, the process of information seeking also leads to information creation when a person discovers something for the first time. There can be many “firsts” for when certain data is acquired. A great example of this would be the concept of "Multiple Discoveries" where an invention of something happened in multiple areas independent of one another.
Looking at the two facets of data acquisition I offer: I would argue that through history there was a heavier focus on learning through observation which eventually was superseded (though both are still relevant) by learning through communication. It is the difference between attempting to grow tomatoes on your own and observing what happens vs. learning the best techniques ahead of time by asking someone with more experience what they had already observed in previous growing seasons.
Those throughout history whose circumstance and frame of mind lead to major information creation are often the ones we still talk about in our studies today: inventors, philosophers, revolutionaries, etc. This highlights an aspect of our relationship with information which is how highly we value the creation of new information (at least with the set of values I currently observe in society).
It would take far too long to dive into the nature of these information creators and their motivations, but in my research I found a couple books on the topic that seem like interesting reads: How We Got to Now by Steven Johnson and Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure by Vaclav Smil.
The Point of Interaction
About 2,000 words later. This leads to my last (and admittedly shortest) section of this post.
A concept I would love to see information scientists and philosophers alike dive into more is the point precisely between information seeking and information creation. It is at that point that I say you find the spark of human intelligence, creativity, and determination to be able to take bits of data here, facets of theory there, and process it together to form new knowledge.
I would also argue it is at this point of interaction where we find our next wave of discoveries. A great example of this are meta-analyses we see across a host of disciplines. By combining the information created through multiple studies and analyzing them to see what new conclusions can be made, information seeking turns into information creation!
This point of interaction between two parts of the information cycle should also be of interest to information professionals because a better understanding of this process of creating new knowledge from established information will only make us better at our jobs helping patrons, clients, etc. find the solutions to questions old and new alike.
In fact, I argue that is the point of studying information science to begin with. We want to better understand the history, theory, and praxis that goes into information management, research, and other aspects of this ever-changing field we have chosen to be part of. By having that foundational knowledge, we will then be able to go forward in our (current or future) LIS jobs confident in our abilities to help.
Till Next Time,
Sam
Comments