Research and reviews

Citation

Bruce, H. (1999), "Research and reviews", Internet Research, Vol. 9 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr.1999.17209daf.001

Research and reviews

In this issue of the Research and Reviews section of the journal, I thought that instead of publishing research in progress I would write about the sort of research that needs to be done. In my time as editor of this section of the journal, I have been kept up-to-date on the research agendas of Internet researchers around the world, and indeed have been embarking on my own research programs. In my field (Information Science), the challenges of researching the Internet and the people who use it have been enthusiastically embraced. There has been a lot of research done. This leads me to wonder - what next? What do we know and what do we need to know?

This is, of course, a very big question - one that I can only attempt to answer from the perspective of my own discipline. I urge the readers of Internet Research who work in other fields to consider this question for themselves. It may prompt you to action on your own research program and lead to further excellent issues of Internet Research.

The discipline of information science is broadly concerned with issues that affect the communication of knowledge and knowledge records among humans in social, institutional or individual contexts. The Internet is arguably the mainstream information environment of the late 1990s, so it stands to reason that an information scientist at this point in time will be concerned with how digital information and global networking are transforming information processes and behaviors.

How do people seek information, judge relevance, select resources, make meaning and utilize information in a digital context? Are the notions of library, reference service and collection being transformed by the Internet? Are the new information rich, richer? What are the dimensions of the digital divide? Is there a new information democracy associated with networked information resources? How do we effectively evaluate digital information? And so on.

For me, it seems that we have entered a golden era. There are more questions than we could poke a stick at. One of the exciting and yes I know, frustrating aspects of Internet research is that we are shooting at a moving target. As our research progresses, advances in networked information transform our playing field and can even make our research objective and questions redundant. Our research programs can barely keep pace with the trajectories of innovation and development. Innovation in digital information resources and management are so widespread and, in a sense, so uncontrolled that the information researcher needs to look for the big issues. For me, and for many others in my field, the big issues are those associated with the user and with use. In spite of the fact that the government, business, the education sector, and the media constantly promote the view that the Internet is the fundamental underpinning of the information society, the global village and so on we still know very little about the citizens of this global village. Of course, this is mainly due to the complexity of the Internet. The sheer numbers of people now using the Internet defy the researcher to define, systematically observe, theorize, generalize, recommend etc. To overcome this, existing studies of Internet users have tended to focus on particular groups like academics, librarians, lawyers, managers, engineers etc.

Research has also focused on certain types of information use such as the use of Government Information on the Internet. This focus has been helpful. We are able to study these groups or discourse communities or information services or uses because they are discrete and definable. They share characteristics like access to similar supportive infrastructures. They derive similar professional benefits from Internet use, and so on.

The problem is that the Internet user of 1999 and beyond is not necessarily affiliated with an institution, organization or profession. These people are the consumer users and casual users who have emerged with the broad-based public access agenda of the 1990s. What we need to know more about is the general public user of the Internet who has access to the network at home, work, library, Internet cafÅ and so on - the unaffiliated, non-purposed user of the Internet. We need to focus our research less on Internet user groups and more on Internet using.

Internet using is obviously diverse. It is possibly unique to each individual but I doubt that this is the case. For some time, information scientists have been keen to plumb the depths of the Internet as an information infrastructure or information environment. Information using and the Internet promote the view that the infrastructure is about information. It is about information in a very broad sense.

When we think about the using of the Internet we find that people look for information that they need, they contact people and engage in information exchanges, they create, publish and disseminate information. People can use the Internet to obtain gratification (affiliation/affirmation) from exchanging, comparing, collaborating to make meaning from information. They may be interested in finding information about a product or service that they want to buy. There are so many different ways in which everyday using of the Internet might take place. Our research agendas should take this into account. The Internet is an information environment but it is different from any other that we have explored to date.

Our models of information behavior have helped us explain public, external information behavior. The Internet has liberated the information user in a sense. He/she is no longer obliged to make a public appearance for information seeking. There is nothing discrete or compartmentalized about information behavior on the Internet. We don't necessarily have a neat packaging for users, systems and contexts in digital information environments. What we have, in Brenda Dervin's words are Usings:

...what becomes of interest is not context as such, or user as such, or system as such, but the behavings (internal and external) that happen to roam through these places so named (context, user, system) for academic/system convenience.

To this point in time, we have studied users with the view that this will help us to recommend extra features for search interfaces, improve system design etc. We have studied systems because this will help us to develop better ways of serving the needs of the user. We want to find out more about users so that we can better serve their needs. These are the challenges of the information scientist. But the complexities of the Internet are demonstrating that this approach may be a little misguided. Dervin's somewhat abstract ideas in 1996 are drawing sharper focus for Internet researchers in 1999 .

We may have to conclude ... that users are not real but what is real is the usINGS and the world viewINGS and the seekINGs and valuINGS that make up the usINGS. We may have to conclude that the idea of "user and learner groups" is not "real" and what is real is sometimes common, sometimes uncommon, and sometimes competing usINGS by real people on real journeys.

The study of users puts people into groups. We assume that all the members of the group will use the Internet in the same way. If we gain a clearer understanding of this then we can develop better systems that will be based on what we understand about what users want or need and these wants or needs will be matched and using will be more successful, satisfying etc. But maybe we move between groups when we are using the Internet - sometimes I am an academic; sometimes I am a father/son/husband; sometimes I am a friend; sometimes I am a business client and so on.

My usings have different motivations and expectations. Expectation is key. In an environment where so much using is taking place, we need to know more about whether expectations are being confirmed or disconfirmed. What do people think when they use the Internet and how is it different from what they expected? Does using disconfirm expectation? If so, what impact does this have on the user and the using?

I can think of a number of different information related usings of the Internet. Here the usings are for me information behaviors. Other readers may think of Internet using in a different way and it may trigger different sorts of research objectives or questions. The information usings I focus on are:

1. 1.

   Information seeking and gathering. People using the Internet to search for information that they need for professional or personal reasons.

2. 2.

   Information sharing/information socialization. People use the Internet to find other people who can provide them with information that they need or to share information about some topic that is of interest. This using is about satisfying the needs for information, affiliation and affirmation.

3. 3.

   Information dissemination/ publishing. Here the using is about making public an information artifact; a published representation of an idea with a view to sharing it with a known or unknown audience.

4. 4.

   Information transaction/business information using. Here the using of the Internet is about attracting a market, or client, or competitive advantage. Conversely is can be about getting information or providing information that will facilitate a commercial transaction.

5. 5.

   Information recreation. Here the Internet using is about fun; hobbies; interests and free time.

For Using 1, we know a fair bit about the using of particular user groups. There are published studies of information seeking or Web use or Information service use by particular categories of users. We don't know much about everyday information seeking on the Internet. We don't know about the information behaviors of unaffiliated users or general purpose users.

For Using 2, we have some research studies that have looked at communities on the Web. These studies have used techniques like discourse analysis to follow the social and information events of a Web discussion group or listserv. We don't know enough about the social aspects of information transferring on the Internet. What are the social impacts of information with attitude?

For Using 3, we need to know more about how this using confronts intellectual property; the way people value digital information artifacts when they are using them; how this is different from the way they feel about print; how people share their views; how people build new knowledge and contribute to perceptions on certain topics via the Internet.

For Using 4, we know a bit about business information (what sort of information people need to make a business transaction) but very little about how using business information changes the way people decide to purchase products or buy services online.

For Using 5, we know nothing. I know of no study that has looked at recreational information using on the Internet. In my view this presents a real opportunity for a fun loving researcher.

Cutting across all 5 Usings is the variable expectation. What do people expect when they embark on the types of usings described above. What happens to the using and to the user when an expectation is disconfirmed - when the using is different from what might have been expected? How does this change the context, perception of the system, valuing or usefulness of the outcome and so on?

These are just some of the research questions that emerge from an information science perspective of the Internet. I encourage our readers to look to their own disciplines to see if there are peculiar or unique approaches to Internet issues that ought to be pursued. Are there particular questions that warrant a cross-disciplinary perspective? Internet Research and in particular the Research and Reviews section of this journal are a vehicle for this discussion.

If you have research in progress that demonstrates the particular approaches of your discipline to an Internet issue or concern, consider submitting a research report to the Research and Reviews Editor. My contact details are:

Harry BruceSchool of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of WashingtonBox 352930Seattle, WATel: (206) 616 0985;Fax: (206) 616 3152Email: harryb@u.washington.edu

For the next issue of Internet Research, we will return to the usual format of publishing two research in progress reports in the Research and Reviews Section of the journal. Perhaps one of these reports will be yours.

Harry BruceResearch and Reviews Editor

Reference Dervin, B. (1996), "Information needs and information seeking: the search for questions behind the research agenda", Social Aspects of Digital Libraries, A workshop hosted by The Department of Information Studies, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies (GSE&IS), University of California, Los Angeles, February 16-17