ASIST 2006 PANEL
PART OF THE THREE-FIELD DIALOGUE PROJECT
Dervin, B., Case, D., Dillon, A., Fisher, K., Normore, L., Tenopir, C, with numerous co-authors (2006). Being user oriented: Convergences, divergences, and the potentials for systematic dialogue between disciplines and between researchers, designers, and providers. Panel session at American Society for Information Science and Technology annual meeting, November 3-9, Austin, TX http://imlsproject.comm.ohio-state.edu/imls_papers/asist06panel_list.html
EXPLANATION:
This panel constitutes part of ROUND 4 in a multi-stage dialogic project focusing on differences in how researchers and practitioners in three fields -- library and information science, human computer interaction, communication and media studies -- look at the big unanswered questions about users/ audiences, and the gaps between fields and between researchers and practitioners in thinking about and applying research to the designs, policies, and practices of library, information, communication, and media systems. Full explanation of the Three-Field Dialogue Project is available in the Phase I Report of the IMLS Project. See, in particular:
Chapter I, providing an explanation of communicative approaches to dialogue
Chapter II, documenting method and results of ROUND 1 of the dialogue (see below)
Chapter III, presenting the impressionistic essays that constitute ROUND 2 of the dialogue
THE ROUNDS IN THE THREE-FIELD DIALOGUE PROJECT
ROUND 1 consisted of interviews with 83 international experts in the 3 fields, and 31 local experts -- public and academic librarians serving a sub-sample of the 44 colleges and universities in central Ohio. These interview data base is anonymous and de-identified. They form the basis for all succeeding rounds. Readers with an interest in participating in the dialogue may do so as ROUND 2 essayists, writing impressionistic essays of their interpretations of the gaps they see being discussed by ROUND 1 interviewees. See ROUND 2 for more details.
ROUND 2 consists of impressionistic essays written by volunteers from the project's advisory committees as well as others on what they see as the gaps between fields and between research-practice in thinking about users and disciplinary and research-practice divides. Essayists are required to mine the ROUND 1 database for their understandings of what interviews are saying. They are explicitly asked to not propose solutions or what they think are "right" resolutions. Interested readers may apply to become essayists at dervin.1@osu.edu. Class instructors and professors may also propose ways of using the database in classes. Examples of such uses are available in the ROUND 2 essays. All participants will be required to indicate agreement to keep database confidential. In addition, uses in classes must yield some visible outcome that will become part of ROUND 2.
Roster of essayists with links to essays (48 essays available)
Application to participate in ROUND 2 of the dialogue by
a) writing impressionist essay based on your interpretations of the communication struggles exhibited by ROUND 1 interviews;
b) by proposing a use in a graduate level class of the ROUND 1 interviews that will yield a contribution to ROUND 2
ROUND 3 consisted of the preparation of two papers written by Dervin and graduate students at OSU drawn from their readings of the ROUND 1 interviews. The first paper presented a thematic analysis of the interviews. Purpose was not to do substantive comparisons of informant's fields, places of employment, work activities, perceived gaps, or proposed solutions. Rather, purpose was to get the kind of overview a communication facilitator reaches for so that alternative procedures and structures for communicating may be implemented. The second paper drew on understandings gained from paper 1 and implemented a deep dig of philosophical writings pertinent to the conduct of communicating in within scientific fields, between fields, and between science and practice. A great many writings by physical, natural, and social scientists informed this second paper. The two papers and supporting material are available at:
Dervin, B. and Reinhard, C.D. (2006). Researchers and practitioners talk about users and each other: Making user and audience studies matter - paper 1. Information Research, 12(1), paper 286. Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/12-1/paper286.html
A copy of the major themes and sub-themes is available here
Dervin, B., Reinhard, C.D., Shen, F.S. (2006). Beyond communication -- research as communicating: Making user and audience studies matter - paper 2. Information Research, 12(2), paper 287. Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/12-1/paper287.html
This essay is supported by a PowerPoint
presentation prepared especially for graduate students in the three focal
fields. The slide show consists of 247 quotable quotes from 86 sources
each of whom who identified with a photograph and brief biographical information.
Dervin, B., Reinhard, C. D., Shen, F. C., Adamson, S.K. & Karnolt, N. M.
(2006). We get by with a little help from
our friends: quotable quotes about research as communicating.
Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication, Ohio State University.
ROUND 4 consists of a series of symposia, panels, and workshops designed to continue the dialogue. The ASIST06 panel was the first of these.
ASIST06 meeting, November 7, 2006, Austin, Texas (American Society for Information Science and Technology)
Panel abstract as posted in ASIST06 proceedings
Audio file of the panel is available as:
Panelists presented in the following order. PowerPoint presentations are available for those panelists whose names are linked.
Brenda Dervin (Ohio State University)
Andrew Dillon (University of Texas-Austin)
Donald
Case (University of Kentucky)
Karen Fisher (University of
Washington)
Lorraine Normore (University of Tennessee)
Carol Tenopir (University of Tennessee)
The Sense-Making self-journaling instrument distributed at session with responses from 10 anonymous attendees.
This illustrates some of the communication principles implemented in ROUND 1 and discussed in both ROUND 3 papers.
ROUND 4 symposia, panels, workshops planned for the future:
ICA07 meeting, May 2007, San Francisco, California (International Communication Association)
ACM/SIG/CHI meeting, April 2008
Plan to submit proposal by September 2007 deadline
ASIST2008, October 2008, Columbus, Ohio (American Society for Information Science and Technology)
Planning a full day working symposium
ADVISORS AND VOLUNTEERS PARTICIPATING IN THE DIALOGUE
International Advisory Committee (100 members)
Local Advisory Committee (31 members)
Roster of those who wrote essays
for ROUND 2 (48 essays)
Roster of interviewers, transcribers, and
editors
-------
Resources supporting the dialogue project as reported here came primarily from: a) senior author Dervin's Joan N. Huber Fellowship fund; b) The Ohio State University School of Communication; and c) volunteer efforts of some 180 volunteers -- faculty, students, consultants, administrators, and practitioners in 3 fields (library and information science, human computer interaction, and communication and media studies) located at some 75 institutions (universities, libraries, corporations, consulting firms, governmental agencies) in 20 US states and 8 countries. Original impetus and about 10% of the support for the dialogue came from the “Sense-making the information confluence" project which was funded by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to Ohio State University, and by in-kind contributions from Ohio State University and the Online Computer Library Center. That project was implemented by Brenda Dervin (Professor of Communication and Joan N. Huber Fellow of Social & Behavioral Science, Ohio State University) as Principal Investigator; and Lynn Silipigni Connaway (OCLC Consulting Research Scientist III) and Chandra Prahba (OCLC Senior Research Scientist), as Co-Investigators. More information on the IMLS project may be secured at: http://imlsproject.comm.ohio-state.edu. The authors owe special thanks to: a) the many students and volunteers who assisted in various ways on the international-local expert dialogue -- their names are listed at pages linked above; b) OCLC Consulting Research Scientist Lynn Silipigni Connaway who completed six of the international expert interviews; c) the Online Computer Library Center for providing the venue for the local expert focus group meetings and Connaway for facilitating.
Updated: April 18, 2007