Metaphors we search by: experiences of handling information

Introduction

Information professionals are highly experienced in locating and handling information. However, the students, researchers and clinicians we support are often still developing these skills, and it is easy for information professionals to forget what it is like to be on the other side of this threshold of expertise. (1) In order to better support our communities, it is important to have insight into their perceptions and experiences of handling information. This study draws on interviews of researchers’ experiences of conducting large literature reviews, in which the study subjects used metaphorical language in discussing their experiences of handling information.

Metaphorical language has been studied this context before: prior research indicates that ‘novice searchers’ who have coherent metaphors or analogous mental models of the literature search process, despite unfamiliarity with computer-based search processes, may be more likely to report their searches as successful. (2) However, it is not the intention of this study to try to make handling information somehow less arduous for researchers by imposing metaphors on them. The primary reason for analysing personal metaphors is that they may be valuable in arriving at a more meaningful understanding of others’ perspectives. (3)

Objectives

This study had several aims: to better understand novice researchers’ approaches to and experiences of information handling as part of research-related use of literature through the metaphors they use to frame their work; to test the acceptability of users’ personal metaphors to information professionals; to pilot the research methods in preparation for a larger study.

Methods

Three semi-structured interviews of researchers were conducted: one masters student (business studies), one doctoral student (education), and one established academic (veterinary medicine). The interviews were transcribed and coded for metaphorical phrases. The metaphorical phrases were extracted and used as the topic of discussion in a focus group of three academic liaison librarians covering several different disciplines (arts, education, health sciences, law, physical sciences). During the focus group, the researcher metaphorical phrases were tested for meaningfulness, whether any were already used, or whether the librarians felt they could incorporate any new ones into their own teaching.

Results

The researchers used a variety of metaphorical phrases that can be loosely grouped into being about the processes, purposes and experiences of using information and sources (including affect) as part of their research. As part of testing meaningfulness, the librarians were asked to choose among the metaphorical phrases and match them against the SCONUL pillars of information literacy. (4) The librarians reported little difficulty in matching the phrases to the pillars, and also noted in discussion that often a single phrase could fit against more than one pillar. There were differences in interpretations of meaning, and some of the metaphors only became meaningful to one or two of the librarians during the course of the discussion. Only a small proportion of the metaphors were identified as already used by the librarians, and few were identified as metaphors that the librarians would use themselves. There was a reluctance to use metaphors that did not feel ‘natural’.

Discussion

The researchers used a wide variety of metaphorical phrases about process (immerse yourself, keeping my eye open), purpose (ladder, skeleton) and experiences (winding path, roller-coaster). The librarians observed similarity of expression between researchers, for example, the process of gathering and assimilating the literature being like ‘swimming around’ and having ‘kind of clear path’ and interpreted some phrases as indicating strong (or weak) planning skills. The SCONUL pillars were familiar to the focus group participants as ways of conceptualising process and skills of handling information. In general, the researchers’ metaphorical phrases were not difficult to match to the pillars, though it was observed that the phrases could be mapped equally to different pillars and that sometimes a single phrase combined different pillars, articulated in the discussion as implying a simultaneous set of activities or processes.  Correlation in matching against the SCONUL pillars by the focus group participants was not measured - what is more important than correlation of interpretations is whether the researchers’ personal metaphors gave the librarians new insight into the experiences of handling information. On the basis that one of the expressions caused ‘shock’ to the librarians, and that a few were identified illuminating but previously unused, it may be argued that the interview extracts did give the focus group participants new understanding. One limitation of the study is that it is difficult to say whether the researchers' statements themselves, regardless of any metaphorical language, gave these insights - or whether the metaphorical phrases were particularly helpful in giving the librarians perspectives from the other side of a threshold.