Is there a need for re-claiming search in information literacy practices research?
By Trine Schreiber, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Introduction
Through digitalization the ways in which we access information have changed. Due to the development of mobile devices we have access to information resources more or less continuously, and therefore the search fore and use of information has to be understood as activities embedded in various practices in everyday life. Information systems, mobile devices and everyday searching are embedded in the infrastructure of the information society. A goal is to make this infrastructure more visible, to show its´ influences, but also to configure how people through their searching contribute to this infrastructure.
In recent years, the focus of contemporary practice-oriented information research has been on information practices rather than information searching. On the one hand, the activity of searching for information has almost come to symbolize contemporary culture, and the public interest in searching seems to increase. However, on the other hand searching has almost been overlooked in information practice research. Therefore, the role of search as a topic in future research needs to be discussed.
A conference and six panellists
At the ninth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 9) in Uppsala, June 27.-29., 2016, a panel session aimed at discussing the role of search in information literacy practices research. In the session six panellists were invited representing different universities and research approaches: Andrew M. Cox from University of Sheffield, Olof Sundin and Cecilia Andersson from Lund University, Helena Francke and Ola Pilerot from University of Borås, and Camilla Moring from University of Copenhagen. The panelists got the task to promote a discussion around questions such as:
…has searching been left aside for a good reason? Is research on search in fact more important than ever? If so, how can we approach search in a relevant way?
A need to focus on searching and search engines
Four of the six panellists believed that there was a need for re-claiming search in information literacy practices research. Three of them referred to social and technological changes. Sundin argued that Swedish curriculum had made the act of searching invisible. The present curriculum describes information searching as purely technical, and present search engines as neutral infrastructures. Therefore, one goal should be to mediate an understanding of how search engines co-produces knowledge and thereby visualizing the invisible parts of searching.
Francke referred to the remediation of search. This development had become visible in a number of ways, e.g. when devices and software allows people to search in new ways, in new places and at new times. The changing modalities, through which people are searching with conversational agents such as Siri or Google, allows us to speak our query and give us the possibility of searching using image or face-recognition software. These changes to the conditions for search calls for a need to understand search as part of specific practices, and as an embodied activity.
In agreement with Sundin, Pilerot argued that search engines are not neutral tools, but rather co-produced value-laden entities that contribute to shape the specific practices. By referring to researchers such as Knorr Cetina and Barad he described agency in search practices as based on relationships between humans and material objects where the latter tended to “bite back”. Therefore, he viewed the activity of searching not solely as an activity driven by the searcher but one where the search tool was an equally important agent. He advocated the inclusion of material objects into the analysis of information practices.
A need to rethink research methods
Andersson agreed that there is a need for re-claiming search, but saw a need for rethinking research methods. In her own research, she had experienced a problem of grasping search in a context of everyday life. One-way of grasping it could be by using tracking devices, but this apporach opens up for a multitude of ethical dilemmas concerning for instance participants’ privacy. Instead Andersson proposed a method called “trace interviewing” where participants describe and visualize their digital traces during an interview.
A need to develop the theoretical approach
Two of the panellists believed that there first of all was a need to further develop the practice theoretical approach. These two panellists referred to the state of art of the information practice research. Cox argued that searching in many cases is just one activity among others. He looked firstly at research lifecycles, then secondly, at the hobby of running, and described how search was only one of many activities in research. Running was not an information practice, but sensory information was essential, and it also involved monitoring training, exchanging information with other runners, and receiving information from trainers. Therefore, in this case searching was a relatively marginal activity compared with other activities. He ended his presentation by saying “Search is a pervasive activity, but we still have not fully absorbed the rebalancing of our understanding of information practice”, i.e. there was still a need for discussing the concept of information practice.
Moring agreed with Cox. Search was an interesting subject, but just one activity among others. Often searching is performed as an activity embedded in other activities.
Therefore, if we turn our attention towards search there is firstly a need for more research about how to study search as an embedded activity. Secondly, it is important to go beyond the idea of specific information practices and investigate searching as an activity dispersed across practices. People have their search tools at hand and they use them for multi-facetted purposes, while they move across different practices in daily life. Thirdly, to make this kind of study there is a need for further discussions of the way to use concepts like habits, routines and human dispositions without making a dichotomy between subjects and objects.
Answers to the question
Three panellists argued for reconsidering search in information literacy practices research. The researchers based their arguments on problems of invisible search, on changed conditions regarding searching with conversational agents, and on a necessary awareness of how the search engines “bite back”. However, they also agreed that there still were unsolved theoretical questions. One panellist argued for rethinking research methods, and the last two presented arguments for the importance of reconsidering the theoretical use of the practice-oriented approach. And the last two recommended discussions of concepts such as information practice, embeddedness, agency, and activities dispersed across practices.
The discussion revealed that information practice research must take into account both searching and search engines as central parts of the infrastructure in information society.
In spite of some disagreement, the six panellists presented together a list of interesting and relevant topics for future research, and the panel discussion revealed a need for further developing the theoretical and conceptual tools for analyzing these activities.
About the author:
Trine Schreiber is Associate Professor at the Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen, Birketinget 6, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. Research interests are information literacy, information practice, and practice theory.
