1 / 32

Karen Fisher, Carol Landry & Charles Naumer The Information School University of Washington

Social Spaces, Casual Interactions, Meaningful Exchanges: Information Ground Characteristics based on the College Student Experience. Uni. Karen Fisher, Carol Landry & Charles Naumer The Information School University of Washington. Theories of Information Behavior (2005).

glain
Download Presentation

Karen Fisher, Carol Landry & Charles Naumer The Information School University of Washington

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Social Spaces, Casual Interactions, Meaningful Exchanges:Information Ground Characteristics based on theCollege Student Experience Uni Karen Fisher, Carol Landry & Charles Naumer The Information School University of Washington

  2. Theories ofInformation Behavior (2005) Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, E. F. (Eds.)

  3. Social Settings • Recent attention • Part of context • LQ special issue on “Library as Place” • Work in cognate fields • Urban geography, sociology

  4. New View • Social Capital  People Factors • Putnam et al • 3rd Place  People + Place • Oldenburg • Info Grounds  People + Place + Info • Fisher et al

  5. Information Grounds “Environment[s] temporarily created when people come together for a singular purpose but from whose behavior emerges a social atmosphere that fosters the spontaneous and serendipitous sharing of info” (Pettigrew, 1999) ** Foot clinics in Canada **

  6. IG Propositions(Fisher, Durance & Hinton, 2004) • IGs can occur anywhere, in any type of temporal setting and are predicated on the presence of individuals • People gather at IGs for a primary, instrumental purpose other than info sharing • IGs are attended by different social types, most if not all of whom play expected and important, albeit different roles in info flow • Social interaction is a primary activity at IGs such that info flow is a byproduct • People engage in formal and informal info sharing, and info flow occurs in many directions • People use info obtained at IGs in alternative ways, and benefit along physical, social, affective and cognitive dimensions • Many sub-contexts exist within an IG and are based on people's perspectives and physical factors; together these sub-contexts form a grand context

  7. Past Research(Fisher & Naumer, 2006) • Propositions studied using varied populations • Foot Clinics (n=30) • Immigrants and QBPL programs (n=45) • East King County (n=612) • Northwest Residents (n=276) • Migrant Hispanic Farm Workers (n=51) • College Students (n=729) • Tweens (ages 9-13; n=30) • Stay-at-home mothers (n=20) • Café People • Book Clubs (n=6) • (Plus many anecdotal reports…)

  8. Findings To-date • Everyone has at least one IG • Most popular for general public: • Church (lower income people) • Workplace lunchroom (higher income) • Broad range of other settings; looking for “mingable” places • “Hostage” phenomena  When people are stuck together • Waiting rooms (auto shops, offices), queues, laundromats, ferries, buses & trains, airport luggage carousels… • Bonding and bridging social capital

  9. Info Grounds • What’s yours? • What makes it a good “info” place?

  10. College Student RQs • What are students’ IGs? • What types of info do students obtain at IGs? • What makes these IGs opportune for info flow? • How can these IGs be explained using an typology based on previous IG studies?

  11. College Students • n=729 • Oct. 14-21, 2004 • 55% female • 24 years (mean age) • 72% undergrads, 15% masters, 7% PhD, 6% non-degree • 23.5 months average attendance

  12. < < Info Grounds > > Where do you think they are for college students?

  13. College Students IGs

  14. People • Membership Size • Membership Type • Familiarity • Actor Roles • Motivation • Place • Focal Activities • Conviviality • Creature Comfort • Location & Permanence • Privacy • Ambient Noise • Information • Significance • Frequency Discussed • How Created/Shared • Topics People-Place-Information Trichotomy

  15. Membership Size Influences how info created & exchanged Degree of intimacy Degree of access to info types College students IGs typically small to medium Membership Types (n=729) Open & public (70.4%) Closed & exclusive (29.6%) People Characteristics

  16. People Characteristics • Familiarity/Relational Dynamics • Making connections • Fleeting relationships • It is not necessary to worry about “what other people think because you never have to see them again” • Anchored relationships • “They don’t mind me hanging around and they know my drink.” • Homogeneity • Shared interests, background, characteristics, activities • Heterogeneity • Diverse perspectives

  17. Actor Roles Reason for being at IG Significant to flow of info Students7 roles (n=790) Customer 25.4% Student 20.1% Staff 19.9% Member 16.2% Info Giver 12.4% Resident 4.1% Other 1.9% Motivation Voluntary Compulsory Hostage Bus/bus stop Classroom and hallways before and after class People Characteristics

  18. Place Characteristics • Focal Activities • Reason for going to IG • Bring people together • Multiple activities occur simultaneously • Conviviality • Can include food or drink • Festive mood • Fosters interaction among people

  19. Place Characteristics • Creature Comforts • Environmental factors • Chairs, lighting, music • Create relaxing environment conducive to info exchange • Location & Permanence • Convenience • How IGs created, sustained, transform, disappear

  20. Place Characteristics • Privacy • Perceived privacy fosters conversation • Crowds allow for eavesdropping • Ambient Noise • May or may not facilitate conversation and info sharing

  21. Significance Usefulness of info Decision making Frequency Discussed Topic comes up often New ideas and issues (n=722) Info very useful (49.9%) Info somewhat useful (37.4%) Can’t do without info (6.1%) Info not useful (5.0%) Info not applicable (1.7%) ----------------------------------------- (n=724) Make trivial decisions (35.9%) Make big decisions (22.2%) Make trivial & big (37.6%) Make small decisions (2.5%) Other (1.8%) Info Characteristics

  22. Info Characteristics • How Created & Shared • Social interaction • Purposive • Serendipitous (n=1186) • Talk to non-employee (37.9%) • Talk to employee (22.6%) • Overhear conversation (14%) • Read posted material (8.7%) • Media (5.8%) • Observing people (4.2%) • Read printed material (4.2%) • Lecture (1.8%) • Other (0.3%)

  23. Personal vs. Local vs. World Things you need to learn more about (28.0%) What’s happening in area (19.8%) What’s happening in world (18.5%) Who’s doing what (17.4%) Things about places (8.8%) Things for self-improvement (2.0%) Things to apply to daily living (2.0%) Other (2.0%) Other’s thoughts and opinions (1.6%) Info Characteristics

  24. Future Research • Effects of manipulating different people-place-info factor  system design • How people re-conceptualize their everyday life situations and redefine their info needs within social settings • How info is socially constructed among different actors • How people’s perceptions and participation in IGs change over time • IGs as small worlds—in Chatman’s sense and applicability of her theories • Future sites: Places of worship, and the workplace  Our findings suggest that IGs encompass a strong affective component where many IG factors elicit emotional responses

  25. http://ibec.ischool.washington.edu

  26. Current IBEC Projects • Info Grounds (places of worship, workplace) • Proxy info seekers—consumer health info • Community Tech Centers—assessing impact • Stay-at-home moms, and preteens • “211” and its impact on communities • Microsoft Research, Community Technologies Group—Sabbatical • SHOPPERS MOBILE USERS (SLAM; Counts & Fisher)

  27. Thank You! ibec.ischool.washington.edu fisher@u.washington.edu

More Related