Article Review 2 | 810XS | 170409 | Whitmer, Brian I have selected the article “If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after it:” Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors for the two-part article review assignment.
Data Collections / Findings Based on the evaluation framework provided by Pyrczak, the two-studies that were the focus of the article seem to fulfill basic requirements for methodological rigor – random sampling was applied in the two sample studies that were the basis of this analysis. The population samples were stratified – drawing in one study from a sample population from 44 Midwestern colleges and universities (p. 181) and a collection of users, non-users, and librarians in the seeking synchronicity study (p. 181). Lacking familiarity with this type of statistical analysis I can’t make a determination of the adequacy of the population sample size, but compared to examples of good research that we examined, it seems to be comparable. Specific demographic information was available for the seeking synchronicity study but the sense-making study lacked detailed specifics and identified the population as undergraduates, graduates and faculty. There is no explicit mention of written consent being obtained. The researchers provided their interview questions for each of the study follow-ups in appendices of the article. Because the researchers conducted their study in a series of phases, they were able to use a number of interview tools including online surveys, focus groups, telephone surveys, and semi-structured interviews and used the phased nature of their study to explore their topic in greater specificity in later phases. There is no explicit mention of controls for interobserver reliability. Regarding the internal consistency of the researcher’s operational definition of convenience, because they draw upon a multi-faceted definition of the concept using four theoretical frameworks, it lacks a simple form of consistency and might rather be described as providing a “cluster” of traits that occur together. A correlation ratio of the traits seems to be beyond the scope of the article. The researchers claim that length of time between the initial studies and the various follow-ups offer evidence of temporal stability of their definition of convenience. As they note, “Three years after the data were collected for the sense-making project, analysis of the seeking synchronicity research revealed a remarkably similar highlighting of convenience factors in information-seeking behaviors” (p. 184). I am unable to determine evidence for empirical validity of the studies from lack of domain knowledge, but the researchers do not seem to address this topic or discuss obvious limitations of their measures. Because of the scope and quantity of materials presented in this section and its character as a meta-analysis of two previous studies, it is difficult to objectively judge the overall adequacy of the research methodology.
Discussion This section offers reasonable take-aways from the analysis and methods used to offer support for the theoretical frameworks guiding the authors. Each of their definitional “facets” of convenience is given a paragraph of explanation tying the data and observations to the theory that supports it as well as tying the similarities between the two-studies together to provide support and nuanced presentation of the situational contexts. The authors conclude the discussion section with two paragraphs describing an additional metastudy as well as British research as further support for their conceptual definition and conclusions. However, these were not mentioned in the literature review section which would seem to be recommended practice as modeled in Pyrczak. This raises a caution of how congruent these additional findings are with the authors model. They seem to serve the rhetorical purpose of “evidence-piling” rather than close matching to the researcher’s own model – else why not include them in the article’s literature review?
Implication for Practice I would judge this to be the weakest section of the article as it makes very general and broad recommendations for changes in future practice that don’t clearly offer points of departure from the conclusions of the article analysis and the authors conception of convenience. For example, they argue that the library needs to offer search interfaces like the web – a statement so broad as to be unhelpful. What aspects of the cited web exemplars (Amazon, Google, iTunes) should be mimicked? How do they increase information-seeking convenience? Beyond the mere fact that a majority of study population members expressed preference for them over the library provided search interface, where should the intervention be focused? This recommendation seems incompatible with the following recommendations for the library to “provide more digital sources that are authoritative and reliable through the library systems and services, from e-journals to curated data sets, as well as emerging service such as virtual research environments (VREs), open-source materials, non-text-based and multimedia objects and blogs” (p. 187) and “advertise the library brand” by “identifying and promoting collections and services” (p. 187). No mention here of convenience – rather they stress the traditional values of the library for depth, authority, and relevance. This section then concludes with a non-sequitur recommendation of “the development of an economic model for the allocation of resources for the different delivery modes for library services would benefit all types of libraries” (p. 187). This is extremely general, should be tied to specific interventions targeting the various “facets” of their definition of convenience, and seems more speculative than data-based. Conclusion The final section starts with a cogent recommendation for a future research direction that would enhance and further the work the authors have contributed to this domain but it seems somewhat orphaned in the conclusion. The remainder of the conclusion reiterates their conceptual construct of convenience and rearticulates their recommendations for future practice: “library systems and interfaces need to look familiar to people by resembling popular Web interfaces, and library services need to be easily accessible and require little or no training to use” (p. 188).
Summary I would summarize my review of this article by noting that while it seems to be methodologically sound, there are aspects of the final sections that diminish its effectiveness. As I noted in my first article review, their conceptual definition of convenience lacks a connection to the broader historical discussion of this concept stretching back to at least 1895 where it is called the “principle of least effort.” Perhaps convenience is such a foundational information-seeking heuristic that adequately tackling it in a research context makes defining targeted interventions difficult and invites generality to creep in at the seams. Their conceptual definition of convenience seems to be lacking in nuance – they offer no differentiation between simple and complex forms of convenience. For example, the search interfaces of Amazon and Google vary distinctly when examined on a gradient of simplicity (Google) to complexity (Amazon – which offers multiples search facets, recommendations, and features like “look inside”). In the final analysis, I would counsel caution in applicability of this article to a deeper understanding of convenience – it seems more suited to being a catalog of situations where convenience as a foundational information-seeking heuristic is in evidence.
References Connaway, L. S., Dickey, T. J., & Radford, M. L. (2011). “If it’s too inconvenient I’m not going after it:” Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors. Library & Information Science Research, 33, 179-190. Pyrczak, F. (2014). Evaluating research in academic journals: A practical guide to realistic evaluation. (5th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.