A Document Study of the Information Transfer Process

Running  head:  A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   A Document Study of the Information Transfer Process Alexandra Bell LIS 60600: Foundations of Library and Information Science Kent State University May 6, 2016

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   2     Introduction Understanding the information transfer process is important for library and informationscience professionals, because there are many distinct steps to consider. The Closet-Crane modelis a comprehensive yet flexible way of analyzing the information transfer process. While Istudied my personal experience through this lens, it can be applied to multiple experiences withdifferent results. A major result of my reflection of this assignment is that the way informationmoves through the different steps is affected by many factors, such as personality, time, location,etc. I also reflected on whether the transfer process required interaction with LIS staff or wasconducted independently, as we have focused on LIS professionals’ roles throughout the course.Another aspect that I considered was the effect technology use has on the information transferprocess, which Rubin (2010) states is one major trend affecting our institutions. In the course ofthis project, I used “adaptability, creativity, and resolve,” all of which Rubin (2010) states arenecessary as we study and influence information transfer in our “complex and dynamiceducational, recreational, and informational infrastructure” (p. 1). My experiences highlightedthe importance of LIS institutions, and the analysis is important because “documenttheory…offers a model that incorporates the active, interconnected way these centers collect,remediate and use a wide array of documents” (Grenersen, 2011, p. 131).Summary and Analysis of First Document, Firecracker II by Gene Davis Buckland (1997) states that a document can be considered “any phenomena that someonemay wish to observe: events, processes, images, and objects as well as texts” (p. 804). Thisdefinition of a document influenced my decision to study a painting in the Akron Art Museum. Ialso did not intend to select this document at first, planning in the “selection” phase of theCloset-Crane model to go to the PULP exhibit instead. Erdelez’s Opportunistic Acquisition ofInformation model, as discussed in the Martens (2013) lecture in the course, fits my experiencebecause I learned about this painting tangentially when on the path towards my original goal. Idid not intend to see Ro, a friend who gives docent tours, but she brought me to this document,highlighting both that “an encounter with a museum collection is a highly mediatedexperience…[and] visiting a museum…is often a social activity” (Trant, 2009, p. 371). Thedocument is just one part of a larger context, blending academic study and education with socialinteraction and entertainment. Although I was only with the document for a short period of time,the experience affected my social and intellectual schemas, highlighting that the informationtransfer process is rarely done in isolation; instead, it is immersive, and contributes to generalknowledge in the lifelong view that Bates’ Berry Picking model describes (Martens, 2013).Connecting information retrieval and use to the larger contexts in patrons’ lives, or movingbeyond a reference interview at a surface level such as in the Cookie Monster skit (No Cookies),will help create meaningful interactions and experiences for patrons in LIS institutions. The information transfer process occurred within the museum, while the docentintroduced the piece, but continued at home, as I was able to view the document digitally in theonline collection through the Akron Art Museum’s website. This digitization follows“representation” and “preservation/destruction” on the Closet/Crane model by creating a newform for the document, in addition to providing another path for “selection” in terms of retrievalfor patron use, new “organization” on the museum’s part, and another way to support

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   3    “dissemination” of the document. Being part of the online collection allows this document tohave greater accessibility, providing patrons another information retrieval outlet. Access to the painting, entitled Firecracker II by Gene Davis, is available in the museumand online, but it was also available for view in the community as part of the Inside/Outcollaboration between the Akron Art Museum and the City of Akron, on display outside of alocal restaurant in the downtown area. The way the painting is cataloged, categorized, andorganized in the museum and online is largely cohesive and comprehensive; the docent’sdescription matched the information presented online, and included quantitative data about it aswell as qualitative data, such as a quote from the artist. Information available online about thedocument but not present in the museum include its provenance, exhibition history, marks notes,and keywords that link it to related documents. Another difference in the informationmanagement between the museum, the website, and myself is in the “preservation/destruction”section of the Closet-Crane model; the museum had two docents in the room who would walk upwhen patrons got too close to the document to help prevent physical damage, while the websitehas no such supervision against digital appropriation or use. Since I can only view thisdocument, and do not keep it while in “application” phase of our model, I am not responsible orable to care for its preservation in the same way I play a role when using my second document,which is a book from the library.Summary and Analysis of Second Document, The Time Garden by Edward Eager My second document was related to the first because I set out to find a book that mightconvey similar concepts to what Ro described about Firecracker II. My selection process wasexplorative, with no single answer being the only option; this is one aspect to keep in mind whenconsidering users’ needs as a LIS professional. I also used another format outside of the libraryresources – Goodreads.com - to find information, as I wanted to find books that are similar toThe Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles after Ro’s description reminded me of that book. Inthe end, I selected, collected, and experienced The Time Garden by Edward Eager, which is a193-page book, originally published in 1958, that is available in the children’s and young adultsection of the Akron Public Library. In selecting and collecting this document, I did not think to ask the librarians for help, aninteresting commentary on the fact that, while I was openly social and curious in the museum,this document process was much more independent. Trant (2009) states, “traditionally, libraries,archives, and museums have occupied different places in our social and informational space. Thestrategies they have adopted to interact with their users, and the organization and interpretationof their collections, differ and shape the definition of ‘education’ in and for each of thesesettings” (pp. 369-370). Instead of being led to this document as I was in the museum, I used myphone and an open computer station with access to the online database in the “collection” phaseof the Closet-Crane model and read the book by myself, mirroring Trant’s (2009) observation,“using the library is typically an individual act; people choose books for themselves (or theirchildren) and check them out to read at home, alone” (p. 371). This was a major difference in theinformation transfer process between the two documents I chose. The website for the first document allows a patron to share the document via socialmedia, adding their insight and interest to the post, which is a unique option for the“dissemination” phase. It could be a creative development to email patrons’ with bookinformation after check out, allowing them to share this information on social media in a similar

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   4    way; another option would be for social sharing options to be connected to the book’s page in theonline catalog. My “diffusion,” “utilization,” and “dissemination,” in the application phase of theCloset-Crane model will revolve around telling my close friends and family about the book,saving quotes for future reflection and use, and recommending it to prior colleagues who teachyoung students. I would be open to sharing my thoughts on the book, promoting the library as aplace to access it, and recording other information about it through social opportunities in thelibrary or on its website. These ideas are similar to Resmini and Rosati’s (n.d.) statement, “usersare now contributing participants in these ecosystems and actively produce new content orremediate existing content by ways of mash-ups, commentary, or critique.” While the first document had historical information tying the piece to the museum, thisdocument does not; I believe the “5-99” written in the front cover may mean that it was added tothe collection in 1999. It would be interesting to know more about the Akron Public Library’shistory with the book, other history that could be compiled and disseminated by the library, orlibrarians’ and patrons’ thoughts and reviews. While I did have a meaningful experience with thebook, the information transfer process could be broadened and deepened by social opportunitieswith the library. This document experience reminded me of the discussion from module seven, inwhich it was discussed that, like museums, archives, and any other LIS institution, “libraries ofall types are well positioned to design the type of experience that delivers meaning. But business-as-usual thinking is not likely to get us there” (Bell, 2009, p. 51). Both of the informationtransfer processes revolved around my personal interests and goals, as the painting and bookwere not documents for academic use, but the processes are still natural places for meaning-making or educational interactions to occur.Conclusion The information transfer processes and the document analysis process were socially andintellectually engaging for me, and the main result of my analysis is that there are connectionsbetween how a document is organized, collected, and used by patrons, staff, and the largercommunity. Kirchhoff, Schweibenz, and Sieglerschmidt (2008) discuss the possibility ofconvergence in terms of digital memory institutions, but the following description of purpose andspace lends itself well to options for my two documents to be found together. They state, The dream of collecting all kinds of media in one repository of knowledge can be traced back to the ancient origins of information and documentation praxis. Archives, libraries and museums have a common ancestor: the Mouseion of Alexandria. In the imagination of Renaissance and Baroque thinkers, knowledge and objects of all kinds belonged together and formed one single intellectual space. Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) designed institutions of knowledge (Leinkauf 1 993; Findlen 2004) that appeal to all the senses and that will produce new insights; new perspectives can emerge as objects and kinds of knowledge are combined that superficially bear no relation to each other. (p. 252)What if museums had books available for check out next to their objects? A small bookshelfcould hold related and even tangential books that tie the museal and library experiences together.During a docent’s tour, they could discuss a point of view, theory, or biography and pointpatrons towards the books they can take if they are interested in learning more. Many museumshave libraries, archives, or reading rooms, some open to the public and some not, but this couldpair them together clearly. Resmini and Rosati (n.d.) discuss a similar convergence in their

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   5    concept that “when different media and different contexts are tightly intertwined, no artifact canstand as a single isolated entity. Every single artifact becomes an element in a larger ecosystem.All these artifacts have multiple links or relationships with each other and have to be designed aspart of one single seamless user experience process.” In general, the information transferprocesses for both documents were dynamic, productive, and complex; additionally, myprocesses would differ from others’. This highlights the difficult but exciting possibilities andresponsibilities of LIS professionals. The LIS field is changing, but providing access to thesekinds of documents is important, and working on opportunities for convergence may helppromote their selection, collection, dissemination, and use.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   6     ReferencesBell, S. (2009). From gatekeepers to gate-openers. American Libraries, 40(8/9), 50-53.Buckland, M. (1997). What is a “document”? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 804-809.Closet-Crane. (Unpublished 2009, 2012). [Representation derived from Achleitner, 1994-1995]. Visualization of the information transfer process in academia [PDF document].Davis, G. (1968). Firecracker II [Painting]. Retrieved from https://akronartmuseum.org/collection/Obj1195?sid=123613&x=7611341&port=197Eager, E. (1958). The time garden. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & Company.Edwards, J. A. (1974). The last of the really great whangdoodles. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.Grenersen, G. (2011). What is a document institution? A case study from the South Sami community. Journal of Documentation, 68(1), 127-133.Kirchhoff, T., Schweibenz, W., & Sieglerschmidt, J. (2008). Archives, libraries, museums and the spell of ubiquitous knowledge. Arch Sci, 8, 251-266. doi 10.1007/s10502-009-9093-2Martens, M. (2013). Human information behavior [Video file]. Retrieved from https://ksutube.kent.edu/playback.php?playthis=9q9g64nz8No Cookies in the Library – Classic Sesame Street [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJlkplvYdgAResmini, A., & Rosati, L. (n.d.). Pervasive information architecture: Designing cross-channel user experiences. Retrieved from http://pervasiveia.com/manifestoRubin, R. (2010). Foundations of library and information science (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.Trant, J. (2009). Emerging convergence? Thoughts on museums, archives, libraries, and professional training. Museum Management and Curatorship, 24(4), 369-387. doi: 10.1080/09647770903314738

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   7     Process LogsLog #1: Saturday, April 16, 2016Although the first portion of the visual model covers accessibility and collection, I have to firstdecide on a selection for both documents. I know that diffusion, use, and experience will be keycomponents later so I want to be intentional in my selection. I have a few ideas to narrow down –should I choose documents related to personal interests such as photography or LGBT identity,history, and education; documents related to the LIS field for continued professionaldevelopment and supplemental education; or two unrelated documents so the processes, uses,and applications are even more distinct?I looked up the Akron Art Museum website to see what exhibits they have - I went once when Ifirst moving to Ohio and fondly remember the “inverted Q” sculpture that was in the frontgallery, and I would like to use this assignment as an opportunistic chance (similar to how Iperformed my naturalistic observation for assignment two) to go back. I decide on PULP, anexhibit based around paper. This fits with my interest in photography and English/LIS (with ourheavy relationship with paper) and my own nature as a pack rat. I am hoping that it will solidifythe need to recycle paper and not collect so much ephemera in addition to giving me creativeuses and an artistic outlet. It will also allow me to write about a document study experience froma museum in addition to a document from a library. Next, I need to figure out my schedule to go.Log #2: Saturday, April 23, 2016I went to the Akron Art Museum today to examine a document in the PULP exhibit, but as I waswalking in I saw a friend! Ro is a docent at the Akron Art Museum and we talked informally fora while before she began a tour. I stayed with the tour and she did a wonderful job going over thepaintings’ and sculptures’ artists, style, history, or meaning. After the tour, we walked into theroom with PULP, and –without knowing my purpose in coming to the museum – she said shewas not as interested in this exhibit as the other objects and styles. We talked about photographyfor a while and walked through the exhibit, which I did enjoy, but her lack of enthusiasmaffected how much I learned about it and perhaps how deeply I reflected on it, and overall I wasmore struck by her commentary on one of the previous paintings we had seen. Therefore, Ichanged my document focus. This kind of information process is similar to Erdelez’sOpportunistic Acquisition of Information or Bates’ Berry Picking Model, which we have learnedabout it class.The painting I will use as my first document is Firecracker II by Gene Davis, painted in 1968.Ro talked about the artist’s goal for viewers to look at one color in a large collection of stripesand think about how it affects the other colors, and pay more attention to the colors that we see.Her discussion automatically made me think of one of my favorite parts of The Last of the ReallyGreat Whangdoodles by Julie Andrews Edwards: ‘Uusually one glance is enough to register that grass is green and the sky is blue and so on. They can tell you if the sun is shining or if it looks like rain, but that’s about all. It’s such a pity, for there is texture to everything we see, and everything we do and hear…I want you to start noticing things. Once you get used to doing it you’ll never be able to stop. It’s the best game in the world.’ The children found themselves beginning to share the professor’s excitement; he spoke with such passion and enthusiasm. (47-48).

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   8    The colors in this document are more complex and prompt more awareness of variety and depth,and Ro’s speech about the document reminded me of the professor’s in its level of enthusiasm.Ro’s talk about this document gave me my idea for the second document, so I walked across thestreet to the Akron Public Library. I went to see if they had a copy of The Last of the ReallyGreat Whangdoodles, and they had three! I then went to a computer with access to their onlinecatalog and looked up the book, curious whether it would link me to other recommended booksin their collection. It did not, however, which reminded me of our class discussions and readingson technology development and new ways patron participation is being added to digitalprograms and websites. I used Goodreads on my phone, instead, to find books similar to thistitle. My first selection was not available from the library, but my second selection – The TimeGarden, was on the shelves. I will use this book as my second document. I walked to a nearbyrestaurant - Baxter’s – and began to read it, transitioning from selection to collection toutilization based on the Closet-Crane model.Log #3: Tuesday, April 26, 2016I continued reading my second document and am almost finished today. I think this shows thatthe space between information retrieval and application on the Closet-Crane model is filled withinformation processing that varies greatly; I did not have to spend as much time processing thepainting, while I had to read the entire book to evaluate it and move on to diffusion anddissemination of information.Log #4: Wednesday, April 27, 2016I finished reading my second document. As I began to put this project together, I wanted to lookup the location of my first document, which was part of the Inside/Out exhibit, and found that itwas located at Baxter’s, where I first went to read the book! The connection between documentsis exciting and sharing those connections and excitement for documents is something I want tofocus on as a LIS professional. The community involvement and shared space between themuseum, library, and participating businesses is great and reminds me of the articles we haveread on convergence. I will now begin my formal document analysis, adding photos and formalwriting that is similar to the “mediatisation and publication” section of the Closet-Crane model.Log #5: Saturday, April 30, 2016I returned my second document to the library today, which is part of the “preservation” cycle inthe Closet-Crane model of information transfer. Although this document was unavailable toothers while I had it, it is now back in the collection for selection, utilization, and disseminationby others.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   9    Figure 1. Photo of first document during “selection” phase. Citation: Davis, G. (1968).Firecracker II [Painting].

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   10    Figure 2. Photo during “selection” phase of information transfer process.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   11    Figure 3. Photo during “selection” phase of information transfer process.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   12    Figure 4. Photo during “selection” phase of information transfer process.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   13    Figure 5. Photo during “collection” phase of information transfer process.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   14    Figure 6. Photo of “collection” phase in the information transfer process.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   15    Figure 7. Photo of second document during “utilization” phase. Citation: Eager, E. (1958). Thetime garden. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & Company.

A  DOCUMENT  STUDY  OF  THE  INFORMATION  TRANSFER  PROCESS   16    Figure 8. Photo of page 45 from second document during “utilization” phase. This photo alsoserves as “dissemination” and “diffusion” for the document. Citation: Eager, E. (1958). The timegarden. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & Company, 45.