INLS 180 Day 3 Notes
(note
class cancelled due to weather)
1. One minute papers
Main Points
Chat+video concurrently is overloading
Communication,
information, and interaction are multifaceted, overlapping concepts
Even in the ‘public’
(class like) chat space, interpersonal dynamics (1-1 conversations) emerge
Community requires
communication
The layers of
sensory communication (capture, transduce, amplify,
transfer, adapt) are similar to layers in technical communication (e.g., Open
system interconnection network layers)
Quality of the chat
was lower than the quality of classroom discussion
Everything is
context-bound (relativism)
Communication is
intentional and requires attention; chat overloads and interferes
Questions
Must there always be
a big point and a question? [yes, if not, something is
wrong]
Why generate more
questions?
Can’t we just agree
on one definition for X and get on with it?
Developing countries
leap-frogging communications technologies (e.g.,
wireless)?
Web changing the way
that people communicate?
Community? Does
one have to join/buy in?
Concepts/definitions? The
target metaphor [overly simple, see noumenal clouds
below]
What new class
structures are created by technology [a possible term project topic]
Several: I DO communicate
with my dog (and vice versa!)
How much do we lose
in the Schramm sense when we go from face to face to chat
channels?
How much
multi-tasking can we do while learning?
2. A note about
concepts.
My use of the
‘target’ (concentric circles) for concepts, with ‘core’ words/ideas/facets inside, and related words/ideas/facets in the periphery is
too flat and clean. In chapter 3 of
Information seeking in electronic environments, I introduce the notion of noumenal clouds for concepts within the context of
information seeking, but the notion applies more generally to the ‘information’
‘communication’, ‘interaction’, ‘community’ terms we have been discussing (2
paragraphs follow). Consider this notion
in relation to next week’s Belkin reading that talks
about ‘anomalous states of knowledge (ASKs).
To address this deficiency, consider the
knowledge state of an information seeker at some instant as a collection of noumenal clouds.
Each noumenal cloud is a fuzzy image composed
of noumena (memory traces and impressions) that have
the potential for being related together as a concept or idea. These clouds are highly fluid; the noumena within a cloud come and go as thought progresses,
as do the clouds themselves. A knowledge
state consists of several noumenal clouds that are
related by common noumena--analogous to valence bonds
between atoms in a molecule. The
knowledge state is well defined when the noumena
within clouds are stable and the clouds have many noumena
in common. In this case, new clouds are
not formed and active clouds remain active--there is relative certainty in the
knowledge state. An information problem
is a collection of noumenal clouds that is unstable;
clouds come and go because there are not enough stable common noumena. In this
case, the knowledge state has a high degree of uncertainty in definition of noumena and clouds and thus a high potential for state
change, i.e., acquiring information. In
the most common cases, greater numbers of noumena are
needed for stabilization (simply activating more memory traces to define a
cloud). In more complex cases, overlaps
of noumena across clouds are needed for
stabilization.
Information problems typically arise
directly from the external world--inputs stimulate noumena
and clouds. The information problem may
also arise from a stable knowledge state when a cloud is deactivated or a new
cloud is added to extend thought. As new
clouds are activated, the knowledge state can stabilize quickly as many noumena from active clouds overlap (e.g. as one thought
leads logically to the next) or the knowledge state can become less stable as noumena do not fit into active clouds. In the latter case, information is needed
(e.g., finding out what one does not know may be a revelation that informs and
guides subsequent action). [Marchionini, 1995.
Information seeking in electronic environments, Cambridge U. Press]
3. A note about questions.
Question development, question execution,
and question answering are central to human problem solving and scientific
progress on the general side as well as the practice of most professional
activities on the practical side.
4. Notes on Tannen,
Chatman, and
Tannen is meant to stimulate discussion about
interaction/communication styles and roles.
Gender is but one example of such styles/roles that seem to influence
both senders and receivers.
Chatman pioneered studies on information
poverty. She applied social network
analysis to study how many underprivileged groups seek information. This represents another way that personal
situation affects information seeking (and communication practices). Chatman was a professor at SILS for many
years and moved to FSU a few years before her death last year.
Roloff (the optional reading) makes a strong case
for self-interest as the basis for communication. There is no communication without some
inherent self-motivation (and he gives a set of types). This readings used
to generate strong reactions from the class—many people argue for altruism as
part of human nature.
5. Read for next
meeting:
Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a
basis for information retrieval. [Rachel & Evelyn]
Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries.
[Rich]
Optional: Solomon, 1977 Conversation in
information-seeking contexts: A test of an analytical framework (LISR, 19(3),
217-248
6. One-minute paper
What was the big point you learned in class
today?
What is the main, unanswered question you
leave class with today?