Social Science Information And Its Users

Review Social Science Information and its Users Ralph Adam &dquo;Hoiv do social scientists communicate research results?&dquo;, &dquo;How do they make of such sources of information as are available to them?&dquo; Qucstions like rhcsc receive a great deal of attention nowadays, not only from librarians and information scientists (who were the first to explore these fields) but also from psychologists and sociologist who are, to an increasing extent, getting in on the act themselves. This movement towards a greater awareness of the techniques of information exchange and use seems to be part of a general trend towards professional introspection, some of it of a rather self-conscious nature, which has for somc time been developing in the social sciences. One aspect of this, for instance, has been the recent surge of interest in the sociology of sociology. Another has been the creation of a number of professional journals whose manifest aim is to provide wide scope for publicising matters of interest to the members of specific professional bodies, but which often contain material of an introuse

spcctivc, self-questioning naturc (c. J. Amcric,m Scciologist and ~lr.nrican Ps~~chelvgist). It is, in fact, in just these journals that much of the work on literature use and information-exchange research has appeared. The question underlying so many publications these days is: &dquo; &dquo;
Assistant Librarian (Information Olliccr), The City University, where lie is engaged the development of information services for the Social Science Department, among others. Took his degree in sociology- at London L,’ni~~crsity, and an MA at the Shcflield L;nivcrsity Postgraduate School of Librarianship and Information Science. Previously worked in p ublic libraries and the BBC Reference Library. Has recently coi-npleted a documcntaiy for BBC Radio. on

.

I5I

DcsL·ite the great: conccrn about such matters. there stili seem to be two distinct camps of investigators and very few of the social scientists working on this topic give much credit to the librarians and information scientists who are involved in similar work. Occasionally, however, one comes across an exception to this rule. Such a person is J. M. Brittain, whose recent book InjL1rmatior! and its l15CrS: a ~-eviev~ with special r1cretIce to the sccirrl SCir:nCf51 looks at the subject from both sides of the fence. Brittain is one of the researchers at Bath University who have been involved in thc recently-completed OST’I project on the Information Requiremcnts of rhe Social Sciences (INFROSS). His book bcgan life as a review of the literature on the usc of information services by social scientists which was specially conducted for the project and it has, presumably, been published as an hers d’ecrcvre to the eagerly awaitcd fmal report on INPROSS which is due to appear later this year. Ir fcr-rr,ation ar;d its users provides a wide-ranging review of the available material on thc information-gathering and information-disseminating behaviour of social scicntists, with the emphasis on user studies. This is backed up by a very large and comprehensive bibliography listing nearly six hundred items on every aspect of the subject that one can think of (and some onc wouldn’t think of, too!). The author has certainly made a very thorough job of his literature survey and it is unfortunate, but probably inevitable, in a work of such comprehensiveness chat it should end up reading rather like a volume of the telephone directory. This is, however, a minor inconvenience when one takes into account the C~IOI’oC1~11I7CSS and derail of a work which leads one to suspect that B1ZITTAIN is an acronym for an all-embracing mechanised information-gathering systcmperhaps Bath Regional Interchange, Technical Terminal And Information Ntivork? Where such a publications is concerned, it seems hypercritical to complain about the irritation caused by such things as the apparently excessive length of some of thc many footnotes (which occasionally appear on the recto preceding the verso to which they refcr) or to the few errors in the names of publications. Much the same applies to the fact that not all the items dealt with in tiie text are indexed. On the other hand, however, the work is advertised as a reference tool and one of the main criteria of a reference tool should be that the information contained within it can be easily retrieved, without the user having to struggle from one end of the book to the other in order to glcan an item of information from it. Although Brittain’s book is mainly concerned with the ways in which social scientists make use of the sources of information which are available to them and, as an extension of this, the means by which more efficient and more effective can for the be systems designed organisation of information, a review such as his raiscs a much more fundamental question. It is not mcrely a matter of asking

I52

how people use chose tools which exist hut, rather, of questioning the whole b.1Sis of thc existence of such tools. The crux of the matter is contained in a comment which appears almost at the very end of Bricti!’n’s book. He points out (p. I C~ I ~ that: h0W good from a methodological and technical point of view, the contribuuse studies make to research and reaching %vi;~ be judged in terms of the importince of chc problem that has been investigated. No

martcr

tion

PROCRUSTES AS AN INFORMATION SCIENTIST

Many information scientists appear to be devout followers of Procrustes. They mistakenly see the problem as one of designing the ’ideal’ reference service which should suit every user. If the user is unfortunate enough not to find the service perfect for his requirements, then he must be ’educatcd’ so that he will learn how to make the most of it. Such attitudes as this are unreasonable, for it is surely the systems that should be designed to fit in with thc needs of the uscr-oncc his needs have been ascertained. A wide varicty of secondary bibliographical tools is now available in the social sciences, but on the whole very little use is made of them by practitioners in the subjects which they set out to cover. A number of reasons can be put forward to account for this state of affairs (and not all of them are due to failings on the part of the social scientists concerned) but, whatever the cause of this lack of LIC, the consequences arC likely ro be B’cry imporr:l11t. This applies not only to the uneconomic duplication of research which must inevitably follow from such a situation, but also to the eonsequcnt retardation in the growth of knowledge. an abundance of stories about social scientists who have devoted years There is to the carrying out of a particular piece of research or to the development of a thcory, only to find out at the last moment that the work has all been done bcfore and that, had they been aware of the appropriate sources of information whcn they began their work, a great deal of time, money, effort and frustration

could have been

spared.

show, very little is at present known about the informabehaviour of social scientists. The small-scale studies of Appel and tion-seeking Gurr’-’ and Uvtterschaut3 have both served to demonstrate the fact that social scientists are very reluctant to use the abstracting, indexing and other special services which are designed for their use but prefer to follow thcir own, often haFhazard, ways of seeking out previous work in their particular fields. Even where specialized information services are provided for them, as at The City Universiry, personal experience suggests that many social scientists still prefer to continue with their own techniques for locating information. This is despitc As Brittain

sets out to

I53

frcquently hcard complaint that :1 great deal of important inform ation never reaches thcm iiid that they oftcn llfld that they hear about research which could have had significant consequences for their own work, had they known about it the

in time, whcn it is too late to make use of it. This failure in the communication of research findings is sometimes defended on the doubtful grounds that even unintended replication of research is valuable. THE PROBLEM OF UNUSED RESOURCES a very narrow field of intcrcst, it is no longer possible for one pcrson bc able to devote the necessary timc to studying all thc relevant journals, not to mention the increasing ntmiber of government reports, conference papers, theses and so on, which are likely to contain material which might have some bearing on his work. Nevertheless, many social scientists still try to do this with little or no reference to the bibliographical services which are provided for them. It is possible to isolate five main reasons which can account for this situation. The first of these is that social scientists may very often be locally unaware of tl;e existence of the major bibliographical tools covering their fields of study. This may be because such publications are often kept in separate sections of the library, away from the rurls of ordinary periodicals, and may not even be incorporatcd in the classified catalogue. In libraries where this is the case, such works are likely to be seen only by those who already know of their existence. Attempts to remedy this situation by issuing lists of sccondary tools arc unlikely to (~c very successful unless some sort of dctailcd annotation, which is both critical and explanatory, is incorporated. From timc to time attempts have been made to provide the rcadcrs of spccialist journals with lists of tlus nature, an example being that of Pease and Rytina4 who tried to produce a completc and up-to-date list of all the reference periodicals (indexing, abstracting, reviewing journals, etc.) that have ever been published in English for the entire field of sociology. However, unless suuicient information is provided for the casual reader to be motivated to use the recommended publications, such lists can be of

Evcn with

to

*

vcry little value,

as

they

are

unlikcly

to

encourage those who

are

unfamiliar

with the tools to take the effort to seek thcm out in the library. Secondly, those social scientists who are aware of the existence of biblio-

tools may not be shown how to use them and, even if they are, they may not be given any advice on how to get the best value from them. This is an educational problem and can most effectively be overcome by advising users as to which of the available tools are bcst suited to their individual needs. The third important reason for the ttnder-Litilizition of secondary tools in the social sciences is the fact that the tools themselves may not be adequate for the needs of their potcntial users. This is a fundamental consideration which must

graphical

I54

:1lwa)’s be borne in mind ivhere social science services are concerned. The main subject fields, especially sociology and psycnology, are so widely dispersed that it may not be possible to provide form of bibliographical control which would satisfy the needs of all those working in these areas-whcthcr they be investigating problems of animal sociology or the psychology of the footbiller5. Any truly comprehensive service in the social sciences would have to be almost universal in its scope-much more so even than the ill-fatcd Social Scimce Abstracts. At rhe moment. however, even those services which attempt to cover specificc social sciences in their narrowest form seem far from complete in their coverage. Geographical coverage is still strongly biased towards English-language material, although the situation in this respect is gradually improving, especially in the a

Uf East European literature. Coverage of types of material other than monographs and the more important journals remains poor in a number of fields, but there has been some improvement here too. The Ioternatior:al Bibliography of the Social Sc!wr£s, for instance, tries to give special coverage to government reports, whilst Scri;~le~io.I flhstracts now covcrs the papers presented at the more important conferences and also provides abstracts of items deposited with tllc Clearinghouse for Sociological Literature. There arc, however, many publications which escare any form of control and yet are of great value to researchers in the social sciences. The so-called ’ephemeral’ publications come under this heading. More important in this respect arc the many studies which are never formally published, either because they received wide circulation on an informal basis or because they are supprcsscd for one reason or another. The significance of the latter category has only recently come to be widely appreciated following ’lcaks’ of information from a number of such reports. One which received a great deal of publicity was the report of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s survey of the national newspaper industry in 1966, but many other examples could be quoted. Closely related to the question of coverage is that of editorial policies on selection. This is something which is especially significant in the social sciences whcre important material oftcn appears in marginal or semi-popular periodicals which are excluded by some of the main abstracting and indexing services. A case in point is the relatively poor coverage given to New Scriety. There are other factors which suggest that social science bibliographical tools arc, in the main, inadequate for the needs of their users. The most important of tiiese is probably the out-of datcncss of the material which they contain. The long time-lags which often occur make most of the indexing and abstracting services in the social sciences unsuitable for current awareness. Not only docs this mean that such rools cannot be used to obtain a reliable picture of current rrends, but also that retrospective searching is slow because an article may not hc picked up until long after its original date of publication. It is not, however, just in the preparation of the actual abstracts that unduly long delays occur. case

I55

There may L7C long delays in thc appearancc of thc publications themselves. For instance, the cumulative index to thc 1968 volume of Sociological Abstracts had still not appcared by February 1071 and as the individual issues at that timc did not contain subject indexes, the only way to search for material in this volume is through each of the author indexes or by relying on the rather inadequate classification scheme. The fourth reason for the low level of use of bibliographical aids in the social sciences is the difficulty of retrieving information from many of them, owing to thcir poor organization. This lack of convenience is bound to be a major deterrent to their regular use. Convenicnce implies cflicicnt organization and this is nor less the case with bibliographical tools than with other services. There should be casy access to all the materials which are necessary for the detailed investigation of a particular topic. An abstracting service, for example, should cover, bricfly and accurately, the most relevant portions of a publication. It should be indexed in such a way that tllC user can quickly locate all the information which he requires, with the knowledgc tliat he is not missing anything on account of the limits imposed on him by the searching procedure which the entry order and the indexing system of thc service force him to use. Furthermore, the indexing should not provide the user with too much information. A major reason for the inconvenience caused by many social science bibliographical tools is that thev tend to be arrangcd in terms of somewhat out-dated or irrelevant categories. One of the most complicated of such tools is the JOHrnal of Economic Literat:m. which attempts to combine the functions of abstracting, indexing and reviewing scrviccs, with the result th:1t it is very Inefficient as a means of retrospective searching, especially as no index to it has, as yet, been compilcd (although one is proposed in the future). The final reason for social scientists’ lack of use of the services which are provided for thcm is that they may well find that they are better served by informall than by formal means of communication. This suggcsts that much significant work will never be formally presented for, if it is possible to circulate research results to all those who are defined as worthy of being shown these results, there is no need to go to the expense and inconvenience of publishing them. A recent report6 has demonstrated how long the delays resulting from attempts at formal publication can be. There are a number of well-known studies which have. nevertheless, escaped formal publication. One such is the widely-quoted Nottingham University ’Radby Study’. Another aspect of this can be scen in attempts to by-pass the restrictions of the formal communication system through the use of semi-formal news sheets, such as the bi-monthly information sheet .B~
156

RALPH ADAM TKll BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DIALECTIC

The above points serve to show that those bibliographical tools which do exist in the social sciences arc far from perfect. The immediate response to such a suggestion might be that all possible steps should be taken to improve them. This is not, however, as simple a suggestion as it seems. This is because the factors which ought to make for perfection in an ideal system conflict with one another and contain inherent contradictions. Although it might be entertaining to philosophise on the 'bibliographical dialectic', such an approach is unlikely to produce much of a practical nature. The only alternative seems to be to conduct user studies which arc oriented in certain specific directions. Very few studies of this type have been carried out in the social sciences and, as Brittain points out, there is little evidence to suggest that user studies in the natural sciences are likely to have much relevance here. One conflict which requires urgent resolution is that between the ideal of currency and the ability to provide an efficient abstracting service. Abstracts, especially if they are to give a reliable representation of the original, take time to produce and it would just not be physically possible for a truly up-to-date service to include abstracts. Even if this were possible, another conflict would still have to be faced: that between currency and coverage. If some means were to be devised of controlling all relevant modes of publication, both formal and informal, it would still not be possible to locate (and translate) materials from many parts of the world in the minimal time required for the provision of a truly current service. The one way of overcoming this conflict is surely by finding out from the user how he places his priorities. These are not, however, the only obstacles which stand in the way of the ideal service—there are also incompatibilities between speed of production and the efficient organisation of material and between these and the ability to select that material which is most needed. Not only this, but we have yet to discover what such concepts imply. Selection, for instance, is itself a highly complex matter. Even with a specialized SDI service, the client can be inundated by a surfeit of material and it is essential that some means of assessing exactly what is required be devised. With an individual sctvice it may be possible to say: "This is what you should read/' With a general service, however, the problems are far greater. It must not be forgotten that pertinence lies in the eyes of the user. Associated with the problem of selectivity is that of the conflict of perspectives. Not only do people vary in their criteria for relevance, but also in their approaches to particular topics. The approach of a teacher will be different from that of a researcher, while a sociologist will take a different approach to a given topic from an economist or a psychologist (or even, sometimes, from a sociologist of another school).

REVIEW

1

J!

There are also more -'basic problems to be overcome—such as whether an abstract can ever give i n accurate representation of the original, or whether the present range of bibliographical tools provides the kind of service which is really wanted. Perhaps the fact that many social scientists prefer to rely on citations and bibliographies, rather than on the abstracting, indexing and other services which arc provided for them, suggests that an effective solution might be to produce a social science citation index which could be used in conjunction with a comprehensive abstracting service. Whatever the answer to these questions might be, one thing is ably demonstrated by Brit tain's book. This is that there is, as yet, no evidence to support the view that social scientists require an exhaustive range of bibliographical tools to meet their information needs. We should, however, know a great deal more about what their needs really are when the INFROSS report finally appears. REFERENCES 1

Brittain, J. M. Information and its users: a review with special reference to the social sciences Bath University Press in association with Oriel Press, 1970. xii, 208 pp., bibliog. £4 45. (£4.20) SBN 900S43 08 x; SBN 085362 117 9. 2 Appel, J. S. & Gurr, T. Bibliographic needs of social and behavioral scientists: report of a pilot survey. American Behavioral Scientist, 7 (10) 1964, 51-54. 3 Uytterschaut, L. Literature searching methods in social science research: a pilot enquiry. American Behavioral Scientist 9 (9) 1966, 14. 4 Pease, J. & Rytina, J. Sociology reference periodicals. Sociology and Social Research, 35 (1) 1968, 95-99. 5 See, for example: Calhoun, J. B. The role of space in animal sociology. Journal of Social Issues, 22 (4) 1966, 46-58; Payne, R. & Cooper, R. Psychology of the good footballer. New Society, 8 (198) 1966, 49-51. 6 Garvcy, \V. D., Lin, N. & Nelson, C. E. Some comparisons of communication activities in the physical and social sciences. Baltimore, Md: The Johns Hopkins University Center For Research In Scientific Communication (Report 11), 1970.