College and Research Libraries R O B E R T S. T A Y L O R Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries Seekers of information in libraries either go through a librarian inter- mediary or they help themselves. When they go through librarians they must develop their questions through four levels of need, referred to here as the visceral, conscious, formalized, and compromised needs. In his pre-search interview with an information-seeker the reference librarian attempts to help him arrive at an understanding of his "compromised" need by determining: (1) the subject of his interest; (2) his motivation; (3) his personal characteristics; (4) the relationship of the inquiry to file organization; and (5) anticipated answers. The author contends that research is needed into the techniques of con- ducting this negotiation between the user and the reference librarian. DELBRUCK'S PRINCIPLE OF L I M I T E D SLOPPINESS You- should be sloppy enough so that the unexpected happens, yet not so sloppy that you cannot figure out what happens after it has happened.—in Eiduson, Bernice T. Sci- entists: Their Psychological World ( 1 9 6 2 ) , p. 126. T H E M A J O R P R O B L E M facing libraries, and similar information systems, is how to proceed from "things as they are now" to "things as they may be." It is an illu- Mr. Taylor is Director of the Library at Hampshire College, Amherst, Mass. The work described here was accomplished at Lehigh University, while the author was Di- rector of the Center for the Information Sci- ences, and was supported by grant from the Air Force Office of Aerospace Research, AF- AFOSR-724-66. This paper is a summary of a report of the same title, issued as Re- port No. 3 (July 1967) in the Series, Studies in the ManSystem Interface in Libraries, published at Lehigh University. 178/ minating exercise to extrapolate from present technology to describe the li- brary of the future. However, such exer- cises have little to say as to how to pro- ceed from "now" to "then."1 There are two possible alternatives to this process of change, with a whole range of options.2 First the revolutionary concept: libraries will wither away and their place in the communications net- work will be taken by some new institu- tional form, probably imposed from the outside. The second one, an evolutionary development, is that libraries themselves will gradually make the transition. The work described here is based on the second alternative. The objective was to examine and analyze certain relation- ships between library system and library user. It is hoped that this paper develops sufficiently fruitful generalizations, so that further investigations can start at a different level, with new assumptions. It 1 J. C. R. Licklider, Libraries of the Future ( C a m - bridge: The M . I . T . Press, 1 9 6 5 ) . 2 Philip H. Ennis, "Technological Change a n d the Professions: Neither Luddite nor T e c h n o c r a t , " Library Quarterly, X X X I I (July 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 8 9 - 9 8 . Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 179 is further hoped that, as a result of fu- ture investigations in this area, the evo- lution of libraries from passive ware- houses to dynamic communication cen- ters will be less traumatic and more ef- fective. This paper is not concerned with the usual library automation, although the effect that automation may have on the interface between user and system is recognized. In time, the automation of routine processes, i.e., order, catalog, and circulation control, after the bugs are worked out, will allow a different level of interaction. But routine automation is merely an extension of the control and warehousing functions of libraries. The work described here is an early ef- fort to understand better the communica- tions functions of libraries and similar types of information centers, because this is what libraries are all about. Consequently this paper is concerned with two phases of this interface, which revolve around the process of nego- tiating the question. This act of nego- tiation usually takes one or both of these forms: ( a ) working through a human intermediary, i.e. the reference librari- an; ( b ) self-help, by which the user himself attempts, often unsuccessfully, to sharpen his question by interacting with the library and its contents. Reference librarians and information specialists have developed, both con- sciously and unconsciously, rather so- phisticated methods of interrogating users. These methods are difficult to de- scribe, indeed some believe they are in- describable. No such assumption is made here, in the belief that there are gross categories or levels of information which are consciously sought and received by the librarian in the negotiation process. We are dealing here of course with a very subtle problem—how one person tries to find out what another person wants to know, when the latter cannot describe his need precisely. There are a few good but unsystematic papers on the reference functions, but very little has been done of an analytical nature.3 In the self-help process, the user de- pends upon his own knowledge, fre- quently incomplete, of the system. It appears that there are a large number of users of information systems who, for a variety of reasons, will not ask a li- brarian for assistance. They develop their own search strategy, neither very sure of what it is they want nor fully cognizant of the alternatives open to them. Both of these processes have some things in common: the development of a strategy of search, and frequently a change in the type of answer anticipated or acceptable as the search or negotia- tion continues. There is an implicit as- sumption in this paper, which intuitively seems valid. Most experimental work with retrieval systems and most atti- tudes toward reference questions look upon the inquiry and the relevance of answers as single events. This is mistaken. An inquiry is merely a micro-event in a shifting non-linear adaptive mechanism.4 Consequently, in this paper an inquiry is looked upon not as a command, as in conventional search strategy, but rather as a description of an area of doubt in which the question is open-ended, ne- gotiable, and dynamic.5 The first part of the paper discusses and analyzes the negotiation process as practiced by reference librarians and in- formation specialists. The author is in- 3 M. Francillon, "Information Retrieval: A View from the Reference D e s k , " Journal of Documentation, X V ( D e c e m b e r 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 8 7 - 9 8 ; Margaret K. Goggin, ed., "Current Trends in Reference Services," Library Trends, X I I ( J a n u a r y 1 9 6 4 ) ; Ellis Mount, " C o m m u n i - cation Barriers and the Beference Question," Special Libraries, L V I I (October 1 9 6 6 ) , 5 7 5 - 7 8 . 4 D. M. Mackay, "Operational Aspects of Some Fundamental Concepts of Human Communication," Synthese, I X (Issue 3 , No. 3 - 5 , 1 9 5 4 ) , 1 8 2 - 9 8 . 5 L . B. Doyle, " I s Belevance an Adequate Criterion in Retrieval System E v a l u a t i o n , " in American Documen- tation Institute, 2 6 t h Annual Meeting, October 1 9 6 3 , Automation and Scientific Communication, Part II, 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ; R. S. Taylor, " T h e Process of Asking Questions," American Documentation, X I I I (October 1 9 6 2 ) , 3 9 1 - 9 6 . I 180 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 d e b t e d to a n u m b e r of p r o f e s s i o n a l s w h o s u b j e c t e d t h e m s e l v e s to t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s r a n g i n g in l e n g t h f r o m sixty t o n i n e t y m i n u t e s . T h e i n t e r v i e w s w e r e l i m i t e d t o s p e c i a l l i b r a r i a n s a n d i n f o r m a t i o n spe- cialists for s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . 6 F i r s t , t h e y a r e usually c o n c e r n e d w i t h s u b s t a n t i v e q u e s t i o n s . S e c o n d , t h e i r i n q u i r i e s usually c o m e f r o m h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d a n d c r i t i c a l p e o p l e w h o h a v e an i d e a w h a t is ac- c e p t a b l e as an a n s w e r . T h i r d , t o find m a t e r i a l , t h e l i b r a r i a n m u s t u n d e r s t a n d a n d t h e r e f o r e m u s t n e g o t i a t e t h e q u e s - tion. In c o n t r a s t , p u b l i c a n d a c a d e m i c l i b r a r i a n s , b e c a u s e of t h e n a t u r e of t h e i r c l i e n t e l e a n d institutions, h a v e e d u c a - tional r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a n d staff r e s t r i c - tions w h i c h limit t h e i r r e s p o n s e t o in- q u i r y . O n e s p e c i a l l i b r a r i a n p o i n t e d o u t : T h e levels of frustration in using libraries are awfully high for most people. It's amaz- ing, as hard as we work at making ourselves popular with these people, we still have them come in and stand diffidently at our desk and say, "Well, I don't want to inter- rupt, but . . ." T o which I reply, " I f you don't interrupt me I don't have a job." But it's amazing how people can't get over this. I think it would be a study in itself, that we grow up in school libraries, public libra- ries, and college libraries, generally where this kind of service is not provided. Conse- quently you are conditioned to feeling that the library is a place you almost have to drag something out of. T h e library is almost the last place they want to go, because they've been conditioned.7 T h e i n t e r v i e w s w e r e o p e n - e n d e d and u n s t r u c t u r e d . 8 T h e y w e r e d e s i g n e d t o 8 In this report, the designations "reference li- b r a r i a n , " "librarian," "information specialist," and "subject specialist" are used interchangeably. There are differences. In this report, however, these terms are used merely to identify the person negotiating the question, in contrast to the " i n q u i r e r , " who poses the questions and requires information in some form as an answer. 7 Unacknowledged quotations in this paper are from the taped interviews with reference librarians and in- formation specialists. It was mutually agreed that such quotations would be anonymous. Minor editing has been done for clarity only. 8 Stanley L . Payne, The Art of Asking Questions (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1 9 5 1 ) ; Stephen A. Richardson, et al., Interviewing, Its Forms and Functions ( N e w York: Basic Books. 1 9 6 5 ) . e l i c i t t h r e e things, d e s c r i b e d in the li- b r a r i a n ' s o w n words: 1. W h a t c a t e g o r i e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n does a l i b r a r i a n a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n from an i n q u i r e r ? 2. W h a t is t h e role of system file organi- zation in t h e n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s ? 3. W h a t k i n d s of a n s w e r s will i n q u i r e r s a c c e p t a n d what i n f l u e n c e m i g h t this h a v e on t h e n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s ? QUESTION NEGOTIATION BY LIBRARIANS W i t h o u t d o u b t , t h e n e g o t i a t i o n of r e f - e r e n c e q u e s t i o n s is o n e of t h e m o s t c o m - p l e x acts o f h u m a n c o m m u n i c a t i o n . 9 In this a c t , o n e person tries to d e s c r i b e f o r a n o t h e r p e r s o n not s o m e t h i n g h e knows, b u t r a t h e r s o m e t h i n g h e does n o t k n o w . Q u a n t i t a t i v e data a b o u t this p r o c e s s is n o n - e x i s t e n t . I n spite of its c o m p l e x i t y , h o w e v e r , i t is p o s s i b l e to s a y c e r t a i n t h i n g s a b o u t it and t o f o r m a g r o s s classi- fication o f t h e process. T h i s is a first n e c - e s s a r y s t e p t o w a r d a basis f o r valid o b - servation a n d the s t a t e m e n t o f t e s t a b l e h y p o t h e s e s . I t is w o r t h w h i l e in this c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s to a t t e m p t t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t a q u e s t i o n is. A l t h o u g h r e f e r e n c e l i b r a r i a n s a n d o t h e r " q u e s t i o n n e g o t i a t o r s " c o u n t w h a t a r e c a l l e d " q u e s - t i o n s , " this is not r e a l l y w h a t t h i s p a p e r is c o n c e r n e d with. L e t us a t t e m p t to r e - c o n s t r u c t in g e n e r a l t e r m s t h i s n e g o t i a - tion p r o c e s s , t h a t is, as it p e r t a i n s to t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a n i n q u i r e r and an i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t . T h e i n q u i r e r has w h a t D . M . M a c k a y calls " a c e r t a i n i n c o m p l e t e n e s s in h i s p i c t u r e of t h e world—an i n a d e q u a c y in w h a t w e m i g h t call his ' s t a t e of r e a d i - ness' to i n t e r a c t p u r p o s e f u l l y w i t h t h e w o r l d a r o u n d h i m , " 1 0 in t e r m s of a p a r - 9 N . D. Belnap, Jr., An Analysis of Questions: Pre- liminary Report. Document T M - 1 2 8 7 ( S a n t a Monica, California, 1 9 6 3 ) ; R. F . Simmons, "Answering English Questions by Computer: A Survey," A C M Communica- tions, VIII ( J a n u a r y 1 9 6 6 ) , 5 3 - 7 0 . 10 D. M. Mackay, " W h a t Makes a Question," The Listener, L X I I I ( M a y 5, 1 9 6 0 ) , 7 8 9 - 9 0 . Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 181 Experiment (Observe Nature) Personal Files- Answer Information Need B r B Ask Librarian Ask Colleague Answer Self Help Negotiation Process Search Strategy FIG. 1. Prenegotiation decisions by the inquirer. ticular area of interest. He comes to the library or information center as one of several possible alternatives, for infor- mation to fill out "his picture of the world." These alternatives themselves pose an important problem, illustrated in Figure 1. In Figure 1, at decision point A, the inquirer decides whether to discuss his problem with a colleague or to go to whatever literature or information center may be available. Before he disturbs a busy colleague, he is likely to make a minimum search of his own files. This will happen only, however, if he has an- alyzed his "inadequacy" sufficiently to be able even to look through his own files. He also makes a second decision ( B in Figure 1 ) : to go to the library or in- formation center. This is an important choice and reflects a number of factors: previous experience, environment (is this an accepted procedure in his activi- ty?), and ease of access. Studies of in- formation-seeking behavior indicate, for example, that "ease of access" to an in- formation system is more significant than 182 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 "amount or quality of information" re- trievable. 1 1 At decision point C he makes an- other choice of paths: (a) to ask an in- formation specialist; or (b) to help him- self. Most important in this decision is the inquirer's image of t h e personnel, their effectiveness, and his previous ex- perience with this or any other library and librarian. All three of these decisions will have an influence, largely undetermined, on the negotiation process. It is not the in- tent of this paper to do more than list these prenegotiation choices as forming part of the context and background for the process itself. Assuming that the inquirer has m a d e these choices and has arrived at the desk of the information specialist, he then specifies in some form what it is he hopes to find out. "Arrived" can mean any of several communication modes: by letter, by telephone, or by direct face-to-face interview. It is at this point that negotiation begins. B e f o r e consid- eration of this process, it is first neces- sary to discuss various levels of ques- tions. In general we can describe four levels of information need and the con- figuration of question which represents each level.1 2 1. First of all, there is t h e conscious or even unconscious need for informa- tion not existing in the r e m e m b e r e d ex- perience of the inquirer. It may b e only a vague sort of dissatisfaction. It is prob- ably inexpressible in linguistic terms. This need ( i t really is not a question y e t ) will change in form, quality, con- creteness, and criteria as information is added, as it is influenced by analogy, or 11 Victor Rosenberg, " T h e Application of Psycho- metric Techniques to Determine the Attitudes of Indi- viduals Toward Information Seeking," Report No. 2, Studies in the Man-System Interface in Libraries (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Center for the Informa- tion Sciences, Lehigh University, July 1 9 6 6 ) . 12 James W . Perry, Defining the Query Spectrum— The Basis for Designing and Evaluating Retrieval Methods ( n . p . , 1 9 6 1 cmimeo.]); Taylor, op. cit. as its i m p o r t a n c e grows with t h e investi- gation. 2. At the second level there is a con- scious mental description of an ill-de- fined area of indecision. It will prob- ably b e an ambiguous and rambling statement. T h e inquirer may, at this stage, talk to someone else to sharpen his focus. H e presumably hopes t h a t two things will happen in this process: (a) his colleague will understand the am- biguities; and (b) these ambiguities will gradually disappear in the course of the dialogue. 3. At this level an inquirer can form a qualified a n d rational statement of his question. H e r e he is describing his area of doubt in concrete terms and he may or may not b e thinking within t h e con- text or constraints of the system from which he wants information. By the way, h e m a y view the librarian as part of the system at this level, rather than as a colleague. This distinction is im- portant. As one interviewed librarian said: " F o r most people, I am the in- formation system." 4. At the fourth level the question is recast in anticipation of what the files can deliver. T h e searcher must think in terms of t h e organization of particular files and of t h e discrete packages avail- able—such as books, reports, papers, drawings, or tables. T h e s e four levels of question forma- tion shade into one another along the question spectrum. T h e y are stated here only as convenient points along a contin- uum. T h e y m a y be outlined as follows: Qi—the actual, but unexpressed need for information ( t h e visceral n e e d ) ; Qo—the conscious, within-brain descrip- tion of the need ( t h e conscious n e e d ) ; Q3—the formal statement of t h e need ( t h e formalized n e e d ) ; Q4—the question as presented to the in- formation system ( t h e compromised n e e d ) . Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 183 Unless the inquirer knows the infor- mation specialist well, he is inclined to pose his first question in positive and well-defined terms, even to the point of specifying a particular package ( Q 4 ) . If the specialist is accepted as a colleague, the negotiation process can start earlier and be much more fruitful. An important necessity for such acceptance appears to b e subject knowledge. As one informa- tion specialist put it: "A person with a technical background will handle a tech- nical subject in less than half the time and with more competent and thorough results." This is where the process of negotiation starts. T h e compromised question ( Q 4 ) is the information special- ist's business, the representation of the inquirer's need within the constraints of the system and its files. T h e skill of the reference librarian is to work with the inquirer b a c k to t h e formalized need ( Q s ) , possibly even to the conscious need ( Q 2 ) , and then to translate these needs into a useful search strategy. This is a directed and structured proc- ess, although there are of course many different styles and many levels of com- petence and knowledge on the part of both librarian and inquirer. There are certain obvious traits which will help the librarian: empathy, sense of analogy, subject knowledge, arid knowledge of files, collection, and clientele.1 8 1 3 F r a n c i l l o n , op. cit. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of commu- nications between two friends over time. Discrete Communication Communicative Relevant to Acts Topic . T h e negotiation process is a form of communication. It is illuminating to con- trast it with normal conversation, in which one person finds out in random fashion about another's interest. Figure 2 shows the stream of communicative acts on a variety of subjects between friends over a period of time. However, embedded in this conversation are ele- ments of a subject of interest, which one person is communicating randomly to his friend. Communicative acts are shown by a dot; those which are relevant to the subject are circled. In contrast, the negotiation process must compress both the boundaries of the interview and the time span. More / information must b e communicated in less time. This requires both direction and structure on the part of the infor- mation specialist. Figure 3 illustrates this compression, where relevant com- municative acts are much more frequent. From the interviews with librarians and information specialists there appear to be five filters through which a ques- tion passes, and from which the librarian selects significant data to aid him in his search. It is the structure of these filters, modified for the specific inquiry, that provides the compression of subject and time illustrated in Figure 3. These five general types of information necessary for the search definition are not mutually exclusive categories. T h e listing is ap- proximately in order of occurrence, al- though they may occur simultaneously, i.e., relevant data for several filters may be embedded in a single statement by the inquirer. They may be briefly stated as follows: 1. determination of subject; 2. objective and motivation; 3. personal characteristics of inquirer; 4. relationship of inquiry description to file organization; 5. anticipated or acceptable answers. T h e problems associated with these "filters" are well known, even obvious, 184 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 Irrelevant Relevant Communication Communication Time FIG. 3. Schematic representation of commu- nication between inquirer and librarian during negotiation process. t o a c t i v e l i b r a r i a n s a n d i n f o r m a t i o n s p e - c i a l i s t s . T h e y h a v e n o t b e e n p u t to- g e t h e r in r a t i o n a l f o r m b e f o r e . D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F S U B J E C T D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e limits and struc- ture of the subject of t h e i n q u i r y c o m - p r i s e t h e c o n t e n t a n d a i m o f t h e first filter. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n c u l l e d at this l e v e l o f n e g o t i a t i o n is o f c o u r s e c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h t h a t o f t h e s e c o n d filter ( t h e o b j e c t i v e a n d m o t i v a t i o n b e - h i n d t h e i n q u i r y ) . H o w e v e r , t h e t w o filters a p p e a r t o h a v e a s u f f i c i e n t l y differ- e n t f u n c t i o n a n d n e c e s s a r y s t y l e o f n e - g o t i a t i o n t o r e q u i r e s e p a r a t e c o n s i d e r a - tion f o r e a c h . A t t h e first p a s s t h e p r i m a r y j)urjx>se o f n e g o t i a t e d s u b j e c t d e f i n i t i o n is t o pro- v i d e s o m e g e n e r a l d e l i n e a t i o n o f t h e a r e a : f r o m b i o m e d i c i n e t o g e n e t i c s t o t h e g e n e t i c c o d e in D N A . C o n t i n u e d dia- l o g u e on t h e r a m i f i c a t i o n s a n d s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t w i l l d e f i n e , e x j ) a n d , n a r - r o w , a n d q u a l i f y t h e i n q u i r y . X said he was interested in " c o n t a c t termi- nals." Well, that's rather a vague term, and it probably took me a few minutes to find out what he meant by that. He might not even have started with that terminology. H e meant "binding post" type of terminals. I probably asked him a question like: " D o you mean the type of spring terminals that are used in jacks, plugs and jacks?" He said, " N o , " and probably then said something about "binding posts." And I remarked "Oh, you mean soldered terminals." H e probably replied, " N o , that's where the contact comes into it, I mean the wrapped t y p e . " And so after a few exchanges like that, I would have gotten a picture in my mind as to what he was talking about. This is where my prac- tical experience in radio engineering is help- ful, because I can visualize these things. A t s o m e s t a g e , d e p e n d i n g on t h e s t a t e o f o t h e r r e l e v a n t c a t e g o r i e s o f i n f o r m a - t i o n , i t m a y b e n e c e s s a r y to c a l l a h a l t t o t h i s i n i t i a l p h a s e , in o r d e r t o a l l o w t h e l i b r a r i a n t o m a k e a b r i e f s e a r c h to de- t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t . H e c a n t h e n c o m e b a c k t o t h e i n q u i r e r w i t h " I s this w h a t y o u m e a n ? " or " I s this in t h e b a l l p a r k ? " F r o m d i s c u s s i o n in an- s w e r t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , t h e s u b j e c t is f u r t h e r l i m i t e d and q u a l i f i e d . T h i s f o r m o f d y n a m i c i n t e r a c t i o n m a y c o n t i n u e f o r s o m e t i m e , u n t i l t h e l i b r a r i a n is satis- fied h e k n o w s w h a t is w a n t e d . E n g i n e e r X will come in and say " G e e , I have these t h r e e references on subject A. I've got all t h e ones I know about. Are there any m o r e ? " He may just stop in pass- ing. This may develop into a major project, just because t h e man is so busy, he is not aware of t h e vast amount of information available to him. O n c e the subject is de- fined, we define the peripheral areas that may bear upon this. W e inform him of our basic search strategies so he feels he is part of the effort. And w e inform him how he in turn c a n interact with us, depending on the time constraints. I f it is a long term project, he will receive in the normal course of his work material we may not b e aware of. In turn w e ask that h e input these data to us. And if it becomes necessary for one of our people to go to his office and physi- cally go over and read some of the more im- portant papers on the subject, w e will do this. So there is a continuous interaction between the people in the information re- search group and the scientist and engineer asking for the material. T h e fact that they write the question doesn't help o n e bit. W e think if it's written it's clear. You know " p u t it in writing." But you get no feedback with writing. It's the dialogue, the feedback, that is the important Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 185 thing. F o r the librarian, the important thing is this awareness of t h e f a c t that you will n e e d feedback in order to m a k e sure of w h a t you've got. Y o u have to have this suspicion—a sensing of when it is you know what it is t h e inquirer wants, and when it is you are sure he has got it clear, and when it is you are not sure. M O T I V A T I O N A N D O B J E C T I V E O F T H E I N Q U I R E R T h e second filter or category of in- formation negotiated is probably the most critical: W h y does the inquirer want this information? W h a t is his ob- jective? W h a t is his motivation? This requires subtlety in negotiation, but usually has a high payoff in subject definition. It further qualifies the sub- ject, or may even alter the entire inquiry. It also offers an opportunity to ascertain 4 the point of view and influence the size, shape, and form of possible answers. Most of the librarians interviewed felt strongly that this type of question was critical to the success of any negotiation and consequent search. In those instan- ces where this is not the case, the li- brarian's approach is that the inquirer ( a ) knows what h e wants, ( b ) knows more than the librarian, and ( 3 ) is aware of the search strategies necessary to satis- fy his need. None of these assumptions appear to b e wholly valid. Unless you are sure what the why is, you can never be sure what it is the person really wants. What's h e going to do with t h e information . . . W e can't help him unless we understand his needs as well as h e does. I t is an obvious truism to every librarian who works at an information or reference desk that inquirers seldom ask at first for what they want. When they reach the point of confessing, "But this is really what I want to know . . . ," the acute li- brarian knows he is over a major hurdle. Inquirers frequently cannot define what they want, but they can discuss why they need it. Consequently they are in- clined to ask very specific questions, as if they were ashamed to hold up their ignorance for everyone to see. These may include an innocent and unambigu- ous request for a directory address, which develops into a search on molds; a request for a copy of Aviation Week which turns into a basic and broad com- pany proposal on commercial aviation; an inquiry to verify if there is a place called P , which turns into a search for information on rat repellants. In these cases, as one interviewee pointed out, " M y function is to help him decide what it is he wants." T h e first step is to be eternally suspicious and the realization that in most cases they simply don't tell you what it is they really need. I think this is a matter of human c o m m u n i c a t i o n - t h a t we need the dialogue to frame up what we are after. I find this is true even in the simplest questions. T h e r e is that eternal suspicion that what they ask is probably not what they really want. P E R S O N A L B A C K G R O U N D O F T H E I N Q U I R E R T h e third level or category of infor- mation necessary in the negotiation proc- ess has to do with the personal back- ground of the inquirer. What is his status in the organization? Has he been in the library before? W h a t is his background? W h a t relationship does his inquiry have to what he knows? W h a t is his level of critical awareness? Answers to these types of questions have relevance to the total negotiation process. It may well determine the urgency, the strategy of the negotiation, the level of any dialogue, and the critical acceptance of search re- sults. In short, it is the context, the en- vironment for the negotiation process. It determines what questions should and may be asked. Because we get to know our clientele personally, we know the type of response they need and require. W e know whether a person is a thorough individual, or a less thorough one. In the latter case, it may be somewhat frustrating at times when you 186 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 know you haven't gone far enough, yet they are satisfied. Have I worked with him before? This makes a great deal of difference. I f he is an old timer and I've worked with him before, I know pretty well what steps I can take in negotiating the question. I f he is a stranger, or relative stranger to the infor- mation service, it presents a problem to me. Some of the questions I might ask are: W h a t group are you working with? W h o is your leader? W h e r e he is situated in the organization is important. His status. W h e t h e r he is at ease or not. Sometimes we get people who feel very inadequate in coming to the library. T h e y may come to us as a last resort, not knowing what they are getting into. T h e y may feel that they are exposing themselves to someone looking over their shoulder. T h a t is a position we don't want them to feel in. There are many problems in this facet of negotiation. An instance cited by one interviewee is when an inquirer, who may be in his own right a highly compe- tent researcher, is used as a high level messenger by, for example, the vice president for research. It is at this point, as the librarian pointed out, that ex- perience and personal knowledge of the organization and people become impor- tant. T h e "messenger" frequently may not know the background and motivation for the inquiry. It is here that the librarian must make some educated guesses and associations based on experience. He must in some way bring the vice presi- dent into the dialogue, without under- mining the reputation of the "messen- ger." R E L A T I O N S H I P O F I N Q U I R Y D E S C R I P T I O N T O F I L E O R G A N I Z A T I O N An information specialist or a refer- ence librarian is an intermediary, an in- terlocutor, between the inquirer and the system. As such, the negotiation process not only provides him with a substantive description of the inquiry, but also sup- plies him clues for devising his search strategy. He becomes a translator, in- terpreting and restructuring the inquiry so it fits the files as they are organized in his library.1 4 In the symbolism dis- cussed earlier, he must construct a Q4, or a set of Q4's, so that the total system can b e searched efficiently. T h e inquirer will state briefly his problem over the p h o n e . This is not enough so we go to him. W e very likely do not discuss the specific problem but rather t h e relation- ship of the problem to t h e work h e is doing. How does it tie in? W e work from the general to t h e specific. H e will often use a blackboard. W h a t are the limits of the problem? In many cases we redefine the approach b e c a u s e he isn't familiar with the search strategy. So we redefine the problem to m a t c h the search strategy neces- sary. T h e inquirer is usually not aware of the sources available to him. If we view the negotiation process as a "game of chess" as one librarian sug- gested, the librarian has a tremendous advantage. H e is the one who knows the rules of the game; the inquirer doesn't. T h e "rules of the game" are the organi- zation, structure, associations, and spe- cific peculiarities of the files. T h e quota- tion above hints this: " W e redefine the problem to match the search strategy." The implications of such a statement, if taken at face value, can have the effect of redefining librarianship. It should b e understood that the "files" refer not only to the catalogs, indexes, abstracts, and other standard files of the library. T h e r e is also the "who knows what" file, not on cards but in the li- brarian's memory. T h e r e are special files: previous requests, news notes, recent items read, the unstructured notes (or pieces of paper napkins) in the librar- ian's desk drawer. T h e r e is the sense, or activity, of building the inquiry into the system—the system including the infor- mation specialist and all the relevant files. 14 S u s a n A r t a n d i , " T h e S e a r c h e r s — L i n k s B e t w e e n I n q u i r e r s a n d I n d e x e s , " Special Libraries, L V I I ( O c t o - b e r 1 9 6 6 ) , 5 7 1 - 7 4 . Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 187 Referring people to other people is one of the methods we use. But before referring them, we ask " W h o m have you talked to? Are you working by yourself or with others? Do you know X ? D o you want to talk to X , or should w e ? " You see, we don't want to go charging off in all directions, dupli- cating effort. As much as possible, the librarians interviewed also tried to elicit from the inquirer any stray bits of information from his specialized knowledge that would give clues in support of a search strategy. O n e of the standard qeustions we ask: " T o your knowledge what will probably be the most fruitful area in which to search?" This opens up some leads . . . often, he will say something like, " W e l l , I think there was a Proceedings of the I E E E about 1 9 6 3 and I thought I saw something in there. M a y b e that will give you a l e a d . " In this particular case his hint was sufficient to open up the problem for us. W h a t the inquirer is saying is "Here is a paper. I'd like ones similar to it, or sim- ilar to it in this specific way." W H A T K I N D O F A N S W E R W I L L T H E I N Q U I R E R A C C E P T ? When an inquirer approaches the ref- erence desk, he has some picture in mind as to what he expects his answer to look like, i.e. format, data, size, etc.1 5 T h e problem of the inquirer's acceptability of an answer is an important filter in the process of answering inquiries. One of the results of the negotiation process is to alter the inquirer's a priori picture of what it is he expects. This picture is altered as the inquirer changes his ques- tion in response to feedback, as he be- comes aware of the capabilities of both the library and the librarian, as he changes his search strategy in the ne- gotiation process, and as he is forced in 1,1 C a r o l i n e E . H i e b e r , " A n Analysis o f Questions a n d Answers in L i b r a r i e s , " Report No. 1, Studies in t h e M a n - S y s t e m I n t e r f a c e in L i b r a r i e s ( B e t h l e h e m , P e n n s y l v a n i a : C e n t e r f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e s , L e h i g h U n i v e r s i t y , J u n e 1 9 6 6 ) . the negotiation process to place limits of time and size on his inquiry. T h e sense of urgency in the inquiry definitely has an influence on the type of answer expected. T h e inquirer may say " I need this in 3 0 minutes." B y doing so he has pretty well determined what form he will a c c e p t and what questions I can ask. Whether or not the inquirer is asking for information in his own specialty will shape the kind of answer useful to him. If a person is asking for a search in his own field, then you can sit down and talk to him. I f he is asking in a field peripheral to his interest, then he has probably been asked to express an opinion on something. H e doesn't want a search, but rather some- thing limited, for example a review or a state-of-the-art paper. Undoubtedly the subject field of the library and its clientele has a bearing on the type of answer expected, in ways we do not even know about yet. F o r ex- ample, in the law1 6 it appears that the questions are very precise, but the an- swers are less precise. This is due to the nature of precedence in the law, in which a law, a court ruling, or an ad- ministrative regulation might b e perti- nent to a specific case, and are the only answers available. They don't however answer the question. Training in the law appears to make a difference. As one librarian put it: " I can almost tell the law school by the type of question." One of the nagging problems in the delivery of answers seems to b e the de- gree of evaluation the information staff can and should make. There are of course a variety of factors at work here: the librarian's own capability; the in- quirer's attitude; and the available time. One interviewed librarian described the problem as follows: Now the next level beyond this is one in which we have hardly done anything at all, 1 6 L o r d R a d c l i f f e , " H o w a L a w y e r T h i n k s , " Lancet, C C L X X ( J a n u a r y 1 9 5 6 ) , 1 - 5 . 188 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 primarily because we don't have the man- power. But I think it is probably the most important. . . . T h a t is to make an evaluation of these materials. Just to hand someone a batch of raw abstracts is not enough; or even a list of numbers; paper A says the property equals this, paper B says it's that, and so on. Well, if they don't agree, shouldn't someone read the papers, and decide what were the experimental tech- niques, and give these a weight? T h a t is, this is the most significant number, or the most valid number, or this is a sig- nificant average. W e have just not been able to do it except in a few rare instances. Now the hope had b e e n — w h e n I say " h o p e " I don't mean only ours, but from the top of the Research and Engineering Department down—that, if we gave the individual chem- ist or engineer these other materials, he would do this evaluation. T h e evidence is that he doesn't do it. I would say only 1% actually do it. T h e others will take the first number at the top of the pile, some will average all the numbers, some will ap- parently take the number that fits their number best. You know, it's the human problem. Perhaps the most important obstacle to evaluation by the librarian is the sense of puritanism on the part of both li- brarians and management who believe, for ethical rather than economic reasons, that everyone should do his own work. Such an ethos is at odds with the sense of service in librarianship, with the re- quirements of management for the best information as soon as possible, and with the growing complexity of libraries in a "data-rich civilization." T H E I N F O R M A T I O N S E E K I N G S T R A T E G I E S O F U S E R S This paper makes an assumption which seems intuitively valid. In the self-help process, i.e. when an inquirer attempts to find information in his own way, we view the inquiry not as a command, but rather as an adaptive self-organizing sys- tem in which the question is open-ended and dynamic. In fact, as will be illus- trated, the inquirer's original question may change during the search, as he adapts to the feedback of the search process. L e t us discuss briefly commands and questions, for an understanding of the difference between them is critical for the development of truly interactive sys- tems.17 A command basically denotes the request for a specific item or spe- cific subject combination which the in- quirer has already assumed will satis- fy his need. Whether his assumption is valid or not has been discussed before. For the moment we accept its validity. In response to his command, the inquirer is delivered, or he locates, a specific- package. Here the process ends, and he is satisfied ( b y definition). Libraries and other information sys- tems have been developed and operated on these premises. However, one may suspect that the rise of reference services —historically, a rather recent develop- ment—and the care lavished upon index- ing, cataloging, and classification schemes indicates a feeling that traditional "com- mand" systems must have some form of feedback built into them. There are of course many mechanisms by which classificationists, index design- ers, and other information system de- velopers have attempted to develop strategies and alternatives for the in- quirer. For the inquirer, however, these are frequently oversophisticated, at least in the display forms in which they pres- ently exist. T h e inquirer is only con- cerned with getting an answer, not with system niceties. Nor is he interested in learning and maintaining currency with a system in which only a very minor part has relevance to him. An analogy may b e made to the myriads of direction- al signs on an urban freeway. T h e signs seem to b e designed for the benefit of natives and not strangers. Though the principle remains the same, the results 17 D . M. M a c k a y , " I n f o r m a t i o n a l Analysis o f Q u e s - tions a n d C o m m a n d s , " in Information Theory, C . C h e r r y , ed. ( L o n d o n : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 6 1 ) , p. 4 6 9 - 7 6 . Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 189 of a wrong decision in the latter case are apt to b e somewhat more catastroph- ic, in the immediate sense at least. There really has been little empathy for the unsophisticated (i.e. non-native) user. Within the conventional informa- tion system, the signs offered the in- quirer pose too many alternatives with- out specification as to where each may lead or what each will do for the in- quirer. It may be that better forms of display and interrogation by the system, in an interactive sense, can provide more adaptive interfaces. T h e concept of t h e interface, in this context, must be extended beyond its usual meaning of a physical surface or panel of control buttons and knobs. It includes here not only the physical problems, e.g. ease of use, but also the subtle and personal interrelationship, however primitive this knowledge may b e at present, between user and recorded knowledge. Within this context, the question, as contrasted to the command, can be bet- ter understood. In the symbolism de- veloped above, the command is Q4, the question compromised by the rigidities of the system and b y the specific need assumed by the inquirer. However the question moves b a c k toward QH and even toward Q2. It is ambiguous, impre- cise, and requires feedback from the system, or from a colleague, in order to provide an acceptable answer. This ap- proach, without intruding on epistemo- logical grounds, may also give clues to a better understanding of the differences between information and knowledge. As a first pass at understanding infor- mation-seeking, approximately twenty undergraduate students in a course, " T h e Information Sciences" at Lehigh Uni- versity were asked to report on the proc- ess resulting from a self-generated infor- mation need. Four of these searches are discussed here. The project had two pur- poses. First, from a pedagogical stand- point, it was intended to create an awareness in the students of themselves as information-seekers: the decisions they make; the sources they use; the com- plexities and failures of the systems they encounter; and the ambiguities and strat- egies of their question-asking processes. Second, it was hoped that some gross generalizations could be made of this process, notwithstanding the open-ended- ness and uncontrolled nature of the proj- ect. T h e students were first asked to read the section on "Human Search Strate- gies," from the report of the Advanced Information Systems Company.1 8 This was done to give them some feel for the scope and nature of the problem. They were then asked, following class discussion, to write a description of their search for specific information in any topic of interest to them at that time. This approach was felt to be better than one based on artificially generated searches, because ( a ) they could draw on their own experience and interests, and ( b ) they could determine when they had an acceptable answer. T h e y were allowed to use any sources they wished and to ask advice from anyone. T h e y were instructed to conduct the search in whatever way seemed easiest and most efficient. They were not restricted to the library, although they were re- quested to use the library somewhere in their search. T h e following instructions were given orally and were briefly discussed: 1. Do not attempt to describe every motion or every decision in full detail. However, please pick out what, in your judgment, are some of the more im- portant or significant decision points and record those completely. 2. In the beginning analyze your ques- tion: W h a t do I know already? W h a t will I accept as an answer? Note that your question, and your criteria of an- 1 8 A d v a n c e d I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m s C o . Report on the Organization of Large Files with Self-Organizing Capa- bility ( L o s A n g e l e s : 1 9 6 1 ) . 190 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 swer acceptability, may change as the search progresses. 3. Analyze possible search strategies and estimate probability of success. Note that new strategies may appear in the search process, or may b e altered in a variety of ways. 4. T h e following activities are signifi- cant: a. the original question and any re- evaluation of it; b. interrogation of a source, both hu- man and printed or graphic; c. decisions to try a new strategy or to re-evaluate the strategy; cl. significant results of an interroga- tion, including important clues; e. memory or store, i.e. partial data thought pertinent to the search, which you hold in "memory," or record in some fashion; f. "dead end" of a search path, in which you could ( 1 ) go to new strategy, ( 2 ) re-evaluate question, or ( 3 ) consider the whole question not worth the trouble. There are several observations and a few generalizations that can be extracted from the resulting search strategies. 1. All searchers used some human in- termediaries, fellow students, or refer- ence librarians, to give them clues or guidance. 2. No student thought in terms of a library strategy, that is, to view the total collection as a source and then devise one or several approaches to it. All of them however used certain library mech- anisms of a strategic nature: a. T o use the classification schedule as a means of searching: None of the books indicated looks promising. However they all have the same catalog number ( 5 1 0 . 7 8 3 4 ) . I'll look in the stacks at that number and see if any of the books are promising. b. To use the Subject Catalog ( t h e li- brary used a divided catalog). c. To search the Subject Catalog be- yond t h e original subject heading for phrases, etc. Under C U R V E S there were nine books. . . . So I was about to look at S U R - F A C E S when I noticed a card saving C U R V E S ON S U R F A C E S . 3. Most of the inquiries posed could not b e answered by any single book or paper. T h e y represent, however, ques- tions of the type that users (in this case, engineers) wish to have answered: No. 1: W h a t is the relationship for the rate of gaseous molecular bombardment of the walls of the gases container? No. 2: W h a t is micro-programming? No. 3: W h a t is a concise definition of "Gaus- sian C u r v a t u r e ? " No. 4: H o w does the Philco F 1 0 differential amplifier operate in t h e model 2 2 8 digital memory u n i t ? 1 9 4. T h e searchers generally made good use of tables of contents and indexes of single books examined. When they did not, they made poor judgments as to the usefulness of specific chapters to their inquiry. 5. Answers usually do not come in neat little packages in answer to a spe- cific question of the type posed here. One, for example, had to put his answer together from seven different sources, albeit in a single book. 6. When available information sources do not provide enough information for an acceptable answer, it is necessary to alter the question. As the student with Question No. 4 found out: T h e question will have to be generalized because specific data supply is exhausted. How is a general transistor differential amplifier analyzed? 7. For the type of questions posed, there is a great deal of noise in library catalogs, particularly in the Subject sec- tion. This may be characteristic of aca- 19 J . S . G r e e n , " G R I N S , an O n - L i n e Structure f o r t h e N e g o t i a t i o n o f I n q u i r i e s , " Report No. 4, Studies in t h e M a n - S y s t e m I n t e r f a c e in L i b r a r i e s ( B e t h l e h e m , P e n n s y l v a n i a ; C e n t e r for I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e s , L e h i g h U n i v e r s i t y , J u n e 1 9 6 6 ) . Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 191 demic libraries, whose collections are based on quantity rather than quality. T h e results seem to support the belief that the inquirer's interaction with a li- brary or information system has certain similarities to the negotiation process. If this belief has validity, it means that li- braries are very frustrating to use and that library systems need considerably more experimental work to enhance this interface between user and library. S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S What has been gained by this investi- gation? Or does it merely reiterate what is already known? Is this, as someone has said about psychology, an elabora- tion of the obvious? In part, it certainly has been an elaboration of the obvious. But it has been more. It has attempted, by restructuring t h e obvious, to open up new ways of looking at libraries. T h e whole purpose has been, by organization and structure, to allow the reference and searching processes to b e seen from a point closer to actual fact. This was done in the hope t h a t a more intensive study of this process will result, and that elements could be isolated for fruitful analysis and eventual improvement of services. N E G O T I A T I O N It has been shown in this report that the negotiation process, in its best form, is structured and can b e analyzed. How- ever, the five filters discussed above are neither absolute nor fixed. T h e y provide a first pass at structuring a complex proc- ess. They appear to b e valid at this state of investigation. E a c h filter, how- ever, requires data, analysis, and testing. T h e y could be, for example, further broken down, if it appears fruitful to do so, so that the more important elements could be better understood and utilized by information specialists in the future. This approach to the negotiation proc- ess suggests ways by which library schools could re-examine course content in reference work. Is it possible, for ex- ample, to orient these courses more toward the dynamism of communication, i.e. negotiation, rather than concentrating solely on the static content of reference collections and classification systems? T h e former has been slighted, if con- sidered at all, in the emphasis on the latter, the static approach. A newer ap- proach should mean, for example, more attention to the social dynamics of de- finable parts of the population of library users, both actual and potential. This ap- proach is already included in the train- ing of children's librarians. It implies the total pattern of publishing, formal and informal communication, sociology, dis- semination and professional education, if any, at whatever level of society a course is presumed relevant, from the "cultural- ly deprived" to the "scientifically sophis- ticated." A third result of this concern with the negotiation process is an under- standing of the difference between a command and a question. A command assumes either (or b o t h ) of two things on the part of the inquirer. First, he knows exactly what he wants and can describe its form (book, paper, e t c . ) and its label (author and t i t l e ) . T h e second assumption is that the inquirer knows the functional organization of the sys- tem, the "rules of the game." It has been the argument of this paper that only the first assumption may b e valid. T h e sec- ond assumption, with some exceptions, is not valid. S E L F - H E L P I t is obvious that librarians and infor- mation specialists are unable, physically, to handle the present demands on their services, let alone potential user demand. It is equally obvious that, as a communi- cation channel, libraries are frustrating and complex systems to use. T h e previous section implied that a different type of education for librarians might make 192 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 them more efficient in serving their vari- ous publics. T h a t is, they could help more people. Such a course would by no means b e sufficient to nullify the self- help process, even if we wanted to. Do we then wish to duplicate reference ne- gotiation? Duplication of such a complex process is obviously impossible now. In spite of the glittering but distant po- tential of artificial intelligence, problem solving, and theorem-proving systems, the nature of print and other media may in fact require different approaches than those of human negotiation. There do appear to b e several elements of the ne- gotiation process worth investigating to see if mechanical systems might b e fea- sible and useful. Certainly substantive definition is one of these processes. Present subject nam- ing systems however appear to b e more concerned with the description of physi- cal objects (books, papers, e t c . ) , than assistance to the user in defining his subject. This is an important and critical differentiation, for present systems are object-oriented ( s t a t i c ) rather than in- quiry-oriented ( d y n a m i c ) . This is re- lated directly to the concept of feedback —presentation to the user of various levels of display requiring a response from him. T h e inquirer's response in turn guides, alters, or limits future displays, searches, and answers by the system. However, most important in the process of subject definition is the display to the inquirer of alternatives, with specifica- tion of what these alternatives mean, where they lead to. A second element or negotiation filter relevant to self-help is the inquirer's description of what he anticipates as an answer. Is it quantitative? descriptive? review? W h a t is the level of sophistica- tion? T h e very brief dialogue reported by one student in describing his search illustrates this process. She began to look in a book of mathe- matical tables, and I explained to her that she would n o t find "Gaussian Curvature" there. I told her it was a theory, not a measurement. Whereupon she gave me a mathematical dictionary which looked as if it would h e l p . T h e important part of this process is that the user must b e presented with choices, which match his type of antici- pated answer with the forms available in the system.2 0 A third relevant filter is the process of translating from the inquirers termi- nology to system terminology. T h e idea here of course is to allow t h e inquirer as much latitude as possible in describ- ing his need ( Q 3 or even Q 2 ) , and then funneling these into system terms ( Q 4 ) . T h e remaining two elements of the negotiation process probably cannot at present b e built into the self-help proc- ess. However it may be possible at a primitive level to interrogate the user about the objective of his inquiry, what the information is to b e used for. Using the E L I Z A program developed by Proj- ect MAC 2 1 or a related system presently being devised by James Green of L e - high University,22 it is possible to extract from such questions as "What do you in- tend to do with this information?" ad- ditional concepts, phrases, and terms which would aid in specifying the sub- ject. As such it may have a therapeutic effect on the inquirer, forcing him to de- fine, limit, and analyze his inquiry, even though the system itself is not sophisti- cated enough to do much with the infor- mation in response to such questions. T h e background or status of the in- quirer does not appear to have much relevance to the self-help process, except as it may serve to determine a level of sophistication in the displays presented to him or in the answer delivered. 2 0 I t is w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t t h e form divisions in t h e D e w e y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n t i c i p a t e d this k i n d o f a p p r o a c h . 21 J . W e i z e n h a u m , " E L I Z A , a C o m p u t e r P r o g r a m f o r t h e S t u d y o f N a t u r a l L a n g u a g e C o m m u n i c a t i o n , " ACM Communications, I X ( J a n u a r y 1 9 6 6 ) , 3 6 - 4 5 . 2 2 J . S . G r e e n , op. cit. Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking / 193 P O S S I B L E S Y S T E M S A N D D E V I C E S All present systems have forms and elements intended to aid the inquirer: see also and see references; broader term, related term, and narrower term; form division in classification; generic relationships in classification. As more research goes into these sophisticated and often intricate mechanisms, the more the inquirer must turn to the information specialist. As was implied earlier, these are librarian's tools and appear to have little relevance—in their present form— for the inquirer. T h e system that is best able to display itself in a useful and functional way for t h e inquirer will b e the most effective. L i k e information it- self, the system that provides ease of ac- cess, specifically physical convenience, will be more effective than those con- cerned only with the quality of the scheme of subject organization. Video, film, microform, and computer media offer a tremendous array of possibilities hardly touched for interactive systems at the operating, i.e. public, level. Even at the elementary level of description of collection and its physical arrangement, very little has been done to direct the user to areas of concern to him. General instruction in the use of li- brary and information systems is present- ly normally accomplished by tours, for- mal instruction, and handbooks, none of which are available when the user ac- tually has an inquiry. One of the more interesting systems presently under de- velopment is the Videosonic system at Mt. San Antonio College. 2 3 Controlled experiment with these devices indicates that students who utilized the system used the library more effectively and sought services from the staff less fre- quently than those not exposed. T h e Recordak Lodestar Microfilm Reader-Printer with an Image Control Keyboard offers several possibilities for 2 3 Harriet G e n u n g , " C a n M a c h i n e s T e a c h t h e U s e o f t h e L i b r a r y ? " CRL, X X V I I I ( J a n u a r y ' 1 9 6 7 ) , 2 5 - 3 0 . a programed learning and interrogating system relevant to the library. E a c h of approximately twenty-five hundred frames on a reel are available by dial- ing, or otherwise signifying an ad- dress on the keyboard. Michael B. Liebo- witz of Lehigh University has done a preliminary design study24 for such a microfilm system in the field of metal- lurgy. In the system the user moves from index frames to subject network frames, then to bibliography, tables of contents, or data, as his needs indicate. T h e im- portant part of this process is that the user is led through the system not in serial fashion, but by his area of interest as he responds to questions. H e can also obtain hard copy as he moves along. There are some grave limitations in such microfilm systems. Updating for ex- ample becomes difficult, without rede- signing an entire reel. However, the dis- play of subject maps may allow a user a much better understanding of the re- lationship of his inquiry to terms within the system and to the interrelationships among terms. T h e presentation of tables of contents in this form may allow a user to scan quickly a summary of the contents of a specialized reference col- lection. T h e study now underway at the gradu- ate library school of the University of Chicago on the format, information, and public use of data on catalog cards2 5 may indicate more effective display of bibliographic information. T h e aug- mented catalog, now being experimented on by Project I N T R E X ( 2 1 ) , will in- clude such important forms of display as reviews and tables of contents. Al- though both of these developments will influence the display of information, they appear to be related more to command rather than to question. T h e work by 24 M i c h a e l B . L e i b o w i t z , A Proposed System for Dis- playing Accessing Techniques to Library Users in the Field of Metallurgy ( M . S . T h e s i s , L e h i g h U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 6 7 ) . 25 U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o . G r a d u a t e L i b r a r y S c h o o l . Requirements Study for Future Catalogs, Progress R e p o r t No. 1, O c t o b e r 1 9 6 6 . 194 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 Engelbart and others at the Stanford Re- search Institute2 6 on the augmentation of human intellect by computers may generate interesting systems sometime in the future, but appears to have little pertinence at this time to the problems under consideration here. If nothing else it is hoped that this first pass at the analysis of negotiation, both by human intermediaries and by self-help, may induce libraries and li- brarians to become critically aware of their role in this process. T h e advent of the MARC project, commercial process- ing of library materials, and the gradual disappearance of local cataloging opera- tions will have a profound influence on operating libraries. It will become in- creasingly important for librarians to become interpreters and guides, develop- ing both negotiation skills and displays for users of all levels of sophistication. T h e contrast between the "wholesaler" and "retailer" of information may serve as an analogy here. However much they like to think otherwise, most libraries are "wholesalers" of knowledge, and the library is a warehouse (however grand the Gothic windows or beautiful the new carpeting) from which gobs of knowledge are indiscriminately doled out to whom ever happens to be captive of the system at that moment. There are exceptions—and they are noble ones. 2 6 R . S . T a y l o r , op. cit. Certainly most of the librarians who gave their time for this study are helping to make their libraries "retailers." This is the difference between the supermarket or discount house and the local dealer who takes pride in serving his customers, i.e. public. H e is not pushing merchan- dise. He is matching a customer and his merchandise. I f libraries, at any level of service, are going to grow and evolve ( a n d indeed exist) as integral parts of our urban tech- nico-scientific culture, then they must know themselves. They must know them- selves both as local and rather special institutions and as parts of very large, very dynamic, and very complex infor- mation and communications networks, which operate on both a formal and an informal level. I t may be, as someone has said of formal education, that the storage media which libraries handle are noise in the system. T h e real education and com- munication may take place outside or on the periphery of libraries and formal education. Indeed it may be that the ref- erence interview, the negotiation of questions is the only process in libraries that is not noise. F o r it is through ne- gotiation that an inquirer presumably resolves his problem, begins to under- stand what he means, and begins to adjust his question to both system and substantive noise in the store of recorded knowledge called the library. • •