Looking for Information? Information Seeking Behaviours and the Built Environment

The totality of design, production and management of the built environment is characterised, in part, by the rich diversity of the professionals involved. This variegated professional context is further coloured by disciplinary traditions and the different knowledge bases involved. The multi-faceted information arena has then prompted a concern with how to secure appropriate forms of interdisciplinary understanding in built environment education (Chapman, 2010). A critical aspect of these debates is how built environment students, academics and practitioners engage with information. Drawing on literature from the information sciences, this Editorial reflects on what it means to look for information in the context of built environment education.

At a basic level, information and associated research skills tend to feature as an integral part of a student’s degree. Module or unit guides may highlight generalised information skills as falling in a body of transferable skills. Specialised information or research skills might then form part of a dedicated module involving a research project or dissertation, for example. Depending on how, when and where ‘information skills’ are taught and assessed, the acquisition and management of information may then become part of a professional culture of scholarship or continuous professional development. As with the learning of a foreign language, such information literacy may then become engrained as a professional habit which may then assume a particular pattern of information use over the lifetime of an individual (Peel and Posas, 2009). In recent times, however, there have been calls for professional bodies to encourage their members to acquire new knowledge and to adopt ‘a more proactive attitude towards sharing knowledge across disciplines’ (Gann and Salter, 1999, p.13). This raises important questions about how individuals engage with information outside a particular discipline, and beyond their training. Moreover, the very complexity of the built environment professional base suggests that individual disciplines may hold, or indeed ‘guard’ information, or produce it in ways and forms which make access to, and use of, individual disciplinary domains by others difficult. This is more than how information is codified; it involves consideration of why, where, how and when we look for information. How much do we, as built environment educators, understand about information seeking and information retrieval behaviours?

It is clear from the literature on information-seeking and use, and related work on information-sharing, that this is a relatively new and exciting area with a range of multi-modal information activities emerging. On the one hand, as Johnson et al. (1995, p.274), for example, asserted ‘individual information seeking has become increasingly a critical determinant of the success of organizational members and of an organization as a whole’. On the other hand, there is evidence of conflict over the generation, control and shared use of information (Gerlak et al., 2011). The relative ease with which information is exchanged may be assisted — or indeed hindered — by learned and established information practices. These customs and traditions tend to differ between individuals, disciplines, and organisations. In recent times, the perceived (and real) value of information has been fuelled, in part, by developments in digital technology and access to electronic materials via the internet. Open source access to journals is a case in point (Peel, 2008). In a report commissioned by the British Library and JISC, Rowlands et al. (2008, p.305), for example, highlighted that:

information consumers — of all ages — use digital material voraciously, and not necessarily in the way libraries assume. Any barrier to access: be that additional log- ins, payment or hard copy, are too high for most consumers, and most consumers and information behind those barriers will be increasingly ignored.

Furthermore, and given the new browsing strategies adopted by users, Rowlands et al. (2008, pp.305–306) argued ‘for tighter integration of library content with commercial search engines’. Such debates are illustrative of the new ways in which information providers are engaging with the changes in information behaviours. Such trends will need to be taken into account by educators preparing professionals for evolving careers in the built environment.

An added dimension of information management and access in the early 21^st century stems from the expansion of informal information providers, the changing nature and format of information, the ease and speed of access to global data, and interaction with, and interrogation of, ‘live’ data sets. Such technological developments have raised societal expectations about the nature of the information that is — or should be made — available. Within an urbanised policy and practical context, changing relationships with information can clearly impact the work of built environment professionals in a number of ways and vice versa. For example, government can seek out lay knowledge using e-formats, environmental organisations can mount sophisticated campaigns using social media, and community groups can go viral, actively challenging professional expertise or established interpretations of evidence online. Access to information, innovative and interactive social media, and a range of self-publishing opportunities at the click of a button can produce information in quick and professional ways. Critically, information can reach a global audience rapidly and relatively inexpensively. Such opportunities for information exchange have opened up the potential channels for a relatively more deliberative democracy. As Cordes (2009, p.1) claimed:

We stand today at a critical point in the history of information. The means for creating and consuming information are increasing and evolving. The amount of information is rapidly expanding, while processes we used to qualify information truth are shifting from centralization to broader civic participation. Although reading and writing are still the foundation of knowledge, literacy in this age means more than the ability to read and write; it requires a complex set of skills including: access, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and use of information in a variety of modes.

Indeed, Bawden (2001) suggested that information literacy and learning are vital if one is to survive the so-called information age.

The literature on information behaviours shows that individuals and individual communities of interest are likely to have their own idiosyncratic patterns of information seeking behaviours, their own constructions of wisdom, and their own decision making values and cultures. This line of thinking suggests that organisational — as well as technical — dimensions of information exchange must be addressed and strategies for social learning put in place if information is to be exchanged effectively, efficiently and inclusively across the built environment professions. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the relative ease with which information could be exchanged, research has highlighted the existence of strategic behaviours designed specifically to withhold information or to avoid the social costs of contributing to a shared knowledge pool (Kimmerle et al., 2011). Such thinking highlights the need for positive relationship-building so that feelings of trust and reciprocity are built.

In building a shared understanding, it is clear that there is a need for a sensitised understanding of information users’ habits, cultures, behaviours, values, and preferences. Interpretations of the relationships between information providers and information users have changed over time. Early evaluation studies of library use, for example, constructed ideas of performance around the library service itself and focused on user statistics and the use of particular collections (Meho and Tibbo, 2003). Performance measures were formulated with respect to individual criteria regarding accessibility, cost, user satisfaction, response time, cost/benefit ratios, and general library use (Evans et al., 1972). Taken in isolation, such individual measures were predominantly quantitative and focused on the information service. Subsequently, a greater sensitivity to the highly differentiated ways in which individuals engage with information turned attention instead onto individuals’ cognitive approaches to information and the specific attributes, knowledge structures and worldviews of the users. Notably, Pettigrew et al.’s (2001, p.50) extensive literature review drew attention to the need to be alert to a wide range of factors which influence individuals’ relationships with information, including ‘feelings of uncertainty, confusion, optimism, frustration, relief, and satisfaction’. Later studies in information science turned their attention to the social context of information retrieval and individual and group habits in relation to information seeking and use. This phase of intellectual inquiry, however, was rapidly overtaken by a renewed emphasis, in the mid-1980s, on the user (Meho and Tibbo, 2003), reflecting, perhaps, wider political economy concerns at that time around promoting individuality and choice. The ensuing emphasis on developing a holistic understanding of information seeking behaviours slowly gained a foothold in the 1990s (Pettigrew et al., 2001), and continues to provide a useful basis for considering information user activities. Contemporary information behaviour literature suggests the need for devising multifaceted approaches to understanding the complexity of human information seeking behaviours.

A relatively more holistic conceptual approach to understanding information seeking behaviours is considered relevant to the built environment disciplines since it invites a predominantly integrative approach. Thus a holistic appreciation of human information seeking and use patterns accords importance to organisational goals and constraints, work priorities and processes, and the resources available. These factors, however, must also take into account established working cultures and individual patterns of information retrieval and use. In particular, there is a need to recognise the power of the internet since information seeking behaviours have been radically impacted by activities such as surfing and browsing (Choo et al., 2000). Patterns of use are thus changing with individuals using new forms of indirect and passive approaches to information searching, as may be illustrated by users setting up automated information alerts to receive information on an on-going basis. Such information acquiring activities parallel traditional active and directed information retrieval techniques. It is evident that the information sciences offer an important window onto understanding how professionals working in the built environment can engage with, manage and share information in innovative ways. It is also clear that this is a very dynamic and exciting area. As technology continues to offer new modes of information provision and exchange, it is critical for built environment educators to be alert to the changing ways in which academic, policy and civil communities communicate and consider what pedagogical approaches and teaching, learning and assessment strategies might better assist their students to reflect critically on their information seeking behaviours and become active and thoughtful users of these information channels.

This Issue

This issue comprises four single-authored contributions. It begins with a paper by Anders Törnqvist from the Swedish School of Planning at the Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, in Sweden. His article, ‘Heuristic Simplification of Conceptual Models for Training Planning Students in Negotiation and Argumentation’ is based on his conference paper which he presented at the Planning Education Track at the 24th Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) in Helsinki in July 2010. The judges named this the Best Conference Paper. Törnqvist’s discussion addresses a particular concern of built environment educators since it questions how professionals acquire critical thinking and domain skills. Notably, Törnqvist challenges the reliability of professional judgement and that ‘good’ practice can be learned from established, expert ‘masters’. Though contextualised using a spatial planning teaching and learning environment, the theoretical and practical examples used offer fascinating insights into how one might conceptualise a practical framework to support professional apprenticeship within built environment education. Specifically, the applied focus examined in the paper relates to different approaches to enhancing student learning with respect to the acquisition and progressive development of the skills of negotiation and argumentation. Törnqvist expands on the term ‘conceptual apprenticeship’ to provide a critical and reflexive scaffolding for professional skills development. The paper has a particular resonance for the work of the Royal Town Planning Institute (2003, p.4) in terms of its stated objective:

to seek to create or foster an educational continuum that allows access to and supports progression from a number of levels, and that meets the needs of planning professionals and support staff, other professions and disciplines with an interest in planning, and the general educational needs of an interested civil society

since the model advocates teasing out the facets of complex professional tasks.

In a related vein, the second paper, ‘Reflective Writing, Higher Education and Professional Practice’, John McCarthy from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, examines ways in which students can be supported to critically reflect on their actions and understanding, particularly in relation to the Assessment of Professional Competence process. These two papers complement each other because both authors are seeking to get to the nub of the tensions in ‘knowing what’ and ‘knowing how’, and, more importantly perhaps, to improve practice through experiential learning. Building on earlier critical insights by Webster (2008), and practical applications by Roberts and Yoell (2009), McCarthy similarly warns against simplistic interpretations of reflective learning. In their papers, both Törnqvist and McCarthy contribute to another important theme in JEBE, that it is vital not to embed unhelpful norms through processes of professional acculturation (Higgins et al., 2009). It is evident that there is a need for students to exercise progressive and transformational practice reflective learning skills if critical reflective practice is to support lifelong learning.

In ‘Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment’, Charlie Smith from Liverpool John Moores University, UK opens an intriguing window onto undergraduate architecture students’ perceptions of the ‘critique by jury’ as a mode of learning. This is a welcome critical addition to the established tradition of the ‘crit’ and raises general issues of wider relevance to best practice in assessment and feedback in the built environment. Though not unique in its robust questioning of the crit, (see, for example, Stuart-Murrary, 2010), Smith’s paper is relatively unusual in the field since it incorporates vivid accounts of the undergraduate perspective. Not only does the paper challenge convention and foreground the student voice, but, and echoing Törnqvist’s concern that professional knowledge is not reliable, the paper questions in what ways the traditional crit helps students to develop professional knowledge. In his explication of the crit as a mechanism for both developmental feedback and summative assessment, Smith lays bare some of the relational and power dynamics involved in the traditional collective crit and presents alternative models which might help to overcome some of the concerns raised by students. In critiquing the crit, Smith highlights the need for assessment to be open and transparent so that the stated — and intended — learning outcomes are realistic, meaningful and supported in practice.

This issue concludes with a research article written by Angelique Chettiparamb from the School of Real Estate and Planning, University of Reading, UK. Entitled ‘Inter-Disciplinarity in Teaching: Probing Urban Studies’, the paper examines the teaching of urban studies in the UK by means of two detailed case studies of sociology and planning, involving a pre-1992 university and a post-1992 institution. Given the relatively high profile of interdisciplinarity in higher education, Chettiparamb’s literature review affords useful insights into the complexity of this concept and what this means for the teaching and learning of subjects from within and without the built environment. Chettiparamb draws on the distinctions made by Heckhausen (1972), who suggested that attempts at interdisciplinarity may not be informed by explicit attempts to unify disciplinary subject matter, theories and methods but may be relatively more indiscriminate or indeed, simply pseudo attempts at bringing disciplines together. Chettiparamb fleshes out some of the practical issues involved. The implications arising from her study suggest that areas of disciplinary overlap and synergy are rather less deliberate than one might expect, given contemporary debates on the perceived benefits of interdisciplinarity. Chettiparamb’s case studies would indicate the existence of theory-practice gaps with interdisciplinarity tending to the supplementary type (Heckhausen, 1972), rather than embodying an explicit and integrated or composite effort at disciplinary boundary spanning. As with McCarthy’s critical commentary of reflective learning and Smith’s examination of the crit, this would suggest that pedagogically (good) intentions may not have the desired outcomes or may lead to unintended consequences. Importantly, Chettiparamb’s contribution goes some way to meeting Gann and Salter’s (1999) exhortation for detailed case studies to learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of interdisciplinary teaching in the built environment. Given the asserted importance of interdisciplinarity, there is a need to look for even more information!