Citation - Cooper, L. Z. (2004). The socialization of information behavior: A case study of cognitive categories for library information. The Library Quarterly, 74(3), 299-336.

socialization, information behavior, classification

對相同的資訊，個人有自己的類型化，而社群亦有另一公共的類型化，而個人與社群對相同概念的歸類並不盡然相同。因此，Cooper (2004) 區分三種不同的類型化(typification)與歸類理解的層次：

• 特定個體的個人類型化(personal typification unique to the individual)
• 由社群互為主體性同意的文化類型化 (cultural typification agreed upon by community intersubjectivity)
• 整個社群共享特定觀點的類型化 (typifications of thought communities– a group of individuals within the larger community who share a particular perspective)

• 圖書館使用者必須將自己的概念轉換為圖書館為資訊類型化的概念(如DDC)，才能成功的找到所需的資訊。
• 本研究探究個人對所需求資訊類型化架構與圖書館對既有資訊類型化架構的差異，
• 研究以兒童使用者為主。

• 對新資訊加以詮釋、歸類是人所以能理解資訊意義的必須行為。在教育相關文獻廣被接受的一件事情，如果有既有的基模(schema)或心智結構(mental structure)，那麼更容易接受與理解新資訊。(Jerome Bruner, 1973)
• Schutz and Luckman
  • typification, intersubjectivity
  • Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world: Northwestern University Press.
  • 我們的理解，是根據既有經驗類型化(typification)新資訊，並將之置入認知類別中。(Schutz) “Mere naming constitutes new information.”
• 文化類型化讓我們歸類資訊與知識到能為整個社群所了解的系統中。「為了傳遞個人經驗與思想，必須要將這些經驗與思考參照到一些已知的類別或群體上。」 Cultural typification enables us to categorize information and knowledge into systems that are understandable to the entire community. “In order to convey one's experience or thought, it is imperative to refer them to some known class or group”. (Vygotsky, 1986)
• Needham (1979) “the ethnographic evidence provides no reason to think that the members of a symbolic lass are connected by features that are common to all members.” “It is not that the things do not compose a class, or that we have failed to identify some feature that os common to all of its members; but that the class is not defined th eway we thought.”
• Zerubavel
  • Zerubavel, E. (1997). Social mindscapes: An invitation to cognitive sociology: Harvard University Press.
  • 在真實的世界中視沒有自然區分界線的…現實在本質上是不斷變化流動的… “In the real world there are no natural divides… Reality is essentially fluid”.
    語義性的心智結構使我們對環境的感知獲得理解，例如，通常根據互為主體性與通用的類型化 “The schematic mental structures that help us make sense of what we perceive through our senses, for example, are usually based on intersubjective, conventionalized typifications”.
    互為主體性容易被誤認為是客觀的 “There is a tendency to mistake intersubjectivity for objectivity”.
    符號的意義，更可說是一連結符號與特定社群思考的社會心智產物。因此，符號意義是社會使用符號方式的一種屬性。 “rather than an inherent property of the symbol itself,… is a product of the particular sociomental connection between the symbol and the particular thought community that uses it. The meaning of symbols, thus, is a property of the way they are socially used.”

• Piaget
• Vygotsky

• George Lakoff 歸類
• Wittgenstein 歸類與家族相似性
• Eleanor Rosch 認知心理學分類理論
  • http://scied.gise.ntnu.edu.tw/www/course/scocog/SCOCOG003.htm
• Vygotsky到Alfred Schutz：
  • Vygotsky: 兒童到了青春期才具有複雜概念的發展能力。「我們發現，符合思想社會化上層的現實概念是後期才出現的。」“We see that the real concept corresponding to the upper level in the socialization of thought appears relatively late”
  • 社會化思考的「上層結構」在Schutz的理論中被稱為互為主觀性。對文化經驗的缺乏會造成互為主觀性障礙。此種文化經驗會在兒童開始上學的時候被強化。

• 有許多研究文獻，由選擇策略探討兒童與現有資訊分類系統的互動，但並沒有處理兒童對與其互動的資訊語料的認知性分類活動。[24–36]
• 處理兒童認知分類活動的研究，並未聚焦於兒童從個人到圖書館資訊類型化之間的認知改變。[37–40]
• 如果我們對資訊的理解反應了我們對資訊分類或類型化的風格(manner)，那麼這種使用者在圖書館中分類資訊的風格也應當反應他們對圖書館中資訊的理解。因此，為了了解兒童的特定族群如何理解圖書館中的資訊，研究者請兒童建構他們心中想像的圖書館。兒童選擇他們認為想像中重要的資訊，並且以他們的認為方法尋找的方式組織排序這些資訊。

1. 參與者如何類型化/認知地分類圖書館中的資訊？ | How do participants typify/cognitively categorize the information in a library?
2. 在他們的類型化間，有何顯著差異？ | What differences, if any, are evident in their typifications?
3. 如果有顯著差異，這些差異可以解釋嗎？ | If differences are evident, can they be explained?
4. 在這些類型化與圖書館使用的資訊組織中有哪些顯著差異？ | What differences, if any, are evident between these typifications and those used by the library to organize its information?

在兩個公共學校的學校圖書館媒體中心進行。研究者自己也是該媒體中心的工作者。 研究一共有518名兒童參與，從幼稚園到四年級。

(略)

分五個session, session 1-3 透過質性訪談與腦力激盪等方法發掘參與者心中對資訊的需求與認識上的分類架構，以及使用者如何排設書籍資訊。

1. Session 1. – to gain understanding regarding what information participants thought most important to have in a library.
   • 請參與者想像他們會在圖書館中放哪些資料: “Researcher suggested that it would be interesting if the class could design its own imaginary library containing the information the participants felt to be most important arranged in a manner they thought would make information easy to find”. and then “a brainstorming session in which participants in each class suggested the information they thought most important to have in a library. Participants were encouraged to imagine that they were ordering books for an empty library”.
   • 收集資料的格式是詞彙清單: “The data collected in this session supplied a pool of terms, either a word (i.e., baseball) or words (i.e., Sports Illustrated) from which the slms/researcher selected those terms to be sorted by participants in sessions 2 and 3.”
2. Session 2. – the participants were asked to imagine that books containing the information they suggested in session 1 had been delivered and were in a pile on the floor of their empty library.
   • 起初研究者請受測者針對session 1的term 舉出具體的書單。(說實話就算成人也無法達成這種任務，更何況是幼童。)
   • 討論分類： discussed sorting in reference to size, shape, and color (kindergarten)
   • 對卡片實做分類： sorting practice on indexing card on which terms suggested from session 1 (grades 1-4) “This method of sorting is similar to the card sorting method used in Web site development”.
3. Session 3. – The purpose of session 3 was for participants to work unassisted by the slms/researcher to build categories of information terms/books and to label those categories.
   • small group(4 people) card sorting for 58 terms suggested for session 2.
4. Session 4. 文中沒有提到
5. Session 5. – like Session 3 but the terms are animals.

(雖然方法上強調自然情境探究，這初始階段似乎著重於使用者的想像建構工作。)

使用 UCINET: Social Network Analysis Software http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet/ucinet.htm 分析session 3, 5的資料。

使用UCINET的Cluster analysis分析資料。 “Cluster analysis is a procedure that organizes data entities into “relatively homogenous groups” [47, p. 7]. The UCINET program used Johnson’s hierarchical clustering [48, p. 1] to generate the output discussed below. ”

以cluster analysis建立，在相同分類之下出現相同資訊詞彙的共現配對矩陣(co-occurrence matrix)。此共現矩陣以叢集圖表示。

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) 也是根據在相同分類之下出現相同資訊詞彙的共現矩陣(co-occurrence matrix)所作的分析。

(略)

本研究發現，由個人類型化到圖書館思考社群互為主觀性的圖書館資訊的認知歸類進程如下：

1. 由根據個人生活世界基礎的分類標籤類型化，如玩具、卡通，改變為DDC的類型化 |Change in typifications used to label categories from those based on a more personal life world, such as Toys or Cartoons, toward typifications used in Dewey, such as History or Biography
2. 由根據判斷相關主題的詞彙，如小說或非小說，改變為DDC的類型化 | Change from association of terms based on theme to associations based on judgment, such as Fiction or Nonfiction
3. 由廣泛被運用的二分式資訊類型化標籤，如動物/人，或真/假，進行仔細且更具體的分類標準 | Change in the broad criteria used for labeling categories of information terms from one based on a bilateral division (e.g., Animal vs. People or Real vs. Not Real) to a perspective using discreet and more specific criteria for categorization
4. 使用圖書館內使用的詞彙命名與圖書館相關的類別 | Increase in the use of the vocabulary of the library (i.e., the typifications used by the library) to label library-related categories;
5. 正確使用圖書館類型複分的能力以類型化標籤類別 | Increase in ability to correctly subdivide library genre in sophisticated terms as typifications to label categories

（略）

.

file link - Google Schloar, XXC