Karen Fisher, Carol Landry & Charles Naumer The Information School University of Washington

1. Social Spaces, Casual Interactions, Meaningful Exchanges:Information Ground Characteristics based on theCollege Student Experience Uni Karen Fisher, Carol Landry & Charles Naumer The Information School University of Washington

2. Theories ofInformation Behavior (2005) Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, E. F. (Eds.)

3. Social Settings • Recent attention • Part of context • LQ special issue on “Library as Place” • Work in cognate fields • Urban geography, sociology

4. New View • Social Capital  People Factors • Putnam et al • 3rd Place  People + Place • Oldenburg • Info Grounds  People + Place + Info • Fisher et al

5. Information Grounds “Environment[s] temporarily created when people come together for a singular purpose but from whose behavior emerges a social atmosphere that fosters the spontaneous and serendipitous sharing of info” (Pettigrew, 1999) ** Foot clinics in Canada **

6. IG Propositions(Fisher, Durance & Hinton, 2004) • IGs can occur anywhere, in any type of temporal setting and are predicated on the presence of individuals • People gather at IGs for a primary, instrumental purpose other than info sharing • IGs are attended by different social types, most if not all of whom play expected and important, albeit different roles in info flow • Social interaction is a primary activity at IGs such that info flow is a byproduct • People engage in formal and informal info sharing, and info flow occurs in many directions • People use info obtained at IGs in alternative ways, and benefit along physical, social, affective and cognitive dimensions • Many sub-contexts exist within an IG and are based on people's perspectives and physical factors; together these sub-contexts form a grand context

7. Past Research(Fisher & Naumer, 2006) • Propositions studied using varied populations • Foot Clinics (n=30) • Immigrants and QBPL programs (n=45) • East King County (n=612) • Northwest Residents (n=276) • Migrant Hispanic Farm Workers (n=51) • College Students (n=729) • Tweens (ages 9-13; n=30) • Stay-at-home mothers (n=20) • Café People • Book Clubs (n=6) • (Plus many anecdotal reports…)

8. Findings To-date • Everyone has at least one IG • Most popular for general public: • Church (lower income people) • Workplace lunchroom (higher income) • Broad range of other settings; looking for “mingable” places • “Hostage” phenomena  When people are stuck together • Waiting rooms (auto shops, offices), queues, laundromats, ferries, buses & trains, airport luggage carousels… • Bonding and bridging social capital

9. Info Grounds • What’s yours? • What makes it a good “info” place?

10. College Student RQs • What are students’ IGs? • What types of info do students obtain at IGs? • What makes these IGs opportune for info flow? • How can these IGs be explained using an typology based on previous IG studies?

11. College Students • n=729 • Oct. 14-21, 2004 • 55% female • 24 years (mean age) • 72% undergrads, 15% masters, 7% PhD, 6% non-degree • 23.5 months average attendance

13. < < Info Grounds > > Where do you think they are for college students?

18. College Students IGs

19. People • Membership Size • Membership Type • Familiarity • Actor Roles • Motivation • Place • Focal Activities • Conviviality • Creature Comfort • Location & Permanence • Privacy • Ambient Noise • Information • Significance • Frequency Discussed • How Created/Shared • Topics People-Place-Information Trichotomy

20. Membership Size Influences how info created & exchanged Degree of intimacy Degree of access to info types College students IGs typically small to medium Membership Types (n=729) Open & public (70.4%) Closed & exclusive (29.6%) People Characteristics

21. People Characteristics • Familiarity/Relational Dynamics • Making connections • Fleeting relationships • It is not necessary to worry about “what other people think because you never have to see them again” • Anchored relationships • “They don’t mind me hanging around and they know my drink.” • Homogeneity • Shared interests, background, characteristics, activities • Heterogeneity • Diverse perspectives

22. Actor Roles Reason for being at IG Significant to flow of info Students7 roles (n=790) Customer 25.4% Student 20.1% Staff 19.9% Member 16.2% Info Giver 12.4% Resident 4.1% Other 1.9% Motivation Voluntary Compulsory Hostage Bus/bus stop Classroom and hallways before and after class People Characteristics

23. Place Characteristics • Focal Activities • Reason for going to IG • Bring people together • Multiple activities occur simultaneously • Conviviality • Can include food or drink • Festive mood • Fosters interaction among people

24. Place Characteristics • Creature Comforts • Environmental factors • Chairs, lighting, music • Create relaxing environment conducive to info exchange • Location & Permanence • Convenience • How IGs created, sustained, transform, disappear

25. Place Characteristics • Privacy • Perceived privacy fosters conversation • Crowds allow for eavesdropping • Ambient Noise • May or may not facilitate conversation and info sharing

26. Significance Usefulness of info Decision making Frequency Discussed Topic comes up often New ideas and issues (n=722) Info very useful (49.9%) Info somewhat useful (37.4%) Can’t do without info (6.1%) Info not useful (5.0%) Info not applicable (1.7%) ----------------------------------------- (n=724) Make trivial decisions (35.9%) Make big decisions (22.2%) Make trivial & big (37.6%) Make small decisions (2.5%) Other (1.8%) Info Characteristics

27. Info Characteristics • How Created & Shared • Social interaction • Purposive • Serendipitous (n=1186) • Talk to non-employee (37.9%) • Talk to employee (22.6%) • Overhear conversation (14%) • Read posted material (8.7%) • Media (5.8%) • Observing people (4.2%) • Read printed material (4.2%) • Lecture (1.8%) • Other (0.3%)

28. Personal vs. Local vs. World Things you need to learn more about (28.0%) What’s happening in area (19.8%) What’s happening in world (18.5%) Who’s doing what (17.4%) Things about places (8.8%) Things for self-improvement (2.0%) Things to apply to daily living (2.0%) Other (2.0%) Other’s thoughts and opinions (1.6%) Info Characteristics

29. Future Research • Effects of manipulating different people-place-info factor  system design • How people re-conceptualize their everyday life situations and redefine their info needs within social settings • How info is socially constructed among different actors • How people’s perceptions and participation in IGs change over time • IGs as small worlds—in Chatman’s sense and applicability of her theories • Future sites: Places of worship, and the workplace  Our findings suggest that IGs encompass a strong affective component where many IG factors elicit emotional responses

30. http://ibec.ischool.washington.edu

31. Current IBEC Projects • Info Grounds (places of worship, workplace) • Proxy info seekers—consumer health info • Community Tech Centers—assessing impact • Stay-at-home moms, and preteens • “211” and its impact on communities • Microsoft Research, Community Technologies Group—Sabbatical • SHOPPERS MOBILE USERS (SLAM; Counts & Fisher)

32. Thank You! ibec.ischool.washington.edu fisher@u.washington.edu