Chris Devine
IRLS 587
Assignment 2 – Revised research proposal and report
I give permission for my work to be published in the SIRLS LIS Learning Showcase.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
It is in the most mundane or everyday tasks of information seeking that the usability of existing systems and structures comes to light. The average person has received no special training on searching databases, on appropriate syntax and approaches for online searches. He or she simply has an information need and, more than likely, it’s an immediate need. They don’t have time to learn new systems or to spend hours with indexes or databases. They also likely don’t have the energy or time to spend going to the library.
Seeking recipes is such an everyday information seeking activity that it seems often to escape notice. And yet, for anyone who doesn’t have a brain crammed full of recipes, the yearning for creativity and discovery or the need to do something with that box full of peaches Aunt Mabel sent from Georgia creates a real and immediate need. And often it’s not a case of searching for the best solution but rather a quick one, the first satisfactory answer.
Tools for recipe searches abound. There are cookbooks. There are self-created and maintained binders or files of found recipes, clippings, etc. There are numerous software packages that contain, or help the user organize, these recipes. Then of course there are Web sites.
There is value in understanding, especially as the information climate around us continues to change, develop and shift, how these tools are actually being used and in what proportion, and how useful they are to the seeker.
While computers are undoubtedly an invaluable tool for such information searches, it is clear that they have not entirely supplanted other, more traditional paper methods. Part of what is of interest is the degree to which computers and the Internet have become useful, and what features, sites, etc., recipe seekers use, with an eye toward expanding those seekers actually use and discarding useless fripperies. To that end, we seek to understand a population and research subjects who, while not computer experts, have some basic knowledge of how to use a computer and the Internet and a certain level of comfort with both. Further, we seek to understand the behavior of those who actually search from time to time for recipes. Those who never cook, or who only cook from memory or by unaided experimentation, are of interest neither when defining our population nor identifying research subjects.
Results of such a study would be useful in understanding how to design new tools such as CD-ROM or regular printed cookbooks, new Web sites, databases, etc. They might tell how to fix the existing ones; or, conversely, to challenge current assumptions and directions as far as the development and maintenance of these tools. Further, the results could be to an extent universalized to other kinds of everyday information seeking behavior.
The study would seek to quantify and qualify existing recipe-seeking behaviors. How much time is spent, and on what sort of goal (a pumpkin recipe, a gluten-free entrée, or just something new and interesting)? What tools are used and, just as importantly, what tools are not used and why? So beyond a simple enumeration of the sources of information used and the amount of time and such, we would seek an understanding of how well the searches satisfied the information need and how well the tools performed the necessary tasks. Differences between traditional sources (e.g., cookbooks and clippings files) and computer or online sources would be examined for their qualitative differences. And how much do serendipity and information encountering satisfy the information need?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature abounds on various general topics of information seeking behavior, and much of it may appropriate or germane here. The Case text, for instance, defines terms (Case 5) and explains concepts that will be useful in conducting this study. It is his insistence on studying the individual and his or her need for information rather than the systems designed to yield up information (Case 6-7) that underscores the importance of a research project such as this one. His fourth chapter explores the continuum of information need and demand, and why we go after information in the first place.
Little to no literature, however, exists on our sub-topic itself. Recipe-seeking is in a way a unique information-seeking behavior, since it marries some disparate worlds. There is the ‘digital’, very black-and-white realm of the recipe, that is the actual ingredient-list-and-instructions that make up the recipe itself. But there are also certain vicissitudes of taste and intuition, and a particular desire to be surprised by what one finds that texture the landscape of recipe-seeking in an unusual way. Often, there is value in not finding the most common chocolate chip cookie recipe. And whatever the cook’s best efforts, there may be no way to tell whether anyone will actually like a given recipe, necessitating the intervention of a cook’s intuition in a way that no computer search algorithm is likely to be able to imitate.
I could locate no actual research studies on the topic. A second search was conducted upon revision of this proposal, again without result. Searches were conducted using EBSCOhost, Library and Information Science Abstracts, OCLC FirstSearch (which provided the two examples discussed briefly below) and the U of A’s Beta-SEARCH using the following search terms in each case, using a mixture of Boolean operators where available and/or applicable: recipe, recipes, recipe seeking, recipe search, recipe searches, recipe searching, recipe seeking behavior, food, food preparation. Search results were, variously, too numerous for any meaningful perusal, nonexistent or irrelevant. Though the initial literature search was in fact more extensive than the second, encompassing all of the search terms above in addition to others, it was no more successful.
The literature search did turn up two articles (McDermott; Ganes) that enumerate and evaluate a number of food- and recipe-related Web sites. But a deeper understanding of such sites and their usefulness in the larger context can only be gained by observing and studying the behaviors of the recipe seekers – Do they actually use the gee-whiz features these reviewers discuss?
METHODS USED (include operational definitions)
The study was prefaced with a survey to capture some information about the subject(s), focusing mostly on understanding the subject’s level of comfort with the World Wide Web and generally how familiar the subject was with the various tools for recipe information gathering. Further, I gathered information on how often the subject actually searches for recipes; a subject who never cooks or only cooks things he or she is well familiar with would provide very little data for the study. My subject for the pilot study cooks frequently, and often tries new variations on familiar recipes as well as recipes and cooking methods that are new or unfamiliar. Further, the subject has a better-than-novice understanding of computers and is very comfortable with the Web.
Also, the survey asked which of the various tools the subject already uses and why, and how useful those tools are. All of this is a way of gaining some historical information to put some perspective on the information gathered in the main phase of the study.
The information was largely gathered at arm’s length, so to speak, to remove the researcher as much as possible from the searches. The environment in which the subject operates could conceivably play a large role in the tools he or she uses (time constraints, what’s in the refrigerator, people and/or noise or distractions in the home) and the success of searches, and the researcher would simply be another distraction. Observation was indirect.
The subject was asked to keep a running log, detailing what tools were used, the amount of time a search took, and any comments or thoughts about ease or difficulty, successfulness of the search, etc. URLs of Web sites were recorded as well as search strings entered into any search engines, in order to gauge how the subject frames inquiries and whether those searches give good results. Of interest is how the subject acts within the framework of Zipf’s Principle of Least Effort (Case 140) – how little effort must they expend for a satisfactory result? And to extend from that, are there cases in which they’ll expend a little more effort for an even better result? How much more effort for how much more return?
An end-of-study interview sought summation – what tools worked best or worst, any surprises pleasant or unpleasant, any frustrations, etc. – as well as amplifying information. Some of the information in the log was incomplete or vague, and the followup interview clarified a number of points and explained chains of inquiry required to achieve a good result. Questions were open-ended and the subject was encouraged to expound; the data gathered at this last phase was mostly qualitative.
Definitions
Recipe – Merriam-Webster online defines this as "a set of
instructions for making something from various ingredients." This works
fine as an operational definition, as long as we make clear that the recipe
includes both a discreet list of ingredients and instructions for
preparing an item of food.
Information seeking behavior – For the purposes of this study, we’ll
separate this concept from the proceeding one, though properly speaking
information seeking behavior encompasses information encountering as well. To
help distinguish two different modes of receiving information, though, we will
define information-seeking behavior as purposeful effort to acquire a recipe or
recipes that meet certain criteria.
Information encountering – We will use this term to describe
unintentional discovery of a recipe or technique that does not satisfy a specific
information search but that it pleases or satisfies the searcher to have found.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The pilot study focused on one individual, to test the research methods and questions. In answer to the pre-study survey (see Appendix I a. for a list of the questions to which the subject responded), the subject responded as follows (edited for brevity and clarity):
What seemed most surprising of the subject’s answers was that he uses no computer-resident software for seeking or storing recipes. Perhaps the Internet has rendered such tools obsolete, if they were ever of any greater use. In any event, the study should be modified to discover if subjects have ever used such software, and why they quit using it or why they continue to use it.
The Web search question was, in retrospect, not particularly useful, particularly in light of an overview of the subject’s recipe search log, since the subject never used a general search engine for recipe information (except to find the Web site for Philadelphia Cream Cheese). The question should be dropped. Information about what features the subject finds most useful about his or her favorite recipe search Web site, however, would help answer one of the stated questions – What features do recipe seekers find most useful?
Question 11 was confusing and vague to the subject, so it has been rewritten to more clearly elicit a narrative that gives some preliminary idea of the subject’s usual search methods.
See Appendix I b. for the modified pre-study questionnaire.
The study phase itself yielded some interesting insight that has been used to modify the study method (again, see Appendix I b. for a brief discussion of, and instructions for subjects for, the still mostly free-form but slightly more structured study method).
During the approximate month of the pilot study, the subject was contacted only twice about the study – once halfway through to inquire as to progress and to remind the subject to keep and update the log, and again at the post-study interview). The subject admitted to several lapses in recordkeeping, though he brought the log current from memory and by looking over his Web browser history at both times. The researcher should contact the subjects more frequently, perhaps once a week, and gather information in addition to reminding them to keep current. Again, see below for more detail.
Also surprising, both in the pre-study interview and in the study itself, was the degree to which television played a part in the subject’s information seeking and encountering. In the post-study interview, the subject reported watching the Food Network in addition to other cable and broadcast channels at least three days a week, for two to three hours at a time. This passive information encountering gave him ideas on several occasions for things to try. On only one occasion did the subject write down the recipe immediately; every other time, the subject went to his computer and searched the Web site related to the program he was watching at the time, most often www.foodtv.com.
The preliminary research proposal underestimated the importance of such information encountering and did not consider television to any noticeable degree. The study should explore the degree to which this information encountering plays a role in inspiring, as well as satisfying, information seeking needs, and how intersects with other methods of information seeking.
This subject’s Web searches were almost always focused on the end product – a cheesecake/pumpkin pie, for instance – but it is not clear if this is a common trait. Research subjects in the study should be asked what it is they had in mind when they embarked on a search for information, and log it. Were they seeking a recipe to use up all their persimmons? Did they need a vegetarian, low-sodium main dish? Or is it an uncommon variation on pumpkin pie they’re after? Comparing these goals with the methods the subjects used to meet the information need will help us understand the adequacy of the tools they use, as well as the subjects’ own information seeking skills and patterns.
The post-study interview was a success. It filled many gaps both in the pre-study questionnaire and the subject’s log. The subject was very forthcoming about his methods and reasoning and even went as far as suggesting to the researcher some flaws in the tools (e.g., the discussion of software tools and the infrequency of contact during the study period). The interview phase should be left intact in its current form, though one hopes any forthcoming study would be better-designed and elicit less ‘constructive criticism’ of study methods.
CONCLUSION
There is a wealth of valuable information that can potentially be gathered through this study. Preliminary research ideas were a trifle vague, but the pilot study helped clarify goals and identify opportunities for quantitative information gathering (which tools, and which technologies [e.g., electronic, published, self-collated hard copy] are most popular; how often do frequent cooks seek recipes, etc.) as well as qualitative (what aspects of the popular tools the subjects find most helpful and easiest to use, why electronic sources versus hard copy or vice versa, etc.).
The study has been redesigned with these goals in mind. Future studies, such as usability studies of Web sites the subjects in this study used most frequently, could gather more in-depth data that are outside the scope of this study. While this study will make clearer what, of existing choices, works best for the study population, a usability study would explain in greater depth why this is the case, and what improvements could be made to existing sources of information to enhance their usefulness as information seeking tools.
This study itself, however, has the potential to identify and reflect how our chosen population has adapted to the information environment as it exists today. Recipe seeking is an information seeking behavior worthy of study if for no reason other than its ordinariness. It is by understanding how people do so unselfconsciously in their everyday lives for everyday purposes that there is the greatest potential for understanding how people seek information.
REFERENCES
Case, D.O. (2002) Looking for Information, San Diego: Academic Press.
Ganss, D. (2001) Cooking up a Feast, The School Librarian’s Workshop, 22 (4), 11-12.
McDermott, I.E. (1999) The Persimmon Paradox; Or, Something's Cooking on the Web, Searcher, 7 (3), 25-30.
Merriam-Webster OnLine. Retrieved October 28, 2003, from http://www.m-w.com
APPENDIX I a. (Preliminary research methods)
Pre-Study Survey Questions
End-of-study interview questions (suggested)
APPENDIX I b. (Modified research methods)
Pre-Study Survey Questions
Study observation methods
The subject will be asked to keep a log, and to make an entry every time he or she cooks, but to write ‘No search’ if the subject is working from memory or experimentation. This will help us quantify how often search behavior takes place, and will also keep the subjects mindful of the task through routine.
Each log entry should contain a date, time, the goal (e.g., main dish, Beef Wellington, something with beets in it) and, in detail, how the subject met the goal. The answer to this last would either be ‘No search’ as mentioned above, or notations about what book, Web site, etc., the subject used, including any dead ends in the search. If the subject visited any Web sites, he or she would be asked to write down what was entered into any search engines, or what links were followed, until the subject either found the needed recipe or gave up.
A researcher will call each subject once a week for two reasons. First, the researcher will thank the subject for his or her participation and remind him or her to continue keeping the log up to date. Second, the researcher will ask if there were any interesting successes, failures or long searches that had happened in the past week. Researchers should record this data, and possibly discuss any surprising or unclear findings at the post-study interview.
End-of-study interview questions
See Appendix I a., as these remain unchanged. It should be understood, though, that these are only suggested, sample questions and that the researcher should use his or her best judgment and decide which of these questions to use, which to discard, and which to add for each subject. The questions illustrate the spectrum of information we seek from the post-study interview, and may or may not be appropriate depending on the subject and his or her individual information-seeking methods.
APPENDIX II
Subject Consent Form
PROJECT TITLE: Recipe-seeking behavior and tools in a casual environment
I AM BEING ASKED TO READ THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL TO ENSURE THAT I AM INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF THIS RESEARCH STUDY AND OF HOW I WILL PARTICIPATE IN IT, IF I CONSENT TO DO SO. SIGNING THIS FORM WILL INDICATE THAT I HAVE BEEN SO INFORMED AND THAT I GIVE MY CONSENT. FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE WRITTEN INFORMED CONSENT PRIOR TO PARTICIPATION IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY SO THAT I CAN KNOW THE NATURE AND RISKS OF MY PARTICIPATION AND CAN DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT PARTICIPATE IN A FREE AND INFORMED MANNER.
I am being invited to participate voluntarily in the above-titled research project. The purpose of this project is to determine methods and tools most commonly used to retrieve recipes and gauge their suitability and effectiveness.
I am being invited to participate because I have some experience with cooking and with choosing and evaluating recipes for cooking but have no specialized training in research methods. Approximately 10 subjects will be enrolled in this study.
STANDARD TREATMENT(S)
If I choose not to participate in this study, I understand that I may inform the researcher or researchers of this decision and I will not be observed or contacted, nor will anything else be expected of me.
PROCEDURE(S)
If I agree to participate, I will be asked to consent to complete a survey regarding my recipe-keeping and searching habits, to keep an accurate and complete log of my recipe-searching activities for the duration of the study and to participate in a brief interview with the researcher or researchers at the end of the study.
None
An enhanced understanding of my information-seeking behavior and contributing to a body of knowledge that may help improve the usefulness of recipe tools and other information-seeking tools.
Only the researcher or researchers will know the subject’s name or other personal information. Other data from the survey may be made available to the researcher’s university instructor and, specifically or in aggregate may be included in a final report that may be read by anyone. But under no circumstances will anyone but the researcher have access to the subject’s name and any description of a subject in the final report will be sufficiently vague as to preclude identification of the subject.
CONTACTS
I can obtain further information from the principal investigator, Chris Devine, at 602-741-1499 or by e-mail at chris@slywiz.com.
AUTHORIZATION
BEFORE GIVING MY CONSENT BY SIGNING THIS FORM, THE METHODS, INCONVENIENCES, RISKS, AND BENEFITS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME AND MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. I MAY ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME AND I AM FREE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PROJECT AT ANY TIME WITHOUT CAUSING BAD FEELINGS. MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROJECT MAY BE ENDED BY THE INVESTIGATOR\ FOR REASONS THAT WOULD BE EXPLAINED. NEW INFORMATION DEVELOPED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS STUDY WHICH MAY AFFECT MY WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT WILL BE GIVEN TO ME AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE. THIS CONSENT FORM WILL BE FILED IN AN AREA DESIGNATED BY THE HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE WITH ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION RESOURCES AND LIBRARY SCIENCE. I DO NOT GIVE UP ANY OF MY LEGAL RIGHTS BY SIGNING THIS FORM. A COPY OF THIS SIGNED CONSENT FORM WILL BE GIVEN TO ME.
____________________________________ ______________________________
Subject's Signature Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Parent/Legal Guardian (if necessary) Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Witness (if necessary) Date
INVESTIGATOR'S AFFIDAVIT
I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the above project. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the person who is signing this consent form understands clearly the nature, demands, benefits, and risks involved in his/her participation and his/her signature is legally valid. A medical problem or language or educational barrier has not precluded this understanding.
____________________________________ ______________________________
Signature of Investigator Date