Interviewee Profile and Interview Context

Profile
The information seeker is a co-worker in an academic library. This is the culture in which she is conducting her search. She is 31 years old and is expecting her second child in April. She meets certain characteristics of GenX generation evidenced by her desire in this search for clear expectations. Her immediate, causal and direct communication style also is reflective of this generation, as is her decision making in this information search process as both independent and directive.

She has advanced technological and information literacy skills. In evaluating her learning style using Kolb's model (as cited by Hensley, 1991), I identified both ranges of thinking types. "Common sense learner" / "converger" was observed based on her action oriented approach to the search. When she didn’t get logical results one way, she tried another exemplifying her preference to learn by doing. She was looking for concrete application of an abstract or confusing information need and was focused on efficiency in the responses she received. She also displayed characteristics of the "analytical learner" / "assimilator" by prefering printed instructions and desiring a more detailed analysis of options.

I observed two of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (as cited by Thomas, 2004). Interpersonal intelligence was indicated by her sensitivity to my communicative preferences in the interview. She also showed an intelligence in Logical-Mathematical by thinking through the process and coming to decision by logical and reasoned means.

Interview Context
The interview took place in the library workplace on the late afternoon of November 6th, 2007 in my cubicle space. She was seated behind me as I typed the answers she provided to my questions. The space was not very flexible, but this set up was not ideal for several reasons.

First, the seating arrangement did not allow me to observe non-verbal cues that might have provided information about her learning style (Hensley, 1991). It also may have communicated that I was more concerned with typing than interacting with her in the interview. Goffman (as cited by Chelton, 1997) identifies this as a fabrication in which interactive behavior of the event reamins intact, but the meaning is discredited by one participant doing something else.

Second, interviewing in her office might have allowed her more freedom of expression; she may have been more conversational in her own environment.

Finally, because of the awkwardness of the seating arrangement as well as the time of the interview being the end of the workday for both of us, the interview was hurried. Perhaps a better approach would have been to arrange an earlier meeting in a neutral meeting place and arrange for a laptop to record her responses. Alternatively, we might have met in her workspace and used a tape recorder.