This article is from the December 2002 Issue of Update.
Unilever is a multinational consumer goods company producing a wide range of home and personal care products, as well as food and drink. These include well-known brands such as Dove, Domestos, Lipton and Walls. There are six research centres worldwide. Two are in the UK — Colworth in Bedfordshire and Port Sunlight on the Wirral.
Over the past five years an increasing number of end-user information tools have been made available to Unilever scientists via their desktops. There was evidence, however, that these were under-utilised and poorly understood. Clearly, training needed to be extended.
Information literacy defined
There are many definitions of the term ‘information literacy', first coined in 1974.1 The most comprehensive is that of the American Library Association,2 which defined it as ‘a set of abilities requiring individuals to recognise when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information'.
The concept of information literacy emerged from US and Australian education theory and librarianship. Extensive work has been done in schools and university settings but our literature search (see panel) revealed that information literacy is a relatively recent concept in commercial organisations.
Bean3 pointed to increasing globalisation, sophistication of products and the move away from ‘a job for life' as trends highlighting the need for information literacy in the workplace. Employees have to augment or replace their skills many times, so have to have good information skills.
In 1999 TFPL produced a report which outlined the skills required for knowledge management.4 It stated that KM promotes recognition of the value of information and strategies which encourage the effective use of information. Information literacy is the key to optimum use of information.
Before the information literacy programme
At Unilever, some of the databases available to scientists are incorporated within what is known as the Information Science Toolbox. They include ISI's Web of Science, CAS SciFinder, and MicroPatent. There are also a number of internally developed databases, including a personal current awareness service and access to reports written by Unilever scientists within the main research centres.
Information skills training in the past tended to focus on specific databases as they became available. Users were given information on database coverage and features and were then given ‘point and click' instruction on how they worked. Databases were viewed in isolation and training on a large scale was, in most cases, not revisited as enhancements were added.
In 1999 at both Port Sunlight and Colworth the Information Centre enquiry desks were staffed primarily by qualified librarians. Three distinct areas — promotion, education and training — were identified as crucial to delivering an effective information service in the future. The information literacy programme was based on them. Education was the most important element.
Promotion
We were surprised by the general lack of awareness among our users of the range of databases available from their computer desktops. Databases are now marketed more vigorously and their benefits more widely promoted. A number of routes are used, including publicity on the intranet. Introductory sessions to the Information Centre promote the databases to new employees, and to scientists moving into more information-intensive roles.
However, our users were interested in new developments in the wider world of information, so we organised a series of monthly seminars where speakers from external organisations talked to scientists on a wide variety of information topics. Subjects included mind-mapping techniques, neuro-linguistic programming, patent searching techniques, overviews of new data analysis and mining tools, electronic journals and internet developments.
Training
Database training to user groups was only done on an ad-hoc basis. A new, more comprehensive training programme was devised, which, although it continued to focus on the features of particular databases, was no longer delivered in isolation. Attendees were made aware of other information sources and introduced briefly to some information literacy concepts, such as effective searching techniques. This type of training enabled users to make more informed decisions about which databases to use, and made them aware of the potential to enhance their information skills.
Education
In the past, the staff of the Information Centres had assumed that their users had adequate skills to handle information, because many had been through years of higher education. But we were wrong in assuming that employees necessarily bring to the workplace the skills they need to work effectively. This is particularly true when it comes to information skills.6
Many scientists were conscious that they could improve their skills. They sought advice on a whole range of information problems, including how to increase the relevance of search results, spend less time searching fruitlessly and manage the sheer volume of information. Help was also requested with managing team project information resources.
There were some who fell into a different category. This group overrated their information skills and therefore would not seek help. A recent Dialog survey6 found that users often have low levels of information literacy because they ‘don't know what they don't know'. Scientists were just using familiar information sources, not questioning whether they were the most appropriate for a particular query. They blamed the tools when little or no relevant information was found. When questioned about their search strategies, it turned out that their techniques were very basic. Some had heard of Boolean operators but did not fully understand how to use them. Few used parenthesis or truncation and many were unfamiliar with the idea of concept searching.
It was clear that there was a need for education in general information skills. When users were asked how they would feel about attending an information literacy programme they gave unanimous support to the idea.
Taking the first steps
Having identified the gaps, a decision had to be taken on how best to deliver such a programme to the two laboratories. In addition to examining the findings of the organisations identified in our literature search, we got in touch with various external contacts in other corporate/research-information settings, to establish if they were doing anything similar.
We discovered collaborations between the Department of Library and Information Science at Strathclyde University and TFPL. A substantial amount of work had also been undertaken by Elizabeth Goodman, then of SmithKline Beecham, now Glaxo SmithKline, with David Bawden, a senior lecturer and course director for the MSc in Pharmaceutical Information Management in the Department of Information Science at London's City University. A defence research agency was putting a similar programme in place. Once we had pulled together our ideas for the programme at Unilever, we met with the relevant people in these organisations to benchmark our course, learn from their experiences and exchange ideas. We felt it was important to work with others, both internally and externally, to define the content and address any training needs we had, particularly in the area of planning and the delivery of large-scale courses.
Creating the information literacy programme
Three key areas had been identified for the programme: discovery, organisation and sharing of information. Discovery would focus on information retrieval and would include search techniques and source selection. The areas of organising and sharing of information are seen as complementary to discovery and are recognised as an integral part of information literacy.7 Teaching users how to retrieve information effectively would be pointless if they were then overwhelmed and unable to manage and disseminate it efficiently.
Different styles of learning and working
If the workshops were to succeed, the participants needed to examine their own information behaviour and practices. Different people have different ways of handling information. There could be a correlation between this and a person's learning style — as defined by Honey and Mumford8 and borne out by Thompson and Cronje,9 who feel that learning styles have a bearing on information literacy.
Honey and Mumford put forward the idea that there are four main learning styles — activists, pragmatists, theorists and reflectors. Our theory was that once an individual's learning style was identified, it would be possible to relate this to an information style. A colleague working with us at the time, Sheila O'Flynn (now a consultant with Creatifica), looked closely at the main characteristics of the four types and then translated them to information-seeking/managing behaviours. For example, information activists would be more likely to network and try out new products, but would be less likely to spend time planning a search strategy. An information theorist might follow all leads, searching thoroughly for prior art, but find it harder to reach an end point and commit their findings to paper. Recognising a person's information style was important, as the strengths and weaknesses (in terms of information handling) could be identified and behaviour modified accordingly. Team assessment of collective information styles was viewed as a way of capitalising on the team's strengths and defining information roles. For example, x the theorist plans the search strategies and y the pragmatist focuses on managing the team's resources.
Defining the content
We had decided to deliver the programme via workshop sessions and had identified the broad subject areas, but the exact content of each workshop was still unclear. We did not want to overload scientists with too much information and go into too much depth, but we did not want to patronise them either — a careful balance had to be struck.
Val Skelton and colleagues at TFPL, and Sheila Webber, then of Strathclyde University, now at Sheffield, provided some valuable advice and helped break down the concepts into manageable chunks. They also suggested practical exercises for the workshops. Elizabeth Orna, an independent consultant and author of Managing Information in Research,10 persuaded us that delivering separate workshops about the organisation and sharing of information would not work. It would be better to create an information management module, incorporating both these key, intertwined, areas. The workshop now has two distinct modules: Information Discovery and Information Management. David Bawden provided tips on delivery structure, breaking the theory up with practical exercises, allowing the participants to try out the new concept immediately.
We received valuable feedback from information colleagues within Unilever — both in our home laboratories and from the US and the Netherlands. They recommended that the workshops be delivered primarily to project teams, as this helped create a more strategic approach to the retrieval and management of information.
The modules
The Information Discovery module aims to improve a project team's research by teaching new approaches to information searching. Participants must identify and evaluate a range of resources relevant to their needs and develop and apply appropriate search strategies using a variety of techniques. The Information Management module aims to improve a team's research by teaching new techniques for managing information. Participants must demonstrate knowledge of effective and appropriate organisation and sharing of knowledge, and distinguish between appropriate tools and methods for doing this.
Although the core content of the workshops is predefined, the rest is tailored for each team. The requirements are established through discussions and questionnaires. Initial meetings are held with individuals or project leaders to find out what their aims and expectations are, and to outline course content. This provides a valuable opportunity to discover the research interests of the group and any particular concerns which need to be addressed. All participants complete pre-workshop questionnaires to identify their current information practices, such as the sources or tools they are using, and their learning styles.
The workshops are as interactive as possible. Each begins with self-assessment and then moves on to theory, demonstrations and exercises.
Self-assessment includes a discussion of questionnaire results relating to information styles and the sources used to discover and/or manage information. Information theory is followed by demonstrations relevant to the team's subject interests. Quick exercises throughout the session enable participants to put their new skills into practice immediately and see instant results. They are invariably astonished and delighted with the difference and this acts as an incentive to invest time in planning their searches in the future. In both modules participants are asked to reflect on their current practices as individuals and evaluate their performance as a team.
The information literacy programme has been widely publicised. It is now introduced to users as part of the induction process, via email and intranet promotion and also when users come to the information centre with more general questions or problems relating to information. The benefits of attending the workshops are promoted so scientists can see how learning new and effective information skills can enhance their work performance. Information is also fed back to others by word of mouth.
Evaluation of the course
Due to the holistic nature of the course, general evaluation in terms of altered behaviour is problematic. It is, nonetheless, important to be able to show that some measurable improvement in information behaviour has taken place.
The course was initially evaluated by Patrick Green from Sheffield University as part of his dissertation for his MA in Librarianship.11 He found that participants felt:
- the discussion was the most valuable part of the course;
- it had been useful to get a picture of how their team searched for information;
- it had been relevant to their needs, even though some thought they had a good knowledge of search techniques and sources prior to coming on the course;
- it had helped clarify the role of the information scientist and they would be more likely to consult them for more complex searches in the future;
- it would reduce duplication of effort;
- they wanted more practical exercises in future courses;
- it had significantly changed the way they were searching for information.
Analysis of pre- and post-course questionnaires is now our starting point. If used correctly they can show measurable changes in attitudinal behaviour. Statistics alone do not provide evidence of cognitive change.
Uptake of passwords and requests for tool-specific training could be used as positive indicators as well. If this does not happen, however, it may mean that participants already had passwords and felt confident enough after the sessions to use them more effectively.
Conclusions
The course is now fully developed and has been rolled out in both Port Sunlight and Colworth. A website has been developed as a resource both for those who have attended the course and those who have not. One-to-one and small group training on the use of specific databases will continue, but each session now includes an introduction to the basic skills introduced in the Information Discovery module, and users will be invited to attend these sessions.
Scientists have been enthusiastic about the information literacy programme. However, our preliminary findings indicate that, to achieve best results, it is vital that the course is tailored to meet the specific information needs of each project team.
References
1 K. L. Spitzer, M. B. Eisenberg and C. A. Lowe. Information Literacy. ERIC Clearinghouse in Information & Technology, 1998.
2 Final Report of the American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. American Library Association, 1989.
3 W. R. Bean. ‘Information Literacy: requirements of the 21st century workplace.' Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, Vol. 15, No. 2, Spring 2001, pp. 14-16.
4 Skills for Knowledge Management: building a knowledge economy. TFPL, 1999.
5 J. N. Oman. ‘Information Literacy in the Workplace.' Information Outlook, June 2001, pp. 23-43.
6 H. Jezzard. ‘The Pulse.' Information World, No. 176, January 2002, pp. 1-2.
7 S. Winkler. ‘The Whys and Wherefores of Information Literacy.' Journal of Construction Delivery Systems, Vol. 15, No. 2, Spring 2001, pp. 25-30.
8 P. Honey and A. Mumford. The Manual of Learning Styles (3rd edn). Peter Honey Publications, 1992.
9 J. E. Thompson and J. Cronje. ‘A Dynamic Model of Information Literacy Acquisition.' Mousaion, Vol. XIX, No. 2, 2001, pp. 3-14.
10 E. Orna and G. Stevens. Managing Information for Research. OUP, 1995.
11 K. P. Green. Assessing the Impact of an Information Literacy Programme given to Unilever Research Scientists. Master of Arts in Librarianship, University of Sheffield, 2000.
Angela Donnelly (Angela.Donnelly@unilever.com) and Carey Craddock (Carey.E.Craddock@unilever.com) are members of the Information and Training team at Unilever R&D. Sheila Flynn can be contacted by email (Sheila.OFlynn@Creatifica.com).