home > Interim Findings > Interim Report












Information Availability and Usefulness

How users access information

In order to answer the question ‘what is the most appropriate way of targeting information to meet people’s needs’, it is important to understand something about how different users currently access information, and how they would like to access information.  Although not yet complete, the study indicates that the way users access information seems to depend on:

  • existing knowledge about the sources of information
  • existing levels of information technology i.e. availability of state of the art computers, internet connections etc
  • the filters that they consider important
  • the type of information they require (which we have seen depends largely on what they are engaged in, and how they are going to use it)

This varies significantly between geographical regions and language groups, and between different users (e.g. technical practitioners, researchers, policy makers)

Workshop participants in the UK, Zimbabwe and Peru all expressed the desire to have an overview of different information products, and their organisational source and place of storage (to look at the products, if they cannot have/afford copies of their own), so that they can choose products that meet their information needs at that moment in time.

Different stakeholder groups cite different reasons for not being able to source materials themselves, ranging from NGOs not working in the transport field not knowing which institutions are knowledge generators and knowledge providers; policymakers not having the time to go from place to place looking for the right kinds of materials; and academics not having the communications infrastructure (e.g. internet access with reliable connections) to find out who holds what information

Personal contacts, and participation in workshops and meetings, where people could engage with and influence the production of different information products, rated very highly as a way of accessing information among all participants.  Printed documents were also considered highly desirable, particularly where information technology equipment was not easily available.

 

Filtering

People use a range of criteria to filter and quality control information.  Participants in the workshops obtained information from a very range of sources from personal to the anonymous sources such as websites accessed through general search engine, and described the criteria the use to select and filter information so that it becomes useful for their purpose.  These included:

  • Awareness of the source (you cannot go to a place for information if you aren’t aware that it exists). Workshop participants in the UK said that they prioritised sources that were recommended by colleagues that they trusted, over sources that came to them ‘anonymously’.
  • Credibility (does the organisation have a reputation or employ renowned individual specialists in that area? Workshop participants in the UK said that they check a recommended source of information with a trusted source – e.g. respected colleague - before using it).
  • Reliability (i.e. is the information accurate and real, and is the analysis sound, rigorous and objective? Interviews with university researchers in Zimbabwe showed that if the bias of the source organisation or author is known, then this can be ‘stripped’ from the information to make it useful.)
  • Reputation (satisfaction levels from previous use): has this source been used before and did the information provided meet expressed needs?
  • Trust (particularly with an individual, is the information being recommended, or the advice being issued, likely to satisfy and not mislead the user?),
  • Timeliness in two senses of the word, both is the information up-to-date enough to suit the user’s purposes? Participants at the UK workshop pointed out that data doesn’t have to be current to be useful, but it does have to be explicit about when the data was collected/analysis conducted; response rates need to be swift e.g. to an enquiry, for the user to bother asking the question of that institution or individual. For example, the World Bank was regarded as a useful source of information but took so long to answer requests for further information or supplementary information, that users didn’t bother asking them.
  • Cost (actual money handed over as well as the time taken by the person to locate, download, travel to find etc. the information). The costs that a user is willing to pay for information varies according to ability to pay (e.g. policymakers are considered ‘rich’ but workshop participants in Zimbabwe pointed out that their Ministry budget for information is often very small and quickly spent), and ‘free’ information is sometimes thought to have less ‘value’ than information that carries a price (UK consultant).
  • Interactivity of source: i.e. what potential is there for the user to interact with the author or originating organisation (either by feedback mechanism on a website, or name and institutional contacts on a document that can be written to for further information).  There were a large number of World Bank products/channels of communications that the participants felt they could not influence, particularly the grey literature and the internal restricted documents, the newsletters (email and printed), the press releases, the videos and the  websites, and, to a lesser extent, the published reports and the seminars/workshops. They felt that the only ways in which World Bank communications/information products could be influenced was through individual contacts, networks of advisors, and email forums/discussion lists.  On the other had, the ranking indicated that the potential to influence DFID’s information products/channels of communication seemed to be greater. Email forums/discussion lists and the printed newsletter had a high potential to be influenced. Participants felt also that they could influence the networks of advisors, DFID seminars and workshops, the press releases and CD ROMs, the websites and individual contacts.
  • Identifiable: users are nervous about anonymous information because they cannot use the filters normally used, e.g. is the author credible, what bias will probably be in the analysis because of the organisational politics etc.
  • Language, both vernacular and level of jargon/technical detail/prior knowledge assumed by the document. Users in both Zimbabwe and the UK said that they wanted to know for whom the document/information product has been generated because this gives them insight into its usefulness before time and money is spent getting hold of the information.

 

Language

Choices of access are also influenced by the language of the content.  Spanish speakers in Peru pointed out that ITDG’s website was only in English, they wouldn’t bother to look there for information.  The quality of language is also important (i.e. whether it is technical, jargony or too simple etc.) also influences choice to where to look.  Study participants recognised and welcomed the fact that some organisations translate documents, but pointed out that although the World Bank claims to make information available in French Spanish and English, the amount of information in the first two languages is very limited compared to the range in English. Where rural transport is a new development area (e.g. Latin America) there is no local literature and little information from elsewhere is translated into Spanish.

Previous Page / Index / Next Page