Reflection on the Principle of Least Effort

Thomas Mann[i] defines the Principle of Least effort as a tendency for most researchers, yes even those super “serious” scholars, to choose information sources that are easily available – regardless of information quality. No need to re-read that sentence, you read correctly – even if sources are of low quality (objectively speaking), researchers will be satisfied with the easily found, low quality sources rather than pursue higher-quality sources. To them, most of the time, expending greater effort just isn’t worth it. This being the case, why isn’t more done to put high quality sources into the hands of researchers via methods that require the least effort? Do librarians really play lip service to the principle by blaming it on the patron, as Mann suggests? If so, what practices/systems can be implemented to ease the attainment of quality materials for patrons?

Mann likens the creation of library systems with that of a game of pinball, citing multiple contributing factors to the success of a game. Factor one being the skill of the players. If players don’t understand how to work the flippers or understand sometimes shaking the machine is a way to score big, they are likely going to be out of quarters faster than you can say “pinball wizard.” Similarly, if patrons don’t understand how to use your library, or any library for that matter, they won’t be able to rack up the high points, or in this case the quality information.

Factor two, the overall design of the game board. If the slope of the board were to be significantly sloped toward the left side, players would have a better chance at ending up in the bottom left corner regardless of player skill. Much like someone playing with a left-tilting pinball board would rely on scoring points in that bottom left pocket, regardless of whether or not that pocket returns high points, patrons will tend to follow the slope of the system  to find information that may not be best suited to their research needs just because it’s easily accessible. Instead of blaming the pinball rookie for lack of skill, we should focus on the company responsible for the production of these machines. If they are aware of the tilt in their games, shouldn’t they fix it?

Mann points the finger at librarians who shift blame onto patrons, saying, “With the development of the library profession’s understanding of the realities of actual information-seeking behavior, it will no longer do to assert that researchers’ failure to find necessary information is simply the result of their own laziness… We must consciously manipulate the ‘slope of the gameboard’ to make the best channels easier for researchers to perceive.” Elaine Svevonius[ii] offers objectives librarians can use to design a bibliographic system, which librarians should consider a useful tool in implementing systems that get high quality information to patrons with the least effort on the patron’s part.

Ultimately, Svevonius offers a system that will “LISON,” a system with the ability to: 

• Locate documents or information within a file or database as a result of a search would use attributes and relationships to the desired information to bring it to the hands of the patron. 
• Identify a document from those similar in characteristics to ensure a search is a success.
• Select the appropriate document(s) to match the user's needs.
• Obtain the document through purchase, loan, or another process to allow user access.
• Navigate bibliographic databases to find works related to the query by generalization, association, and aggregation, finding attributes related to equivalence, association, and hierarchy.

She states "... users are short-changed by systems that do not adhere to the traditional bibliographic objectives," but is encouraged by the internet's effect on these systems. Now that information organization has shifted from the hands of professional indexers and catalogers to the general populace. Now, anyone can start a website or blog (much like this one) and organize information in the way they see fit. Innumerable organization techniques are out there, and professionals have a sea of templates to work on/with.

          Marcia Bates[iii] would disagree with positivism surrounding greater access to organization information within the general populace. She believes that casual information organizers who are members of the everyday public commit something she calls "the First Fallacy of Information Work." This first fallacy is the thought that organizing information requires deep subject expertise and no information expertise. When entering the information organization field, it feels alien to think about resources in terms of their organization and retrieves versus understanding and retrieving the content within the resource, which takes time to shake. Most of the public do not realize that there is a method to the madness, the madness being the study of information forms and organization.

        Ultimately, as Bates asserts, the everyday, average Joe - regardless of education level - should never really notice the structure that organizes their information. If we use systems that utilize Svevonius' LISON model, we can successfully get quality information into the hands of patrons through the least effort on their part. In my opinion, Mann hits the nail on the head. I myself have forgone what could be higher quality information in favor of information that was easily accessible. In today’s world of instant streaming, instant messaging, and constant access, patrons move through information faster. Since life’s pacing has increased, patrons are not going to want to take the extra time to find that quality information; they want the drive-thru version. Something that can be placed in their hands, phones, or iPads as quickly as possible, and offer them the information they need/want – regardless of quality. Librarians should see these changes and implement systems that bridge the gap between quality and accessibility, because that is our domain – organizing retrieval of information is our game.

---

[i] T. M. (1993). The Principle of Least Effort. In Library Research Models. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[ii] E. S. (2000). Bibliographic Objectives. In The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[iii] Bates, M. J. (1999). Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 50(12), 1043-1050. doi:10.1002/asi.4630350113