Confidence levels over data points: Our approach to understanding information needs
Traditional audience research typically follows a linear process: researchers identify a target population, design a survey instrument, distribute it widely, and analyze the resulting data.
While this approach generates valuable statistics, it frequently fails to capture the deeper motivations, contextual factors, and behavioral nuances that shape how communities actually engage with information. It’s great for evaluative research, but fails in identifying information demand.
The field of information behavior research has evolved significantly since its early focus on library usage patterns. Scholars like Tom Wilson and Carol Kuhlthau have demonstrated that information-seeking is not merely a transactional activity but one deeply embedded in people's emotional, physical, social, and cultural contexts.
Our research exposed several limitations of purely quantitative approaches:
Survey responses in restricted information environments can be significantly distorted by factors including fear, cultural norms, and concerns about potential repercussions.
Numerical data effectively shows what happens but rarely explains why people behave as they do.
Quantitative measurements struggle to capture the values, trust dynamics, and contextual influences that shape information behavior.
Achieving representative sampling becomes extraordinarily challenging when working with populations that are difficult to access.
An iterative approach uncovers deeper insights.
We've developed a research approach organized around three distinct focus areas rather than sequential phases. This distinction is crucial - while we typically begin with Focus 1, we maintain an iterative relationship between all three areas, continuously updating our understanding as new insights emerge.
This flexibility allows us to adapt our research as we learn, rather than following a rigid linear progression.
Imagine three whiteboards in a research room, each dedicated to one focus area. Throughout the research process, we continually revisit each board, adding new questions, insights, and connections as our understanding deepens.
We prioritize questions over methods.
Our approach intentionally steps away from prescribed methodologies to focus instead on clarity about the information we need to gather. We remain method-agnostic, selecting whatever techniques will most effectively answer our questions within each focus area. This flexibility doesn't sacrifice rigor - instead, we maintain research integrity by assigning confidence levels to each insight based on the strength of our evidence.
This adaptable framework allows us to conduct meaningful audience research in virtually any context. Whether working in open information environments or highly restricted ones, the fundamental approach remains consistent - what changes is simply the confidence level we can assign to our findings.
Focus 1: We must build empathy before asking questions.
Our first focus involves building foundational understanding of the community itself before attempting to address specific information needs. This focus centers on five key areas of investigation:
On our Focus 1 whiteboard, you might see questions like:
"What historical events have shaped this community's formation and identity?"
"What brings joy and pride to members of this community?"
"What social bonds and shared values create solidarity within this group?"
"Which organizations or institutions exert significant influence over community members?"
In our research with migrant workers, this focus revealed crucial insights:
We discovered that housing insecurity is a pervasive challenge, with workers frequently experiencing forced relocations due to urban redevelopment.
We learned that many workers maintain powerful symbolic connections to their rural hometowns, often building houses there even when they remain empty.
We found that online spaces have become critical for maintaining social connections in the face of physical isolation.
We identified a generational divide in aspirations, with younger workers showing stronger desires for skill development and urban integration.
These findings provided essential context for understanding information needs, with moderate to high confidence levels based on the consistency of evidence across multiple sources.
Focus 2: We must discover and rank what information matters most.
Our second focus involves identifying and validating the community's most significant information needs through a structured, evidence-based approach.
Our Focus 2 whiteboard might include questions such as:
"Based on the challenges we've identified, what information might help community members navigate them more effectively?"
"What does existing research tell us about information needs in similar communities?"
"How prevalent is this information need across different segments of the community?"
"To what extent are current information sources addressing this need adequately?"
For migrant workers, this focus showed:
Labor rights information emerged as a critical need, particularly regarding wage theft, workplace safety, and contract understanding.
Job opportunities and skills development information showed generational variation, with younger workers more focused on upskilling compared to older counterparts.
Education information for children, while important, showed higher satisfaction rates than other categories.
These findings carried high confidence levels due to triangulation across multiple data sources, including surveys, interviews, and existing research findings.
Focus 3: We map how this information travels.
Our third focus investigates the channels, patterns, and obstacles that shape information movement within the community. It can’t be overstated that different information travels differently.
The Focus 3 whiteboard might feature questions like:
"Which communication channels do different segments of the community prefer for specific types of information?"
"What factors prevent community members from accessing or trusting available information?"
"How do information-sharing behaviors differ across demographic or psychographic segments?"
"What role do trusted intermediaries play in information validation and distribution?"
For migrant workers, this investigation revealed:
Channel preferences showed significant generational differences, with older workers relying more heavily on family networks while younger workers favored digital platforms.
Information barriers remained consistent across information categories, with time constraints, reliability concerns, and comprehension difficulties emerging as primary obstacles.
Social isolation significantly impacts information access, with many workers confined to narrow information networks that reinforce existing perspectives.
The confidence levels for these findings varied based on data sources, with channel preferences carrying high confidence due to robust survey data, while deeper behavioral patterns carried moderate confidence due to the challenges of direct observation.
We measure confidence first, not data points.
While we remain method-agnostic, we maintain research integrity through rigorous confidence assessment of all findings.
For each insight, we evaluate:
Data quality (source reliability, sample representativeness, methodological soundness)
Consistency across multiple sources
Contextual validity
Potential biases or limitations
This approach allows us to clearly communicate the strength of our evidence while acknowledging areas of uncertainty. For instance, quantitative findings from large, representative surveys might carry high confidence, while insights from smaller qualitative studies might receive moderate confidence ratings.
By focusing on information needs rather than methodological requirements, we gain the flexibility to adapt our approach to various contexts while maintaining transparency about the limitations of our findings.
This approach works anywhere.
This flexible framework allows us to conduct meaningful audience research across widely different environments. In open information settings, we might leverage extensive survey data, digital analytics, and in-depth fieldwork. In restricted environments, we might rely more heavily on proxy populations, digital ethnography, and analysis of existing datasets.
What remains consistent is our commitment to understanding:
The community's context and lived experiences
Their most significant information needs
How information currently flows through their networks
This adaptability makes our approach particularly valuable for organizations working across diverse information environments, from open democracies to highly restricted settings. By focusing on information goals rather than prescribed methods, we maintain the flexibility to gather meaningful insights regardless of contextual constraints.
The true measure of our research quality isn't adherence to standardized methodologies but rather the depth of understanding we develop and the confidence with which we can make recommendations that genuinely serve community information needs.
