Toward a theory of Serendipity

What follows are some of my developing ideas on browsing and serendipity. I’m not really convinced of any of it, but it helps my own thinking to write it down, and hopefully get feedback …

The OED defines serendipity as “The faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident. Also, the fact or an instance of such a discovery.”

To me, this implies that instances of serendipity vary along at least 2 dimensions — How happy they make you, and how unexpected they are. If we limit the discussion to serendipity in the service of research, then we can think of “how happy they make you” as “how useful they are.” So, two essential qualities of serendipity are usefulness and unexpectedness. The holy grail of serendipity is the essential, but wholly unexpected discovery. Most of our serendipitous discoveries fall somewhere short of that on one or both dimensions.

Since social scientists love 2 x 2 tables, I think one is called for here:

Dimensions of Serendipity
Low Usefulness High Usefulness
Low Unexpectedness Why Bother? Only slightly off the beaten path but essential to your research agenda
High Unexpectedness Nice reference to show you are thinking broadly, but not essential to your main research agenda Holy Grail of Serendipity

Thinking about serendipity in this way helps me get past the simplistic debate over whether print browsing or online browsing is better for serendipity.
The more interesting question for me is: What conditions are likely to produce what kinds of serendipity?
If we think about the relationship between browsing and serendipity, one reasonable set of hypotheses might be:

H1: The larger the body of materials being browsed, the higher the degree of unexpectedness.
H2: The more ordered/organized the body of materials being browsed, the lower the degree of unexpectedness.
H3: The larger the body of materials being browsed, the higher the likelihood of discoveries with low usefulness.
H4: The more ordered/organized the body of materials being browsed, the higher the likelihood of discoveries with high usefulness.

I also think that organization trumps size, in that organization can mitigate the effect of size on degree of usefulness. Thus, browsing a very large, highly organized collection is likely to produce highly unexpected and highly useful serendipity.

Of course, another critical part of the relationship between browsing and serendipity is the browser herself. As Pasteur said “In the field of observation, chance favours only the prepared mind.”

Based on what I said above, I might expand/revise this to say: “Serendipity favors a highly prepared mind, browsing a large, well-ordered collection.”

Stay tuned … more later.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow Feral Librarian by email.

Join 8,072 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

  • @jvinopal @olinj started reading this in the middle and was hoping for some metaphor about fighting nazis via immunization/punching 1 hour ago
  • with @librarycourtney at the helm and folks like @kgs on the team, I have confidence the ALA ED search committee will do us proud. 1 hour ago
  • @wrk2lib my perspective is limited, but that's not the case in research libraries and some suggest trend is in direction of "or equivalent" 1 hour ago
  • @wrk2lib I appreciate your take and agree on your alt option. My only quibble is the assertion that MLS is currently req's for all prof jobs 1 hour ago
  • @joanpdx you just made my day!! 1 hour ago

%d bloggers like this: