Two events drive this post.  First, a law librarian shared an observation the other day that lawyers will not use Google or similar public search engines to conduct even the most basic factual research because, she stated, the lawyers don’t trust the algorithms. 

Second, yesterday USA Today had an article on the new, emerging question-and-answer websites—Ask.com, ChaCha, Aardvark, and LocQl—which feature humans providing the answers.  The people providing the answers are either staffed by employees, or are community members who are riding the social networking capabilities into a new neighborhood of knowledge-sourcing and collaboration.  In fact, Ask.com has evolved—beginning as a Q&A site, migrating to computer-driven responses, and now returning to pure questions and answers.

Both stories are linked by the presence of two very human qualities.  Let me explain.

First, each of us asks questions in order to identify, acquire, and absorb information we require to do what we do.  Socrates understood that; a big part of law school is developing the skill of asking questions.  Examination by question; cross-examination; re-direct examination—the judicial process is built entirely on the role of the question at driving the search for, and acquiring, the truth of the matter. For lawyers conducting research, either of facts, technology or law, they are themselves formulating and executing their search via the question.

Second, both stories evidence the continued tension, conflict, and wavering balancing as humans create, and evaluate whether to rely upon, technology to develop and answer our questions for us.  Today, many search tools will auto-fill your search, auto-populate and rank the answers based on prior searches, filter content, and do many other amazing things.  But, like the lawyers, as well as the customers of Ask.com, are we truly comfortable with these innovations?

Yes, the technologies allow us to surf information overload at enormous speeds.  But there is still a very human factor in our decision process to rely on a selected source of information.  There is also a human need to interact with, engage among, and validate our questions and answers with others.    When technology constrains or eliminates these human qualities, it almost appears as if the new search business models are “routing around failure” by developing and offering their new features.

The Implications for Electronic Discovery

The e-discovery process has become an industry, one which is populated by companies offering technologies that offer a variety of bells-and-whistles to leverage computing power to eliminate or reduce the human effort of finding the truth.  Many of these are invaluable for controlling the costs, working across large data sets, and building better strategies for collaboration. 

But in employing any of these tools, we must build and retain the professional skills—across IT, information security, records management, and law—to still be able to ask questions that challenge the information, to investigate the history of a specific transaction, and test the validity and integrity of the resulting reports.  To the extent technology is turned on, we must make sure the technology is an agent of our human skills to formulate the dimensions and qualities of what to be looking for, the questions to be asked, and the criteria to be employed to evaluate the answers.

It is so easy for any of us to embrace a technology product without really thinking through what existing skills are needed to be retained, or new skills developed to complement the technology, to assure the right outcome.  Discovery across digital assets requires those skills continually. 

But, unlike the lawyers that will not even use Google, the successful strategy is to learn how to integrate technology into how one does their work.  It is no longer realistic to avoid either a) the need to understand both how technology creates and maintains data, or b) the need to understand how to use technology in discovery.  But technology will never displace the very human quality of our need to review, evaluate and affirm our understanding of the truth.

That is the second implication—the search engine products that integrate with social networking capabilities are very similar to how a jury is intended to work—achieving collaboration and consensus among one’s peers. Often, the answers we seek are not found in formal, published sources available 24/7 on the Internet, but in the collective knowledge and experience of our community.  So, while we are seeing an increased pressure toward the use of special masters in managing e-discovery, and the decades-long trend toward settlement rather than trial, it is important to keep in mind that there is a brilliant elegance in the jury process by which the authenticity, reliability and trustworthiness of evidence presented for the truth is evaluated.

How can we innovate the discovery process to enable more community-based evaluation of the information presented?  How can we expand, rather than constrict, our human strength to challenge records and information as evidence of the truth?  How can we be sure that our collective professional skills do not get overwhelmed by the power of technology in how we seek and find the answers to our questions? 

I look forward to your thoughts and ideas.