Construction Project Organising Simon Addyman
https://ebookmass.com/product/construction-project-organising-simonaddyman/
ebookmass.com
5.2.4.TheSpectrumofMotivations87
5.3.TheTroublewithInformationNeeds89
5.4.InformationSeeking 91
5.5.TheUseofInformation 93
5.6.Summary 94 RecommendedforFurtherReading96
6.RelatedConcepts 97
6.1.Learning 98
6.1.1.InformationLiteracy98
6.1.2.InformationPractice99
6.2.DecisionMaking 100
6.2.1.MakingDecisions101
6.2.2.SolvingProblems103
6.3.UnintendedorUnstructuredSearching104
6.3.1.Browsing,Scanning,Encountering,andSerendipity105
6.3.2.AdditionalDistinctions107
6.4.IdentifyingRelevantInformation110
6.4.1.Relevance 110
6.4.2.RelevanceandPertinenceinInformationRetrieval111
6.4.3.Salience 113
6.5.InformationSelection 114
6.5.1.SelectiveExposure115
6.5.2.EmotionandAffect116
6.5.3.InformationAvoidance117
6.5.4.KnowledgeGapsandInformationPoverty119
6.5.5.InformationOverloadandAnxiety122
6.6.InformationversusEntertainment127
6.7.SharingandCollaboration134
6.8.Summary 135 RecommendedforFurtherReading136
7.ModelsofInformationBehavior141
7.1.Models 142
7.1.1.WhatIsaModel?142
7.1.2.ModelsofInformationSeeking144
7.2.ExamplesofInformationSeekingModels148
7.2.1.TheKrikelasModel148
7.2.2.TheEllisModel151
7.2.3.TheKuhlthauModel152
7.2.4.TheBystromandJarvelinModel154
7.2.5.TheSavolainenModel155
7.2.6.TheJohnsonModel157
7.2.7.TheWilliamsonModel161
7.2.8.TheWilsonModel162
7.2.9.TheFosterModel164
7.2.10.TheShentonandHay-GibsonModel165
7.2.11.TheRobsonandRobinsonModel167
7.2.12.TheFreundModel170
7.2.13.ReviewingtheModels171
7.2.14.AdditionalModels173 RecommendedforFurtherReading175
8.Metatheories,Theories,andParadigms177
8.1.Metatheories,Perspectives,andParadigms178
8.1.1.Metatheories 178
8.1.2.TheResearchSpectrumandtheGreatDivide179
8.1.3.PerspectivesandParadigms181
8.2.Theories 183
8.2.1.WhatIsaTheory?183
8.2.2.LevelsofTheory185
8.3.SourcesofTheoryinInformationBehavior187
8.4.ObjectivistParadigms 190
8.4.1.Zipf’sPrincipleofLeastEffortandCost-Benefit190
8.4.2.UsesandGratifications194
8.4.3.UncertaintyManagementTheory,etc.199
8.4.4.OtherObjectivistTheories200
8.5.InterpretivistParadigms202
8.5.1.Constructivism,ActivityTheory,and SenseMaking 203
8.5.2.SocialConstructionism,PracticeTheory,and DiscourseAnalysis206
8.5.3.PhenomenologyandOtherSocialApproaches208
8.5.4.OtherInterpretivistParadigms209
8.6.MappingtheTheoreticalInfluencesonAuthors211
8.7.Summary 213 RecommendedforFurtherReading214
PART4
RESEARCHDESIGNSANDMETHODSFORSTUDYINGIB
9.ResearchDesign,Methodology,andMethods217
9.1.RelatingTheorytoResearchDesign218
9.1.1.WhyWeNeedSoundResearchDesign219
9.1.2.MethodologiesandMethods220
9.2.BasicConsiderationsinResearchDesign222
9.2.1.StagesofResearch222
9.2.2.Inductive(Qualitative)andDeductive (Quantitative)Designs225
9.2.3.RigorandTrustworthiness226
9.2.4.Purpose,Units,andTime229
9.2.5.EthicsinResearch231
9.3.ExamplesofMethods 235
9.3.1.SurveyMethods:Questionnaires,Interviews, FocusGroups,andDiaries236
9.3.2.ExperimentalMethods:Lab-BasedandField Experiments 250
9.3.3.TextualMethods:DiscourseAnalysis,Historical Analysis,andContentAnalysis257
9.3.4.VisualMethods:ObservationandVisualAnalysis264
9.3.5.StudiesUsingMulti-Methods266
9.3.6.Meta-AnalysisandSystematicReviews268
9.4.Summary 270 RecommendedforFurtherReading272
PART5
REVIEWINGANDCRITIQUINGRESEARCH
10.ResearchbyRolesandContexts277
10.1.OccupationsasRoles278
10.1.1.ScientistsandEngineers279
10.1.2.SocialScientists287
10.1.3.HumanitiesScholars291
10.1.4.Physicians,Nurses,andOtherHealthCare Providers 295
10.1.5.Managers 304
10.1.6.Journalists 308
InformationBehavior:AnIntroduction
Whatyou don’t knowhaspoweroveryou;knowingitbringsitunderyour control,andmakesitsubjecttoyourchoice.Ignorancemakesrealchoice impossible.
Maslow(1963,p.116)
Beyondobsessions,curiosity,andcreativity,liesahostofmotivations not toseek information.
Johnson(1997,p.70)
Informationhasbecomeliketheairwebreathe,sopervasivethatwescarcely notice itsexistenceandyetsoessentialthatwecannotlivewithoutit.
Tague-Sutcliffe(1995,p.1)
ChapterOutline
1.1.Introduction
1.1.Introduction
Studiesofinformationbehavior(orthewaysthatindividuals’perceive, seek,understand,anduseinformationinvariouslifecontexts)have increased,exponentially,sincethefirsteditionofthisbookwaspublished in2002.Inthattime,wehavealsoseenanincreaseintheapplicationofcriticaltheorytotherangeofactivitiescomprising“informationbehavior” (IB).Thecontexts,people,andsituationsthatarestudiedcontinuetogrow
andevolve.Researchersarecontinuingtoexpandtherangeandtypeof methodsandmethodologiesthattheyuseintheirwork,particularlyin arts-basedandqualitativeapproaches.And,wecontinuetoexplore(and debate)thelanguageandterminologythatweusetodescribetheboundariesandfocusofthisfieldofstudy.Thisvolumeexploresalloftheseissues toprovideaglimpseofthecurrentstateofIBresearch,includingnew trendsthatareappearingonthehorizon.However,thevolumeretainsits corepurpose—thatis,todescribethecommonandessentialhumanbehaviorsofperceiving,seeking,understanding,andusinginformation,andto presentarobustsetofexamplesofthepublishedliteraturethatdemonstratethereachandinfluenceofinformationbehaviorresearchwithinthe broaderdisciplineofinformationstudies.
Whenpeopledecidetovisitanothercity,wonderaboutthesideeffects ofanewmedication,overhearconversationsonthebus,orreceiveanew assignmentinclass,information-relatedactivitiesplayakeyroleinshaping theirresponsestothesesituations.Noticingachangeintheweather,decidingonavacationdestination,findingoutabouttravelschedules,selecting adeparturedate,andchoosinganairlineitineraryareexamplesofthe informationexperienceswecall“informationbehavior.”Theseinclude accidentalencounteringof,needing,finding,choosing,using,andsometimesevenavoiding,information.Theyaretypesofbehaviorsthatare basictohumanexistence.
Thisintroductorychapterdescribesthescopeofthebookanditscontents.Itoutlinesbrieflywhatconcepts,questions,andresearchdesigns havebeendevelopedregardinginformationbehavior,andwhythistopic hasattractedattention.Wemakethecasethatthenatureofthisresearch haschangedoverseveraldecades,awayfromanemphasisoninstitutional sourcesandsearches,andtowardafocusonhowindividualsencounter andmakesenseoftheirenvironment.Theimportanceofsituation,time, geography,culture,andothercontextualelementsinshapingindividuals’ experiencesofinformationrequiresresearchapproachesthatattendtoa holisticviewofpeople,information,andtheworldstheyinhabit.
Inthinkingaboutthisholisticviewofpeople’sworlds,theinternetitself couldserveasametaphorforinformationbehaviorandthewayourview ofithaschanged.Ifyoucan,thinkbacktoatimebeforetheWorldWide Webwasavailable.Alloftheinformationwasoutthereinindividual books,journals,radioandTVprograms,offices,filingcabinets,minds,and computers.However,becauseitwasdividedbysource,bylocation,byperson,andbychannel,itwasnotalwayseasilylocatedorexamined.Making arrangementsfor travel isonecomprehensiveexample:Onecouldhearthe weatherforecastontheradio,readaboutadestinationinatravelguide, callhotelstomakereservations,telephoneanairlinetolearndeparture timesandfares,visitatravelagenttopickupaticket,andsoon.Interms
ofresearch,eachofthoseneedsandtransactionshasneededtobeconducted(andstudied)separately.Now,itispossibletosatisfyalltravelrelatedrequestsonasinglewebsite,oftenwithnodirectengagementwith otherpeople.
Notonlyhavemanydifferentchannelsofcommunicationcollapsed downtoone,butlessgoal-orientedbehaviors,suchasbrowsing,alsonow playalargerrolethaneverbefore.Lookingforinformationbecomesmore holistic,withmoreavailablechoicesandgreatercontrolonthepartofthe individuallookingforinformation.Atthesametime,thecontextsthat shapethatinformationmaybemorecomplex;onlinehoteladsthatare postedonanairline’ssitemaynotbecomprehensiveorcomplete,butmay betheresultofformalsponsorshipagreementsbetweencompanies.The topsiteslistedinGooglemaybeamixofpaidadvertisements,companies whohavepaidtohavetheirwebsiteappearnearthetopofthepage,or optionsthatappearduetothegeographyoftheperson’scomputer,based ontheirIPaddress.Thesebehind-the-scene(andevenunseen)activities nowformpartofthecomplexlandscapethatindividualsmustnavigateto findtheinformationtheyneedintoday’sworld.
Thecontrastbetweennewandoldisevengreaterwhenwecompare tasksintheofficeandclassroomtotheircounterpartsof20yearsago. Obscurebitsofinformation—thetextofagovernmentregulation,the dateofanevent,theauthorofadocument—aremoreeasilyfoundina single“place”—theWeb.Bothworkandeducationhavechangedasa result.Andyet,conflictinginformation,outdatedinformation,andincorrectinformationremainproblematicforindividualssearchingforanswers. Understandinghowpeopleapproachinformationsourcesandmakesense ofwhattheyfindplaysakeyroleinstudiesofinformationbehavior.
InamannersimilartotheemergenceoftheWorldWideWeb,ourview ofinformationbehaviorhasbecomemoreintegratedandlessdictatedby sourcesandinstitutions.Aswhatweknowaboutthesebehaviorshas grown,sohasthevocabularyusedtodescribethemandtheresearchstrategiesusedtoinvestigatethem.
1.1.1.ABitofVocabulary
Inintroducingthesubjectmatterofthisbook,wewillbeusingtermslike “information,”“informationneed,”“informationuse,”“informationseeking,”and“informationbehavior”withoutdefiningthemfullyuntillater chapters.Forthemomentletusassumethatthere are suchphenomenaas “information”and“informationneeds”thatcanbesatisfiedby“browsing” or“seeking,”andthathavesome“use”orpurposeinpeople’slives;allof theseconceptsfallunderanumbrellawecall“informationbehavior.”To
tideusoveruntiltheseconceptsarefleshedout,herearesomebrief definitions:
• Information canbeany difference youperceive,inyourenvironmentor withinyourself.Itisanyaspectorpatternthatyounoticeinyourreality. Itissomethingthatbringsaboutachangeinyourtakeontheworld.
• An informationneed isarecognitionthatyourknowledgeisinadequate tosatisfyagoalthatyouhave.Therearealsounconsciousprecursorsto needs,suchas curiosity.
• Informationseeking isaconsciousefforttoacquireinformationin responsetoaneedorgapinyourknowledge.Informationalsocomes throughserendipity,chanceencounters,orwhenothersshareinformationthattheybelievemaybeusefultoyou.
• Informationuse iswhatyoudowiththeinformationacquiredthrough seeking,serendipity,orothermeans.Thisincludesapplying—or ignoring—informationtosuityourgoalsorpersonalcontext.
• Informationbehavior (hereafter,“IB”)encompassesinformationseeking aswellasthetotalityofother unintentional or serendipitous behaviors (suchasglimpsingorencounteringinformation),aswellaspurposive behaviorsthatdonotinvolveseeking,suchasactively avoiding information.Thetermalsoincludesthebroadercontextofhowindividuals“deal with”informationintheirlives,soaccountsforsituation,time,affect, culture,geography,andothercontextualelementsinunderstanding people’sIB.
• Informationpractices,atermmorepopularinEurope,Australia,and CanadathanintheUnitedStates,maybethoughtofasasynonymfor informationbehavior—althoughitmaintainssomedifferencesthatwill beexploredinalaterchapter.
• Informationexperiences isalabelusedbysomescholarsconcernedwith differentliteraciesandcoversarangeofconceptssimilartothosestudied inIB.Theemphasisamongthesescholarsisoneverydaylearning,and whatcouldbedonetoimproveandsupporteducationandlearning tools.
Historically,themostcommonlydiscussedoftheseconceptsis informationseeking. Itisabehaviorsocommonplacethatitisgenerallynotan objectofconcernuntiltimepressuremakesitso.Ifwearemakingamajor decision(e.g.,buyingahouse)orcompletingataskbyadeadline (e.g.,writingareport),wemightfindourselvesinanearnestinformation seekingmode:talkingtoothers,searchingtheWeb,readingbooksand magazines,watchingthenews,andsoon.Wemaydoeverythingwecanto satisfyourdesireforinput,untileitherourneedissatisfiedorwehaverun outoftime.Morecommonly,itisthelatter,asthedemandfor
“information”isusuallyelastic—thereisalwaysmorethanthatonecould know.Afterourneedismet(orwegiveup),wereturntoamorepassive stateofinterest,atleastasregardstheobjectofourearliercuriosity.
However,theterm“seeking”(asanactivestateofsearching)isnowconsideredonlyonepartofanindividual’sapproachtodealingwithinformationintheirlives.Theymaychoose not toseek,orinformationmaysimply findthem(suchassomethingthatcomesupinthenewsorispostedto Facebook),beforeapersonevenrealizesthattheywanttolearnmore.For thisreason,thebroaderumbrellatermof“informationbehavior”isoften preferredbyresearchers,asitalertsustothefactthattherearemanyand variedbehaviorsandcontextsthatshapehowweworkwithinformationin ourlives.
Consideralsocasesinwhichtheacquisitionofinformationdoes not concernanimmediatetasklikepurchasingsomethingorwriting.Ourdailylife ispepperedwithinstancesinwhichwebecomeinterestedinlearningmore aboutatopicafteraccidentallyencounteringsomebitofinformationabout it.Thissortofcuriosity,unmotivatedbyanimmediategoal,isacommon aspectoflife—andofinformationbehavior.
Thesituationsdescribedpreviously,nomatterhowfamiliartoallofus, aremuchmorecomplexthantheymayappearonthesurface.Information behavioroftenescapesobservation.Itisdifficulttogeneralizeaboutbehaviorsthatvarysomuchacrosspeople,situations,andobjectsofinterest, andwhichoftentakeplaceinsideaperson’shead.Thisbookisaboutthe manywaysinwhichinformationbehaviorshavebeendefined,explicated, observed,described,andmeasuredinstudiesofhumanthoughtand experience.
1.1.2.EmphasizingPeopleRatherthanSystems
Systematicresearchoninformationbehavior—atleastontheuseof sourceslikebooksornewspapers—datesbackatleastacentury(Case, 2014). In theinitialthreedecadesofthetwentiethcentury,studiesof information“channels”and“systems”—chieflylibrariesandthemass media—accumulatedslowly.The1940ssawthefirstpublishedreviewsof thisliterature.Bythe1960s,suchinvestigations,particularlyofthespecializedinformationneedsandusesofscientistsandengineers,wereappearing regularlyinavarietyofjournalsandreports.
Butmuchofthisolderliteraturewasreallynotaboutinformationseeking in thesenseinwhichthatconceptisdiscussedincurrentresearch. Rather,mostoftheinvestigationsfocusedonthe artifacts and venues of informationseeking:books,journals,newspapers,radioandtelevision broadcasts,schools,universities,libraries,professionalconferences,and
thelike.Whatwasactuallystudiedweretheinformation sources andhow theywereused,ratherthantheindividualusers,theirneeds(astheysaw them),wheretheywentforinformation,howtheinformationmadethem feel,orwhatkindofresultstheyexperienced.Surveysofindividualsmade suchstrongassumptionsaboutpeople’sneeds,motivations,habits,and behaviorsthattherangeofresponsestheycouldmakewasseverelyconstrained;whatmatteredintheseearlyinvestigationswashow formalinformationsystems servedtheserious(e.g.,work,health,orpolitical) informationneedsofthepopulationstudied.Typicallythisliteraturewas called“informationneedsanduses”research,orsometimes“userstudies” or“audienceresearch.” ChooandAuster(1993) call this tradition“systemcentered”research; Vakkari(1999) referstoitas“systemoriented”;ahost ofothercommentatorshaveappliedsimilarlabels.
Itwasnotuntilthe1970sthatinvestigationsbegintobranchoutbeyond the focus onformalchannelsandtask-orientedneeds.Theemphasisshifted awayfromthestructured“informationsystem”andtowardthepersonasa finder,creator,interpreter,anduserofinformation.Inmassmedia research,thefocusshiftedtothe“gratifications”thatusersexperienced, ratherthanfocusingon“effects”thatmessageshadonpeopleandhowto persuadethemtodothings.Evenstudiesofformalinformationsystems begantoconsiderawiderrangeofpeople,moregeneralneedsand problems,andthewaysinwhichthosesystemsoftenfailedtoservetheir publics.Theterm“informationseeking”—and,later,“sensemaking”— begantobepreferredindescribingthekindofphenomenathatinteresteda growingnumberofscholars.
Someobservers(see,e.g., Vakkari,1999) havestereotypedtheconcerns oftheoldversusthenewresearchoninformationbehavior. Table1.1 contraststhepersonandsystemorientationsbyposingsomeexamplesof researchquestionsthataretypicalforeach.
Therightcolumnin Table1.1 reflects researchquestionsthathave motivatedthousandsofstudies—typicallyinstitutionallysponsored evaluationsoflibraryuse,selectivedisseminationofinformation(SDI) programs,informationretrievalsystems,interfacedesigns,information campaigns,advertisingeffectiveness,andthelike.Afewofthesestudies willbediscussedinthisbook,almostexclusivelyofthe“nontask-oriented” variety;however,thesesystem-orientedstudiesarenotthefocusofthis book.Theleftcolumnreflectstheemphasisofthisvolume,andhence,the predominatetypeofexamplesusedwithin.Thesetypesofstudiesformthe coreofhistoric(andmuchcurrent)researchinthediscipline.
Increasingly,IBstudiesexplorethebroadercontextofindividuals’ experiences withinformation.Consider,forexample,theartificialdistinctionsbetween“task”and“nontask,”andbetween“work”and“leisure.” Ourpersonallifeintrudesonourworklifeconstantlyandvice-versa.Take
Task-oriented studies
PersonorientedSystemoriented
• Howdolawyersmakesenseof theirtasksandenvironment?
• Howdoesamanagerlearnabout job-relatedinformation outsideof formalorganizationalchannels?
• Whathappenswhenavoterhas toomuchinformationabouta candidateoranissue?
• Whatkindsofdocumentsdo engineersneedfortheirwork,and howmightthecorporate informationcentersupplythem?
• Howsatisfiedandsuccessfulare studentsearchesofauniversity library’sWeb-basedcatalog?
Nontaskoriented studies
• Howdotheelderlylearnabout andcopewithproblemsor opportunitiesthatcomeupin theirdailylives?
• Whydotelevisionviewerschoose oneprogramoveranother,and whatsatisfactionsdotheyachieve indoingso?
• Whydopeoplebrowseinstores whentheyhavenoexplicitneed orintentiontobuy?
• Howmuchusedomedicaldoctors makeofmedicalwebsites?
• Howdoesthepublicusealibrary forpersonalpleasureandgrowth: whatdotheybrowse,request, borrow,orread?
• Howdowepersuadeteenagersto actinhealthyandresponsible ways?Whatmessagesaboutdrug abusedotheyattendto,inwhich medium,andwhy?
• Whydopeopleignoresafety warningsonpackagesand advertisements?
thecontextofworkingwithinalargeorganization(e.g.,corporation, governmentagency,university):ourmixofexistingknowledgeandcurrent informationsourcesreflectsourpreworkeducationandexperience,and overlapsourpersonallife.Wemay,forexample,learnrelevantfactsfrom anonworkrelationshipthatwecouldnotfindthroughourorganization. Organizationalculturemaydiscouragecertainkindsofinformationseeking (e.g.,criticismsofacompany)thatarerelevanttoimprovingperformance. Thesameiseventrueofprofessionals:ittookpediatriciansdecadestoface thepossibilitythatsomeparentsintentionallyharmtheirchildren—aconclusionreachedbyradiologistsyearsearlier.Socialgroups,whetherasmall family,apeergroup,orahugecorporation,havebiasesinfavorofcertain kindsofinformationandactivities,andagainstotherwaysofthinkingand acting.Eachgrouporsituationwilldifferintheavailabilityofexternal information,thenormsforbelievinginformation,thedegreeoftrust amongthevariousactors,andtheconsequencesofdeviatingfromgroupor situationalnorms.IBscholarshavebeenparticularlyinterestedinthe dynamicsofisolatedcommunitiesandindividuals(e.g.,ruralresidents, crimevictims)andinsocialgroupsinwhichstrongorunusualnormsoperate(e.g.,teenpeergroups,theurbanpoor).Thesetypesofcontextual Table1.1:Contrasting,historicexamplesofinformationbehaviorresearch questions.
Table1.2:Achangeoffocusinrecentapproachestoinformationbehavior research.
Contextuallyoriented
HolisticstudiesHowdoestheorganizationalcontextshapemanagers’approaches toinformationseeking?
Howdostudents’socialcirclesinfluencehowtheylookforand shareinformationwiththeirpeers?
Whatistheroleofemotioninseniors’experienceswithhealth information?
constraintsandopportunitiesdeservetobeexploredinamoreholistic way,ratherthanthroughtheatomizedtypesofquestionsofferedin Table1.1.Tothatend,itisworthconsideringthetypesofresearchquestions thatcanbeexploredininformationbehaviorstudiesthatframe person-orientedquestions,contextually. Table1.2 presentsexamplesofthe typesofquestionsthatareexploredinthesetypesofholisticstudies,which arealsodiscussedatlengthinthisbook.
1.1.3.TenMythsaboutInformationandInformationSeeking
A keydevelopmentintheshifttowardmoreuser-orperson-centered theoriesandmethodswerethequestionsraisedintheearly1970sbyseveral researchers,chiefamongthemProfessorBrendaDervin(OhioState University).Alandmark1976articlebyDervinencapsulatedseveralyears ofherworkbychallenging10assumptionsthathaddominatedresearchon communicationandinformationseekinguptothattime.Inthisarticle,she wasconcernedchieflywiththeeverydayinformationneedsoftheordinary, urbanresident.However,muchofwhatshesaysalsoappliestomoreformalizedneeds.Herearethe10“dubiousassumptions”that Dervin(1976a) identified inpastwritingsaboutinformationseeking.
1. Only “objective” informationisvaluable. Peoplearerationalbeingswho processdatafromtheenvironmenttoanalyzealternativesandmake optimaldecisions.Severalproblemsplaguethisassumption,including ourcommontendencytorelyoneasilyavailablesourcesofinformationsuchasourfriends.Formosttasksanddecisionsinlife,people tendtosettleforthefirstsatisfactorysolutiontoaproblem,rather thanthebestsolution.
2. Moreinformationisalwaysbetter. Yettoomuchinformationleadsto overloadandthencetodeliberateignoringofinputs.“Havinginformation”isnotthesameas“beinginformed,”soincreasingtheflowof
informationdoesnotalwaysresultinaninformedperson.Typically thereisnotaproblemgettingenoughinformationbutratherwith interpretingandunderstandingwhatinformationthereis—aninternal,ratherthananexternal,locusofcontrol.
3. Objectiveinformationcanbetransmittedoutofcontext. Butpeopletend toignoreisolatedfactswhentheycannotformacompletepictureof them.Individualsyearntounderstandhowinformationconnectsto otherfacts,beliefs,andemotionstheyhave,andhowalltheseaffect oneanother.
4. Informationcanonlybeacquiredthroughformalsources. Thisassumption,oftenmadebythoseineducationalinstitutions,fliesinthefaceof actualbehavior.Peopleuseformalsourcesrarely,insteadgathering andapplyinginformationfrominformalsources,oftenfriendsand family,throughouttheirlives.
5. Thereisrelevantinformationforeveryneed. Thetruthisthatmere informationcannotsatisfymanyhumanneeds.Peoplemaywantinformationinthesenseoflearningorunderstandingorentertainment; morecommonlytheyneedthephysicalandpsychologicalnecessitiesof dailylife,suchasfood,shelter,clothing,money,respect,andlove. Informationcannotsubstituteformanyhumanneeds,norevenfacilitateallofthem.
6. Everyneedsituationhasasolution. Institutionssuchaslibraries,medicalclinics,andsocialserviceagenciesarefocusedonfindingsolutions toproblems.Todoso,theyattempttomapwhattheclientsays—the wordstheyuse—ontotheresourcesandresponsesoftheirsystem. Butsometimestheclientislookingforsomething—areassurance,an understanding—thatdoesnotcomeintheshapeofacanned response.Nevertheless,thesystemwillusuallyprovideananswerof sometype,initsownlanguageandlogic,whetheritisusefultothe clientornot.
7. Itisalwayspossibletomakeinformationavailableoraccessible. Formal informationsystemsarelimitedinwhattheycanaccomplish,atleast wherethevague,ambiguous,andconstantlychangingneedsofthe publicareconcerned.Peoplewillcontinuetocomeupwiththeirown answerstotheirownunique,unpredictablequestionswithoutresorting toformalinformationsystems.
8. Functionalunitsofinformation,suchasbooksortelevisionprograms, alwaysfittheneedsofindividuals. Informationsystemssuchaslibraries orbroadcastersdefinethemselvesintermsoftheirunitsofstorageor production:inthecaseoflibraries,thesearebooks,journals,audiovisualmaterials,orwebsites;inthecaseofbroadcasters,itisprograms, ads,orpublicserviceannouncements.Butthe“functionalunits”of theindividualarenotoftenthesethings;rather,theyareresponses,
solutions,instructions,ideas,friendships,andsoforth.Thus,client requestsforhelp,action,orresourcestendtobereinterpretedbyinstitutionsasinformationneedsthatcanbefulfilledwiththeunitsthat theyprovide:books,programs,andsoforth.Theclientcannotalways effectivelyusetheseunitsofinformation.
9. Timeandspace—individualsituations—canbeignoredinaddressing informationseekinganduse. Yetoftenitistheindividual’sdefinitionof thesituationthatshapeshisorherneedsasmuchasthe“real”situationitself.Ifindividualsperceivealackofpredictabilityandcontrolof anoutcome,thentheyworry.Theworryitselfbecomesaneed.
10. Peoplemakeeasy,conflict-freeconnectionsbetweenexternalinformation andtheirinternalreality. Wetendtoassumeanordereduniverse,in whichconnectionsexistbetweentheinternalandexternal.Inour research,wetendtoask“what”and“how”ratherthan“why.”Weask whatpeoplereadorview,ratherthanwhytheydoso.Welackunderstandingabouthowpeopleinformthemselves,howtheymakeconnections overtime,thesensetheymakeoftheirworldbetweensignificant events.Dervinsaidthatinsteadofstudyingwhat“information does … forpeople”weneedtofocuson“whatpeopledotoinformation”(p.333).
Dervinarguedthatall10oftheseassumptionswereflawedintheways indicated.Ofcourse,shemadethesestatementsabout everyday informationneeds,notinthecontextofhighlyspecific,task-orientedneedslike scientificorbusinessdatafordecisionmaking.Thereareindeedtimes whenpeopleactinmostlyrationalandoptimalwaysintheirinformation seekingandprocessing.Thosesituations,too,willbeaddressedinthis volume.
Althoughthe10mythsDervinhighlightedcontinuetobeproblematic (evenafteralmost40years!),additionalflawedassumptionswereidentified astheinformationbehaviorfieldgrewandevolved.
1.1.4.When,Why,andWhereInformationBehaviorHasBeenStudied
Asasubjectofscholarlyattention,informationbehaviorhasbeenstudied inmanydifferentcontexts,withavarietyofpeopleandexploringabroad arrayofmotives,contexts,andgoals.Allpeopleseekanduseinformation, yetforsomepeopleandinsomesituationsthestakesaremuchhigher. Higherstakesaremorelikelytocreatesituationsthatattractresearch.
Toillustratethekindsofpeopleandsituationsthathavebeeninvestigatedoverthelastfivedecades,firstletusconsiderseveralhypothetical cases.Theexamplesbelowareconstrainedbyseveralassumptions.These
assumptionsarevaluablebecausetheywillhelpuscomparesituationsby creatinga“standard”setofreactions.However,eachassumptionhaslimitations,whichwillbenoted.Theassumptionsarethatinformationbehaviorishighly rational (whichisnotoftentrue),thatsuchbehavioris orientedtowardmakingsomekindof decision (acommon,yetflawed, assumption),andthatitispossibletomakerelativelysimplejudgments aboutthe value ofourdecisions(itselfavaluejudgmenttowhichsomepeoplewouldobject).
Forexample,considerthenumberofpeopleultimatelyaffectedbya searchforinformationandsubsequentdecisionsbasedonit.Somedecisionsaffectrelativelyfewpeople(e.g.,aperson’schoiceofvacationdestination),whereasotherinformationandactionsmayaffectmillionsofhuman lives(e.g.,choicesamongcancertreatments).So,“numbersofpeople affected”canbeasimpleindicatorofimportance.Thatvariableisonereasonwhymoreresearchhasbeenconductedonsomekindsofinformation seekingandnotonothertypes.Wemightallagreethattreatmentsfor heartdiseasethataffectmillionsoflivesisworthyofinvestigation.By studyingtheinformationneedsofsuchscientists,andhowtheygoabout satisfyingthoseneeds,wejustmightbeabletodeviseatooloraservice thatwouldhelpthemreachtheirresearchgoalsalittlesooner.Insuch situations,thepotentialforpublicgood(andforprivateprofit)isenormous.Thisiswhymanyoftheinitialinvestigationsofinformationbehaviorfocusedonhigh-stakesandhigh-statusoccupations:research scientists,medicaldoctors,aerospaceengineers,corporatemanagers,and thelike.
However,despitethevalueofstudies(andbehaviors)thatmayleadtoa largeorsignificantimpactonsociety,thisdoesnotdiscounttheimportance andimpactofstudiesthatinvestigateverylocal,personal,orwhatmany perceivetobe“small”impacts.Astudythatcanchangetheexperiencesof onestudent,inoneclassroom,inonecountryintheworldremainsvaluable anduseful.These“localimpact”studiesmayprovideimportantknowledge aboutthewaysthatsocietyexcludesmarginalizedpeopleormaypointto newtrendsthatwilldevelopintoareaswithbroaderimpact,infuture. Thus,manytypesofinformationseekingbehaviorareworthyofstudy. Sometimesrelativelytrivialdecisions,suchasthetravelchoicesmentioned previously,arethetargetsofinvestigation.Thelistening,watching,reading, andlearningthattakeplaceinsupportofdailytasksisreferredtoas “everyday”informationseeking.Wewilllearnaboutallthesetypesofstudiesinthisbook.
OneotherdistinctionthatismadeintheIBliteratureisbetween formal and informal sourcesofinformation.Theprototypicalformalsourceisa printedone—atextbook,encyclopedia,ordailynewspaper—butmay alsobeexemplifiedbythewordsofanacknowledgedexpertonasubject.
Informalsourcestendtobefriends,colleagues,andfamily,butintheview ofsometheycouldencompasswhatwelearnfrompopularcultureaswell: televisionprograms,songsontheradio,internetdiscussionlists,Facebook updates,tweets,andsoforth.Wewillsometimesdistinguishbetweenformalandinformalsourcesinreviewingfindingsoninformationbehavior. Finally,wearealsoconcernedwith intrapersonalinformation(whichwe mightcallknowledge,ormemories)—inputfromourpreviousexperiences inlife,whichisfoundtoberelevanttotasksandsituationsathand.
1.1.5.TheContextsinWhichInformationBehaviorIsInvestigated
Theprevioussectionraisedtheissueofcontextwithconsiderationssuchas individualsituations,motivesforseekinginformation,thespecificactivities andkindsofinformation,thesurroundingenvironment,thetypesof people,andthesizeofthesocialgroupinvolvedintheinvestigations. Thereisnonice,neat,logicaldelineationofthesefactors,ashumanbehavioritselfisnotcompletelyrationaloruniformandisshapedbyvarious socialcontexts.Theexamplesusedlaterinthisvolumehavebeenselected withaneyetowardtheliteraturethatactually exists —thatis,thepatterns ofstudiesthathavebeenconducted,particularlyoverthepasttwodecades. Thereareavarietyofapproachesthatwecouldusetoconsiderthevast literatureoninformationseekingandrelatedtopics.Wecould,forexample,reviewstudieschronologically,showinghowtheyshiftedinfocusand method.Orinvestigationscouldbeselectedonthebasisofthedisciplinein whichtheywerepublished,whetherininformationstudies,communication, education,management,healthsciences,andsoforth.Infact,both historical (inthischapterandthefinalchapter)and disciplinary (inmostofthe otherchapters)categorizationsaresometimesinvokedinthisvolume,but theytakeabackseattothreeotherwaysofconsideringtheliterature:by theory,methods,andcontext.
Whatismeantby“theory”and“methods”maybeobvioustomost readers,but“context”warrantssomefurtherexplanation.Forthepurposes oforganizingthisbook, context willbetakentomeantheparticularcombinationofpersonandsituationthatservedtoframeaninvestigation.In Chapter10,wereviewinformationseekinginvestigationsbythe role ofthe personsunderinvestigation—forexample,an occupation suchasmanager, doctor,scholar,chemist,oranonworktypeofrolelikeconsumer,voter, student,patient,televisionviewer.Althougharespondentcouldeasily representanoccupation,arole,andacontextatthesametime,aswellas illustratingtheuseofanynumberofinformationsources,investigators oftenstartbyframingtheirresearchquestionsandrespondentsamplesin oneoftheseways,whilealsoattendingtothebroadercontextualissues
thatmayshapeexperiencesfortheindividualsunderstudy.InChapter10, forexample,wedescribeastudyofthe“urbanpoor”(acontext)that approacheditstopicbysamplingjanitors(anoccupation).Thebulkof investigationsthatfallundertheheadingofIBhaveconcernedtheinformationneeds,seekingandusesofaspecificroleorcontext.
1.1.6.TheScopeof“InformationBehavior”
Informationbehaviorisatopicthathasbeenwrittenaboutinthousands ofdocumentsfromseveraldistinctdisciplines.Becausealmosteverything todowithhumansispotentiallyrelevanttothistopic,wehavetrimmed thescopeofthisbooktohighlightaspectsofinformationbehaviorthat reflectcontemporaryusesofthisumbrellaterm.Weincludestudiesthat exploreactiveinformationseeking,unintentionalorserendipitousactivities,informationavoidance,andotherphenomenathatfocuson people andthe contexts inwhichtheyuseinformation.Studiesofpeople’ssystem searchingpractices(i.e.,whatareclassicallyreferredtoas“information retrieval”studies)arenotdefinedasinformationbehaviorstudies unless theytakeaperson-orientedand/orcontext-orientedperspectiveintheir design.Similarly,studiesofthelibraryanditsmaterials(e.g.,historic “libraryuse”studies),orotherresearchthatfocusesonaplaceorsource without attendingtopeopleand/ortheircontextsarenotincludedinthis volume.Althoughthesestudiesdoinclude“people”asresearchsubjects (andalthoughtheliteratureintheseareasisvoluminous),thesystemfocusedorientationofthesestudiesmeansthattheyfalloutsidethescope ofthisbook.
Wehavealsonarrowedourreviewbytimeperiod.Morethanhalfof thepublicationsdiscussedhereindatefrom2000orlater;mostoftherest werepublishedduringthe1980sand1990s.Althoughweciteearlier,landmarkdiscussionsanddefinitionsoftheconceptsdiscussedinthisvolume, thosearemerelyincludedtoensurepropercreditandhistoricalperspective. Mostoftheexamplesandreferencesinthisbookaretakenfromthelast twodecadesofpublishedliterature.Asisemphasizedhereandintheconcludingchapter,recentinvestigationsofinformationbehaviorfocusmore onthe seeker andhisorher context andlessonthe sourcesor channels used,althoughitisnotpossibletoignorethelatterentirely.
Wehavechosentohighlightcertainaspectsthathavereceivedtoolittle attentionfrommainstreaminvestigatorsofinformationseeking.Among theseless-examinedtopicsare:serendipitousandaccidentalinformation acquisition;sharingofinformationamongpeers;andignoringandavoidinginformation.Ourexamplesaretakenchieflyfromthedisciplinesof informationstudies,communication,psychology,andprofessionalfields
