Chapter 4

A Reflection on the Relationship between

the Study of People’s Information

Behaviour and Information Literacy:

Changes in Epistemology and Focus

Mark Hepworth, Fatmah Almehmadi and Sally Maynard

Abstract

In response to a need for ‘consideration of the conceptual overlapbetween information seeking and information literacy’ (Julien &Williamson, 2010), this chapter explores their development. Since the1960s there has been an ongoing stream of research called ‘informa-tion behaviour’ (IB). This has taken various forms and shifted its focusin terms of the topic studied and epistemological orientation. Since the1990s there has been another stream of parallel research focusing onpeople’s information capabilities called ‘information literacy’ (IL).Both concern the interaction and experience of a person or a groupwith information. The former focuses on the social, psychological,behavioural and environmental aspects of people’s IB. The latterfocuses on the person and the capabilities they need to interact withinformation which may be studied from a social, psychological, beha-vioural and environmental perspective. IB has traditionally placed anemphasis on observed or recorded information seeking, within a broadcontext of factors that may affect behaviour. In contrast, IL researchplaces greater emphasis on specific cognitive and behavioural pro-cesses associated with information seeking and use. Both IB and ILthrow light on people’s information experience. Over time, shifts infocus have been associated with changes in epistemological orienta-tion. We now see a rich array of approaches for investigating people’s

Information Experience: Approaches to Theory and Practice

Library and Information Science, Volume 9, 51�65

Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1876-0562/doi:10.1108/S1876-056220140000010018

IB and IL. This reflects the multifaceted nature of these domains, thatis social, organisational and individual. This chapter charts the rela-tionship between these two fields of research and highlights theircomplementarity.

Keywords: Information literacy; information behaviour; epistemology;methodologies

4.1. Authors’ Perspective on Information Experience

This conceptual chapter was partly stimulated by Julien and Williamson’s(2010) call for ‘increased research consideration of the conceptual overlapbetween information seeking and information literacy’ and an interest inthe relative value of different epistemologies for conducting informationbehaviour (IB) and information literacy (IL) research.

Historically, IL research has concerned the information capabilities oflearners in primary, secondary, further, and tertiary education. This has ledto various theories, models, and explanations of IL. A large percentage ofIL studies have been written by librarians, stem from action based research,and have focused on ways to enhance people’s IL. IB studies have tendedto be the preserve of academics, partly because such studies tend to investi-gate beyond the perceived remit and capacity of the library (Julien &Williamson, 2010; Urquhart, 2010). Both IL and IB to a lesser or greaterextent discuss the influence of context; information needs; and how peopleselect, evaluate and process information (Erdelez, Basic, & Levitov, 2011).The outcome of IB research tends to be theoretical, explaining behavioursand the interplay of factors, but in some cases leading to recommendationsfor the design of information services (Ellis & Haugan, 1997; Hepworth,2007). The outcome of IL research tends to be a better understanding ofhow people’s information capabilities can be improved, as well as theoreti-cal models to help explain IL. Despite a common interest in people’s infor-mation experience, there does seem to be a lack of communication betweenthese two groups (Julien & Williamson, 2010; Limberg & Sundin, 2006)partly due to different epistemologies (Urquhart, 2010) and also differentchannels of publication (Julien & Williamson, 2010).

4.2. Introduction

This chapter argues that IB and IL have travelled a similar epistemologicaljourney and have led to similar conclusions concerning the embedded

52 Mark Hepworth et al.

nature of people’s IB. Both IB and IL research share an interest in differentinterpretations of experience. The etymology of experience indicates thatearly, medieval, usage of the word experience tends to be associated with‘practical contact with and observation of facts’, in similar fashion toan experiment, or more broadly ‘an event or occurrence which leaves animpression’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2011). The latter echoes definitionsof the word information: ‘Information can be any difference you perceive,in your environment or within yourself. It is any aspect that you notice inthe pattern of reality’ (Case, 2007, p. 40). From an IB or IL perspective,this form of experience relates to that ‘moment of interaction’ (Hepworth,2007) where people interact with information at a point in time, such aswith information artefacts (e.g. books, articles, discovery tools). Later theword experience encompassed the notion of change over time ‘the knowl-edge or skill acquired by such means over a period of time, especially thatgained in a particular profession’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2011). Thisrelates to a more holistic and encompassing notion of experience, implyingattitudes, norms, and practices associated with being in and a part of ashared information context over a period of time or part of a communitywho share common information experience, that is share informationneeds, inhabit a similar information environment and place similar value ofdifferent types and forms of information and learning (Lave & Wenger,1991). The latter could, for example, encompass culture and attitudesassociated with sharing information or the interpretation and value placedon types of information. Between these two interpretations, it could beargued, is the religious experience which combines the idea of moment andongoing, fundamental change in the individual. However, such fundamen-tal change in the individual could be seen to be associated with becoming amember of other communities of practice, such as, academics or plumbers.

A brief overview of IB and IL research is given below, with parallels anddistinctions drawn.

4.3. Overview of IB Research

Although the term information behaviour was proposed and used in the late1990s, its history dates back to the early 1960s where the concept of infor-mation need was used (Case, 2012). Since then, definitions have evolved.For example, Wilson (1999) defined IB as ‘activities a person may engage inwhen identifying his or her own needs for information, searching for suchinformation in any way and using or transferring that information’ (p. 249).According to Case, IB is the totality of human behaviours in relationto their interaction with information, including ‘unintentional or passive

Information Behaviour and Information Literacy 53

behaviours (such as glimpsing or encountering information), as well as pur-posive behaviours that do not involve seeking, such as actively avoidinginformation’ (2012, p. 5).

Pettigrew, Fidel, and Bruce (2001) defined IB as ‘how people need, seek,manage, give and use information in different contexts’ (p. 44). Ford(2004b) described IB as ‘those activities a person may engage in when, forthe purpose of learning, identifying his or her own needs for informationsearching for and selecting such information from multiple independentinformation sources and using or transferring that information’ (p. 184).

Many authors have indicated that IB has a complex and multidimen-sional nature which includes affective, behavioural, as well as cognitivedimensions. Explanations have tended to draw heavily on the cognitiveviewpoint (Ford, 2004a; Williamson, 1998). The evolution of IB researchhas also shown a tendency to follow either a system-centred or a user-centred approach. The former, which represents library surveys, was domi-nant from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s (Wilson, 1994). Its primary focuswas on system features and an analysis of the use of these features (Case,2012). However, to a great extent this was largely disconnected from theusers’ information needs (Case, 2012; Talja & Hartel, 2007; Wilson, 1999)and ‘the strategies that people actually use for bridging their informationneeds’ (Dervin & Nilan, 1986, pp. 13�14) or their perception of this experi-ence. In fact, it has been argued that in these early studies the user wasseen as a ‘passive recipient’ of information (Dervin & Nilan, 1986). Theorientation was largely positivist and the focus on behavioural data.

During the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s there was a shift to theuser-centred paradigm, that is, an approach that emphasised the need tounderstand people’s IB from their perspective by gathering data on theirinformation needs, seeking, and use patterns, and barriers they may face.Dervin was one of the first scholars who called for a shift in IB researchtowards this paradigm (Dervin & Nilan, 1986). Wilson’s early work on theinformation needs and information-seeking behaviour in social servicesdepartments in 1975, known as the INISS project, pre-dated and contribu-ted to the emergence of this approach (Wilson, 1994). The main purposewas to enhance understanding of users’ IB from their point of view(Courtright, 2007; Lievrouw & Farb, 2003; Mutshewa, 2007). This shift wasreflected in other related areas, for example, the socio-technical designmovement (Mumford, 2006) as well as more broadly in the social sciences.The increased focus on the perception of the users tended to be accompaniedby a shift towards an interpretivist paradigm and constructivist epistemolo-gies, for example Dervin’s (2005) sense-making paradigm. At the same timedifferences in IB were linked to the different attributes of individualssuch as demographics, cognitive style and personality traits and behaviour(Ford, 2004a; Mutshewa, 2007). The purpose, in some cases, was to inform

54 Mark Hepworth et al.

the design of information retrieval systems (e.g. Ellis & Haugan, 1997).During the early 1990s, greater emphasis was placed on the social context(e.g. Pettigrew et al., 2001) and its impact on IB. Here IB was linked to theimpact of users’ social environment and factors such as role, task, andnorms instead of individual characteristics (Mutshewa, 2007). This led to anumber of theories and models in the mid and late 1990s (Case, 2012;Fisher, Erdelez, & McKechnie, 2005).

Vakkari (1997) states, ‘the old system-centred approach is metaphoricallyspeaking water under the bridge’ (p. 463). However, in another paperVakkari also criticises user-centred studies because, he argues, they havelost sight of the role of such studies to inform system design (Vakkari,2003).

4.4. Overview of IL Research

Paul Zurkowski, a U.S. president of the Information Industry Association(IIA), has been credited with the introduction of the concept ‘informationliteracy’ in 1974 (Bruce, 1997). His definition of the concept was centred onthe ability to apply skills and techniques, and use a wide range of informa-tion sources in order to solve a work-situated problem (Virkus, 2003).

However, as in most new fields there has been a lack of clarity withregard to the nature of IL and its associated terms such as computer ordigital literacy, library literacy, academic literacy, health literacy, media lit-eracy, and transliteracy (Bawden, 2001). Savolainen (2002) suggests usingwhat he calls ‘information-related competences’ as an umbrella term underwhich IL, media competence, library skills and new emerging concepts canbe brought together. In contrast, Virkus (2003) favours using IL as anumbrella term partly because it has become widely used in the literature.

In the United States the Association of American College ResearchLibraries (ACRL) in conjunction with the American Library Association(ALA) coined a much quoted IL definition ‘to be information literate, aperson must be able to recognize when information is needed and have theability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information’(ALA, 1989). ‘Knowing when and why you need information, where tofind it and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical manner’(CILIP, 2005) is another definition, which adds communication and ethicaluse of information to the concept. One aspect of IL could therefore bedescribed as the metacognition associated with IB.

Among authors, an early definition by Lubans (1987) describes ILas basic skills acquired as a result of a learning process, that is, taking abehavioural orientation. These skills can then be used to assist with finding

Information Behaviour and Information Literacy 55

information. In the United Kingdom information skills was a popular termprior to IL and indicated a relatively mechanistic, behavioural interpreta-tion rather than the frame of mind or the social and contextual factorsassociated with IL (and IB). Explanations have changed, and evolved, pla-cing more emphasis on people’s experience of IL and the impact of context.A Delphi study by Doyle in 1992 linked IL to critical thinking, decision-making, and problem solving. According to Doyle (1992) the process ofIL includes, besides those identified in the ALA definition, question formu-lation, information sources identification, information organisation, andknowledge base building. Hepworth and Walton (2009) defined IL as ‘acomplex set of abilities which enable individuals to: engage critically withand make sense of the world, its knowledge and participate effectively inlearning to make use of the information landscape as well as contributingto it’ (p. 10). As in Doyle’s (1992) explanation, critical thinking, sensemaking, and learning are implicit in this definition.

IL has been clearly linked to learning, problem solving, and decision-making and described as a set of skills and attitudes (Bruce, 1997; Kuhlthau,1987; Walton, 2009). Bruce, Edwards, and Lupton (2006) extend these ideasand develop a relational model of IL, stemming from phenomenographicresearch, placing emphasis on people’s perception of IL, and the significanceof context and individual sense-making, hence taking an interpretivistand social constructivist stance. This is a position shared by Lloyd (2007),as evident in the study with firemen and Yates, Partridge, and Bruce’s(2009) research in the health domain. Cheuk (2008) also echoed thisapproach and more recently Smith’s (Smith & Hepworth, 2012) phenom-enographic study. The latter helped define IL as experienced by secondaryschool learners. These studies take us away from what could be describedas etic studies of IL that may be framed by the researchers’ (possibly librar-ians’) perceptions rather than the ‘respondent’ and yet may still be transfer-able to other communities who inhabit a similar collective consciousness, ascoined by Durkheim, whereby they share beliefs, ideas and values whichhelp bind the society or community together.

Other authors tackle IL from another perspective. They link IL to issuesof democracy and the hierarchical nature of society (Hamelink, 1976;Horton, 2007; Owens, 1976; Whitworth, 2009). Julien and Williamson(2010) highlight that some scholarly IL discourse has a political and criticalrealist perspective (Tavares, Hepworth, & DeCosta, 2011) and connect theIL concept with empowerment. This echoes the UNESCO definition thatstates that IL is a means to ‘empower people in all walks of life to seek,evaluate, use and create information effectively to achieve their personal,social, occupational and educational goals’ (Horton, 2007).

Figure 4.1 reflects some of the similarities and distinctions betweenIB and IL. Although distinctions are evident, it can be seen from

56 Mark Hepworth et al.

Context

Worldwide(primarily in higher

education)

More practice(action research)

User: learner,critical thinker andinformation literate

Attracts informationscience

practitioners (e.g.librarian and

informationmanagers) as well

as academics

Purpose/s of studymainly: vocational,

instructional andbeneficial

Context

Worldwide (limited toinformation science

departments)

More theoretical

User: informationseeker,

library/system/serviceuser

Attracts informationscience scholars and

information sciencepractitioners

Purpose/s of studymainly: system/serviceoriented, informational

- Helping users identify their information needs

- Helping users analyse their information needs

- Using methods to fosterthinking about information

needs

- Helping users identify information needs associated

with different environment

- Helping users identify howinformation could help

- Identifying users’information needs

- Classifying users information needs

- Understanding howinformation needs aredeveloped, related to

context, and expressed

Informationneeds (IN)

Informationneeds (IN)

- Understanding users’information seeking and use

patterns/habits

- Identifying information behaviourdimension (affective, cognitive,

behavioural)

- Identifying factors that influencepeople’s information behaviour(cultural and social: e.g. norms;

organisational: e.g. role and tasksas well as individual factors)

- Enhancing knowledge ofinformation landscape

- Enhancing users’ informationseeking skills

- Using methods to fosterinformation capabilities

- Developing effective information seeking strategies

- Developing effective strategies to process and use information

Information seeking and use

Information seeking and use

Research outcomes

Understanding information

capabilities and their development

ILChanging information

behaviour

IBUnderstanding information behaviour

Theoritical outcomes

Theories, models, frameworksinsight

Theoritical outcome

Theories, models, frameworks,insight

Practical outcome

System and service design

Practical outcomes

Information literacy programmes

Systematic tranning,participative approach

Research outcomes

understanding IB and people's

factors that influence IB

Figure 4.1: An overview of the differences and similarities between IL and IB research.

Inform

atio

nBehavio

urandInform

atio

nLitera

cy57

the descriptions above that they have followed, to some extent, a similarjourney moving from ‘objective’ observations of behaviour to ‘subjective’interpretations of perception, and a realisation of the complexitiesassociated with both. This complexity stems from the fact that both IB andIL has many dimensions. It can be studied from individual, team, organisa-tional, or cultural perspectives, each analytical lens enabling an understand-ing of how different factors affect the information experience. These framesin turn highlight different cognitive, affective, and behavioural data. This isfurther complicated by the physical environment and access to the range ofartefacts, such as smart phones, people, pads, books and databases, andmedia, such as texts, voice, objects and places, and of course the intellectualcontext, that is, the subject matter (the discipline).

4.5. Discussion

As noted by Walton (2009), the language that has been used to defineIB, for example by Ford (2004b), is similar to that used to describe IL.IB studies tend to focus on understanding people’s IB in specificcontexts (e.g. Lopatovska et al., 2011) or in relation to specific systems(e.g. Vassilakaki, Johnson, & Hartley, 2012); defining information needsand their origin, for example, the influence of role or task; or collecting dataon interaction with information services, for example sources used andpatterns evident in information seeking. They tend not to explicitly focus onpeople’s information capabilities, although as in Vassilakaki’s (2012) paperfailure to understand the functionality of the retrieval system is highlighted.However, in Vassilakaki’s study the author recommends improvement inthe design of services and systems rather than the user’s IL. Nevertheless,IB studies provide a detailed understanding of a person’s informationexperience and enable people, who are involved in developing those people’sIL, to have an insight into information acquisition, processing and use, andthe purpose of their information seeking and the influence of norms and thebarriers that they experience. In fact, IB studies could be seen as a baselinestudy or diagnostic in preparation for an IL intervention from whichchanges in IB could be monitored to indicate the outcome and impact of theintervention.

IL on the other hand focuses explicitly on people’s information capabil-ities and personal capability barriers that may inhibit becoming informed.To some extent these conceptions of capabilities have been framed by whatinformation professionals and academics have assumed to be necessarycompetencies in the academic context. However, detailed cognitivestudies of interventions and their impact (Walton & Hepworth, 2011, 2013)

58 Mark Hepworth et al.

and recent studies (Bruce, Somerville, Stoodley, & Partridge, 2013)that place IL in context, including the workplace (Crawford & Irving,2009; Hepworth & Smith, 2008), have seen a blurring of the IB and ILboundaries.

One invaluable contribution these IB/IL studies make is to enable aninsight into how people experience their IL and lesson the likelihood ofimposing the trainer’s conceptions of IL. That is not to say that these arenecessarily contradictory but that they may be characterised in differentways. To use the language of monitoring and evaluation, a systematic IBstyle study can be a form of needs analysis, that is, a kind of diagnostic.This would serve to identify learning/training needs and also clarifythe goals and values of the learners and hence the purpose of a learningintervention. It would also elicit the characteristics of their informationlandscape. This would enable benchmarking and defining learning outcomesand indicators, as well as the expected impact of an intervention. An exam-ple is Smith and Hepworth’s (2012) phenomenographical study, involvingforty secondary school students, which identified the ways in which the stu-dents experienced information. These were analysed in terms of levels ofawareness. The most immediate was knowledge of sources (the informationlandscape); the second receiving information (knowingly or encountering);the third the process of finding information (filling a gap, conducting a pro-cess); the fourth store of information (internal but not integrated, but part ofthe knowledge base); the fifth processing information (critical thinking, inter-nalised and processed); and the sixth use of information (information is putinto action). As well as helping to comprehend the information experience,from an IB perspective, this kind of study enables, from an IL perspective,the design of interventions that appreciate and capitalise on such levelsof discernment. For example, if the trainer is aware that the concept ofprocessing and using information is the least developed among learners,then emphasis needs to be given to these so that they can be brought to theforeground of learners’ thinking.

Tavares, Hepworth, and DeCosta (2011, 2013) go further down the inte-pretivist path by taking a participative approach, where the respondent isseen as the ‘expert’ (on their lives). This method integrates IB and ILapproaches to exploring people’s information experience, as well as buildinginformation awareness and capabilities. Here, people living in a satellitetown of Brasilia, in Brazil, defined their information needs in relation toaddressing social issues, such as poor transport and health provision; theyprioritised their information needs, investigated their information seeking,and explored solutions. In parallel they developed a greater consciousnessof the importance of information, in terms of how it can be used to addressproblems, and how to acquire information, particularly information thatwould enable advocacy. They also developed collaborative skills and

Information Behaviour and Information Literacy 59

became familiar with a participative way of discussing and agreeing on con-clusions, that is, collaborative knowledge creation.

It can be seen that IB and IL studies have experienced epistemologicalchanges and both have arrived, to some extent, at a similar point. AlthoughIL studies have only a relatively short history, approximately fifteen yearscompared to IB’s fifty, it has in similar fashion increasingly placed anemphasis on context and understanding experience from the perspective ofthe respondent or group. In some cases this led authors to explore IL in aparticipative fashion with people in the community, where the investigatorbecame the facilitator (Tavares et al., 2011, 2013). Such studies reflect a shiftto an interpretivist framework. This is also evident in the phenomeno-graphic studies that have been increasingly evident, building on the work ofBruce (1997).

Figure 4.2 indicates the broad conceptual shifts that have taken place. Itis of course a simplification. The reality is that authors have taken on boarddifferent theoretical perspectives over time and have studied people in arange of contexts. Broad distinctions between positivism and interpretivismare somewhat crude, and are assumed to encompass post-positivist orienta-tions where the access to ‘reality’ is considered to be mediated by our senses.One also has to bear in mind specific approaches and conceptual frame-works, such as phenomenography, grounded theory, or critical realism orpragmatism. However, we would argue that this diagram encapsulatesbroad changes in orientation.

Each approach has its relative merits in terms of investigating a multidi-mensional phenomena, that is, IB/IL can be viewed from cultural/social,organisational/team, and individual perspectives. Interpretive approachestend to value the respondent’s subjective perspective and tend to gatherqualitative data. Interpretivist, qualitative, smaller scale studies help

Interpretivist (qualitative)

Positivist (quantitative)

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2020s

Academic context Everyday Life Workplace context

Constructivist

Cognitive

Behavioural

Figure 4.2: Conceptual shifts in IB and IL research.

60 Mark Hepworth et al.

understand people’s information experience from their perspective andhelp to illuminate related thoughts and emotions, as well as the significancepeople give to phenomena such as actions or events associated with theinformation experience. They can also indicate needs and patterns of beha-viour, which may be investigated further taking different epistemologicalstandpoints. Highly positivist, quantitative, large scale studies help indicatepossible relationships between variables and patterns across a population.Surveys highlight common needs and behaviours, such the Oxford InternetInstitute’s study of internet users (Dutton & Blank, 2011). Mixed methodsapproaches are also evident, that combine qualitative and quantitative datagathering, and take a pragmatic philosophical orientation. Davies (2013)takes such an approach and provides a rich picture of people’s IB associatedwith the acquisition, processing, and dissemination of information bymembers of the Information Services Division of the National HealthService (NHS) Scotland � which raises questions with regard to levels ofcapability.

4.6. Conclusions

It could be argued that IL is a sub set of IB and that IL is one factor thatcould be the focus of IB studies. However, IB studies could benefit fromtaking into account people’s information capabilities and their metacogni-tion, and how these impinge on their IB.

IL research has benefitted from paying attention to context and theenvironment, social and physical, within which information needs, seeking,and use are embedded. These have helped explain the relevance and signifi-cance of IL to the person or organisation. This would help to ensure thatexplanations of IL and suggestions for developing IL are related to thedrivers of behaviour and set the expectations in terms of performance. Forexample, the social nature of learning and the influence of societal normsand goals would need to be taken on board. Both IB and IL researchershave benefitted from the rigorous and critical choice of epistemologicalapproaches and methodologies, since they focus attention on specific IB/ILphenomena.

IB studies are therefore recommended as an essential precursor to thedesign and development of IL interventions. Such studies would help toensure that training is oriented to the audience and their informationexperience. It would also facilitate evaluation of interventions. Pre-trainingstudies accompanied by post training studies would also help trainers tojudge the impact of training interventions, in other words these studiescould be seen as pre and post diagnostics.

Information Behaviour and Information Literacy 61

This chapter has charted the relationship between IL and IB research,and identified common conceptual trends. Differences and similarities werehighlighted which helped to elicit the theoretical underpinnings of theseareas of research, and indicated their complementarity. Both are importantfor understanding people’s information experience and also for developingcapacity building interventions or enabling environments. However,people and their IB and IL experience can be approached from differentperspectives and levels of abstraction. The IL or IB experience can relate,for example, to the moment of interaction with information, in the form ofinformation artefacts, places, things or people and the associated naviga-tion and processing which may lead to becoming informed or perhaps con-fused. It can also include the more holistic interpretation of experience,that is, their experience over time, where people take on an information cul-ture (norms, attitudes, values and interpretations) as well as behavioursand cognitive processes shared and valued by the group.

Generally, it can be seen that the field has evolved and studies are increas-ingly systematic and aware of their orientation. The possibility for furtherresearch is limitless due to the complex nature of IB and IL. Partly as aresult of this complexity, the field offers scope for a variety of approachesand methodologies, for example mathematical approaches using computa-tional linguistics or experimental techniques, using lab based studies toinvestigate the relationship between memory, subject knowledge and brows-ing behaviour; or phenomenological approaches to investigate perceptionsof the information experience; or socio-anthropological approaches, such asexploring the issues of power and trust associated with information transferin specific social or organisational contexts. Such studies, as well as provid-ing theoretical and methodological insights, may also influence the designof information services and systems, and also help to understand thecapabilities people need to benefit from their information experience.

References

ALA. (1989). ALA presidential committee on information literacy final report.

Washington, DC [online]. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/

whitepapers/presidential

Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal

of Documentation, 57(2), 218�259.

Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six frames for information literacy

education. Italics, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/

vol5-1/pdf/sixframes_final%20_1_.pdf

Bruce, C. S. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press.

62 Mark Hepworth et al.

Bruce, C. S., Somerville, M. M., Stoodley, I. D., & Partridge, H. L. (2013).

Diversifying information literacy research: An informed learning perspective. In

M. Hepworth & G. Walton (Eds.), Developing people’s information capabilities:

Fostering information literacy in educational, workplace and community contexts

(pp. 223�240). Bingley: Emerald.

Case, D. (2007). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seek-

ing, needs and behavior (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Case, D. (2012). Looking for information: A survey of research on information

seeking, needs and behavior (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Cheuk, B. (2008). Delivering business value through information literacy in the

workplace. Libri, 58(3), 137�143.

CILIP. (2005). CILIP’s definition of information literacy. Retrieved from http://

www.cilip.org.uk/get-involved/advocacy/information-literacy/ Pages/skills.aspx

Courtright, C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. Annual Review

of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 273�306.

Crawford, J., & Irving, C. (2009). Information literacy in the workplace: A qualita-

tive exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(1),

29�38.

Davies, R. (2013). Towards a model of information behavior of an information

provider: A mixed methods study. Ph.D. thesis, Robert Gordon University,

Aberdeen.

Dervin, B. (2005). What methodology does to theory: Sense-making methodology

as exemplar. In K. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of infor-

mation behaviour (pp. 25�29). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of

Information Science and Technology, 21, 3�33.

Doyle, C. S. (1992). Outcome measures for information literacy. Final report to the

national forum on information literacy (ED 351033). Syracuse, NY: ERIC

Clearinghouse.

Dutton, W. H., & Blank, G. (2011). Next generation users: The internet in Britain

2011. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Retrieved from http://

www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=1#reportsEllis, D., & Haugan, M. (1997). Modelling the information seeking patterns of engi-

neers and research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation,

53(4), 384�403.

Erdelez, S., Basic, J., & Levitov, D. (2011). Potential for inclusion of information

encountering within information literacy models. Information Research, 16(3).

Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/16-3/paper489.html

Fisher, K., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, L. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of information

behaviour. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Ford, N. (2004a). Modeling cognitive processes in information seeking: From

Popper to Pask. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 55(9), 769�782.

Ford, N. (2004b). Towards a model of learning for educational informatics. Journal

of Documentation, 60(2), 183�225.

Hamelink, C. (1976). An alternative to news. Journal of Communication, 26, 122.

Information Behaviour and Information Literacy 63

Hepworth, M. (2007). Knowledge of information behaviour and its relevance to

the design of people-centred information products and services. Journal of

Documentation, 63(1), 33�56.

Hepworth, M., & Smith, M. (2008). Workplace information literacy for administra-

tive staff in higher education. Australian Library Journal, 57(3), 212�236.

Hepworth, M., & Walton, G. (2009). Teaching information literacy for inquiry based

learning. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Horton, F. W. (2007). Understanding information literacy: A primer. Paris: United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Retrieved from http://

unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001570/157020e.pdf

Julien, H., & Williamson, K. (2010). Discourse and practice in information literacy

and information seeking: Gaps and opportunities. Information research, 16(1).

Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/16-1/paper458.html

Kuhlthau, C. (1987). Information skills for an information society: A review of

research. Syracuse University: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lievrouw, L. A., & Farb, S. E. (2003). Information and equity. Annual Review of

Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 499�540.

Limberg, L., & Sundin, O. (2006). Teaching information seeking: Relating informa-

tion literacy education to theories of information behaviour. Information

Research, 12(1). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/12-1/paper280.html

Lloyd, A. (2007). Learning to put out the red stuff: Becoming information literate

through discursive practice. The Library Quarterly, 77(2), 181�198.

Lopatovska, I., Basen, A. S., Duneja, A. M., Kwong, H., Pasquinelli, D. L., &

Sopab, S. …Weller, C. (2011). Information behaviour of New York City subway

commuter. Information Research, 16(4). Paper 501. Retrieved from http://

InformationR.net/ir/16-4/paper501.html

Lubans, J. (1987). Progress in educating the library user. New York, NY: Bowker.

Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its

successes, failures and potential. Information Systems Journal, 16, 317�342.

Mutshewa, A. (2007). A theoretical explanation of information behaviour: A power

perspective. Aslib Proceedings, 59(3), 249�263.

Owens, M. R. (1976). State, government and libraries. Library Journal, 101(1), 27.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2011). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in informa-

tion behaviour. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and

technology (Vol. 35, pp. 43�76). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Savolainen, R. (2002). Network competence and information seeking on the Internet:

From definitions towards a social cognitive mode. Journal of Documentation, 58(2),

211�226.

Smith, M., & Hepworth, M., (2012). Young people: A phenomonographic investi-

gation into the ways they experience information. Libri, 62(June), 157�173.

Talja, S., & Hartel, J. (2007). Revisiting the user-centred turn in information

science research: An intellectual history perspective. Information Research, 12(4).

Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis04.html

64 Mark Hepworth et al.

Tavares, R., Hepworth, M., & DeCosta, S. (2011). Investigating citizens’ informa-

tion needs through participative research: A pilot study in Candangolandia,

Brazil. Information Development, 27(2), 125�138.

Tavares, R., Hepworth, M., & DeCosta, S. (2013). The use of participatory techni-

ques in the communication of information for communities: Information literacy

and collaborative work for citizenship development. In M. Hepworth &

G. Walton (Eds.), Developing people’s information capabilities: Fostering informa-

tion in educational, workplace and community contexts (pp. 241�265). Bingley:

Emerald.

Urquhart, C. (2010). Systematic reviewing, meta-analysis and meta-synthesis for

evidence-based library and information science. Information Research, 15(3).

Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis708.html

Vakkari, P. (1997). Information seeking in context: A challenging metatheory. In

P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context

(pp. 451�646). London: Taylor Graham.

Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. Annual Review of Information

Science and Technology, 37, 413�464.

Vassilakaki, E., Johnson, F., & Hartley, R. J. (2012). Image seeking in multilingual

environments: A study of the user experience. Information Research, 17(4). Paper

539. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/17-4/paper539.html

Virkus, S. (2003). Information literacy in Europe: A literature review. Information

Research, 8(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper159.html

Walton, G. (2009). Developing a new blended approach to fostering information

literacy. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Loughborough University.

Walton, G., & Hepworth, M. (2011). A longitudinal study of changes in learners’

cognitive states during and following an information literacy teaching inter-

vention. Journal of Documentation, 67(3), 449�479.

Walton, G., & Hepworth, M. (2013). Using assignment data to analyse a blended

information literacy intervention: A quantitative approach. Journal of Library

and Information Science, 45(1), 53�63.

Whitworth, A. (2009). Information obesity. Oxford: Chandos.

Williamson, K. (1998). Discovered by chance: The role of incidental information

acquisition in an ecological model of information use. Library and Information

Science Research, 20(1), 23�40.

Wilson, T. D. (1994). Information needs and uses: 50 years of progress. In

B. C. Vickery (Ed.), Fifty years of information progress: A journal of documenta-

tion review (pp. 15�51). London: Aslib. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/

tdw/publ/papers/1994FiftyYears.html

Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of

Documentation, 55(3), 249�270. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/

papers/1999JDoc.html

Yates, C., Partridge, H. L., & Bruce, C. S. (2009). Learning wellness: How ageing

Australians experience health information literacy. The Australian Library

Journal, 58(3), 269�285. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31027/

Information Behaviour and Information Literacy 65