Chapter 2

The Emergence of Conceptual Modelling

in Information Behaviour Research

David Ellis

Abstract

This chapter explores how early theorising about informationbehaviour and the emergence of conceptual modelling in informationbehaviour research had its beginnings in thinking that was taking placein the very late 1970s and early 1980s in Europe and the USA. Some ofthese ideas were presented in papers that are very familiar and muchcited, but others in papers which may be less familiar and,consequently, may not be much cited, but which together contributeto explain why the rapid development in conceptual thinking about, asopposed to the simple empirical study of, information behaviour tookplace from that period to the present. Four dimensions are identifiedwhich together underpin the emergence of conceptual modelling incontemporary information behaviour research. The four dimensionsare (1) the adoption of a social science perspective, (2) a qualitative asopposed to a quantitative orientation, (3) a focus on the modelling ofinformation behaviour and (4) a concern with empirical validation andexemplification in the development of such models. These fourdimensions came together to provide a tacit rather than explicitframework for subsequent theorising about information behaviour,and in particular underpinned studies involved the conceptualmodelling of information behaviour. Information behaviour researchthen began to develop conceptual models very different from theempiricism of earlier studies, and, at the same time exhibited a strongconcern for the exemplification or validation of these models in

New Directions in Information Behaviour

Library and Information Science, 17–35

Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1876-0562/doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2011)002011a005

18 David Ellis

empirical studies. This combination of theoretically based conceptualmodelling and empirical exemplification and validation together gavemuch of the character to information behaviour research from thelater 1970s and early 1980s, an influence that extends to the present.

2.1. Introduction

Examination of the conceptual frameworks brought together in Fisher,Erdelez, and McKechnie (2005) reveals that almost all of the referencesbrought together in the studies are to post-1970s and 1980s research. Thereferences to earlier material tend to be to sociological and psychologicalconceptual and methodological influences on thinking in informationbehaviour research, such as Berger and Luckman (1967), Garfinkel (1967),Glaser and Strauss (1967), Kelly (1963), Schutz (1967) or Vygotsky (1978),rather than to the work of information behaviour researchers, or referencesto earlier authors were to those working in areas tangential to informationbehaviour research such as Allen (1977) on technology transfer, Crane’s(1972) work on communication and invisible colleges, or to authors likePaisley (1968) and Taylor (1968) who were berating the paucity or povertyof conceptual frameworks underlying empirical research in the field. Ofcourse, there is a natural tendency for researchers to cite recent material, butthe paucity of references to material before the late 1970s and early 1980swas not a coincidence, as that period represents a watershed in thedevelopment of research into information behaviour, and marks theemergence of conceptual thinking in information behaviour research. Thiswas associated at the time with the increased interest in the use of models ininformation behaviour research and a more explicit theoretical approach toinformation studies, which was very different from the naı̈ve empiricism ofearlier studies.

Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, there has been a clear emergence of aliterature that is native to information behaviour research, and which isexplicitly concerned with the development of conceptual frameworks both tostructure and guide research in the field. Some of this work has its origins incritical examinations of the foundations of information behaviour which wastaking place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. What is interesting is that thereappears to be no apparent single clear reason for this sea change. In fact therewere not one but four separate dimensions to the changes that took place inthe late 1970s and early 1980s in the study of information behaviour. Theseare inter-linked and it is difficult to imagine contemporary studies ofinformation behaviour in the form they now take in the absence of these fourdimensions to such research. The four dimensions were the adoption of

Theorising Information Behaviour 19

1. Social science perspective;2. Qualitative as opposed to quantitative orientation;3. Focus on the explicit modelling of information behaviour;4. Concern with empirical validation and exemplification.

Taken individually, each dimension was significant but taken togetherthey contributed to the emergence of information behaviour research in aform that is recognisable as underpinning contemporary studies and set thepattern for theorising about information behaviour.

The adoption of a social science perspective differentiates the researchtradition from the earlier somewhat muddled origins of information sciencein studies of scientific information use and professional practice. Thebehavioural focus, as well as differentiating the approach from the earlierconcerns with information needs and user studies, also placed a distancebetween studies of information behaviour and the more limited focus oninformation seeking. The explicit concern with model building was linked tothe adoption of the social science perspective; previous studies ofinformation needs and user studies were empirically grounded but showedlittle or no interest in the development of models of needs or users. Thequalitative orientation, as well as differentiating the emerging approachesfrom previous quantitative research in library, information and user studies,also reflected the more general growing interest in the social sciences, at thetime, in qualitative research. The concern with empirical exemplification andvalidation, that is, the building of models that were linked to empiricalstudies provided the empirical evidence for the models and the basis for theirvalidation and at the same time differentiated the approach from theprevious abstract concerns with model building.

In order to capture the feel of the field and of the intellectual milieu of thetime, it is illuminating to consider a debate which was taking place betweenEuropean researchers in the field of information studies and user behaviourat that time — Norman Roberts in Department of Information Studies atthe University of Sheffield, UK and Wersig and Windel of the FreeUniversity, Berlin (Ellis, Roberts, Hounsell, Saracevic, & Persson, 1985;Roberts, 1982; Wersig & Windel, 1985). Each of the dimensions can be seento be part of the debate, but at the same time, the debate was taking placealmost in a conceptual and empirical vacuum when compared to the present.Perhaps it is this element of the debate which provides the strongest evidencefor considering that the period did indeed represent a watershed in the studyof information behaviour. In that, the dimensions were present but had notyet combined to generate the body of theoretical and empirical knowledgethat would now be recognised as constituting information behaviourresearch.

20 David Ellis

2.2. The Demise of Information Needs

There was a history of empirical research in user studies which could be saidto have informed subsequent thinking on information behaviour, but thiswas focused on information needs and uses, and on information seeking.Nor was there any real concern with theorising information behaviour.From a contemporary point of view this may seem strange, but theexplanation for this is found in the literature and conceptualisation ofinformation needs and uses itself. Paisley (1968) reviewed the state of studiesof information needs and uses, and highlighted that although there had beenimprovements in the methodology of user studies, the level of developmentof conceptualisation remained poor.

‘Until now, the most predictable and justified complaint against userstudies has been defective methodologyy . Although methodologicaldefects still appear in the 1967 literature, it may now be time to objectmore strenuously to poor conceptualisation’ (Paisley, 1968, p. 2). Paisleyargued that ‘shallow conceptualisation implied a failure of user studies totake into account: the full array of information sources that are available;the uses to which information will be put; the background, motivation,professional orientation and other individual characteristics of the user; thesocial, political, economic and other systems that powerfully affect the useand his work; the consequences of information — for example, productivity(Paisley, 1968, p. 2).

In consequence, Paisley considered that: ‘As a result, in many studies, it ishard to glimpse a real scientist or technologist at work, under constraintsand pressures, creating products drawing upon the elaborate communica-tion network that connects him with sources of necessary knowledge’(Paisley, 1968, p. 2). Paisley was not here arguing that user studies needed toembark upon larger projects in order to deploy or display the kind ofconceptual sophistication in research design that he considered was lackingat the time. On the contrary he argued that ‘Even small projects candemonstrate awareness of the complex systems that affect the flow ofinformation’ (Paisley, 1968, p. 2). Paisley referred to the weakness of userstudies as resulting from shallow conceptualisation, which in one sense itwas. But the failure of research in information needs and use to develop wasdue to more than shallow conceptualisation. The notion of information needitself was stultifying the research enterprise.

The focus on information needs and uses, continued to dominate AnnualReview of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) chapters into the1980s when Dervin and Nilan (1986) wrote their chapter on informationneeds and uses. They followed the convention of using information needsand uses as the umbrella for their review that covered some 300 studies ofthe post-1978 literature. But in a departure from previous reviews, they

Theorising Information Behaviour 21

decided rather than focusing on the details of information needs and uses tostudies ‘to focus on issues relating to the conceptualisations that drive theresearch’ (Dervin & Nilan 1986, p. 3). They gave two reasons for this — thefirst connected to the continuing debate around conceptualisation reflectedin previous ARIST reviews.

As with Paisley almost 20 years earlier, they noted the ‘concern forconceptual impoverishment in the information needs uses literature has runthrough past ARIST chaptersymanifested as calls to (1) take advantage oftheory from the social sciences; (2) develop theories and conceptualframeworks; and (3) improve the predictive value of theory’ (Dervin &Nilan, 1986, pp. 3–4). The second reason for focusing on conceptualisationwas rooted in our observation of the current information needs and usesliterature. This literature exhibits a tension. On the one hand, most of theempirical studies look very much like those reviewed in past ARISTchapters. On the other, a number of detailed critical essays have emergedcalling for fundamental reassessments of what information needs and usesresearch is about. These essays address, in particular, a concern forconceptualisation and, more particularly, a concern for the nature of basicassumptions and definitions’ (Dervin & Nilan 1986, p. 4).

One of the articles reviewed was Wilson’s (1981a) on user studies andinformation needs. Wilson offered a powerful critique for the notion ofinformation need. Wilson (1981a) reviewed the psychological literature onneeds and from this drew out a typology or hierarchy of needs identifyingthe following categories ‘physiological needs, such as the need for food,water, shelter, etc. affective needs (sometimes called psychological oremotional needs) such as the need attainment, for domination, etc. andcognitive needs, such as the need to plan, to learn a skill, etc.’ (Wilson,1981a, p. 7). He concluded that information seeking may take place in orderto satisfy these needs but that the collocation of the terms information needwas unhelpful or misleading: ‘It may be advisable to remove the term‘‘information needs’’ from our professional vocabulary and to speak insteadof information-seeking towards the satisfaction of needs’ Wilson’s (1981a,p. 8).

This critique was taken up by Wersig and Windel (1985). ‘So far, mostmodels in this area have started with the notion of ‘‘information need’’. AsWilson (1981a) has pointed out this category is — Very unclear (and mayremain so); not very realistic because in most cases manifest informationneeds may not be related to more general needs’ (Wersig & Windel, 1985,pp. 13–14). Neither Roberts nor Wersig and Windel deployed the notion ofinformation need in the traditional manner as a catchall explanatoryconcept. Wilson’s (1981a) critique of the use of information needs as atheoretical construct in user studies had more or less demolished the conceptof information need as a valid starting ground or basis for explanations of

22 David Ellis

information behaviour, and as far as user studies was concerned, andeffectively destroyed the notion of information need as either a validconceptual or empirical construct, at least insofar as providing any usefulstarting point for research in information studies.

In consequence, although the notion of information need had previouslybeen all pervading, in the user studies literature Roberts (1982) made noexplicit reference to it and Wersig and Windel (1985), following Wilson(1981a), rejected it. Instead, Wersig and Windel (1985) put forward anargument for treating problems as the basis from which analysis ofinformation processes, behaviour or activities should start, and recom-mended the development of a theory of information actions. And, Roberts(1982), by means of an analogy with economic man, the theoreticalconstruct from economics, the development of more complex accounts ofinformation man.

Roberts (1982) and Wersig and Windel (1985) concurred on the view thatinformation studies was, at the time in a state of flux with regard to its aims,methods and scope. They both were dissatisfied with the theoreticalbarrenness of much research carried out at the time in information studiesin general, and in user studies in particular. They both saw the need forgreater rigour in the treatment of basic explanatory concepts in the field andsaw information studies as having affinities to the social sciences in bothscope and method (Roberts, 1976) or as an emergent social science discipline(Wersig & Windel, 1985). Finally, both argued for more qualitative researchin the field to remedy the basis deficiencies in the research tradition and toenrich the basis of conceptualisation in the field.

2.3. Social Science Perspective

The first dimension was the explicit adoption of a social science perspectiveor the acceptance that the social sciences provided a fertile ground forinformation studies research; this included ‘the examination of informationproblems in the social sciences; the relevance of social research method toinvestigation in information science generally; the investigation by socialscientists of issues of present or potential relevance to information science’(Wilson, 1980, p. 5). The adoption of the social science perspective could beseen as applying not merely to individual studies but to the whole theoreticalmilieu in which studies of user behaviour operated. This was elaborated byRoberts in 1976 in his paper on social considerations for a definition ofinformation science. Roberts argued that information science was anemergent social science discipline, and that ‘Although no agreed definitionof the scope of this science has emerged most contributors to the debateaccept the social significance of information concepts and phenomena and,

Theorising Information Behaviour 23

hence, that information science is a social discipliney and perhaps mostimportantly, is the recognition that the methodologies and expectationsof information science are those of the social sciences’ (Roberts, 1976,pp. 256–257).

These were more radical sentiments at the time than it may appear to benow. And for Roberts had the important corollary that ‘the interests ofinformation scientists cannot be limitedy solely to certain sections of thecommunity’. The ‘social implications of communication and informationare such that only the widest social base is acceptable as an area of study forinformation science’ (Roberts, 1976, p. 256). This was an observation thatRoberts noted he owed to Wilson (Roberts, 1976, p. 257), and was clearevidence that information science was moving away from the study ofrelatively elite groups, such as scientists, and social scientists, and engineersand other professional groups and their interaction with relatively restrictedranges of information sources and services, to encompass a more catholicstudy of individuals and groups in interaction with all kinds and forms ofinformation. This is a theme which underlies almost all contemporaryresearch in information behaviour.

Roberts’ argument was concerned with the scope, methods and approachof the discipline, loosely defined, rather than individual studies. ‘At variousstages in the development of an academic discipline it becomes necessary toattempt a re-examination of observed trends and preoccupations as apreliminary to re-affirming, or re-stating, the major concerns of the disciplineand establishing agreement regarding the main lines of attack upon what areperceived as central issues and problems’ (Roberts, 1982, p. 93). It isinteresting that Roberts social considerations for a definition of informationscience and search for information man and Wilson’s consideration of userstudies and information needs illustrate a consensus that was building at thetime in Sheffield around the notion of user studies as a social sciencediscipline, and one in need of a more sophisticated conceptual frameworkthan had been inherited from the previous literature on user studies andinformation need.

In Berlin, Wersig and Windel (1985) were also arguing the case for thetreatment of information science as a social science, though theirconceptualisation of it was rather different to Roberts. Information science,seen as an academic discipline and not as a more or less irrelevant appendixto traditional information practice, currently seems to be undergoingchangey . Generally, information science is forming itself into some ofsocial science at the interface between such technical disciplines ascybernetics, computer science, telecommunications, technology-based sub-jects like mass communications, social science like sociology and humanitieslike psychology. Having not yet built a coherent corpus of ideas, models ortheories or analytic-methodological tools, or a scholarly tradition,

24 David Ellis

information science is still looking for its ‘true destination’ (Wersig &Windel, 1985, p. 11). From a contemporary standpoint, the association ofinformation studies with the social sciences may seem obvious.

But at the time, the idea that information studies should be treated as asocial science was not. Information science, as a discipline had been largelydeveloped by scientists and engineers, indeed there was the hope that itmight develop into one of the ‘hard’ sciences. For a contemporary reader,not used to viewing information studies as something other than a socialdiscipline, this may seem odd. However, at that time information studies orinformation science was perceived as half professional practice and halfquasi-science. The keyword ‘information’ had a place to play in this, as itstill had connotations taken from the early statistical models of informationbut had been taken over by the library and information science community,and been given a wider and very different brief. Information was nowunderstood to be far more than that which indicated the statisticalpossibilities of messages in signals. Information was now being treated asthe basis of human communication and associated with this was an interestin qualitative rather than quantitative aspects of information behaviour.

2.4. Qualitative Orientation

Roberts and Wersig and Windel were also in agreement that furtheradvances in information behaviour research needed a qualitative dimens-ion — ‘a new emphasis upon qualitative aspects of information behaviour isdiscernible’ (Roberts, 1982, p. 101). Wilson had argued that: ‘Qualitativeresearch seems particularly appropriate to the study of the needs underlyinginformation-seeking behaviour because: our concern is with uncovering thefacts of the everyday life of the people being investigated; by uncoveringthose facts we aim to understand the needs that exist which press theindividual towards information-seeking behaviour; by better understandingof those needs we are able better to understand what meaning informationhas in the everyday life of the people; and by all of the foregoing we shouldhave a better understanding of the user and be able to design more effectiveinformation systems’ (Wilson, 1981a, p. 11).

The interest in qualitative research was not restricted to informationstudies. Wilson elaborated on the changes which were taking place — moregenerally in the social sciences, and, in particular, on the increasing interestin qualitative methods. ‘In the past, the choice of social research methodshas been determined by the prevailing idea of ‘‘quantitative’’ research on asomewhat unsophisticated version of the model of scientific researchy .Within the social sciences, however, a degree of dissatisfaction withquantitative methods has emerged not on the ground of performance but

Theorising Information Behaviour 25

on the basis of philosophical underpinningsy . The most striking evidencefor a change in direction in social research methods seen in the coincidentalpublication in December 1979 of two journal issues given over entirely topapers on qualitative research: the Sociological Review, and AdministrativeScience Quarterly’ (Wilson, 1980, p. 7).

The launch of the journal Social Science Information Studies — edited byWilson and Roberts — encouraged this development. In the first issueWilson noted that although ‘It is not the intention of SSIS to becomeassociated with a single methodological ‘school’ and papers with a rigorousquantitative approach will always be welcomey reports of research inthe qualitative mould will be encouraged simply in order to expose thesemethods to wider critical examinations’ (Wilson, 1980, p. 8). An early issueof the journal was devoted to a symposium on qualitative approaches to thestudy of information problems edited by Hounsell and Winn (1981) andcomprising of papers examining the use of different methodologicalapproaches to qualitative research in information studies such asHammersley (1981) on ethnography, Stenhouse (1981) on case studies,Harris (1981) — who was a the time Director of the Centre for Research onUser Studies at Sheffield — on illuminative evaluation and Wilson (1981b)on action research. The use of qualitative methods was not without its criticsas Oldman (1981) records in his examination of sources of antagonism toqualitative research in this symposium issue of the journal Social ScienceInformation Studies. The antagonism seemed to stem from the perceived lackof scientific validity or objectivity of qualitative research exemplified inquestions like ‘What is your hypothesis? -or assertions such as Your sampleis not representative. You are too involved’ (Oldman, 1981, p. 254).

One qualitative methodology which was beginning to attract particularattention in information studies was Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theoryapproach. Grounded theory is a theoretical approach that begins fromempirical observation and derives its explanatory categories from suchobservation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) while retaining general validitythrough the method of constant comparison. Hammersley had examinedthe use of grounded theory as an approach to generating and developingtheory in ethnography. As Selden (2005) notes — ‘The field for GT isprepared by the introduction in 1980 of the journal Social ScienceInformation Studies. In its first issue studies using qualitative methods andhaving a phenomenological foundation were invited’ (Selden, 2005, p. 120).

The basic tenets of the grounded theory approach were the employmentof an inductive approach to data collection and analysis, in which categoriesand properties, as well as relations between the categories and properties arederived from the data. Comparison was significant in the development ofgrounded theory in that the approach uses the constant comparison methodwhereby instances or exemplifications of data are constantly compared to

26 David Ellis

one another both in the analytical phase and in guiding data collection. Afeature of the grounded theory approach is that constant comparison shouldbe used to guide ongoing data collection as well as data analysis, andbe driven by the needs of the developing theory. This is what differentiatesthe approach from that of simple induction. Finally, issues of validity wereaddressed by closely linking the categories and properties to the datacollected and providing multiple examples of categories, properties and theirrelationships from the data.

Although Wilson did not apply grounded theory in his own research, hewas a major influence on its early deployment in the field of informationstudies in PhD studies at Sheffield, such as those by Vedi (1986) and Ellis(1987), who described the application of the grounded theory approach andthe reasons for the general predilection to qualitative research in somedetail, focusing, in particular, on conceptual issues in relation to analysis,comparison and validity and practical issues of data recording, data codingand data selection (Ellis, 1993). This led to something of a tradition ofgrounded theory-based, or influenced, studies at Sheffield. So, althoughWilson was not an explicit advocate of grounded theory, he can be seen, asfar as information studies research is concerned, as having imported thegrounded theory approach from the USA to the UK.

2.5. Information Modelling

The concern with modelling information behaviour and the development ofassociated theories was stated emphatically by Wersig and Windel: ‘We donot believe thaty it is enough for information scientistsy to do researchwork and not to care for model building, theory and so on.’ (Wersig &Windel, 1985, p. 22) but took two different paths one focusing on the notionof ‘information man’ the other on the idea of ‘information action’.Information man is a general creation constructed around tendencies,whereas information action is concerned with more specific resolutions toparticular problems. The organising principle of information man is that ofgeneral features motivating or underlying information behaviour. Theorganising principle of information action is the contribution of particularactions to problem resolutions. Almost a decade earlier, Roberts (1976) haddrawn an analogy between economic man and information man, andalthough, compared to ‘economic man’, ‘information man’ seemed a morerudimentary construct, Roberts considered its presence significant.

Information man was characterised by taking ‘rational information acts;possessing a full knowledge of available information sources allowing theselection of the ‘best’ source for a specific purpose; accepting and applyinginformation so that ‘best’ decisions result; primitive information man lives in

Theorising Information Behaviour 27

a world shaped by the need to generate, obtain and use information, noother form of activity capable of influencing information behaviour isallowed to intrude; undertaking information activities within recognizablyartificial information environments, e.g. the formal information system of asingle organization’ (Roberts, 1982, p. 96).

Roberts argued that literature for user studies suggested ‘informationman’s behaviour is relatively stable over time; information behaviour maybe described adequately in terms of relationships with information systemsof artificially limited potential; motives impelling individuals to the use ofinformation systems are evident enough not to require systematicinvestigation; aspects of behaviour other than the direct obtaining and useof information are irrelevant to the understanding of the informationprocess; that there exists a direct, and positive behaviour consequences asproductivity, effectiveness, efficiency, achievement, etc. and the usage ofinformation and information systems; and that information behaviour isrationally motivated and organized’ (Roberts, 1982, p. 97). He concludedthat this indicated ‘the presence of information man of a primitive type,closely resembling his analogue, economic man of the classical period’(Roberts, 1982, p. 97). ‘Information man may be viewed as a useful researchdevice if, and only if, the behavioural assumptions which he embodiesreflect, and direct attention towards, information realitiesyAdvances inthe understanding of information behaviour would seem to require theelaboration of more complex models of information manyThe indicationsare strong that information science has entered upon this stage ofdevelopment’ (Roberts, 1982, pp. 100–101).

Wersig andWindel had separately developed their construct of informationaction around the notion of problem treatment. Thismodel can be imagined toconsist of the following three structural components: (1) the individualapproach— ‘insofar as every situation and action information processes haveto be reduced to individual actors and their personal conditions (psychologicalfactors such as traits, motives, values etc. do play an important role’; (2) thecollective approach— ‘actors are often not only individuals in their own right,but also representative of collective units which influence the individual’sperformance’; (3) the process approach — ‘the dynamics of an informationprocess, whereby the dominant structural factors in any underlyinginformation process are delineated’ (Wersig & Windel, 1985, p. 13).

They acknowledged similarities to Roberts in relation to the individualcomponent; however, in terms of the collective and the process components,they stressed a fundamental difference in approach in putting at the centreof their approach the notion of the problem and problem treatment —‘Generally speaking, the underlying ‘‘force’’’ which induces individuals andcollective units to look for information, process, store and disseminate it is aproblem which can be defined as a state of uneasiness about any object in the

28 David Ellis

world or universe’ (Wersig & Windel, 1985, p. 13). ‘The starting point of theconcept ‘‘problem treatment’’ is a human being at a certain time, who isinfluenced by the factors: Present situation. Past states of the organism(personal history). System of preferences (values, opinions, attitudes, etc.).Set of potentials (cognitive, affective aesthetic etc.)’ (Wersig & Windel, 1985,p. 15).

They criticised Roberts for failing to describe what the structural andempirical dimensions of information man would be, or of what informationman’s motives and behaviour might look like, and particularly his statementthat ‘ultimately, all information activity is reducible to individual motiva-tions and actions’ (Roberts, 1982, p. 98 in Wersig & Windel, 1985, p. 12).However, this did not justify their conclusion that information man wasprimarily a psychological construct (Wersig & Windel, 1985, p. 12).Individual activities and motivations as Roberts’ argued may indeed bethe focus of study in information behaviour research, but the constructionof any model will be by reference to the norms at work in such activities,whatever their source or nature. Wersig and Windel’s (1985) argument that‘ideal type approach is a normative one and, therefore necessarily conflictswith the [Roberts’] plea for empirical research’ (Wersig & Windel, 1985,p. 12) was wrong.

Because an ideal type is constructed by reference to norms does not meanthat an explanation which employs an ideal type is itself normative. Forexample, a rule of conduct derived from the construction of an ideal type andapplied as a ‘heuristic principle’, permitting us to discern the actual causaldeterminants ofy empirical actionsy functions as an ‘ideal typical’construction, and we employ it as an hypothesis, the applicability of whichto the ‘facts’ would have to be ‘confirmed’ and which would help indetermining the actual causes of his actions and the degree of approximationto the ‘ideal type’ (Weber, 1907 in Runciman 1978, p. 104). Although an idealtype is itself constructed and understood in terms of norms, the ideal-typeapproach is not necessarily weak in explaining actions which do not conformto those norms, as Weber points out ‘When we adopt the kind of scientificprocedure which involves the construction of types, we can investigate themand make fully comprehensible all those irrational, affectively determinedpatterns of meaning which influence action, by representing them as‘deviations’ from a pure type of action as it would be if it proceeded in arationally purposive way’ (Weber, 1922, in Runciman, 1978, p. 9).

Their model of information actionwas of essentially the same logical statusas Roberts’ of information man (1982). It represented an ideal type of thenotion of an information action. Roberts’ (1982) was sketched out as an idealtype and Wersig and Windel’s (1985) as a model, but both are essentiallyheuristic devices, in themselves neither explanations nor descriptions of thephenomenawithwhich they deal. One focuses on the general characteristics of

Theorising Information Behaviour 29

information behaviour, more or less irrespective of individual actions, theother on particular characteristics of information behaviour, or informationactions, more or less irrespective of the general characteristics of informationbehaviour that might underpin such behaviour or action.

However, they recognised that the concepts of information man andinformation action were in some respects different takes on the phenomenabeing studied. And, although they argued for the superior power of theirconcept of information action they accepted that ‘We are all either‘information men’ or ‘information actors’’. Therefore, any of these models(and we are simply talking about two different kinds of models) could beconsidered in the light of how near they come to what we know, what weexperience, what we feel if we look at ourselves as prototypes. If ‘groundedtheory’ (as Wilson points out) has some sense, then it has to ground first inourselves because we never come nearer to reality. And here is the very pointof the controversy. We still do not believe that the reality of actions withregard to information could be touched on the one-dimensional ‘informa-tion man’y that ‘information action’ is a more comprehensive, morerealistic and more powerful model than ‘information man’ (Wersig &Windel, 1985, p. 22).

The distinction which was being made between information man andinformation action, or, more correctly, between explanations of informationbehaviour based on general characteristics of information behaviour —information man — and explanations of information behaviour based onparticular information acts — information action — represented differentfacets of modelling information behaviour. On the question of whichapproach was the better, there were grounds for agnosticism. Both sufferedfrom the defect of not having of empirical data to back up their competingtheoretical claims. A deficiency admitted by Wersig and Windel in relationto their claim for the superiority of a model based on the concept ofinformation action ‘of course such a model has to be developed further andvalidated empirically’ (Wersig & Windel, 1985, p. 21).

2.6. Empirical Exemplification

The debate on the nature of model that should underpin informationbehaviour research had taken place in an empirical vacuum. The competingmodels, if indeed they were competing, stood in need of empiricalexemplification. In relation to the concept of information man empiricalexemplification was already under way. Ellis (1989) following the groundedtheory approach had developed a model of information behaviour whichinitially had six characteristics — starting (activities characteristic of the

30 David Ellis

initial search for information); chaining (following chains of citations orother forms of referential connection between material); browsing (semi-directed searching in an area of potential interest); differentiating (usingdifferences between sources as a filter on the nature and quality of materialexamined); monitoring (maintaining awareness of developments in a fieldthrough the monitoring of particular sources) and extracting (systematicallyworking through a particular source to locate material. This was latercomplemented by the following categories: of verifying (checking thatinformation is correct) and ending (characteristics of information seeking atthe end of a project) (Ellis, 2005).

The features of the model together represented the major genericcharacteristics of the social scientists and scientists’ information patterns,and any individual pattern could, therefore, be described in terms of thefeature of the model. However, this was never put forward as a processmodel of information behaviour. Rather this was a concatenated model, thecomponents of which could only ever be put together or articulated in anactual piece of information behaviour. The detailed interrelation orinteraction of the features in any individual information pattern dependingon the unique circumstances of the information activities of the personconcerned at that particular point in time. The relationship between thefeatures of the model could, therefore, only be indicated in abstract andgeneral terms unless there was a reference to a particular information action.

So, relationships between features of the model could only be describedhypothetically, that is, starting might lead to chaining, differentiating mightplay a role in identifying sources for monitoring or extracting mightcomplement monitoring, but in terms of any individual information pattern(or particular sequence of information activities), it would be possible tostate these relationships categorically. For example, in practice starting didlead to chaining, differentiating did play a role in identifying sources formonitoring and extracting did complement monitoring. The model did not,therefore, constitute a hierarchic sequence for classifying individualinformation patterns, nor a prescriptive set of search heuristics, but rathera set of related categories, which taken together, could be used to describeindividual information patterns, and help to explain details of theirtopography (Ellis, 1989).

It is, of course, easy to see how Ellis’s study itself emerges from theintellectual debate that was taking place at the time in Europe. Roberts wasEllis’s PhD supervisor, and later Wilson his PhD advisor. Wilson mentioned,though not advocated, the grounded theory approach. Ellis acknowledged theenormous debt in terms of method to Glaser and Strauss — particularlyapparent in the choice of samples for interviewing and the form of the analysisof the interview transcripts. However, the influence of two other Americansociological works was also acknowledged: Diesing’s (1972) Patterns of

Theorising Information Behaviour 31

Discovery in the Social Sciences, and Patton’s (1980) Qualitative EvaluationMethod. Diesing’s in clarifying the relationship between formalist andempiricist experimentation and in providing an understanding of thecharacteristics of holistic theories, and Patton’s in the actual conduct of theinterviews, in the adoption of the interview guide approach and in the decisionto make full transcripts for the purposes of analysis. In fact, in many ways,Ellis’s study was more North American than European. It was moreinfluenced by North American sociological research and by the qualitativeapproach to research at the time, than it was by the theoretical debate takingplace in Europe.

The theoretical and methodological influences were all American —Glaser and Strauss, Diesing and Patton — and the concern with empiricalexemplification or validation of the model derived was new to the Europeanscene. In this last respect, there are similarities between Ellis’s approach tomodel building and that of North American researcher Brenda Dervin whowas, more or less contemporaneously, developing her sense-makingapproach to modelling information behaviour, in tandem with her empiricalwork.

The sense-making approach was introduced into information studiesresearch by Dervin in 1976 (Dervin, 1983, 1992, 2005). The sense-makingapproach encompasses interactions between context (power structures anddynamics; domain knowledge systems; cultures and communities); outcomes(helps, hindrances; functions, dysfunctions; consequences, impacts, effects;future horizons); bridge (ideas, cognitions, thoughts; attitudes, beliefs,values; feelings, emotions, intuitions; memories, stories, narratives); situa-tion (histories; experiences; identities; past horizons; present horizons;barriers and constraints); verbings (sense-making; sense-unmaking); gap(questions, confusions; muddles, riddles; angst) (Dervin, 2005). The conceptof a gap in understanding is central to the sense-making approach.Individuals proceed with the knowledge they have in or about a situationuntil they experience a gap in their knowledge. This bridging of gap requiresinformation or knowledge outside the individual’s previous experience.

However, ‘Sense-Making mandates that communicating be conceptua-lised as gap bridging — not in the purposive problem solving sense (althoughthat is one sub-set of all gap bridgings) but in the sense of gap-bridging as amandate of the human condition’ Dervin, 2005, p. 27). Dervin provides ananalysis of information behaviour which takes as its focus a generalisedmodel information behaviour — independent of both general characteristicsof information seeking behaviour and specific problem solving situations.Thus, sense making is an interactive process of generating understanding of asituation, rather than a one-off solution of a problem. In this, there aresimilarities between the sense-making approach and the central concept ofthe information action approach — the problematic situation.

32 David Ellis

The problematic situation was conceived as a ‘state of uneasiness’ aboutthings. The approach suggested was not that of problem solving butproblem treatment. Problem treatment has individual, collective and processcomponents. The notion of bridging a gap between the individuals’ previousexperience or understanding and the new conditional understanding hasaffinities to what was being suggested in the problem treatment approach.That is, the cognition of a problem is individual and cognition of a problemmay not lead to a solution but to some form of transformation of theproblem solution may in fact mean redefinition, and external knowledgemay only have a secondary role compared to internal fragments ofknowledge which are re-constituted. In this respect, the components of theproblem treatment approach have many formal or structural similarities tothe sense-making approach while lacking its substantive and empiricalfoundations.

2.7. Conclusion

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the information studies field was beingdrawn towards the social science perspective; at the same time as the socialsciences were being attracted towards the application of qualitativemethods, or to a qualitative orientation; this was associated with interestin the development and deployment of theoretical models and with concernswith validity, raised by the shift from quantitative to qualitative methods,heightening the concern for empirical validation and exemplification, inpart, as a response to the suspicion of qualitative research being toosubjective, compared to the established background of quantitative researchin the social sciences. Put together the different forces in play at that time ledto the emergence of conceptual modelling of information behaviour in theunique fashion it has taken in information studies research:

1. The adoption of a social science perspective developed from the debatetaking place at the time as to the relative position of information studiesas an academic discipline as opposed to a reflection on practice;

2. The qualitative orientation reflected the contemporary debate in socialscience research and in particular the increasing interest in qualitativeresearch methods in the social sciences;

3. The explicit focus on modelling information behaviour derived fromexisting interest and practice of modelling in the social sciences and thefrustration with the purely empirical approach previously dominatinginformation studies research;

Theorising Information Behaviour 33

4. The concern with empirical exemplification and validation represented anattempt to provide a sound empirical basis for the theoretical modelsbeing developed.

The coming together of these dimensions was in part coincidental.However, once the pattern had been set its adoption by subsequentresearchers can be seen as more tacit than explicit. One looks in vain forexplicit citation to a small number of canonical studies which might providethe basis for the perceived and real shift in the research tradition or origin ofthe information behaviour research corpus. The tacit elements to a researchtradition are subtle and revealed as much in what is not said or studied aswhat is. The adoption of a social science perspective, a qualitativeorientation, the explicit modelling of information behaviour and concernfor empirical exemplification and validation became the tacit elements toinformation behaviour research. Recently, it has been suggested that LISresearchers are conservative in their approach to methodology.

This does not seem consistent with the facts of information behaviourresearch going back over 30 years. Information behaviour researchersdisplay an eclectic approach to research questions, theoretical frameworksand methodological approaches. The differing approaches outlined abovehave each provided different perspectives and different research agendas forstudies of information behaviour. Associated with these developments, andwhat has characterised the emergence of conceptual thinking in informationbehaviour research, is the extent to which conceptual approaches have beenimported from outside the discipline, and also the extent to whichconceptual approaches have cross-fertilised within the domain of informa-tion studies.

There is also a tremendous difference in the intellectual terrain betweenthe 1970s and early 1980s and the present. One can only note that at thattime there was almost little in the way of any conceptual tradition to whichresearchers in information behaviour could apply. The importation andcross-fertilisation of ideas, mainly from the social sciences and predomi-nantly qualitative in orientation, represents the reality of how conceptualideas have emerged and developed in information behaviour research.Pervading this has been the focus on the theoretical modelling ofinformation behaviour, and, in particular, with a concern for empiricalexemplification or validation. The foundation of almost all contemporarytheorising and empirical study of information behaviour can be traced backto that period when the adoption of the social science perspective,qualitative orientation, focus on modelling information behaviour andconcern with empirical exemplification came to characterise informationbehaviour research.

34 David Ellis

References

Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of information: Technology transfer and the

dissemination of technical information within the R & D organization. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on

the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Press.

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communica-

tion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dervin, B. (1983). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods and

results to date. Paper presented at the International Communication Association

Annual Meeting, Dallas.

Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind’s eye of the ‘‘user’’: The sense-making qualitative-

quantitative methodology. In: J. D. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds), Qualitative

research in information management (pp. 61–84). Englewood, CO: Libraries

Unlimited.

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

exemplar. In: K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds), Theories of

information 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.

Diesing, P. (1972). Patterns of discovery in the social sciences. London: RKP.

Ellis, D. (1987). The derivation of a behavioural model for information retrieval system

design. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Information Studies, Sheffield, University of

Sheffield.

Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design.

Journal of Documentation, 45, 171–212.

Ellis, D. (1993). Modelling the information seeking patterns of academic researchers:

A grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63, 469–486.

Ellis, D. (2005). Ellis’s model of information seeking behaviour. In: K. E. Fisher,

S. Erdelez & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds), Theories of information behaviour

(pp. 138–142). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Ellis, D., Roberts, N., Hounsell, D., Saracevic, T., & Persson, O. (1985). Comments

on Wersig and Windel. Social Science Information Studies, 5, 25–32.

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

information behaviour. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies

for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.

Hammersley, M. (1981). Using qualitative methods. Social Science Information

Studies, 1(4), 209–220.

Harris, C. (1981). The travelling workshops experiment: An attempt at ‘illuminative

evaluation’. Social Science Information Studies, 1(4), 247–253.

Hounsell, D., & Winn, V. (1981). Qualitative approaches to the study of information

problems. Social Science Information Studies, 1(4), 203–207.

Theorising Information Behaviour 35

Kelly, G. (1963). The theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs.

New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Oldman, D. (1981). Sources of antagonism to ‘qualitative’ research. Social Science

Information Studies, 1(4), 231–240.

Paisley, W. J. (1968). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information

Science and Technology, 3, 1–30.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. London: Sage.

Roberts, N. (1976). Social considerations towards a definition of information science.

Journal of Documentation, 32(4), 249–257.

Roberts, N. (1982). A search for information man. Social Science Information

Studies, 2(2), 93–104.

Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwester

University Press.

Selden, L. (2005). On grounded theory: With some malice. Journal of Documentation,

37, 3–15.

Stenhouse, L. (1981). Using case study in library research. Social Science Information

Studies, 1(4), 221–230.

Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries.

College and Research Libraries, 29, 178–194.

Vedi, S. (1986). Information and the awareness of leaching of plant nutrients. Ph.D.

thesis, Department of Information Studies, Sheffield, University of Sheffield.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weber, M. (1907). Gesammlte Aufsatze zur Wissenshaftsslehre. In: Runciman,

W. G. (Ed.) & E. Matthews (Trans.), Max Weber: Selections in translation

(pp. 7–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weber, M. (1922). Wirstschaft and gessellschaft. Extract in W. G. Runciman (Ed.)

and Matthews, E. (Trans.), Max Weber: Selections in translation (pp. 99–110).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wersig, G., & Windel, G. (1985). Information science needs a theory of ‘‘information

actions’’. Social Science Information Studies, 5(1), 11–23.

Wilson, T. D. (1980). On information science and the social sciences. Social Science

Information Studies, 1(1), 5–12.

Wilson, T. D. (1981a). On user studies and information needs. Journal of

Documentation, 37(1), 3–15.

Wilson, T. D. (1981b). A case study in qualitative research? Social Science

Information Studies, 1(4), 241–246.