information behavior

STATEMENT OF COMPETENCY

According to Bates, (2017) the concept of information behavior "[covers] all instances where people interact with their environment in any such way that leaves some impression on them—that is, adds or changes their knowledge store” (p. 2074). Information behavior comprises instances and processes by which one encounters, seeks, synthesizes, uses, and deploys information; as such, Pendleton and Chatman (1998) criticize the historically prevalent term of information seeking for implying a comparatively narrow framework for the consideration of interactions with information (p. 742).

Bates (2017) indicates that despite over a century of documented research regarding information behavior, prominent information behavior models have historically been abstract and theoretical in nature, and did not meaningfully consider user interactions with information until the 1980s (p. 2076). Given the user-focused nature of librarianship, information behavior theories which center the user arguably pose utmost value to librarians who aim to understand their users’ information behaviors and needs, and to design programs and services accordingly.

Sensemaking

Dervin’s theory of sensemaking exemplifies the shift toward user-centered information behavior theories, initiated during the 1980s. Sensemaking is built upon the premise that the sole function, purpose, and utility of information is to allow individuals to “make sense” of external stimuli, thus enabling synthesis, use, and deployment in the form of knowledge. As such, Dervin and Naumer (2017) note that sensemaking “[moves] out of formerly accepted models of information exchange as transmission toward more interpretive, narrative, and phenomenological approaches” (p. 4121). 

The sensemaking model was motivated in part by Dervin’s (1983) criticisms of foundational information behavior theories, by which “the brick,” that is, information, “was being thrown into the empty bucket”: that is, the notion of users as passive receptacles and/or regurgitators of said information (p. 160). Dervin’s transformative response to this criticism was to consider the interior worlds of information users—their thoughts, feelings, and experiences—and to formulate a theory of information behavior which reflected these complexities. As a result, sensemaking implies that “the empty bucket has evolved into a thinking, self-controlling human being. And information changes from brick to clay, moved and shaped in unique ways by each perceiver” (p. 169).

The emergence of sensemaking within information behavior theory reflects similar shifts in learning theory, from behaviorism (which Dervin might criticize for centering the brick-in-the-bucket approach) to cognitivist models which take the user’s circumstances, experiences, and worldviews into serious consideration, and constructivist models which emphasize information as inseparable from social contexts. The Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) decision to change its guidelines for information literacy instruction in 2015—from the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education to the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education—demonstrates the value of pursuing user-centered pedagogical models. In contrast to the Standards’ behaviorist foundations, which promote critical thinking while treating students as regurgitators of competently evaluated and synthesized information, the Framework emphasizes the role of students as contributors to scholarly conversation and the greater flow of information (Foasberg, 2015, p. 703). 

This shift in the ACRL’s documented values toward information literacy education demonstrate the importance of the user’s agency, as well as the validity of their own perception of their surroundings, built via sensemaking. As such, instruction librarians who intentionally incorporate the Framework’s values into instruction sessions, research consultations, and other services facilitate sensemaking by situating users within notions of information literacy and production.

Information Search Process

Building upon Dervin’s user-focused theory of sensemaking, Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) model addresses users’ thoughts, feelings, and actions, in response to common stages of academic research processes. Kuhlthau (1991) outlines six common stages of the research process— “initiation,” “selection,” “exploration,” “formulation,” “collection,” and “presentation,”—and determines that feelings of “confusion,” “apprehension,” “uncertainty,” and “doubt,” which commonly arise during the early stages of a research process, directly affect one’s information behaviors when initiating searches for relevant materials (pp. 366-368). 

For instance, feelings of uncertainty regarding the parameters of a research question or topic which arise during the “exploration” stage might result in an inability to fully articulate one’s information needs, thus yielding similarly ambiguous, unfocused queries within a database or discovery tool (pp. 362-363). Kuhlthau asserts that directing users toward relevant sources cannot mitigate the feelings of “uncertainty and anxiety” central to the ISP, instead suggesting that instructional programs should attune users to the distinct stages of the research process, explain the feelings associated with each stage, and communicate search strategies which can mitigate negative feelings toward the process by promoting effective information retrieval (p. 370).

Instructional librarians and/or liaison librarians often conduct instruction sessions for students beginning a research assignment within a given course. These sessions are typically designed, at least in part, to identify relevant resources and promote effective search strategies. Locating literature review articles pertaining to one’s research topic is an effective method by which one can quickly gain a sense of the greater literature available, thus mitigating feelings of uncertainty. Mann (2015) adds that “[f]inding such articles early in your research can give you reasonable confidence that you are not completely overlooking sources that are very important—and whose existence might be brought to your attention later on, rather painfully, if you do overlook them” (p. 168). In addition to locating literature review articles, subject searching, citation searching, strategic keyword searching, and the booking of individualized research consultations with subject librarians, are other methods by which students can mitigate the negative feelings associated with academic research. 

In another relevant application of Kuhlthau’s principles, Rutherford, et al. (2006) describe the creation of their Workshop on the Information Search Process for Research (WISPR): an combined virtual and in-person information literacy tutorial for college students, which centers guided research procedures corresponding to each stage of the ISP, and includes assessment measures for evaluating student comprehension at the end of each stage. 

By internalizing Kuhlthau’s ISP theory, communicating search strategies which address the challenges posed by each stage of the ISP, making students aware of the ISP’s central challenges, and designing instruction sessions which incorporate gradual assessment measures, librarians can prepare students to initiate effective research processes systematically, confidently, and effectively. 

Berrypicking

Bates’ (2017) berrypicking theory addresses information seeking and retrieval practices within a research context, and directly criticizes assumptions that information needs are typified by discrete, open-and-shut queries (p. 2076). Bates (1989) describes berrypicking as a “bit-at-a-time” approach to information behavior, whereby users might consult multiple sources and employ an array of search strategies (p. 410). Furthermore, depending on the outcomes of individual queries within the larger search, the user may gradually adjust the wording and intent of subsequent queries, thus engaging in evolving search (pp. 409-410). The berrypicking theory was conceived around the time that abstracting and indexing databases had begun to emerge; as such, Bates suggests database features which can accommodate information behaviors central to berrypicking: including “footnote chasing,” “citation searching,” “author searching,” (pp. 415-418).

Prominent citation indexing databases—namely, Scopus and Web of Science—demonstrate the ability to accommodate information behaviors described by Bates as central to berrypicking. With an understanding of berrypicking theory, librarians can leverage their knowledge of the features central to these databases to design instruction sessions and research consultations which equip library users to effectively engage in evolving search processes. Strategies might include the formulation of search terms according to various levels of specificity, the adjustment of search fields, or combined use of “cited by” and “related records” searching, in order to track relevant articles forwards and backwards in time.

The Small World

Chatman’s small world theory concerns the circumstances—and resulting information behaviors—of marginalized people, who until the 1990s remained largely overlooked by LIS researchers (Bates, 2017, p. 2080). Through studies of imprisoned women, janitors, and other groups, Chatman (1996) determines that traditional notions of information within LIS are defined and maintained by insiders (e.g., LIS scholars, academics, regular library users, people demonstrating a certain level of privilege), while outsiders (e.g., socioeconomically and/or physically marginalized people, library nonusers) are left to construct their own realities and information environments; as such, insiders and outsiders remain largely isolated from one another, yielding barriers and gaps within the greater flow of information (pp. 194-195). 

Chatman (1996) introduces the construct of information poverty to describe the societal marginalization of outsiders, and the failure of insiders—particularly libraries and librarians—to offer services and outreach which sufficiently persuade outsiders to seek “inside” information (p. 205). Furthermore, Chatman (1991) suggests that outsiders are often required to expend more effort than insiders to meet their immediate material needs, and thus prioritize these needs, along with comfort and entertainment, over relatively abstract, esoteric information seeking as described by foundational LIS models and promoted by libraries; this notion, in addition to the insularity of outsider groups, contributes to the definition of the small world as a self-sustaining information environment, typified by implicit, communal knowledge-building (p. 447).

Pendleton and Chatman (1998) find that libraries and librarians, however unintentionally, design programs and services with fellow insiders in mind, largely due to common values and socioeconomic dispositions (p. 749). Likewise, Gibson and Martin’s (2019) study of parents of children with Down’s syndrome finds that outsiders often continue to seek information within their small world, after determining that “information systems” such as library services and collections are not sufficiently designed to fulfill their information needs (p. 485). 

In their effort to bridge gaps between library services and the outsiders who typically don’t utilize them, librarians can engage in community analysis to better understand the demographics of users and nonusers, and conduct implicit bias training, which might identify the extent to which existing gaps between insiders and outsiders are attributable to prejudice. Librarians should additionally engage in routine assessment of collections and services, to determine whether they meet information needs demonstrated by outsiders, and conduct outreach campaigns which demonstrate the library’s value to those who may perceive its materials and services as irrelevant.

COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT

My competency in this area emerged during INFO 200 (Information Communities), in which I was introduced to foundational information behavior theories, and in turn applied them to various blog posts as well as within a culminating research paper on the information community of “wine enthusiasts”. While I was familiar with Kuhlthau’s ISP before enrolling INFO 254 (Information Literacy and Learning), this course led me to draw valuable connections between information behavior theories and learning theories, and to consider instructional design methods which incorporate established information behavior models. INFO 281-20 (Building a Critical Culture) allowed me to place Chatman’s small world theory within the context of critical theory, for purposes of conceptualizing improved services for marginalized people while INFO 220-11 (Maps & GIS) exposed me to various information needs and behaviors of users approaching map collections and geographic information system (GIS) technology within library settings.

CONCLUSION

Emerging from LIS scholarship, information behavior theory describes the methods and processes by which people encounter, seek, synthesize, use, and communicate information and knowledge: as scholars, professionals, students, library users, and in daily life. User-centered information behavior theories—such as sensemaking, the information search process, berrypicking, and the small world—can help librarians to better understand how information functions in individualized and social settings, alike. As such, studying and incorporating these theories can contribute to the development of instructional design methods, assessment tools, outreach strategies, and other approaches which meaningfully address users based on demonstrated information behaviors.

REFERENCES

Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320 

Bates, M. J. (2017). Information behavior. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 2074-2085). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4 

Chatman, E. A. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(3), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199603)47:3<193::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-T 

Chatman, E. A. (1991). Life in a small world: Applicability of gratification theory to information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(6), 438-449. 

Dervin, B. (1983). Information as a user construct: The relevance of perceived information needs to synthesis and interpretation. In S. A. Ward & L. J. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge structure and use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 155-183). Temple University Press.

Dervin, B., & Naumer, C. M. (2017). Sense-making. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 4113-4124). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4 

Foasberg, N. M. (2015). From standards to frameworks for IL: How the ACRL Framework addresses critiques of the Standards. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(4), 699-717. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2015.0045 

Gibson, A. N., & Martin, J. D. (2019). Re-situating information poverty: Information marginalization and parents of individuals with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 70(5), 476-487. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24128 

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.

Mann, T. (2015). The Oxford guide to library research (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Pendleton, V. E. M., & Chatman, E. A. (1998). Small world lives: Implications for the public library. Library Trends, 46(4), 732-752. https://hdl.handle.net/2142/8179 

Rutherford, S., Hayden, K. A., & Pival, P. R. (2006). WISPR (Workshop on the Information Search Process for Research) in the library. Journal of Library Administration, 45(3/4), 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v45n03_08