INFO 521: Information Behavior (IB)

Chapter Five: What is a model and key

models of information behaviour:

Instructor
Dr. Lawrence Abraham Gojeh;
Department of Information Science,
College of Compting and Informatics,
Haramaya University, Ethiopia
 Chapter 5: Objectives
• Define models of information behaviour;
• Discuss key models of information behaviour
 Introduction
• What is a model?
• A Model is defined as a schematic description of a system, theory, or
phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and
maybe used for further study of its characteristics.
• It may be described as a framework for thinking about a problem and
may evolve into a statement of the relationships among theoretical
propositions.
• Most models in the general field of information behaviour are of the
former variety:
– they are statements, often in the form of diagrams, that attempt
to:
• describe an information-seeking activity,
• the causes and consequences of that activity, or
• the relationships among stages in information-seeking
behaviour.
 Key models of information behaviour (IB)
• Models are developed to represent and to have clear understanding
on specific problems where theories are not sufficient.
• Models lead to the development of formal theories.
• Models exclusively make the content of the concept that they deal
more tangible through illustrations in the form of:
– diagram,
– chart,
– map,
– table, graph, etc.
• Reynolds (1971) defines a model “by illustrating casual process,
models that make it easier to see if hypothesis are consistent with
what we observe in real life”.
• The aim of the model was to outline the various areas covered by
information-seeking behaviour, as an alternative to the then common
information needs.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The model suggests that information-seeking behaviour arises as a
consequence of a need perceived by an information user, who, in
order to satisfy that need, makes demands upon formal or informal
information sources or services, which result in success or failure to
find relevant information.
• If successful, the individual then makes use of the information found
and may either fully or partially satisfy the perceived need - or,
indeed, fail to satisfy the need and have to reiterate the search
process.
• The model also shows that part of the information-seeking behaviour
may involve other people through information exchange and that
information perceived as useful may be passed to other people, as
well as being used (or instead of being used) by the person himself or
herself.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• One of the results of the analysis that led to the diagram was the
recognition that information use had received little attention and,
within information science, that statement is still relatively true
today.
• Nor has much attention been devoted to the phenomenon of the
informal transfer of information between individuals since Allen's
pioneering work on transferring to the research laboratory the
'two-step' flow of communication model of the 'gatekeeper'.
• The identification of these areas as relatively lacking in research
attention demonstrates one of the functions of these models.
• The limitation of this kind of model, however, is that it does little
more than provide a map of the area and draw attention to gaps
in research: it provides no suggestion of causative factors in
information behaviour and, consequently, it does not directly
suggest hypotheses to be tested.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Wilson's information behaviour model (1981)
• Wilson's second model of 1981 is based upon two main propositions:
– first, that information need is not a primary need, but a secondary
need that arises out of needs of a more basic kind; and
– second, that in the effort to discover information to satisfy a need,
the enquirer is likely to meet with barriers of different kinds.
• Drawing upon definitions in psychology, Wilson proposes that the basic
needs can be defined as physiological, cognitive or affective.
• He goes on to note that the context of any one of these needs may be
the person him- or herself, or the role demands of the person's work or
life, or the environments (political, economic, technological, etc.) within
which that life or work takes place.
• He then suggests that the barriers that impede the search for
information will arise out of the same set of contexts.
• Figure 1: shows Wilson's information behaviour model (1981)
Figure 1: Wilson's information behaviour model (1981)
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Wilson’s model (1981) is shown in a simplified version (which also
shows the search behaviours defined by Ellis in Figure 2.
• Wilson's model is clearly what may be described as a macro-model or
a model of the gross information-seeking behaviour and it suggests
how information needs arise and what may prevent (and, by
implication, aid) the actual search for information.
• It also embodies, implicitly, a set of hypotheses about information
behaviour that are testable:
• For example, the proposition that information needs in different
work roles will be different, or that personal traits may inhibit or
assist information seeking.
• Thus, the model can be regarded as a source of hypotheses, which is
a general function of models of this kind.
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 2: Wilson's information-seeking behaviour model as defined by Ellis

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The weakness of the model is that all of the hypotheses are only
implicit and are not made explicit.
– Nor is there any indication of the processes whereby context has
its effect upon the person,
– nor of the factors that result in the perception of barriers,
– nor of whether the various assumed barriers have similar or
different effects upon the motivation of individuals to seek
information.
• However, the very fact that the model is lacking in certain elements
stimulates thinking about the kinds of elements that a more
complete model ought to include.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Conclusion
• The Wilson model (1981) says that information need perceived by an
information seeker gives way for information seeking behavior to
occur.
• In order to satisfy the information need, the user demand for formal
and informal information sources and systems.
• The demands lead him for either success or failure in getting required
information.
• On success, the user gets his need fully or partially satisfied.
• On failure, the user restarts his search process.
• It was also explained that information seeking behaviour may involve
other people through information exchange by means of passing the
useful information to them as well as using the information by the
seekers themselves.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The Wilson Model (1996)
• Wilson's 1996 model (Figure 3) is a major revision of that of 1981, drawing
upon research from a variety of fields other than information science,
including:
– decision-making,
– psychology,
– innovation,
– health communication, and
– consumer research.
• The basic framework of the 1981 model persists, in that the person in
context remains the focus of information needs, the barriers are represented
by intervening variables and information-seeking behaviour is identified.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• However, there are also changes:
– the use of the term intervening variables serves to suggest that
their impact may be supportive of information use as well as
preventive;
– information-seeking behaviour is shown to consist of more types
than previously, where the active search was the focus of
attention;
– information processing and use is shown to be a necessary part of
the feedback loop, if information needs are to be satisfied; and
– three relevant theoretical ideas are presented:
• 1. Stress/coping theory, which offers possibilities for explaining
why some needs do not invoke information-seeking behaviour;
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• 2. Risk/reward theory, which may help to explain which
sources of information may be used more than others by a
given individual; and
• 3. Social learning theory, which embodies the concept of self-
efficacy, the idea of 'the conviction that one can successfully
execute the behavior required to produce the {desired}
outcomes'
• Thus, the model remains one of macro-behaviour, but its expansion
and the inclusion of other theoretical models of behaviour makes it a
richer source of hypotheses and further research than Wilson's
earlier model.
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 3: The Wilson Model (1996)

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Conclusion
• Wilson’s second model (1996) is complex and features the following:
– It deals with the aspects as to why some seek more prompt
information than others,
– reason for the more usage of resources from a particular source
than others, and
– ambiguous status among people in pursuance of a goal
successfully based on the perception on their own efficacy.
• Features of the model are Activating Mechanisms for seeking
information which are affected by the Intervening variables of six
types:
– Psychological aspects,
 Key models of IB (cont.)
– Demographic background,
– Role related to social aspects,
– Environmental variable and Characteristics of role.
– This model recognizes search behaviours:
– Passive attention,
– Passive search,
– Active search, and
– ongoing search.
– The term in the model ‘information processing and use’ implied
that the information is evaluated to know its effectiveness on
satisfying the need.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Dervin, 1983, 1996
• Dervin's sense-making theory as developed over a number of years,
and cannot be seen simply as a model of information-seeking
behaviour:
– it is, rather, as she says, '…a set of assumptions, a theoretic
perspective, a methodological approach, a set of research
methods, and a practice.' designed to cope with information
perceived as, '…a human tool designed for making sense of a
reality assumed to be both chaotic and orderly.'
• However, sense-making is implemented in terms of four constituent
elements: -
– a situation in time and space, which defines the context in which
information problems arise;
 Key models of IB (cont.)
– a gap, which identifies the difference between the contextual
situation and the desired situation (e.g. uncertainty);
– an outcome, that is, the consequences of the sense-making
process, and a bridge, that is, some means of closing the gap
between situation and outcome.
• Dervin presents these elements in terms of a triangle:
– situation,
– gap/bridge, and
– outcome, which can be represented as in Figure 4: Dervin's
'sense-making' triangle.
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 4: Dervin's 'sense-making' triangle.

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• However, it may be preferable to use the bridge
metaphor more directly and present the model as
figure 5 below:

Figure 5: Dervin's 'sense-making' model re-drawn

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Conclusion
• The strength of Dervin's model lies partly in its methodological
consequences, since, in relation to information behaviour:
– it can lead to a way of questioning that can reveal the nature of a
problematic situation,
– the extent to which information serves to bridge the gap of:
• uncertainty,
• confusion, or whatever, and
• the nature of the outcomes from the use of information.
• Applied consistently in 'micro-moment, time-line interviews' such
questioning leads to genuine insights that can influence information
service design and delivery.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The Krikelas model (1983)
• The Krikelas model is an early model and was cited widely.
• The model contains thirteen components.
• It is a general model that is applicable to ordinary life.
• In the model the twin actions namely information gathering and
information giving are given at the top.
• The information gathering process is carried out based on the
deferred needs which are kindled by an event or environment of the
person who seeks information.
• The model shows that the gathered information is directed to
memory or personal files.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The other kind of action termed as ‘information giving’ which is
carried out based on the immediate needs for which the information
seeker assumed to select either internal or external source of
preference.
• When the internal source leads to memory and personal files, the
external source makes it to direct (interpersonal) contact and
recorded material (literature).
• One appealing aspect of the Krikelas’s model is its simplicity.
• The model is a simple; one dimensional flowchart (see figure 10) in
which all of the arrows travel in one direction and no one part of the
process encompasses another (Case 2002).
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 6: The Krikelas model (1983)

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Johnson’s model (1987).
• There are seven factors under three headings given in the Johnson’s
model (1987) as in figure 7.
• The fundamental process flows from left to right.
• The four factors under the heading antecedents are grouped under
two sub headings which are termed as background factor and
personal relevance.
• The background factor includes the factors of demographics and
personal experience and the personal relevance factor includes
salience and beliefs.
• The second heading Information carrier factors include characteristics
and Utilities of the information channels selected and used by the
seekers.
• The last heading is information seeking actions.
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 7: Johnson’s model (1987).

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Ellis, 1989 and Ellis, Cox & Hall, 1993
• Ellis's elaboration of the different behaviours involved in information
seeking is not set out as a diagrammatic model and Ellis makes no
claims to the effect that the different behaviours constitute a single
set of stages; indeed, he uses the term 'features' rather than 'stages'.
• These features are named and defined in figure 8:
– Starting: the means employed by the user to begin seeking
information, for example, asking some knowledgeable colleague;
– Chaining: following footnotes and citations in known material or
'forward' chaining from known items through citation indexes;
– Browsing: 'semi-directed or semi-structured searching' (Ellis,
1989).
– Differentiating: using known differences in information sources as
a way of filtering the amount of information obtained;
 Key models of IB (cont.)
– Monitoring: keeping up-to-date or current awareness searching;
– Extracting: selectively identifying relevant material in an
information source;
– Verifying: checking the accuracy of information;
– Ending: which may be defined as 'tying up loose ends' through a
final search.
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 8: Ellis’s ‘characteristics’ – 1989

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Conclusion
• Thus, the models of Wilson and of Ellis are intended to function at
different levels of the overall process of information seeking and this
fact is demonstrated by the ability to nest one within the other.
• However, it is clear that Starting must initiate a process and that
Ending must end it.
• It also seems reasonable to suggest that Verifying is a penultimate
stage in a process and that Extracting must follow on from specific
search behaviour such as Browsing.
• Indeed, drawing attention to this fact, leads to the conclusion that
Extracting is not an information behaviour of the same kind as
Browsing, or Chaining or Monitoring.
• It further suggests that Differentiating is also a different kind of
behaviour:
 Key models of IB (cont.)
– browsing,
– chaining and
– monitoring are search procedures,
– whereas differentiating is a filtering process and
• extracting may be seen as an action performed on the
information sources
• The remaining behaviours do not necessarily take place in a specific
sequence and may be initiated in different sequences at different
times in the overall search process.
• Ellis's account, therefore, in terms of the different kinds of features it
embodies:
 Key models of IB (cont.)
– appears to sit between the micro-analysis of search behaviour:
• starting,
• chaining,
• extracting,
• verifying,
• Ending, and
– a more macro-analysis of information behaviour generally in figure 9
• browsing,
• monitoring,
• differentiating.
• If these points are accepted, it is then possible to suggest a diagrammatic
presentation of the model, as in Figure 7 as viewed by Wilson:
Figure 9: A process model based on Ellis's 'characteristics'
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Kuhlthau, 1991
• Kuhlthau's work complements that of Ellis by attaching to stages of
the 'information search process‘:
– the associated feelings,
– thoughts and actions, and
– the appropriate information tasks.
• This association of feelings, thoughts and actions clearly identify
Kuhlthau's perspective as phenomenological, rather than cognitive.
• The stages of Kuhlthau's model are:
– Initiation-user “becomes aware of a lack of knowledge or
understanding”
– Selection-user needs to “identify and select the general topic to
be investigated”
 Key models of IB (cont.)
– Exploration-user needs to “investigate information on the general
topic in order to extend personal understanding”
– Formulation-user forms “a focus from the information
encountered”
– Collection-user needs “to gather information related to the
focused topic”
– Presentation-user completes the search and presents findings
• As an example, the Initiation phase of the process is said to be
characterized by feelings of uncertainty, vague and general thoughts
about the problem area, and is associated with seeking background
information: the 'appropriate task' at this point is simply to
'recognize' a need for information.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The remaining appropriate tasks are:
– Identify - that is, fix the general topic of the search;
– Investigate- or search for information on that general topic;
– Formulate - focus on a more specific area with in the topic;
– Collection- that is, gather relevant information on the focus; and
– Complete - end the information search.
• Kuhlthau's model is thus more general than that of Ellis in drawing
attention to the feelings associated with the various stages and
activities.
• In this regard, Kuhlthau acknowledges her debt to Kelly's personal
construct theory, which '...describes the affective experience of
individuals involved in the process of constructing meaning from the
information they encounter.'
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The fundamental proposition is that the feelings of uncertainty
associated with the need to search for information give rise to
feelings of doubt, confusion and frustration and that, as the search
process proceeds and is increasingly successful, those feelings
change:
– as relevant material is collected confidence increases and is associated with
feelings of relief, satisfaction and a sense of direction.
• In effect, what Kuhlthau postulates here (and confirms by empirical
research) is a process of the gradual refinement of the problem area,
with information searching of one kind or another going on while
that refinement takes place.
• Thus, a successive search process is implicit in Kuhlthau's analysis of
the search activity.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Although Kuhlthau's early work was a series of
longitudinal studies of high school students, more
recently she has shown the applicability of the
model to the work of a securities analyst.
• It is interesting to explore whether the Ellis and
Kuhlthau models may be brought together, and this
is attempted in Figure 10 below, where
representation of Ellis's categories is accompanied
by the stages of Kuhlthau (the latter in italic):
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 10: A comparison of Ellis's and Kuhlthau's frameworks

 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Through this merger of the two models, we can see strong
similarities and the major difference appears to be that Ellis
specifies the modes of exploration or investigation.
• The point must be reiterated, however, that Ellis does not
present his characteristics as stages but as elements of
behaviour that may occur in different sequences with
different persons, or with the same person at different times.
• Thus, the two models are fundamentally opposed in the
minds of the authors:
– Kuhlthau posits stages on the basis of her analysis of behaviour,
while Ellis suggests that the sequences of behavioural
characteristics may vary.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Focus formulation
• Conclusion • Information collection
• Ellis’s ‘characteristics’ – 1989 • Search closure
• Starting • apprehension
• confusion
• Chaining • confusion, doubt
• Browsing • optimism
• Differentiating • confidence
• relief
• Monitoring •  Testing the models
• Extraction • the ‘Uncertainty’ project was
• Verifying designed to explore the concept of
uncertainty in information seeking
• Ending behaviour, but also to examine the
relationships among the various
• Kuhlthau’s stages – 1993 models.
• Task initiation
• Topic selection
• Pre-focus exploration
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The Kuhlthau Model (1992)
• Since the generation of the Kuhlthau’s Model of Information Search
Process (ISP); it has been used to examine theoretical concepts
within librarianship and information science, as well as to develop
practice in diverse contexts including education, work and every-day
life information seeking.
• The model is used as a framework for understanding central
concepts in the librarianship and information science field, such as
relevance judgments, task, knowledge construction, affect and
information seeking as process.
• The model is not only valuable as a theoretical construct for
examining information behaviour, but also serves as a diagnostic tool
for intervention in different information seeking contexts.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The Information Search Process as a model of cognitive, affective and
behavioural dimensions of knowledge construct.
• The Kuhlthau Model (1992) is explained in figure 11 as follows:
• Initiation: When a person comes to know the lack of knowledge or
understanding, uncertainty is felt.
• Thoughts would be vague and action for seeking information would
be initiated.
• Selection: In this stage the uncertainty on the area, topic or problem
is got cleared and the person with a brief optimism get readies for
exploration of the information.
• Exploration: While exploring for information people will get doubt on
the consistency of the information, confused on the compatibility
and get frustrated in the process.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Formulation: In this stage the person gets focused perception which
leads to clarity and the process of seeking for information gets
continued.
• Collection: The process of information seeking, senses the right
direction, information related to the focused perspective is gathered
and it minimizes the ambiguity of the information
• Presentation: After the completion of the search the seeker gets new
knowledge which the person can present to others and put the
knowledge to use.
• Assessment: When the information seeker attains the required
knowledge, seeker gets a sense of accomplishment and the self
awareness increases.
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 11: Kuhlthau Model of the Information Search Process

(1992). Links the process to reduction of uncertainty
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Conclusion
• Several studies connected information seeking with the search
process
– posit information seeking as a broader context (process) for a
more specific process of searching
• Exemplify factors – variables – involved
– showing that there is more to searching than we think usually
•  Kuhlthau model of the information search process (ISP)
• Originally studying pupils & undergraduates but subsequently looking
at other user groups as well, Kuhlthau (1991, 2004) formulated a six-
stage information search process (ISP), each stage representing
differing needs, behaviors, cognitive and affective states.
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Kuhlthau six stages
• Initiation: user “becomes aware of a lack of knowledge or
understanding”
• Selection: user needs to “identify and select the general topic
to be investigated”
• Exploration: user needs to “investigate information on the
general topic in order to extend personal understanding”
• Formulation: user forms “a focus from the information
encountered”
• Collection: user needs “to gather information related to the
focused topic”
• Presentation: user completes the search and presents
findings
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• Kuhlthau model
• Each stage – task - in the information search
process incorporates three realms:
– Affective (feelings)
– Cognitive (thoughts)
– Physical (actions)
• “The process of information seeking involves
construction in which the user actively pursues
understanding and seeks meaning from the
information encountered over a period of time.”
 Key models of IB (cont.)
• The Leckie’s model (1996)
• The Leckie’s model (1996) concentrates on professionals such as
engineers, doctors and lawyers as in figure 12
• This model features six factors connected by arrows flowing down from
the top.
• When five factors are unidirectional one factor is bidirectional.
• According to this model the factor ‘work role’ enables ‘tasks’ to perform.
• The performance of the tasks creates information need.
• The model shows information seeking behaviour as a bidirectional arrow
labeled as ‘information is sought’.
• The factor termed as ‘outcomes’ is the end result which connects the
factors ‘source of information’. ‘awareness of information’ and
‘information is sought’ through feedback arrows.
 Key models of IB (cont.)

Figure 12: Leckie’s Model of Information Seeking of Professionals

 Summary of the information behaviour models
• The models discussed above have been labelled information
behaviour models because they are not information search models in
the sense that might be understood by the information retrieval
researcher.
• They are concerned with the generalized behaviours surrounding the
actual initiation of information-seeking on the one hand and on the
other, with a broader perspective of the information search than
simply the use of computer-based information retrieval (IR) systems.
• The implications for IR systems from research in the general area of
information behaviour may inform the overall design principles of
such systems.
• It may enable the information content developer to specify more
clearly what navigational routes are needed through the information
and exactly what kind of information or data types need to be in the
record.
 Summary…(cont.)
• The models of information behaviour do not all attempt to describe
the same set of phenomena or activities.
• Some, as in the case of Ellis are concerned with behavioural patterns
in the actual search activity, others, like Kuhlthau present stages of
activity, within which the behavioural patterns may occur.
• Kuhlthau's model may fit within the various stages of the information
seeking process.
• Ellis's behavioural model is a set of activities within what Kuhlthau
calls collection and that all three of these are nested within Wilson's
1996 model of information behaviour in general
• Information behaviour may be defined as the more general field of
investigation, with information-seeking behaviour being a sub-set of
the field, particularly concerned with the variety of methods people
employ to discover and gain access to information resources.
 Summary…(cont.)
• Information searching behaviour is then defined as a sub-set of
information-seeking, particularly concerned with the interactions
between information user (with or without an intermediary) and
computer-based information systems, of which information retrieval
systems for textual data may be seen as one type.
• The various models of information behaviour, information-seeking
behaviour and information searching represent different aspects of the
overall problem.
• They are complementary, rather than competing as summarised or
represented in the Tables 1-4 below.
• The key questions for research, therefore, are:
– 1. To what extent are the different models complete, or reasonably
complete representations of the reality they seek to model?
 Summary…(cont.)
– 2. In what ways are the models complementary; that is, how does
knowledge of one level of analysis aid another?
– 3. Specifically, in the case of information-searching behaviour;
how does knowledge of modes of information-seeking behaviour
aid our understanding of the search process, if at all?
• Research to answer the last question might best focus on projects
that take a view of information searching as a complex process
embedded in the broader perspective of information-seeking
behaviour, and information behaviour in general, rather than on the
micro-level of analysis that is typical of the dominant paradigm of
information retrieval research.
 Table 1:Summary of Wilson (1981) & Ellis’s (1984) models on information needs and
information seeking by type/focus, test group and reviews

Model type/focus SUMMARY OF MODEL Test group REVIEW

Wilson’s (1981) and Wilson’s model is a Wilson’s Model offers a three-fold view Not tested. Wilson (1999)
(1996) Models of static, of Wilson (2000:51-52)
Information broad, general information-seeking (Wilson 2005:31): Case (2002:116-119)
Behaviour summary 1. The context of the seeker. Niedwiedzka (2003)
model (Ingwersen & 2. The ‘system’ employed (which might Ingwersen & Järvelin
Järvelin 2005:67). be (2005:67-68,197-198)
manual or machine and navigated either Wilson (2005:31-43)
personally or by an intermediary).
3 The information resources that might
be
drawn upon.
Wilson developed various models over a
period of time, e.g. 1981, 1996.
Ellis’ Behavioural Ellis’ Model is This model identifies eight features of 1. Social scientists Ellis (1984)
Model of (Ingwersen information-seeking behaviour which 2. English literature Ellis & Haugan (1997)
InformationSeekin & Järvelin 2005): characterise the information-seeking researchers. Wilson (1999)
1. A process model. patterns 3. Physicists and Kalbach (2000)
2. A summary model, of social scientists, scientists and chemists. Wilson (2000:52)
not engineers: 4. Engineers and Järvelin & Wilson (2003:
directly suggesting 1. Starting/surveying. research scientists in 6-8)
analysable 2. Chaining. an industrial Meho & Tibbo (2003)
relationships. 3. Browsing. environment. Ellis (2005)
3. A general model, 4. Differentiating. Ingwersen & Järvelin
claiming applicability 5. Filtering. (2005
and validity over a 6. Monitoring.
range of empirical 7. Extracting.
 Table 2:Summary of Kuhlthau (1993) & Dervin’s (1983) models on information needs and
information seeking by type/focus, test group and reviews
MODEL NAME Model type/focus SUMMARY OF MODEL Test group REVIEW
Kuhlthau’s Kuhlthau’s ISP Model is: The ISP Model incorporates three realms: Field studies with actual Kuhlthau (1993)
Information Search 1. A process model. the library users: Wilson (2000:52)
Process (ISP) Mode 2. An analytical model, affective (feelings), the cognitive (thoughts), 1. 26 academic high Kuhlthau (2004)
suggesting a and the physical (actions) common to each school seniors. Kuhlthau (2005)
relationship between stage (Kuhlthau, 2004:44). 2. High-, middle-, and Ingwersen & Järvelin
process stages and The stages of this model are: low-achieving high (2005:65-67)
feelings, thoughts and 1. Initiation. school seniors.
actions. 2. Selection. 3. Longitudinal surveys
3. A general mode 3. Prefocus exploration. of the first group.
4. Focus formulation

Dervin’s Sensemaking The Sense-making The approach consists of: Professional groups Dervin (1983)
approach approach is: 1.1 A set of assumptions about human tested: Cheuk Wai-Yi (1998a &
(also described by 1. A process model. reality. 1. Auditors 1998b)
Dervin as a theory or 2. An abstract model. Includes assumptions on moving, 2. Engineers Dervin (1998)
a methodology 3. A summary model process, discontinuity, situationality, 3. Architects Cheuk Wai-Yi & Dervin
and gapbridging, and information-seeking. (1999)
does not directly 1.2 A theoretic perspective. Dervin (1999b)
suggest analysable 1.3 A methodological approach. Wilson (2000:52)
relationships. 1.4 A set of research methods (Ingwersen Kuhlthau (2004:4)
4. A general model & Ingwersen & Järvelin
(Ingwersen & Järvelin Jarvelin 2005:62). (2005:59-63)
2005:62). 2. The theory implements four constituent Tidline (2005:113-122
5. An information- elements:
seeking 2.1 A situationin time and space.
model (Cheuk Wai-Yi & 2.2 A gap - the difference between the
Dervin 1999b:4). contextual and the desired situation.
6. A metatheoretic tool 2.3 An outcome - the consequences of the
(Dervin 1999b:728) sense-making process.
2.4 A bridge– the means of closing the gap
between the situation and the outcome
(Cheuk Wai-Yi & Dervin 1999b:4).
 Table 3:Summary of Cheuk Wai-Yi (1998) model on information needs and information
seeking by type/focus, test group and reviews

MODEL NAME Model type/focus SUMMARY OF Test group REVIEW

MODEL
Information- ISU Process The model is 1. Auditors Cheuk Wai-Yi
Seeking Model made up of seven 2. Engineers (1998a)
and Using (ISU) employs the different 3. Architects
Process Model Sensemaking situations:
(Cheuk Wai-Yi) approach. 1. Task initiating
situation.
2. Focus forming
situation.
3. Ideas
assuming
situation.
4. Ideas
confirming
situation.
5. Ideas rejecting
situation.
6. Ideas finalising
situation.
7. Passing on
 Table 4:Summary of Sandstrom (1994) models on information needs and information
seeking by type/focus, test group and reviews
MODEL NAME Model type/focus SUMMARY OF MODEL Test group REVIEW

Optimal Foraging The Optimal Foraging 1. Optimal Foraging enerically tested on Sandstrom (1994)
Theory Theory is a deductive Theory is a collection of scholars, as if humanists, Choo et al.(1998)
middle-range theory methodologies or scientists, and engineers Sandstrom (1999)
explaining particular heuristic tools to clarify were a single class of Bates (2002:8-9)
behaviour. It is how and why individuals information seekers and Jacoby (2005:259-264
generalising in approach. make the strategic users.
  choices they do”
(Sandstrom 1994:415).
2. Optimal foraging uses
cost-benefit
analysis to deconstruct
complex
processes of selection in
component
parts (Jacoby 2005:259-
260).
3. Information foraging
refers to activities
associated with
assessing, seeking, and
handling information
sources particularly
in networked
environments (Choo et
al. 1998:2)
 Table 5:Summary of Aguilar (1967) models on information needs and information seeking by
type/focus, test group and reviews
MODEL NAME Model type/focus SUMMARY OF MODEL
Aguilar’s Modes of A general approach to Environmental scanning
Environmental seeking information involves an exposure
Scannin within to, and perception
an organisation by ofinformation (Aguilar,
means 1967:18).
of both formal and The environmental
informal scanning process
searches. comprises three activities
(Aguilar 1967:19):
1. The gathering of
information concerning
the organisation’s
external environment.
2. The analysis and
interpretation of this
information.
3. The use of this
analysed intelligence in
strategic decision-making
(Lester &
Waters 1989:5).
Aguilar differentiated four
styles of
environmental scanning:
1. Undirected viewing.
2. Conditioned viewing.
3. Information search.
Test group REVIEW
Environmental scanning Aguilar (1967)
involves an exposure to, Daft & Weick (1984)
and perception of Auster & Choo (1993)
information (Aguilar, Costa (1995)
1967:18). Choo et al. (2000a &
The environmental 2000b)
scanning process Nardi, Whittaker &
comprises three Schwarz (2000)
activities: Choo (2001)
4. The gathering of Choo (2002)
information concerning Karim ( 2004
the organisation’s
external environment.
5. The analysis and
interpretation of this
information.
6. The use of this
analysed intelligence
in strategic
decisionmaking (Lester &
Waters 1989:5)
 Table 6:Summary of Paisley (1965) & Choo et. al (1998) models on information needs and
information seeking by type/focus, test group and reviews
MODEL NAME Model type/focus SUMMARY OF MODEL Test group REVIEW

Behavioural Model of Behavioural model It is a combination and 1. Managers. Choo et al. 1998
Information-Seeking on the extensionof Aguilar’s 2. Information technology
Web (Choo, modes of scanning and (IT) specialists.
Detlor & Turnbull Ellis’s seeking 3. Information specialists.
behaviour. It consists of
four main modes
(Choo et al.1998:6-14):
1. Undirected viewing.
2. Conditioned viewing.
3. Informal search.
4. Formal search
Paisley’s Conceptual A systems model of the Paisley sees the individual Not tested by Paisley. Paisley (1965)
Framework of the information user scientist operating Gralewska-Vickery (1976)
‘Scientist within within many systems that Wilkin (1977)
Systems” touch every aspect Leckie, Pettigrew, &
of his work. He has access Sylvain (1996)
to at least three
sets of resources: mission-
oriented resources
(work team, work
organisation); discipline
oriented resources
(scientists in his field and
other workers in the same
specialist area);
the library and information
sources of his
general environment
 Table 7:Summary of Blom (1983) & Bystrom & Jarvelin (1995) models on information needs
and information seeking by type/focus, test group and reviews
MODEL NAME Model type/focus SUMMARY OF MODEL Test group REVIEW

Blom’s Task Focuses on the research The task performance Not tested by Blom. Blom (1983)
Performance Model process as the context of model sees the Gericke (1996)
information needs and the scientific discipline,
application of information environmental factors,
to satisfy needs and the scientist as an
individual as three
groups of variables. Each
group affects the
task performance of the
scientist and his/her
information needs. There is
also a mutual
influence of the different
groups on each
other (Blom 1983:8).

Byström-Jãrvelin An abstract and static The model considers task Studied in the Public Bystrőm & Järvelin (1995)
Task-based model that is highly and informationseeking Administration context. Järvelin & Wilson (2003:
Information-Seeking analytical and specific to from the worker’s viewpoint 12)
Model professional task contexts and in Ingwersen & Jãrvelin
(Ingwersen & Järvelin the cognitive domain. (2005:68-70)
2005:70). The model claims
systematic relations
between (Byström &
Järvelin 1995):
1. Task complexity
2. Types of information
sought
3. Type of information
source.
 Table 8:Summary of Leckie et. al. (1996) & Bates (1989) models on information needs and
information seeking by type/focus, test group and reviews

MODEL NAME Model type/focus SUMMARY OF MODEL Test group REVIEW

Leckie et al’s A general model Assumes that the roles and related tasks undertaken 1. Engineers Leckie, Pettigrew, &
General by professionals in the course of daily practice prompt 2. Health Care Sylvain (1996)
Model of the particular information needs, which in turn give rise to professionals Case (2002:126-129)
Information-Seeking the 3. Nurses Leckie (2005)
of Professionals information-seeking process. Information-seeking is 4. Physicians
greatly influenced by a number of interacting variables, 5. Dentists
which can affect the outcome of information use. The 6. Lawyers
model comprises six components:
1. Work roles
2. Associated tasks
3. Characteristics of information needs and the factors
affecting information-seeking
4. Awareness
5. Sources
6. Outcomes
Bates’ Berrypicking Information Retrieval The Berrypicking Model states that (Bates Not tested by Bates Bates (1989)
Model of Information 1989:10): Bates (2002)
Retrieval 1. Typical search queries are not static, but Bates (2005:58-62)
evolve. Ingwersen & Järvelin
2. Searchers commonly gather information (2005:218-219)
in bits and pieces instead of in one ‘grand
best-retrieved set.’
3. Searchers use a wide variety of search
techniques which extend beyond those
commonly associated with bibliographic
databases.
4. Searchers use a wide variety of sources
other than bibliographic databases.
 References
• Wilson, T.D. (1999) "Models in information behaviour research"   Journal of Documentation, 55(3) 249-
270 [Available at http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/1999JDoc.html
• Report and proceedings. in Royal Society Conference on Scientific Information. 1948. London: Royal
Society, 1948
• Wilson, T.D. and C. Walsh, Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sheffield: University
of Sheffield, Department of Information Studies, 1996.
• Wilson, T.D., Information needs and uses: fifty years of progress? In B.C. Vickery, (Ed.). Fifty years of
information progress: a Journal of Documentation review. (p. 15-51) London: Aslib, 1994
• Westbrook, L., User needs: a synthesis and analysis of current theories for the practitioner. RQ,
1993. 32: 541-549.
• Paisley, W.J.I., Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
1968. 3: 1-30.
• Dervin, B. and M. Nilan, Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 1986. 25: p. 3-33.
• Wilson, T.D., Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective. Informatoin Processing and
Management, 1997. 33(4): p. 551-572.
• Wilson, T.D., On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 1981. 37(1): p. 3-15.
• Allen, T.J., Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the dissemination of technological
information within the R & D organization. 1977, Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .
 References (cont.)
• Dervin, B. An overview of sense-making research: concepts, methods and results to date. in International
Communications Association Annual Meeting. 1983. Dallas, Texas.
• Ellis, D., A behavioural approach to information retrieval design. Journal of Documentation, 1989. 46:
318-338.
• Ellis, D., D. Cox, and K. Hall, A comparison of the information seeking patterns of researchers in the
physical and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 1993. 49: 356-369.
• Kuhlthau, C.C., Inside the search process: information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 1991. 42: 361-371.
• Eysenck, H.J., W. Arnold, and R. Meili, Encyclopaedia of psychology. London: Search Press, 1972
• Dervin, B. and P. Dewdney, Neutral questioning: a new approach to the reference interview. RQ,
1986(Summer), 25: 506-513.
• Dervin, B., 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, 1992.
• Ellis, D. and M. Haugan, Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists
in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation, 1997. 53(4): p. 384-403.
• Kuhlthau, C.C., Seeking meaning: a process approach to library and information services. 1994,
Norwood, NJ.: Ablex Publishing.
• Kelly, G.A., A theory of personality: the psychology of personal constructs. 1963, New York, NY: Norton
 References (cont.)
• Kwasnik, B.H., The importance of factors that are not document attributes in the organisation of
personal documents. Journal of Documentation, 1991. 47: p. 389-398.
• Kuththau, C.C., The influence of uncertainty on the information seeking behavior of a securities analyst.
In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, and B. Dervin, (Eds.) Information seeking in context: proceedings of an
International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16
August, 1996, Tampere, Finland. London: Taylor Graham, 1997
• Folkman, S., Personal control and stress and coping processes: a theoretical analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1984. 46: 839-852.
• Murray, K.B., A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities. Journal of
Marketing, 1991. 55: 10-25.
• Settle, R.B. and P. Alreck, Reducing buyers' sense of risk. Marketing Communications, 1989 (January), 14:
34-40.
• Bandura, A., Self efficacy: towards a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review,
1977, 84: 191-215.
• Saracevic, T. Modeling interaction in information retrieval (IR): a review and proposal. In: Steve Hardin,
(Ed.) 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science. Silver Spring, MD: American
Society for Information Science, 1996. p. 3-9
• Ingwersen, P., Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction. Elements of a cognitive IR
theory. Journal of Documentation, 1996. 52, 3-50.
•
References (cont.)
Belkin, N.J., et al., Cases, scripts and information seeking strategies: on the design of interactive
information retrieval systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 1995. 9: 379-395.
• Borlund, P. and P. Ingwersen, The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive
information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 1997. 53(3): 225-250.
• Spink, A., Study of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 1997. 48(5): 382-394.
• Rasmussen, J., A.M. Pejtersen, and L.P. Goodstein, Cognitive systems engineering. 1994, New York:
Wiley. xviii, 378.
• McQuail, D., Mass communication theory: an introduction. (3rd. ed.) 1994, London: Sage.
• Shannon, C.E. and W.W. Weaver, The mathematical theory of communication. 1949, Urbana [Ill.];
London: University of Illinois Press.
• Maletzke, G., Psychologie der Massenkommunikation. Hamburg: Hans Bredow-Institut, 1963.
• Saracevic, T. Relevance reconsidered '96. in: P.E.R. Ingwersen & N.O. Pors, eds. COLIS 2 Second
International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Integration and Perspective.
Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship, 1996. p. 201-218
• Newcomb, T., An approach to the study of communication acts. Psychological Review, 1953. 60: 393-
404.
• Schutz, A. and T. Luckmann, The structures of the life-world. 1974, London: Heinemann.
• Schutz, A., On phenomenology and social relations: selected writings. Edited and with an introduction by
Helmut R. Wagner. 1970, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Spink, A. and R.M. Losee, Feedback in information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 1996, 31 33-78.
 Exercise 5.
• What relationship exist between theory and model?

• Total score = 5%