Delineating the boundary of “context” in information behavior: Towards a contextual identity framework

Abstract

Despite the seemingly widespread and growing attention to the notion of 'context' in information seeking, the concept remains ill-defined and inconsistently applied. There isn't any success in defining: What context really means? What are the boundaries of context? What constitutes the 'core' (main factors that lead to information seeking behavior) and what constitutes the 'surrounding' circumstances (or context)? Where do we draw the line between this core and the context? Or does this context subsume the core? The contribution of this theoretical study will be to help towards delineating the boundaries of context through a IntroductionIn the last few years, the context of information seeking is receiving increased attention 1 , along with equivalent notions like 'situation', 'setting', 'environment ', etc. Cool (2001) attributes this to the thinking that 'in order to better understand information-seeking behavior (ISB) and information retrieval (IR) interaction, greater attention needs to be directed to the information spaces within which these activities are embedded' (p.5). However, despite the seemingly widespread and growing attention, the concept remains ill-defined and inconsistently applied ( McCreadie & Rice (1999 p.58) define context as the 'larger picture in which the potential user operates; the larger picture in which the information system is developed and operates, and potential information exists', whereas situation is seen as 'the particular set of circumstances from which a need for information arises.' Courtright (2007) sees context as including those elements that have a more lasting and predictable influence on information [behavior] than situation, whereas situation is seen as a potential part of context. Dervin (1997 p.14-15), through a 3-tiered categorization of context, argues that for many, 'context has the potential of being virtually anything that is not defined as the phenomenon of interest…a kind of container in which the phenomenon resides.' A second group struggles with trying to determine which of an 'inexhaustible list of factors' will be included in context.

Use of Touch Devices by Toddlers or Preschoolers: Observations and Findings from a Single-Case Study

“…Thus, embodiment within a physical environment is a key aspect of a child's mobile interaction (Dourish, 2001;Druin, 2009;Marshall & Rogers, 2009;Price et al, 2009). Jones's (2009) three broad classes of activity spaces outside formal learning contexts can be classified under personal and shared contexts (see Agarwal et al, 2009). The attitudes and personalities of adults is part of the shared context of the child -an environment where a child communicates and expresses oneself.…”

Information source and its relationship with the context of information seeking behavior

“…Relating to ethnomethodology and the concept of ordinariness in conversation analysis, [39] arrives at an interactional view of context where he concludes that "context is managed moment by moment, achieved by those carrying out some activity together, and relative to that activity and to the forms of action and engagement that it entails" (p. 25). This is in tune with the call for recognizing the interaction between the three views of context put forth by [3].…”

“…(p. 19). His discussion on the incompatibilities between the positivist engineering tradition and the phenomenological social tradition and the 4 assumptions he talks about (see [39], p. [21][22] can be mapped to context stereotype and personal context [3] respectively. Relating to ethnomethodology and the concept of ordinariness in conversation analysis, [39] arrives at an interactional view of context where he concludes that "context is managed moment by moment, achieved by those carrying out some activity together, and relative to that activity and to the forms of action and engagement that it entails" (p. 25).…”

“…[3] To help towards delineating the boundary of context, Agarwal, Xu and Poo [3] proposed a contextual identity framework that combines the three ideologically divergent schools of thought on context -1) those that think context is subjective and resides in the mind of the seeker (personal context or 'my' context); 2) those that think context is made up of shared norms and social influences (shared context or 'our' context); and 3) those that think context is objective and made up of the factors and environment that surround the seeker (context stereotype or 'his/her/their' context. [3] highlights the futility of trying to define context using any one view. It contends that it is only when we take all the 3 views of context into consideration that we are able to adequately define, understand and study context.…”

“…context [3] would an information source fit. Would it be part of the shared context or contextual stereotype?…”