Information Behavior Research: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going?

Abstract

A quantitative content analysis of recently published research in information behavior is compared with previous analyses to create a 30-year profile of work in the field. Variables of particular interest include research methods employed, user groups studied, relative interdisciplinarity, theoretical frameworks applied, attention to affect, and attention to systems design.Une analyse quantitative de contenus de recherches sur le comportement informationnel publiés récemment a été comparée à des analyses réalisées précédemment afin d’aboutir à un profil sur trente ans du travail accompli dans le domaine. Les variables offrant un intérêt particulier comprennent : les méthodes de recherche utilisées, les groupes d'utilisateurs étudiés, une relative interdisciplinarité, les cadres théoriques appliqués, l’attention aux affects, et l’attention aux conceptions de systèmes.*** Awarded Best Overall Conference Paper ***

Meta-Ethnography and its Potential for Theory Building in Library and Information Science

“…The need for theoretical foundations for research in the Library and Information Science (LIS) field is well documented (Grover and Glazier, 1986;Hjørland, 1998;Julien and Duggan, 2000;Julien et al, 2011;Leckie, Given, and Buschman, 2010;MeKechnie and Pettigrew, 2002;Pettigrew and McKechnie, 2001). Theory is "an important element for establishing the identity of LIS" (Kim and Jeong, 2006, 549) and yet there has been little attention paid to theory in the literature of the field and even a decline in theory use and development (Julien and O'Brien 2014;Kim and Jeong, 2006). This decline in theory development may represent a trend in LIS research to utilize "existing theory rather than to generate new theories" (Kim and Jeong, 2006, 559).…”

Information behavior and practices research informing information systems design

“…Thinking about the multiple possible levels and ways of how IBP research itself can be made relevant both in theory and practice for ISD and in different illustrative contexts—from CCEH to digital archaeology and safety‐critical environments—might help to find ways to bridge the criticized gap. Thinking about the partly undoubtedly real and partly imagined (Fisher & Julien, 2009; Haider & Sundin, 2019; Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005; Julien & O'Brien, 2014; Julien et al, 2011 cf. Makri, 2020) gap itself might not be exactly that helpful.…”

Prínos fenomenografických výskumov pre informačnú vedu

“…Sociálny vplyv fenomenografických výskumov potvrdzujú aj trendy výskumov informačného správania smerom k uplatneniu inteligentných technológií, sociálnych médií, tvorbe informačných politík a pomoci špeciálnym komunitám (deti, imigranti) alebo v dôraze na určité typy kontextu (zdravotnícke informácie, informačná bezpečnosť) a negatívne účinky informácií (dezinformácie, nedôvera, informačné preťaženie ai.). V mnohých štúdiách sa potom vyvíjajú aj novšie metodologické prístupy na identifikovanie a sledovanie sociálneho dopadu fenomenografie a lepšie využívanie sociálnych teórií (Given et al, 2015;Julien a O'Brien, 2014). Sociálny dopad fenomenografie sa v súčasnosti modeluje v mnohonásobných sociálnych faktoroch využitia informácií v kontextoch.…”