Modelling nonlinear information behaviour: transferability and progression

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to report on a project aimed at moving Foster's nonlinear model of information seeking behaviour forwards from an empirically based model focused on one setting and towards one that is robustly transferable and enables testing of the model in other information-seeking situations. Design/methodology/approach -The method utilised recoding of the original dataset, comparison of code decisions, and testing of the code book on a second dataset. Findings -The results of the coding confirm the structure and interactions in version one of the model. The dynamic and nonlinear nature of information seeking is confirmed, as are the core processes and contextual dimensions of the original model with some extension and refinement of coding. Practical implications -Changes to the model include new scales of extent and intensity, refinement of code descriptions, and extension of some elements to include multidisciplinary theories. Collectively these changes enable testing of the model in other information situations and opportunities for further research. Originality/value -The results incorporate a number of enhancements that have been developed since the original Foster model was created; cognitive dimensions relating to personality and learning are enhanced and the codes essential to the revised Foster model are described along with a code book. The paper concludes by highlighting areas for further research. IntroductionInformation behaviour is ubiquitous within the discipline of information science and there are many texts reviewing this area (Fisher et al., 2005;Case, 2007). Studies include behaviour within specific contexts (e.g. knitting circles, nursing) and many that focus on external factors such as environment, personality factors such as individual differences, and yet more that build complex models that relate search behaviour to information retrieval (for example Ingwersen, 1996). Major differences tend to originate at the epistemological level and permeate throughout these studies from the types of data collected and use of specialised terminology. It is notable that the end user "readership" also triggers language differences such that discussions of information behaviour often have a focus on information users, information needs, or information sources, and beyond this of information foraging and information handling. Dervin and Reinhard (2006) usefully discussed this aspect with regard to user and audience

Serendipity and its study

“…But we note that even context is debatable and has been the subject of exploration in its own right, see for example Talja et al (1999) and Kari and Savolainen (2007). Further research in this field must improve upon the methods of capturing events and as Foster and Urquhart (2012) suggest be based upon stable definitions and parameters. The study of serendipity spans practitioners, computer systems, psychology, information science and philosophy and is both strengthened due to the breadth of interest generated and weakened due to the fragmentation in which studies risk duplicating findings from slightly different viewpoints, misinterpret theories or miss opportunities to develop greater understanding.…”

“Bouncing ideas”: When participants use this phrase, what do they really mean?

“…This search uncovered sporadic and passing use by researchers but comparatively frequent use by the researchers' participants. Participants made statements such as, “I didn't ask anyone professionally there to help me but I sat round and discussed with friends how they'd gone about different avenues they'd taken, bounced ideas about basically” (Foster & Urquhart, , p. 790) and “we worked together more like on ideas, you know; we didn't really work together on projects so much, but we…constantly got to bounce around ideas about what we were going to do” (Sugimoto, 2011, p. 7). Participants used “bouncing ideas” to describe a range of information activities such as looking for information, sharing information, working collaboratively, and creating information.…”

Profiling information behaviour of nursing students: part 2: derivation of profiles

“…Elements of needing to orient themselves (reading around, familiarising) before commencing more detailed searching (elsewhere termed 'discovering vocabulary' (Duncan and Holtslander, 2012)) were evident but not universal. The idea that students utilise a 'shotgun' approach to searching (Roberts, 2004) and that the search is often lacking in detail and non-linear (Haines et al, 2010, Koivunen et al, 2010, Verhoeven et al, 2009) may be due to differing levels of confidence or the choice of sources or choice of the starting 'core process' (Foster and Urquhart, 2012). Alternatively, as the students were describing different critical incidents the nature of the particular assignment may impact on the type of search strategy employed.…”

“…This model is a reminder of the contextual factors that influence information seeking by students in any particular situation. The further development of Foster's model (Foster and Urquhart, 2012), using the dataset from the JUSTEIS project Rowley, 2007, Urquhart et al, 2003b) clarified the importance of extrinsic context for the information seeker (time, social networks, physical location and resource access). The internal context of Foster's original model was found to be better described as intrinsic context, and the importance of personality, learning style, knowledge, affect, self-efficacy and motivation was highlighted from study of the JUSTEIS dataset.…”

“…Instead of focusing on elusive, everchanging and constantly challenged nouns, Sense-making mandates a focus on the hows of human individual and collective sense-making and sense-unmaking" (Dervin, 1999 p731). Foster and Urquhart (2012) used more "verbings" in the revised Foster model, to describe the microprocesses of information seeking more accurately converting 'Problem Definition 'to 'Defining a Problem', and 'Identify Shape of Existing Research' to' Identifying Sources'.…”