The expanding circles of information behavior and human–computer interaction

Abstract

This article examines the historical expansion and convergence of the fields of information behavior and human–computer interaction, primarily in terms of the philosophy underlying each field. Information behavior grew out of research in library service provision in the early 1900s, and human–computer interaction grew out of computer science and human factors engineering in the 1960s. While these two fields have had different origins, purposes, and discourses, in recent decades, they have begun to converge. In this article, we map this convergence and consider implications for the future of the information field. We conceptualize their scholarly paradigms as expanding circles, and we show that the circles of information behavior and human–computer interaction are expanding in terms of ontology, epistemology, and axiology—and moreover, they are beginning to overlap substantially. While the two fields continue to be largely separate in terms of scholarly discourses, we suggest that much could be gained by explicitly acknowledging their shared components. Some suggestions for this are discussed, and these are connected to the ongoing iSchool Movement.

Information behavior and practices research informing information systems design

“…Safety‐critical environments do for their part point to how inherent IBPs underpinning a technical task have a crucial impact on its outcomes and completion. Even if it would be a similar exaggeration to criticize ISD for ignoring information content altogether that it is to disregard the engagement of IBP research with technologies (Gorichanaz & Venkatagiri, 2021), the primary interest of ISD is in human‐technology interaction where information tends to remain relatively unarticulated. In contrast, IBP is primarily about information and people, not about systems.…”

“…Besides integrating technology perspectives in IBP research and models (Huvila, 2018a(Huvila, , 2018b(Huvila, , 2018cZhao et al, 2021) and bringing information into ISD (Fidel, 2012;Gorichanaz & Venkatagiri, 2021;Marchionini, 2008), one possible approach to rethinking IBP research and its links to ISD could be to consider it more closely through the concept of usefulness (cf. Huvila et al, 2019).…”

“…The criticism that IBP research fundamentally diverges from ISD has been put forward by several information researchers (Fidel, 2012; Fisher & Julien, 2009; Haider & Sundin, 2019; Hepworth et al, 2014; Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005; Julien et al, 2011; Julien & O'Brien, 2014). The gap becomes evident, particularly when compared to such neighboring fields as HCI and CSCW with lively exchange with ISD (Isomäki & Pekkola, 2010) and multiple points of convergence with IBP (Gorichanaz & Venkatagiri, 2021). They share partly overlapping interests with IBP but take an a priori focus on IT artifacts, whereas IBP research concentrates on people and their information‐related actions and perspectives without prioritizing particular technologies—even if as Fidel (2012), and recently Gorichanaz and Venkatagiri (2021), correctly remind us, there is nonnegligible overlap.…”

“…The gap becomes evident, particularly when compared to such neighboring fields as HCI and CSCW with lively exchange with ISD (Isomäki & Pekkola, 2010) and multiple points of convergence with IBP (Gorichanaz & Venkatagiri, 2021). They share partly overlapping interests with IBP but take an a priori focus on IT artifacts, whereas IBP research concentrates on people and their information‐related actions and perspectives without prioritizing particular technologies—even if as Fidel (2012), and recently Gorichanaz and Venkatagiri (2021), correctly remind us, there is nonnegligible overlap. Unsurprisingly, even if technology‐agonistic conceptions of ISs are common both in IBP and ISD, the implicit and explicit definitions of “information system” in IBP and information science (Buckland, 1991; Fidel, 2012; Haider & Sundin, 2019; Swanson, 2017) have a tendency to downplay, and in ISD and ISs contexts to emphasize (Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Hevner et al, 2004; Rainer et al, 2020), the position of IT artifacts as a key component of ISs.…”

On the two conceptualizations of information experience as an object of study: a response to Yu and Liu

“…Even apart from information experience, the objects of interest in LIS – particularly information behavior/practices and related areas – have been expanding to the extent that it is increasingly hard to distinguish LIS from human–computer interaction and adjacent fields (Gorichanaz and Venkatagiri, 2022). To give one recent example, the article “Classification of Humorous Interactions with Intelligent Personal Assistants” was published in Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (Lopatovska, 2020), and the article “Can a Humorous Conversational Agent Enhance Learning Experience and Outcomes?” was presented at the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Ceha et al.…”