Loading

LIS Model / Theory Research Summary

View a video about the assignment:

The purpose of this assignment is to introduce you to a major Library and Information Science (LIS) model or theory related to information behavior that may be used as a theoretical framework for your research paper. Some of these theories have been developed by scholars in LIS, while others were developed in related disciplines. Our attention will focus on those theories that are most likely to be applicable to your research paper.

Getting Started

  • Review the video lectures on information seeking behaviour in Module 3 and Module 4.
  • Browse the listed models and theories at the bottom of this page and consider how different models/theories relate to your chosen information community.
  • Consider what models/theories could be used in your final research paper.
  • Select a single model or theory from the list provided below that relates to the information seeking behaviors of your chosen information community.

Assignment Requirements

Students will select an LIS theory or model from the list of LIS models and theories provided below and write a research summary on the topic.

The LIS Model/Theory Research Summary, including the reference list, should be a minimum of 1000 words in length and no more than 1250 words. It should be double spaced and in APA 7 format.

The summary will include a brief statement identifying the theory or model of interest, how it might apply to the chosen information community, and what related studies have utilized the theory or model as a framework.

The research summary should follow the following format:

  • Name/title of model or theory
  • Summarize the model or theory in your own words and answer these questions: Who developed the theory? What questions or hypotheses lead to the development of the model or theory? Is the model focused on a specific type of information behavior or type of community?
  • Describe how the model or theory provides a lens for understanding the information behaviors of your chosen community.
  • Briefly list the other scholars who have used the model or theory as a framework in their research. Briefly describe those studies and what insights they give you about information behavior.
  • Provide a list of APA 7 citations of all articles you used for the Summary.

Grading Criteria

Criteria

Points
Required components 2
Mechanics 2
Comprehension and analysis 3
Connections to course content and information science 3
Total 10

 

  • Required components evaluates whether your summary has a solid organizational foundation and includes all assignment requirements. You should identify an appropriate LIS theory or model and related scholar, or scholars, summarize the key concepts and connect the theory or model to your chosen community. The assignment should meet the word count requirements.
  • Mechanics assesses the quality of writing and technical aspects of the summary. The summary contains clarity of prose, a logical outline, transitional components, and is error-free; is formatted correctly and provides correct APA citation for each source; has a style suitable for academic work at the Masters level. 
  • Comprehension and analysis assesses the learner’s broad understanding of the ideas and ability to integrate the ideas into their work. The learner understands and successfully describes a relevant theory or model related to information-seeking, assimilates information, successfully interprets the literature, and describes major elements of the theory or model.
  • Connections to course content and information science evaluates how you use INFO 200 materials and LIS theories as a framework for your ideas. You should clearly incorporate and cite foundational INFO 200 materials to support your ideas and make connections. You should demonstrate the ability to support findings regarding your chosen information community with appropriate LIS models and theories.

Before Submitting Your Assignment

  • Spell and grammar check your document.
  • Double check your use of APA 7 formatting.
  • Take a break from your document and come back later to proofread it (manually).
  • Ask a peer to proofread your document – offer to do the same for them.
  • If you submit your assignment on Canvas prior to the due date and discover you have corrections to make, you can re-submit your assignment prior to the deadline.

Submitting Your Assignment

Submit your finished paper to Canvas (not your blog) using the naming convention: “LastName_NameofAssignment” as a PDF or Word document.

Assignment Examples

It is highly recommended that you look over at least one example LIS Model/Theory Research Summary assignment in order to gain a better understanding of the assignment and what is expected.

The Assignment Synthesis page includes examples of information communities researched in the past. You will find links to individual blog posts (posts 2-7), as well as to the four major assignments of this course, including the research paper.

(Note that some examples were completed in previous semesters and included an assignment that has since been replaced by the LIS Model/Theory Research Summary.)

Sampling of LIS Models and Theories

*** denotes a definitive article that you should cite in your summary.

Information search process (ISP) model (Kuhlthau)

  • ***Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.
  • Kuhlthau, C. (1998). Investigating patterns in information seeking: Concepts in context. In Wilson, T.D., & Allen, D.K. (eds.), Exploring the contexts of information behaviour : proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in Information Needs. Seeking and Use in Different Contexts (August 13-15, 1998, Sheffield, UK). Taylor Graham.
  • Kuhlthau, C.C., Heinström, J., & Todd, R.J. (2008). The ‘information search process’ revisited: Is the model still useful? Information Research, 13(4). https://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper355.htmlLinks to an external site. .

Berrypicking (Bates); Information foraging theory (Pirolli et al.):

  • ***Bates, M.J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.
  • Bates, M.J. (2007). What is browsing–really? A model drawing from behavioural science research. Information Research, 12(4). http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/paper330.htmlLinks to an external site.
  • Hjorland, B. (2011). The importance of theories of knowledge: Browsing as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(3), 594-603.
  • Sandstrom, P.E. (1994). An optimal foraging approach to information seeking and use. Library Quarterly, 64(4), 414-449.

Serious Leisure

Radical Change Theory (Dresang)

Sense-Making Theory and Methodology (SSTM; Dervin)

  • ***Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In Glazier, J.D., & Powell, R.R. (eds.), Qualitative Research in Information Management. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 61-84.
  • Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36-46.
  • Devin, B. (1999). On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting metatheory to method. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 727-750.
  • Savolainen, R. (1993). The sense-making theory: Reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to information seeking and use. Information Processing & Management, 29(1), 13-28.
  • Savolainen, R. (2006). Information use as gap-bridging: The viewpoint of sense-making methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(8), 1116-1125.

Information seeking model (Ellis)

  • ***Ellis, D. (1993). Modelling the information seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469-486.
  • Ellis, D., Cox, D., & Hall, K. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 356-369.
  • Ellis, D., & Haugan, M. (1997). Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 384-403.
  • Meho, L.I, & Tibbo, H.R. (2003). Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 54(6), 570-587.

Everyday life information seeking (ELIS; Savolainen)

  • ***Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “way of life”. Library & Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294.
  • Agosto, D.E., & Hughes-Hassell, S. (2006). Toward a model of the everyday life information needs of urban teenagers, Part 1: Theoretical model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(10), 1394-1403.
  • Savolainen, R. (2008). Everyday Information Practices: A Social Phenomenological Perspective. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Information poverty (Chatman)

  • ***Chatman, E.A., & Pendleton, E.M. (1995). Knowledge gap, information seeking and the poor. Reference Librarian, 49/50, 135-145.
  • Chatman, E.A. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(3), 193-206.
  • Fulton, C. (2010). An ordinary life in the round: Elfreda Annmary Chatman. Libraries & the Cultural Record, 45(2), 238-259.
  • Gibson, A.N. & Martin, J. D. (2019). Re‐situating information poverty: Information marginalization and parents of individuals with disabilities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 70(5), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24128
  • Haider, J., & Bawden, D. (2007). Conceptions of ‘information poverty’ in LIS: A discourse analysis. Journal of Documentation, 63(4), 534-557.
  • Lingel, J. and Boyd, D. “‘Keep It Secret, Keep It Safe’: Information Poverty, Information Norms, and Stigma,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 5 (2013): 981–91.

 Life in the round (Chatman)

  • ***Chatman, E.A. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 207-217.
  • Fulton, C. (2010). An ordinary life in the round: Elfreda Annmary Chatman. Libraries & the Cultural Record, 45(2), 238-259.
  • Thompson, K.M. (2009). Remembering Elfreda Chatman, a champion of theory development in library and information science education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50(2), 119-126.

Information encountering (Erdelez)

  • ***Erdelez, S. (1996). Information encountering: A conceptual framework for accidental information discovery. In Vakkari, P., Savolainen, R., & Dervin, B. (eds.), Information Seeking in Context. Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts. London: Taylor Graham, 412-421. [SILS Library – Z674.2 .I558 1996]
  • Erdelez, S. (1999). Information encountering: It’s more than just bumping into information. Bulletin of ASIST, 25(3), 25-29.
  • Erdelez, S., & Rioux, K. (2000). Sharing information encountered for others on the Web. New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 219-233.
  • Erdelez, S. (2004). Investigation of information encountering in the controlled research environment. Information Processing & Management, 40(6), 1013-1025.
  • Heinström, J. (2006). Psychological factors behind incidental information acquisition. Library & Information Science Research, 28(4), 579-594.

 Information grounds (Fisher)

  • ***Fisher, K.E., Durrance, J.C., & Hinton, M.B. (2004). Information grounds and the use of need-based services by immigrants in Queens, New York: A context-based, outcome evaluation approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 55(8), 754-766.
  • Counts, S., & Fisher, K.E. (2010). Mobile social networking as information ground: A case study. Library & Information Science Research, 32(2), 98-115.
  • Fisher, K.E., Landry, C.F., and Naumer, C.M., “Social Spaces, Casual Interactions, Meaningful Exchanges: ‘Information Ground’ Characteristics Based on the College Student Experience,” Information Research 12, no. 2, paper 291, http://InformationR.net/ir/12-1/paper291.htmlLinks to an external site.
  • Fisher, K.E., & Naumer, C.M. (2006). Information grounds: Theoretical basis and empirical findings on information flow in social settings. In Spink, A., & Cole, C. (eds.), New Directions in Human Information Behavior. Springer, 93-111.
  • Mejova, Y., and Kourtellis, N., “YouTubing at Home: Media Sharing Behaviour Change as Proxy for Mobility around COVID-19 Lockdowns,” arXiv 2103, 14601 (2021), https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14601Links to an external site.
  • Rohman. (2020). How information sharing at information grounds helps reconnect a religiously divided society? Cafés, Christians and Muslims in Ambon, Indonesia. Journal of Documentation, 76(6), 1155–1170. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2019-0054Links to an external site.

About this Assignment

The INFO 200 LIS Model/Theory Research Summary assignment utilizes the work of Barbara M. Wildemuth’s “Examples of Theories in Information Science” (https://ils.unc.edu/courses/2013_spring/inls887_001/887-IStheories.htmlLinks to an external site.). It has been updated and expanded for INFO 200 students and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States LicenseLinks to an external site..

Skip to toolbar