LIS Model / Theory Research Summary

Here you will find the requirements and guidelines for the assignment followed by an assignment helper to get you started!

View a video about the assignment:

Description:
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. From the early modules devoted to information behavior, you will have the opportunity to learn about a variety of theories that may be applicable to your chosen information community. 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.

Requirements:

Students will select an LIS theory or model from the list provided below and write a research summary on the topic. Read the article designated as definitive and 2-3 others on the list or via your own research. The LIS Model/Theory Research Summary, excluding the reference list, should be a minimum of 750 words in length and no more than 1000 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.

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 citations of all articles you used for the Summary.

Submission:

  • Worth 10 points, which is 10% of your final grade.
  • Must be a minimum of 750 words in length and no more than 1000 maximum, double spaced, and in APA 7 style format.
  • Submit your finished paper to Canvas (not your blog) using the naming convention: “LastName_NameofAssignment” as a PDF or Word document.
  • All assignments are due on Sundays unless otherwise noted and must be turned in by 11:59 p.m. PT.
  • If life circumstances require students to request an extension, please do so several days before the assignment is due or as soon as possible.

The LIS Model/Theory Research Summary assignment utilizes the work of Barbara M. Wildemuth, specifically large portions of her list of LIS models and theories. The INLS 877 website, UNC-CH, 2011, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Address all comments and questions to Barbara M. Wildemuth at wildemuth@unc.edu. This page was last modified on January 4, 2013, by Barbara M. Wildemuth.

Assignment Helper – LIS Model/Theory Research Summary

This assignment helper is a step-by-step guide for successfully completing the LIS Model/Theory Research Summary assignment. This assignment will help introduce you to a number of instrumental and foundational models and theories within library and information science. You will select a single model or theory for this summary.

Getting Started:

  • Browse the listed models and theories presented 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.

Completing the LIS Model/Theory Research Summary:

  • 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. 
  • Your summary will follow the following format: 
    • Name/title of the model or theory
    • Summarize the model or theory in your own words while answering the following 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 this model or theory provides a lens for understanding the different information behaviors of your specific information community. 
    • Briefly list and describe other scholars who have utilized the model or theory as a framework in their research and how the work of these scholars have provided insights about information behavior. 

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.
  • Submit your finished paper to Canvas (not your blog) using the naming convention: “LastName_NameofAssignment” as a PDF or Word document. 
  • All assignments are due on Sundays unless otherwise noted and must be turned in by 11:59 p.m. PT.  
  • If life circumstances require students to request an extension, please do so several days before the assignment is due or as soon as possible.

Submission:

  • Worth 10 points, which is 10% of your final grade.
  • Must be a minimum of 750 words in length and no more than 1000 maximum, double spaced, and in APA 7 format.
  • Submit your finished paper to Canvas (not your blog) using the naming convention: “LastName_NameofAssignment” as a PDF or Word document.
  • All assignments are due on Sundays unless otherwise noted and must be turned in by 11:59 p.m. PT.
  • If life circumstances require students to request an extension, please do so several days before the assignment is due or as soon as possible.

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). http://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper355.html.

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.html. 
  • 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

  • ***Hartel, J. (2003). The serious leisure frontier in library and information science: hobby domains. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 228–238.
  • Hartel, J. (2010a). Leisure and hobby information and its user. In M. J. Bates (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed.) (pp. 3263–3274). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
  • Hartel, J., Cox, A. M., & Griffin, B. L. (2016). Information activity in serious leisure. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal. Retrieved September 9, 2021, from http://informationr.net/ir/21-4/paper728.html
  • Hektor, A. (2001). What’s the use: Internet and information behavior in everyday life (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A254863&dswid=-9051
  • Stebbins, R.A. (1994). The liberal arts hobbies: a neglected subtype of serious leisure. Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, 17(1), 173–186.
  • Stebbins, R.A. (2001b). Serious leisure. Society, 38(4), 53–57. 
  • Stebbins, R.A. (2009). Leisure and its relationship to library and information science: bridging the gap. Library Trends, 57(4), 618–631.

Radical Change Theory (Dresang)

  • Dresang, E. (2006). Intellectual freedom and libraries: Complexity and change in the twenty‐first‐century digital environment. The Library Quarterly, 76(2), 169-192. doi: 10.1086/506576
  • ***Dresang, E. T. (2008). Radical change revisited: Dynamic digital age books for youth. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3). https://citejournal.org/volume-8/issue-3-08/seminal-articles/article2-html-2
  • Dresang, E.T., & Koh, K. (2009). Radical Change Theory, Youth Information Behavior, and School Libraries. Library Trends 58(1), 26-50. doi:10.1353/lib.0.0070.

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.html.
  • 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/2103.14601.
  • 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-03-2019-0054