Terminology deconstructed: Phenomenographic approaches to investigating the term “information”

Library & Information Science Research 28 (2006) 563–578

Terminology deconstructed: Phenomenographic approachesto investigating the term “information”

Andrew K. Shenton a,⁎, Susan Hayter b,1

a Division of Information and Communication Studies, School of Informatics, Northumbria University,Newcastle upon Tyne, England

b Faculty of Information and Media Studies, North Campus Building, University of Western Ontario,London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7

Abstract

Although considerable attention has been focused on information users in recent years, littlephenomenographic research into the word “information” has been conducted, perhaps because cursoryconsideration may suggest that work of this type is less useful than explorations of areas such asinformation-seeking. The lack of an established methodological framework discourages inquiry and, ifunderstandings of the term are unique to each individual, there seems little scope to develop even broadprinciples for practice. Nevertheless, phenomenographic research helps professionals to learn how farusers’ attitudes to the term “information” are consistent with their own and can reduce confusionbetween information providers and their clientele. Despite the absence of an accepted framework,several individual techniques are available. Ultimately, the research findings may prove highlyinstructive. They may, for example, influence the use of the word “information” by professionals whenthey interact with clients, whilst also offering insights into information behavior and information worlds.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Background

Although the last thirty years have seen significant levels of research into informationbehavior, investigations addressing the ways in which users understand the term “information”

⁎ Corresponding author. 92 Claremont Road, Whitley Bay, Tyne and Wear, NE26 3TU, England, UK.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.K. Shenton), [email protected] (S. Hayter).

1 Contact address: 349 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2M 2M9.

0740-8188/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2006.10.003

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2006.10.003

564 A.K. Shenton, S. Hayter / Library & Information Science Research 28 (2006) 563–578

have been rare. Pondering on how a “lay person” may define it, Madden (2000) resorts toquoting the entry for the word in the Oxford English Dictionary. Work devoted to userconstructs of “information” belongs to a wide area of inquiry which Limberg (1999) terms“phenomenographic.” She explains that this category embraces studies which “explorepeople’s different ways of experiencing or understanding or thinking about phenomena in theworld” (p. 117), and it is her meaning that is intended throughout this paper. The lack of suchphenomenographic work in relation to users’ concepts of “information” does not, however,reflect the number of more general explorations that have been attempted. On the contrary,many academics have written about the nature of “information,” and a variety of researchreports has included efforts by their authors to define the word in order to establish the territoryof their projects and the boundaries of the phenomenon under investigation.

2. Problem statement

This paper explores a range of areas associated with phenomenographic research intoinformation. No previous article has addressed work of this kind in as much detail. The piecebegins with the hypothesis that phenomenographic inquiry in this area is scanty, examines thereasons for this deficiency, and contrasts these with the benefits that this type of research canbring. Possible methods of collecting, analyzing and reporting data are then outlined. Thearticle also highlights more fundamental questions raised by phenomenographic research into“information,” namely how constructs associated with the word emerge in the minds of usersand which group should be most responsible for shaping definitions of accepted “information”concepts–researchers, the library and information science (LIS) profession, or informationusers themselves.

3. Difficulties with research into the area

The lack of attention given to users’ perceptions of the term “information” can be mainlyattributed to three factors. First, it may be that researchers perceive this area to be considerablyless important than insights into information needs and information-seeking behavior, perhapsbecause the implications for practice of any discoveries that are made appear less immediatelyobvious. Where research reveals that members of the population in question experienceinformation needs of certain kinds, it is clearly important that information materials andservices intended to cater for these people do, in fact, provide for these needs. Research intoinformation-seeking can reveal patterns in behavior that may help inform the development ofinformation resources, services and environments, as well as bring to light common problemswhich can be addressed in programs of user education. In contrast, work devoted to the mentalmodels people have formulated with regard to individual terms may appear abstruse andobscure.

The second stumbling block derives from this first issue. Since so little work on users’perceptions of the word “information” has been conducted, no widely accepted framework for

565A.K. Shenton, S. Hayter / Library & Information Science Research 28 (2006) 563–578

investigation has yet been developed that prospective researchers can adopt or even adapt.This forms a considerable deterrent to academics and information professionals contemplatingundertaking work in this area. Rather than building on an existing structure, a researcher has todevise a new one. This is an especially demanding task when one considers that “information”can seem an esoteric term for many people and, even among information scientists, there islittle consensus as to its meaning. Indeed, writing over twenty-five years ago, Levitan (1980)identified almost thirty different concepts inherent in attempts by commentators to address thenature of “information.” Wilson (1981) describes “information” as a “troublesome concept”(p. 3), and the International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science (1997) suggeststhat the word is possibly the least precisely used term in the discipline of LIS. Childers (1975)even goes so far as to assert that “information” is a word that “defies definition” (p. 20). Thedifficulty of isolating the specific characteristics of “information” is recognized by Buckland(1991), who argues that anything from which one learns may be called “information,” therebyleading him to conclude, “we are unable to say confidently of anything that it could not beinformation” (p. 356).

When talking to informants about their information needs and the actions they have taken inresponse, a researcher may adopt a strategy such as the long-established critical incidenttechnique, in which the informant recounts a true story relating to one particular situation. Theway in which this method provides a concrete focus for a discussion is emphasized by vanManen (1990), and, if the investigator chooses to take the option favored by Poston-Andersonand Edwards (1993), who concentrated on an individual experience that each informantremembered especially clearly, once the participant has begun the account the researcher’s rolemay well just be to prompt and clarify. Indeed, van Manen (1990) writes that much can beachieved merely through patience and silence. Discussions on the nature of “information” can,however, seem rather more philosophical in comparison to stories of information-seekingaction and a carefully conceived predetermined strategy to elicit data may be consideredessential.

The final issue relates to the frequency of the variations in understandings of the term“information” that emerge between one individual to another. Lester and Koehler (2003),drawing on the work of Dervin, Pratt and Barlow, state unequivocally, “Perceptions ofinformation by the individual are unique” (p. 23). This stance may lead to researchers againquestioning the need for phenomenographic investigations into the word “information.” Ifusers develop different understandings of the information they encounter, it is possible thattheir comprehensions of the term itself are similarly variant. If so, how can the implications ofany research in this area be constructed in such a way that even broad principles for practicecan be formulated?

4. Some responses

Despite the lack of research in this area and the inherent difficulties associated with thework, there are several reasons why phenomenographic investigation into the concept of“information” is important. Dervin (1980) is one of the most vocal advocates of the value of


studies of this kind. She stresses that, in discussing the notion of “information,” it is importantto explore the term “as a user construct rather than as an observer construct” (p. 95). Certainly,if a holistic picture of the information behavior of people within a particular user group is to begained, it is logical to begin with the subjects’ perceptions of the word that lies at the heart ofthe matter. Whereas expressions such as “information needs” and “information-seeking” areessentially labels that are applied by information specialists and academics rather than thegeneral population or even individual groups of users, “information” itself is a word which is atleast familiar to people. Yet, it cannot be assumed that the diverse constructs of “information”held by information scientists will necessarily be shared by people within any particular usergroup. On the contrary, Raber (2003) suggests that definitions of “information” which areaccepted by specialists are likely to differ “from common, everyday understandings” (p. 14).

On the most practical of levels, anyone looking to develop a product or service that employsthe word in either its name or the literature prepared for its clientele would be well advised toexplore meanings of “information” held by prospective users. Where there is a mismatch in thetwo parties’ understandings, it may be possible that the professional’s employment of the wordgives rise to expectations among clients that are inappropriate. Similarly, teachers in schoolsand professors in universities often ask learners to find “information” for assignments and, ifthe educator intends his or her own use of the term to express one particular set of ideas and theconnotations of the word for their students are not congruent, the work ultimately producedmay well fall short of the educator’s expectations and requirements. Thus once research hasuncovered perceptions of the word “information” among those in the client group, people suchas teachers, professors, information specialists and marketing experts must decide whether ornot they share these constructs. If they intend the term as they use it to carry a differentmeaning, they may well opt to employ alternative language. Such an approach would beconsistent with Fairthorne’s (1965) assertion that, in certain circumstances, “‘information’ andits derivatives are words to avoid” (p. 10).

In response to the criticism that each information user may have an individual perception ofthe term, it is, nonetheless, possible to identify a reasonably limited number of broad strands ofmeaning that unite the ideas of different people and which, in their entirety, reflect the views ofthe whole group. Collecting data from school-aged youngsters, Shenton (2002) found a merenine such strands to emerge. These were in addition to situations where “information” wasdefined on the basis of perceived synonyms or where exemplar statements believed torepresent “information” in themselves were offered. If these instances are disregarded, eachdefinition was derived from one or more of the following assumptions:

• the need-centered assumption, that is, “information” was considered to be what is soughtwhen an individual experiences a certain type of feeling;

• the form-oriented assumption, that is, “information” was believed to be represented in aparticular manner, such as via text or pictures;

• the linguistic structure assumption, that is, “information” was thought to be composed ofwords, paragraphs and sentences;

• the source-driven assumption, that is, “information” was defined on the basis that it may beobtained from particular materials or organizations;


• the content-based assumption, that is, the matters addressed by “information” were deemedto be, in some way, limited or unlimited;

• the action-process assumption, that is, “information” was associated with certain behavioron the part of an inquirer after a need had been identified;

• the semiotic assumption, that is, “information” was regarded as conveying meaning to arecipient;

• the illuminatory assumption, that is, “information” was seen as a cognitive change agent,enhancing in some way what is known by an individual; and

• the use-related assumption, that is, “information” was understood to have some measure ofutility, either actual or projected.

Like Shenton, Hayter (2005) discovered that her research participants–adult members of adeprived community in north-east England–understood a diverse array of meanings withregard to the word “information” but she, too, was able to categorize them into a relativelysmall number of conceptualizations. Ranging in scope from general perceptions to context-related meanings, the nine themes were seen to involve:

• learning;• a learning place;• a lack of knowledge or a need for knowledge;• information-seeking (active, purposive);• information gathering (passive, incidental, serendipitous);• information sharing;• help and support;• what was happening in the local community; and• a worrying concept threatening issues of confidentiality.

In addition “information” was regarded as a “big” word that intimidates people.Just as strands of cognitive commonality emerged across the ideas of several informants in

the studies of both Shenton (2002) and Hayter (2005), it can be seen that certain principles arefundamental to perceptions of “information” across commentators in different disciplines andprofessionals of a range of kinds. One such principle is that of “information as precipitator.” Ina paper appearing in an LIS journal, Nitecki (1985), for example, delineates how “information”can change “one’s perception of things and events” (p. 389), and, in the British legal system,“information” may be equated with evidence that prompts a police investigation. Whilst thetwo situations are in many respects quite different, in both cases the stimulating effect of“information” is apparent. Elsewhere, “information” is not merely seen as a prompt of somekind but rather a phenomenon that is itself changed during its lifespan. Writing in relation toinformation processing, McShane (1991) traces how, in human beings, “information” is codedand transmitted through a series of channels. At critical points in its passage, processes changethe “information” until the retained “information” is stored. An alternative view whichemerges in computer science and in distinctions between “information” and “knowledge” isthat “information” forms the outcome of a process. In computing, Orilia (1986) understands


“information” to be data that has been subjected to some form of electronic manipulation orhandling, and Orna (1999) notes how “information” may be considered to be knowledge thathas undergone the process of being made “visible or audible, in written or printed words, or inspeech” (p. 8).

Definitions associated with certain other disciplines emphasize the quantifiable nature of“information.” This is especially true in the context of information theory which, in the wordsof Sutherland (1995), “makes it possible to measure how much information is being conveyeddown a channel, the maximum amount of information a given channel could convey if thecoding system were perfect, the redundancy of a message, the limitations imposed on achannel by noise, and so on” (p. 224). The LIS concept of “information-as-thing” discussed byBuckland (1991) also stresses the measurability of physical “information,”which, he suggests,may take forms as varied as books within libraries, bits and bytes within computer systems andobjects within museums.

Buckland's (1991) postulate that “information” is “evidence that informs” is comparable toa construct which Young (1951) suggests is widely held in biology. Here, the latter asserts that“information” provided by sense organs is used by an organism to make an appropriateresponse to the world around it or even in relation to its own body. In this context, the extent towhich the phenomenon in question may be considered “information” is dependent on theability of the recipient to react suitably to what is received. Such a view is held by no meansuniversally, however. Some authors on the subject of cognition take the stance that any sensorystimuli may constitute “information.” Solso et al. (2005), for example, write of how each of thefive senses in humans detects “millions of bits of information each day” (p. 527).

Although there seems much cross-over in the ideas relating to “information” that emerge indifferent fields of knowledge, when definitions associated with certain disciplines areexamined, it is difficult to identify any real linkages between them and constructs developed inother areas. For example, according to Lester and Koehler (2003), in philosophy “informationis perceived as what can be known” (p. 23), whilst Fiske (1982) explains how, in connectionwith Shannon and Weaver’s model of communication, the term may be used very specificallyas a measure of the predictability of a signal. In both cases, these forms of meaning are unlikelyto be shared by those outside the discipline.

5. Procedures

Despite the lack of an overall framework for phenomenographic studies of “information,”various individual approaches are available to the researcher. These can be divided into overtand covert strategies. Both are generally employed in interviews or focus groups, rather thanquestionnaires.

Overt approaches include directly asking informants to

• indicate, through the use of as many or as few words as they wish, what the term means tothem. Belkin (1978) distinguishes between definitions and concepts, arguing that the former“says what the phenomenon defined is, whereas a concept is a way of looking at, or


interpreting, the phenomenon” (p. 58). If informants are broadly asked what in their viewthe word “information”means, both options are available to them. Requesting specifically adefinition places participants in the unenviable position of being expected to provide somekind of universally applicable statement, which, for many users, especially if they are laypeople, may prove too demanding. In order to avoid this pitfall, Hayter (2005), in her studyof socially excluded adults, sought to elicit the research participants’ interpretations of theconcept by asking, “When you hear that word, ‘information,’ what do you think?” Levitan(1980) is critical of questions such as “What is information?” and argues that theinterrogative, “what,” “fosters description through reductionist thinking” (p. 244). Shealleges that the subject under examination is deconstructed into elements that are scrutinizedindividually, thereby leading to fragmentation rather than synthesis. Within the context ofphenomenographic research into the term “information,” Levitan’s charge has some validitysince an obvious approach to analyzing the data elicited by the question, “What do youthink we mean by the word, ‘information?’”, involves the researcher’s breaking the datadown into separate strands of meaning, each of which is likely to be considered in isolation.Thus, in instances where informants offer articulations that incorporate several strands, theiroverall meanings, and with them the context in which some of the individual issues areraised, will be lost, at least initially. Shenton (2002), in acknowledging this weakness in hisown research, re-examined the data from each informant for evidence of multiple strandsand reported additional “compound understandings” that represented the ideas of individualparticipants more holistically. Informants may, of course, choose to express “information”merely via word substitution, by offering alternative terms like “data” or “knowledge”without elaborating further and explaining the relationship between the two. Case (2002)believes that any statement in which a term is represented by other words provides only a“nominal” definition (p. 41), and the use of near synonyms may be considered the starkestform of such a definition. Here it is important that the researcher is armed with follow-upstrategies to probe more deeply;

• respond with any individual ideas that enter their heads as they hear the word. Eachassociation may then be discussed in turn in more detail. This approach is loosely based onword-association tests that Schultz and Schultz (2004) attribute to the British scholar,Francis Galton. The authors explain how the German psychologist, Wilhelm Wundt,adapted the technique, limiting his subjects’ responses to a single word. Phenomeno-graphers pursuing constructs of “information” among informants are unlikely, however, toemploy the rapid-fire approach that is often assumed to accompany word-association teststoday, and greater emphasis will be given to the informants’ explanations of each asso-ciation they articulate;

• suggest ideas in relation to broad aspects of the “information” construct, such as how“information” originates, the forms and types of “information” that exist, where“information” can be obtained and how it can be used. The last two areas lend themselvesparticularly well to the discussion of personal situations which the informant hasexperienced. Case (2002), in discussing a bottom-up approach to the analysis of meaning,suggests that one strategy open to researchers seeking to define “information” forthemselves can involve attempting “to list exhaustively all the possible forms that infor-


mation could take” (p. 42). Yet, phenomenographers will probably spurn any method whichinvolves asking an informant to make such an undertaking because they appreciate that, ifthey probe too deeply, he or she is forced to think about the matter on a level which does notreflect the day-to-day assumptions underpinning the person’s wider attitudes and behavior.Conversely, in order to alleviate the pressure that they may feel from being “put on thespot,” informants may be tempted to give the first response they are able to conceive, ratherthan one which truly represents their ideas;

• describe how they interpret the word in relation to the situation that has prompted theresearch. This could, for example, involve posing to school pupils a question such as “Ifyour teacher asks you to find ‘information’ for an assignment that has been set, what wouldyou feel you had to find?” In order to render the situation more concrete, a subject for theassignment may be specified. Or, where prospective users of a new information service arebeing targeted, they may be asked, “If an organization claiming to provide ‘information’were established, what would you expect it to offer?” This approach is rooted in Raber’s(2003) assertion in relation to the construct of “information” that understanding the notion“is less a matter of providing a formal definition of the word than apprehending what itmeans when it is used in a particular context” (p. 2).

With young children, in particular, another dimension may be added at the start of the datacollection session by asking them to draw what comes into their minds as soon as they see orhear the word and by inviting them to explain their reasons for drawing such pictures. A wellestablished technique in other areas of research, the drawing approach is based on the principlepropounded by Goodnow (1977) that drawings “are ‘natural’ rather than imitative … theyspring from within” (p. 10) and it has been employed by academics investigating youngsters’perceptions of such concepts as machines (de Bono, 1971) and science/scientists (Chambers,1983; Newton and Newton, 1992, 1998). When used in concert with young people’s words,drawings can make an important contribution to triangulation by providing data in anotherform, and, as de Bono (1972) notes, they enable the researcher to gain an insight into the ideasof a youngster who is ill at ease in using words or possesses only a limited vocabulary. Theshortcomings of drawing methods, however, are documented by Newton and Newton (1992),who reason that, within the context of their own work exploring children’s perspectives ofscience and scientists, the technique is poorly suited to allowing the portrayal of certain mentalprocesses and it is possible that the content of participants’ representations may depend partlyon what they find easy to draw. Despite these weaknesses, the use of pictures to elicit meaningsis not restricted to children. It has, in fact, also been employed in participative appraisal (PA), aprocess described by Northumbria University’s School of Applied Sciences (2003) as “acommunity-based approach to consultation that gives precedence to the views and attitudes oflocal people as experts within their own communities.” PA uses visual tools, such as maps,spider diagrams and pictures, and it is interactive, enabling people from all backgrounds andwith varying abilities to be involved in the research.

Whether the individual’s data take the form of spoken words or drawings, they should beoffered spontaneously. One of the disadvantages of a questionnaire which can be completed atleisure is that the recipient may be tempted to ask others or consult a reference aid in order to


improve the quality of the response, and perhaps even seek a “right answer,” whereas it is, ofcourse, the personal constructs of the individual that the researcher is seeking to explore.

Covert data elicitation techniques may be employed in addition to or instead of the “directmethods” described above. Here the overall study is likely to be devoted to one or more areasof information behavior, as well as people’s perceptions of the term “information.” In aninterview situation, so as to collect data relating to the informant’s information needs, theresearcher may ask him or her to describe a recent situation in which, for example, he or sherequired help, had to decide what to do, felt worried about something or needed to find out orlearn about something. In order to explore his or her information-seeking action, theinvestigator may probe into how the informant responded in these types of situations. If thesession is tape recorded, it is possible on reading the transcripts to analyze the informant’s usesof the term “information” and the contexts in which it has been employed, thereby adding amore naturalistic dimension to the research. This strategy is consistent with therecommendations of Webb et al. (2000), who advocate “unobtrusive measures” involvingscrutiny of material “generated without the producer’s knowledge of its use by the inves-tigators” (pp. 49–50). Although informants answering the researcher’s questions obviouslyknow that their responses will be analyzed, they are almost certainly unaware that their replieswill be examined in this context and use of the data is in this sense unobtrusive, and evencovert. The increased diversity of methods that can be applied to collect such data may alsoprove attractive to the researcher. Again, questionnaires are inappropriate as they afford littleopportunity for the kind of free writing that is required but diaries maintained by participants torecord their information needs and the actions they take in response can offer furtherpossibilities.

Three significant criticisms of the covert approach remain, however. First, as the data are notbeing used in a way the participant could have expected, it is dubious whether the kind ofinformed consent that conscientious researchers consider an ethical pre-requisite has beengiven. Second, the investigator cannot be certain in advance that the individuals contributingdata will use the word, “information,” of their own volition at all and, even if they do, thatsufficient data will be collected. In this respect, the researcher becomes a hostage to fortune.The danger may be especially pronounced if the targeted participants are young people, since,as Dobson (2000) writes, “children do not look for ‘information,’ they look for ‘stuff’” (p. 29).Hayter (2005) discovered that her adult participants tended not to use the term as it was, forthem, contextually inappropriate; the word “information” was often seen as threatening andintrusive because of its bureaucratic associations. Finally, the approach is based on theassumption that the researcher will be able to determine by inference how the term isunderstood, given the contexts in which the person uses the word. A certain element ofsubjectivity is involved here as it is unlikely that the conclusions reached by any two analystswill be identical in this regard and thus questions may be asked of the trustworthiness of theapproach. Nevertheless, such variations between researchers may be considered an inevitableconsequence of the “human as instrument” stance that Lincoln and Guba (1985) recognize tobe pivotal to naturalistic inquiry, and which will undoubtedly emerge in a range of othersituations too. The inclusion of direct quotations of the informants’ words can go some way toallaying concerns surrounding subjectivity since readers will be able to determine for them-


selves whether inferences made by the researcher are justified. A further disadvantage,however, is that if the study is a wide-ranging one that also covers information needs andinformation-seeking behavior, the researcher must take care not to employ the term“information” when addressing these areas. Otherwise the researcher’s own use of the wordmay influence the participants’ ideas. It is easy to allow such an oversight to be made,particularly in unstructured interviews where the questions to be asked by the researchercannot be prepared in advance. In instances in which the researcher is investigating both theinformants’ understandings of the term “information” and their information behavior, it maybe useful to allocate separate sessions to work in the different areas and explore the formerfirst. This will ensure that discussions of “information” are not unduly influenced by the actualinformation-seeking situations that may otherwise have been discussed already.

Perhaps the most fundamental priority with regard to data analysis is that the method(s)pursued should reflect the researcher’s aims and objectives for the project, as well as beingconsistent with the epistemological stance favored by the investigator. With regard to morespecific issues, if several strategies for eliciting data have been employed, the researchermust decide whether to integrate the data that have been gathered in the different ways orwhether to analyze and report them independently. A holistic approach involves bringing allthe data together, regardless of the individual collection strategies used, and analyzing thetotality, whereas a separatist strategy lies in arranging the data in units based on the way inwhich the data have been collected and examining each unit in turn. A hybrid optioninvolves initially considering separately and reporting individually the data that have beengathered via the various approaches, before, in a unifying discussion, looking at the dataoverall and noting patterns of similarity and difference that emerge. To what extent is aconsistent picture apparent?

The data that have been elicited are likely to have been of the qualitative type, as they willrelate to the subjects’ particular attitudes and ideas, and these will be expressed in their ownlanguage. Several reporting strategies are available. One approach lies in painting a rich pictureof the constructs of “information” held by each person. This may be a realistic option only if arelatively small number of informants has contributed data. Furthermore, although aconcentration on the ideas of a single individual on each occasion can lend the report a morevivid, meaningful and naturalistic dimension, it can be difficult for the reader to gain a sense ofoverall patterns across the sample. An alternative is to present typologies, whose types are, ineffect, abstractions conveying the essence of similar ideas of several participants, and thesesyntheses are illustrated by the individuals’ actual words. If the researcher’s interest lies inuncovering attitudes and then determining their prevalence within the whole sample, aquantitative element of the type advocated by Silverman (2001) may be added at this point sothat the reader appreciates the frequency of each type, thereby increasing the transparency ofthe work. Nevertheless, writers such as Lincoln and Guba (1985), who advocate thatinvestigators undertaking a study must commit themselves to a particular research paradigmand employ only tools associated with that methodological framework, believe that the mixingof qualitative and quantitative data within a single project is fundamentally unsound, as thetwo kinds of data stem from forms of inquiry derived from mutually-exclusive epistemologicalstandpoints.


Case (2002) explains how definition taking a top-down perspective will involve distillingthe ideas of others – who in this instance are again assumed to be authors, rather thanindividual information users – “to their abstract core,” with the researcher endeavoring todiscover “what is the heart of what they say about the concept” (p. 42). Although it may wellprove impossible, as Case admits, to isolate a single common thread, in a higher level analysisthe researcher may aim to devise some form of model that affords a means of setting individualconstructs within an overarching whole. Shenton and Dixon (2003) have attempted such anapproach in their model of the information life cycle. Where this is done, it is important that theauthor makes clear whether the implied linkages that pertain to the individual elements withinthe model have been constructed by the researcher in order to provide continuity across theconcepts or whether such connections really exist in the minds of the participants. If the formeris the case, the researcher has merely used the informants’ data to synthesize something new.

6. Origin of information constructs

One of the more intriguing directions that phenomenographic research into “information”may take is to attempt to uncover not only user perceptions of the term but also the influencesthat have led to their emergence. Since constructs of “information” may well be formed, atleast in part, subconsciously and informants may struggle to articulate these influences in theirtotality, this is clearly a challenging area of research. Although it may be proposed that factorsare likely to include the use of the term by people with whom the informant has personalcontact, by information products and services known to the individual and by the mass mediawith which he or she is familiar, without sufficient knowledge of the minutiae of the subject’slife and experiences it is unlikely that the researcher will be able to identify all such influences.

7. Benefits of research examining users’ concepts of the term “information”

Once they have gained an improved understanding of the ways in which the word “infor-mation” is understood by the client community, people such as professors, teachers,information specialists and marketing experts are in a position from which they can decidewhether these perceptions are analogous to their own and, where there are differences, theymay choose to use alternative terminology. As Pitts (1994) has shown, in some situationsphrases like “facts and ideas” and “things you needed to know” (p. 75) can replace the word. Ifsuch action is taken, however, caution must be exercised, since it is frequently impossible toswap one linguistic token for another without any loss of the intended meaning. Suchsubstitution may be ostensibly attractive on the grounds that it counters a key problem, namelythat the participants may believe “information” to have a degree of truth value or to becharacterized by a certain channel (e.g. visual, rather than auditory), a particular form (e.g.textual, rather than pictorial), or a single type (e.g. statements of fact, rather than opinions) thatthe professional has not assumed to apply. The first of these variables is probably the mostcontentious. It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore in detail the importance of truth


within “information,” especially as the notion of truth is itself subject to a wide range ofinterpretations among philosophers. Nevertheless, it should be appreciated that even differentLIS commentators attach varying importance to the pertinence of truth within “information.”Dervin (1983) is among those for whom it does not form any great priority. Indeed, she statesquite unequivocally that “information” may be considered to include “delusion” (p. 5). Such astance may not be accepted by all information users. Certainly, if effective communication is tobe maintained between information providers and clients, a high degree of shared under-standing of key vocabulary is essential.

Gross (1995) draws attention to a chain of relationships that may depend on the term“information” being perceived reasonably uniformly by different people. In her model of the“imposed query,” she explores the information need that emerges from an imposition made bya party external to the searcher. The need for a library user to satisfy the demands of a teacheror professor, in terms of a coursework assignment, has already been noted and is perhaps themost obvious example of a situation which gives rise to an inquiry of this type, but Grossreminds us that a range of individuals, including employers and members of the family, mayimpose queries on others. Gross defines six stages in the development of a query of this type:

a) initiated: the query as represented by an imposer;b) transferred: the mutual understanding of the query as developed in the transfer process

from the imposer to an agent;c) interpreted: the query as understood and stored by the agent;d) negotiated: the query as mutually understood by the agent and an intermediary;e) processed: the query as understood by the agent in the light of the resources used to

respond to it; andf) evaluated: the query as understood by the imposer in relation to the response provided.

The opportunity for what Gross (1995) terms “mutation” at each stage is a key factor inthe query’s development. Gross explains, “As the query is passed from person to person andthrough various contexts, there is the potential for change due to varying situational forces”(p. 240). Ultimately, the imposer’s ability to receive meaningful “information” is dependenton the query having not mutated too far from what was originally intended. In instanceswhere one protagonist has used the word “information” when in contact with another, oneform of mutation may clearly result from the different perceptions of it that may be held bythe three parties involved – the imposer, the agent, and the intermediary.

Hayter (2005) highlights a further reason for avoiding the word “information.” In dialogueswith her research participants, she found that for many the term had negative connotations.This led her to temper its use even in her data collection sessions and to offer alternativeexpressions that were congruent with her research aims. The word, “help,” one that researchparticipants themselves had employed, provided a useful alternative in the context ofinformation behavior in a deprived community. Clearly, this discovery has implications, too,for information professionals who may be working with members of similar groups.

Hayter (2005) has also demonstrated how a phenomenographic perspective on the nature of“information” may shed additional light on the information worlds of the client group under


scrutiny. In the face of recent trends towards the understanding of information-seeking incontext, it may be assumed that any strategy which offers further insight into the reasons forparticipants’ behavior in this regard would be welcomed, yet very little work continues to beconducted on how individuals within various communities perceive the term “information.”Despite the prevalence of the information-seeking in context approach, it is, as Dervin(1997), one of its greatest advocates, concedes, difficult to formulate an unequivocalstatement of which contextual factors should fall under scrutiny. She does, however, presenta pertinent analogy. Dervin likens context to a container in which the phenomenon inquestion resides and investigations of context concentrate on the aspects of the container thatimpact on or relate to the phenomenon. Pursuing an information-seeking in context approachand also asking participants for their reactions on hearing the word “information,” Hayter(2005) has been able to show a close association between her informants’ understandings ofthe term and their behavior. In her study of adults within a deprived community, shediscovered that, for many of her informants, “information” was considered to relate tosituations within the local estate, rather than in the wider world. This discovery wasconsistent with her findings elsewhere that a high degree of insularity characterized herparticipants’ information-seeking action in real-life situations. A “doorstep culture”predominated and the individuals were reluctant to look far afield for the informationthey required. Nevertheless, because such findings cannot be predicted, it is difficult topresent a compelling case for the need to address people’s perceptions of “information”within a broader study of their information behavior on the basis that the former will help toilluminate the latter.

In addition to revealing an association between information-seeking actions andunderstandings of the term “information,” Hayter (2005) has used her investigation ofusers’ attitudes to the word to develop insights into affective factors prevalent in theirinformation worlds, a relatively new and under-explored area. Hayter found that her researchsubjects tended to associate the term “information” with feelings of unease and trepidation.They worried about official intrusions into their personal lives, equating “information” with apotential loss of confidentiality and with revelations about personal, private matters. Membersof this community saw “information” as a negative term and one with bureaucraticassociations. The term “information” actually presented a semantic barrier. Thus, by shiftingattention purely from her participants’ specific understanding of the word “information,”Hayter has moved away from cognitive conceptualizations towards uncovering attitudes thatare integral to their wider lives.

8. Implications for language development

Any consideration of the perspectives of information users in relation to key conceptswithin LIS draws attention to an important wider question, namely to what extent should theideas that underpin language within the discipline be prescribed by the profession and itsacademics and how far should they be derived from user constructs? Traditionally, the stancethat has been taken is that those working within the field of LIS, i.e. those who are ultimately


particularly responsible for managing “information” and facilitating access to it, define theterm, and users alter their perspectives in order to be successful “information-seekers.” Indeed,it may be argued that librarianship is based around a body of knowledge (which includesfundamental concepts), assembled by information professionals and academics, and which isapplied by practitioners to maximize the benefits to the end-user and minimize any undesirableconsequences.

Current interest in the constructs of information users with regard to vocabulary issomewhat akin to the recent increased scrutiny of information needs from the user’sperspective rather than via inferences in relation to the demands made on informationsystems. In their seminal paper, Dervin and Nilan (1986) frame the debate as one of“external behavior vs. internal cognitions” (p. 15). In terms of concepts of “information,”however, the debate is even more far reaching because it is the nature of key terminologyitself which is at issue. With regard to the general question of “ownership” of language, theprincipal concern here is perhaps that of context. In many research projects, the investigatoris interested in highly specific situations and is at liberty to frame a definition of“information” in such a way as to clarify the nature of the phenomenon in question in hisor her own mind and, in the final report, to state unequivocally to the reader the scope ofthe study. Yet, where an information professional works directly with information users, ifthe relationship between the two is to have real reciprocity and efficacy the former mustclearly be cognisant of the implications of a word such as “information” to the intendedclients and exercise caution before imposing pre-established LIS conceptualizations uponthem.

9. Conclusion

The term “information” remains problematic and has seldom been explored from the in-formation user’s perspective. It is, however, an important area for research since, in situationsin which all the parties involved in its use do not share a common comprehension of the word,there is the potential for misunderstanding and, in some instances, the term itself may form anobstacle that prevents people from accessing the information they want or need. Although thelack of phenomenographic research into “information” as a concept may stem from thephilosophical and esoteric difficulties inherent in investigating people’s mental models and theassociated problems resulting from uncovering multiple, complex meanings, there are, in fact,several research methods that may be applied, and, it would appear, a reasonably limitednumber of broad strands of meaning implicit in the term as far as users are concerned. Suchcongruence is consistent with the way in which there appear some similarities in the definitionsof “information” which may be found across different disciplines and areas of professionalwork.

The current priority would seem to be to develop a conceptual framework on which to basefurther research in order to be able to draw a clearer picture of what “information” means toinformation users across different contexts and situations. Given the considerable scope fordebate on abstract, philosophical matters associated with the whole area surrounding notions


of “information,” the construction of such a framework is clearly difficult. Nevertheless,progress in this direction may emerge from

• widespread acknowledgement by researchers and information professionals alike of theimportance and value of investigation into users’ constructs of “information;”

• agreement on the purposes that work of this kind can fulfill;• the general adoption of a principal method, or set of methods, for eliciting data;• moves towards a consensus of opinion with regard to strategies for analyzing the data,reporting results and creating higher level constructs like models and theories; and

• growing recognition of how the findings of such studies may be applied to practice.

When the results of several projects based on similar designs are taken as a whole and theindividual theories which they present are viewed alongside one another, it may be possible tostart to construct a meta-theory. This may involve identifying common threads in the ideas ofinformants across different studies and making inferences with respect to how these haveresulted from common contextual features. Similarly, if an appreciation can be gained of thereasons behind variations in the attitudes of users across multiple studies, this understandingmay prove as useful to the reader as the constructs of “information” that are actually reported.

References

Belkin, N. J. (1978). Information concepts for information science. Journal of Documentation, 34, 55−85.Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42,

351−360.Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behaviour.

London: Academic.Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67,

255−265.Childers, T. (1975). The information poor in america. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.de Bono, E. (1971). The dog-exercising machine: A study of children as inventors. Harmondsworth: Penguin.de Bono, E. (1972). Children solve problems. London: Penguin.Dervin, B. (1980). Communication gaps and inequities: moving towards a reconceptualization. In B. Dervin, &

M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences, volume II (pp. 73−112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Dervin, B. (1983, May). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods, and results to date. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX.Dervin, B. (1997). Given a context by any other name: Methodological tools for taming the unruly beast. In

P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information Seeking in Context (pp. 13−38). London: TaylorGraham.

Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of informationscience and technology 21 (pp. 3−33). New York: Knowledge Industry Publications/American Society forInformation Science.

Dobson, L., 2000. Navigating the sea of information: A qualitative study of public library information provision forchildren in County Durham. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, England.

Fairthorne, R. A. (1965). ‘Use’ and ‘mention’ in the information sciences. Proceedings of the Symposium onEducation for Information Science (pp. 9−12). Warrenton, VA: Spartan Books.

Feather, J., & Sturges, P. (Eds.). (1997). International encyclopedia of information and library science. London:Routledge.


Fiske, J. (1982). Introduction to communication studies. London: Methuen (Studies in communication series).Goodnow, J. (1977). Children’s drawing. London: Open Books (The developing child series).Gross, M. (1995). The imposed query. RQ, 35, 236−243.Hayter, S. A. (2005). The information worlds of a deprived community. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of

Northumbria at Newcastle, England.Lester, J., & Koehler, W. C. (2003). Fundamentals of information studies: Understanding information and its

environment. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.Levitan, K. B. (1980). Applying a holistic framework to synthesize information science research. In B. Dervin, &

M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences, volume II (pp. 241−273). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Limberg, L. (1999). Three conceptions of information seeking and use. In T. D. Wilson, & D. K. Allen (Eds.),

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour (pp. 116−135). London: Taylor Graham.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Madden, A. D. (2000). A definition of information. Aslib Proceedings, 52, 343−349.McShane, J. (1991). Cognitive development: An information processing approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (1992). Young children’s perceptions of science and the scientist. International

Journal of Science Education, 14, 331−348.Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (1998). Primary children’s conceptions of science and the scientist: Is the impact of

a national curriculum breaking down the stereotype? International Journal of Science Education, 20,1137−1149.

Nitecki, J. Z. (1985). The concept of information-knowledge continuum: Implications for librarianship. Journal ofLibrary History, Philosophy and Comparative Librarianship, 20, 387−407.

Northumbria University, School of Applied Sciences. (2003). Research and consultancy: PEANuT – Overview.Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/sas/sas_research/pa/paoverview/?view=Standard

Orilia, L. S. (1986). Computers and information: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Orna, E. (1999). Practical information policies (2nd ed.). Aldershot: Gower.Pitts, J.M., 1994. Personal understandings and mental models of information: A qualitative study of factors

associated with the information-seeking and use of adolescents. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Florida StateUniversity, Tallahassee.

Poston-Anderson, B., & Edwards, S. (1993). The role of information in helping adolescent girls with their lifeconcerns. School Library Media Quarterly, 22, 25−30.

Raber, D. (2003). The problem of information: An introduction to information science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2004). A history of modern psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Thomson Learning.Shenton, A. K. (2002). The characteristics and development of young people’s information universes. Unpublished

doctoral thesis. University of Northumbria at Newcastle, England.Shenton, A. K., & Dixon, P. (2003). Just what is information anyway? Some findings of research with school

pupils. Education Libraries Journal, 46(3), 5−14.Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.).

London: Sage.Solso, R. L., Maclin, M. K., & Maclin, O. H. (2005). Cognitive psychology (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Education/Allyn and Bacon.Sutherland, S. (1995). The macmillan dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan.van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (2000). Unobtrusive measures (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage (Sage Classics 2).Wilson, T. D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 37, 3−15.Young, J. Z. (1951). Doubt and certainty in science: A biologist’s reflections on the brain – The BBC Reith lectures

1950. London: Oxford Univ. Press.

http://northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/sas/sas_research/pa/paoverview/?view=tandard

http://northumbria.ac.uk/sd/academic/sas/sas_research/pa/paoverview/?view=tandard

Documents

Terminology deconstructed: Phenomenographic approaches to investigating the term “information”