Being user‐oriented: Convergences, divergences, and the potentials for systematic dialogue between disciplines and between researchers, designers, and providers

Information behavior

“…So what do the decades of empirical and conceptual information behavior research amount to? Calls for action can be found in the work of Dervin (personal communication, May 21, 2007): “If it can be said that early Dervin focused on a mandate for us to become user‐oriented, now Dervin is obsessed with how we can do so systematically.” Her focus on the identification and empirical testing of universals as a basis for system design and practice (Dervin, 2005, in press; Dervin, Reinhard, & Kerr, 2006) is further evident in her confluence project regarding active dialogue among researchers in library and information science, communications, and human‐computer interaction (Dervin, Case, Dillon, Fisher, Normore, Tenopir, et al, 2006; Dervin & Reinhard, 2006a, 2006b). Shenton's (2007) observations on why youth do not connect with needed information also underscore the need for relevance and action.…”

“…Tötterman and Widén‐Wulff (2007) used social capital theory in their exploratory study of 13 university professors, finding that cultural differences and social norms were barriers to interaction. Dervin, Reinhard, Kerr, Connaway, Prabha, Normore, and colleagues, (2006) and Dervin and Reinhard (2007a, 2007b) described a study of 409 faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates from 44 institutions that yielded 1,522 situations of information seeking for work/academic‐related and everyday life problems. Analysis revealed that academic rank had little to do with a scholar's information seeking and use practices, and that the best predictor of behavior was his or her situation.…”

“…In addition to testing Harris and Dewdney's (1994) principle that people follow habitual patterns in seeking information, Fisher and colleagues reported that the respondents' primary information sources were strong ties (40 percent) and the Internet (39 percent); that people both most valued and critiqued their sources' ability to provide reliable and trusted information; and that the most common information grounds were the workplace and places of worship. Fisher and Naumer (2006) integrated findings from several other studies in discussing how the information ground framework connects with Chatman's work on small worlds and with concepts proposed in cognate fields such as human geography and sociology. Counts and Fisher (2008) explored information ground theory's relevance to online communication by examining use of a mobile social networking service (SLAM, developed by Microsoft Research).…”

“…Invoking Bates's (1989) model, they suggested that the immigrants engaged in a form of interpersonal berry‐picking. Dervin, Reinhard, Kerr, Connaway, and colleagues' (2006) work on the satisficing behaviors of faculty and college students with regard to both everyday and work‐related needs showed that interpersonal sources were used more frequently than institutional sources, with use of online sources increasing. Sonnenwald (2006) interviewed and observed military personnel as they engaged in three battlefield training simulations.…”

“…Taylor's information use environment notion was used by Durrance and colleagues (2006) to study the staff of nonprofit community agencies and by Maurel and Bergeron (2007) to explore government workers. As reviewed in the everyday life section, Fisher's information ground theory has been further developed in a number of studies (Counts & Fisher, 2008; Fisher, Landry & Naumer, 2007; Fisher, Marcoux, et al, 2007; Fisher & Naumer, 2006; Fisher, Naumer, et al, 2005; McKechnie & McKenzie, 2004; McKenzie et al, 2007; Prigoda & McKenzie, 2007). Jiao and colleagues (2006) drew upon Mellon's library anxiety theory in studying racial differences in educational outcomes among college students.…”