Chapter 3: The Complex Nature of Information Behavior

As information behavior studies have shifted towards understanding the complexity of people's lives, exploring the contexts that surround and shape people's experiences is integral to that research. Where earlier studies typically adopted atomistic approaches, by examining specific resources used or reasons for using information, most contemporary studies embrace the whole person, including situational, affective, and other influences on their information-related experiences. This shift echoes Choo's (2005) distinction between studies that are investigating information channels (e.g., journals) or systems (e.g., libraries), compared to those that are studying people. Review authors have used varying terminology to reflect the latter type of investigations. For Choo and Auster (1993) they are studies of “work, organizational, and social settings of the users…users' membership in professional or social groups, their demographic backgrounds” (p. 284). Talja et al. (1999) speak of “socioeconomic conditions, work roles, tasks, problem situations, communities and organizations” (p. 752) as variables typically examined. Taylor (1991) talks about information use environments as consisting of four types: professions, entrepreneurs (including managers), special interest groups, and socioeconomic groups. Julien et al. (2011) refer to studies that are “broadly concerned with analysis of people's information seeking, both active and passive, and their information use” (p. 19). Olsson and Lloyd (2017, para 5) highlight the importance of understanding “dynamic, embodied and corporeal sense making processes [as critical for] understanding the relationship between people and information.” Yet, many rhetorical claims of holistic approaches are not always evident in study designs. As Polkinghorne and Given (2021) note, studies designed to capture complexity must examine “the constituent parts of information-related phenomena, including information systems, social information behavior, and individual information experiences” (p. 1262).