An Introduction to Metatheories, Theories, and Models
By
Marcia J. Bates
Dept. of Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles, CA USA
Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to provide a general introduction to some key
theoretical concepts of use in library and information science (LIS) research. First, the
three terms in the title, metatheory, theory, and model, are defined and discussed. Next,
an extended example is provided of a case in which a researcher might consider and test
various models or theories in information seeking research. Next, metatheories are
considered at greater length, and the distinction is made between nomothetic and
idiographic metatheories. Finally, thirteen metatheoretical approaches in wide use in LIS
are described. Explanatory texts are referenced, as well as example studies using each
approach. The discussion is necessarily brief and simplifying.
Definitions
It is important, first, to distinguish the terms metatheory, theory, and model.
These concepts are often confused and used interchangeably. They should not be, as
understanding the distinctions among them can help in thinking about theoretical aspects
of LIS.
Metatheory: a theory concerned with the investigation, analysis, or
description of theory itself. (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, accessed online,
March 10, 2004)
Theory:
a. the body of generalizations and principles developed in
association with practice in a field of activity (as medicine, music) and forming its
content as an intellectual discipline.... (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary,
accessed online, March 10, 2004).
b. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of
procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior
of a specified set of phenomena. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1969). (See also
Reynolds, 1971.)
2
Model: a tentative ideational structure used as a testing device....
(American Heritage Dictionary, 1969). (See also Lave & March, 1975.)
Metatheory can be seen as the philosophy behind the theory, the fundamental set
of ideas about how phenomena of interest in a particular field should be thought about
and researched. (See also Wagner & Berger, 1985; Vakkari, 1997.) The term has not
been used much in LIS, but it is rapidly becoming more important to our understanding.
In earlier years, the underlying philosophy behind research in the field could be identified
as coming from few directions--most generally, from a general humanities approach and
a general scientific approach. In recent years, however, more and more metatheoretical
approaches have been developed within the field and borrowed from other fields. The
result has been that we now have a confusion of many approaches competing for
attention.
The concept of a metatheory has a lot of overlap with the term “paradigm,” which
was given its modern understanding in science by Thomas Kuhn (1996). In the terms
used here, Kuhn considered a paradigm to be the metatheory, the theory, the
methodology, and the ethos, all combined, of a discipline or specialty. So paradigm
would have a broader meaning than metatheory. At the same time, metatheory is
absolutely core to any paradigm, and is defining of a paradigm in many senses.
Theory, as defined in definition (a) above, can be thought of as the entire body of
generalizations and principles developed for a field, as in “the theory of LIS.” Second,
and more of interest for this paper, is the concept of a single theory. A theory is a system
of assumptions, principles, and relationships posited to explain a specified set of
phenomena. Theories often carry with them an implicit metatheory and methodology, as
in the “rules of procedure” in the (b) definition above. However, for most purposes, the
core meaning of theory centers around the idea of a developed understanding, an
explanation, for some phenomenon.
Models are of great value in the development of theory. They are a kind of prototheory,
a tentative proposed set of relationships, which can then be tested for validity.
Developing a model can often help in working through one’s thinking about a subject of
interest. Indeed, there is not always a sharp dividing line between a model and a theory
about the same phenomenon. Models sometimes stand as theoretical beacons for years,
guiding and directing research in a field, before the research finally matures to the point
of producing something closer to a true theory.
In science, a classic sequence of development has been characterized as
“description, prediction, explanation.” That is, the first task when studying a new
phenomenon is to describe that phenomenon. It is difficult to think about something if
you know very little about it. So description comes first. Second, once one knows
something about a phenomenon, it should be possible to predict relationships, processes,
or sequences associated with the phenomenon. Third, based on the testing of predictions,
one should be able to develop an explanation of the phenomenon, that is, a theory.
Theories can always be overturned by later theories; even when a theory has been well
tested, it is always possible that later research will provide a more thorough, deeper
explanation for the phenomenon of interest.
Models are most useful at the description and prediction stages of understanding
a phenomenon. Only when we develop an explanation for a phenomenon can we
3
properly say we have a theory. Consequently, most of “theory” in LIS is really still at
the modeling stage.
In the next section, an example proto-theory, or model, is analyzed, and means of
testing the model are discussed. However, some metatheories explicitly eschew the value
and possibility of generalizing the studied reality of a situation in order to create a theory.
Ethnomethodology, for example (discussed more below) “never bought into the business
of theorising, it was iconoclastic, it would not theorise foundational matters” (Button, p.
4-5). Rather, ethnomethodologists “generally decline to theorize about the social world,
preferring instead to go out and study it” (Ritzer, 2000, p. 75). At a minimum in the
following discussion, one must assume a metatheoretical position that allows for and
legitimates models and theories. So the discussion below cannot be applicable to every
possible metatheoretical position.
Example Using These Terms
Let us take, as an example, the Principle of Least Effort. This is probably the
most solid result in all of information seeking research. Specifically, we have found that
people invest little in seeking information, preferring easy-to-use, accessible sources to
sources of known high quality that are less easy to use and/or less accessible. Poole did
a meta-analysis of 51 information seeking studies (1985, p. 51), in which he found this
proposition strongly confirmed. (He also has a good discussion of theory in LIS.)
So ease of use and accessibility of information seem to be more important to
people than quality of information. But what is the explanation for this phenomenon?
Why are people unwilling to invest that little bit of extra energy in order to get
information that they themselves would acknowledge is of better quality? We do not
really have a theory. We have described the phenomenon; further, we have found this to
be the case in many different environments with many different types of people, so it is a
result that appears to be highly generalizable. Consequently, we can also confidently
make predictions from these results. For example, we can predict that when we study a
new group of people, they will probably also invest little energy in information seeking,
and prefer easy-to-use, accessible resources.
So, through description and prediction we have modeled the Principle of Least
Effort. Though we often represent models in diagrams that display relationships, we do
not have to do so. In this case, our model can be described in a sentence--see the
italicized statement two paragraphs above. (For some examples of models presented in
diagram form, see Bates, 2002; Gaines, Chen, & Shaw, 1997; Metoyer-Duran, 1991;
Wang & White, 1999; Wilson, 1999.) So the Principle of Least Effort is an observed
behavior, one we have observed widely enough to confidently model as a principle. But
we do not yet have an explanation--so we do not yet have a theory.
How can we move this research from being a model to being a theory? First, we
can hypothesize various possible explanations, based on work we find elsewhere in the
field or in other fields. Here are some I have thought of:
1) People “satisfice” in all realms of life, including information seeking. The idea
of satisficing comes from Simon (1976), who argued that in decision making, people
make a good enough decision to meet their needs, and do not necessarily consider all
4
possible, or knowable, options. Translated to the language of LIS, for example, using
Dervin’s concept of “sense-making” (Dervin, 1983, 1999), we could hypothesize that
people make sense of their situations based on what they know and can learn easily.
Their sense-making need only be adequate to continue with life; it does not need to be so
perfect or extensive as to enable them to make sense of everything.
2) People underestimate the value of what they do not know, and overestimate the
value of what they do know. People have difficulty imagining what the new information
would be that the do not know, while what they do know is vivid and real to them.
Consequently, they under-invest in information seeking. See Gilovich, Griffin, &
Kahneman (2002) and Kahneman & Tversky (2000) for work on distortions in decision
making and choice.
3) Gaining new knowledge may be emotionally threatening in some cases.
Gregory Bateson once described what he called “value-seeking” and “informationseeking”
(Ruesch & Bateson, 1968, pp. 178-9). In value-seeking, a person has an idea in
mind of something that he or she wants. Suppose one wants some eggs and toast to eat,
for example. One then goes out into the world, does various things involving chickens,
grain, cooking, and baking, with the end result that one has a breakfast of eggs and toast.
Thus, one has done things to parts of the world in order to make the world match to the
plan one has in mind. In information seeking, on the other hand, according to Bateson,
the directionality is reversed; one acquires information from the world in order to impress
it on one’s own mind.
However, new knowledge can always bring surprises, sometimes uncomfortable
ones. If “we are what we know,” if our sense of self is based, in part, on our body of
knowledge of the world, then to change that knowledge may be threatening to our sense
of self.
4) Information is not tangible, and objects are. Intangible things seem less real to
us, therefore less valuable. Consequently, we invest more in acquiring tangible than
intangible things.
Each hypothesis above is not a complete explanation. For instance, why do
people satisfice? However, if we were to test this satisficing hypothesis and we learned
that people do satisfice in information seeking, we would have an explanation that tells
us more than just the observed fact of least effort. We would then be able to place this
result in the context of all the other research in other disciplines that has observed that
people satisfice in a variety of circumstances, and could then draw on that research to
develop tentative explanations (tentative theories) that go deeper than the satisficing
explanation alone.
In fact, Simon’s satisficing may be, in effect, another name for Zipf’s Principle of
Least Effort (1949). Poole (1985) believed his results fit well with Zipf’s earlier work.
Zipf had a more extensively conceptualized understanding of least effort, one that
constitutes a preliminary explanation, i.e., theory, and which contributes to a better
understanding of least effort than we usually articulate in LIS. To Zipf, according to
Poole, least effort was technically the “least average rate of probable work” (Poole, p.
90). That is, people do not just minimize current work associated with some activity,
because they could eventually do a total of much more work in the end. Rather, they
make a considered estimate of all likely work associated with a given effort, now and in
5
the future, and do the amount of work now that they estimate will best reduce their
overall effort, now and later combined (see Poole, p. 89ff).
How could we test the four example hypotheses listed above? In each case one or
more studies could be designed in order to attempt to discover which, if any, of these
explanations is operating in people’s information seeking. For example, in an
experimental approach to Hypothesis 2, people could be placed in a realistic situation
where they have certain information and do not have other information. They have to
expend units in order to “purchase” additional clues or hints to solve the test problem.
There are other ways they can expend those same units. The experimental subjects
assign their units according to their best judgment. Afterwards, they are given the
information they did not have earlier. Do they now rate higher or lower the value of the
information that they had not had in the test situation? On what basis do they assign
value at each step of the experiment?
In an observational approach to Hypothesis 3, people could be studied in real
information seeking situations--suppose in three different types of situation: 1) finding
information about a disease diagnosed in a family member, 2) researching a paper in a
required course on a topic of little interest, 3) finding out more about a hobby or
avocation (Hartel, in press). Searching could be observed and the subjects interviewed
about their feeling reactions to their situation and the acts of information seeking in
which they engage. Do they avoid new information or seek it eagerly? Are there signs
of anxiety and threat around discovering new information? Do people have different
responses to the different types of situation, and why?
In the example above, we started with a descriptive finding--the widely observed
tendency of people to prefer easy-to-use and accessible information sources over harder
to get, higher quality sources of information. This “Principle of Least Effort” has been so
widely observed that we were able to make confident predictions about where else it
might appear as well. But we still had no explanation, no theory as to why this
phenomenon occurs (except possibly in Zipf’s original research, 1949). We hypothesized
four possible explanations, and considered ways in which these theories could be tested.
Testing might then lead to further tentative theories that would explain this phenomenon
still more deeply.
Sources of Metatheories
In the preceding section much was made of models and theories. What about
metatheories? Where do they fit in? As Kuhn observed, in most natural sciences most of
the time, there is a single predominant paradigm out of which researchers identify and
test research questions. Metatheories about the nature of research and the desirable
methods for each discipline are embedded in those paradigms. In the social sciences,
however, it is more common to have a general paradigm for a field, which describes the
domain of interest for that discipline--the operations of the mind for psychology, for
example--but more than one metatheory, or philosophy of research, competing for the
loyalties of researchers within that discipline. In the case of psychology, in the 1960’s
and 1970’s there was a split between an older, behaviorist metatheory for the study of
psychology (Skinner, 1992 reprint), and a newer, information processing approach
6
(Chomsky, 1959; Anderson, 1995). The split went so deep that the latter approach came
to be known by a different name, cognitive science. Over the last 10 to 15 years another
metatheory has challenged the information processing approach, by the name of
evolutionary psychology (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992).
In the sciences, a new paradigm usually revolutionizes the field, that is, the new
paradigm reconfigures all prior learning around a new core metatheory and body of
research results. Examples have been plate tectonic theory in geology and molecular
biology in biology. In the social sciences, however, several metatheories may continue
side by side. Sometimes a metatheory will simply die out and other times it will grow
and change, and still compete for the interest of researchers.
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there has been a proliferation of
metatheories in the social sciences generally, and, certainly, in LIS as well. In our
society, in general, old ways of thinking are breaking up and breaking down; supposed
eternal verities are falling right and left, from the fall of the Berlin Wall and all that it
meant about rigid social structures in East and West, to social boundaries that formerly
split communities by race, gender, religion and other long-standing, stable divisions.
Even the eternal verities of forms of writing--the book, the journal, the newspaper article-are
being shaken up in the new world of Internet information.
Under these circumstances, we should perhaps not be surprised that basic
metatheoretical assumptions about what research is or should be are also breaking down
and being challenged by newer approaches. I think it is also the case that different
people have different cognitive styles, certain ways of thinking that are natural to them.
We are all drawn to the sort of research and thinking that works best for us, that is most
harmonious with the way our minds work. Wagner & Berger (1985) call these “orienting
strategies.”
In earlier, more rigid times, it tended to be the case that only certain orienting
strategies were considered legitimate in a given field at one time. Heaven help the
psychology doctoral student who wanted to take a qualitative approach back in the
heyday of behaviorism, for example. Many talented people were forced out, simply
because they had the wrong cognitive style for the intellectual spirit of the times. Now,
there is generally more tolerance for different approaches, although there is still some
tendency to argue that one’s own preferred approach is the one true or best philosophy of
research, and everything else is bunk.
I believe that the intensity of these struggles arises, in part, out of the different
cognitive styles people have, which then draw them to corresponding different orienting
strategies. It just feels so right to follow one’s preferred approach that it just must be the
case that the other guys are all wrong. However, I believe that every orienting strategy
brings us something valuable, if we are only open to learn what it has to offer.
Thus, it is likely that there will continue to be several approaches in LIS to
studying the phenomena of interest to our field. When one takes up a particular
approach, however, it is important to understand the philosophy and some of the history
behind the development of a particular research approach. That way, there will be a
smooth and logically consistent passage from philosophy to theory and methodology.
7
The Nomothetic-Idiographic Contrast
First, we need to make a distinction between what are known as nomothetic and
idiographic approaches to research. These two are the most fundamental orienting
strategies of all.
• Nomothetic: “Relating to or concerned with the study or discovery of the
general laws underlying something” (Oxford English Dictionary, accessed online
2/28/04).
• Idiographic: “Concerned with the individual, pertaining to or descriptive of
single and unique facts and processes” (Oxford English Dictionary, accessed
online 2/28/04).
The first approach is the one that is fundamental to the sciences. Science research
is always looking to establish the general law, principle, or theory. The fundamental
assumption in the sciences is that behind all the blooming, buzzing confusion of the real
world, there are patterns or processes of a more general sort, an understanding of which
enables prediction and explanation of the particulars.
The idiographic approach, on the other hand, cherishes the particulars, and insists
that true understanding can be reached only be assembling and assessing those
particulars. The end result is a nuanced description and assessment of the unique facts of
a situation or historical event, in which themes and tendencies may be discovered, but
rarely any general laws. This approach is the one that is fundamental to the humanities.
(See an excellent discussion of these science/humanities theoretical differences in
Sandstrom & Sandstrom, 1995; see also discussion in Bates, 1994.)
For the last couple of centuries, the social sciences have been the crossroads
where these two approaches intersect, the ground over which the nomothetic and
idiographic orienting strategies have fought. One of the common narratives of the
twentieth century was of the academic social science department, say, political science or
economics, being invaded by newcomers with a mathematical or scientific approach to
their subject, in opposition to the prior discursive, idiographic approach. In the late
twentieth century, that narrative was often reversed, when Post-Modernist theorists came
into departments and superseded the more nomothetically-oriented researchers who had
been there previously.
LIS has not been immune to these struggles, and it would not be hard to identify
departments or journals where this conflict is being carried out. My position is that both
of these orienting strategies are enormously productive for human understanding. Any
LIS department that definitively rejects one or the other approach makes a foolish choice.
It is more difficult to maintain openness to these two positions, rather than insisting on
selecting one or the other, but it is also ultimately more productive and rewarding for the
progress of the field.
Metatheories in LIS
8
The purpose of this section is to present brief descriptions of a number of the
more popular metatheories that are being expressed in LIS these days. The arraying of
these approaches in a common framework may be helpful for beginners in understanding
the range of research approaches taken in LIS.
There are many metatheories operating in the field currently. There is
disagreement between proponents of various metatheories, and there are also various
interpretations and descriptions of any one metatheory. Furthermore, researchers become
interested in new approaches as they appear in the field, and may change metatheories
and methodologies during their career. Examples given below should be seen as just
that, examples; researchers should not be assumed to be always unequivocally associated
with a single metatheoretical approach.
It should also be understood that what is presented below is a personal,
idiosyncratic, and simplifying selection. See Cool (2001); Hjørland (1998, 2000);
Pettigrew, Fidel, & Bruce, (2001); and Talja, Tuominen, & Savolainen (in press) for
other categorizations of metatheories.
For expositions and debates on metatheory and methodology in LIS, see Bar-Ilan
& Peritz (2002); Bates, J.A. (2004); Bates, M.J. (1999); Case (2002); Crabtree et al.
(2000); Dervin (1999, 2003); Dick (1995, 1999); Ellis (1992); Fidel (1993); Given &
Leckie (2003); McClure & Hernon (1991); McKechnie (2000); Pettigrew & McKechnie,
2001; Powell (1997, 1999); Sandstrom & Sandstrom (1995, 1998), Sonnenwald &
Iivonen (1999); Talja (1999, 2001); Thomas & Nyce (1998), Trosow (2001); Wang
(1999); and Westbrook (1994).
With the description of each metatheory below, example applications are
provided where possible, and textual sources explaining or elaborating on the various
metatheories are also suggested. The listing begins with idiographic approaches in
numbers 1- 5, mixed approaches in numbers 6 and 7, and primarily nomothetic
approaches in numbers 8-13.
1) An historical approach, in which understanding of the present is seen to arise
out of an understanding of the past social, political, and economic events and processes
which have led to current conditions. For historical methods and issues, see Barzun &
Graff’s classic work (1992), as well as Appleby, Hunt, & Jacob (1994), and Rayward
(1996). For examples of historical research in LIS, see Hildenbrand (1996), Maack
(2000), Wiegand & Davis (1994).
2) A constructivist approach, arising out of education and sociology, in which
individuals are seen as actively constructing an understanding of their worlds, heavily
influenced by the social world(s) in which they are operating. According to Kuhlthau
(1993), educational constructivist theory built on the work of Dewey (1933, 1944), Kelly
(1963), and Vygotsky (1978), among others, while, according to Ritzer (2000),
sociological constructivist theory arose from Schutz (English translation 1967, original
1932), Berger & Luckmann (1990 reprint), and the closely related ethnomethodological
work of Garfinkel (1967). Major proponents of this approach in LIS have been Dervin
(1983, 1999) and Kuhlthau (1993).
9
3) A constructionist or discourse-analytic approach, with both humanities and
social sciences roots, in which it is assumed that the discourse of a society predominately
conditions the responses of individuals within that society, including the social
understanding of information. According to Talja, Tuominen, & Savolainen (in press),
constructionism sees “language as constitutive for the construction of selves and the
formation of meanings.” Further, “We produce and organize social reality together by
using language.” This metatheory arose from the work of Bakhtin (Holquist, 2002) and
Foucault (1972), among others. Frohmann (1994) and Talja (1999) have expounded on
the use of this approach in LIS. This approach has been applied in LIS by Budd & Raber
(1996), Frohmann (2001), and Talja (2001), among others. A non-LIS, but highly
relevant example can be seen in Hayles (1999).
4) A philosophical-analytic approach, in which the classical techniques of the
discipline of philosophy, namely extremely rigorous analysis of ideas and propositions,
are brought to bear on information-related matters. Certainly, the field of philosophy
itself expresses and represents many different theoretical orientations and metatheories.
However, despite the many differences among philosophers, there is a fairly universal
and well-understood form of analysis and argumentation that is characteristic of the
discipline as a whole. Philosophers who have come into LIS, or philosophers outside the
field who have addressed LIS-related questions inevitably bring with them this mode of
analysis and discourse. For a classic example of this, read Patrick Wilson’s still-relevant
discussion on the nature of the subject of a book (Wilson, 1968, pp. 69-92). See also
Blair (2003), Cooper (1971), Dretske (1981), Fuller (2002), and Wilson (1977; 1983).
5) A critical theory approach, in which the hidden power relations and patterns of
domination within a society are revealed and debunked (Ritzer, 2000, p. 140ff). Michael
Harris (1986) was an early practitioner in LIS. More recently, others have joined the
debate, critiquing the roles of librarians, the kinds of research done in LIS, and so on.
See Carmichael (1998), Chu (1999), Day (2001), Roma Harris (1992), Pawley (1998),
Radford (2003), and Wiegand (1999).
6) An ethnographic approach, originating in anthropology, but now used
throughout the social sciences, involving the use of a variety of field techniques, such as
observation, documentation, and interviewing. These techniques are intended to enable
the researcher to become immersed in a culture, identify its many elements and begin to
shape an understanding of the experience and world views of the people studied
(Fielding, 1993). In LIS, see, for example, Chatman (1992), Kwasnik (1992), Pettigrew
(2000), and Wilson & Streatfield (1981). A related, popular approach is grounded theory
development (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). See Ellis (1993), Ellis & Haugan, (1997),
Kwasnik (1991), and Mellon (1986). Sandstrom & Sandstrom (1995) discuss the ways in
which both nomothetically and idiographically oriented researchers have used
ethnographic methods.
7) A socio-cognitive approach (Hjørland, 2002), in which both the individual’s
thinking and the social and documentary domain in which the individual operates are
seen to influence the use of information. See also Jacob & Shaw (1998). Paisley
10
presaged this viewpoint in his 1968 “Information needs and uses” review of scientists
working within ten social and information system contexts (Paisley, 1968). More
recently, see Case (1991), Covi (1999), and Kwasnik (1991). The nature of context has
been discussed in detail by Dervin (1997), and the nature of situation by Cool (2001).
Because of the centrality in information studies of 1) information, 2) information
technology, and 3) people’s use of these, the interplay among these three elements is
arguably at the heart of most social research in information studies.
Hjørland & Albrechtsen (1995) call the analysis of information and its social
formation in a community of thought “domain analysis.” Other roots of the domain
analytic approach can be seen in the areas of historical and descriptive bibliography in
librarianship (Bowers, 1994; Updike, 2001), as well as in recent developments around
genre theory (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1993; Vaughan & Dillon, 1998; Orlikowski &
Yates, 1994).
The field of social informatics also focuses on the interactions among people,
social environments, information technology, and documentary forms. See Bishop &
Star’s review (1996), as well as work by Kling & McKim (2000), and Palmer (2001).
This metatheory shares some of both the nomothetic and idiographic orientations.
8) A cognitive approach, arising out of cognitive science, in which the thinking of
the individual person operating in the world is the dominating focus of research on
information seeking, retrieval, and use (Bates, 1979; Belkin, 1990; Belkin, Oddy, &
Brooks, 1982; Ellis, 1989; Ingwersen,1992, 1999). See Newell & Simon (1972) and
Anderson (1995) for expositions of this approach.
9) A bibliometric approach, in which the analysis of the statistical properties of
information is seen to provide understanding of value for both the design of information
provision and the theoretical understanding of social processes around information,
including historical processes. The earliest theory was provided by Bradford (1948) and
Zipf (1949). More recent major work has been done by Brookes (1968), Price (1986),
Small (1999), and White & McCain (1998), among others. Much of this work has been
made possible through the existence of citation indexes (Garfield, 1983).
10) A physical approach to information transfer, dating principally from the
1950’s and1960’s interest in signaling and physical communication generated by the
development of Claude Shannon’s information theory (Cherry, 1966; Miller, 1951;
Pierce, 1961; Shannon and Weaver, 1975; Wiener, 1961).
11) An engineering approach to information, in which it is assumed that human
needs and uses of information can best be accommodated by successive development and
testing of ingenious systems and devices to improve information retrieval and services.
The fundamental test of validity for the engineering approach is an operational one,
namely, “Does it work?” Thus a major method of developing new knowledge in
engineering is through “proof of concept” work, in which an experimental system or
device is developed and tested, improved, tested some more, and so on. For theory of
engineering, see Dahlbom, Beckman, & Nilsson (2002) and Simon (1981). For
applications in LIS, see Croft & Thompson (1987), Hendry & Harper (1997), Kraft &
11
Petry (1997), Over (2001), Salton & McGill (1983). Variations on this approach are
found in artificial intelligence (Minsky, 1968; Russell & Norvig, 1995) and natural
language processing (Allen, 1995; Chowdury, 2003; Liddy et al., 1993).
12) A user-centered design approach, in which the development and human
testing of information organization and information system designs is seen as a path to
both scientific understanding and improved information access. User-centered design
takes the “Does it work?” engineering question one step farther, and asks, “Does it work
so well that people can concentrate on what they are doing rather than on operating the
system or device?” Classic work in this area is by Norman (1990) and Neilsen (1993). A
great deal of design work relevant to LIS goes on in human-computer interaction
research (Carroll, 2002; Rogers, 2004). A number of people in LIS focus on usercentered
design, for example, Ackerman (2000), Bates (1990, 2002), Dillon (1994,
1995), Hildreth (1989), Marchionini (1995). See also Marchionini & Komlodi (1999).
13) An evolutionary approach, in which the insights of biology and evolutionary
psychology are brought to bear on information-related phenomena (Barkow, Cosmides,
& Tooby, 1992; Wright, 1994). This approach is just beginning to appear in LIS. See
Bates (in press), Madden (2004), and Sandstrom (1994, 1999).
Each of the metatheories above is some part philosophy and some part
methodology. However, the historical, philosophical-analytic, ethnographic,
bibliometric, engineering, and design approaches are primarily methodology with some
philosophy attached, while the others, the constructivist, discourse-analytic, critical
theory, socio-cognitive, cognitive, physical, and evolutionary approaches are driven more
by philosophical and theoretical orientations which have methodological implications.
Summary and Conclusions
The objective of this chapter has been to introduce the concepts of metatheory,
theory, and model, and distinguish them for the purposes of doing research in information
seeking. An example result, the Principle of Least Effort, has been analyzed and
discussed in relation to the three concepts. Methods of bringing this model closer to the
status of a theory have been suggested.
The sources of metatheories in the social sciences have been discussed, and the
nomothetic-idiographic distinction has been explained. Finally, thirteen metatheories
operating in LIS have been described. Sources for each metatheory and examples of its
application have been presented.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Karen Fisher and Sanda Erdelez for inviting me to present this
paper, and Jenna Hartel for her very helpful suggestions on the manuscript.
12
References
Ackerman, M.S. (2000). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social
requirements and technical feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2-3):
179-203.
Allen, J.F. (1995) Natural language understanding. 2nd ed. Menlo-Park, CA: Benjamin-
Cummings.
American heritage dictionary of the English language. (1969). Boston: Houghton-Miffllin.
Anderson, J.R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. 4th
ed. New York:
W.H. Freeman.
Appleby, J., Hunt, L., Jacob, M. (1994). Telling the truth about history. New York:
Norton.
Bar-Ilan, J., & Peritz, B.C. (2002). Informetric theories and methods for exploring the
Internet; An analytical survey of recent research literature. Library Trends, 50(3):
371-392.
Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J., Eds. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barzun, J., & Graff, H.F. (1992). The modern researcher. 5th
ed. Fort Worth, Texas:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Pub.
Bates, J.A. (2004). Use of narrative interviewing in everyday information behavior
research. Library & Information Science Research. 26(1): 15-28.
Bates, M.J. (1979). Information search tactics. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 30(4): 205-214.
Bates, M.J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface
start? Information Processing & Management, 26(5): 575-591.
Bates, M.J. (1994). The design of databases and other information resources for
humanities scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project report no. 4. Online and
CD-ROM Review, 18(6): 331-340.
Bates, M.J. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 50(12): 1043-1050.
Bates, M.J. (2002). The cascade of interactions in the digital library interface.
Information Processing and Management, 38, 381-400.
Bates, M.J. (in press). Information, knowledge, data: An evolutionary framework for
information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology.
Belkin, N.J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information
Science, 16(1), 11-15.
Belkin, N. J., Oddy, R. N., & Brooks, H. M. (1982). ASK for Information Retrieval: Part I.
Background and Theory. Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.
Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1990 reprint). The social construction of reality: A treatise in
the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a socio-cognitive
perspective. Written Communication. 10(4): 475-509.
Bishop, A.P., & Star, S.L. (1996). Social Informatics of digital library use and infrastructure.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 31: 301-401.
13
Blair, D.C. (2003). Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 37: 3-50.
Bowers, F.T. (1994). Principles of bibliographical description. New Castle, Del.: Oak Knoll
Press.
Bradford, S.C. (1948). Documentation. London: C. Lockwood.
Brookes, B.C. (1968). Derivation and applications of the Bradford-Zipf distribution. Journal
of Documentation, 24(4): 247-265.
Budd, J.M., & Raber, D. (1996). Discourse analysis: Method and application in the study of
information. Information Processing & Management, 32(2): 217-226.
Button, G. (1991). Introduction: Ethnomethodology and the foundational respecification of
the human sciences. In G. Button, (Ed.) Ethnomethodology and the human sciences.
(p. 1-9). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Carmichael, J.V.J. (1998). Daring to find our names: The search for lesbigay library history.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Carroll, J.M., Ed. (2002). Human-computer interaction in the new millennium. New York:
ACM Press.
Case, D.O. (1991). Conceptual organization and retrieval of text by historians: The role of
memory and metaphor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
42(9): 657-668.
Case, D.O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking,
needs, and behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Chatman, E.A. (1992). The information world of retired women. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press.
Cherry, C. (1966). On human communication: A review, a survey, and a criticism. 2nd
ed.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26-57.
Chowdury, G.G. (2003). Natural language processing. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology, 37: 51-89.
Chu, C.M. (1999). Literacy practices of linguistic minorities: Sociolinguistic issues and
implications for literacy services. Library Quarterly, 69(3): 339-359.
Cool, C. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 35: 5-42.
Cooper, W.S. (1971). Definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage
and Retrieval, 7, 19-37.
Covi, L.M. (1999). Material mastery: Situating digital library use in university research
practices. Information Processing & Management, 35(3): 293-316.
Crabtree, A., Nichols, D.M., O’Brien, J., Rouncefield, M., & Twidale, M.B. (2000).
Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7): 666-682.
Croft, W.B., & Thompson, R.H. (1987). I3R—A new approach to the design of documentretrieval
systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38(6):
389-404.
Dahlbom, B., Beckman, S., & Nilsson, G.B. (2002). Artifacts and artificial science.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Day, R. E. (2001). The modern invention of information. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
14
Dervin, B. (1983) Information as a user construct: The relevance of perceived information
needs to synthesis and interpretation. In S.A. Ward & L.J. Reed (Eds.) Knowledge
structure and use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation. (p. 155-183).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Dervin, B. (1997). Given a context by any other name: Methodological tools for taming the
unruly beast. 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; August 14-16, 1996, Tampere, Finland.
London: Taylor Graham, 13-38.
Dervin, B., (1999). On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications
of connecting metatheory to method. Information Processing and Management,
35(6): 727-750.
Dervin, B. (2003). Human studies and user studies: A call for methodological interdisciplinarity.
Information Research, 9(1), paper 166 [Available at
http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper166.html]
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.
Dick, A.L. (1995). Library and information science as a social science: Neutral and
normative conceptions. Library Quarterly, 65(2): 216-235.
Dick, A.L. (1999). Epistemological positions and library and information science. Library
Quarterly, 69(3): 305-323.
Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic text: Ergonomic aspects of human information
usage. London: Taylor & Francis.
Dillon, A. (1995). Artifacts as theories: Convergence through user-centered design.
Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 32: 208-210.
Dretske, F.I. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of
Documentation, 45(3): 171-212.
Ellis, D. (1992). The physical and cognitive paradigms in information retrieval research.
Journal of Documentation, 48(1): 45-64.
Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A
grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63(4): 469-486.
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.
Fidel, R. (1993). Qualitative methods in information retrieval research. Library &
Information Science Research, 15(3): 219-247.
Fielding, N. (1993). Ethnography. In N. Gilbert, Ed., Researching social life. (pp. 154-186).
London: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Frohmann, B. (1994). Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information
science. Library & Information Science Research, 16(2): 119-138.
Frohmann, B. (2001). Discourse and documentation: Some implications for pedagogy and
research. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42(1): 12-26.
Fuller, S. (2002). Social epistemology, 2nd
ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
15
Gaines, B.R., Chen, L.L.J., & Shaw, M.L.G. (1997). Modeling the human factors of
scholarly communities supported through the Internet and World Wide Web. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 48(11): 987-1003.
Garfield, E. (1983). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and
humanities. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D., Eds. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The
psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Given, L.M., & Leckie, G.J. (2003). “Sweeping” the library: Mapping the social activity
space of the public library. Library & Information Science Research, 25(4): 365-385.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Harris, M.H. (1986). State, class and cultural reproduction: Toward a theory of library
service in the United States. Advances in Librarianship, 14: 211-252.
Harris, R.M. (1992). Librarianship: The erosion of a woman’s profession. Norwood, N.J.:
Ablex.
Hartel, J. (in press). The serious leisure frontier in library and information studies: Hobby
domains. Knowledge Organization.
Hayles, N.K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics,
literature, and informatics. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Hendry, D.G., & Harper, D.J. (1997). An informal information-seeking environment.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(11): 1036-1048.
Hildenbrand, S., Ed. (1996). Reclaiming the American library past: Writing the women
in. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Hildreth, C.R. (1989). Intelligent interfaces and retrieval methods for subject searching in
bibliographic retrieval systems. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress
Cataloging Distribution Service.
Hjørland, B. (1998). Theory and metatheory of information science: A new
interpretation. Journal of Documentation, 54(5), 606-621.
Hjørland, B. (2000). Library and information science: Practice, theory, and philosophical
basis. Information Processing & Management, 36(3): 501-531.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information
science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
53(4), 257-270.
Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science—
Domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6):
400-425.
Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. 2nd
ed. New York: Routledge.
Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information retrieval interaction. London: Taylor Graham.
Ingwersen, P. (1999). Cognitive information retrieval. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology. 34: 3-52.
Jacob, E.K., & Shaw, D. (1998). Sociocognitive perspectives on representation. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 33: 131-185.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A., Eds. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
16
Kelly, G.A. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the
shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, 51(14): 1306-1320.
Kraft, D.H., & Petry, F.E. (1997). Fuzzy information systems: Managing uncertainty in
databases and information retrieval systems. Fuzzy Sets & Systems, 90(2): 183-
191.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information
services. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Kwasnik, B.H. (1991). The importance of factors that are not document attributes in the
organisation of personal documents. Journal of Documentation, 47(4): 389-398.
Kwasnik, B.H. (1992). A descriptive study of the functional components of browsing.
In: Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, Proceedings of the IFIP
TC2/WG2.7 Working Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer
Interaction, Ellivuori, Finland, 10-14 August 1992. IFIP Transactions, A-18: 191-
203.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd
ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lave, C.A., & March, J.G. (1975). An introduction to models in the social sciences. New
York: Harper & Row.
Liddy, E.D., Jorgensen, C.L., Sibert, E.E., & Yu, E.S. (1993). A sublanguage approach to
natural language processing for an expert system. Information Processing &
Management, 29(5): 633-645.
Maack, M.N. (2000). “No philosophy carries so much conviction as the personal life”:
Mary Wright Plummer as an independent woman. Library Quarterly, 70(1): 1-46.
Madden, A.D. (2004). Evolution and information. Journal of Documentation, 60(1): 9-
23.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Marchionini, G., & Komlodi, A. (1998). Design of interfaces for information seeking.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 33: 89-130.
McClure, C.R., & Hernon, P., eds. (1991). Library and information science research:
Perspectives and strategies for improvement. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
McKechnie, L.E.F. (2000). Ethnographic observation of preschool children. Library &
Information Science Research, 22(1): 61-76.
Mellon, C.A. (1986). Library anxiety—A grounded theory and its development. College
& Research Libraries, 47(2): 160-165.
Metoyer-Duran, Cheryl. (1991). "Information-Seeking Behavior of Gatekeepers in
Ethnolinguistic Communities: Overview of a Taxonomy." Library and Information
Science Research 13(4): 319-346.
Miller, G. A. (1951) Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Minsky, M.L., Ed. (1968). Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: AP Professional.
17
Norman, D.A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Orlikowski, W.J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative
practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4): 541-574.
Over, P. (2001). The TREC interactive track: An annotated bibliography. Information
Processing & Management, 37(3): 369-381.
Paisley, W.J. (1968). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology, 3: 1-30.
Palmer, C.L. (2001). Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary
research process. Boston: Kluwer.
Pawley, C. (1998). Hegemony’s handmaid—The library and information studies curriculum
from a class perspective. Library Quarterly, 68(2): 123-144.
Pettigrew, K.E. (2000). Lay information provision in community settings: How community
health nurses disseminate human services information to the elderly. Library
Quarterly, 70(1): 47-85.
Pettigrew, K.E.; Fidel, R.; & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35: 43-78.
Pettigrew, K.E., & McKechnie, L. (2001). The use of theory in information science research.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1): 62-
73.
Pierce, J.R. (1961). Symbols, signals, and noise: The nature and process of communication.
New York: Harper.
Poole, H. (1985). Theories of the middle range. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Powell, R.R. (1997). Basic research methods for librarians. 3rd
ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Ablex.
Powell, R.R. (1999). Recent trends in research: A methodological essay. Library &
Information Science Research, 21(1): 91-119.
Price, D.J.D. (1986). Little science, big science…and beyond. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Radford, G.P. (2003). Trapped in our own discursive formations: Toward an archaeology of
library and information science. Library Quarterly, 73(1): 1-18.
Rayward, WB. (1996). The history and historiography of information science: Some
reflections. Information Processing & Management, 32(1): 3-17.
Reynolds, P.D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianopolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Ritzer, G. (2000). Modern sociological theory. 5th
ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 38: 87-143.
Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1968). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New
York: Norton.
Russell, S.J., & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Salton, G., & McGill, M.J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Sandstrom, A.R., & Sandstrom, P.E. (1995). The use and misuse of anthropological
methods in library and information science research, Library Quarterly, 65(2):
161-199.
Sandstrom, A.R., & Sandstrom, P.E. (1998). Science and nonscience in qualitative
research: A response to Thomas and Nyce. Library Quarterly, 68(2): 249-254.
18
Sandstrom, P.E. (1994). An optimal foraging approach to information seeking and use.
Library Quarterly, 64(4), 414-449.
Sandstrom, P. E. (1999). Scholars as subsistence foragers. Bulletin of the American Society
for Information Science, 25(3), 17-20.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern
University Press.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1975). Mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, Ill.:
University of Illinois Press.
Simon, H.A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in
administrative organization. 3rd
ed. New York: Free Press.
Simon, H.A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. 2nd
ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1992 reprint). Science and human behavior. New York: Classics of
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Library.
Small, H. (1999). A passage through science; Crossing disciplinary boundaries. Library
Trends, 48(1): 72-108.
Sonnenwald, D.H., & Iivonen, M. (1999). An integrated human information behavior
research framework for information studies. Library & Information Science
Research, 21(4): 429-457.
Talja, S. (1999). Analyzing qualitative interview data: The discourse analytic method.
Library & Information Science Research, 21(4): 459-477.
Talja, S. (2001). Music, culture, and the library: An analysis of discourses. Lanham,
MD.: Scarecrow Press.
Talja, S., Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (in press). “Isms” in information science:
Constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation.
Trosow, S.E. (2001). Standpoint epistemology as an alternative methodology for library
and information science. Library Quarterly, 71(3): 360-382.
Thomas, N.P., & Nyce, J.M. (1998). Qualitative research in LIS--redux: A response to a
[re)turn to positivistic ethnography. Library Quarterly, 68(1): 108-113.
Updike, D.B. (2001). Printing types: Their history, forms, and use. 4th
ed., expanded.
New Castle, Del.: Oak Knoll Press.
Vakkari, P. (1997). Information seeking in context: A challenging metatheory. 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; August 14-16, 1996, Tampere, Finland.
London: Taylor Graham, 451-464.
Vaughan, M.W., & Dillon, A. (1998). The role of genre in shaping our understanding of
digital documents. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 35: 559-566.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, D.G., & Berger, J. (1985). Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of
Sociology, 90(4): 697-728.
Wang, P.L. (1999). Methodologies and methods for user behavioral research. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 34: 53-99.
Wang, P.L., & White, M.D. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a
research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, 50(2): 98-114.
19
Westbrook, L. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of major stages, data
analysis techniques, and quality controls. Library & Information Science
Research, 16(3): 241-254.
White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation
analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 49(4): 327-355.
Wiegand, W.A. (1999). Tunnel vision and blind spots: What the past tells us about the
present: Reflections on the twentieth-century history of American librarianship.
Library Quarterly, 69(1): 1-32.
Wiegand, W.A., & Davis, D.G., Eds. (1994). Encyclopedia of library history. New York:
Garland.
Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics: Or, control and communication in the animal and the
machine. 2nd
ed. New York: M.I.T. Press.
Wilson, P. (1968). Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley,
Calif.: University of California Press.
Wilson, P. (1977). Public knowledge, private ignorance: Toward a library and
information policy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Wilson, T.D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of
Documentation, 55(3): 249-270.
Wilson, T.D., & Streatfield, D.R. (1981). Structured observation in the investigation of
information needs. Social Science Information Studies, 1: 173-184.
Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New
York: Pantheon.
Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to
human ecology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.