338 Theories of Information Behavior
Carbaugh, D. (1999). Positioning as display of cultural identity. In R. Harre & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 160-177). Oxford: Blackwell.
Davies, B., & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43—63.
Given, L. M. (2002). Discursive constructions in the university context: Social posi' tioning theory and mature undergraduates' information behaviours. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3, 127—141.
Given, L. M. (2000). The social construction of the "mature student" identity: Effects and implications for academic information behaviours. Unpublished doctoral dis' sertation, the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Greenberger, E., & O'Neil, R. (1993). Spouse, parent, worker: Role commitments and role-related experiences in the construction of adults' well-being. Developmental Psychology, 29, 181-197.
Hollway, W. (1982). Identity and gender difference in adult social relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London, England.
Hollway, W. (1998). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation, and Subjectivity (pp. 227—263). London: Routledge.
McKenzie, P.J., & Carey, R. F. (2000). "What's wrong with that woman?": Positioning theory and information-seeking behaviour. In A. Kublik (Ed.), CAIS 2000: Dimensions of a global information science: Proceedings of the 28th annual confer' ence of the Canadian association for information science, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved June II, 2004, from www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2000/ mckenzie_2000.pdf
Menaghan, E. G. (1989). Role changes and psychological well-being: Variations in effects by gender and role repertoire. Social Forces, 67, 693—714.
Sabat, S. R., & Harre, R. (1995). The construction and deconstruction of self in Alzheimer's disease. Ageing and Society, 12, 443—461.
van Langenhove, L., & Harre, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harre & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14—31). Oxford: Blackwell.
60
The Socio-Cognitive Theory of Users Situated in Specific Contexts and Domains
Birger HJ0rland Department of Information Studies Royal School of Library and Information Science, Denmark bh@db.dk
The domain analytic theory (DA) was introduced in information science by Hjorland and Albrechtsen (1995) and Hjorland (2002a). Although DA emphasizes domains, as opposed to individuals, as units of analysis in information science, it nevertheless also has a view of users' individual cognitive processes. This view is termed the socio'Cognitive view (cf., Hjorland, 2002b).
A basic assumption in the socio-cognitive view is that small children's cognition is mainly determined by biological principles. When children learn language and symbols the cognitive processes are increasingly mediated by signs, meaning, and symbols, which are internalized in the individual and then reprogram the way cognitive processes work. Such systems of signs and symbols are first developed externally, in a culture. They are culture-specific and partly social- and domain specific.
People's use of information may be partly biologically determined. Some people like music much more than others and therefore they use more information about music. Some people have a flair for mathematics, others try to avoid it. When we speak of people's relevance criteria in relation to IR, they are, however, mainly determined by cultural factors. They may, for example, be determined by trends or "paradigms" in knowledge domains, as demonstrated by Hjorland (2002) in psychology. When searching for literature about a topic, say schizophrenia, the relevance criteria are implied by the theory, tradition, or "paradigm" to which the searcher subscribes or belongs. Psychoanalysts prefer psychoanalytical papers, cognitivists prefer cognitivistic papers, etc. Relevance
339
340 Theories of Information Behavior
The Socio-Cognitive Theory of Users
341
criteria are socialized into the individual from the academic tradition in which he has been raised (and to which he may himself add, modify, or change relevance criteria). It should be obvious that people seeking infor' mation about, for example, music, are similarly socialized into specific cultures and preferences: people tend to prefer music that other people in the same culture or subculture prefer.
What is the difference between the socio'cognitive view and tradi' tional cognitive views? Gardenfors (1999, pp. 29-30) wrote:
The role of culture and society in cognition was marginal' ized in early cognitive science. These were regarded as problem areas to be addressed when an understanding of individual cog' nition had been achieved. . . .
However, when the focus of cognitive theories shifted away from symbolic representations, semantic and pragmatic research reappeared on the agenda . . .
... a second tradition turns the study programme upside-down: actions are seen as the most basic entities . . .
The socio'cognitive view thus turns the traditional cognitive program upside down. It emphasizes the internalization of culturally produced signs and symbols and the way cognitive processes are mediated by cub turally, historically, and socially constructed meanings. Less priority is given to "hardware" whether in brains or computers.
Domain analysis consequently does not conceive users in general, but sees them as belonging to different cultures, to different social struc' tures, and to different domains of knowledge. Information producers, intermediaries, and users are more or less connected in communities that share common languages, genres, and other typified communication prac' tices. They share meanings to different degrees: There are different semantic distances between the agents.
DA and the socio'cognitive view are based in a kind of philosophical realism, termed pragmatic realism (cf. Hjorland, 2004a). What are the implications of pragmatic realism for information science? Basically, the implication is that it becomes important to distinguish carefully between objective and subjective knowledge, where studies of users are seen as studies of subjective knowledge.
When users seek information, they always do it on the basis of their subjective knowledge. They may or may not be familiar with the objective possibilities for searching. For example, users may not know about cita' tion indexes and they may thus miss an important search opportunity that exists objectively (cf. Hjorland, 2000a). When studying users' informa' tion'Seeking behavior (which is, of course, based on the users' subjective knowledge of information sources), information scientists need to inter-pret such studies based on knowledge about the objective possibilities. One may say, of course, that nobody knows the objective possibilities. The argument is, however, that information scientists should know them bet' ter than the users that they are investigating. Information scientists, more than the users, should know about possibilities and limitations in search engines, citation indexes, thesauri, controlled vocabularies, etc. They should advise the users on how to exploit those possibilities. Consequently, when studying users' behavior this should be interpreted on the basis of some kind of model of the objective possibilities, e.g., the UNISIST model (see Fjordback Sondergaard, Andersen, & Hjorland, 2003). Such a model is based on the information scientists' subjective view (and could possibly be wrong or unhelpful). Such models must be introduced, discussed, and refined in the scientific literature if informa' tion science is going to make progress. A given piece of knowledge is always subjective, but it is supposed that some answers are more correct or fruitful than other, and the only way to find out is to consider the argU' ments that support a given view.
Pragmatic realism is also important in order to understand relevance in information science. Whether or not a certain substance is relevant as a cure for cancer is ultimately decided in medical research, not by asking patients or users of medical services. It is of course always legitimate to be skeptical about a knowledge claim. This will lead into a discussion about the basis for that claim and ultimately to epistemological discus' sions. A thing is relevant for a given purpose if it contributes to reaching the goal—whether or not the user thinks so. In a similar way is the valid' ity, and thus the relevance, of a document claiming that a certain sub' stance is relevant as a cure for cancer also ultimately decided in medical research, not by asking users of information services.
In some domains, e.g., rock music, the users may be "experts," at least until this field is properly represented in musicology. In other fields, such
342 Theories of Information Behavior
The Socio-Cognitive Theory of Users
343
as child psychology, experienced mothers may have adequate compe' tencies for which a degree in developmental psychology cannot be a substitute. This last example is related to different epistemologies, i.e., to different views of how to obtain knowledge. Developmental psy' chology has mainly been dominated by a "positivist" epistemology, while other epistemologies give a higher status to the kind of expert ences that motherhood represents. In both cases the realist view applies: A given document may or may not be relevant to a given pur' pose, whether or not the user believes this to be so. Of course, a docu' ment is not relevant in a situation if the user cannot understand it. In higher education an attempt is typically made to provide students with the knowledge necessary in order to study the documents that are deemed to be relevant. In the sciences one learns mathematics and in theology one learns Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. The underlying philos-ophy is that the relevant texts presuppose these kinds of learning. Again, different opinions may exist. Different views of what is relevant may exist as different "paradigms" in all subjects. A user's in for-mation behavior should be interpreted on the basis of such paradigms.
Domain analysis is thus an approach to information science that has important implications for studies of information behavior. Its strength is that it represents a more correct and fruitful theory about cognitive processes compared to traditional cognitive views. It may contribute to the development of information systems that are specific to different groups of users. Its drawback is that it is more difficult to carry out user studies because they should be interpreted on the basis of a model of the objective search possibilities.
Hjorland, B. (2002b). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 257-270.
Hjorland, B. (2004a). Arguments for philosophical realism in library and information science. Library Trends, 52, 488—506.
Hjorland, B. (In press). Domain analysis in information science. In M. A. Drake (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Library and Information Science (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hjorland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 400-425.
Fjordback Sondergaard, T., Andersen, J., & Hjorland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information: Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation, 59(3) 278-320.
Gärdenfors, P. (1999). Cognitive science: From computers to anthills as models of human thought. Human IT, 3(2). Retrieved February 20, 2004, from www.lib.se/bhs/ith/2-99/pg.htm
Hjorland, B. (2000a). Information seeking behavior: What should a general theory look like? The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 19—33.
Hjorland, B. (2002a). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58, 422—462.