246 Theories of Information Behavior
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, I9I-2I5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive the-
ory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Csikszentmihya, M. (1990). Flow = The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642—650.
Eccles, J., &Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Elliott, E. S., & Dwek, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5—12.
Medway, F. (1982). The efforts of effort feedback and performance patterns on children's attributions and task persistence. Contemporary Education Psychology, 7, 26-34.
Mueller, C. M., & Dwek, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behaviour. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54—56.
Shneiderman, B. (1997). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human,' computer interaction (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548—573.
Wentzell, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4-20.
42
Network Gatekeeping
Karine Barzilai-Nahon The Information School University of Washington, USA karineb(5)u. washineton.edu
The concept of gatekeeper was coined by the social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947, 1951). His theory of "channels and gatekeepers" was developed as a means of understanding how to produce widespread social changes in communities. Gatekeeping theories have since been applied in various fields. In disciplines such as communication and journalism, the notions of gatekeeping and gatekeepers are used to understand social systems; in the health sciences, operations research, and technology development, the notions are used to augment service practices (Beckman & Mays, 1985; Motoyer-Duran, 1993; Shoemaker, 1991; Shumsky & Pinker, 2003). While traditional gatekeeping theories were mainly applied in communication (Donohue, Olien, & Tichenor, 1989; Gieber, 1956; Shoemaker, 1991; White, 1950), they mainly referred to gatekeeping as a selection process and offered scholars a framework for analyzing, evaluating, and comprehending how communication or news selection occurred and why some items were selected while others were rejected. More generally, they offered a framework to continue Lewin's research on social change, and examine sources for cultural diversity.
As networks, and more specifically, the Internet, became ubiquitous, however, scholars have increasingly used the term gatekeeper (Birnhack & Elkin-Koren, 2003; Cornfield & Rainie, 2003; Hargittai, 2000) for illustration rather than referencing a specific theoretical framework. Cyberspace has notably changed both the identity and role of gatekeepers as well the gatekeeping process.
Consistent with the initial course of gatekeeping research—as discussed in the communication literature—Barzilai-Nahon (2004) proposed network gatekeeping theory (NGT). Comprising multidisciplinary aspects, including information systems, management, political science, and sociology, NGT offers new definitions of gatekeeping and gatekeepers by
247
248 Theories of Information Behavior
Network Gatekeeping 249
adapting traditional concepts to a networked society. Based on an exam' ination of power relations on the Internet and a space of information, NGT conceptualizes the distribution of information and processes of information control. It enables one to analyze centralization in networks, which have a decentralized design, and are commonly viewed as egali-tarian spaces. NGT has many ramifications for how we comprehend information dissemination and user behavior on the Internet. NGT comprises five basic concepts:
1) Qate — The entrance to, or the exit from, a network or its sections.
2) gatekeeping — The process of controlling information as it moves through a gate. Activities include selection, addition, withholding, display, channeling, shaping, manipulation, repetition, timing, localization, integration, and disregard and deletion of information.
3) Qateheeping Mechanism — Tool, technology or methodology used to carry out the process of gatekeeping.
4) Network Qatekeeper — An entity (person, organization, or governing body) that has the discretion to exercise gatekeeping through a gatekeeping mechanism in networks and can choose the extent to which to exercise it.
5) Qated — An entity that is subject to a gatekeeping process.
Gatekeepers in networks have three main functions: I) to prevent the entrance of undesired information from the outside; 2) to prevent the exit of undesired information to the outside; and 3) to control information inside the network. Table 42.1 summarizes the exclusiveness of NGT compared to traditional gatekeeping theories.
Because the traditional concept of gatekeeping was developed mainly as a part of mass communication discourse, the players were conceived as acting in sender-receiver roles. The gatekeeper was conceived as a mass media agent (such as a newspaper, television, or radio station) playing the role of the sender, with the gated, (such as a newspaper reader, television viewer, or radio listener) playing the role of the receiver. The gatekeeper was responsible for editing, producing, and distributing information to be received by the gated.
Table 42.1   Traditional gatekeeping vs. network gatekeeping.
	Traditional Gatekeeping	Network Gatekeeping Theory (NGT)
Gatekeeping process	Mainly a selection process	Information control that includes activities such as selection, addition, withholding, display, channeling, shaping, manipulation, repetition, timing, localization, integration, disregard, and deletion
Focus on gatekeepers	The individual gatekeeper	Focus on two dimensions: authority and functional. Different levels in each dimension (e.g., governments, regulators, search providers, network service providers, organizations, individuals)
Focus on gatekeeping mechanism	Editorial mechanisms	Nine categories are part of gatekeeping mechanisms (e.g., censorship, channeling, infrastructure mechanisms), and one meta-category, the regulation mechanism
Relationship	Relations of sender-receiver	Frequent exchange interaction between gated and gatekeeper
Information	Notion of source-destination	No necessary association between source-destination and gatekeeper-gated
	Only gatekeepers produce and create information freely	The gated also create and produce information
Alternatives	No alternatives to gatekeeping	Possible circumvention of gatekeepers and gatekeeping mechanisms
Power	Gatekeeper has power, the gated has none	The bargaining power of the gated is on the rise. On the other hand, gatekeepers have more mechanisms to control information
Number of gatekeepers	One to a few	A few to many
Types of gatekeepers	One to a few	A few to many
250 Theories of Information Behavior
Network Gatekeeping 251
In the context of networks, however, the notion of separate sender-receiver is no longer valid. During any network interaction, the roles of sender and receiver are repeatedly exchanged, with the gatekeeper and the gated playing both roles.
Consistent with the notion of sender-receiver, traditional literature treats information that passes from sender to receiver as having a source' to-destination direction. The source is presumed to be the originator of the information (the gatekeeper) and the information (the gated) is pre-sumed to be the destination. However, in the context of networks, infor-mation can also be produced by the gated, and the gated can serve as a source; likewise, the gatekeeper can also serve as a destination point. Furthermore, according to the traditional literature, only gatekeepers create and produce information; the gated audience is not considered capable of producing and creating information freely. The gated only rarely receive the right to create information, in most cases under the control and authorization of the gatekeeper. For example, a newspaper reader asked to react to an article may do so only by means of a column reserved for reader responses, and one of the editors must approve it for publication. NGT argues that in networks, the relationship between gatekeepers and gated is more complex.
It is likely that the gatekeepers create and produce greater volumes of information than the gated because of their vast resources. Nevertheless, the gated can create and produce information independently as well, without having to pass through a content gatekeeper. But when the gated create information independently, its significance is rather low because of the limited exposure it receives compared to information disseminated by the gatekeepers that control most of the audience's attention. The existence of alternative public platforms to gatekeepers is significant in itself because it contributes to a more plu-ralized cyberspace. Another way of analyzing gated power in networks is by focusing on the production of information rather than on the creation of information. The gated can produce information in networks that was created by gatekeepers, an ability that enhances the power of the gated.
A major deterministic claim put forth by the traditional concept of gatekeeping is that the gated's ability to circumvent the gatekeeping process is minimal. The only alternative is to circumvent a specific gatekeeper by
moving to another within the same community, which may well be subject to the same biases and procedures. For example, a reader can switch from one newspaper to another, but the process of gatekeeping through the editorial process continues. NGT shows that in networks the gated can circumvent gatekeeping. For example, through publishing an independent Web site, the gated can respond to events that she cannot respond to through traditional channels of the media and without the intervention of gatekeeping. However, circumvention is not always possible even in networks since often gatekeepers use more than one mechanism, depending on context, which makes the circumvention more difficult.
In traditional literature, relationships between gatekeepers and their audience are mainly uni-directional. This strengthens the gatekeepers' power and their control over their audience. Because of the presumed sender-receiver roles of gatekeeper (sender) and the gated (receiver), the gated are not perceived as possessing any significant power. In a networked environment the situation is significantly more complicated. The gated may have alternatives and the power to create and produce information. Their bargaining position and power are enhanced relative to traditional roles. Consequently, gatekeepers must avoid conditions that encourage the gated to overcome gates that have been posted in networks. On the other hand, gatekeepers have more mechanisms of information control, which they can exercise over the gated (see Figure 42.1).
Traditional gatekeeping researchers usually use ethnographic case study methodologies. In analyzing gatekeeping in a networked context, this might not be sufficient. Barzilai-Nahon (2004) suggests a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology, using a content analysis of the information combined with quantitative methods, to analyze models as part of the general NGT. NGT allows one to understand information control and to predict patterns of user behavior in the networked environment. For example, it was found that senior members of virtual communities are less likely to post messages that harm the community compared to new members (Barzilai-Nahon, 2004).
In summary, the Internet poses new paradigmatic challenges. On the one hand, it is a more open space than other offline means of communication and allows more diversity in the behavioral modes of users. On the other hand, information control is frequent, and consequently, scholars
252 Theories of Information Behavior
Network Gatekeeping 253
GKMs
P = Poster (gatekeeper or gated or user) one who posts new information to a network
P1 = Items of information that attempt to enter a network
P2 = Items of information that attempt to enter a network and were discarded following a gatekeeping process
P3 - Items of information that enter a network by circumventing the gatekeeping mechanism
P1 ' = Items of information that attempt to enter a network and have passed gatekeeping process
GKMs
JLL,
R2 ,
R2
R = Retriever (gated or user) one who retrieves new information from a network
R1 = items of information that attempt to exit a network
R2 = Items of information that attempt to exit a network and were prevented from doing so by a gatekeeping process
R3 = items of information that exit a network by circumventing the gatekeeping mechanism
R1 ' = Items of information that exit a network and have passed a gatekeeping process
GKMs
- Gatekeeping Mechanism (can be more than one) G = Gated
Figure 42.1   Illustrative model of network gatekeeping.
and practitioners should be aware of the importance of analyzing cyber' space through the lens of gatekeeping. NGT enables one to conceptualize and analyze information flow over the Internet, both technically and socially. NGT emphasizes power relationships among relevant actors through information flow, and identifies potential bottlenecks and obstacles. Finally, analyzing the phenomenon of information flow through NGT also helps practitioners and scholars evaluate aspects of virtual communities' cultures through an awareness of the forces that control and provide information to members of online communities.
Cornfield, M., & Ramie, L. (2003). Untuned keyboards: Online campaigners, citizens and portals in the 2002 elections. Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/85/ report_display. asp
Donohue, G. A., Olien, C. N., & Tichenor, P. J. (1989). Structure and constraints on community newspaper gatekeepers. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 807—812.
Gieber, W. (1956). Across the desk: A study of 16 telegraph editors. Journalism Quarterly, 33, 423^32.
Hargittai, E. (2000). Standing before the portals: Non-profit websites in an age of commercial gatekeepers. The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications Information and Media, 2, 537—544.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143—153.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. NY: Harper & Row.
Motoyer-Duran, C. (1993). Information gatekeepers. In M. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology, 28 (pp. Ill—150). Medford, NJ: Learned Information Inc.
Shoemaker, P. (1991). Qateheeping. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shumsky, R., & Pinker, E. (2003). Gatekeepers and referrals in services. Management Science, 49, 839-856.
White, D. M. (1950). The "gate keeper": A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383—390.
Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2004). gatekeepers and gatekeeping mechanisms in networks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Beckman, L., & Mays, V. (1985). Education community gatekeepers about alcohol
abuse in women: Changing attitudes, knowledge and referral practices. Journal of
Drug Education, 15(4), 289-309. Birnhack, M., & Elkin-Koren, N. (2003). The invisible handshake: The reemergence of
the State in the digital environment. Virginia Journal of Law and Technology,
8(2). Retrieved May 20, 2004, from www.vjolt.net/