Content uploaded by Carol Collier Kuhlthau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carol Collier Kuhlthau on Aug 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
From Information to Meaning:
Confronting Challenges of the
Twenty-fi rst Century
Carol C. Kuhlthau
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Introduction
New challenges arise as we move away from con-
centration on the technology of searching, and
turn our attention to using information for prob-
lem solving and creativity in the workplace and
daily living.
The theme of this conference is the links be-
tween information behavior, information impact
and information literacy. As we move into the
twenty-fi rst century we need to reconsider each
of these and the essential relationship and interac-
tion between them. In these papers, we have the
opportunity to delve into these issues.
Information behavior
Over the past twenty years, user studies have sub-
stantially increased our understanding of informa-
tion behavior. Major concepts such as relevance,
anomalous state of knowledge, uncertainty as well
as models of information seeking behavior and
theoretical frameworks, such as sensemaking in-
troduced by Dervin (1983), have been examined in
a variety of contexts with different types of users to
ground the concepts for more general application.
The studies on relevance that build on Saracevic’s
(1975) work are an excellent example. Taylor’s
levels of information need (1968) and information
use environments (1991), Wilson’s (1999) model of
information seeking and Savolainen’s (1995) eve-
ryday life information seeking have increased our
understanding of information behavior.
Many useful concepts for application into design
of information services and systems have emerged
from this research, such as David Ellis’s (1989)
work on different information seeking activities
incorporating browsing, monitoring, chaining, differ-
entiating and extracting; Chang and Rice (1993) on
browsing; Chun Wei Choo (2006) on monitoring
Libri, 2008, vol. 58, pp. 66–73
Printed in Germany All rights reserved Copyright Saur 2008
Libri
ISSN 0024-2667
New challenges arise for researchers and practitioners as we
move away from concentration on the technology of search-
ing, and turn our attention to using information for problem
solving and creativity in the workplace and daily liv ing.
This paper explores links between information be hav i or, in -
formation literacy and the impact of information, drawing on
the author’s research into the user’s perspective of in for ma -
tion seek ing and use and the model of the Information Search
Process (ISP). The ISP model describes thoughts, ac tions
and feel ings in six stages of interacting with in for ma tion to
construct meaning. Central to the ISP model is the fi nding
that information commonly increases uncertainty in the early
stages of the search process. Increased uncertainty cre ates a
zone of inter vention for intermediaries and system de signers
that sup port users in their quest for seeking mean ing from
in formation. Innovative approaches to interaction be tween
people and information are needed to bridge the di vide be-
tween information behavior, information literacy and im pact
of information in order to address issues of the twenty-fi rst
cen tury.
10.1515/libr.2008.008
This paper was the keynote presentation at the international conference ‘i3: Information: Interactions and Impact’, organised by
the Robert Gordon University’s Department of Information Management, and held in Aberdeen, Scotland, 25-28 June 2007.
Carol C. Kuhlthau is Professor Emerita, Department of Library and Information Science, School of Communication, Information
and Library Studies, Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071 USA. E-
mail: kuhlthau@scils.rutgers.edu
66
and environmental scanning; Marcia Bates (1989)
development of the metaphor of berry picking to
describe selecting and extracting. As in berry pick-
ing not everything is extracted from one place or
source, only some items of information and cer-
tain ideas are selected for use. What is extracted
from one source leads the path to the next source
of information. These are just a few examples of
the development of important concepts in infor-
mation behavior.
Affective, cognitive and physical dimensions
My own research on the user’s perspective of in-
formation seeking revealed many new insights in-
to information behavior (Kuhlthau 2004). My stud-
ies were among the fi rst to investigate the affective
aspects or feelings in the process of information
seeking along with the cognitive and physical
aspects. Prior to the introduction of the ISP, the af-
fective dimension of information seeking had not
been fully recognized in library and information
services and systems or in user education. An im-
portant fi nding in this research was the discovery
of a sharp increase in uncertainty and decrease
in confi dence after a search had been initiated. A
person ”in the dip” commonly experienced uncer-
tainty, confusion and even some anxiety until a
focus or a personal perspective had been formed.
I have come to understand that this challenging
time is a creative, pivotal stage of the search pro-
cess.
Model of the ISP
The development of the model of the ISP as a con-
ceptual framework is the result of more than two
decades of research that began with a qualitative
study of secondary school students and the emer-
gence of an initial model that was verifi ed and
refi ned through quantitative and longitudinal
methods with diverse library users and further
developed in case studies of people in the work-
place (Kuhlthau 2004).
After extensive research, I was able to refi ne the
model and expand it as a more general model of
information seeking behavior known as the Infor-
mation Search Process (ISP). The ISP presents a
holistic view of information seeking from the us-
er’s perspective in six stages: initiation, selection,
exploration, formulation, collection and presenta-
tion. The six-stage model of the ISP incorporates
three realms of experience: the affective (feelings),
the cognitive (thoughts) and the physical (actions)
common to each stage (Kuhlthau 2004).
The model of the ISP articulates a holistic view
of information seeking from the user’s perspective
in six stages.
• Initiation, when a person fi rst becomes aware of a lack
of knowledge or understanding, and feelings of uncer-
tainty and apprehension are common.
• Selection, when a general area, topic, or problem is iden-
tifi ed, and initial uncertainty often gives way to a brief
sense of optimism and a readiness to begin the search.
• Exploration, when inconsistent, incompatible informa-
tion is encountered and uncertainty, confusion, and
doubt frequently increase and people fi nd themselves
”in the dip” of confi dence.
• Formulation, when a focused perspective is formed and
uncertainty diminishes as confi dence begins to in-
crease.
• Collection, when information pertinent to the focused
perspective is gathered and uncertainty subsides as in-
terest and involvement deepens.
• Presentation, when the search is completed with a new
understanding, enabling the person to explain his or
her learning to others or in someway put the learning to
use.
Formulation of a focus or a personal perspective
of the topic is a pivotal point in the ISP. At that
point, feelings shift from uncertain to confi dent;
thoughts change from vague to clear and interest
increases. The ISP describes common experiences
in the process of information seeking for a com-
plex task that has a discrete beginning and end-
ing, and that requires construction and learning to
be accomplished. The model reveals a process in
which a person is seeking meaning in the course
of seeking information. The model clearly reveals
the link between information seeking behavior
and the impact of information. In fact, from the
user’s perspective, the two are inseparably con-
nected.
The model remains a dynamic description of
the information user’s experience and dilemma in
seeking meaning. Occasionally, the ISP has been
referred to as a linear model. I would argue that it
is a sequential model rather than a linear model.
The ISP is experienced as a sequence of one thing
after another in a period of time. This is the way
life is lived and experienced. Of course, there may
be some planning within each stage for the stages
From Information to Meaning
67
68
to follow, and refl ection in what went on before.
Still one event follows another in a sequence even
though recursion and planning may be evident
within each of the stages. The naïve observation
of linearity overlooks the depth of the holistic ex-
perience captured in the model. The model rings
true for many people who are in the process of
constructing meaning from a variety of sources
of information because it is able to capture the
sequential holistic experience of the process of
constructing meaning from multiple sources of in-
formation that links information behavior to in-
formation impact.
Uncertainty
Central to the model of the ISP is the concept of
uncertainty. Uncertainty was not a new concept in
information science, but affective uncertainty had
not been extensively studied or developed as an
important attribute of the concept. The axiom that
information reduces uncertainty is not necessarily
the user’s experience in information seeking. In
some situations, new information actually increas-
es uncertainty. Prior to the formulation stage, us-
ers are likely to experience heightened uncertainty
in the face of incompatible, inconsistent informa-
tion since it requires thought, construction and in-
terpretation It is helpful for people to learn that
uncertainty increases during the exploration stage
of the ISP rather than thinking that increased un-
certainty is a symptom that something has gone
wrong. Uncertainty from the user’s perspective is
a natural experience in the search process. If un-
expected, the presence of uncertainty and par-
ticularly any increase in uncertainty can heighten
anxiety and frustration, perhaps to the point of
quitting. Clearly there is a critical link between
this research and information literacy.
Kelly’s (1963) personal construct theory provid-
ed the example of a way to present a conceptual
framework with a central principle and a number
of explanatory corollaries. I thought it would be
useful, and perhaps a bit amusing, to state uncer-
tainty as a principle for library and information
science. The principle of uncertainty for informa-
tion seeking is:
Uncertainty is a cognitive state that commonly causes af-
fective symptoms of anxiety and lack of confi dence. Un-
certainty and anxiety can be expected in the early stages of
the ISP. The affective symptoms of uncertainty, confusion
and frustration are associated with vague, unclear thought
about a topic or question. As knowledge states shift to more
clearly focused thoughts, a parallel shift occurs in feel-
ings of increased confi dence. Uncertainty due to a lack of
understanding, a gap in meaning, or a limited construct ini-
tiates the process of information seeking. (Kuhlthau 2004)
The principle of uncertainty is further elaborat-
ed by six corollaries: process corollary, formula-
tion corollary, redundancy corollary, mood cor-
ollary, prediction corollary, and interest corolla-
ry. Each corollary is an important related concept
drawn from the fi ndings of the studies of the ISP.
A person ”in the dip” is increasingly uncertain
and confused until a focus is formed to provide a
path for seeking meaning and criteria for judging
relevance. Advances in information technology
that open access to a vast assortment of sources
has not helped the user’s dilemma and may
heightened the sense of confusion and uncertain-
ty. Information systems may intensify the problem
particularly in the early stages of the ISP by over-
whelming the user with ”everything” all at once
or limiting access to a few most used sources.
Information impact
Information behavior can only be understood
within the context of how the information will be
used, in other words the impact of the information.
From the user’s perspective the primary objective
of information seeking is to accomplish the task
that initiated the search, not merely the collection
of information as an end in itself. The impact of
information is what the user is interested in and
what motivates the information seeking. The ISP
is a task model of information behavior that de-
scribes people seeking information to accomplish
a task within a specifi c period of time. The title of
my book Seeking Meaning (1993, 2004) emphasizes
the impact of information on information behav-
ior. People have goals for seeking information and
the impact of the information is predominant in
their information behavior. People seek meaning
from information that presents considerable chal-
lenges for information researchers and practition-
ers in the twenty-fi rst century.
The research on information goals enables us to
understand different approaches to information
seeking by individuals with the same or similar
tasks. Louise Limberg (2003) studied the infl uence
of differing information goals on students’ infor-
Carol C. Kuhlthau
From Information to Meaning
69
mation behavior. She found that within the same
school assignment the goals of fact fi nding, get-
ting a right answer or analyzing and synthesizing
resulted in quite different outcomes. Ross Todd’s
(1997) similar fi ndings developed the companion
concept of information intents.
The concept of task complexity, developed by
Katie Bystrom and the research group at the Uni-
versity of Tampere, Finland (Bystrom & Jarvelin
1995) have provided insight for my own under-
standing of the nuances of information impact. I
am often asked if I think that people always ex-
perience the stages of the ISP in every informa-
tion seeking task. Clearly they do not. But how to
differentiate between tasks was a problem for me.
When I introduced the concept of task complex-
ity in my workplace studies, I found that workers
could easily distinguish between different types of
information behavior and use in complex tasks and
in routine tasks. They described simple straight-
forward information seeking in routine work
tasks and a process of construction and formula-
tion in those tasks identifi ed as complex. One per-
son explained that complex tasks involve a dy-
namic change in thinking, referring to these tasks
as ”the really good ones that you lose sleep over”
(Kuhlthau 2004, 168). These projects were found
to take an extended period of time. A participant
explained, ”Those are the ones that are really time
consuming because you are changing your entire
thinking on an industry“ (Kuhlthau 2004, 169). And
went on to explain the uncertainty in connection
with complex tasks in this way,” You feel anxiety
because you are changing your whole view of the
world.” He described being ”out of my element”
and ”treading into new territory” (Kuhlthau 2004,
170). The concept of task complexity offered an ex-
planation of why people don’t experience the ISP
in every task. The concept of routine and complex
tasks is critical for understanding when to expect
users to experience stages in the ISP.
Following are examples from my own research
of the information impact in tasks in three differ-
ent contexts: educational tasks, work tasks, and
everyday life tasks.
Educational tasks
In my fi rst study of secondary school students I
found that forming a focus in the process of infor-
mation seeking was the main task of the students,
rather than merely gathering information related
to a topic. To accomplish the assignment students
needed to construct their understanding of the in-
formation they encountered. Students who gath-
ered lots of information but did not construct a fo-
cused perspective had great diffi culty writing and
presenting their work. Here is how one student
described her dilemma.
I had a general idea not a specifi c focus, but an idea. As
I was writing, I didn’t know what my focus was. When
I was fi nished, I didn’t know what my focus was. My
teacher says she doesn’t know what my focus was. I don’t
think I ever acquired a focus. It was an impossible paper
to write. I would just sit there and say, ”I’m stuck.” If I
learned anything from that paper it is, you have to have a
focus. You have to have something to center on. You can’t
just have a topic. You should have an idea when you start.
I had a topic but I didn’t know what I wanted to do with
it. I fi gured that when I did my research it would focus in.
But I didn’t let it. I kept saying, ”this is interesting and this
is interesting and I’ll just smush it altogether.” It didn’t
work out. Other students talked about forming a point
of view and gaining a personal perspective of the topic.
From this study I drew the concept of formulation within
the constructive process of information seeking. (Kuhlthau
2004, 40)
Work tasks
Later, in case studies of information seeking in the
workplace, I found similar evidence related to the
impact of information. The securities analyst talked
about fi nding an angle to present to his clients and
the lawyers sought a strategy for presenting a case.
The securities analyst explained the main problem
many novice analysts had was to gather informa-
tion but not been able to write the report or as he
said, ”get out the product” (Kuhlthau 2004, 173).
Over and over the importance of the interpreta-
tion of the information and the constructive proc-
ess of formulating a perspective from information
gathered provided insight for explaining the in-
formation behavior of the subjects in my studies.
For example, in a longitudinal study of an in-
formation worker comparing novice and expert
approaches to work tasks, I found that the expert
had quite different goals in information seeking
than the novice. The novice was looking for the
right answer. The expert was seeking to add value
to the client’s knowledge. Here is how this expert
explains the change in his information goal. ”The
task has changed from when I fi rst started. It is not
to buy or sell but to add value. The best way I can
help my more sophisticated client is by adding
value to their knowledge base… The young ana-
lyst who is not confi dent in his industry worries
about getting the story right. Now my attention is
on adding value” (Kuhlthau 2004, 174). These dif-
ferent information goals resulted in a different in-
formation behavior and different information im-
pact. The links between information behavior and
information impact were very closely connected.
An important problem emerged in my study
of the information search process of lawyers that
reveals the links between information behavior,
information impact and also the need for closely
aligning information literacy. These users’ experi-
ences and expectations in complex information
seeking tasks were not easily accommodated by the
information system available to them. The prob-
lem for these workers was that the systems avail-
able to them did not suffi ciently support their pro-
cess of construction in the information search pro-
cess. This is how they explained the problem.
First, they described how they go about their
work to accomplish their more complex tasks of
preparing for trial. ”I fi nd that while I am looking
for my issue I come across something else, appar-
ently haphazardly. But it has happened so many
times that it isn’t haphazard and I usually end up
fi nding the case that way. I start looking for A, and
while looking for A, I fi nd B. Then A isn’t the issue
I am looking for. Now it’s B. I have found some-
thing that really starts to formulate the issue. It has
happened so many times that I am convinced that
there is something else going on here… At fi rst I
don’t really see what I am looking for and then the
next one after it catches my eye and I keep going.
And fi nally…I fi nd the seminal case that turns the
key one way or another. I go in not knowing what
the case is, but fi nding it. And once I get there I do
the research on it” (Kuhlthau 2004, 180).
Obviously the lawyers’ information behavior
was linked to the impact of information for the
accomplishment of their task. But there are indica-
tions that information literacy was another link in
the information chain that needed to be strength-
ened and developed for these workers.
Every day life tasks
At Rutgers I developed a course in Designing Us-
er Centered Services and Systems in which stu-
dents select a cohort of users who have similar
information tasks and needs as a community of
practice. They study this cohort throughout the
semester and design an information service and
system tailored to their needs. They have studied
people with information needs in the course of ac-
complishing a variety of every day life tasks. Fol-
lowing is a list of some of the tasks my students
have studied with specifi c examples of problems
requiring information.
• Consumer tasks – buying a house, car or other major
purchase
• Personal tasks – adopting a child, raising a child, care
for an elderly parent
• Health tasks – illness and wellness decisions (surviving
breast cancer)
• Citizenship tasks – environmental concerns, candidate
choices, governance
• Decisions, new immigrant decisions
• Educational tasks – career decisions, academic research,
language issues, student
• Life issues, housing.
• Work tasks of securities analyst, lawyers, small business
entrepreneurs, nurses, journalists, physicians, teachers,
artists, beekeepers and people starting a business.
The fundamental questions are: What are peo-
ple trying to do? What task have they set for them-
selves? What are they striving to accomplish?
What problems do they have in seeking and us-
ing information to accomplish their tasks? All of
this information behavior is directly connected to
information impact for solving a problem or ac-
complishing a task, or learning about something
of personal import, concern and engagement.
All three of these contexts of tasks show a criti-
cal need for professional intervention as well as
a high level of information literacy. Meeting the
challenges of information provision in the twenty-
fi rst century will take ingenuity and risk. That will
mean setting aside familiar approaches to strike
out into new territory and require new ways of
thinking about intervention and education. First
we consider ways of approaching intervention.
Intervention in the ISP
The model of the stages of ISP shows major deci-
sion points or zones where users fi nd intervention
helpful. By concentrating on these zones, librari-
70
Carol C. Kuhlthau
ans can provide effective and effi cient library and
information services tailored to users specifi c
needs. I found that the participants in my stud-
ies wanted help in their information seeking, but
not necessarily the kind of help that they thought
was available. The student explained that without
a focus the paper was impossible to write. The se-
curities analyst explained that a serious problem
for many people in his line of work was collecting
masses of information but not formulating a fo-
cused perspective to present in a report for clients.
The lawyer dreamed of a ‘just for me’ service that
would enable constructing a complex strategy for
trial. In everyday life information seeking a whole
range of tasks requires constructing from a variety
of sources of information over an extended period
of time.
Increased uncertainty creates a zone of inter-
vention for intermediaries and system designers
that support users in their quest for seeking mean-
ing from information. Based on the model of the
ISP and the principle of uncertainty for informa-
tion seeking, I developed the concept of a zone
of intervention. The central idea in the zone of
intervention is that increased uncertainty indi-
cates a need for assistance and accommodation.
The zone of intervention is a concept modeled on
Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of a zone of proximal de-
velopment that provides a way of understanding
intervention in the constructive process of another
person. The zone of intervention in information
seeking may be thought of in a similar way.
The zone of intervention is that area in which
an information user can do with advice and as-
sistance what he or she cannot do alone or can do
only with diffi culty. Intervention within this zone
enables individuals to progress in the accomplish-
ment of their task. Intervention outside this zone
is ineffi cient and unnecessary, experienced by us-
ers as intrusive on the one hand or overwhelming
on the other (Kuhlthau 2004, 129).
Important questions arise concerning the rela-
tionship of intervention and information literacy.
Is the goal of information literacy to enable people
to be completely independent and self suffi cient?
Or does the literate person know when and where
to seek assistance and help? Some questions to
consider when designing intervention: What is
enough? What is intrusive? What is helpful? What
is limiting and restrictive? What is expansive and
inviting?
Information literacy
What is information literacy? What does informa-
tion behavior research tell us about information
literacy? How does information literacy link to in-
formation behavior and information impact?
Worldwide access to information technology has
turned attention to serious questions about edu-
cation in countries across the globe (Friedman
2006). Educational leaders and policy makers are
worried about the next generation of innovators
and creators. Vast quantities of information fuel
this global society and the ability to locate, evalu-
ate and use appropriate information for creation
and innovation is essential. Thoughtful educators
seek ways to build student competencies for liv-
ing and working with new technologies. Informa-
tion literacy is the ability to locate, evaluate and
use information wisely. Information literacy is at
the core of what it means to be educated in this
century.
User studies show that the impact of informa-
tion for learning, creating and innovating in the
context of daily life constitutes information lit-
eracy. User studies reveal the direct connection
between information behavior and the use or im-
pact of information in a variety of contexts. We
now have a broad understanding of many of the
concepts that underlie the ability to locate, evalu-
ate and use information. Studies of the impact of
school libraries on student learning have revealed
inquiry as a valuable approach for learning in the
twenty-fi rst-century school (Todd, Kuhlthau &
Heinstrom 2005; Williams & Wavell 2001). We al-
so are aware of serious constraints on problem
solving and innovation in situations where the
ability to locate, evaluate and use information is
lacking. It is high time to apply what we know
about information behavior and information im-
pact to information literacy programs. We need to
prepare the next generation of information users in
innovative educational programs that apply con-
cepts drawn from research fi ndings.
Guided inquiry
I have been working on this problem over the past
several years and have developed a program for
developing information literacy called Guided In-
quiry (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari 2007). Guided
Inquiry immerses students in information seeking
71
From Information to Meaning
as a way of learning and prepares them for the ac-
tive engagement with information required in all
aspects of living and working in the information
society.
Guided Inquiry applies a concepts approach to
information literacy. The general concepts devel-
oped in user studies are introduced as basic strat-
egies to locate, evaluate and use library materials
and the wide range of resources available through
digitized information technology and in the local
community. Understanding these basic concepts
provides students with the foundation for wise
use of information in the work place and in daily
living that is fundamental to information literacy.
These concepts are developed gradually over the
course of students’ primary and secondary educa-
tion.
Guided Inquiry encourages students to think of
inquiry as a journey and that they need to fi nd a
trail through the information. The path that they
choose may not be the same as another student
would follow. The choices they make along the
way of what information is important and inter-
esting forges their trail from source to source as in
Bates’s berry picking concept (Bates 1989).
The concept of trails and paths helps students
to fi nd their way through information. Guided In-
quiry introduces students to strategies developed
in information science research to fi nd their way
through a variety of sources of information. By
introducing the concept of following a trail or
path though the information students develop the
notion of a search strategy. Students develop ex-
pertise in locating information through their un-
derstanding of the information seeking concepts
of browsing, monitoring, chaining, differentiating and
extracting (Ellis 1989).
Differentiating, for example, is using differences
between sources to judge the nature and quality of
the material. It involves comparing and selecting
sources by noticing differences between the qual-
ity, expertise, accuracy, currency and perspective
of the information as characteristics for evaluating
sources. Guided Inquiry helps students learn how
sources differ and ways to make good choices for
their inquiry.
Many online systems incorporate these strate-
gies in their search capabilities. As Choo explains
(2006, 62), ”if we visualize the World Wide Web
as a hyperlinked information system distributed
over numerous networks, most of the information
seeking behaviors categories in Ellis’s model are
already being supported by capabilities available
in common web browsers. Thus a user could use
the browser to reach a search engine to locate
sources of interest (starting); follow hypertext
links to related information resources in both
backward and forward – linking directions (chain-
ing); scan the web pages of the sources selected
(browsing); bookmark useful sources for future
reference and visits (differentiating); subscribe
to e-mail based services that alert the user of new
information or developments (monitoring); and
search a particular source or site for all informa-
tion on that site on a particular topic (extracting).”
Students who understand these strategies are pre-
pared to make full use of search capabilities of the
technological information environment. Guided
Inquiry prepares students to develop their own
search strategy for fi nding their way through a
vast amount of information that is fundamental to
information literacy.
Links between information behavior, informa-
tion impact, and information literacy
And so we return to the theme of this conference –
the links between information behavior, informa-
tion impact and information literacy. What is the
essential relationship and interaction between
these three?
We have considered the contribution of user
studies to our understanding of information be-
havior. We have seen the close relationship of in-
formation behavior to the impact of information.
From the user’s perspective these are inseparably
connected. We have considered ways of meeting
the challenge of information provision through
intervention and information literacy.
Innovative approaches to interaction between
people and information are needed to bridge the
divide between information behavior, information
literacy and impact of information in order to seek
meaning from information. The challenge facing
us today is to bring together the allied areas of the
fi eld into an overarching conceptual framework
that represents the unifi ed whole. Over the next
days of the conference we have the opportunity to
delve into the dynamics of collaboration of these
three areas of the information fi eld. Consider the
potential of bringing together these diverse as-
pects of the fi eld. Meeting this challenge substan-
72
Carol C. Kuhlthau
tially increases the capacity for solving some of the
more pressing problems of facing people today.
The future holds interesting prospects for in-
formation researchers and practitioners that open
paths to learning and creating in rich information
environments. This is only the beginning of our
journey into the vast potential of the fi eld of library
and information science. We have the unique op-
portunity and, I would stress, responsibility to
contribute our expertise for addressing the press-
ing problems before us all in the early decades of
the twenty-fi rst century.
References
Bates, M. 1989. The Design of browsing and berry pick-
ing techniques for the online search interface. Online
Review 13: 149–59.
Bystrom, K., and K. Jarvelin. 1995. Task complexity af-
fects information seeking and use. Information Pro-
cessing and Management 31: 191–213.
Chang, S., and R. Rice. 1993. Browsing: A multidimen-
sional framework. Annual Review of Information Sci-
ence and Technology 28: 231–76. Medford, NJ: Learned
Information.
Choo, C. 2006. The knowing organization: How organiza-
tions use information to construct meaning, create knowl-
edge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford Universi-
ty Press.
Dervin, B. 1983. An overview of sense-making research:
Concepts, methods and results. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, Dallas, Texas.
Ellis, D. 1989. A behavioral approach to information re-
trieval system design. Journal of Documentation 48:
171–212.
Friedman, T. 2006. Creativity and the global employee.
NYTimes.com, December 15.
Kelly, G. 1963. A theory of personality: The psychology of
personal constructs. New York: W. W. Norton.
Kuhlthau, C. 1993. Seeking meaning: A process approach to
library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Kuhlthau, C. 2004. Seeking meaning: A process approach to
library and information services. 2d ed. Westport, CT:
Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, C., L. Maniotes, and A. Caspari. 2007. Guided
Inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Li-
braries Unlimited.
Limberg, L., and M. Alexandersson. 2003. The school
library as a space for learning. School Libraries World-
wide 9: 1–15.
Saracevic, T. 1975. Relevance: A review of and a frame-
work for the thinking on the notion in information
science. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science 26: 321–43.
Savolainen, R. 1995. Everday life information seeking:
Approaching information seeking in the context of
‘way of life’. Library and Information Science Research
17: 259–94.
Taylor, R. 1968. Question-negotiation and information
seeking in libraries. College and Research Libraries 29:
178–94.
Taylor, R. 1991. Information use environments. Progress
in Communication Sciences, 217–55. Norwood, NJ: Ab-
lex.
Todd, R. 1997. Information utilization: A cognitive
analysis of how girls utilize drug information based
on Brookes’ fundamental equation K[S] + DI = K[S +
DS]”. In Information Seeking in Context: Proceedings of
the 2nd Information Seeking in Context Conference, ed.
P. Vakkari et al., 351–370. University of Tampere,
Finland, July 1996. London: Taylor Graham.
Todd, R., C. Kuhlthau, and J. Heinstrom. 2005. Impact of
School Libraries on Student Learning. Institute of Mu-
seum and Library Services Leadership Grant Proj-
ect Report. URL: http://cissl.scils.rutgers.edu/
research/imls/ [viewed 24 March 2008]
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Williams, D., and C. Wavell. 2001. Impact of the School
Library Resource Centre on Learning: Report on re-
search conducted for Resource: The Council for Mu-
seums, Archives and Libraries. Aberdeen, Scotland:
Robert Gordon University. URL: http://www.rgu.
ac.uk/fi les/Impact%20of%20school%20library%20
resource%20centre.pdf [viewed 23 March 2008]
Wilson, T. 1999. Models of information behavior re-
search. Journal of Documentation 55: 249–70.
Editorial history:
Paper received 3 October 2007;
Accepted 4 December 2007.
73
From Information to Meaning
