Content uploaded by Crystal Fulton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Crystal Fulton on Apr 25, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
$Q2UGLQDU\/LIHLQWKH5RXQG(OIUHGD$QQPDU\&KDWPDQ
&U\VWDO)XOWRQ
Libraries & the Cultural Record, Volume 45, Number 2, 2010, pp. 238-259
(Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI7H[DV3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/lac.0.0122
For additional information about this article
Accessed 16 Jan 2016 02:25 GMT
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lac/summary/v045/45.2.fulton.html
238 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
Libraries & the Cultural Record, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2010
©2010 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819
An Ordinary Life in the Round:
Elfreda Annmary Chatman
Crystal Fulton
Elfreda Annmary Chatman was one of the preeminent library and in-
formation science scholars during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s.
The influence of her research on the work of others and through her
students continues. Focusing her research and theory development on
the information behavior of the ordinary people around her, Chatman
highlighted the importance of studying everyday life contexts and helped
shape the direction of research for many scholars to examine information
in everyday life circumstances. Her middle-range theories were intended
to enable information researchers to understand the information behavior
of individuals and groups and to facilitate the development of policies and
practices to help people experiencing everyday information problems.
Elfreda Annmary Chatman (1942–2002) stands as a pioneering library
and information science scholar. She believed that developing theory
would help researchers understand the information behavior of a range
of individuals and groups. Her exploration of everyday information
worlds highlighted the importance of studying daily life contexts and
helped shape the direction of research for many scholars to examine
information in everyday life circumstances. Her middle-range theories
were intended to facilitate understanding of the information behavior
of a range of individuals and groups; her theories continue to support
the development of policies and practices to help people experiencing
information problems in day-to-day contexts.
Chatman’s life and work exemplified the scholar in practice. While we
may now take for granted the idea of theory building in library and infor-
mation science (LIS), Chatman was a pioneer in LIS theory development.
Particular concepts, such as “small worlds” and “normative behavior,” are
still strongly associated with Chatman. Many of her concepts remain to
be fully tested; however, researchers continue to explore her ideas. The
ongoing attention researchers pay to her theorizing and her interest in
working with all people is a tribute to her impact on the field.
239
This article examines Chatman’s career, from her early research as a
doctoral student to her growth into a dominant figure in LIS research.
Her major achievements, including her championing of the study of
socioeconomic groups and subsequent development of key concepts
surrounding information behavior among members of marginalized
populations, are explored.
A Life of Service and Scholarship
Chatman’s research interests were deeply rooted in her own life
experiences. From humble beginnings in Ohio Chatman overcame
various socioeconomic challenges to pursue education at the doctoral
level and a career of teaching and research. In 1971 she completed her
bachelor of science degree in education at Youngstown State University.
Embarking on her postgraduate education, she completed her master’s
degree in library science at Case Western Reserve University in 1976,
concentrating on public library administration, followed by an advanced
certificate in library and information studies in 1978, with a focus on
library administration, at the University of California at Berkeley. Spe-
cializing in the subject areas of social studies of information and library
organization and management, Chatman continued her studies at the
School of Library and Information Studies, University of California at
Berkeley, completing her doctorate in 1983. In 1984 the Association
for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) named her
thesis, “The Diffusion of Information: A Study of the Working Poor,”
best dissertation of the year.
As director of the library extension program, Project Outreach, at
the Reuben MacMillan Free Library in Youngstown, Ohio (1972–77),
where she helped provide programming to serve the poor, Chatman
found inspiration in her daily contact with people in everyday situations,
in particular, marginalized groups. Chatman defined the marginalized
individual as follows: “Briefly, a marginal person is someone that lives
in two small worlds of culture, which are very different from each other.
Problems can arise when marginalized populations seek a more central
place in the dominant society. A critical limitation to their quest is a
failure to understand the cultural, educational, and social norms that
are fundamental to the greater social world.”1 She focused her doctoral
research on the socially and economically marginalized, believing that
economically disadvantaged people have a unique contribution to make
in helping us understand their information worlds. Her experience with
Project Outreach influenced her choice of group and thesis topic. She
240 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
decided to explore whether opinion leaders existed in an impoverished
environment and whether they bore similarities to opinion leaders
found in other contexts. To explore diffusion of information among the
working poor, Chatman interviewed fifty women in the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act program in Berkeley, California.2
As Chatman observed, little was known then about information and
poverty.
When I began to review the literature which addresses this issue,
I found that although a number of studies reported information
needs and uses, only a small body of literature (mostly originat-
ing from communication research) addressed information and
poverty. The primary focus of that literature centers around mass
media use and the poor. Investigators studying this phenomenon
have concluded that because poor people rarely use the print
media and are high consumers of television, they can be character-
ized as living in an impoverished information world. But from my
experiences I sensed that there is a great deal not known about
information and poverty. For instance, it is not known what factors
influence poor people’s need for ordinary information, its use in
Figure 1. Elfreda Chatman, a leader in information behavior research, is shown
here when she was a professor at the School of Information Studies, Florida
State University. Photo courtesy of Florida State University.
241
their everyday lives, and its diffusion in their social world. It is also
not known what role, if any, opinion leaders play as disseminators
of ordinary information in a poverty environment.3
This initial research marked the beginning of a prolific scholarly career
devoted to understanding the information worlds of ordinary people.
Chatman continued her teaching, research, and theory development
as a member of the faculties at the School of Library and Information
Science, Louisiana State University (1983–86); the School of Informa-
tion and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(1986–98); and, finally, the School of Information Studies, Florida State
University (1998–2002).
Studying Life in the Social Margins
Chatman has been called one of the most prominent researchers
in everyday life information-seeking studies from the 1980s forward.4
Exploring life in the margins of society was important to Chatman, and
she extended this context to everyone, believing that we all participate
in different and potentially fringe information worlds, in which ordinary
people lead an everyday existence. “At some point all of us live in a small
world. Small world lives are not insignificant. They can tell us a great deal
about ways in which cultural and social spaces hold opportunities and chal-
lenges.”5 In particular, she investigated the information worlds of women
in various contexts, including her study of the daily lives of janitors and of
older women living in a retirement complex. In addition to bringing the
information worlds of these groups of women to the forefront, Chatman
raised awareness of everyday information situations in research.
Her investigation of the information world of janitorial staff revealed
that information is often not exchanged for a variety of reasons. For two
years Chatman interviewed janitorial staff at an academic institution. As
was characteristic of Chatman’s ethnographic approach, “interviews were
conducted wherever the janitors happened to be working, for example,
in broom closets, bathrooms, stairways, and classrooms.”6 Chatman
discovered that less than one-third of the janitors interviewed reported
using the library, a finding she noted as consistent with the findings in
other studies. Further, their social and working environments presented
barriers to janitors exchanging information. According to Chatman, “the
reasons for non-use of libraries may lie outside the control of librar-
ians.”7 She noted further that libraries may be unable to meet certain
needs, such as information based on experience. Her findings helped
242 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
refute the attitude that accessibility to information determines usage.
Instead, Chatman called for librarians to learn more about the mean-
ing of information in people’s daily lives and to understand why people
are unable or choose not to use information. Summing up the signifi-
cance of understanding ordinary information worlds for public libraries,
Chatman and her coauthor, Victoria Pendleton, commented:
If we are to remain the “common man’s university,” we need
to look a little closer at where that common man resides in the
information landscape called the Knowledge Society. In these au-
thors’ opinion, information must be understood as information in
something. In the cultural sense, we mean that information is in
the definition of how practical lives are played out. It is the act of
forming a world view that determines what is important in a world
and what is trivial. Information is what brings meaning, purpose,
order, and predictability to a social world.8
The role of the library in the daily lives of ordinary people remained a
recurring theme in Chatman’s work. For instance, Chatman examined
the role of mentorship in public library directors’ careers. In addition,
Chatman’s research exploring information exchange among “opinion
leaders” revealed an opportunistic side to information provision through
these individuals. Chatman challenged libraries to develop information
services to facilitate all groups inclusively. For her work on opinion leaders,
Chatman won the 1988 Reference Service Press Award of the Reference
and Adult Services Division of the American Library Association.9
Chatman continued her exploration of information exchange and
diffusion in her examination of the everyday lives of older women living
in the small world of a retirement complex, fictitiously referred to as
“Garden Towers.” This research was significant not only for exploring the
information world of aging women but also for understanding secrecy
in social relationships. In addition, while others are often recognized
for pioneering LIS works on leisure, this study echoed her earlier work
on leisure, income, and public library use in representing early explo-
rations of leisure in our field. Chatman referred to her Garden Towers
participants as “avid world watchers,” that is, a group of women who
were heavy media users, reaching to the outside world from their small
world. Chatman further found that older age was not a factor in library
usage; rather, participants used the public library through its outreach
programs. She charged libraries with revisiting their assumed knowledge
about the information world of older people.10
243
The Information World of Retired Women, the monograph that resulted
from Chatman’s study of Garden Towers, won the Association of College
and Research Libraries’ Best Book Award for 1995. Chatman’s study
emerged from her ongoing exploration of diffusion theory and marked
her movement toward developing her own theories. She was interested
in understanding the relationships among individuals in the retirement
complex, including the sharing and spreading of information through-
out the community. In later work, Chatman discussed her particular
application of “social network theory” to studying older women, refer-
ring to social networks and relevant researchers.11 As Julia Hersberger
has observed, researchers currently engaged in studying social networks
maintain there are many social network theories as opposed to an overall
theory.12 LIS scholars now use the research area of social network analysis
to understand how people develop and maintain social relationships
and community. Nevertheless, Chatman’s work represents an early and
innovative approach to exploring community in our field.
Applying Qualitative Field Approaches to Studying
Everyday Information Worlds
Chatman is often recognized for her adoption and application of
qualitative research approaches, which brought her in close contact
with ordinary people. She regularly employed ethnography and field
research data collection approaches, such as interviews and observa-
tion, to learn more about information worlds, which were often hidden
when utilizing quantitative approaches. Because Chatman was exploring
phenomena untouched by other LIS researchers, her research was a
voyage of discovery. Exploring new ways of understanding information
worlds, she drew upon theories and methodological approaches used
in the social sciences. In defense of her ethnographic approach
Chatman wrote:
Ethnography, with its deepest roots in anthropology, was chosen as
the best method for my work, because data are collected in social
settings that reveal reality as lived by members of those settings. As
a result, ethnographic studies make known contextual meanings,
cultural norms, and social interactions that are not possible with
other methods. Because there is a paucity of knowledge pertaining
to everyday perspectives and ordinary uses of information, there
is a need for a method that permits the most comprehensive view
of this process.13
244 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
Chatman wrote about her research experiences because she believed
she was filling a gap that existed in the LIS literature. She noted that,
although she could identify researchers’ use of various field research
approaches in their studies, there was little actual discussion of field
research approaches in LIS research.14 In her dissertation she described
how this situation affected her as a developing researcher: “Prior to
beginning this investigation, I had only the vaguest notion about how
to get started. To develop my knowledge of methodological approaches
and issues, I read anthropological and sociological studies.”15
Chatman consistently provided rich descriptions of her methodologi-
cal approaches in her writing, taking care to explain how and why she
adopted techniques to enhance the trustworthiness and applicability
of findings. Her study of older women revealed a scholar much more
at ease with research than the earlier doctoral student, as she noted,
“As is my usual practice, I conducted interviews with 55 women, using
primarily open-ended questions.”16 In developing her own practice she
wrestled with decisions researchers still consider carefully in planning
their studies. For instance, in her discussion of “insiders” and “outsiders,”
a prelude to her theory of “life in the round,” Chatman debated whether
the researcher must be an insider to understand another person’s life
experience, concluding that the position of insider potentially explains
the information barriers between worlds.17
By writing about what she found to be a deeply profound personal
experience of entering the field and returning with data, Chatman drew
the attention of other researchers to practical considerations of all aspects
of their interactions in the field. In particular, the role of the researcher
and his or her impact while in the field were of paramount importance
to Chatman. She emphasized assuming a role “appropriate” to a given
context to help the researcher gain entry to a group or situation; for
example, in her work with low-skilled workers she identified herself as a
student, which placed her in a nonthreatening position when meeting
with workers and supervisors and gave her a vehicle for entry into this
research context. Chatman believed the researcher should adopt a role
that facilitates observation of the everyday life of the members of a par-
ticular small information world. She further emphasized the importance
of reflecting on the impact of the researcher in the field; for example,
she considered the affective issue of researcher anxiety, associated with
such research tasks as gaining entry, the potential prospect for negative
participant behavior, and conducting effective interviews, as playing a
critical role in successful research outcomes. Her discussion acknowledged
245
the complexity of the researcher’s role and the importance of recognizing
one’s own impact in fieldwork.18 Chatman’s exploration of the researcher
in the field continues to influence the conceptualization of qualitative
methodological approaches in LIS, such as observation.19
Chatman’s reflection on her research encouraged LIS scholars to
experiment with alternative qualitative approaches to research. Through
her teaching and collaborations she urged researchers to adopt field
research approaches, particularly in their exploration of the information
worlds of ordinary people. For her, entering the field and experienc-
ing other people’s information worlds firsthand were the only ways to
understand people’s everyday lives.
Nevertheless, Chatman’s methodological approaches have met with
criticism among some LIS researchers. Donald Case summarized one of
the major criticisms of Chatman’s work (e.g., her research surrounding
janitors), her questionable generalization of qualitative research results,
noting: “But most of Chatman’s evidence is in the form of verbatim
comments, recorded in her field notes, a type of data that are difficult
to quantify.” Case observed that “a number of individual comments and
anecdotes support the theory that the janitors’ world is one that lacks
solidarity and trust, documenting the existence of one of the sources of
alienation.” Chatman was actually theorizing. In keeping with qualita-
tive research tradition, Chatman used the comments of participants to
ground her research, using evidence to enable readers to assess the ap-
plicability of the findings and make their own interpretations. Case does
acknowledge that investigating Chatman’s marginalized groups would
have proven difficult by other means.20 Perhaps more appropriate for
considering Chatman’s work is the term “transferability” or “theoretical
generalizability.” Qualitative researchers currently prefer this terminol-
ogy, which focuses on situational comparisons, as opposed to “statistical
generalizability,” which is not a goal of qualitative research.21
This challenge to Chatman’s research approach was part of a wider
controversy about the appropriateness of qualitative LIS research,
which was often (and is sometimes still) treated as the weaker sibling of
quantitative research. Even Chatman’s early writing shows a transitional
period, with her mixing quantitative and qualitative research terminol-
ogy when describing her participant groups.22 Pendleton and Chatman
criticized the attitude toward qualitative research approaches, noting,
“Unfortunately, qualitative researchers have tended to be labeled as
‘soft’ researchers who employ a method that is sadly in need of scholarly
rigor. In these authors’ opinion, this is not necessarily the case.”23
246 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
Chatman’s Three Middle-Range Theories
Chatman’s passion for research propelled her into a leadership position
in theory development. She was a driving force in the movement toward
much needed theory development in LIS. In Chatman’s words, “We have
no central theory or body of interrelated theories we can view as ‘middle
range.’”24 The idea of creating middle-range theory was to bring together
theory and empirical research; in doing so she influenced a generation
of LIS researchers to explore theory about the individual’s information
world, drawing upon concepts, such as small worlds, from other fields to
extend those concepts to information behavior research in unique ways.
Chatman drew widely from other theorists, such as Emile Durkheim,
Max Weber, and Robert K. Merton on the concept of alienation.25 Everett
Rogers’s work Diffusion of Innovations played a central role in her explora-
tions of small world information exchange, beginning with her doctoral
dissertation and continuing throughout her research career; in one article
she reviewed diffusion theory and its particular relevance to her research.26
Case has noted the breadth of sources that influenced Chatman, ranging
from gratification theory, attributed to such researchers as Elihu Katz
and David Foulkes, to mass media and communication theories as well
as sociological theories from Erving Goffman, Alfred Schutz, and Harold
Garfinkel.27 Chatman believed that theory development was critical for
effective policy building and implementation. While others, such as Tom
Wilson, Brenda Dervin, and Lois Forman-Wernet, are renowned for their
more general models of information-seeking behavior,28 Chatman dubbed
her efforts her “middle-range theories.”29
A Theory of Information Poverty
Although in the 1970s and 1980s popular belief connected economic
poverty to information poverty, Chatman was among those who explored
alternative reasons for information poverty.30 Within her field she was
influenced by the work of researchers into information and poverty, such
as Thomas Childers’s depiction of the information poor as receivers of
information who have limited abilities to process that information, as
well as Dervin and Bradley Greenberg’s investigation of urban African
American communities, which revealed a shift from the closely knit
community to an information context of ghettos, crime, mistrust, and
alienation.31 Chatman’s Theory of Information Poverty is rooted in
her desire to find a sociocultural explanation for information poverty.
Chatman described her search as follows:
247
Early in my research, I was influenced by scholars who made the
argument that economic poverty was linked to information poverty.
Over the course of my inquiries, however, I discovered that this link-
age is not necessarily true. . . . Needing to find plausible answers, I
used a number of conceptual frameworks, including gratification
theory, alienation theory, and diffusion theory. I applied theory-
driven research that yielded four essential concepts that, taken
together, appear to act like a DNA factor for information poverty.32
To explain information poverty Chatman drew heavily upon sociological
sources, in particular Merton, to differentiate between “insiders” and
“outsiders,” that is, those who belong to a particular lifeworld and those
who exist outside the boundaries of that lifeworld. The notion of insiders
and outsiders became a background for Chatman’s work, around which
emerged Chatman’s four concepts defining an impoverished lifeworld:
secrecy, deception, risk taking, and situational relevance.33
Secrecy involved concealment of information as a protective measure,
which enables people to control aspects of their personal lives. Chatman
noted, “The point is that, in secrecy, the objective is to guard against
disclosure; consequently, we simply cease to be receptive to advice or
information.” Deception, related to secrecy, was for Chatman a process
meant to hide a reality by providing misleading and false information.
While secrecy and deception are both self-protective measures, risk taking,
a concept adapted from diffusion theory, involved not only the weighing
of acceptance of an innovation but also, in Chatman’s work, the more
basic decision of whether even to consider the possibility of innovation.
Risk taking raised the question of trust and trustworthy sources in support
of information sharing and adoption. Situational relevance for Chatman
concerned utility, in which relevance addressed an individual’s need and
offered the potential for shaping “a collective perception about ways in
which new knowledge is brought into a social system.” Chatman likened
situational relevance to Dervin’s sense-making model.34
Based on these four concepts Chatman outlined the theoretical frame-
work for her Theory of Information Poverty, noting that it reflected not
an individualistic but a collective model of need.
Proposition 1: People who are defined as information poor perceive
themselves to be devoid of any sources that might help them.
Proposition 2: Information poverty is partially associated with class
distinction. That is, the condition of information poverty is influenced
by outsiders who withhold privileged access to information.
248 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
Proposition 3: Information poverty is determined by self-protective
behaviors which are used in response to social norms.
Proposition 4: Both secrecy and self-deception are self-protecting
mechanisms due to a sense of mistrust regarding the interest or
ability of others to provide useful information.
Proposition 5: A decision to risk exposure about our true problems
is often not taken due to a perception that negative consequences
outweigh benefits.
Proposition 6: New knowledge will be selectively introduced into
the information world of poor people. A condition that influences
this process is the relevance of that information in response to
everyday problems and concerns.35
Neil Pollock has questioned Chatman’s Theory of Information Pov-
erty, suggesting that information poverty is a more complex issue
than explained by her six propositions. Specifically, Pollock criticized
Chatman’s work for “reducing social communications to issues of rel-
evance and social networks within world-views, rather than the issue
also being about power,” noting further that Chatman’s sociological
stance placed material, linguistic, and economic factors as secondary in
importance.36 Citing studies conducted in other countries, Pollock ob-
served that some of Chatman’s findings do not necessarily translate well
to other cultural contexts, for example, contexts outside the particular
social and economic circumstances of the United States.37 In addition,
Pollock suggested that particular ideas about information poverty do
not hold, such as the extension of the isolated information experiences
of microgroups to the wider population of information poor worldwide,
and factors associated with information poverty, such as secrecy and
deception, may not be defining aspects of information poverty.38
It must be remembered, however, that Chatman’s propositions were
her attempt to bring together ideas; in this case she was challenging
previous conceptions of information poverty. Importantly, Chatman’s
Theory of Information Poverty went beyond the information poverty and
economic poverty debate to show how information needs are specific
to particular populations. In addition, her work revealed that social
norms determine accepted information as opposed to outside infor-
mation sources. These findings prompted Chatman to recommend to
information professionals that “the process of understanding begins
with research that looks at their [special populations’] social environ-
ment and that defines information from their perspective.”39 Part of the
value of Chatman’s exploration of information poverty rests with her
249
demonstration that information behavior must be understood through
construction of meaning.40 As a result, Chatman’s Theory of Informa-
tion Poverty continues to hold value in LIS research for investigating
information seeking in marginalized groups.41
A Theory of Life in the Round
Paul Solomon commends Chatman’s Theory of Life in the Round
for demonstrating the importance of context in shaping an individual’s
information seeking.42 Believing that a person’s context determined his
or her perspective on information, thereby shaping behavior toward
use or nonuse of information, Chatman’s concept of Life in the Round
provided a way of understanding people’s information behavior in that
context or world. Chatman defined life lived in the round as a “public
form of life in which things are implicitly understood.” Members of this
world are concerned with their own small world, the creation and sup-
port of roles in that world, and information that can be used there.43
Again influenced by other researchers, including Merton, Chatman’s
research into the social world of women prisoners led to her final develop-
ment of a Theory of Life in the Round.44 Four concepts are central to the
theory: small worlds, social norms, social types, and worldview. In a small
world or society life is “played out on a small stage.” Members of that world
share a common worldview and determine what information is important
and which sources can be trusted. Life in the round is routine, and infor-
mation seeking beyond that world is neither needed nor wanted.45 Social
norms refer to accepted behavior in a small world. Chatman’s ideas are
grounded in research by Ferdinand Tónnies, J. D. Douglas, W. F. Whyte,
and J. De Angulo in her development of the concept of social norms
and their role in maintaining order in a small world.46 In a small world
insiders consider accepted behavioral patterns to be normative and part
of shared social meaning. Information is sought because an individual
shares a common need with his or her homogeneous social group.47
Drawing upon Weber’s concept of ideal types, Chatman examined
the ways in which social typing creates perceptions about public behav-
ior. A social type is a label or classification determined by social norms
created and supported in a small world, signifying an individual’s abil-
ity to acquire and use information. For example, Chatman explored
social types in her study of inmates of a women’s prison. She found
that prisoners assigned social labels to other inmates according to par-
ticular characteristics. Social typing, in turn, assigned a social role to
an individual, providing expectations of public behavior. For example,
250 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
the “bitch guards,” prison officers who watched prisoners and enforced
prison rules, held additional power in their capacity to share or not share
information with prisoners. Other social types included the “brides,” new
prisoners who often partnered themselves with the “studs,” prisoners
who provided protection and served as gatekeepers to information.48
Chatman’s fourth concept—worldview—is a collective of shared beliefs,
customs, and language used by members of a small world to evaluate
behavior and interpret the world. In a small world worldview influences
information behavior, motivating members of the small world to accept
information from other small world members. However, worldview
encourages insiders to suspect and reject information coming from
outsiders and the outside.49
Using the key concepts noted above, Chatman offered six proposi-
tional statements that summarize her Theory of Life in the Round:
Proposition 1: A small world conceptualization is essential to a life
in the round because it establishes legitimized others (primarily
insiders) within that world who set boundaries on behavior.
Proposition 2: Social norms force private behavior to undergo
public scrutiny. It is this public arena that deems behavior—
including information-seeking behavior—appropriate or not.
Proposition 3: The result of establishing appropriate behavior
is the creation of a worldview. This worldview includes language,
values, meaning, symbols, and a context that holds the worldview
within temporal boundaries.
Proposition 4: For most of us, a worldview is played out as life in
the round. Fundamentally, this is a life taken for granted. It works
most of the time with enough predictability that, unless a critical
problem arises, there is no point in seeking information.
Proposition 5: Members who live in the round will not cross the
boundaries of their world to seek information.
Proposition 6: Individuals will cross information boundaries only
to the extent that the following conditions are met: (1) the infor-
mation is perceived as critical, (2) there is a collective expectation
that the information is relevant, and (3) a perception exists that
the life lived in the round is no longer functioning.50
Chatman believed that observing life as lived in the round was essen-
tial to understanding information behavior in a small world context.
For Chatman, recognizing the meaning of information for individuals
within a small world and appreciating the collective view of what is or
251
is not relevant were both critical to understanding the workings of a
small world. Chatman’s Theory of Life in the Round underscored her
belief that information behavior is about constructing meaning and
that construction of meaning is facilitated by context. While informa-
tion behavior in a small world context is particular to that world, the
Theory of Life in the Round may offer a useful framework for studying
and working with various groups; for example, by identifying the reasons
for seeking information from outside sources as opposed to sources
within a small world, information providers may gain insights into that
particular world that will support development of effective information
services. By shifting the emphasis in exploring information behavior
from information needs to social context, the Theory of Life in the
Round facilitates understanding of information behavior.51
A Theory of Normative Behavior
Chatman’s exploration of small world behavior led her to investigate
normative behavior. “Normal” behavior is expected, routine behavior in
Figure 2. Elfreda Chatman with colleagues at the School of Information Studies,
Florida State University. Photo courtesy of Florida State University.
252 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
a given context; normative pertains to adherence to socially accepted
behavior. A Theory of Normative Behavior offers a theoretical framework
for understanding information seeking and information avoidance in
a particular small world. Concepts of social norms, worldview, social
types, and information behavior again provided the foundation for this
theory. As Gary Burnett and Paul Jaeger note, Chatman’s Theory of
Normative Behavior attempted to widen the applicability of her small
world concepts by testing her ideas in the information-rich worlds of
virtual communities and feminist booksellers.52 In their article on the
subject Burnett, Michele Besant, and Chatman outlined five proposi-
tional statements underpinning a Theory of Normative Behavior:
Proposition 1: Social norms are standards to which members of
a social world comply to exhibit desirable expressions of public
behavior.
Proposition 2: Members choose compliance because it allows for
ways in which to affirm what is normative for a specific context at
a specific time.
Proposition 3: Worldview is shaped by the normative values that
influence how members think about the ways of the world. It is a
collective, taken-for-granted attitude that sensitizes members to
be responsive to certain events and to ignore others.
Proposition 4: Everyday reality contains a belief that members of a
social world do retain attention or interest sufficient enough to in-
fluence behavior. The process of placing persons in ideal categories
of lesser or greater quality can be thought of as social typification.
Proposition 5: Information behavior is a construct through which
to approach everyday reality and its effect on actions to gain or
avoid the possession of information. The choice of an appropriate
course of action is driven by members’ beliefs concerning what is
necessary to support a normative way of life.53
Applying this theoretical framework to feminist booksellers and virtual
communities, Burnett, Besant, and Chatman identified various means
by which normative behavior is constructed and enforced in these small
worlds. For instance, social norms were found in the frequently asked
questions (FAQs) posted in virtual communities, providing informa-
tion about “netiquette” or acceptable behavior in that community. In
addition, a subtext of norms was also evident in virtual communities,
varying in nature from community to community and expressed in
253
online communication among group members. Social types were also
noted, including long-term members versus “newbies” or new members
in virtual communities, as well as women bookstore owners and staff
and identities created by women, such as activists, separatists, witches,
working-class dykes, academics, sex radicals, and women in recovery,
among feminist booksellers. Worldview among feminist booksellers, for
instance, was manifested as oppression of women by patriarchy. These
factors shaped information behavior in each community. For example,
the values, adopted social roles, and accepted behaviors among femi-
nist booksellers determined their approach to sharing information by
visible means, such as pamphlets and events, to achieve social change.
The information behaviors particular to each small world revealed
social functioning contributing to community building and support.
Burnett, Besant, and Chatman concluded that the Theory of Normative
Behavior holds significance in understanding community development
and meaning.54
Pollock has criticized Burnett, Besant, and Chatman’s application
of Chatman’s small world concepts to the information worlds of virtual
communities and feminist booksellers, stating that people in such
information-rich environments have the power and option to choose to
move beyond the boundaries of their small world.55 Burnett and Jaeger
have explained that Chatman’s work frequently evolved from contexts
of extreme information poverty to less constrained environments such
as those in Burnett, Besant, and Chatman’s article. These information-
rich worlds still represent small worlds because “their day-to-day activi-
ties and interests are constrained by their own small world context and
their own norms.” Critically, Chatman’s particular focus was not the
interactions between small worlds or the social worlds that surrounded
small worlds; instead, the outside world was viewed through the filter
of a given small world.56
Burnett, Jaeger, and Kim M. Thompson extended Chatman’s Theory of
Normative Behavior, asserting that normative behavior and small worlds
provide a useful framework for understanding how the social attitudes
particular to specific communities shape information access for members
of those communities as well as create an accepted understanding of the
social place of information within those communities. Taking cases of
clashing groups and opinions of different small worlds, the authors applied
Chatman’s theories to social access to information, through which LIS pro-
fessionals can use the concepts of normative behavior to understand differ-
ing values and norms and mediate between diverging social interests.57
254 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
A Lasting Legacy and Inspiration
Chatman died before she could fully test and explore her theory
building. Her final research study continued her work on understanding
information behavior in small worlds; she left unfinished an exploration
of geophagia (the practice of eating soil, usually clay or chalk) among
women. Her theories continue to influence the ongoing research ef-
forts of LIS researchers. However, as Burnett and Jaeger have noted,
Chatman’s work overall remains underused within LIS research. Her
concepts frequently are acknowledged only through citations rather
than the authors discussing, considering, and building upon her theo-
retical concepts.58
Chatman worked closely with colleagues to explore further her theo-
ries. For example, Chatman and Pendleton considered knowledge gap
theory and the problems with mass media in providing information
to the information poor. Dawson and Chatman examined normative
behavior in terms of reference group theory. Huotari and Chatman
applied Chatman’s small world theories to information behavior in
the workplace context.59 Chatman’s research also provided a starting
point for a generation of other researchers, taking inspiration from her
theoretical concepts and/or methodological approaches. For example,
Chatman’s Theory of Life in the Round has been influential in such re-
search projects as Hersberger’s exploration of the information needs of
the homeless and the IBEC (Information Behavior in Everyday Contexts)
Life in the Round Project at the School of Information, University of
Washington.60 Chatman’s framing of social life in theory and research
also underlies Karen E. Fisher’s development of her concept of Informa-
tion Grounds.61 In 2006 a panel at the American Society for Information
Science and Technology (ASIS&T) conference entitled “Channelling
Chatman: Questioning the Applicability of a Research Legacy to Today’s
Small World Realities” explored the usefulness and future potential of
Chatman’s theoretical constructs.62 More recently, Burnett and Jaeger
have compared Jürgen Habermas’s macrolevel concepts of lifeworlds
with Chatman’s microlevel concepts of small worlds and their noted
combined potential for understanding information behavior in our
“technology-advanced and interconnected information society.”63
In LIS education Chatman’s works are commonly found on read-
ing lists for studying information behavior, information poverty, and
special populations. Awards that have been established in recognition
of Chatman’s contributions to information behavior research include
the Elfreda A. Chatman Research Proposal Award, established by the
ASIS&T’s Special Interest Group on Information Needs, Seeking and
255
Use (SIG USE) in 2005. The School of Library Science at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill also offers students research awards
in Chatman’s memory.
Elfreda A. Chatman died on January 15, 2002, at age fifty-nine, hav-
ing lost her battle with cancer. She is remembered internationally as
a distinguished researcher in her field as well as for her professional
leadership, teaching abilities, and “unforgettable, powerful, and warm
personality.”64 In addition to her “love of scholarly thinking” she was
dedicated to the next generation of information behavior researchers.
Her passion for both people and research challenged and inspired stu-
dents to think creatively about their individual potential as researchers
and LIS professionals. Her colleagues remember her for her time spent
“to serve as mentor to junior faculty members.”65 Ever down-to-earth
in her approach to others, she remembered the people she met in the
course of her scholarly, professional, and everyday activities throughout
the world and easily became fast friends with people from all walks of
life. As appropriately observed by colleague Michele Besant, “Although
she lectured in high academic circles, she was just ‘plain folk,’ like many
of those she researched.”66
Notes
The author is very grateful to Gary Burnett and the reviewers for their helpful
suggestions in the preparation of this manuscript as well as the staff of Florida
State University who facilitated the location of photographs in this piece. Also,
thanks go to research assistants Heather Tennant and Amy Kennelly for their
help with literature searching and document retrieval for this piece.
1. Elfreda A. Chatman, “An Insider/Outsider Approach to Libraries, Change,
and Marginalized Populations,” keynote address presented at the national con-
ference Alteration of Generations, Borås, Sweden, April 23–25, 2001.
2. Also reported in Elfreda A. Chatman, “Information, Mass Media Use
and the Working Poor,” Library & Information Science Research 7, no. 2 (1985):
97–113.
3. Elfreda A. Chatman, “The Diffusion of Information among the Working
Poor” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1983), 2–3.
4. Reijo Savolainen, “Everyday Life Information Seeking,” in Encyclopedia
of Library and Information Science, 1st Update Supplement, ed. M. A. Drake (Boca
Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2005), 158.
5. Chatman, “An Insider/Outsider Approach,” 3.
6. Elfreda A. Chatman, “The Information World of Low-Skilled Workers,”
Library & Information Science Research 9, no. 4 (1987): 268.
7. Ibid., 279.
8. Victoria E. M. Pendleton and Elfreda A. Chatman, “Small World
Lives: Implications for the Public Library,” Library Trends 46, no. 4 (1998):
732–51, 749.
256 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
9. Elfreda A. Chatman, “The Role of Mentorship in Shaping Public Library
Leaders,” Library Trends 40, no. 3 (1992): 492–512; Elfreda A. Chatman, “Opin-
ion Leadership, Poverty, and Information Sharing,” Reference Quarterly 26, no.
3 (1987): 341–53.
10. Elfreda A. Chatman, “Low Income and Leisure: Implications for Public
Library Use,” Public Libraries 24, no. 1 (1985): 34–36; Elfreda A. Chatman, “Chan-
nels to a Larger Social World: Older Women Staying in Contact with the Great
Society,” Library & Information Science Research 13, no. 3 (1991): 295.
11. Elfreda A. Chatman, The Information World of Retired Women (New York:
Greenwood Press, 1992); Elfreda A. Chatman, “The Impoverished Life-World of
Outsiders,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47, no. 3 (1996):
193–206; Caroline Haythornthwaite and Barry Wellman, “Work, Friendship, and
Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization,” Journal of
the American Society for Information Science 49 (1998): 1101–14; for example, Gary
Burnett, Michele Besant, and Elfreda A. Chatman’s article was cited in “Small
Worlds: Normative Behavior in Virtual Communities and Feminist Booksell-
ing,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 52, no. 7
(2001): 536–47.
12. Julia Hersberger, “Chatman’s Information Poverty,” in Theories of Informa-
tion Behavior, ed. Karen E. Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, and E. F. (Lynne) McKechnie
(Medford, N. J.: Information Today, 2005), 79–82; see for an example John
Scott, Social Network Analysis (London: Sage, 2000).
13. Chatman, Information World of Retired Women, 3.
14. Elfreda A. Chatman, “Field Research: Methodological Themes,” Library
& Information Science Research 6, no. 4 (1984): 425–38.
15. Chatman, “Diffusion of Information,” 2–3.
16. Chatman, Information World of Retired Women, 3–20, 2.
17. Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 194.
18. Chatman, “Field Research: Methodological Themes,” 425–38.
19. For example, Lynda M. Baker, “Observation: A Complex Research
Method,” Library Trends 55, no. 1 (2006): 171–89.
20. Donald O. Case, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information
Seeking, Needs, and Behavior (London: Academic Press, 2007), 215.
21. See, for example, Rosaline Barbour, Introducing Qualitative Research
(London: Sage, 2008).
22. See, for example, Elfreda A. Chatman, “The Information World of Low-
Skilled Workers,” Library & Information Science Research 9, no. 4 (1987): 265–83;
Chatman, Information World of Retired Women.
23. Pendleton and Chatman, “Small World Lives,” 743.
24. Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 193.
25. Case, Looking for Information, 149; Elfreda A. Chatman, “Alienation Theory:
Application of a Conceptual Framework to a Study of Information among Jani-
tors,” Reference Quarterly 29, no. 2 (1987): 355–68.
26. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press, 1983);
Elfreda A. Chatman, “Diffusion Theory: A Review and Test of a Conceptual
Model in Information Diffusion,” Journal of the American Society for Information
Science 37, no. 6 (1986): 377–86.
27. Case, Looking for Information, 149; see, for example, Elfreda A. Chatman,
“Life in a Small World: Application of Gratification Theory to Information-Seeking
257
Behavior,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42, no. 6 (1991):
438–49; Elihu Katz and David Foulkes, “On the Use of the Mass Media as ‘Escape’:
Clarification of a Concept,” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (1962): 377–88.
28. Tom D. Wilson, “Models in Information Behavior Research,” Journal of
Documentation 55, no. 3 (1999): 249–70, http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/
papers/1999JDoc.html; Brenda Dervin, “An Overview of Sense-Making Re-
search: Concepts, Methods and Results to Date,” paper presented at the annual
meeting for the International Communications Association, Dallas, Texas, 1983;
Brenda Dervin, “From the Mind’s Eye of the User: The Sense-Making Qualitative-
Quantitative Methodology,” in Qualitative Research in Information Management,
ed. J. D. Glazier and R. R. Powell (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 1992),
61–84; Brenda Dervin and Lois Foreman-Wernet with Eric Lauterbach, eds.,
Sense-Making Methodology Reader: Selected Writings of Brenda Dervin (Cresskill:
Hampton Press, 2003).
29. See, for example, Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 193–206.
30. Kim M. Thompson, “Multidisciplinary Approaches to Information Pov-
erty and Their Implications for Information Access” (Ph.D. diss., Florida State
University, 2006), 11; Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 193–206.
31. Thomas Childers, The Information Poor in America (Metuchen, N.J.:
Scarecrow Press, 1975); Brenda Dervin and Bradley S. Greenberg, “The Com-
munication Environment of the Urban Poor,” in Current Perspectives in Mass
Communication Research I (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1972), 95–233; Neil Pollock,
“Conceptualising the Information Poor: An Assessment of the Contribution of
Elfreda Chatman towards an Understanding of Behaviour within the Context
of Information Poverty,” Neil Pollock Web site, http://npollock.id.au/info_sci-
ence/chatman.html.
32. Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 194.
33. Ibid., 193–206; Robert K. Merton, “Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in
the Sociology of Knowledge,” American Journal of Sociology 78 (1972): 9–47.
34. Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 195, 196, 202; Brenda Dervin,
“Useful Theory for Librarianship: Communication, Not Information,” Drexel
Library Quarterly 13 (1977): 16–32.
35. Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 197–98.
36. Pollock, “Conceptualising the Information Poor.”
37. For example, F. X. Sligo and A. M. Jameson, “The Knowledge-Behavior
Gap in Use of Health Information,” Journal of the American Society for Information
Science 51, no. 9 (2000): 858–69.
38. Pollock, “Conceptualising the Information Poor”; see, for example,
Elfreda Chatman, “A Theory of Life in the Round: A Study of Information
Poverty in a Women’s Maximum-Security Prison,” Journal of the American Society
for Information Science 50, no. 3 (1999): 207–17.
39. Chatman, “Impoverished Life-World,” 197–98, 205.
40. See, for example, Pollock, “Conceptualising the Information Poor.”
41. See, for example, Hersberger, “Chatman’s Information Poverty,” 78.
42. Paul Solomon, “Information Mosaics: Patterns of Action That Structure,”
in Exploring the Contexts of Information Behavior, ed. Tom D. Wilson and David K.
Allen (London: Taylor Graham Publishing, 1999), 150–75.
43. Chatman, “Theory of Life in the Round,” 212.
44. Merton, “Insiders and Outsiders,” 9–47.
258 L&CR/Elfreda Annmary Chatman
45. Chatman, “Theory of Life in the Round”; see Pendleton and Chatman,
“Small World Lives.”
46. Ferdinand Tónnies, Community and Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft),
trans. and ed. C. P. Loomis (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1957);
J. D. Douglas, Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociologi-
cal Knowledge (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970); W. F. Whyte, Street
Corner Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); J. De Angulo, Indians
in Overalls (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1990).
47. Pendleton and Chatman, “Small World Lives.”
48. W. S. Mommsen, Political and Social Theory of Max Weber: Collected Essays
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986); Pendleton and Chatman, “Small
World Lives.”
49. Pendleton and Chatman, “Small World Lives”; Chatman, “Theory of
Life in the Round.”
50. Chatman, “Theory of Life in the Round”; Chatman, “Framing Social
Life in Theory and Research,” New Review of Information Behavior Research 1
(2000): 3–17.
51. Chatman, “Theory of Life in the Round”; Crystal Fulton, “Chatman’s
Life in the Round,” in Fisher, Erdelez, and McKechnie, Theories of Information
Behavior, 79–82.
52. Gary Burnett and Paul T. Jaeger, “Small Worlds, Lifeworlds, and Infor-
mation: The Ramifications of the Information Behaviour of Social Groups in
Public Policy and the Public Sphere,” Information Research 13, no. 2 (2008): 346,
http://InformationR.net/ir/13-2/paper346.html.
53. Gary Burnett, Michelle Besant, and Elfreda A. Chatman, “Small Worlds:
Normative Behavior in Virtual Communities and Feminist Bookselling,” Journal
of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 52, no. 7 (2001): 538.
54. Ibid., 542, 544, 545.
55. Pollock, “Conceptualising the Information Poor.”
56. Burnett and Jaeger, “Small Worlds.”
57. Gary Burnett, Paul T. Jaeger, and Kim M. Thompson, “Normative Be-
havior and Information: The Social Aspects of Information Access,” Library &
Information Science Research 30, no. 1 (2008): 56.
58. Burnett and Jaeger, “Small Worlds.”
59. Elfreda A. Chatman and Victoria E. M. Pendleton, “Knowledge Gap,
Information-Seeking and the Poor,” Reference Librarian 40–50 (1995): 135–45;
E. M. Dawson and Elfreda A. Chatman, “Reference Group Theory with Impli-
cations for Information Studies: A Theoretical Essay,” Information Research 6,
no. 3 (2001), http://informationr.net/ir/6-3/paper105.html; M. Huotari and
Elfreda A. Chatman, “Using Everyday Life Information Seeking to Explain Or-
ganizational Behavior,” Library & Information Science Research 23, no. 4 (2001):
351–66.
60. Information Behavior in Everyday Contexts, “‘Life in the Round’ and
the Homeless: Information Flow, Human Service Needs, and Pivotal Interven-
tions (2003–2004),” http://ibec.ischool.washington.edu/static/ibeccat.aspx@
subcat=life%20in%20the%20round&cat=projects.htm.
61. Karen E. Fisher, Joan C. Durrance, and M. B. Hinton, “Information
Grounds and the Use of Need-Based Services by Immigrants in Queens, New
York: A Context-Based, Outcome Evaluation Approach,” Journal of the American
259
Society for Information Science 55, no. 8 (2004): 754–66; Karen E. Fisher, Carol F.
Landry, and Charles Naumer, “Social Spaces, Casual Interactions, Meaningful
Exchanges: ‘Information Ground’ Characteristics Based on the College Student
Experience,” Information Research 12, no. 2 (2006): 291, http://InformationR
.net/ir/12-2/paper291.html.
62. “Channelling Chatman: Questioning the Applicability of a Research
Legacy to Today’s Small World Realities,” panel presented at the annual meeting
of ASIS&T, Information Realities: Shaping the Digital Future for All, Austin,
Texas, November 6, 2006.
63. Burnett and Jaeger, “Small Worlds.”
64. Library Research Round Table (LRRT), “Tribute to Dr. Elfreda A.
Chatman,” 2002, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/rts/lrrt/popularresources/
tributes/tributetochatman/tributedrelfreda.cfm.
65. Michele Besant, quoted in “Obituary: Elfreda A. Chatman,” Florida State
Times Online 17 (March–April 2002), http://www.fsu.edu/~fstime/FS-Times/
Volume7/march02web/17mar02.html.
66. Ibid.
