Savolainen (1999, May): Information Use, Gap-Bridging and Sense-Making

INFORMATION USE, GAP-BRIDGING AND SENSE-MAKING

Reijo Savolainen
University of Tampere
Tampere, Finland
liresa@uta.fi

CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Savolainen, R. (1999, May). Information use, gap-bridging and Sense-Making. Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.
© Reijo Savolainen (1999).

ESSENCE OF PROJECT:
In recent studies on information needs and seeking, increasing attention is devoted to ways in which information received from various sources and channels is put to use. New theoretical and methodological approaches are called for to reveal the wide variety of contextual and processual characteristics of information use. In most studies conducted thus far, the concept of information use is left as a black box; however, a few attemps have been made to develop analytical frameworks in order to open it (for example, Brookes 1980; Belkin 1984, Taylor 1991 and Kuhlthau 1993). In general, this research area is felt very demanding, both theoretically and empirically. Due to its elusive nature, similar to thinking processes, information use is difficult to capture into categories, not to speak about its reliable operationalization for empirical research (see, for example, Todd 1997). In the Sense-Making theory, the metaphor of gap-bridging offers one of the most helpful ways to understand the characteristics of information use. In the Sense-Making theory, gap-bridging stands for the constructive process where an individual draws on cognitive and affective resources in order to cross the gap being faced in a problematic situation. In the Sense-Making theory, the outcomes of the gap-bridging process are described as uses, further specified as helps or hurts. Thus, the Sense-Making theory provides conceptual and methodological tools for approaching the processes of information use; secondly, it offers a number of empirical findings of this phenomenon. Interestingly, the Sense-Making theory seems to be more explicit as far as the outcomes of information use are discussed, while the processes of gap-bridging are approached in more general terms by referring to various strategies and tactics of gap-bridging.

The central question addressed here focuses on the characteristics of the concept of gap-bridging. An attempt is made to clarify its metaphorical qualities: what kind of picture does the metaphor of gap-bridging give of information use and information users? How well does the term of gap-bridging correspond to that of information use; is the latter too a narrow expression for the purposes of the Sense-Making theory? What kind of epistemological and ontological commitments may be found behind the construct of the sense maker/ information user as a bridge builder? In order to clarify the picture, the main assumptions of Sense-Making will be compared to those of (1) cognitive and (2) constructivist and social constructionist approaches. Additionally, comparative notions can be made to approaches such as the Sense-Making approach developed by Karl Weick (1995). Do the related conceptions help to understand the specific way in which the Sense-Making theory approaches the phenomena of information use? Would the above-mentioned approaches be able to challenge the Sense-Making theory in some respect or are there common interests and assumptions? On the one hand, the comparative discussion may help to put the Sense-Making theory into a broader context and reveal the unique contributions of Sense-Making theory; on the other hand, the comparative notions may elicit questions on how the Sense-Making theory might be elaborated. As to the viewpoint adopted in the study, I am mainly informed by the social constructionist assumptions but also sharing most ideas which characterize the communitarian approach discussed by Dervin (1994-1). The questions outlined above will be sharpened as the research proceeds from the first stage. The study is based on the analysis of the Sense-Making literature, primarily the basic texts of Brenda Dervin (for example, Dervin 1983-4, 1992-1 and 1994-1). The main emphasis will be placed on the conceptual analysis; thus, the evaluation of empirical studies of Sense-Making offering findings of information use will be excluded from the ICA precis. The literature of cognitive and social constructionist approaches discussing information use will be specified later on.

THE REASONS I TOOK THIS ROAD:
Since the early 1980’s I have struggled with the conceptual problems of information seeking and use. In particular, I have been fascinated by the questions of information use which seem to defy all attempts of a more detailed consideration. In the field of information studies, the questions of information use have been primarily approached from the viewpoint of cognitive science. Information use is conceived as the change of mental models or schemes representing the phenomena of reality. In their seminal article discussing the traditional and user-centered approches to information needs, seeking and use, Dervin and Nilan (1986-2) valued new approaches such as the Anomalous State of Knowledge (ASK) developed by Belkin. In the recent S-M literature, the cognitive viewpoint is not discussed in a more detailed way and we lack comparing notions of the cognitive approach and Sense-Making theory, at least as far as information seeking and use are concerned. In 1990’s, the cognitive viewpoint exemplified by the ASK model was criticized from the quarters of constructionism and discourse analysis (see, for example, Frohmann 1992). They challenged the way in which cognitive scientists approach the phenomena of information seeking and use by referring to the changes of mental models or schemes residing in the cognitive machinery of the individual. In social constructionist approaches, information use is conceived as contextually bound interpretation of meanings drawing on discursive resources which are jointly produced in interaction (Tuominen & Savolainen 1997).

Unfortunately, the seminal contributions of the Sense-Making theory are rarely discussed in the context of the above-mentioned approaches even though there can be found some interesting similarities and parallels, particularly in constructionist approaches. Similarities and parallels may be found both in ontological and epistemological issues of information use. For example, assumptions of relational ontology may be found both in the Sense-Making and constructionist theories. Both seem to discuss the ways in which subjects encounter the everyday world. The encounters are mostly oriented by beliefs concerning it and by prior experiences received in corresponding situations, but new ways of encountering the problematic situation may also be developed. In this respect, Sense-Making is an open even though a contextually bound process. In sum: the reason I took this road is to scrutinize the potentials of Sense-Making theory in the study of information use and to find out its strengths and possible weaknesses compared to related approaches.

THE BEST OF WHAT I HAVE ACHIEVED:
Because the study is very much in process, it is perhaps too early to assess the most notable achievements. The basic research setting has been developed, and the preliminary analysis has yielded ideas on the similarities and dissimililarities of the approaches to be compared.

WHAT HAS BEEN HELPFUL:
Based on the first reading of Sense-Making literature discussing the dimensions of gap-bridging, I have formed a preliminary picture of the research issues to be faced. To orient my study, I have revisited my article The Sense-Making Theory - Reviewing the Interests of a User-Centered Approach to Information Seeking and Use (Savolainen 1993). Secondly, I have drawn ideas from my article A Social Constructionist Approach to the Study of Information Use as Discursive Action, written together with Kimmo Tuominen (Tuominen & Savolainen 1997). The latter article plus a number of newer works discussing social constructionism has yielded ideas for the comparison of Sense-Making theory, the cognitive viewpoint and social constructionist approaches. In addition, I have browsed the recent messages available on the Projecti List. In particular, I have learned a lot from Brenda’s answers to certain questions concerning the nature of Sense-Making as a set of theoretical and methodological assumptions of human communication (and not as a substantive or essentialist theory of information seeking and use).

WHAT I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH:
Due to the abstract nature of information use, the phenomena associated with it are hard to conceptualize, irrespective of the theoretical position adopted. In fact, the same difficulty is faced when one tries to analyze the concepts of use or utilization, because similar to expressions such as practice, they are dealing with the ontological bases of our relationships with the everyday world. For example, we may argue by referring to Heidegger and Wittgenstein that ultimately, things reveal their basic meaning when they are taken in use. But how shoud we interpret this use; is it only a utilitarian relationship between the needing subject and the things (objects?) available in our daily life world? In the analysis of use and information use, we have to draw on metaphors and they may be rather general by nature, as exemplified by the expression of Gap-bridging. Secondly, what preoccupies me is whether I have managed to capture the rich variety of this metaphor. A closely related problem is that because the triangle of Situation - Gaps- Uses forms an analytic whole, focusing merely on Uses (and gap-bridging) might lead to biased conclusions in some respects. Thirdly, there are some translation problems because the categories of Sense-Making and the conceptions of information use developed outside Sense-Making are not wholly comparable; there might be some incompatible elements which hinder the analysis. For example, both Brenda Dervin and Karl Weick discuss Sense-Making, but in the vocabulary adopted by Weick, information use is approached in an essentialist way by referring to concepts such as selection and retrospective Sense-Making. Further, the cognitive and social constructionist approaches are not cohesive. For example, within (social) constructionism, there are varying views to the relationship between reality and language; the differing assumptions are also reflected in the ways in which issues of information use are approached.

WHAT WOULD HELP NOW:
Comments from Sense-Making researchers concerning the fruitfulness of the research proposal would be particularly helpful. I would also appreciate references to S-M literature explicitly discussing the dimensions of gap-defining and gap-bridging, both conceptually and empirically

PROJECT ABSTRACT:
An attempt is made to analyse the metaphor of gap-bridging as a conception of information use. In the Sense-Making theory, gap-bridging stands for the constructive process where an individual draws on cognitive and affective resources in order to cross the gap being faced in a problematic situation. In the Sense-Making theory, the outcomes of the gap-bridging process are described as uses, further specified as helps or hurts. Central questions addressed in the study are as follows: what kind of picture does the metaphor of gap-bridging give of information use and information users? How well does the term of gap-bridging correspond to that of information use; is the latter too narrow an expression for the purposes of the Sense-Making theory? What kind of epistemological and ontological commitments may be found behind the construct of the sense maker/ information user as a bridge builder? In order to clarify the picture, the main assumptions of Sense-Making concerning information use will be compared to those of (1) the cognitive viewpoint and (2) the (social) constructionist approaches. Additionally, comparative notions can be made to approaches such as the Sense-Making approach developed by Karl Weick (1995). Do the related conceptions help to understand the specific way in which the Sense-Making theory approaches the phenomena of information use? Would the above-mentioned approaches be able to challenge the Sense-Making theory in some respect or are there common interests and assumptions? On the one hand, the comparative discussion may help to see more clearly the unique contributions of the Sense-Making theory but on the other hand the comparative notions might elicit questions on how the Sense-Making theory might be elaborated. As to the viewpoint adopted in the study, the author is mainly informed by social constructionist assumptions but he also shares most ideas which characterize the communitarian approach discussed by Dervin (1994-1).

Belkin, N. (1984). Cognitive models and information transfer. Social Science Information Studies, 4 (2-3), 111-129.

Brookes, B. C. (1980). The foundations of information science, Part I - Philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science, 2 (3-4), 125-133.

Frohmann, B. (1992). The Power of Images: A Discourse Analysis of the Cognitive Viewpoint. Journal of Documentation, 48 (4): 365-386.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Savolainen, R. (1993). The Sense-Making theory: reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to information seeking and use. Information Processing & Management, 29 (1), 13-28.

Taylor, R. S. (1991). Information use environments. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt, M (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences, 10 (pp. 217-255). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.