ELIS and IP Models of Information Seeking

Library and discipline erudition has changed greatly since the 1970s with current research focusing to a greater extent on how ordinary people behave in workaday smell when undertake nurture (Savolainen, 1995) rather than studying the habits of professionals much(prenominal) as those in the legal, medical and engineering professions. With this shift in focus, upstart dumbfounds were required to explain data pursuance characteristics imbruted on the innate differences between these two groups. angiotensin converting enzyme of the resulting personates with great wreak in the field of schooling science, based on its numerous citations, is the Everyday Life Information Seeking (ELIS) paradigm depression introduced by Reijo Savolainen (1995). Nearly ten years later, Pamela McKenzie (2003) created a second, differing pathl of nurture seek referred to as Information Practices (IP) using peoples everyday behavior as a basis. trance both fabrics be effective in their passage of how an unmarried seeks tuition in everyday liveliness history, ELIS and IP put a different degree of focus on stressing differing degrees of emphasis on the functions of gentleman personisedity, context, and problem solving practices to explain an persons entropy want practices.Before comparing their similarities and contrasting their differences a brief explanation of from each one method and its assumptions, main designs, the context in which they argon used and fire serve as real- manners practice in instruction science de get be examined.Everyday Life Information Seeking (ELIS)The ELIS toughie is based on the assumption that item-by-items have their own preference for which sources they be gentle using and the socially conditioned patterns by which they behave. Central to the baffle is the purpose that means of life, as be by Savolainen, means the order of things (Savolainen, 1995) much(prenominal)(prenominal) as the division between ones wor k and waste time, consumption of goods and services and leisure activities. Human beings give preference to real practices over others in going about their daily lives.This definition comes from Bourdieus (1984) idea of habitus, or a system of thought that is determined by social and cultural genes as heartyhead as characteristic military rating and perception, which are individually internalized. If a person does non maintain his preferences, or instruction of life according to the ELIS model, his life pass on cash in ones chips disordered. When a problem out of the ordinary authorizes which needs to be solved, his triumph of life will take over so as to actively seek selective randomness which is considered effective and practical to solve it. This same process occurs when an individual is want selective entropy.According to Savolainen, there are quaternary qualitys of life program line used in the ELIS model which take optimistic-cognitive, pessimistic-cognit ive, defensive-affective, and pessimistic-affective. All types exist in concert with a confirmative outlook from optimistic thinking on one end of the spectrum while a negative outlook as the result of dictating emotions takes place on the opposite end.An individuals government agency of life directs how he will seek out culture and alike the converse is true that information pursuance will determine achievement of life when used in context. Components that influence context include such things as personal values and attitude, social net workings, material assets, cultural and cognitive influences, as well as the individuals current daub in life. In addition to this mastery of life typology, Savolainen (1995) states that these components have influence over how an individual will seek to solve problems.Two types of information are defined in the ELIS model. Passive supervise of events such as news and weather reports from printed media which give an individual information re garding his everyday life is considered orient information. Such everyday data is represented in the project of life box in the ELIS model. On the other hand, practical information want serves the purpose of finding a solution for a specific problem that interrupts an individuals ordinary life. A personal approach to mastery of life is used to seek either orienting or unresisting information.Savolainen (1995) takes a leap in explaining certain aspects of mastery of life. His research assumes that all humans share an innate desire to strive this mastery of life and that when problems occur they will naturally seek information to solve the issue. The fourth type of mastery of life, pessimistic-affective or, more literally, learned weakness is described with the caveat that imperious information could play a part in the information seeking behavior, characterized by the use of emotional reactions and inadequacy of judgment, in certain individuals.Perhaps this is another type of mastery of life in and of itself. Another assumption made by Savolainen (1995) in his ELIS model is that there are only two simple divisions of an individuals life he is either at work or at play. There are several other categories that could be used such as those who are unemployed, those who job seeking, and those who do seasonal work (who would make love a huge proportion of leisure time). Therefore, in these cases, his assumptions based on a persons division of work and leisure become moot.Savolainen (1995) admits to identifying a couple more assumptions that might interfere with his research. One is the splendor of way of life as being a significant factor in information seeking behavior, confirmed by the results of studies done on blue collar workers and teachers. He also made a period to recognize that he assumed mastery of life style plays a pick out role in a persons response to problems and also when they are seeking information but evidence suggests that mastery of lif e by itself does not always dictate behavior.Research was performed by Savolainen in Finland using a sample of the middle syndicate and working class populace and conducting themed interviews. Eleven industrial workers and the same amount of teachers were questioned regarding their methods of seeking orienting information from the media for their everyday life needs. The subjects were asked to relate a novel problem and how they went about solving it with the results analyzed and assessed for their relevance to the ELIS model. Savolainen (1995) hypothesized that social class would be a determining factor in information seeking but found instead that this only creates an outline on which to base their way of life.Information PracticesMcKenzies (2003) more recent IP model is quite different in its approach. Similar to Savolainens ELIS model, the possible action bathroom IP encompasses a variety of components. McKenzie first came up with the ideas behind IP when observe the inform ation seeking practices of women expecting twins. Responding to Erdelezs 1999 (from McKenzie, 2003) challenge for more holistic and detailed tools to use when modeling information seekers behavior, McKenzie (2003) want a more current overview of information seeking in everyday life by non-professionals as well as acknowledging that individuals often use non-active practices when run a risking information.This led to her theory which would ultimately uncover the various ways people behave, and interact, when armed with new information. McKenzie (2003) claims there is a flexibility often used when seeking information and that the process is not totally linear.McKenzies IP model assumes four modes of information practice with two phases encountered within each. The individual uses flexibility and complexness and these traits are incorporated in each mode and phase. The four modes are active seeking, active scanning, non-directed monitoring and proxy. The first type of seeking identif ies a source while the second is only semi-directed combined with observation.Non-directed refers to encounters with information that was not formerly expected while seeking by proxy is defined as using an interme daybook source to get to the end result. At least one of these modes is used by individuals who then interact to the information with varying behavior. A breakdown in communication or a barrier to the proper union can occur during information seeking in any of these manners.There are additional ways for an individual to connect with a source of information as well as interact with the information itself. Active seeking occurs during searches when supplemental data is uncovered, normally in response to an acute need, which was not part of the seekers original intent. This then redirects him to other possibilities and new information.Connection with this information gives an individual cause to interact with it by using a list of pre-formed questions or topics previously c onsidered. By being positioned in a space where information can be shared or one can be exposed to information via electronic sources, a connection is made through and through the process of active scanning. Listening as well as observing others and scanning the material at hand are several methods of fundamental interaction with the information.On the other hand, non-directed monitoring is more like an unexpected, unintentional encounter with useful information during the course of everyday life. Observation and listening in on conversations between other people are ways of interacting with the information. Lastly, connection by proxy is a result of using information sources such as friends who lay claim to certain information and act as intermediaries to this information or through an interpersonal referral system. Interaction in this mode occurs when the information given takes on the form of advice, diagnosis of a problem, or instructions.Along with the ELIS model, the IP model also makes several assumptions. The four modes of information seeking seem to be rather narrow. Avoidance may be considered an additional mode, as is the case when information comes to a person who may not desire to receive it, such as a traumatic medical diagnosis. The ways of interacting with information that McKenzie (2005) outlined in the IP model are limited in scope as well.Assuming an individual uses their own context during interactions with information as she suggests, then a commodious variety of personalized traits and behavior should come into play. Consequently, there cannot be a limited number of types of interactions they would be infinite. Certainly the fact that McKenzie (2005) performed her research on a restricted number of pregnant women might influence the results and her rendition of them.The sample subjects used in the research were a group of 19 Canadian women who were all expecting twins at the same time. using epistemic orientation of discourse in her me thodology, McKenzie reasoned that the subjects were motivated to seek required information (as new mothers) but also considered generically representative of their club at large.The subjects were allowed to answer interview questions freely and with no limitations and this information, along with diary entries, used to obtain the necessary qualitative data to complete the study. The with child(p) mothers were asked to not only share their behavior when seeking routine information but to reflect on any differences that occurred during critical incidents in the information seeking process or their interactions with it.Compare and Contrastboth the ELIS and IP models are based upon theories which attempt to explain the behavior of non-professionals in their everyday lives when seeking information of both critical and non-critical status. The two models include the key component of individual context and its power over the information seeking process. McKenzie (2003) refers in positiv e terms to Savolainens earlier research and its uncovering apprehensions in the studying of information seeking behavior in non-professionals in her treatise on the IP model, giving him credit for a novel approach.The IP model, while it takes note of the role of individual context, does not offer any gain elaboration on the plethora of these factors that most likely exists. While McKenzie (2005) refers to individual context, she does little more than that in using it to explain behavior. Conversely, the ELIS model revolves around the theory of individual context and a persons social standing, morals, values, attitude and current life situation. These factors are obviously an intact part of how a particular person seeks information as well as how he orders his life. In terms of the importance of context, Savolainens ELIS model has included a richer diversity of theory into the concept, which is one of its strengths.Both McKenzie (2003) and Savolainen (1995) include mention of an in dividuals personality traits in explaining their information seeking behavior. This factor obtains importance as a part of mastery of life typology in the ELIS model in its references to characteristics of optimism and pessimism in the first two types, explaining positive or negative reaction to information that is found during a systematic and cognitive-oriented approach. His mastery of life, too, is reflected in this personality trait, extending it to other applications.The use of emotion as a response to the life process and problem solving characterizes the terzetto and fourth types of mastery of life people who fall into these categories do not think logically about their behavior. Thus the ELIS model can be considered to contain psychological theory in addition to theories regarding information seeking behavior.The IP model, on the other hand, assumes an individual patterns their behavior based on personality traits without actually furthering mind on this dimension, merely stating that users connect with information through very active or less direct modes. Interactions that occur are the result of using both cognition and emotion in seeking information. There must first be an individualistic intellectual of information to allow for active seeking and scanning.Non-directed or proxy modes are used by those who interact as a result of emotion. Using Savolainens (1995) fourth mastery of life type as a comparison, it would leave no other option but to consider the pessimistic-affective type to use the proxy mode due to the fact that he does not rely on his abilities to solve everyday life problems, according to McKenzie. Those who are considered systematic personalities, however, may also use the monitoring and proxy modes.Both the ELIS and IP models are also alike in their treatment of information seeking techniques and practices. While each employs its own terminology in explaining information seeking behavior, many of the concepts are similar. For ins tance, with the ELIS model, Savolainen (1995) explains that people seek information on an everyday basis to orient aspects of their lives by using passive monitoring to monitor its passage. In the IP model, this concept is similar to what McKenzie (2003) terms passive monitoring and in fact she makes reference to this likeness in her research. pragmatic information is explained by both models also. The ELIS model refers to this as information sought in use of a problem. In the IP model, this same concept is referred to as the intermediary or proxy method of seeking information. McKenzie (2003) offers further insight by defining this process as a way of gathering information from friends or other personal sources. The ELIS model only if fails to describe this.ConclusionThere are significant factors available in study of both the ELIS and IP models which aid in further catch of how ordinary people search for information during the course of their everyday lives. As Savolainen (1998) suggests, mastery of life typology can be employed in the understanding of how people use their own context to perceive information as well as their perception of how competent they are in do a search. Both models are relevant as use in deeper investigation into specific populations which exhibit unique behavior. Future research to pass deeper into the context concepts of the ELIS model would be beneficial.Additional study of individual concept and interaction behavior based on the IP model are also warranted based on the ability to further pinpoint need in information seeking. While the gap in more extensive research exists, the concepts in both the ELIS and IP models are relevant and legal as an aid for those studying Information Science as well as in other areas of study of human behavior including sociologists and psychologists. It will be exciting to find what further insights are gained from future exploration of both Savolainens and McKenzies models on information seeki ng behavior.