Conceptualizing information work for health contexts in Library and Information Science
| Pages | 96-108 |
| Date | 08 October 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2019-0055 |
| Published date | 08 October 2019 |
| Author | Nicole K. Dalmer,Isto Huvila |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Conceptualizing information work
for health contexts in Library
and Information Science
Nicole K. Dalmer
Faculty of Information and Media Studies,
The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, and
Isto Huvila
Department of ALM, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden and
Department of Information Studies, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to suggest that a closer consideration of the notion of work and, more
specifically, information work as a sensitizing concept in Library and Information Science (LIS) can offer a
helpful way to differently consider how people interact and engage with information and can complement a
parallel focus on practices, behaviours and activities.
Design/methodology/approach –Starting with the advent of the concept of information work in Corbin
and Strauss’work, the paper then summarizes how information work has evolved and taken shape in LIS
research and discourse, both within and outside of health-related information contexts.
Findings –The paper argues that information work affords a lens that can acknowledge the multiple levels
of effort and multiple processes (cognitive, physical or social-behavioural) related to information activities.
This paper outlines six affordances that the use of information work within LIS scholarship imparts:
acknowledges the conceptual, mental and affective; brings attention to the invisibility of particular
information activities and their constituents; opens up and distinguishes the many different lines of work;
destabilizes hierarchies between professionals and non-professionals; emphasizes goals relating to
information activities and their underlying pursuits; and questions work/non-work dichotomies established
in existing LIS models.
Originality/value –This paper is a first in bringing together the many iterations of information work
research in LIS. In doing so, this paper serves as a prompt for other LIS scholars to take up, challenge the
existing borders of, and thus advance the concept of information work.
Keywords Information theory, Health information, Information research, Health, Work,
Information modelling, Information work
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Throughout the years, information studies research has suggested several different ways of
naming, framing and studying information activities. There is little doubt that the most popular
concepts that purport to comprehensively cover a majority (if not all) aspects of human
engagement with information are information behaviours and information practices. These two
terms are sometimes contrasted against one another and are sometimes considered as
quasi-synonyms (Savolainen, 2007). Other popular concepts include: information interactions
(Fidel, 2012), information activities (e.g. Andersson, 2017; Lundh, 2011) and, for instance, the
approach of information in social practice is proposed by Cox (2013). Even if a number of
authors have previously noted that greater conceptual clarity would be useful to further enhance
our theorizing, writing and studying information activities (e.g. Savolainen, 2007; Lueg, 2015),
there remains little consensus on what these different terms actually mean. This persisting
vagueness also applies to other terms that have been used in information research to describe a
range of related concepts (e.g. for examples on terms relating to information interaction, see
Savolainen, 2018). Even if the use of different concepts has had occasional affinities with specific
theories, including practice theory (information practices, e.g. Savolainen, 2008; McKenzie, 2003;
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 76 No. 1, 2020
pp. 96-108
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-03-2019-0055
Received 26 March 2019
Revised 28 August 2019
Accepted 28 August 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
96
JD
76,1
To continue reading
Request your trial