(Hjorland, 2002), in which both the individual's thinking and the social and documentary domain in which the individual operates are seen to influence the use of information. See also Jacob & Shaw (1998). Paisley presaged this viewpoint in his 1968 "Information needs and uses" review of scientists working within 10 social and information system contexts (Paisley, 1968). More recently, see Case (1991), Covi (1999), and Kwasnik (1991). The nature of context has been discussed in detail by Dervin (1997), and the nature of situation by Cool (2001). Because of the centrality in information studies of 1) information, 2) information technology, and 3) people's use of these, the interplay among these three elements is arguably at the heart of most social research in information studies.
Hjørland & Albrechtsen (1995) call the analysis of information and its social formation in a community of thought "domain analysis." Other roots of the domain analytic approach can be seen in the areas of historical and descriptive bibliography in librarianship (Bowers, 1994; Updike, 200l), as well as in recent developments around genre theory (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1993; Vaughan & Dillon, 1998; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994).
The field of social informatics also focuses on the interactions among people, social environments, information technology, and documentary forms. Sec Bishop & Star's review (1996), as well as work by Kling & McKim (2000), and Palmer (2001). This metatheory shares some of both the nomothetic and idiographic orientations.

DianaSocio-cognitive approach