Restate the question

Potential questions: big data, activism, privacy, alternative archives, affect/emotion

Refine the question bringing it to my area of interest

• information-seeking behavior
• privacy
• truth/trust
• communication theory
• complex systems/fractals/noise
• information economics
• open access

Describe my general approach (one of Bates's)

Using a socio-cognitive approach, I examine three aspects of TK

Socio-cognitive approach described by (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.[Bates]

Identify three areas contributing to my analysis

Describe the debates within each of the three areas

In field TK, TK said TK about TK using TK approach and TK theory.

• information-seeking behavior

Savolainen posits that “[s]ense-making theory suggests new theoretical and methodological ideas revealing the importance of subjective and cognitive factors in the description and explanation of informational phenomena…[and] the theory is applicable in contexts wider than just information seeking” (Savolainen, 1993, p. 15). He also notes the fact that “the definition of the concept of sense appears to be flexible indeed” (Savolainen, 1993, p. 16), an observation that the author made in her examination of the concept as well, and one that makes grasping the exact nature of Sense-Making more difficult. Quoting Dervin from 1989, Savolainen offers the explanation of Sense-Making as simply hard to pin down definitionally:
‘Some people call it a theory, others a set of methods, others a methodology, others a body of findings. In the most general sense, it is all of these. It is, first and foremost, a set of metatheoretic assumptions and propositions about the nature of information, the nature of human use of information, and the nature of human communicating.’ (Savolainen, 1993, p. 16)

• privacy
• truth/trust
• communication theory
• complex systems/fractals/noise
• information economics
• open access

Select one key work in each for greater detail

Explain how my approach adds to these debates within the defined space of the three articles/books

(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.