Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Library & Information Science Research

Analytical information horizon maps

Isto HuvilaDepartment of Information Studies, Åbo Akademi University, Tavastgatan 13, Fin-20500 Åbo, Finland

E-mail address: isto.huvila@abo.fi.

0740-8188/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.lisr.2008.06.005

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Sonnenwald, D.H. (1999) ibehavior. Later, she and her

ntroduced information horizons as a theoretical framework for informationcolleagues developed a data-gathering method based on information horizons

theory and user-drawn information horizon maps. The method provides a good basis for in-depthdiscussions and complements interviewing as a way to gather data. Based on interview records of Finnishand Swedish archaeology professionals, researchers drew diagrams called analytical information horizonmaps with the purpose of structuring, describing and analyzing typical information behaviors related to thework roles of the interviewed individuals. The findings indicate that the analytical information horizon mapsprovide a practicable and qualitatively valid means to visualize, communicate, and structure individual andshared patterns of use of the information resources and the organization of information activity.

© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Sonnenwald (1999) introduced information horizons in the late1990s as a theoretical framework for information behavior. Sonnen-wald and Wildemuth (2001) suggested that within a context andsituation there is an “information horizon” in which we can act.Information horizons comprise information resources perceived by aninformation seeker. Information horizons are determined bothindividually and socially and can be conceptualized as denselypopulated solution spaces (Sonnenwald, 1999). By solution space,Sonnenwald refers to a context where “many solutions are assumed,and the information retrieval problem expands from determining themost efficient path to the best solution, to determining how to makepossible solutions visible—to an individual(s) and to other informationresources” (pp. 187).

Information horizons have been used as a theoretical frameworkfor interpreting and discussing research findings—for instance, inPálsdottír's (2005) study and to an extent in Caidi and Allard's (2005)study. Sonnenwald, Wildemuth, and Harmon (2001) also developed adata-gathering method based on the theoretical insights of theinformation horizon maps. The method has been used in collecting(e.g., Serola, 2006; Sonnenwald et al., 2001) and in collecting andsubsequently discussing (e.g., Savolainen & Kari, 2004) researchmaterial. The baseline of the information horizons-based data-gathering approach has been that the information horizon maps aredrawn by informants to represent their personal information horizons(Sonnenwald et al., 2001). In contrast to the earlier studies, the presentarticle reports an empirical study that utilized researcher-drawninformation horizon maps as an instrument of data analysis.Researchers drew a set of diagrams called analytical information

l rights reserved.

horizon maps (AIHM) during the study. These diagrams were based oninterview data. Their purpose was to structure, explain, and analyzetypical information behaviors related to the work roles of theinterviewed individuals.

2. Problem statement

The method based on information horizon maps provides a goodbasis for in-depth discussions and complements interviews as a data-gathering method (Savolainen & Kari, 2004; Serola, 2006; Sonnen-wald et al., 2001). No study has looked at the possibility of usingresearcher-drawn information horizon maps, specifically as aninstrument of data analysis. The usability of informant-drawninformation horizon maps may be curtailed by a lack of resourcesfor lengthy face-to-face data gathering; by a scholarly interest ingroups rather than in individual behavior; by the lack of comparabilitydue to informal, inconsistent notation between individual informants;or by a need to gain a deeper analytical insight into an informant'sinformation horizon than a self-drawn diagram permits. The focus ofthe present study, analytical information horizon maps, addressesthese issues by providing a framework for producing critical,comprehensive, and comparable representations of both individualand collective information horizons. Unlike a typical informant-drawnmap, which shows how an informant or a group of informants seetheir own information resource use, the researcher-drawn mapsrepresent an analytical perspective to information horizons of ashared information activity.

3. Literature review

The information horizons framework has established itself amongthe plenitude of theoretical approaches of human information

19I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

behavior research (Fidel, Pejtersen, Cleal, & Bruce, 2004; Fisher,Erdelez, & McKechnie, 2005; Johnson, Case, Andrews, Allard, &Johnson, 2006; Savolainen, 2006). The utility of the approach hasbeen demonstrated in several different contexts of informationscience research (Chang & Lee, 2001; Pálsdóttir, 2005; Savolainen &Kari, 2004; Serola, 2006; Sonnenwald et al., 2001). Outside the scopeof information science, Maad (2002, 2003) explored the contexts offinance software development and interactive television using aninformation horizons framework as a conceptual tool.

Sonnenwald's concept of information horizons is not the onlyinformation-related spatial metaphor referred to in the literature.Evans and Keeran (1995), Rosvall (2006), and Rosvall and Sneppen(2007) discussed slightly different information horizon concepts.Shenton and Dixon (2003) wrote about the information universe, andChatman (1991) discussed the information world. Taylor (1991)introduced the concept of the information use environment, andFisher and Naumer (2006) developed the concept of informationgrounds. Savolainen (2006) wrote a comprehensive discussion aboutspatial approaches. As Savolainen remarked, information horizonsdiffer from most spatial metaphors by emphasizing a perspective. Aninformation horizon is the visible part of an information space fromthe perspective of an actor (ordinarily a human being).

The notions of entry point resources (starting resources ortransmitters), balanced resources (carriers) and ending resources(receivers) (Sonnenwald & Wildemuth, 2001, p. 13) have been usedwithin the information horizons theory to denote informationmaterials. Transmitters mark the entry-point of information interac-tions; the carriers are used through the subsequent interactions; andthe ending resources represent the objects, where the informationinteractions typically end.

Information horizons have been used as a theoretical frameworkfor contextualizing and explicating research data (Maad, 2002, 2003;Pálsdóttir, 2005) without explicit use of information horizon maps orother information horizons-related data gathering. Informationhorizons have also been used both in data gathering and in thesubsequent analysis of the information seekers' perceived informationresource space (e.g. Savolainen & Kari, 2004; Serola, 2006; Sonnen-wald et al., 2001). Informants have been asked to draw their owninformation horizons and to reflect on the diagrams as they draw. Boththe diagrams and the discussion records have been used as primaryresearch data. Sonnenwald et al. (2001) discussed the benefits of usinginformation horizon maps in comparison to other graphical methodsand to surveys and interviews. Their proposition is that the free-formapproach of information horizon maps allows rich post-coordinateddata collection that is not limited by a predetermined selection ofquestions, dimensions, or scales like pre-coordinated data gathering(Sonnenwald & Wildemuth, 2001).

The viewpoints of the information horizons framework andinformation horizon maps varied between different studies. Serola(2006) used informant-drawn information horizon maps as maps andas memory devices during the interviews. Sonnenwald et al. (2001)organized the data-gathering process in the opposite order: theirdata-gathering started with interviews and concluded with a drawingexercise.

The framework has faced little direct critique. Lin and McDonald(2006) remarked that the information horizons may be incomplete orseverely constrained in the beginning, but this fits well with theoriginal remark that information horizons are determined bothindividually and socially (Sonnenwald, 1999). Shenton and Dixon(2003) did not criticize information horizons per se, but they arguedthat the information universe spatial metaphor goes beyond Sonnen-wald's notion. Savolainen and Kari (2004) remarked that Sonnenwalddid not distinguish clearly between a physical information sourcespace and a perceived information horizon. They elaborated theapproach from an everyday life information-seeking perspective andproposed a new concept, information source horizon. Savolainen and

Kari considered information horizons to be imaginary fields that openbefore the mind's eyes of information seekers. According to this pointof view, the information horizons do not consist of physicalinformation sources. This kind of a perceived information horizonspans from the information seeker to the farthest boundary line of hisor her perceived information environment (i.e., the horizon).Savolainen and Kari further stressed the aspects of proximity anddistance by introducing zones of source preferences within theinformation horizon to explain differences between the relevance ofthe information sources from the information seeker's point of view.Furthermore, they distinguished between stable and dynamicinformation horizons. According to Savolainen and Kari, situation-independent information horizons are relatively stable, whereas theproblem-initiated information horizons are dynamic and tend tochange. Pálsdóttír (2005) perceived information horizons similarly.

4. Procedures

The present study focuses on the theory and maps of informa-tion horizons and their applicability to data analysis in an empiricalinvestigation of the information work of Nordic archaeologists. In2004, researchers conducted 25 thematic interviews of Finnish andSwedish archaeology professionals whose work duties ranged fromeducation to field archaeology, museum work, and cultural heritagemanagement. The thematic interview approach is based on the“focused interview” of Merton, Fiske, and Kendall (Hirsjärvi &Hurme, 1995, pp. 35–37). This approach includes a variety ofcomponents:

• Freeform thematic discussion and storytelling in the spirit of “creativeinterviewing” (Douglas, 1985; Fontana & Frey, 2000). The infor-mantswere asked about their work in general and specifically whatthey did when they went to work in the morning. Researchersguided the storytelling to get explicit accounts of how theinformants obtained the pieces of information they needed to know.

• Active semi-structured interview with an objective of inducingstructured reflection in order to inform the interviewer (Holsteinand Gubrium, 1997): The interviewees were asked to commentabout how and when they used different kinds of informationresources.

• Reflection (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985, p. 37, Fig. 3): Theinformants were asked to tell about information-seeking in onespecific case of producing archaeological information (e.g., in theform of a journal article, museum exhibition, or report).

• Semi-structured interview (Fontana & Frey, 2000): The intervieweeswere asked about their motivations and the objectives of theirwork.

• Imagination exercise (Segar, Spruijt-Metz, & Nolen-Hoeksema,2006, p. 177): The informants were asked to express their thoughtsabout ideal information resources to support their work.

A schema analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2000, pp. 783–784) of theempirical data resulted in a tentative set of narratives of informationwork in seven archaeological work roles:

1. academic teaching (education of future archaeologists atuniversities)

2. field archaeology (excavations and archaeological field work)3. antiquarian (collection management and artifact analysis duties at

archaeological museums and research institutions)4. public dissemination (popularization of archaeological knowledge

in different forms: books, films, museum exhibitions andworkshops)

5. academic research (archaeological)6. cultural heritage administration (cultural heritage management

duties in state organizations responsible for the preservation ofarchaeological heritage)

20 I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

7. infrastructural development (development of methods and tech-niques for archaeological work, e.g., analysis methods, informationsystems, or best practices).

Following the lines of the interactional role theory (Turner, 2001),the roles are perceived as clusters of similar or nearly similar factorsrelating to

• Formal work duties (e.g., collection management, field work,teaching) and titles (e.g., antiquarian, project researcher, lecturer,researcher)

• Environments and scenes of work (e.g., museum, archaeologicalsite, university)

• Objects interacted with (e.g,. shovel, computer, collection of finds,literature, or pottery)

• Activity; how it is conducted; its meanings, purposes, and values(e.g., to unearth and document an archaeological site, to tell thepublic about the Bronze Age, to teach archaeology students).

The analysis progressed by constructing a theory on the basis ofdiscernible patterns in the discussion between the interviewer andthe interviewee. The following short example illustrates the materialand the method of analysis. The numbers refer to the four broadcategories of patterns listed above:

Interviewer: I would like you to describe your practical work fromthe beginning to the end. Is it possible to divide the work intophases? What do you need to know in each phase? What kind ofinformation do you seek and where?Interviewee: For practical reasons or implicit reasons, archaeologyis about this (1, 2) fieldwork and (1) research, which is based on (3)the literature. And all the time we should think about (1) teachingand I actually learn quite a lot while thinking this and that, and (4) Idevelop some ideas of the future lines of my research andarchaeology itself. It is not very precise, but still indicative of theforthcoming. [..]

In the results, each of the 25 individuals in the study was assigneda random letter between A and Z, which is written inside brackets incitations and references.

A work role is not a direct representation of an individual's jobdescription. Rather, it is a profile, which may instantiate as a workdescription on its own or by combining several work roles. Roles dochange, but more slowly than work profiles. The case studydemonstrates that an archaeologist might be involved in field work,academic research, and infrastructural (in a colloquial substrate-likesense) development [A]. Other archaeologists might be workingprimarily with cultural heritage administration issues, but theirprincipal duties are combined with several antiquarian assignments,occasional field archaeology, public dissemination, and academicteaching [C]. Due to the overlap, inevitable change and an individua-listic articulation of the work roles in each of the professional profiles,it is infeasible to present their precise distribution among theindividual informants. Because of the overlap there are, however, onaverage at least five cases in each work role.

Researchers described and analyzed work roles and their relatedinformation activity by using the information work analysis approachproposed by Huvila (2006). The choice of approach was motivated bythe fact that information work analysis provides a framework for acomprehensive scrutiny of information activity in work contexts. Theinformationwork analysis method is based on four consequent phasesof using root definitions (Checkland, 1981, pp. 166–168), use cases(Bittner & Spence, 2002, pp. 3, 13), a faceted classification ofinformation interactions (Cool & Belkin, 2002), and finally theconstruction of analytical information horizons maps. Informationwork analysis perceives work as a soft system (i.e., comprising bothhumans and technical systems, as in Checkland, 1981), which includes

resources, conventions, structures, infrastructures and actors whoprofile themselves in different work roles (Huvila, 2006).

4.1. Work role analysis

In order to understand the analytical focus of work role-basedanalytical information horizons, it is necessary to scrutinize the notionof work role and work role-related information activities. From ananalytical point of view, the work role corresponds to one of thegeneral patterns of seven identifiedwork roles. The academic teachingwork role is used here as an example. Other work roles followed asimilar pattern.

The role of academic teaching refers to the work of full-time andpart-time university educators. In Finland and Sweden, the archae-ology departments employ relatively few people on a permanent basisas full-time or part-time teachers. Most of the teachers holding apermanent position have completed a doctoral degree. The lecturesand courses held by permanent staff members are complemented bypart-time lecturers whose primary employments are typically inmuseums or other heritage institutions [O, C] or who are graduatestudents at the department. The doctoral students usually have someteaching incorporated in their contract of employment. In Finland,there is more variation because most of the graduate students inarchaeology are financed either by research projects or individual,short-term grants from private funds and foundations. Other times,the students conduct their research in their spare time [B, G, H, T].

The academic teaching role may involve a variety of tasks that arerelevant to the education and training of the archaeology profes-sionals. Depending on the position of the teacher and the division ofwork at an individual department, duties may include giving lectures,having practical field and classroom exercises, holding examinations,reading essays, planning study programs, and supervising students.Part-time personnel concentrate mostly on giving courses [H, M, S, Z],as illustrated by respondent [C]:

“I have held lectures on some courses at the university. OtherwiseI have been very little involved in education.” (The authortranslated all quotations.)

Curriculum management and planning is teamwork shared by theentire teaching staff of the department:

“First we discuss the courses together with all the teachers of thedepartment. It's not just me, but a number of people who decideabout the courses and their contents. After the meeting, we beginto think about the possible contents for a course we have decidedto include in the curriculum.” [M]

Completely new courses are rarely introduced in educationalprograms—mostly when the curriculum is subjected to a majorrevision [M, Z, S]. The curricula evolve rather than change drastically.Slow evolution holds especially true for basic studies where thesubjects are on a fundamental level. Education starts from theabsolute basics because archaeology is not a regular subject in Nordicschools.

When the preparation of a course starts, the entire teaching staff ofthe department typically drafts its general framework. The appointedteachers of the new courses often consult subject experts if they arenot experts themselves. Information-seeking starts from a genericmonograph on the subject closest to the topic and continuesiteratively through lists of references and formal searches tocomplementary literature until the perceived information needs aresatisfied or the available time is out. The interaction is steered by thecriteria of topicality and authority and constrained by appropriatenessand the availability of resources. One participant described the processthis way: “I am an old-school person so I prefer looking at books. Then

21I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

I begin to think where I have seen something similar and if theresomething I know already.” [S]

Updating an ongoing course is based on constant scanning of newrelevant literature. Some teachers update the whole course at onceusing the gathered materials, while others tend to update individuallectures, demonstrations, and exercises immediately before they areheld. Most teachers were of the opinion that there are very fewpractical possibilities to search actively for new information. Most ofthe new material accumulates through “active encountering:”Teachers talk with each other, try to read relevant journals regularly,and keep abreast of the new literature. As one interviewee said:

“I try to keep informed of all the literature that is on the topics ofmy courses. I get some information from mailing lists. I don'tusually search for information very broadly; I have these sources Itry to keep up with.” [M]

One respondent reported limited opportunities to read newliterature and stated that in practice, there is time to check only newbooks that are bought for the departmental library. Besides thenew literature, the course updates and modifications are based onthe remarks added to the lecture notes during the previous runs ofthe course. The remarks may refer to details such as the need tocheck some subtleties or restructure some part of the syllabus.

The most significant criteria for updating the courses are theappearance of new important and authoritative knowledge, theimportance and topicality of new and pre-existing information, andhow earlier material worked in previous lessons. The primaryobstacles to updating include the impossibilities of covering all theavailable data in a relatively short time and processing all relevantinformation. Appropriateness of the individual topics in the context ofa course and the students' earlier level of knowledge also affect theselection.

In spite of the diverse tasks, full-time teaching follows a yearlyschedule relatively closely [M]. The informants concentrated mostlyon teaching and preparatory work during the periods when courseswere under way [H, M, S, Z].

Most informants reserved the pre- and post-semester periods formore comprehensive course updates, preparing new contents,revising courses, and other general planning activities. All intervie-wees indicated that they attempted to reserve part of these periods forresearch and other professional activities [H, M, S, Z]. Especially in full-time positions, these periods tended to be rather short and werefrequently interrupted by unwanted extraordinary duties. Part-timeteachers were able to arrange their annual schedule more freely [C, O,T, U].

Informants emphasized the importance of visualizations inlectures and exercises. Slides of the actual archaeological artifactsand landscapes, maps, and diagrammatic drawings provide importantvisual insights in the subject matter and promote understanding ofthe discussed archaeological phenomena. The notion of scale is alsobest mediated in visual presentations of both the individual objectsand sites. The informants described the use of documentaries ondiverse levels: to visualize archaeological objects, sites, and land-scapes; to provide import for later processing; and to offer visualstimuli for intellectual contextualization of the subject [H, M, Z].

The most important criteria for selecting course contents are thetopicality and authority of the information. The most critical obstaclesare the level of earlier training of the students, the huge amount ofexisting information, and the practical limits of available time. Thechoice of information is systematic and selective, according to thediscretion of the teacher.

Apart fromgiving lectures and courses, academic teaching includessupervising students and their exercises. Supervision is the mosttypical with advanced under-graduate and graduate students. Themain part of their study effort is concentrated on writing final essays

or a thesis, which completes their studies for a degree. Especially withgraduate students, interaction is notably bi-directional. Teachersprovide formal and practical advice and evaluate the on-going work.The students are experts on the subject of their own research [H, S].

Besides evaluation, supervision is also about giving advice andinstruction. It is typically done in the form of informal discussionsbetween the supervisor and the supervisee. Another typical mediumof communicating is corresponding by mail or e-mail. A large part ofthe disseminated information is meta-information on availableinformation resources or information on the topics related to thetheme under discussion. Disseminating information during super-vision is seldom a systematic or an exhaustive process. Informationtends to be highly contextual and often tacit.

The constituent information activity of the academic teachingwork role is interlocked with awareness keeping and evaluating andprocessing information. Academic teaching serves the intermediaryfunction of transferring practical and theoretical archaeologicalknowledge to generations of new archaeologists.

4.2. Construction of the analytical information horizon maps

The work role-related information behavior was summarized inanalytically constructed information horizon maps (AIHM) to providean overview of the landscape of the relevant information objects forthe information activity of a particular role. The AIHMs explicateperception of available resources, their mutual relationships, and thepatterns of how they are used. The information for constructing themaps was obtained directly from the interview data. Individualdescriptions of information-seeking and use were linked with therelevant work role or work roles.

Instead of a physical reality, the AIHM represent a form ofperceived reality, as Savolainen and Kari (2004) suggested. However,unlike Savolainen and Kari's suggestion, the present study does notdirectly link the notion of distance with relevance of information.Following Sonnenwald's (1999) line of argument, a horizon is seen as aspace where an actor can act and where information activity takesplace. The horizon is not a perceived field of relevance, as proposed bySavolainen and Kari (2004). The value of the approach is acknowl-edged in explaining the perceived relevance of information sourcesand in addressing an ambiguity of Sonnenwald's original proposal. Theviewpoint of Savolainen and Kari emphasizes slightly different aspectsof information activity than the ones incorporated in the originalSonnenwaldian notion of information horizons. Following the originalproposal, the present study relates distance to progress and effort ininformation process rather than to remoteness or proximity ofinformation sources in the sense of their relevance.

In contrast to the earlier applications of the information horizonsframework, the technique of workingwithwork role-specific AIHMs isused to represent typified information horizons that relate to theworkroles, not to the individual actors. The aim of the approach is to be ableto articulate the shared components of the information resourcelandscapes in the diverse archaeological information processes. Theprincipal benefit of the approach is that it moves the scope of theperusal from the individual users to the shared characteristics ofinformation use.

In the perspective of analytical information horizons, the questionof whether information horizons are dynamic or static in naturebecomes more ambiguous than in the framework of Savolainen andKari (2004). AIHMs may be seen to represent a situation at thebeginning of a typical information process. They are relatively static ascollective conceptualizations, but dynamic as representations oftransient moments in an information process.

In practice, the AIHMs were constructed by pinpointing theprimary information resources, which occurred in the schematicdescriptions of work roles, and cross-checking them with theinterview transcripts. The inherent researcher bias was controlled

Fig. 1. Notation used in analytical information horizon maps (AIHMs).

22 I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

by showing the information horizon maps to a group of archaeologyprofessionals (different from the informants) at a seminar in April2006 and modifying the maps according to their suggestions.

In the academic teaching work role, the following resources had aclear emphasis:

• general literature (e.g., in the quotation of informant [S]: “I am anold-school person so I prefer looking at books. Then I begin to thinkwhere I have seen something similar and is there something I knowalready.”);

• social contacts with students and colleagues;• specific archaeological literature;• visual aids for lectures and courses;• popular information (primarily as a source of visualizations).

The notation (Fig. 1) used in the information horizonmaps consistsof ordinary information resources (carriers; shown as dotted squares),

Fig. 2. Information horizon of the academic teach

entry-point information resources (the ones typically used first ininformation interactions; solid squares), ending resources (greybackground), links between the sources (arrowed for an identifiablesequence of use; solid if emphasized). The arrow and line indicate theposition from which the horizon is seen by a person who is acting inthe work role. The distances between individual informationresources are approximations based on the informants' accounts ontheir perceived relative order of preference and frequency of their use.Because AIHMs represent process rather than relevance horizons, it isimpossible to make claims about precise positions of informationresources on the maps. It was also impossible to adopt the strategy ofusing zones (Savolainen & Kari, 2004) because the relevance of anindividual resource is depicted by its position in an actual informationprocess rather than as an independent distance from the spectator. AnAIHM's depth is represented by the vertical height of the informationresource chains depicted in the maps. Breadth is depicted by theirrelative horizontal width. Both measures are interpretations andtherefore approximations comparable to the positions of the resourceson an AIHM.

5. Findings

Information horizon maps were used as an instrument fordescribing the information resources involved in representativepatterns of information use. The multi-perspective data-gatheringapproach demonstrated its value during the data analysis; in all cases,the consecutive approaches increased the number of relevantinformation resources mentioned by the informants and clarifiedtheir position in the informants' information horizons. Besidesexplaining the resources, the information horizon maps provided amethod of visualizing the work role and information interaction-specific, process-based relations of the resources. This sectioncomprises AIHMs of all seven work roles (starting with academicteaching, which is annotated with references to the earlier sections ofthis article) and descriptions of the work roles.

Academic teaching relies broadly on the current scholarlyliterature (Fig. 2). The role of well-known and locally availableliterature is central both as a starting resource (transmitter) and asan actual information resource (carrier). Typically the processproceeds from general literature (Resource 1) to more specificmaterial (Resource 3). The notion of “being well-known” is rathercomplex. A book or an article may become well-known to anindividual in an academic teaching work role through personal

ing work role. Notation is explained in Fig. 1.

Fig. 3. Information horizon of the field archaeology work role.

23I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

recommendations, public exposure within the scholarly community,reviews and critiques (Resource 2), and, to a degree, in advertise-ments. An individual information process of planning and running acourse ends with the literature (receiver), although the overall processof academic teaching may be seen as an example of iteration andcontinuity. Visual information (Resource 4) is of special interest foracademic teachers as an aid that helps the students to grasp andinternalize the subject of a course. Popular media (Resource 5) istypically a very helpful source of visual information, especially inbasic-level courses. Academic teaching expects authoritative aca-demic information. Besides the actuality and authority, the practicallimitations of time and resources make teachers look for processedand compact summarizing information on the current course topics.

The information horizon of the field archaeology role is centeredon a site or an area of archaeological interest (Fig. 3). The horizonspreads out from a personal observation made on a geographicallocation and from a certain period of time (transmitters) to grasp therelevant information in a diversity of sources. The informationwork iscarried on by a congruent use of diverse resources, cyclical returns tothe starting point, and a constant process of information acquisition

Fig. 4. Information horizon of

through observation. The principal carriers of the information-seekingprocess are archaeological reports, personal communication withcolleagues, and cartographic information. The process is essentiallycyclic and iterative. It lasts for as many iterations as the obstacles ofthe access information interaction allow. A typical receiver is aninformation resource, which satisfies the immediate information needor interest independent of its form or format.

The antiquarian role (Fig. 4) horizon focuses on distinct pieces ofarchaeological evidence, similar to the field archaeology work role.The perception of the sources typically starts from the local collectionsdatabase (transmitter) instead of focusing on a geographical locationor a site, as in field archaeology. It spreads out to grasp a spectrum ofarchaeological literature and other information resources (carriers)related to an artifact. The information horizon of the antiquarians isorganized around iterations, which start from the antiquities registeror a collections database. However, the process seldom ends at thedatabase. The most typical receiver is the artifact that served as theimpetus to the seeking process. The field archaeologists andantiquarians tend to consult sources primarily to find descriptions oftheir objects of study and relevant comparative materials. Field

the antiquarian work role.

Fig. 5. Information horizon of the public dissemination work role.

24 I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

archaeology refers to the descriptions of the excavated site orsurveyed area and to corresponding observations done elsewhere.The antiquarian work role, on the other hand, focuses on seeking anartifact or artifact group-specific descriptive information.

Public dissemination professionals are more interested in broaderarchaeological themes than individual pieces of data (Fig. 5). A typicaltransmitter is the general archaeological and historical literature,which is capable of shedding light on a particular phenomenon suchas the clothing in theMiddle Ages, childhood in Viking Age Sweden, orthe life and times of Saint Bridget. The process carries on to theliterature (carrier) and typically ends with finding suitable archae-ological artifacts for display or publication (receiver). The publicdissemination work role directs archaeologists toward communicat-ing archaeological information. The information, its authenticity, andits accuracy are valuable. However, the sources and the informationitself need an affective element to have an impact. The informationmust have meaning in the context of its designated audience in orderto make a difference.

The information horizon of academic researchers (Fig. 6) places asmuch emphasis on the archaeological material as a plausible entrypoint as the work roles mentioned earlier. However, unlike the otherwork roles, scholarly research tends to have notably fluctuating entrypoints (transmitter). The horizon consists of a fairly broad variety ofscholarly information resources, which are used according to actualinformation needs. The needs and the subsequent information-seeking process are likely to start with an unequalled insight insteadof a directly phraseable query. Information-seeking for scholarlypurposes shows visible patterns in respect to the breadth and depth of

Fig. 6. Information horizon of the

the efforts. However, the patterns are significantly mixed incomparison to the other work roles (carrier). Similar to field workresearch, the scholarly information process of the academic researchwork role tends to end only when practical limits, either oncoming orpreplanned, are reached (receiver).

Cultural heritage administrators rely heavily on the archaeologicalinvestigation reports. Secondarily, they rely on the institutionaldatabases as transmitters and consequently as carriers (Fig. 7). Unlikein the antiquarian role, the database work does not carry onindependently with the literature and other complementary sourcesin the cultural heritage administration. It acts more typically as asurrogate and an instrument to find the relevant reports. Thespectrum of the information resources used varies significantlydepending on their availability and the perceived importance of theinformation interaction. A typical receiver in the cultural heritageadministration-related information horizons is a relatively detailedevaluative description, which effectively fulfils or exceeds theimminent needs.

The infrastructural development work role relies on a differentinformation horizon than the other work roles (Fig. 8). The informa-tion resources and the typical transmitters are mostly technical andmethodological. The developers seem to rely only secondarily on thecore archaeological sources. As the research and development workprogresses, the information horizon of the infrastructural develop-ment evolves in an iterative fashion. The same sourcesmay function astransmitters, carriers, and receivers. A receiver is often a source that isconsulted at a specific stage of the process, where it is able to explicatea comprehensive answer to the original query either self-sufficiently

academic research work role.

Fig. 7. Information horizon of the cultural heritage administration work role.

25I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

or complemented with information from the sources consultedearlier. Similarly, a receiver is a source that crystallizes the unsuit-ability of a method or technology for an imminent application.

6. Discussion

On the basis of the information horizon maps, it is clear that allarchaeologists interact with a broad range of information. The focus ofinterest may be a tiny shard of an artifact, large quantities of sites andfinds, predefined collections, or databases of information. All archae-ological work grasps individual information objects: sites, areas, andsingle artifacts. The constituent distinction between the work roles isin the organization of the information objects. Antiquarians andcultural heritage administrators work particularly with data that isorganized according to some principle. The organizationmay reside invarying forms, in a collections database, or on a map. The distinctfeature is that the organization exists and the focus of the informationhorizon is an entity of information. The information activity iscentered on a notion of “what is,” even if the work is evolvingconstantly. Field archaeologists contribute to the emergence oforganization by documenting sites and finds. However, for a fieldarchaeologist, the perceived site is still essentially a sample of “whatmight be.” Similarly, the public dissemination, academic research,academic teaching, and infrastructural development work rolesconcern themselves with equally indefinite sets of informationobjects, where an individual artifact or site is an instance of a largerphenomenon.

Table 1 summarizes the observations made on thework role-basedanalytical information horizons. Generally speaking, the patterns ofinformation work seem to match up closely with work roles.Transmitters indicate the preferred entry point information resources,and carriers do indicate the qualities of the information needs.Receivers, their nature, and their existence betoken the depth andcontinuity of the interest of the interaction.

Fig. 8. Information horizon of the infra

The analytical information maps allow us to discuss one furtheraspect of the information resource use of archaeologists. Besidesorganizing information resources, the analytical information mapswere drawn to highlight the relative depth and breadth of theinformation horizons as the informants described them. A deepinformation horizon focuses on a limited (i.e., narrow) variety ofinformation resource types, but these resources are perceived to behighly significant. In a broad information horizon, more resources areperceived to be potentially very significant.

The information horizons of field archaeology and antiquarianwork roles were characterized by depth rather than breadth, whereasthe rest of the work roles perceived their available informationresources as a broad collection of different kinds of availableresources. The cultural heritage administrators were a controversialgroup because they perceived a significantly broader informationhorizon than they were capable of using in practice. As one of theinformants explained, in cultural heritage administration peopleknow that it would be good to take a look at a broad variety ofresources, but in practice there is not enough time.

The notions of breadth and depth do not necessarily refer to thebreadth and depth of information resource use. As in the case ofacademic researchers, the information horizon is relatively broad (theresearchers see many potentially relevant information sources), whilethe eventual information resource use is characterized by intensityand depth.

Analyzing the depth and breadth of information horizons made itpossible to describe the extent of initial information use and the directutility of available information resources. Together with analyzing thelayout of the information horizon by identifying transmitters, carriers,and receivers, looking at the breadth and depth provided grounds onwhich to argue that the relative homogeneity of the archaeologists'information use is largely ostensible. Although the same resourcesappear in several information horizon maps, their positions varyconsiderably and individual resource types tend to have a number of

structural development work role.

Table 1Aspects of work role information use summarized from the role-specific descriptions ofinformation horizons

Work role Focus ofinterest

Principaltransmitter

Principal carriers Principalreceiver

Academicteaching

Subject General(scholarly)literature

Scholarlyliterature

Scholarlyliterature

Fieldarchaeology

Site Archaeologicalreport,observation

Maps, reports,personalcommunication

Varies

Antiquarian Artifact Collectionsdatabase

Archaeologicalliterature, othersources

Artifact

Publicdissemination

Subject General(scholarly)literature

Scholarlyliterature

Artifact

Academicresearch

Varies Varies Varies Varies

Culturalheritageadministration

Site Investigationreport, databases

Investigationreport,databases

Detailed,evaluativedescription

Infrastructuraldevelopment

Method Technicalliterature

Technicalliterature

Summarizingdescription

26 I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

alternatives. A significant amount of the uniformity may be traced tolimited practical choices. Especially in Finland and Sweden, archae-ologists are few and thus the communities of archaeologists arerelatively small (Armgard, Fasth, & Nelsson, 2002; Korkeakoski-Väisänen, 2003). Only a small proportion of all work is publishedand achieves a wide distribution. The subterranean flow of informa-tion through personal communication and participation is funda-mental for the success of the information work [A, C, F, I, M, S].Therefore, it is plausible to claim that archaeological informationworkis essentially a social matter.

6.1. Validity and utility of analytical information horizon maps

It is tempting to suggest that the principal advantage of informa-tion horizon maps is the visual appeal and common-sense intellig-ibility of the horizonmetaphor. However, the findings of the empiricalinvestigation provide a basis for discussing both the utility and thepractical validity of the AIHMs. Further studies are needed to confirmthe present findings and considerations.

Because the AIHMs analyze qualitative case studies of informationresource horizons, it is relevant to discuss the internal validity of theAIHMs from the point of view of the plausibility of the constructs, thenexus between the constructs and the research data, and their ex-planatory usefulness (Chima, 2005). The common-sense utility of theresearcher-drawn information horizon maps is a subjective questionthat depends on individual scholars and sets of research data.

Fig. 9. Academic teaching-specific inform

According to Sonnenwald (1999), the information horizon is aspace where an actor can act. Within this space, the individualinformation resources may serve distinct purposes and carrysignificantly different meanings when individuals pursue specifictasks and when they find information in everyday life. Yet thecomplete map of the information horizon, which includes all theindividual sources, may be expected to coincide closely with patternsof how the different individuals act. The sources and the emergingpatterns form a constituent part of the activity. Therefore, in order tobe valid representations of work role information behavior, the sharedwork role information horizon maps should reflect closely individualwork role information horizonmaps and the original interview data. Ifan AIHM were constructed to represent an individual informationhorizon, an individual work role information horizon should be evencloser to the analytical representation.

The internal validity of the analytic information horizon maps wastested by comparing individual informants' work role AIHMs with thecollective work role maps, with satisfactory results. The collectivemaps were further assessed by comparing them to the originalinterview data and by conducting a negative case analysis of thediagrams (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, pp. 309–313). Even though it waspossible to emphasize individual paths between informationresources and specify resources (e.g., “an extensive doctoral disserta-tion or monograph on the subject” in an individual map instead of“general archaeological literature” in the academic teaching work rolemap), the maps differed little. To illustrate the differences betweenindividual and collective AIHMs, Fig. 9 depicts the academic teachingwork role information horizon map of the informant M. The principaldifferences between Figs. 9 and 2 relate to 1) close interest in specificliterature; 2) interest, but undetermined relation to the use ofdatabases and digital information; 3) relative non-use of diagrams;and 4) the emphasized role of popular archaeological information as asource of visualizations. There is no major variation in the breadth orthe depth of the two information horizons. Besides comparingindividual and shared information horizon maps, the validity of themaps was controlled by reverting them individually back to textualrepresentations, which were compared to the original interview data.

The most significant exception to the rule of proximity ofindividual and collective information horizon maps occurred whenan individual informant was involved in two work roles. One of theroles was so dominant that it guided information activity even whenthe person occasionally acted in the other role. Informant U workedboth in academic teaching and academic research roles. Thisinformant taught primarily advanced-level courses close to his per-sonal research topic, so his information activity followed entirely thepattern of a researcher. In this particular case, the question waswhether the individual informant was actually acting in twowork roles. Should teaching be considered an instance of scholarly

ation horizon map of informant M.

27I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

communication and publication rather than an instance ofeducation?

The external validity of the AIHMs is not possible to establish; theconstructedmaps reflected role-specific behavior rather than patternsof activity of any individual or group. Therefore, no individual or groupcould validate the construct by reflecting it in their actual behavior.However, the overall soundness of the AIHMs was estimated byshowing them to a group of 12 archaeology professionals andgraduate students who did not participate in the study. The membersof the group commented on the maps from their personal points ofview, but they generally agreed with the layout of the informationhorizons of the work roles. The result should be consideredsatisfactory because the maps are interpretations made by aresearcher.

The utility of the AIHMs can be demonstrated by the significance ofthe analytical insights gained by using them. It became apparentduring the study that the information horizons converged with thework roles, even though there is no apparent linkage between thework roles and the use of individual information resources. A workrole is not a good indicator of whether an individual uses a specificinformation resource. For instance, all field archaeologists stated thatthey begin their information-seeking about a site by starting with thename of the site and place and, if possible, by visiting the area.Thereafter, the process usually proceeds to looking for any maps andearlier archaeological investigation reports on the same site. Then thesequence varies depending on individual preferences: some soughtmore maps, while others looked at general books on the area andperiod of the site. At the end of the information-seeking process, thereceivers again had shared characteristics even if the individualresources varied from case to case. The similarity was in the detail andfunction (cultural heritage administration and infrastructural devel-opment) or the authoritativeness (academic research) of the resourcesor their kind (artifact for antiquarians and public disseminationprofessionals). The pattern is more or less visible in all informationhorizon maps and in the criteria of how the transmitters, carriers, andreceivers were selected.

AIHMs closely reflect the organization of information activity inarchaeology. Archaeologists work with a broad variety of informationobjects, but the core of the information resources consists of a fairlylimited set of materials. Therefore, it is not the materials themselvesthatmake thework roles distinct. The source use becomes distinct dueto the organization of the information horizon and the existence offocused starting resources in the information-seeking process(Sonnenwald & Wildemuth, 2001, p. 13). The cultural heritageadministration and infrastructural development work roles areconnected by the evaluative character of the work processes.Preserving archaeological sites and developing community infra-structures are issues that arise all the time. The decision-makingpresumes educated evaluations of the importance and meaning ofthe involved sites. Infrastructural developers have to estimate thevalue of new approaches and methods and their suitability for thearchaeological practice. Otherwise the different work roles are quitedistinct, as the AIHMs indicate.

Transmitters, carriers, and receivers are relevant because theyindicate how the organization of work role information horizonsconverges with their associated work roles. Considering theinformants' accounts, carriers seem to indicate the qualities of theinformation needs in different work duties: whether the need is site-specific (field archaeology, cultural heritage administration) orartifact-specific (antiquarian) or focused on broader contextualissues (academic teaching and public dissemination professionals).The existence and nature of receivers appear to evidence the depthand continuity of the interest of the interaction. If a receiver isnoticeably more specific than the transmitter or it has taken manyiterations to reach a satisfactory receiver, the information useprocess has been deeper and the information seeker has invested

more effort in it (e.g., in academic research). Transmitters seem to beespecially good at indicating the motivations and entry pointsbehind the work-related assignments, thus giving a relatively goodindication on the types and qualities of the information resourcesand repositories. This is likely to be useful in the context of the workrole (e.g., in public dissemination, where the focus is in acquiringextensive knowledge of a topic).

The utility of researcher-drawn AIHMs can be further compared toother methods of analyzing and studying information behavior. Theessential strength of the AIHMs is in the diagrammatic representationof the information space of an information seeker. AIHMs provide acomprehensive overview at a glance and a degree of comparability,which are difficult to attain by using textual accounts. Even the simplenotation used in the present study provides additional richness anddimensionality to the communication compared to presenting tabulardata. In comparison to the earlier applications of the informationhorizons maps, the AIHMs provide means to articulate sharedcomponents of the information resource use. The approach movesthe scope from the individual users to the shared characteristics ofinformation use. The AIHMs can also be composed of a set of resourcesindicated by informants in multiple sessions and by using multipledata-gathering methods—for example, the present study useddifferent interview approaches. The informants did not mention allthe information resources they used in the first phase of theinterview; the active semi-structured interview, reflection structuredinterview, and imagination exercise always revealed significantresources and relations between resources. A user-drawn informationhorizon map is likely to represent only the explicit horizon ofinformation resources and not include such specifics.

7. Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to demonstrate how analyticalinformation horizon maps (AIHM) can be used as an instrument indata analysis without using an information horizons approach tocollect research data. The relevance of the approach lies in the abilityto make inferences on the basis of the constructed maps. Theempirical study showed that the work role-specific informationhorizons of the individuals matched up well with the collectivework role information horizon maps. The use or non-use of individualinformation resources, however, did not differ meaningfully betweenwork roles. Therefore, it seems that the work role-specific analyticalinformation horizons are practicable representations of the patternsof work role information behavior. Furthermore, the researcher-drawn maps can be rendered to include information resources,relations obtained through multiple data-gathering methods, andsignificant resources that do not belong to the active repertoire ofresources consulted by the information seeker. The analyticalapproach to constructing information horizon maps could be usedto represent individual information horizons as well as the sharedones discussed in the present study.

Creating AIHMs is a viable approach for explicating multidimen-sional research data on information behavior. They provide a frame-work for producing critical, comprehensive, and comparablerepresentations of individual and collective information horizons.They are thus a means to visualize, communicate, and structure bothindividual and shared patterns of using information resources.

References

Armgard, B., Fasth, E., & Nelsson, O. (2002). Humanistiska studier och arbetslivet:Uppföljning av studenter efter avslutad utbildning [Humanities education and worklife: Follow-up of students after completing degree programme]. (Rapport No.2002:217). Lund, Sweden: Utvärderingsenheten, Lunds universitet.

Bittner, K., & Spence, I. (2002). Use case modeling. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In

D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning(pp. 18−40). London: Kogan Page.

28 I. Huvila / Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009) 18–28

Caidi, N., & Allard, D. (2005). Social inclusion of newcomers to Canada: An informationproblem? Library and Information Science Research, 27, 302−324.

Chang, S., & Lee, Y. (2001). Conceptualizing context and its relationship to theinformation behaviour in dissertation research process. The New Review ofInformation Behaviour Research, 2, 29−46.

Chatman, E. A. (1991). Life in a small world: Applicability of gratification theory toinformation seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for InformationScience, 42, 438−449.

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Somerset, NJ: Wiley.Chima, J. (2005 September). What's the utility of the case-study method for social

science research? A response to critiques from the qualitative/statistical perspec-tive. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political ScienceAssociation, Washington, D.C.

Cool, C., & Belkin, N. (2002). A classification of interactions with information. In H. Bruce(Ed.), Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth InternationalConference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle,Washington, July 21–25, 2002 (pp. 1−15). Greenwood Village, CO: LibrariesUnlimited.

Douglas, J. D. (1985). Creative interviewing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Evans, L., & Keeran, P. (1995). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: Expanding students'

information horizons. Research Strategies, 13(4), 235−244.Fidel, R., Pejtersen, A. M., Cleal, B., & Bruce, H. (2004). A multidimensional approach to

the study of human-information interaction: A case study of collaborativeinformation retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, 55, 939−953.

Fisher, K., & Naumer, C. (2006). Information grounds: Theoretical basis and empiricalfindings on information flow in social settings. In A. Spink, & C. Cole (Eds.), Newdirections in human information behavior (pp. 93−111). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.

Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, L. E. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of informationbehavior Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions tonegotiated text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativeresearch (pp. 645−672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hirsjärvi, S., & Hurme, H. (1995). Teemahaastattelu [Thematic interview]. Helsinki,Finland: Yliopistopaino.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1997). Active interviewing. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qua-litative research: Theory, method and practise (pp. 113−129). London: Sage.

Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information workcase—A study of bridging archaeologicalwork and virtual reality based knowledge organisation. Diss. Åbo Akademi University.Åbo, Finland.

Johnson, J. D. E., Case, D. O., Andrews, J., Allard, S. L., & Johnson, N. E. (2006). Fields andpathways: Contrasting or complementary views of information seeking. Informa-tion Processing and Management, 42(2), 569−582.

Korkeakoski-Väisänen, K. (2003). Arkeologia tarvitsee humanistisia tieteitä, luonnon-tieteitä, yhteiskuntatieteitä, lääketiedettä⋯ mitä arkeologi tarvitsee [Archaeologyneeds humanities, sciences, social sciences, medicine. But what does an archae-ologist need]? Muinaistutkija, 19(1), 29−39.

Lin, P., & McDonald, D. (2006). Exploring the social realities of online communitiesthrough the lens of a human information behavior framework. Retrieved fromhttp://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1521/01/LinMcD2.pdf

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Maad, S. (2002). Novel software system development for finance. In R. Hackney (Ed.),

Bit2002 Business information technology: Semantic futures, 12th annual BIT conferenceproceedings, November 6–7, 2002 (pp. 1−15). Manchester, UK: ManchesterMetropolitan University Business School.

Maad, S. (2003). Universal access to multimodal ITV content: Challenges andprospects. In N. Carbonell, & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Universal access: Theoreticalperspectives, practice, and experience: 7th ERCIM International Workshop on UserInterfaces for All, Paris, France, October 24–25, 2002. Revised Papers (pp. 195−208).Berlin: Springer.

Pálsdóttir, A. (2005). Health and lifestyle: Icelanders' everyday life information behaviour.Diss. Åbo Akademi University, Åbo, Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press.

Rosvall, M. (2006). Information horizons in a complex world. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Rosvall, M., & Sneppen, K. (2007). Networks and our limited information horizon.International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 17(7), 2509−2515.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K.Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 769−802).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Savolainen, R. (2006). Spatial factors as contextual qualifiers of information seeking.Information Research, 11(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper261.html

Savolainen, R., & Kari, J. (2004). Placing the internet in information source horizons. Astudy of information seeking by internet users in the context of self-development.Library and Information Science Research, 26, 415−433.

Segar, M., Spruijt-Metz, D., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2006). Go figure? Body-shape motivesare associated with decreased physical activity participation among midlife women.Sex Roles, 54(3), 175–187. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9336-5

Serola, S. (2006). City planners' information seeking behavior: Information channelsused and information types needed in varying types of perceived work tasks. IIiX:Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Interaction in Context(pp. 42−45). New York: ACM Press.

Shenton, A.K., & Dixon, P. (2003).Models of young people's information seeking. Journal ofLibrarianship and Information Science, 35(1), 5–22. Retrieved from http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/1/5

Sonnenwald, D. H. (1999). Perspectives of human information behaviour: Contexts,situations, social networks and information horizons. In T. Wilson, & D. Allen (Eds.),Exploring the contexts of information behaviour (pp. 176−190). Cambridge, UK: Taylorand Graham.

Sonnenwald, D.H., & Wildemuth, B.M. (2001). Investigating information seekingbehavior using the concept of information horizons. Retrieved from http://sils.unc.edu/research/publications/reports/TR-2001-01.pdf

Sonnenwald, D. H., Wildemuth, B. M., & Harmon, G. L. (2001). A research method usingthe concept of information horizons: An example from a study of lower socio-economic students' information seeking behaviour. The New Review of InformationBehaviour, 2, 65−86.

Taylor, R. (1991). Information use environments. In B. Dervin, & M. Voigt (Eds.), Progressin communication sciences, Vol. 10. (pp. 217−255)Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Turner, R. H. (2001). Role theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory(pp. 233−254). Berlin: Springer.