Statement of Competency
Introduction
Information professionals play a vital role in connecting users with resources that meet their information needs and fill in knowledge gaps. To be able to meet these needs, an information professional must recognize how users seek and use information. When an information professional understands a user’s information seeking behavior, they will be better equipped to design and implement programs and services that align with their information needs and ensure equitable access to relevant materials.
Theories of Information-Seeking Behaviors
Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP)
Kuhlthau’s (1991) Information Search Process (ISP) describes information seeking as the act of “finding meaning from information in order to extend one’s knowledge on a particular problem or topic” (Kuhlthau, 1991, p. 361). The model outlines six stages: initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, and presentation. These six stages represent the evolving process of inquiry. Each stage is characterized by the mix of feelings (affective), thoughts (cognitive), and actions (physical) as individuals move through the ISP. Kuhlthau (1991) stresses that the affective and the cognitive co-exist in the user’s information-seeking behavior, and that design and programming should reflect this duality.
Savolainen’s ELIS Model
Savolainen’s (1995) Everyday Life Information-Seeking (ELIS) model divides information-seeking into work and non-work domains. For many people, the information needs that emerge in personal and professional spheres often overlap. Savolainen identifies two modes of information-seeking: orienting information, which helps individuals stay informed about their world, and problem-specific information, which directly addresses a particular need or question. The ELIS framework also encompasses complementary theories that acknowledge the social and contextual nature of information behavior, including Dervin’s Sense-Making Theory, Chatman’s research on information poverty, Williamson’s ecological model, McKenzie’s work on social interaction in seeking, and Fisher’s concept of information grounds (Savolainen, 1995).
Bates’ Berrypicking Model
Bates’s (1989) Berrypicking Model describes information seeking as an evolving and dynamic process in which users gather pieces of information from multiple sources rather than completing a single, fixed search. As new ideas and terminology emerge, users adapt their queries through strategies such as footnote chasing, citation searching, area scanning, and author or subject searching. Although originally discussed in the context of academic research, “berrypicking” applies broadly to many information domains and information needs. The model emphasizes that effective information systems should allow users to refine their understanding as they navigate.
Connecting Users With Information
In today’s complex and evolving information landscape, users navigate many platforms, applications, and systems to meet their diverse information needs. Information professionals must tap into established (and emerging) theories of information-seeking behavior to guide the design of these interactions and ensure that users can connect with accurate, relevant, and meaningful information. Bates’s (1989) Berrypicking Model stresses the importance of creating systems that support iterative searching and exploration, allowing users to refine queries and discover new paths as their understanding evolves. Kuhlthau’s (1991) Information Search Process (ISP) reminds professionals to acknowledge the affective and cognitive aspects of seeking, and Savolainen’s (1995) Everyday Life Information-Seeking (ELIS) emphasizes the social and contextual factors that shape how individuals find and understand information. Information professionals should consider these theories of information-seeking behavior when they develop programs, adopt new technologies, organize physical collections, and assist users meet their unique information needs.
Evidence
My first piece of evidence is a blog post that identifies my information community: parents of children with congenital heart defects (INFO 200 with Dr. Kevin Bontenbal [Fall 2023]). In this blog post I introduce this community by providing brief background on and an introductory narrative of the subject of congenital heart defects. We were advised to demonstrate how Fisher and Fulton’s (2022) characteristics apply to our chosen community. We were also asked to consider how any of the module’s readings informs our understanding of our information community.
This blog report articulates my understanding of how information communities form around shared needs and experiences. I illustrate this by discussing the information needs of my information community, and I show that they have two, distinctly different avenues of inquiry: clinical and scientific information needs and social and emotional information needs. This information community follows Savolainen’s ELIS Model in that the community is seeking information on congenital heart defects in children (a health topic which is part and parcel of everyday life), and also aligns with Marcia Bates’ Information Behavior Model (2017) for they seek and share both medical and emotional information through both formal and informal channels. I demonstrate that I can recognize diverse information behaviors and, through LIS theory, can describe how to approach service design and comprehensive service provision.
INFO 285: Action Research Study Proposal
I secured, in advance, the permission of my group members to include their names and school email addresses as they appear in my e-Portfolio evidence.
My second piece of evidence is a group project paper for INFO 285: Action Research (Spring 2025). It discusses the information needs of Latinx communities of Fresno County, California during times of crisis and how we as a group proposed to study this information community so as to make informed suggestions on how we might address service provision. This paper was the culminating effort of a semester-long process. As a group, we met every Monday evening and systematically (as laid out by Dr Jefferson) worked on sections of the project. The specifications and parameters with length, word count, sources, and the like were clearly defined by Dr. Jefferson based on the number of group members (we were four). We evenly divide the work. Each group member wrote four annotated bibliographies. My annotated bibliographies are: the second Adkins et al. entry, Hoyer, Little and Murray, and Villagran. All other sections were co-authored by all 4 members over synchronous Zoom calls, or edited as a group asynchronously through our shared Google Drive folder. This was the last group project I was assigned, and it was the best groupwork experience of my time in the MLIS program.
This paper aligns with and supports Competency J because I demonstrate that I can identify an information community, and analyze how this specific group might engage with information services and systems within their community. The Latinx community we reference in this proposal aligns closely with Savolainen’s ELIS model, and specifically, Chatman’s Information Poverty ELIS model through its emphasis on sociopolitical context, marginalized communities, and the everyday information behavior that is exercised (or not) under constraint and fear (Immigration and Alien status, for example). This paper makes no recommendations, but is a research proposal plan that shows how we as researchers would proceed with our research concept. The proposed plan illustrates my ability to apply research methods to study information behavior and use those insights for decision-making that would enhance service design and provision.
INFO 200: LIS Model/Theory Research Summary
My third piece of evidence is the research paper on a LIS theory I completed for INFO 200: Information Communities with Dr. Kevin Bontenbal (Fall 2023). This assignment required me to write a research summary of the LIS model of my choosing and then relate it to my chosen information community. I chose to research and examine Savolainen’s Everyday Life Information Seeking (ELIS) model, connecting it to my information community of Parents of Children with Congenital Heart Defects (PCCHD). I used the current scholarship about my community to evaluate the ELIS model for its goodness of fit, and I extended this model by noting its evolution through the decades, as Savolainen sought to continually revise the ELIS model.
This evidence demonstrates my competency for understanding the information-seeking behaviors of PCCHD through understanding research methods and foundational LIS theory. I used sociological theory (Bordieu) to give credence to ELIS as a theoretical model, which demonstrates that I understand the major underpinnings of LIS theory and how it relates to developing an understanding of research of a specific information community, but also shows that I can relate the theoretical to the practical. Understanding the practical needs of my chosen information community through this lens of theoretical framework indicates I will be able to make recommendations and suggestions for appropriate ways to meet the information needs of PCCHDs, and, by extension, other information communities.
Conclusion
Understanding the information needs of users and connecting them with relevant resources is central to the field of library and information science. Developing a theoretical foundation through the study of core LIS models is essential not only for analyzing information communities, but also for designing effective services and programs that meet those communities’ specific needs. The evidence I present for this competency (particularly my exploration of LIS Models) illustrates my ability to evaluate and apply theoretical frameworks in practical settings. As I continue my career, I plan to commit time to reading and engaging with scholarly work from established LIS researchers. Maintaining an active connection to both theory and emerging research will ensure that I provide informed, evidence-based service as an information professional.
References
Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. On-Line Review, 13(5), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320
Kuhlthau, C. C. (1999). Accommodating the user’s information search process: Challenges for information retrieval system designers. American Society for Information Science. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(3), 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.115
Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “way of life”. Library & Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294.