7

An introduction to metatheories,
theories, and models

Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to provide a general introduction to some key
theoretical concepts of use in library and information science (LIS) research.
First, the three terms in the title—metatheory, theory, and model—are
defined and discussed. Next, an extended example is provided of a case in
which a researcher might consider and test various models or theories in
information-seeking research. Next, metatheories are considered at greater
length, and the distinction is made between nomothetic and idiographic
metatheories. Finally, 13 metatheoretical approaches in wide use in LIS
are described. Explanatory texts are referenced, as well as example studies
using each approach. The discussion is necessarily brief and simplifying.

Definitions
It is important, first, to distinguish the terms metatheory, theory, and
model. These concepts are often confused and used interchangeably. They

First published as Bates, M. J. (2005). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and

models. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior
(pp. 1–24). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.

256
should not be, as understanding the distinctions among them can help in
thinking about theoretical aspects of LIS.

• Metatheory A theory concerned with the investigation, analysis,

or description of theory itself. (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary)
• Theory (a) The body of generalizations and principles developed
in association with practice in a field of activity (as medicine,
music) and forming its content as an intellectual discipline. . . .
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary) (b) A system of assumptions,
accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze,
predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified
set of phenomena. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1969). (See also
Reynolds, 1971.)
• Model A tentative ideational structure used as a testing
device. . . . (American Heritage Dictionary, 1969). (See also Lave &
March, 1975.)

Metatheory can be seen as the philosophy behind the theory, the

fundamental set of ideas about how phenomena of interest in a particular
field should be thought about and researched (see also Wagner & Berger,
1985; Vakkari, 1997). The term has not been used much in LIS, but it is
rapidly becoming more important to our understanding. In earlier years,
the underlying philosophy behind research in the field could be identified
as coming from few directions—from a general humanities approach
and a general scientific approach. In recent years, however, more and
more metatheoretical approaches have been developed within the field
and borrowed from other fields. The result has been that we now have a
confusion of many approaches competing for attention.
The concept of a metatheory has a lot of overlap with the term “par-
adigm,” which was given its modern understanding in science by Thomas
Kuhn (1996). In the terms used here, Kuhn considered a paradigm to be
the metatheory, the theory, the methodology, and the ethos, all combined,
of a discipline or specialty. So paradigm would have a broader meaning
than metatheory. At the same time, metatheory is absolutely core to any
paradigm, and is defining of a paradigm in many senses.
Theory, as defined in definition (a), can be thought of as the entire
body of generalizations and principles developed for a field, as in “the
theory of LIS.” Second, and more of interest for this paper, is the concept
of a single theory. A theory is a system of assumptions, principles, and

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 257

 relationships posited to explain a specified set of phenomena. Theories
often carry with them an implicit metatheory and methodology, as in the
“rules of procedure” in definition (b). However, for most purposes, the core
meaning of theory centers around the idea of a developed understanding,
an explanation, for some phenomenon.
Models are of great value in the development of theory. They are a
kind of proto-theory, a tentative proposed set of relationships, which can
then be tested for validity. Developing a model can often help in working
through one’s thinking about a subject of interest. Indeed, there is not
always a sharp dividing line between a model and a theory about the same
phenomenon. Models sometimes stand as theoretical beacons for years,
guiding and directing research in a field, before the research finally matures
to the point of producing something closer to a true theory.
In science, a classic sequence of development has been characterized as
“description, prediction, explanation.” That is, the first task when study­ing
a new phenomenon is to describe that phenomenon. It is difficult to think
about something if you know very little about it. So description comes first.
Second, once one knows something about a phenomenon, it should be
possible to predict relationships, processes, or sequences associ­ated with
the phenomenon. Third, based on the testing of predictions, one should
be able to develop an explanation of the phenomenon, that is, a theory.
Theories can always be overturned by later theories; even when a theory
has been well tested it is always possible that later research will provide a
more thorough, deeper explanation for the phenomenon of interest.
Models are most useful at the description and prediction stages of
understanding a phenomenon. Only when we develop an explanation for
a phenomenon can we properly say we have a theory. Consequently, most
of “theory” in LIS is really still at the modeling stage.
In the next section, an example proto-theory, or model, is analyzed,
and means of testing the model are discussed. However, some metatheo-
ries explicitly eschew the value and possibility of generalizing the stud­ied
reality of a situation in order to create a theory. Ethnomethodology, for
example, “never bought into the business of theorizing, it was icono­clastic,
it would not theorize foundational matters” (Button, 1991, pp. 4–5). Rather,
ethnomethodologists “generally decline to theorize about the social world,
preferring instead to go out and study it” (Ritzer, 2000, p. 75). At a minimum
in the following discussion, one must assume a metatheoretical position
that allows for and legitimates models and the­ories. So the following
discussion cannot be applicable to every possible metatheoretical position.

258 | information and the information professions

Example using these terms
Let us take, as an example, the Principle of Least Effort. This is proba­bly
the most solid result in all of information-seeking research. Specifically, we
have found that people invest little in seeking information, preferring easy-to-use,
accessible sources to sources of known high quality that are less easy to use and/
or less accessible. Poole (1985) did a meta-analysis of 51 information-seeking
studies, in which he found this propo­sition strongly confirmed. (He also
has a good discussion of theory in LIS.)
So ease of use and accessibility of information seem to be more impor­
tant to people than quality of information. But what is the explanation
for this phenomenon? Why are people unwilling to invest that little bit
of extra energy in order to get information that they themselves would
acknowledge is of better quality? We do not really have a theory. We have
described the phenomenon; further, we have found this to be the case in
many different environments with many different types of people, so it
is a result that appears to be highly generalizable. Consequently, we can
also confidently make predictions from these results. For example, we
can predict that when we study a new group of people, they will proba­bly
also invest little energy in information seeking, and prefer easy-to-use,
accessible resources.
So, through description and prediction we have modeled the Principle
of Least Effort. Though we often represent models in diagrams that dis­
play relationships, we do not have to do so. In this case, our model can
be described in a sentence (see the italicized statement above). (For some
examples of models presented in diagram form, see Bates, 2002; Gaines,
Chen, & Shaw, 1997; Metoyer-Duran, 1991; Wang & White, 1999; Wilson,
1999.) So the Principle of Least Effort is an observed behavior, one we have
observed widely enough to confidently model as a principle. But we do not
yet have an explanation—so we do not yet have a theory.
How can we move this research from being a model to being a theory?
First, we can hypothesize various possible explanations based on work we
find elsewhere in the field or in other fields. Here are some I have thought of:
1) People “satisfice” in all realms of life, including information seek-
ing. The idea of satisficing comes from Simon (1976), who argued that
in deci­sion making, people make a good enough decision to meet their
needs, and do not necessarily consider all possible, or knowable, options.
Translated to the language of LIS, for example, using Dervin’s concept of
“Sense-Making” (Dervin, 1983, 1999), we could hypothesize that people
make sense of their situations based on what they know and can learn

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 259

 easily. Their Sense-Making need only be adequate to continue with life;
it does not need to be so perfect or extensive as to enable them to make
sense of everything.
2) People underestimate the value of what they do not know, and over-
estimate the value of what they do know. People have difficulty imagining
what the new information would be that they do not know, while what
they do know is vivid and real to them. Consequently, they underinvest
in information seeking. See Gilovich, Griffin, and Kahneman (2002) and
Kahneman and Tversky (2000) for work on distortions in decision making
and choice.
3) Gaining new knowledge may be emotionally threatening in some
cases. Gregory Bateson once described what he called “value-seeking” and
“information-seeking” (Ruesch & Bateson, 1968, pp. 178–179). In value-seeking,
a person has an idea in mind of something that he or she wants. Suppose one
wants some eggs and toast to eat, for example. One then goes out into the
world, does various things involving chickens, grain, cooking, and baking,
with the end result that one has a breakfast of eggs and toast. Thus, one
has done things to parts of the world in order to make the world match the
plan one has in mind. In information seeking, on the other hand, according
to Bateson, the directionality is reversed; one acquires information from
the world in order to impress it on one’s own mind.
However, new knowledge can always bring surprises, sometimes,
uncomfortable ones. If “we are what we know,” if our sense of self is
based, in part, on our body of knowledge of the world, then to change that
knowledge may be threatening to our sense of self.
4) Information is not tangible, and objects are. Intangible things seem
less real to us, therefore less valuable. Consequently, we invest more in
acquiring tangible than intangible things.
Each hypothesis above is not a complete explanation. For instance, why
do people satisfice? However, if we were to test this satisficing hypothesis
and we learned that people do satisfice in information seeking, we would
have an explanation that tells us more than just the observed fact of least
effort. We would then be able to place this result in the context of all the
other research in other disciplines that has observed that people satisfice
in a variety of circumstances, and could then draw on that research to
develop tentative explanations (tentative theories) that go deeper than the
satisficing explanation alone.
In fact, Simon’s satisficing may be, in effect, another name for Zipf’s
Principle of Least Effort (1949). Poole (1985) believed his results fit well with
Zipf’s earlier work. Zipf had a more extensively conceptualized under-
standing of least effort, one that constitutes a preliminary explanation,

260 | information and the information professions

i.e., theory, and which contributes to a better understanding of least effort
than we usually articulate in LIS. To Zipf, according to Poole, least effort
was technically the “least average rate of probable work” (Poole, 1985, p. 90).
That is, people do not just minimize current work associated with some
activity, because they could eventually do a total of much more work in the
end. Rather, they make a considered estimate of all likely work associated
with a given effort, now and in the future, and do the amount of work
now that they estimate will best reduce their overall effort, now and later
combined (Poole, 1985).
How could we test these four hypotheses listed? In each case one or
more studies could be designed in order to attempt to discover which, if
any, of these explanations is operating in people’s information seeking. For
example, in an experimental approach to Hypothesis 2, people could be
placed in a realistic situation where they have certain information and do
not have other information. They have to expend units in order to “pur-
chase” additional clues or hints to solve the test problem. There are other
ways they can expend those same units. The experimental subjects assign
their units according to their best judgment. Afterward, they are given the
information they did not have earlier. Do they now rate higher or lower the
value of the information that they had not had in the test situation? On
what basis do they assign value at each step of the experiment?
In an observational approach to Hypothesis 3, people could be studied
in real information-seeking situations—suppose in three different types
of situations: 1) finding information about a disease diagnosed in a family
member, 2) researching a paper in a required course on a topic of little
interest, 3) finding out more about a hobby or avocation (Hartel, 2003).
Searching could be observed and the subjects interviewed about their
feeling reactions to their situation and the acts of information seeking in
which they engage. Do they avoid new information or seek it eagerly? Are
there signs of anxiety and threat around discovering new information? Do
people have different responses to the different types of situation, and why?
In the example above, we started with a descriptive finding—the widely
observed tendency of people to prefer easy-to-use and accessible information
sources over harder to get, higher quality sources of information. This
“Principle of Least Effort” has been so widely observed that we were able
to make confident predictions about where else it might appear as well. But
we still had no explanation, no theory as to why this phenomenon occurs
(except possibly in Zipf’s original research, 1949). We hypothesized four
possible explanations, and considered ways in which these theories could
be tested. Testing might then lead to further tenta­tive theories that would
explain this phenomenon still more deeply.

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 261

 Sources of metatheories
In the preceding section much was made of models and theories. What
about metatheories? Where do they fit in? As Kuhn observed, in most nat­ural
sciences most of the time, there is a single predominant paradigm out of
which researchers identify and test research questions. Metatheories about
the nature of research and the desirable methods for each discipline are
embedded in those paradigms. In the social sciences, however, it is more
common to have a general paradigm for a field, which describes the domain
of interest for that discipline—the operations of the mind for psychology,
for example—but more than one metatheory, or philosophy of research,
competing for the loyalties of researchers within that discipline. In the case
of psychology, in the 1960s and 1970s there was a split between an older,
behaviorist metatheory for the study of psychology (Skinner, 1992 reprint),
and a newer, information process­ing approach (Chomsky, 1959; Anderson,
1995). The split went so deep that the latter approach came to be known
by a different name, cognitive science. Over the last 10 to 15 years another
metatheory, by the name of evolutionary psychology, has challenged the
information processing approach (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992).
In the sciences, a new paradigm usually revolutionizes the field, that
is, the new paradigm reconfigures all prior learning around a new core
metatheory and body of research results. Examples have been plate tec­tonic
theory in geology and molecular biology in biology. In the social sci­ences,
however, several metatheories may continue side by side. Sometimes a
metatheory will simply die out and other times it will grow and change,
and still compete for the interest of researchers.
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there has been a prolifera­tion
of metatheories in the social sciences generally, and, certainly, in LIS as
well. In our society, in general, old ways of thinking are breaking up and
breaking down; supposed eternal verities are falling right and left, from
the fall of the Berlin Wall and all that it meant about rigid social structures
in East and West, to social boundaries that formerly split communities by
race, gender, religion, and other long-standing, sta­ble divisions. Even the
eternal verities of forms of writing—the book, the journal, the newspaper
article—are being shaken up in the new world of Internet information.
Under these circumstances, we should perhaps not be surprised that
basic metatheoretical assumptions about what research is or should be are
also breaking down and being challenged by newer approaches. I think it
is also the case that different people have different cognitive styles, certain
ways of thinking that are natural to them. We are all drawn to the sort of
research and thinking that works best for us, that is most harmonious with

262 | information and the information professions

the way our minds work. Wagner and Berger (1985) call these “orienting
strategies.”
In earlier, more rigid times, it tended to be the case that only certain
orienting strategies were considered legitimate in a given field at one
time. Heaven help the psychology doctoral student who wanted to take a
qualitative approach back in the heyday of behaviorism, for example. Many
talented people were forced out, simply because they had the wrong cognitive
style for the intellectual spirit of the times. Now, there is generally more
tolerance for different approaches, although there is still some tendency to
argue that one’s own preferred approach is the one true or best philosophy
of research, and everything else is bunk.
I believe that the intensity of these struggles arises, in part, out of
the different cognitive styles people have, which then draw them to corre­
sponding different orienting strategies. It just feels so right to follow one’s
preferred approach that it just must be the case that the other guys are all
wrong. However, I believe that every orienting strategy brings us something
valuable, if we are only open to learn what it has to offer.
Thus, it is likely that there will continue to be several approaches in
LIS to studying the phenomena of interest to our field. When one takes up a
particular approach, however, it is important to understand the phi­losophy
and some of the history behind the development of a particular research
approach. That way, there will be a smooth and logically con­sistent passage
from philosophy to theory and methodology.

The nomothetic-idiographic contrast

First, we need to make a distinction between what are known as nomo-
thetic and idiographic approaches to research. These two are the most
fundamental orienting strategies of all.

• Nomothetic—“Relating to or concerned with the study or

dis­covery of the general laws underlying something” (Oxford
English Dictionary).
• Idiographic—“Concerned with the individual, pertaining to or
descriptive of single and unique facts and processes” (Oxford
English Dictionary).

The first approach is the one that is fundamental to the sciences.

Science research is always looking to establish the general law, principle,

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 263

 or theory. The fundamental assumption in the sciences is that behind all
the blooming, buzzing confusion of the real world, there are patterns or
processes of a more general sort, an understanding of which enables pre­
diction and explanation of the particulars.
The idiographic approach, on the other hand, cherishes the particulars,
and insists that true understanding can be reached only by assembling and
assessing those particulars. The end result is a nuanced description and
assessment of the unique facts of a situation or historical event, in which
themes and tendencies may be discovered, but rarely any general laws.
This approach is the one that is fundamental to the humanities. (See an
excellent discussion of these science/humanities theoretical differences in
Sandstrom & Sandstrom, 1995; see also discussion in Bates, 1994.)
For the last couple of centuries, the social sciences have been the
cross­roads where these two approaches intersect, the ground over which
the nomothetic and idiographic orienting strategies have fought. One of
the common narratives of the 20th century was of the academic social
sci­ence department, say, political science or economics, being invaded by
newcomers with a mathematical or scientific approach to their subject, in
opposition to the prior discursive, idiographic approach. In the late 20th
century, that narrative was often reversed, when postmodernist theorists
came into departments and superseded the more nomothetically oriented
researchers who had been there previously.
LIS has not been immune to these struggles, and it would not be hard
to identify departments or journals where this conflict is being carried
out. My position is that both of these orienting strategies are enormously
productive for human understanding. Any LIS department that defini­
tively rejects one or the other approach makes a foolish choice. It is more
difficult to maintain openness to these two positions, rather than insist­ing
on selecting one or the other, but it is also ultimately more productive and
rewarding for the progress of the field.

Metatheories in LIS
The purpose of this section is to present brief descriptions of a number
of the more popular metatheories that are being expressed in LIS these
days. The arraying of these approaches in a common framework may be
helpful for beginners in understanding the range of research approaches
taken in LIS.
There are many metatheories operating in the field currently. There
is disagreement between proponents of various metatheories, and there
are also various interpretations and descriptions of any one metatheory.

264 | information and the information professions

Furthermore, researchers become interested in new approaches as they
appear in the field, and may change metatheories and methodologies during
their career. Examples given below should be seen as just that, examples;
researchers should not be assumed to be always unequivocally associated
with a single metatheoretical approach.
It should also be understood that what is presented below is a personal,
idiosyncratic, and simplifying selection. See Cool (2001); Hjørland (1998, 2000);
Pettigrew, Fidel, and Bruce (2001); and Talja, Tuominen, and Savolainen
(2005) for other categorizations of metatheories.
For expositions and debates on metatheory and methodology in LIS,
see Bar-Ilan and Peritz (2002); Bates, J. A. (2004); Bates, M. J. (1999); Case
(2002); Crabtree et al. (2000); Dervin (1999, 2003); Dick (1995, 1999); Ellis
(1992); Fidel (1993); Given and Leckie (2003); McClure and Hernon (1991);
McKechnie (2000); Pettigrew and McKechnie (2001); Powell (1997, 1999);
Sandstrom and Sandstrom (1995, 1998); Sonnenwald and Iivonen (1999);
Talja (1999, 2001); Thomas and Nyce (1998); Trosow (2001); Wang (1999);
and Westbrook (1994).
With the description of each metatheory below, example applications
are provided where possible, and textual sources explaining or elaborat­ing
on the various metatheories are also suggested. The listing begins with
idiographic approaches in numbers 1–5, mixed approaches in num­bers 6
and 7, and primarily nomothetic approaches in numbers 8–13.
1) A historical approach, in which understanding of the present is seen
to arise out of an understanding of the past social, political, and eco­nomic
events and processes, which have led to current conditions. For historical
methods and issues, see Barzun and Graff’s classic work (1992), as well
as Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob (1994), and Rayward (1996). For examples
of historical research in LIS, see Hildenbrand (1996), Maack (2000), and
Wiegand and Davis (1994).
2) A constructivist approach, arising out of education and sociology,
in which individuals are seen as actively constructing an understanding
of their worlds, heavily influenced by the social world(s) in which they are
operating. According to Kuhlthau (1993), educational constructivist theory
built on the work of Dewey (1933, 1944), Kelly (1963), and Vygotsky (1978),
among others, while, according to Ritzer (2000), sociological constructivist
theory arose from Schutz (English translation 1967, original 1932), Berger
and Luckmann (1990 reprint), and the closely related ethnomethodological
work of Garfinkel (1967). Major proponents of this approach in LIS have
been Dervin (1983, 1999) and Kuhlthau (1993).
3) A constructionist or discourse-analytic approach, with both humanities
and social sciences roots, in which it is assumed that the dis­course of a

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 265

 society predominately conditions the responses of individuals within that
society, including the social understanding of information. According to
Talja, Tuominen, and Savolainen (2005), constructionism sees “language
as constitutive for the construction of selves and the for­mation of mean-
ings.” Further, “We produce and organize social reality together by using
language.” This metatheory arose from the work of Bakhtin (Holquist,
2002) and Foucault (1972), among others. Frohmann (1994) and Talja
(1999) have expounded on the use of this approach in LIS. This approach
has been applied in LIS by Budd and Raber (1996), Frohmann (2001), and
Talja (2001), among others. A non-LIS, but highly relevant example can be
seen in Hayles (1999).
4) A philosophical-analytic approach, in which the classical tech­niques
of the discipline of philosophy, namely extremely rigorous analysis of ideas
and propositions, are brought to bear on information-related mat­ters.
Certainly, the field of philosophy itself expresses and represents many
different theoretical orientations and metatheories. However, despite
the many differences among philosophers, there is a fairly univer­sal and
well-understood form of analysis and argumentation that is char­acteristic
of the discipline as a whole. Philosophers who have come into LIS, or
philosophers outside the field who have addressed LlS-related questions
inevitably bring with them this mode of analysis and discourse. For a
classic example of this, read Patrick Wilson’s still-relevant discussion on
the nature of the subject of a book (Wilson, 1968, pp. 69–92). See also Blair
(2003), Cooper (1971), Dretske (1981), Fuller (2002), and Wilson (1977, 1983).
5) A critical theory approach, in which the hidden power relations
and patterns of domination within a society are revealed and debunked
(Ritzer, 2000, p. 140ff). Michael Harris (1986) was an early practitioner in
LIS. More recently, others have joined the debate, critiquing the roles of
librarians, the kinds of research done in LIS, and so on. See Carmichael
(1998), Chu (1999), Day (2001), Roma Harris (1992), Pawley (1998), Radford
(2003), and Wiegand (1999).
6) An ethnographic approach, originating in anthropology, but now
used throughout the social sciences, involving the use of a variety of field
techniques, such as observation, documentation, and interviewing. These
techniques are intended to enable the researcher to become immersed in a
culture, identify its many elements, and begin to shape an understanding
of the experience and world views of the people studied (Fielding, 1993).
In LIS, see, for example, Chatman (1992), Kwasnik (1992), Pettigrew (2000),
and Wilson and Streatfield (1981). A related, popular approach is grounded
theory development (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). See Ellis (1993), Ellis and Hau-
gan (1997), Kwasnik (1991), and Mellon (1986). Sandstrom and Sandstrom

266 | information and the information professions

(1995) discuss the ways in which both nomothetically and idiographically
oriented researchers have used ethnographic methods.
7) A socio-cognitive approach (Hjørland, 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 and 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 and 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, 2001),
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. See Bishop and Star’s review (1996), as well as work by Kling and
McKim (2000), and Palmer (2001). This metatheory shares some of both
the nomothetic and idiographic orientations.
8) A cognitive approach, arising out of cognitive science, in which the
thinking of the individual person operating in the world is the dominat­ing
focus of research on information seeking, retrieval, and use (Bates, 1979;
Belkin, 1990; Belkin, Oddy, & Brooks, 1982; Ellis, 1989; Ingwersen, 1992,
1999). See Newell and Simon (1972) and Anderson (1995) for expositions
of this approach.
9) A bibliometric approach, in which the analysis of the statistical
properties of information is seen to provide understanding of value for both
the design of information provision and the theoretical understand­ing of
social processes around information, including historical processes. The
earliest theory was provided by Bradford (1948) and Zipf (1949). More recent
major work has been done by Brookes (1968), Price (1986), Small (1999),
and White and McCain (1998), among others. Much of this work has been
made possible through the existence of cita­tion indexes (Garfield, 1983).
10) A physical approach to information transfer, dating principally
from the 1950s and 1960s interest in signaling and physical communica­tion

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 267

 generated by the development of Claude Shannon’s information the­ory
(Cherry, 1966; Miller, 1951; Pierce, 1961; Shannon & Weaver, 1975; Wiener,
1961).
11) An engineering approach to information, in which it is assumed
that human needs and uses of information can best be accommodated
by successive development and testing of ingenious systems and devices
to improve information retrieval and services. The fundamental test
of validity for the engineering approach is an operational one, namely,
“Does it work?” Thus a major method of developing new knowledge in
engineering is through “proof of concept” work, in which an experimental
system or device is developed and tested, improved, tested some more, and
so on. For theory of engineering, see Dahlbom, Beckman, and Nilsson
(2002) and Simon (1981). For applications in LIS, see Croft and Thompson
(1987), Hendry and Harper (1997), Kraft and Petry (1997), Over (2001), and
Salton and McGill (1983). Variations on this approach are found in artificial
intelligence (Minsky, 1968; Russell & Norvig, 1995) and natural language
processing (Allen, 1995; Chowdury, 2003; Liddy et al., 1993).
12) A user-centered design approach, in which the development and
human testing of information organization and information system designs
is seen as a path to both scientific understanding and improved informa-
tion access. User-centered design takes the “Does it work?” engi­neering
question one step farther, and asks, “Does it work so well that people can
concentrate on what they are doing rather than on operating the system or
device?” Classic work in this area is by Norman (1990) and Nielsen (1993).
A great deal of design work relevant to LIS goes on in human-computer
interaction research (Carroll, 2002; Rogers, 2004). A number of people in
LIS focus on user-centered design, for example, Ackerman (2000), Bates
(1990, 2002), Dillon (1994, 1995), Hildreth (1989), and Marchionini (1995).
See also Marchionini and Komlodi (1998).
13) An evolutionary approach, in which the insights of biology and
evolutionary psychology are brought to bear on information-related phe­
nomena (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Wright, 1994). This approach
is just beginning to appear in LIS. See Bates (2005, 2006), Madden (2004),
and Sandstrom (1994, 1999).
Each of the metatheories above is some part philosophy and some
part methodology. However, the historical, philosophical-analytic, ethno­
graphic, bibliometric, engineering, and design approaches are primarily
methodology with some philosophy attached, while the others, the con­
structivist, discourse-analytic, critical theory, socio-cognitive, cognitive,
physical, and evolutionary approaches are driven more by philosophical
and theoretical orientations, which have methodological implications.

268 | information and the information professions

Summary and conclusions
The objective of this chapter has been to introduce the concepts of
metatheory, theory, and model, and distinguish them for the purposes of
doing research in information seeking. An example result, the Principle
of Least Effort, has been analyzed and discussed in relation to the three
concepts. Methods of bringing this model closer to the status of a theory
have been suggested.
The sources of metatheories in the social sciences have been discussed,
and the nomothetic-idiographic distinction has been explained. Finally,
13 metatheories operating in LIS have been described. Sources for each
metatheory and examples of its application have been presented.

acknowledgments
I wish to thank Karen Fisher and Sanda Erdelez for inviting me to present this
paper, and Jenna Hartel for her very helpful suggestions on the manuscript.

references
Ackerman, M.S. (2000). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social
requirements and technical feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2–3), 179–203.
Allen, J.F. (1995). Natural language understanding (2ⁿd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Benja-
min-Cummings.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1969). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Anderson, J.R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: W.H.
Freeman.
Appleby, J., Hunt, L., & Jacob, M. (1994). Telling the truth about history. New York: Norton.
Bar-Ilan, J., & Peritz, B.C. (2002). Informetric theories and methods for exploring the
Internet: An analytical survey of recent research literature. Library Trends, 50(3),
371–392.
Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barzun, J., & Graff, H.F. (1992). The modern researcher (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Bates, J.A. (2004). Use of narrative interviewing in everyday information behavior
research. Library & Information Science Research, 26(1), 15–28.
Bates, M.J. (1979). Information search tactics. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 30(4), 205–214.
Bates, M.J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface
start? Information Processing & Management, 26(5), 575–591.
Bates, M.J. (1994). The design of databases and other information resources for
humanities scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project report no. 4. Online &
CDROM Review 18(6), 331–340.

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 269

 Bates, M.J. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043–1050.
Bates, M.J. (2002). The cascade of interactions in the digital library interface. Information
Processing & Management, 38(3), 381–400.
Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for
information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Retrieved from http://
InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html.
Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045.
Belkin, N.J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information
Science, 16(1), 11–15.
Belkin, N.J., Oddy, R.N., & Brooks, H.M. (1982). ASK for information retrieval: Part I.
Background and theory. Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61–71.
Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1990 reprint). The social construction of reality: A treatise
in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a socio-cognitive
perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475–509.
Bishop, A.P., & Star, S.L. (1996). Social informatics of digital library use and infrastructure.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 31, 301–401.
Blair, D.C. (2003). Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. Annual Review
of Information Science and Technology, 37, 3–50.
Bowers, F.T. (1994). Principles of bibliographical description. New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press.
Bradford, S.C. (1948). Documentation. London: Crosby Lockwood.
Brookes, B.C. (1968). Derivation and applications of the Bradford-Zipf distribution.
Journal of Documentation, 24(4), 247–265.
Budd, J.M., & Raber, D. (1996). Discourse analysis: Method and application in the study
of information. Information Processing & Management, 32(2), 217–226.
Button, G. (1991). Introduction: Ethnomethodology and the foundational respecification
of the human sciences. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences,
(pp. 1–9). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Carmichael, J.V.J. (1998). Daring to find our names: The search for lesbigay library history.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Carroll, J.M. (Ed.). (2002). Human-computer interaction in the new millennium. New
York: ACM Press.
Case, D.O. (1991). Conceptual organization and retrieval of text by historians: The role
of memory and metaphor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
42(9), 657–668.
Case, D.O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking,
needs, and behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Chatman, E.A. (1992). The information world of retired women. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Cherry, C. (1966). On human communication: A review, a survey, and a criticism (2ⁿd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–57.
Chowdury, G.G. (2003). Natural language processing. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology, 37, 51–89.
Chu, C.M. (1999). Literacy practices of linguistic minorities: Sociolinguistic issues and
implications for literacy services. The Library Quarterly, 69(3), 339–359.
Cool, C. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 35, 5–42.
Cooper, W.S. (1971). Definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage
and Retrieval, 7(1), 19–37.

270 | information and the information professions

Covi, L.M. (1999). Material mastery: Situating digital library use in university research
practices. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 293–316.
Crabtree, A., Nichols, D.M., O’Brien, J., Rouncefield, M., & Twidale, M.B. (2000).
Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 666–682.
Croft, W.B., & Thompson, R.H. (1987). I3R: A new approach to the design of document
retrieval systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38(6) 389–404.
Dahlbom, B., Beckman, S., & Nilsson, G.B. (2002). Artifacts and artificial science. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Day, R.E. (2001). The modern invention of information. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Dervin, B. (1983). Information as a user construct: The relevance of perceived information
needs to synthesis and interpretation. In S.A.Ward & L.J.Reed (Eds.), Knowledge
structure and use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 155–183). Phila-
delphia: Temple University Press.
Dervin, B. (1997). Given a context by any other name: Methodological tools for taming
the unruly beast. In Vakkari, P., Savolainen, R., & Dervin, B. (Eds.), Information
seeking in context. Proceedings of an international conference on research in information
needs, seeking and use in different contexts (pp. 13–38). London: Taylor Graham.
Dervin, B., (1999). On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications
of connecting metatheory to method. Information Processing & Management,
35(6): 727–750.
Dervin, B. (2003). Human studies and user studies: A call for methodological inter-dis-
ciplinarity. Information Research, 9(1), paper 166. Retrieved March 12, 2004, from
http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper166.html.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dick, A.L. (1995). Library and information science as a social science: Neutral and
normative conceptions. The Library Quarterly, 65(2), 216–235.
Dick, A.L. (1999). Epistemological positions and library and information science. The
Library Quarterly, 69(3), 305–323.
Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic text: Ergonomic aspects of human information
usage. London: Taylor & Francis.
Dillon, A. (1995). Artifacts as theories: Convergence through user-centered design.
Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 32, 208–210.
Dretske, F.I. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal
of Documentation, 45(3), 171–212.
Ellis, D. (1992). The physical and cognitive paradigms in information retrieval research.
Journal of Documentation, 48(1), 45–64.
Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A
grounded theory approach. The Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469–486.
Ellis, D., & Haugan, M. (1997). Modeling the information seeking patterns of engineers
and research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation,
53(4), 384–403.
Fidel, R. (1993). Qualitative methods in information retrieval research. Library &
Information Science Research, 15(3), 219–247.
Fielding, N. (1993). Ethnography. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life (pp. 154–186).
London: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Frohmann, B. (1994). Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information
science. Library & Information Science Research, 16(2), 119–138.

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 271

 Frohmann, B. (2001). Discourse and documentation: Some implications for pedagogy
and research. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42(1), 12–26.
Fuller, S. (2002). Social epistemology (2ⁿd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Gaines, B.R., Chen, L.L.J., & Shaw, M.L.G. (1997). Modeling the human factors of scholarly
communities supported through the Internet and World Wide Web. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 48(11), 987–1003.
Garfield, E. (1983). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and
humanities. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology
of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Given, L.M., & Leckie, G.J. (2003). “Sweeping” the library: Mapping the social activity
space of the public library. Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 365–385.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Harris, M.H. (1986). State, class and cultural reproduction: Toward a theory of library
service in the United States. Advances in Librarianship, 14, 211–252.
Harris, R.M. (1992). Librarianship: The erosion of a woman’s profession. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hartel, J. (2003). The serious leisure frontier in library and information science: Hobby
domains. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 228–238.
Hayles, N.K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature,
and informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hendry, D.G., & Harper, D.J. (1997). An informal information-seeking environment.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(11), 1036–1048.
Hildenbrand, S., Ed. (1996). Reclaiming the American library past: Writing the women in.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hildreth, C.R. (1989). Intelligent interfaces and retrieval methods for subject searching in
bibliographic retrieval systems. Washington, DC: Library of Congress Cataloging
Distribution Service.
Hjørland, B. (1998). Theory and metatheory of information science: A new interpretation.
Journal of Documentation, 54(5), 606–621.
Hjørland, B. (2000). Library and information science: Practice, theory, and philosophical
basis. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 501–531.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information
science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
53(4), 257–270.
Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science:
Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6),
400–425.
Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world (2ⁿd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information retrieval interaction. London: Taylor Graham.
Ingwersen, P. (1999). Cognitive information retrieval. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology, 34, 3–52.
Jacob, E.K., & Shaw, D. (1998). Sociocognitive perspectives on representation. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 33, 131–185.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Kelly, G.A. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the
shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306–1320.

272 | information and the information professions

Kraft, D.H., & Petry, F.E. (1997). Fuzzy information systems: Managing uncertainty in
databases and information retrieval systems. Fuzzy Sets & Systems, 90(2), 183–191.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information
services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Kwasnik, B.H. (1991). The importance of factors that are not document attributes in
the organisation of personal documents. Journal of Documentation, 47(4), 389–398.
Kwasnik, B.H. (1992). Descriptive study of the functional components of browsing. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the IFIP TC2\WG2.7 working conference on
engineering for human-computer interaction, Elivuoi, Finland, August 10–14, 1992.
Lave, C.A., & March, J.G. (1975). An introduction to models in the social sciences. New
York: Harper & Row.
Liddy, E.D., Jorgensen, C.L., Sibert, E.E., & Yu, E.S. (1993). A sublanguage approach
to natural language processing for an expert system. Information Processing &
Management, 29(5), 633–645.
Maack, M.N. (2000). “No philosophy carries so much conviction as the personal life”:
Mary Wright Plummer as an independent woman. The Library Quarterly, 70(1), 1–46.
Madden, A.D. (2004). Evolution and information. Journal of Documentation, 60(1), 9–23.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Marchionini, G., & Komlodi, A. (1998). Design of interfaces for information seeking.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 33, 89–130.
McClure, C.R., & Hernon, P. (Eds.). (1991). Library and Information Science Research:
Perspectives and strategies for improvement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McKechnie, L.E.F. (2000). Ethnographic observation of preschool children. Library &
Information Science Research, 22(1), 61–76.
Mellon, C.A. (1986). Library anxiety—A grounded theory and its development. College
& Research Libraries, 47(2), 160–165.
Metoyer-Duran, C. (1991). Information-seeking behavior of gatekeepers in ethnolinguistic
communities: Overview of a taxonomy. Library & Information Science Research,
13(4), 319–346.
Miller, G.A. (1951). Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Minsky, M.L., Ed. (1968). Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston, MA: AP Professional.
Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Orlikowski, W.J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative
practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541–574.
Over, P. (2001). The TREC interactive track: An annotated bibliography. Information
Processing & Management, 37(3), 369–381.
Paisley, W.J. (1968). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology, 3, 1–30.
Palmer, C.L. (2001). Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary
research process. Dordrecht, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Pawley, C. (1998). Hegemony’s handmaid—The library and information studies curriculum
from a class perspective. The Library Quarterly, 68(2), 123–144.
Pettigrew, K.E. (2000). Lay information provision in community settings: How community
health nurses disseminate human services information to the elderly. The Library
Quarterly, 70(1), 47–85.
Pettigrew, K.E., & McKechnie, L. (2001). The use of theory in information science research.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 62–73.

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 273

 Pettigrew, K.E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35, 43–78.
Pierce, J.R. (1961). Symbols, signals, and noise: The nature and process of communication.
New York: Harper.
Poole, H. (1985). Theories of the middle range. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Powell, R.R. (1997). Basic research methods for librarians (3rd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Powell, R.R. (1999). Recent trends in research: A methodological essay. Library &
Information Science Research, 21(1), 91–119.
Price, D.J. de Solla. (1986). Little science, big science. . . and beyond. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Radford, G.P. (2003). Trapped in our own discursive formations: Toward an archaeology
of library and information science. The Library Quarterly, 73(1), 1–18.
Rayward, W.B. (1996). The history and historiography of information science: Some
reflections. Information Processing & Management, 32(1), 3–17.
Reynolds, P.D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Ritzer, G. (2000). Modern sociological theory (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 87–143.
Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1968). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New
York: Norton.
Russell, S.J., & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Salton, G., & McGill, M.J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Sandstrom, A.R., & Sandstrom, P.E. (1995). The use and misuse of anthropological methods
in library and information science research. The Library Quarterly, 65(2), 161–199.
Sandstrom, A.R., & Sandstrom, P.E. (1998). Science and nonscience in qualitative
research: A response to Thomas and Nyce. The Library Quarterly, 68(2), 249–254.
Sandstrom, P.E. (1994). An optimal foraging approach to information seeking and use.
The Library Quarterly, 64(4), 414–449.
Sandstrom, P.E. (1999). Scholars as subsistence foragers. Bulletin of the American Society
for Information Science, 25(3), 17–20.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1975). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Simon, H.A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in
administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Simon, H.A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2ⁿd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1992). Science and human behavior (1992 ed.). New York: Classics of Psychiatry
and Behavioral Sciences Library.
Small, H. (1999). A passage through science: Crossing disciplinary boundaries. Library
Trends, 48(1), 72–108.
Sonnenwald, D.H., & Iivonen, M. (1999). An integrated human information behavior
research framework for information studies. Library & Information Science Research,
21(4), 429–457.
Talja, S. (1999). Analyzing qualitative interview data: The discourse analytic method.
Library & Information Science Research, 21(4), 459–477.
Talja, S. (2001). Music, culture, and the library: An analysis of discourses. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.

274 | information and the information professions

Talja, S., Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (2005). “Isms” in information science: Construc-
tivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 79–101.
Thomas, N.P., & Nyce, J.M. (1998). Qualitative research in LIS—redux: A response to a
(re)turn to positivistic ethnography. The Library Quarterly, 68(1), 108–113.
Trosow, S.E. (2001). Standpoint epistemology as an alternative methodology for library
and information science. The Library Quarterly, 71(3), 360–382.
Updike, D.B. (2001). Printing types: Their history, forms, and use (4th ed. expanded). New
Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press.
Vakkari, P. (1997). Information seeking in context: A challenging metatheory. In P. Vakkari,
R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context, Proceedings of
an international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use
in different contexts, (pp. 451–464). London: Taylor Graham.
Vaughan, M.W., & Dillon, A. (1998). The role of genre in shaping our understanding of
digital documents. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 35, 559–566.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, D.G., & Berger, J. (1985). Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of
Sociology, 90(4), 697–728.
Wang, P.L. (1999). Methodologies and methods for user behavioral research. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 53–99.
Wang, P.L., & White, M.D. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research
project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 50(2), 98–114.
Westbrook, L. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of major stages, data
analysis techniques, and quality controls. Library & Information Science Research,
16(3), 241–254.
White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation
analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.
Wiegand, W.A. (1999). Tunnel vision and blind spots: What the past tells us about the
present: Reflections on the twentieth-century history of American librarianship.
The Library Quarterly, 69(1), 1–32.
Wiegand, W.A., & Davis, D.G. (Eds.). (1994). Encyclopedia of library history. New York:
Garland.
Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics: Or, control and communication in the animal and the machine
(2ⁿd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilson, P. (1968). Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Wilson, P. (1977). Public knowledge, private ignorance: Toward a library and information
policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Wilson, T.D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation,
55(3), 249–270.
Wilson, T.D., & Streatfield, D.R. (1981). Structured observation in the investigation of
information needs. Social Science Information Studies, 1(3), 173–184.
Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New
York: Vintage Books.
Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human
ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

two | 7 An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models | 275