L

_`
_ `

l
-

1
,

gb'

.
I

M
'

5
-f

A
_.~

R
-4 .

off/

L/_ _/of

L11

T"
/
.n

Svtfal Science

Studies (1935), frgfonnation

fl 1-23]

INFORMATION

SCIENCE

NEEDS

A THEORY

OF

INFORMATION

ACTIONS

G. WERSIG
INSTRA Prfykct

AND

G. WINDEL

Z Department f Communication Science, ree University F o qfBer1n,

Federal

Republicof Germany

INTRODUCTION
or less science, seen as an academic discipline and not as a more information to be appendix to traditional practice, currently seems undergoing change. Certain trends can be noted, at least in the UK and West science is forming itself into some sort of a Germany. Generally, infomation social science at the interface between such technical as cybernetics, disciplines science, telecommunications, technologically based subjects like computer mass like communications, social sciences like sociology, and humanities psychology. Having not yet built a coherent corpus of ideas, models or theories or science is analytic-methodological tools, or a scholarly tradition, information still looking for its true destinationf This becomes obvious if we look at the there is no widely accepted handbook of information published literature: sciencethe number of articles asking what information science should be is ; by no means decreasing; the terrninological confusions among terms such as information , 1ibrary , computer , science and studies continue.

Infomation irrelevant

Numerous
or

journals try

to

subsections

of the field-

become This

established
seems

to

with be one

competing
reason

views

science is still wide open to influences coming from the environment, whether from societal developments in general or from the academic world. Some developments, which seem to on information science at put pressure

why

ofthe field information

present
2. 3.

are

as

follows:

1. The

discussion in the social sciences and mass communications. theory techdevelopments in the technological field (c.g., information nology). The general criticism of a science-based culture (note, for example, the discussions on atomic and pollution) and its implications for a energy New
new sciencc . trends

4. Certain
5.

failures

New

and shortcomings in information in artificial intelligence.

practice.

Though

far from

being exhaustive,

this

agenda can

give

us

relatively

clear

o143_s2asfs5fo1

0011-13

isss

sutterwsnh

sl Co

(Publishers) Ltd

12

actions f1"f0f |710flbH

picture ofthe
years

problems

There to come. doing analytical and methodological tools, its models, concepts variety of disciplines, shaping them in a new way. basis for information In the search for a theoretical science, Roberts (1982) One can has made some agree with proposals which are worth comment. of empirical harsh criticism of the shortcomings and deficiencies Roberts The studies. in information research implicit science, especially in user is rationally information behaviour that of these studies assumptions and organized motivated (Roberts, 1982: 97) and remains relatively stable in man of the classical period. The time are, indeed, an analogy to economic

and fields which information can be no doubt that by

science has
this

in the to tackle its it has to draw and theories from the

transfer of the non-empirical concept of economic man to information the faults ofthe former approach especially the lack behaviour would not remove one The ideal of empirical validity. type of approach is a normative with the author s plea for empirical conflicts and, therefore, necessarily the research; the normative approach is very weak in taking into account behaviour. ln following aspects of information Subjective and non-rational Roberts support of qualitative research to uncover, analyse and understand the facts of everyday life, the normative approach in particular would not be basis of information That the empirically supported theoretical sufficient. are concerned, is extremely poor, has been stated by science, as far as users numerous authors, of which Roberts is only one (for reviews see Windel, 1980; at af., 1981).It is thus interesting to consider proposalsto change this
,

Plageman
To

unsatisfactory

state

ofthe

art.

be brief: Roberts model of information

all suggestions point in

man

one

direction:

analogous concept This model is seen by developed by modern economics. some generalized assumptions about the information-oriented
to

the

the building of a man of economic Roberts to rest on

behaviour

of

The purpose of this realities. beings which conforms with information in as a useful device model of information man, then, is to serve complex empirical research. man and primitive model of information Contrary to the unrealistic in numerous user studies and bibliometrics, Roberts information employed and nonanimal man is a complex and differentiated guided by rational loolc rational motives and behaviour. But what do these motives and behaviour man? and empirical elements of information What are the structural like? the slightest hint of an answer to these Roberts fails to give the reader even he claims that Instead ultimately, all information activity is questions. and actions (Roberts, 1982; 98] and that, to individual motivations reducible From that we may the central unit of study has to be the individual. therefore, human

be

justified

in

concluding

that

information

man

is

primarily

psychological

construct.

what all those But about information influence ongoing like status, prestige and group

social,

economic
It

processes?What
dynamics?

and cultural factors, which about intervening variables of the model seems to us that

information
Sided
to

man
a

which
full

rests

behaviour really is; that give picture of what information Roberts words thecomplex, interactive process that is summarized behaviour (Roberts, 1982; 96). If this holds true label information

primarily

on

psychological grounds

is too

one-

is,

in

by

the then

information
has to be

man,

as

depicted by Roberts,
others.

can

only

be

one

tool of

analysis and

supported by

G, Wsksto

.mn

G. WINDEL

13

THE

INSTRAT

APPROACH

As Shown above, the concept of information man has severe shortcomings,so that it cannot be seen far reaching how, by employing only this concept, advances in the understanding of information behaviour can be reached.

The INSTRAT
combine

approach (Plagernan et al., 1981; Wersig et al., 1982) tries to information elements, which determine processes (e.g., driving forces, strategies, models, actions). Though the models are highly theoretical constructs they are related to reality. The key idea of this approach is that information and information processes behaviour can be described, analysedand understood as being segments of an underlying factor, i.e., a problem. From this it follows that it is the problem` from which analysis has to start. Information can then be seen as being only one element, though an important one, contributing to coping with that
those

structural

problem.
An
account

approach

is needed

which
tries
to

avoids

information

any
a

but processes, of all structural

behavioural,

cultural,

develop elements, including

isolation basis which

of

one

would

in component be able to take

etc.

Roberts

logical factors (i.e., motivation); an approach which covers intervening components has to include additional elements
be constructed. This model components:
l.
can

approach leans

psychological, strategic, too heavily on psychoso

the whole range of that a model can three structural

be

imagined

to

consist

of

the

following

T/zez`ndz`vid'ual insofar approach.

processes

as

every situation
to

has

to

be

reduced

individual

(traits, motives, values, etc.), as Roberts points oui correctly. 2. The collmive approach. In information the actors often are not processes in their own only individuals right, but also representatives of collective units which influence the individua.l s performance. Information, seen as a mediation from the point of view of producers process, ofknowlcdge, is often a process which takes place within a collective unit without firmly ascribed roles. In this case, for example, the specific kind and function of group dynamics has to be taken into account. 3. The process approach.This component covers the dynamics of an information process, structural factors in any underlying whereby the dominant information are delineated. process Unfortunately, this does not tell us
important
role,
where ofthe at the
to start

conditions

and action in information and their personal psychological factors do play an

actors

investigation
involved. process.

of

an

information
we

process
to

and

the behaviour
element

people
core

Therefore,

have

look

for

the central

of that

On the process

ryfprobfemfrealment

the underlying force which induces individuals look for information, process, store and disseminate it, problem which can be defined as a slate of uneasiness about any object in world or the universe. So far, most models in this area have started with collective units
to

Generally speaking,

and is a the
the

notion

of information

need'.

As

Wilson

(1981a, b)

has

pointed

out,

this

categoryis:

14

hifo-mwtionarffonr
1.

Very
Not

unclear
very
to

(and may
more

remain

so).
cases

2.

realistic

because

be related

in most general needs.

to

manifest

information

needs

can

separated into sound typology required), which require primary needs (for which needs, secondary information kind of information, of some the provision by using which aim at something other than the provision of information for the primary purposes. Examples of information provision only as a means the state gained by running an online search, are needs secondary information overcoming the boredom of waiting for something, meeting a nice librrian, not be would From the viewpoint of information man these activities etc. of information may agenciesthey true information needs; from the viewpoint needs (under more even become important than primary information marketing aspects). in real
Information nced according ,
a

these

suggestions,needs
would and be

to

be

Typologies of this life the organism is

contribute
of course, money,

situation and this may be called the problem (or in earlier

lematic

etc.).

at any time kind so far have failed, perhapsbecause needs several different of a need situation: in the state from one place to another is, the need to move to this situation (e.g. , with the status need, a need for comfort, a need to have combined a need More interesting than the needs is what is caused by

writings

probwith

situation

).We

propose

that

information
an

science

should

start

looking at individuals a problem.

information concept
1.

(or collectives) where

the

unspecific

need

situation
now

causes

science, especially its

assumptions are (as in

The

problern with
of

process the concept of economic

a

empirical branch, has of problem-solving.

man):
who
acts

linked

the

The

underlying

existence

problem-solver,
whose

purposively rationally
solutions
can

2.

(zweckrational-M.Weber). ofa problem The existence be sufficiently described.

look
at

elements

and alternative

only a naive assumptions hold true

It takes

people coping
some

with

problems
contexts.

only

for

pcoplcbehaviour s
e.g.,
l.
2.

towards

problems

well-delined is determined

by

that these Instead, in reality other characteristics,

to
see

3.

4.

and therefore matter personal cognition ofa problem is an individual chosen. are solving strategies but may be mean eo ipso its solution The Cognition of a problem may not which fits the respective person. in a manner eventually transformed it and to to redefine not to solve it, but can a Solving problem mean, of action, which makes the real solution look for a more simple strategy suprlluous. (Freud (1965) has shown us how this is done.) in information role External knowledge, which has played the dominant In respect of modes so far, may activities only have a secondary function. internalized their and choice, of action, provision of alternatives and motives may consciously of knowledge, as well as values fragments or subconsciously have a much greater in fluence.

The

These

ideas

indicate

that-much
internal

earlier
process
may

than
take

is realized

approaches-a

long

place

in

which

by problem-solving a problem is

G. wi-:testo

AND

G. Wmost.

15

The at for the best individual underlying needs, the way to cope. the knowledge will influence this process (e.g., in the very early motivations, of solution, defining the choice of alternatives, selection of strategies, directions looked

problem and
inputs
process whereas
can

related

into

the

goals) and organism which

in time. The

may
are

be influenced caused by other

need-behaviour'

by this process ongoing activities

is
a

or

as

other this

proceeds
the

relation

rather
us

notion

of
an

stages which
process

play

problemtreatment important role within

since

enables process

to

static one, look at the

be observed.

And

the optimal field enormously. To help peoplein treating their problems may mean even to help at stages where so far they them define their problem and select their strategy are left alone by formalized services which require as a starting point a rather where in the need state late stage ofthe the person process consciously takes an
action.

the organism before any behaviour of this could be changed in the course everything could of activity of external sources be widened

it seems to be more useful to replace Taking all these points into account, we flexible, i.c., realistic, concept which may call problem-solvingby a more treatment' The starting point ofthe concept problem is a treatt'net1t'. problem who is influenced thc factors: hu man at a certain time, being by
1,

Present
Past

situation.

2.
3.
4.

ofthe organism (personal history). System of preferences (values, opinions, attitudes, etc.). Set of potentials (cognitive, affective, aesthetic, etc.)_
states

These

factors

assumption is are complcxly

considered
as

that

contribute such

to
an

the

actual
are

state
a

organism has
and

set
not

interwoven

usually

of the organism. A further of desires' or aspirations which in congruency. The concept of

a

in a rather state is used in this context cybernetical sense, meaning of the organism which is essential for the whole process, which

situation

could
and
state.

be
for The
as

forming a stable pattern in an observable period of could be defined to reach another which-in principle--a transition constitutes thc aspect of the state which is following description being essential (from the viewpoint of this presentation).
Stalzl
This

time

looked

at

then would

be the

recognition ofincongruity
be connected

ofthe

state

of

aspirations.
for the

recognition

should

with

an

analysis ofthe

reasons

incongruity. Stale 2 would be the state where it is decided whether the reasoning/analysis is sufficient (ifnot, this may lead to external search behaviour (ESBD. State 3: a sufficient analysis leads to problem recognition which usually should be related to a first effort--benefit assessment. in which a is of direction State 4 permits a. first choice possible Solution searched tor. Stale 5 would be the validation of the solution direction (perhaps again to ESB) which offers at least three major alternatives. leading
1. 2.

Redefinition Redefinition

of the state

3.

Recognition
or

ofthe ofthe

aspiration. problem recognition. possiblegoal.

of the
to
or state goal-a type of some object to be a goal description (again perhaps requiring

State 6 is the validation

achieved

acquired leading

16

Iffonnalrohactions

Stat)7interrelation
_

ESB

is the

of

goal description

and

iirst

treatment

assessment

(which may require ESB). Stale 8 is a first analysis of possibly needed and perhapsaccessible resources. under consideraStarr 9 is an effort- oenelit forecast for the specitic treatment tion (again perhaps requiring ESB).
State 10 then would
state

be

decision how to go
or

on:
or

1.

Redeli

ne

of

aspiration,

problem recognition,

goal recognition.

2.

Goal attainment.

Slate II
treatment

Stale I2

pursue toward:
I. 2.

goal definition, usually already in terms strategies (perhaps requiring ESB). the organism treatment is the concrete strategy The treatment strategy (perhaps requiring ESB).
is the

appropriate
is

for
to

undertaking
be directed

would

Resources.

3.
4.

Capabilities. Operations (programmes). operations. Strategy redefinition

all external elements, strategies of acquisition have to be defined (by a could be analysed in a similar which way). Information needs procedure within the needed could then be regarded as those resources (traditional) nature. are of an informational treatment Strategy which needs to be considered: more this sense-many Clearly, there are-in For
1.

Strategic
process.

needs

are

all needs

which

arrive

in the process

to

complete

the

2. 3.

strategy. Primary needs are those that are speciliedin the treatment Secondary needs are those needs occurring to fulfil an ESB.
1

a process may be problem treatment think of further complexities. In nearly all looked at. Of course, states. On the other hand, simplificaa loop could states go back to all other like instinct, habit, are tions by possible ( e>cpressways ) using factors

Figure

gives

first

impression of it is possible to

how

experience.
However,
1.

this would

not

change the general value

be to it would

ofthe

model: which State

clearly appears Proble1'n~solving requires a rather late state (perhaps 12).

information
decisions
are

possibility only one only be applicable at

a

2.

may

play a role but where early states

is
a

not
a

necessarily
treatment information

central

one.

direction
could for
or

is
be of

Most selected

(State 4).
3. 4.
Problem
treatment

process
it is

in

which

help
content

in

all states, almost The information

whether which

consciously sought
be of

not.

could

help changes

in

form

and

from This
and makes

state

to state.

dynamic the relation specific problem does not require

each

single

process

may

problemand inforrn_ation . A specific ofknowledge but each individual knowledge require at each state very different
between
a

set

..

G. WERSIG

AND

G. WINDEL

PfClUUi
Situation

Status
ante

Preference

system

PO'-em'|5

Status

1|

Desire
state

State

lncongruency, recognition

Internal

reason,

analysis
State 2

9
Y

"'

Cvgrlltlve

e
Y

2 State
3

Problem Cost-benefit Soluiion

recognition
assessment

direction

51016

<>
Y

Cognnive

<>
Y

Sme

Desire

state

Problem

redefinition

Goo,

recognilion

recognition

9
Stole
S1513 Sim 6
7

C ogni 1 ive

opermions

3
E

Goul

description
assessment
--

Treatment

3
Q
B Gooi
re

State

.\
State
IO

Effort-benefn forecast

recognition

Stare

11

E
--

Goal

definition

5 El

We

12

Resources 1F`llEl"l"lC||

Capotiiiities

,--I -,
external

,_._,H_|____
1
9

Operations ,_|___1
1
e-

Strategy
1

operations

~=f1<>f f=f1f"
e

.-- ""'- -H Acquisition strategies

FIG.

1. A model

for

problem

treatment

18

ibn fnfirrrtrzt

affirms

which perhaps is only loosely related to the need' as stated by the individual. If information services could know about the states of the treatment process, of thc problem, about resources about the nature available to the person they could try to help this person in formulating problems, g strategiesandoals, itself instead of later perhaps improving the treatment trying to provide
information which is felt to be needed after a wrong or suboptimal strategy has been chosen. Obviously they do not know and the only possibility for them to know is by looking for some kind of overt behaviour or action by the user . But we know that before users direct their actions towards information services external they often in earlier stages of the problem process

thus

so-called

contact service under these people, etc. Contacting an information be regarded as an act of desperation. Ifwe consider the problems of people as the basis of information science and the general frame of reference towards which information services have to be directed, we have to admit that:
other conditions could
sources,

1.

Information
treatment

behaviour
process
or

is

only

one

where

external

indicator of information

state

perhapsat
2. Document

that stage of mechanisms

may
not
even

be
a

habits problem treatment knowledge provision is only one

of interest
to

of
in

provision
situation.

the problem of help (and the best one). whole of range

in

the

person

the

problematic
provision
in which

The

individual

mechanisms,

(or group) in therefore, have

the need state and to be looked at

the
as

possible external
an

action

information activities as we are used to think of them form only one aspect which is embedded in a much larger context. To deal with this situation it seems to be unavoidable for information science to develop a kind of theory of action which allows one to localize and describe information action more pro erly. The initial attempts that have been undertaken are outlined below. he rriain idea is that a u re c osely related concepts but are used for different and are therefore purposes distinguished more by the criteria the analyst applies to them than When we are by their nature. concerned with behaviour we concentrate on what is observable, whereas when we tall: about action we that behind the action there is an pre-suppose intention ofthe actor to achieve makes the action something and this intention In looking at actions we are meaningfuiat least for the actor. always faced with the question of understandin the underlying sense. restric e seems at t is eory of action w ic stage satisfactory lor information science) has to be concerned with the internal mechanism of the actor or-to round-with the condition put it the other way under which actior1s in this sense may be originated. Obviously this is a very complex task (which perhaps could never be fulfilled for descriptive purposes) but nevertheless has to be solved to some extent for analytical purposes. " _'We assume that acti0n` is a result ofthe interacfi"6?T6`f very different many where the components could be described on components different hierarchical niveaus (or layers an analogue to layer models is if preferred). Each niveau is seen as out of which forming an it-dimensional space by differentiating imensions of the superordinated niveau more specific n-dimensional spaces ould be differentiated. Each niveau constitutes specific potentials of action in have to be located by vectors in each niveau. way that a specific action would
,_.~H~
.--

system

'

-_-..-a._.,`..

----

"=-1*---_

G. WERSIG ANI)

G, WINl)E[.

19

This

space

model
each

of action

is

developedaccording to
to act

the

following
eg.,

lines

of

consideration: make action dimensions

1.

system able

possible lor all. These (i.e. the factors constituting

,

has available several potentials which potentials constitute the action spare where
the

space), play

role,

2.
3.

Complexity of actor (e.g., individual, group). Purposes of action (e.g., goal, attainment, integration).
Modus of action

(eg.

instinctive,

instrumental).
of actors. From

Actions could relate to different states actions related to problems are most dimensions related to problems create e.g.,
1.

important for our a problem space which

above it follows considerations. is characterized

that

The

by,

Types of
action
in
tin

actors

according to problem treatment.

{e.g.,
be
a

2, Problem-related purposes of action. 3. Modus of problem-related action

routine

problem
space,
a

treatment,

crisis).
this niveau could

Other
etc.

space

perhaps
societies

habitual

game

Space,

Problem

treatment

in modern

is characterized

by

trend

towards

in the sense of is understood of action, where Tationalization rationalization Haberrnas (1981) that an action is open for discourse on its rational basis which could
a

be

framed

by empi: ical-analytical(scientilic),
This leads in
our

moral-practical
the

or

aesthetic-expressive arguments.
mtonalizatz'an :pace where

dimensions

play a role,

culture as, for

to

assumptions

of

example,

1. Relation to values. to aesthetic rules. 2. Relation 3. Relation to knowledge [about dental world segments).
Rationalization

objective, social, subjective

or

transcen-

framework
a

treatment

in this sense could influence different In our types of action. the treatment ofthe is most relevant: this is represented by problem such as the following are important: sparewhere dimensions

l.

2. 3.

Type olactor. Purpose ofaction.

Modus of actions

which

are

necessary

to

get the respective rationalization

arguments
mediated

(internal
interactor communication

objectiiied
ll` rationalization

interactor generation, direct networked communication, via clocuments }.

are

communication, communication,

arguments

provided
arguments
dimensions 1.

externally, This are sought for

play
a

generated internally they have to be rationalization opens precision spare where and provided externally. There the following
not
a

role:

Modus

2.

(passive, reactive, interactive). of provided arguments tional, alternative, evaluative, reflexive), Representation
will
open
a

ofaction

function

(referential,

representareactive

This

set

of spaces

Such

as

receptive provision
our

space,

provision

space

and-most

important

in

frame

of reference-fniefaclion

20

actions Iztforrnaziort

space. The
dimensions:
1. Modus

interaction

space

is characterized

by

at

least

two

very

important

ofinteraction

(a) Telescopic (ability other actor). Diacronic (b) (ability

treatment

where predicates are most important like: to relate itself to the rationalization degree of the
to

of the other

place actor),

itself

relative
to

to

the
actions

state

of

problem
aspects of
role:
to

(c) Maieutic
the cliiterent

(ability

to

help

the other

define

in all

spaces).
where
actor at

2.

Quality

of interaction

least three aspects

to act
on a

play an important
spectrum
of

(a) Variety (ability of improve the quaiity (b) Reflexivity (ability

interaction

broad

modes

of
of

sequence
actor not

and to learn from

the

(c) Suhjectivity (ability of actor to subjectivity in the interaction).

The whole model is shown in

interactions). only to interact but to reflect reflexions). participate with its personality

of

the and

Figure

2.

EfVll"0flf'|'leI llO|

SPCCC

N1

Action

Space

N2

""

`" Hob|tuo| space L._._.__.._......|

Problem

"`"
space

Game
____

space

"" ___l

N3

Rotionulization

space

N4

l'|"Gf.I'T | l. SDOCB

~5 treatment

L.

SDOCE
_
_ _

I
7

fE><=-~ l
treqlrrient
_____

._

_J

pf
"

e
_

_|

'**"

"

"`

"

"

~@

'<=e~=
| provision l__........._....l
space

"1

l provision
L__
____

SDCICB

__l

FIG. 2. A

spatial model

ofinformation

action

as Information action in this respect could then be understood consisting of those actions which deal with the treatment of problematic primarily situations and make use of the provision space. Secondary are actions which

stem

from

other
space

superordinate spaces
(e.g., during games).

than

the

problem space

but

require

the

provision

G. Wsnsio

AND

G, WINDEL

21

act as one state of the spaces may in such a model be described mathematical as the sequence ofvectors (using analogue: defining that act in all spaces), but action has to be understood as a sequence of acts which stem from one state of Nivcau 2 (here: problem space)and may be character ized either by different states within one space or by using different spaces. such a model has to be developed further and validated Of course,

singular
the

empirically.

But even in this state of development it opens the eyes for a realistic view of the information science basically deals paradigm. Information with existing actors of varying degrees of complexity which are in action states to treat other states) requiring provision of external rationalizaproblems (or tion arguments. These actors have a full range of options to contact sources for

mode provision. Sources which are called upon in the interaction one actor or often by several actors be named information frequently by may agencicsSince in interaction . they become actors themselves, they have to fulfil the requirements of the model of action as well, in particular those already external mentioned for the interaction of space. These characteristics have to be followed information by professional agents centres) and machine-supported information systems.
The processes of tion as are outlined

interacting actors (like information

communica-

rational-cognitivetreatment

of

problems by

above constitute the information field of action being the for information central focus of attention science. In this respect we need a far better understanding of the whole complex of rationalization in its empirical realization and not the elevation of only one aspect of rationalization which would never be realizable as such like the information man
.

REFERENCES
FREUD.
S.

S. Fischer
CI'
3
_

HABE%t1iS.]. al. (1981). Berchrefbwtg PLAGEMANE.

s.

(1965). Abriss der Psychoanalyse. Das Unbehagen in Verlag. (1981). Tfworie des kammunikativen Handelns. 2 vols.
et
von

der Kultur. Frankfurt:

Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp

Freie Universitat,

der Berlin; Untefsuclzangm Benuta/irrschung.

(1982). ROBEQTS, 3><I04.

N. WERSIG, WILSON, WILSON.
G.

Arbeitsbereich Inforrnationswissenschaft. A Search for information man. Social ScienceIn)

and Handeln, and Berlin; Freie

Studies,2, i;rmaticm
Arbeits-

er

al.

(1982). Infomation

Universitat,

bereich
T. D.

Informationswissenschaft_ (193121) On user studies

information

needs.

_journalqfDorumen.alion,
In: Need oriented research

37, 3><15.
T. D

(I98lb).
Freie

Comments

on

INSTRAT

questions.

services: proceedings cr workshop for injimrmation of (S. Plagemarin and Berlin:

WINDEL,
G.

G.

Windel, eds).
Freie

Universitat,

Arbeitsbereich

Informationswissenschafn
Berlin: Benutzegbrsc/zung.

(1980).

Universitat,

Zum Stand def 'Uuoriebifdang in der Arbcitsbereich lnformationswissensehaft.

RESPONSE
Tlfl discipline is in
constant

quest of itself,
attended
was

wrote

Hounsell,

and

one

can

only
some

hope that this is true. Forum of Information berg should have Some

Whoever
doubt

IRFIS held
statement-

Science, which
about

5, the International in September 1983

If
we

Research
in Heidel-

that

overemphasize

22

Information a.ft:`0ns remarks made of itself

at
nor

critical

quest neither
From away

that of

conference

one

could

say that
severe

the

discipline
of and

is in

anything

clear

a German viewpoint before it has started to ilourish. that neither methodological

are

else of interest. information science is in

danger
more

fading
more

discipline, it becomes principles nor construction

a

As

of systems

or

science from either or science. If the discipline tries to remain and to library education computer find its location in the whole area of disciplines dealing with aspects of inforrnatiorf in general, it should try to develop its own viewpoint of information reality and generate a serious body of theory which may convince other scholars that this is a field that can contribute to the emergence ofwhat one and information culture . may call information society the viewpoint ofthe life struggle ofa Therefore, we do not believe that-from is enough for information scientists said in some discipline-it (as was to do research work and not to care for model building, theory and statements)
to
so on. we feel very sympathetic towards Norman Roberts and his idea of strengthening the notion of theory in information science-and this is one of the reasons for replying to him (it would probably not be worthwhile to reply to pure empirical searchers, technique appliers and computer freaks). We respond to him a hopeful as further the generation of a more step towards general theoretical basis for information science. As everyone out of the sky. The knows, theory does not come

services

Serious

enough

distinguish

information

In this sense,

Norman Roberts takes may look so as well as ours did. But when talking about information we all have a lot of resources available-experiences of our own and our beloved research results, etc. We are all either information men or information actors . Therefore, any ofthese models (and we are simply talking about two different kinds of models) could be considered in the light of how near they come to what we know, what we experience, what we feel, if we look at ourselves as If grounded prototypes. theory Wilson points out) has some (as sense then it has to ground first in ourselves because we never come nearer to

approach

reality.
is the very point of the controversy. We still do not believe that the actions with could be touched regard to information by the one~ dimensional information rnan'. People are not searching for information because they are information men' or because there is an in-built mechanism for information or because they are rationalized but they are searching fully because there are acting in their environment discrepancies to be dealt with. One aspect of this treatment may be knowledge but knowledge very often could be replaced by some other source ofactions like values, aesthetics, feelings, etc. Ifwe give inforrnation such a broad man but range, there is no information man' constitutes man ;if we restrict information`, the concept oI"information some in reality ofits own (and therefore is not grounded reality , but rather far
And here of

reality

away

from

it).
is

briefly, comprehensive, more

very

This,

why

we

still and

feel
more

that

information

realistic,

powerful

model

man _ This is the very heart of the controversy which we before all Ofus have been overrun by new developments. In fact, we could in our latest reports at least indicate how this theory could be expanded to ground a whole complex of theoretical models on it, how this approach could apply to the latest developments in theories of communication, action and society. We can

action is a more than information hope will be public

--

G. WERSIG

AND

G. WINDEL
not

23

use

it

to

explain why
thus
we

some

services
at

are

used,
our
own

and

to

assess

future

develop

ments;

feel its power and G. Wz'nde!,Free G. Werxig

least

for

work.

B.erz'n_ Universigv,

..

 '-m

O
was
U1

QQ*
;_*I

H-Q
lf) cn

EE
';

CDH U-I
-|-J

va

59:
'US
V7-_
'Um

QF: (D.

9
L0

ro

Q___--E
GJ`0'O

Db
E-L
2
GJ

2 CO
*--#Q

33.2 'U

ag mm ;&8
U7

2-5
3:

-I:
(U

im
3>~

is
20
C

EU) C

.es-= mom Q-"EU

3-cn Om*

is:-

Ui

E
;

'6 .2
DD

O
9|-

ECU. C5
mmg
uc
I

E E
an

3%

_QE
1-E8
QC
-u

: .Qo

u1`U-g
gang

2
O
C
5
u

.Q._G)

:gm
.2*.E

:DEE EB
C

DD

, .Qu
_.Q
LDUJ

QU

G)
-I-J

'CTU-.C C

5
gm

ogo '5
U

3Q`C rom E. ~@ '-|-C2 0.90

E2
WO

E .<2

C18
EE
-.2
-I-34-J

O"C:5

(Um

E:
ai
>~

.235
L

E312

E03 O4-......

Q)_C

.230

QED

E5
Os:

:*; _E`-43 ru
201.2

Q_-|-

QU

&&lt;I
ms:

JE
aD"
-E
VT;

32; 72201
U25 :Ecu 203:
2-5" cu

E2

515'
'OE

E53 gg.sfogfg C|.)(13'O

_C><C

C
(U
-I-#
:_

EE
ZS.

Q) -|-

EE gl:

CD

I-Cum

L)

32;