Many research‐based models of information seeking behaviour are limited in their ability to describe everyday life information seeking. Such models tend to focus on active information seeking, to the neglect of less‐directed practices. Models are often based on studies of scholars or professionals, and many have been developed using a cognitive approach to model building. This article reports on the development of a research‐based model of everyday life information seeking and proposes that a focus on the social concept of information practices is more appropriate to everyday life information seeking than the psychological concept of information behaviour The model is derived from a constructionist discourse analysis of individuals’ accounts of everyday life information seeking.

http://publish.uwo.ca/%7Epmckenzi/McKenzie_J.Doc_2003.pdf

A model of information practices in accounts of everyday‐life information seeking

Organization Studies has recently been captured by a cultural, linguistic, poststructural or postmodern turn, the impetus for which has come from the ontological turn from a (naive) realist ontology to a socially constructed ontology. Much of the current ontological discussion is, however, characterised by ambiguity which makes it difficult to get to the bottom of ontological claims and, of course, to locate the source of any ontological errors. This paper uses a critical realist perspective to highlight the ambiguity and error encouraged by postmodernism’s commitment to a socially constructed ontology. Critical realism’s ontology is offered as a more fruitful alternative. Labour process theory, specifically agency and structure to demonstrate (i) critical realism is not damaged by many common postmodern criticisms of agency and structure and (ii) once interpreted through the prism of critical realism, there is no need to abandon this powerful analytical device.

Ontology in organization and management studies: a critical realist perspective

Extreme case formulations (ECFs) were identified by Pomerantz (1986) as expressions using extreme terms such as all, none, most, every, least, absolutely, completely, and so forth, whose uses are to defend or justify a description or assessment, especially in case of challenge. In this study, orientations to the extremity of ECFs are initially shown in how and when they are sometimes qualified or softened. Yet ECFs are overwhelmingly not softened. Further examination shows how ECFs can work as devices for doing "nonliteral," in the sense of being not accountably accurate descriptions. Rather, their extremity might be taken to display investment in, or stance toward, some state of affairs. In addition to Pomerantz's observations, therefore, ECFs can (a) display various kinds of "investment" on the part of the speaker (e.g., commitment, certainty, caring, determination, a critical or positive attitude, etc.) and (b) provide for a range of nonliteral, metaphoric uses (interpretable as "it seemed as if [extre...

Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral

Indirect complaint sequences are examined in a corpus of everyday domestic telephone conversations. The analysis focuses on how a speaker/complainer displays and manages their subjective investment...

Moaning, whinging and laughing: the subjective side of complaints

This article maps the various interests and orientations of social constructionism as a basis for: (1) situating work in the field, (2) understanding differences in its interests and scope, (3) mak...

Chris Westrup

Papers

Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction