Libri, Vol. 60, pp.

98106, June 2010

Copyright by Walter de Gruyter

Berlin

New York. DOI 10.1515/libr.2010.009

Multidisciplinarity in Information Behavior: Expanding

Boundaries or Fragmentation of the Field?

Kendra Albright
Dr. Kendra Albright, Associate Professor, School of
Library and Information Science, University of
South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Email: kendraalbright@sc.edu
This paper was a keynote presentation at the international conference i3: Information: Interactions
and Impact, organised by the Robert Gordon Universitys Department of Information Management,
and held in Aberdeen, Scotland, 2225 June 2009.

Abstract
How does information lead to changes in human behavior? Why have current information theories been
inadequate to shed light on this and related questions? Library and Information Science (LIS) has
arrived at a crucial juncture in its relatively brief
theoretical history. In addition to the cognitive and
physical perspectives in our study of information, a
new paradigm has been suggested; the affective paradigm. This new perspective offers keys to unlocking questions about the nature of the interaction of
human and information. In recent years we have developed deeper knowledge and deeper specializations, drawing together and combining knowledge
from multiple fields in order to advance our own
knowledge. The relationship between information
needs and information seeking has been well studied.
The ways in which people use information is not as
well understood because of the complex nature of human behavior. Drawing from other fields that study
human behavior, however, muddies the traditional
boundaries of LIS, creating some possible discomfort as we trespass into lesser known intellectual territory. Pushing our boundaries also forces questions
of our self-identity as a discipline. What constitutes
Library and Information Science, either in whole or
in part, becomes more difficult to define and can
lead to greater fragmentation. Alternatively, the incorporation of multiple perspectives may be the defining core of what constitutes LIS. The focus of

this talk is to look at LIS from the outside in, from a

multidisciplinary perspective, in order to shed light
on questions of how information can lead to changes
in human behavior. Drawing from other fields of
study, the impact of information on human behavior
will be explored in light of what other fields may
have to offer.
Introduction
Library and Information Science (LIS) [1] has arrived
at a crucial juncture in its relatively brief theoretical
history. Shifts in concepts of information behavior,
methodological approaches, and research goals are
suggestive of the movement in Library and Information Science (LIS) toward greater scholarly maturity,
credibility, and visibility.
The i3 conference is about information, its interactions and impact. I propose a deeper interpretation
of the meaning of the conference theme, focusing on
the interaction between information and human behavior and how this interaction can lead to change in
individuals, organizations, and society. I would like
to consider the effects of information and knowledge
content of todays systems and services and how
those effects can make a difference to peoples lives.
In order to understand the complex interaction between information and people, LIS needs to borrow
from many disciplines. Rather than considering a
need for interdisciplinarity, a multidisciplinarity of
theoretical contributions is needed to better understand how information can impact human behavior;
how it can contribute to changes to the way that people feel, think, and act. This is nothing new, of
course, to LIS, but what Im proposing is both a
broader and deeper use of works from outside LIS,
both theoretical and practical. In particular, Id like to
explore the opportunities that exist from psychology
to advance both fields. Specifically, I propose to examine the possibilities for using theoretical work
from the psychodynamic, psychoanalytical perspective in psychology for a deeper exploration of that
interaction between human behavior and information.

Multidisciplinarity in Information Behavior 99

Figure 1. Information Behavior

A multidisciplinary approach, however, creates

several problems for the advancement of LIS as a
discipline. LIS already has difficulty with defining
the boundaries of the field, primarily because of the
complex nature of what constitutes information. Although we are a maturing field of study, and developing some of our own theoretical underpinnings,
we still rely on related disciplines (e.g., communications, education, computer science) to inform our
work both theoretically and in praxis. This is evidenced by the numbers of faculty who hold doctorates from outside LIS as well as by the use of theories
in LIS research outside the field. But can we define
the boundaries of our field in simple terms? How
can we consistently define what is outside our scope?
Further, discouraging the perspectives of other disciplines may only serve to reduce our visibility and
the contribution we make to the study of information and human behavior.
By considering too broad of a range of perspectives, however, we run the risk of drowning in our
own information and losing most, if not all, of our
own disciplinary boundaries. It is important to apply
our own relevance judgments to external perspectives as they pertain to information. This is undoubtedly a subjective judgment; not unlike the kind
of judgments that are implied by the ideas presented
in this talk.
Information behavior
Much has been written on information behavior, with
varying definitions and descriptions. Wilson (1999)

suggests that information behavior is the combination of information needs, information seeking, and
information use. He proposes an iterative model in
which the user identifies a need, pursues formal or
informal sources and services that then produce information that the user may deem relevant, to varying degrees. If the user judges the information to be
less than satisfactory, the user may then need to repeat the search process. Wilson suggests that selective information may also be passed on by the user
to other people through information exchange or
transfer. A simplistic interpretation of the relationship between information needs, seeking, and use is
presented in Figure 1.
Information behavior is also commonly associated with sense-making, attributed to the work of
Brenda Dervin. Sense-making refers to an individuals awareness of their own situation and the ability
to understand situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. Dervin challenges the view of information as thing, i.e., as fixed
and unchanging or as a commodity, and proposes a
view of information that is communicated rather
than transmitted, suggesting a two-way dialog rather
than a non- interaction between user and content.
Dervin proposes three information worlds in which
Information1 is objective; it describes reality and is
external to the self and external to data but is incomplete. Information2 is more subjective and refers
to ideas and is internal to the self, focusing on an
individuals own reality. Information3 includes the
process involved in making a decision (i.e. decisioning) and the process of becoming informed, i.e. the
relationship between Information1 and Information2.
The overall process is designed to understand how
people make sense of their worlds (Dervin 2003,
223).
The sense-making methodology, although widely
recognized and used in many studies, is only one of
many information behavior theories. In their book,
Theories of Information Behavior, Fisher, Erdelez
and McKechnie (2005), report the inclusion of
seventy-two perspectives on information behavior.
Grounded in cognitive perspectives, most of these
theories focus on the information processing of users in their sense-making tasks. Many of these theories examine the users situation or context in which
they are identifying a problem, seeking information,
and then assimilating the information in order to
make decisions.

100

Kendra Albright

On reflection on these theories, however, it appears as though we stop short of actually investigating the meaning of information to users, which
suggests a deeper understanding of the individuals
themselves and how they respond to information. In
order to construct a deeper understanding of how
users interact with information, the notion of affect
has recently been identified as an important research
consideration. For example, the papers in Nahl and
Bilals (2008) Information and Emotion: The Emergent Affective Paradigm in Information Behavior
Research and Theory provide important ideas regarding the users affective state and its role in the
way users interact with information. Much of the
work presented in this volume examines the emotional aspects of information behavior within specific contexts. The perspectives in this book stem
from an examination of the users cognitive processes, including both thoughts and feelings in their
information behavior. The affective paradigm attempts to address the role of human emotions in the
information seeking process.
Understanding the users affective state from a
cognitive perspective provides important insight
into how users process information. The cognitive
perspective itself sees the human mind as an information processing machine, with three primary processes: 1) sensory input, 2) the internal processing
(i.e., thinking); and 3) output (i.e., verbalization).
Where these were historically seen by the field of
cognitive psychology as independent processes, they
are now viewed as interdependent and inclusive of
affective responses. It is clear that this is the root of
much information behavior theory, where information seeking centers on these three processes. Cognition and emotion are often synonymous with
thinking and feeling, yet they each bring a unique
perspective to the study of information behavior. A
cognitive perspective is based on the idea that any
processing of information, whether perceptual or
symbolic, is mediated by a system of categories or
concepts which, for the information-processing device, are a model of his world (De Mey 1977, xvi
xvii).
While cognitive processes (i.e., the ways in which
we think about things) are vital to our understanding
of the users mental processes, however, they do not
reveal the whole person; and while there is an increasing recognition of the importance of affect in
the discipline, it would be useful to expand our un-

derstanding of affect into the full realm of emotion

in order to better understand how users are truly impacted by the use of information. Just as the cognitive perspective views the human mind as an
information-processing machine, it also treats human judgment as based on rational decisions. It does
not take into account, however, the irrational feelings, desires, and motivations of the unconscious.
Further, the cognitive perspective addresses affect
rather than emotion. Arguably, affect is the conscious experience of an emotion (Panksepp 2000)
while emotion is the unconscious component of
emotion. While information behavior has recently
recognized the role of affect in the interaction between user and information, it has not given consideration to the role of the unconscious in that
interaction.
Psychoanalytic theory
Originated by Sigmund Freud, the psychoanalytic
perspective has developed in the seventy years since
his death. Freud suggested that unconscious motives
underlie our actions. Our unconscious motivators are
the most basic and cannot be manipulated through
rewards and punishments, as in behaviorism. Psychoanalytic psychology began as a grand theory of
psychology but is now seen as focusing on unconscious inner conflicts as people strive to achieve their
goals (OShaughnessy & OShaughnessy 2004,
166).
Psychoanalytic theory today views behavior as
the outcome of motives, drives, needs, and conflicts.
Most psychologists agree that unconscious processes are important in influencing what we attend to
and how we feel (Pervin & John 2001, 77). What
has changed in the seventy years since Freuds
death, however, is the emphasis that is strictly
placed on sexual and aggressive drives. While they
remain important to the psychoanalytic perspective,
motivational aspects of the unconscious also now
include both biological drives as well as those that
are more socially constructed (e.g., the desire for relationships) (Curtis 2009).
The unconscious directs much of our emotional
life and guides our decisions. The associations we
make often lie outside the realm of our conscious
awareness. Freud was interested in the emotional associations where feelings are attached to ideas and

Multidisciplinarity in Information Behavior 101

images. He wanted to understand the parallel networks being activated simultaneously that contributed to the combination of thoughts, feelings, and
actions. In particular, he was interested in mistakes
in speech or memory that revealed the unconscious
conflict or desire. These are often referred to as
Freudian slips. An example is provided by Westen
(2007, 845) who tells the story of a woman who
was dating a much younger man and whose friends
werent very supportive. When asked how she felt
about the age difference, she said, Oh, it doesnt
mother.
The psychoanalytic perspective suggests that much
of our mental life (i.e., thoughts, feelings, motives)
is unconscious. The mental processes (both affective
and motivational) operate in parallel, allowing us to
have conflicting feelings. This perspective also believes that stable personality patterns begin in childhood as we develop mental representations of our
self and others, and the relationships we develop
guide our interactions. During the healthy development of personality, we learn to regulate our sexual
and aggressive feelings, leading to maturation and
an interdependent, rather than dependent, social
state.
There are numerous effects of unconscious emotions on our behavior. Decisions are not always
based on rational considerations of costs and benefits. Emotions are stronger predictors of decisions
than are cognitive attitudes (Westen 2007), although
attitudes have both an emotional and cognitive
component. Emotional reactions to risk often veer
from cognitive assessments of that risk. In general,
the greater the emotional salience, the more likely a
decision will be based on emotion. As Westen (2007,
99) says, Most of the time, this battle for control of
our minds occurs outside of awareness, leaving us
blind.
There is disagreement, however, regarding the nature of the unconscious between the psychoanalytic
and cognitive perspectives in psychology. The psychoanalytic perspective stresses the irrational nature
of the unconscious, particularly regarding sexual
and aggressive feelings and motives. The cognitive
perspective differs from the psychoanalytic, however, by suggesting that there is no fundamental difference between the conscious and unconscious; that
unconscious thoughts and feelings are there because
they never entered into consciousness or are simply
automatic (e.g. driving a car). The cognitive per-

spective does not view unconscious thoughts and

feelings as needing to be defended or influencing
our behavior. Currently, the field of psychology is
undergoing a transformation towards unifying these
theories. Cognitive psychology still dominates the
field, but there is a limit to the ability for cognitive
explanations to address the influence of unconscious
processes, such as those described in Malcolm
Gladwells (2005) bestseller, Blink. There is increasing recognition of the influence of the unconscious
in the field of psychology as researchers attempt to
understand wishes, desires, and motivation (See, for
example, Curtis 2009; Westen 2007). As the power
of unconscious influence continues to be recognized,
more integration of theoretical perspectives is likely.
Similarly, information behavior research has historically been steeped in cognitive perspectives. If we
accept the important contributions of psychoanalytic
theory to LIS, is this evident in the research literature of information behavior?
Information behavior literature
In order to explore whether LIS has actually overlooked the role of the unconscious in information
behavior, citations were examined from the Library
and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database.
Several searches were conducted. The first was a
broad sweep of the literature in LISA, using the term
psycholog* in the descriptor field to pick up the thesaurus terms related to psychology [2]. There were
729 results, of which 382 were in peer-reviewed
journals. The next search took the 382 peer-reviewed
journals to the Web of Knowledge to identify the
journal titles included in the references for each article. Concurrently, a list of psychoanalytic journals
was compiled from several sources (Psychwatch,
http://www.psychwatch.com/psychoanalysis_journals.
htm and Genamics, http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/
journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=categoryandquery
=psyc.psychoanal). The journal titles cited by the
382 peer-reviewed journals identified in LISA were
compared against the list of psychoanalytic journals.
The result: of the nearly 5,000 references of the articles related to psychology in LISA, none were published in psychoanalytic journals.
Several other searches were conducted focused on
well-known researchers in user-centered information
behavior, including T.D. Wilson, Carol Kuhlthau,

102

Kendra Albright

Brenda Dervin, and Diane Nahl. This was not meant

to be an exhaustive search but rather to supplement
the previous searches. LISA produced a list of publications by these authors which was again used
to identify their references in Web of Science. The
references were compared against the list of psychoanalytic journals with zero results. Only five psychology journals were cited, all of which were either
in social psychology or cognitive psychology.
Information behavior research to date, then, has
limited itself to a predominant cognitive perspective. There has been little focus on information use,
particularly in terms of how information impacts
emotional feelings and desires, and those responses
to information. Research has been dominated by a
perspective based on rational thinking, rather than
unconscious emotions. By widening our theoretical
perspective to include psychodynamic perspectives,
we may advance our understanding of the relationship between information and the unconscious,
emotional processes that guide much, if not most, of
our behavior. But how do we know if the emotional
processes claimed by a psychoanalytic perspective
as existing in the unconscious actually exist? We
can turn to the field of neurology to provide some
clues.
The emotional brain
Recent research in brain imaging suggests that certain parts of the brain actually fire up when emotions are experienced and can be seen visually in
brain imaging. Current research in neuroscience is
identifying the specific functions for particular areas
of the brain; however, mental acts are actually dependent upon the overall coordination of the many
circuits in the brain. Before investigating what those
parts are, it is useful to get a sense of the overall
structure of the brain (Figure 2).
If we look at the structure of the brain, the cerebral cortex comprises about 80% of our brains. The
brain stem and cerebellum, located toward the back
of the brain, are where sense and perception occur.
Towards the front of the brain is where our abilities
to make sense occur, where the more complex interpretations of sense and perception take place. The
front of the brain is also where the complexity of
reason and emotion take place. This is the area of
the cortex, beginning behind the eyes and moving to

Figure 2. The Brain. (Source: Alzheimers Disease Education

and Referral Center, National Institute of Aging).

the top of the head and back a few inches. This area
of the brain is referred to as the prefrontal cortex
(Taylor 2009).
There are two regions of the prefrontal cortex that
are important. First, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is always active when people are making conscious choices. It is what gives people the ability to
hold information in our consciousness, like remembering the name of someone youve just met. This is
the part of the brain that is actively engaged when
people are reasoning and thinking, such as considering options (Westen 2007).
The second part of the prefrontal cortex is the
ventromedial prefrontal cortex which allows us to
register our feelings and then to regulate our emotions. This part of the cortex is densely connected to
the cerebral structures below the cortex that are involved in creating emotional states, such as the
amygdala. The amygdala is essential for decoding
emotions, responding in particular to threatening
stimuli. This area tends to be active whenever the
brain is wrestling with emotional issues (Taylor
2009). The ventromedial prefrontal cortex is important in linking thought and emotion, particularly in
using emotional reactions to guide decision making.
People who have damage to these emotion circuits often appear to have the capacity for reason-

Multidisciplinarity in Information Behavior 103

ing, but they may have difficulty controlling their

impulses or regulating their moods. For example,
they may experience intense or rapidly swinging
emotions. They might also exhibit socially inappropriate behavior or experience minimal guilt for their
behaviors. We tend to view reason and emotion as
opposites rather than as concurrent events. There are
usually links between them, co-occurring at the
same time. Reason helps to regulate emotion, and
without it, there may be a resulting pathological
problem such as a psychopath who experiences little
or no remorse or causes pain to others and doesnt
care.
This brief tour of the brain is not intended to report on every detailed map of emotional responses
in the brain, but it does provide selective evidence to
support that both cognitive and affective events are
going on at the same time in the brain. Some of the
emotional events that appear in the brain are at the
unconscious level and are not experienced at the
conscious level.
Multidisciplinarity in library and information
science
We have explored the important contributions of cognitive psychology to information behavior research.
We have also examined the potential contribution
to information behavior research from the psychoanalytic domain. These are only two areas of outside
disciplines that have contributed to our field.
Throughout our brief history as a field of study, we
have talked about the usefulness of interdisciplinary
contributions to LIS from other fields. Borko (1968,
3) claimed that information science is an interdisciplinary science derived from and related to such
fields as mathematics, logic, linguistics, psychology,
communications, library science, management, and
other similar fields. LIS has expanded to include
other fields besides those listed by Borko. For example, Baradol and Kumbar (1998) reported the
contribution of 29 fields to Library Science.
But how do we integrate these external perspectives in ways that are meaningful to LIS? What are
the benefits to these many disciplinary insights?
What do we derive from the synthesis of these
ideas? Alternatively, is there the chance that we
could fragment the field by diluting it with so many
external perspectives?

Table 1: Doctoral Disciplines New Assistant Professors,

20032005. (Source: ALISE 20032008)
2003

2004

Artificial Intelligence

2005
1

Communications

Computer Science

Education

Engineering
Business Administration

Health

History

IS/Design

1
2

Linguistics
LIS

1
1

Interdisciplinary
Instructional Technology

3
1

36

33

41

MIS

Management

Philosophy

Operations Management

Psychology

Public Administration

Science

Sociology

Interdisciplinarity often refers to the participation of two or more fields of study where multidisciplinarity refers to making use of multiple disciplines at one time. From the descriptions in much
LIS literature, we are multidisciplinary, drawing
from multiple fields at any given time. This is reflected in the composition of the doctoral degrees of
new Assistant Professors in LIS. For the three years
between 2003 and 2005, there were 162 new Assistant Professors in LIS. The range of their disciplines
is presented in Table 1.
LIS accounts for 68% of the total degrees. For
each year, however, the total number for new Assistant Professors teaching in LIS programs who hold
doctorates outside LIS varies from 25% (2003
2004) to 36% (20022003).
If the LIS degrees were removed from the data,
the breakdown of other disciplines can be seen more
clearly (Table 2).

104

Kendra Albright

Table 2. Doctoral Disciplines (Minus LIS) New Assistant

Professors, 20032005. (Source: ALISE 20032008)
2003

2004

Artificial Intelligence
Communications

Table 3. Earned Doctorates (Minus LIS) Held by Full-Time

Faculty, 20032005. (Source: ALISE 20032008)

1
4

Computer Science

Education

Engineering

1
1

2
3
3

Business Administration

Health

History

2003 2004 2005

2005
Administration

American Civilization/Studies

Anthropology

Artificial Intelligence
Astronomy

Biology

Classics
1

Communication

21

18

18

Computer Science

43

48

48

IS/Design

Economics

Interdisciplinary

Education

36

44

43

Engineering

Instructional Technology

16

12

11

English

12

11

Folklore/Myth

Geography

24

26

11

21

13

12

Linguistics

MIS
Management

Philosophy

Operations Management

Psychology

Public Administration

Health
History

24

Human Resource Development

2

Information Systems/Technology/Design
Interdisciplinary

Science

Instructional Technology

Sociology

Law

Linguistics

Literature

Management Information Systems

The range of disciplines is wide and fairly evenly

spread, with the largest numbers in computer science, education, psychology, and communications.
There is a similar pattern among LIS faculty in
North America (Table 3). Removing those with LIS
degrees, the top five most commonly held doctorates by LIS faculty in North America are computer
science, education, history, communication, and instructional technology.
The problem presents itself, however, that while
the many perspectives can produce a healthy debate,
it may not facilitate an efficient intellectual discourse.
The expression too many cooks spoil the broth
comes to mind, where each has a different idea of
the best way to make the recipe. If we ask the question in a binary format, should LIS embrace other
disciplines or should it draw firm disciplinary boundaries, we can review the pros and cons (Table 4).

Mathematics

Medical Informatics

Music

Nutrition

Philosophy

Political Science

57

15

17

17

Psychology
Public Administration
Science & Technology Studies

Sociology

Undesignated

36

34

Archival Studies

Community Health

Marketing

Statistics

Multidisciplinarity in Information Behavior 105

Table 4. Disciplinary Options.

Options

Embrace Other Disciplines

Draw Firm Boundaries

Pros

Advance all fields

Clarifies our identity as a discipline

Broaden our knowledge base

Clarifies our boundaries

Deepen our understanding of the meaning of the interaction between Maintain status-quo

information and human behavior

Promotes innovation

Cons

Makes disciplinary boundaries even fuzzier

Could promote stagnancy

Worsens an already unclear identity

Drawing from other fields that study human behavior brings benefits to all fields by advancing the
knowledge that is generated by their interaction.
LIS, for example, can advance our knowledge of information behavior by integrating psychoanalytic
perspectives of the role of unconscious emotions on
perceptions and interpretations of information problems. Psychoanalytic psychology can benefit from
the contextual examination of human behavior under
certain conditions. Both fields benefit from a broadened knowledge base that contributes to a deeper
understanding of human behavior.
Multidisciplinarity also promotes innovation by
encouraging and facilitating interaction between different disciplines. New perspectives on old problems can often spur creative thinking that leads to
potential solutions that may have been overlooked.
Adams (2006) suggests that creativity comes from
the convergence of knowledge, creative thinking,
and motivation. The confluence of multiple disciplines can facilitate all three through the exchange
of knowledge, the formation of new ideas and theories that arise from knowledge sharing, and the motivation that comes from fresh ideas and outside
perspectives. The outcome of creativity is innovation.
The down side of multidisciplinarity is that it
makes the traditional boundaries of LIS even more
ambiguous. How often do people outside our field
say they dont understand what it is we do? Additional disciplinary perspectives may compound
this problem. Multidisciplinarity also creates some
discomfort as we try to grasp new ideas, concepts,
and jargon. There is often a learning curve at the initial adoption of new, external ideas.

Alternatively, multidisciplinarity may be what

makes LIS interesting. LIS is particularly well
suited for boundary testing in inter- and multi- disciplinary studies. LIS faculty are experienced and
open to new ideas and challenges and are in a
unique position to emerge as strong leaders in burgeoning interdisciplinary studies fields.
There is evidence to suggest that both the positive
and negative aspects of multidisciplinarity are occurring. The wide range of disciplines represented
by LIS faculty and new assistants gives testimony to
the desire for many perspectives. The same is true
for the range of journals in which LIS faculty publish; not only within the range of LIS journals, but
also those that are external to the field per se.
There also seems to be some evidence of fragmentation as well. The range of journals that exists
within LIS is reflective of our broad interests. Just
like television: hundreds of different channels are
now available via satellite rather than the few channels of yesteryear (e.g. ABC, CBS, and NBC in the
U.S.A.). There has been discussion for some time
about the different foci of information vs. librarianship among many American LIS programs. Add to
that the areas of concentration or specialization offered. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many LIS
programs no longer even hire new Assistant Professors to fill the gaps in specific core areas; rather,
they hire the candidate with the strongest research
and teaching credentials.
LIS appears to be integrating with other fields
and fragmenting simultaneously. This provides a
challenge for faculty and administration to balance
in order to advance the field while attempting to establish disciplinary boundaries and identity. Perhaps

106

Kendra Albright

the two can be leveraged to produce a unique identity

as being a field that facilitates inter- and multidisciplinarity and leads the advancement of knowledge across many fields.
Conclusion
Library and information science has historically derived much of its theoretical underpinnings from a
wide range of disciplines. The multidisciplinary
perspectives utilized by LIS have enhanced our
knowledge of the interaction between user and information. The rise of the affective perspective in
understanding information behavior continues this
tradition, drawing heavily from the cognitive sciences, in particular cognitive psychology. Because
cognitive psychology does not consider the underlying emotions, wishes, desires, and motivations of
the unconscious, our knowledge of users is limited,
thus limiting our understanding of the interaction
between user and information. Drawing from psychoanalytic theory allows us to fill this gap, expand
our knowledge base, and advance the field into a
richer understanding of human behavior.
But expanding our boundaries into this new area
also touches upon bigger questions of our identity as
a discipline and the possible fragmentation of the
field. A review of psychoanalytic theory can provide
substantial clues that would contribute to many aspects of LIS, everything from the reference interview
to system design. Although it may also create new
discourses and links to the field psychology, it can
be used to strengthen our identity as a leader in the
ability to integrate multiple perspectives, adding
strength to our identity as a multidisciplinary field.
Instead of fragmentation, the opportunity exists
for us to embrace our identity as pioneers in interdisciplinary studies.

Notes
1. The author is aware of the debate and distinctions regarding
the conceptual and professional relationships between Librarianship and Information Science. This debate, however,
is not central to the point of this discussion and will not be
addressed.
2. It was interesting to note that the thesaurus itself reveals a
bias towards the cognitive perspective. While the term psychology is used for human mind or mind, the narrower

terms include cognitive science, educational psychology, and

psychological tests.

References
Adams, K. 2006. The sources of innovation and creativity.
Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the
Economy.
ALISE library and information science education 2003 statistical report. 2003. Oak Ridge, TN: Association for Library
and Information Science Education.
ALISE library and information science education 2004 statistical report. 2005. Oak Ridge, TN: Association for Library
and Information Science Education.
ALISE library and information science education statistical report 2005. 2008. Chicago: Association for Library and Information Science Education.
Baradol, AK. and SS. Kumbar. 1998. Interdisciplinary nature of
library science. Annals of Library Science and Documentation 45(2), 4956.
Borko, H. 1968. Information science: What is it? American
Documentation 19(1), 35.
Curtis, RC. 2009. Desire, self, mind, and the psychotherapies.
Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
de Mey, M. 1977. The cognitive viewpoint: its development and
its scope. In CC 77: International Workshop on the Cognitive Viewpoint, xvi-xxxii. Ghent: Ghent University.
Dervin, B. 2003. Audience as listener and learner, teacher and
confidante: The sense-making approach. In Sense-making
methodology reader: Selected writings of Brenda Dervin ed.
B. Dervin, L. Foreman-Wernet, and E. Launterbach, 215
231. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Fisher, KE., S. Erdelez, and L. McKechnie, eds. 2005. Theories
of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Published for the
American Society for Information Science and Technology
by Information Today.
Gladwell, M. 2005. Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Back Bay Books.
Nahl, D., and D. Bilal, eds. 2008. Information and emotion: The
emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory. Meford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
OShaughnessy, J., and NJ. OShaughnessy. 2004. Persuasion
in advertising. London: Routledge.
Panksepp, J. 2000. Affective consciousness and the instinctual
motor system: The neural sources of sadness and joy. In The
Caldron of Consciousness: Motivation, Affect and Selforganization, Advances in Consciousness Research, ed. R.
Ellis, and N. Newton, 2754. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Pub. Co.
Pervin, LA., and OP. John. 2001. Personality: Theory and research. 8th ed. New York: John Wiley.
Taylor, JB. 2009. My stroke of insight: A brain scientists personal journey. New York: Viking Penguin.
Westen, D. 2007. The political brain: The role of emotion in
deciding the fate of the nation. New York: Public Affairs.
Wilson, TD. 1999. Models in information behaviour research.
Journal of Documentation. 55(3), 249270.
Paper received 9 October 2009; accepted 10 February 2010.

Copyright of Libri: International Journal of Libraries & Information Services is the property of De Gruyter and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.