The Impoverished

Life-World

of Outsiders

Elfreda A. Chatman
School of information and Library Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360. E-mail:chatman@ils.unc.edu

Drawing upon a series of studies that examines the information world of poor people, the author discovers four critical concepts that serve as the basis for defining an impoverished life-world. These concepts are risk-taking,
secrecy, deception, and situational relevance. Moving back
and forth among the worlds of janitors, single mothers, and
an aging population, the author develops a conceptual
framework that links the world of the information poorthe outsiders-with
a world of insiders. Paradoxically, the
author finds that the very existence of two worlds is in itself
a hindrance to information seeking and sharing behaviors.
Insiders, because of their status, reinforce information
poverty by neglecting to accept sources of information not
created by themselves. The authors findings thus indicate
that the world of insiders is one in which outsiders are not
sought for information and advice and is a world in which
norms and mores define what is important and what is not.

Introduction

As researcherswho wish to develop theory, we must

identify problems central to our field. The basis for this
argument is that once these problems have been identified, we might be led to the formulation of conceptual
issues that underline these problems. This strategy is
commonly referred to as the inductive method. Its primary contribution to theory is that it forces us to think
in a systematic manner about philosophical concerns.
More generally, inductive reasoning normally occurs
when members of a discipline have a less clear notion
regarding conceptual frameworks that are readily identified within that discipline.
As library and information scientists, we do not have
a tradition of focusing on normative problems in which
we can approach a line of inquiry with some measure of
certainty. We cannot be sure that our areas are well defined and that our problems are important. We have no

Received August 23, 1994; revised December 5, 1994; accepted March

2, 1995.
0 1996 John Wiley &Sons, Inc

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

central theory or body of interrelated theories we can

view as middle range.
In light of this discussion, it would appear we are currently focused on the application of conceptual frameworks rather than on the generation of specific theories.
Drawing on bits and pieces from a variety of sources,we
construct propositional statements that appear to have
some bearing on problems arising from the occupational
work we perform.
Although there is some discussion among scholars
that grounded theory leads the inductive process,this argument has not been adequately reported. For example,
for a theory to have application to empirical inquiries, it
must be grounded in some knowledge base. As we draw
from this baseof previous studies, we theorize about phenomena being currently experienced. Moreover, we routinely apply intellectual strategiesas we attempt to make
senseout of the data being uncovered. It is the processof
immersion, the testing of previous assumptions, and the
modification of those assumptions that are sign&ant
activities which ultimately lead to theory building.
In a study I recently conducted, for example, I applied
social network theory to a study of aging women. I chose
this particular theory becauseof its emphasis on mutual
support and resource exchange. I suspectedthat a community of aging women would lead to opportunities that
would allow for information exchangesdealing with concerns of common interest. I also thought that the networks of these women would permit emotional support.
As will become apparent during this discussion, the theory needed adjustment in light of the data that were discovered.
As most scholars know, theory construction begins
According to R. K. Met-ton ( 1959, p. 108), theories ofthe middle
range are limited in scope. For example, reference groups and social
mobility
role-conflict . . . . In his opinion, these theories also
involve abstractions, of course, but abstracts not so far removed from
the date of sociological observations. Such theories . . consist of sets
of relatively simple ideas, which link together a limited number of facts
about the structure and functions of social formations and suggest further observations.

SCIENCE. 47(3):193-206,

1996

CCC 0002-8231/96/030193-14

with a fundamental question that directs our search into

a body of literature. In my case,an original question pertained to the notion of information poverty. Early in my
research, I was influenced by scholars who made the argument that economic poverty was linked to information poverty. Over the course of my inquiries, however,
I discovered that this linkage is not necessarily true. But,
those findings did become the reference points for my
research question; namely, what factors are present that
would account for an information-poverty lived-experience?Needing to find plausible answers, I used a number
of conceptual frameworks, including gratification theory, alienation theory, and diffusion theory. I applied
theory-driven research that yielded four essential concepts that, taken together, appear to act like a DNA factor for information poverty.
I should mention that I did not begin my inquiries
with these concepts in mind. Rather, the findings reveal
that the concepts are components ofmy studies that have
not yet been resolved. The concepts-deception, risktaking, secrecy,and situational relevance-were not part
of the theories but came about through anomalies. Because anomalies are so important in the emergence of
these concepts, I will discuss them briefly. The anomaly
is like the grain of sand that gets into the system and
causes such irritation and refocusing of energy that
something new gets produced. This is what happened in
my work, and I will use my experience to show how
anomalies lead to development of my four concepts.
In theory construction, anomalies present intellectual
dilemmas for scholars. The dilemmas occur because a
researcher is aware that something is going on and that
patterns of behavior indicate unexpected relationships.
In the case of the aging women, the realization that the
original conceptual framework has limiting power regarding the new discovery forced a reexamination of previously held notions and a search for new meanings. This
is not an easy task. One difficulty lies in the investment
in intellectual effort required to provide new understandings while approaching the research experience with
some measure of confidence. So it was the presence of
anomalies that led to the development of my four concepts. Using three previous studies, I will illustrate how
these concepts led to my convictions regarding a taxonomy for an impoverished information world. If my argument is valid, then the significance of its contribution
might be an important one for studies of informationseeking behaviors within the life-worlds of poor people. I
will begin my discussion by placing my argument within
the bigger picture, i.e., the sociology of knowledge.
Insiders/Outsiders

Implied throughout this discussion is the difference

between insiders and outsiders regarding studies of information. A body of work within the sociology of knowledge is that of insiders/outsiders and what it means in

194

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

light of knowledge awareness, acquisition, definition,

and use.
In sharp contrast to an insiders knowledge of
worldview, an outsider lives in a stratified life-world
(Lindbeck & Snower, 1988). For instance, an element
paramount in the literature is the notion of localized integration. That is, insiderslived-experiences are shaped
by the fact that they share a common cultural, social,
religious, etc., perspective. It is these common experiencesthat provide expected norms of behavior and ways
to approach the world. They also define those things that
are important to pay attention to and those things that
are not.
Concepts related to this phenomenon include egoculture (Goodman & Goodman, 1989)) ethnocentrism (Schopmeyer & Bradley, 1993), and exclusivism (Oommen, 1986). What these terms imply is that
some members of our society are acting appropriately
(insiders) whereas others (outsiders) are somehow
deviating from the collective standards (Becker, 1973).
As we approach this debate, however, a consistent
finding is the basic question: Is it necessary to be an insider to understand anothers lived-experiences (Latour,
198 1 )? This is a fundamental question as it provides a
basis in which to explore why outsiders are viewed with
such suspicion and why there seemsto be so little margin
with outsiders for things that, in an insider world, are
taken for granted. Mertons observation that Negro sociologists were in large part expected to study problems
of Negro life . . . just as women sociologists were expected to study problems of women ( 1972, p. 13 ) feeds
into this notion.
The idea that things can only be understood by other
insiders may explain why there are informational barriers between these two worlds. A reason might be a doubt
that insiders have regarding the ability of outsiders to understand their world. It seems then, that in addition to
an insulated, small worldview, the sense that outsiders
cannot comprehend a world different from their own
leads to a condition of secrecyand protection.
Significantly, what this means in light of information
acquisition and use is that insiders shield themselves
from needed resources. This finding is particularly startling since insiders believe these resources are held by
outsiders. For instance, in a study of welfare rights
women, West ( 1978) discovered that, the major dilemma for the insiders is the conflict of two needs: ( 1)
resourcesof the outsiders and ( 2 ) remaining exclusive
and apart to protect their autonomy and political control
within the movement organization.
No serious discussion about insiders/outsiders is
completed without an examination of the major contribution Merton made. In his seminal article, Insiders
and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge ( 1972 ), Merton argues that a central theme of this
debate is the issue of accessibility and knowledge acquisition. Said another way, insiders claim privileged access

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

to certain kinds of knowledge. That is, only insiders can

truly understand the social and information worlds of
other insiders. Although this knowledge is narrow in
scope, it serves to insulate and protect the worldview of
insiders from contamination by outsiders. Outsiders, on
the other hand, also claim access to new knowledge.
Their claim, however, rests on their perception that, because they are part of the large society, they have a more
cosmopolitan view of the world and, therefore, easy accessto its resources.
The idea of meaning, or how people use information
to reshape,redefine, or reclaim their social reality, played
against the background of insider/outsider is a central
concern driving my researchefforts. Another basic premise is a belief that, within this polarized intellectual structure, there are issues such as secrecy, deception, and
privileged accessto certain kinds of knowledge. This
idea stems from a phenomenon reported in the literature
implying that there is a consortium of opinion regarding
what is important to know and what is irrelevant. Adherence to this philosophy is instrumental in keeping privileged information from outsiders except at great risk and
personal cost (Merton, 1972, p. 11).
To recapitulate the principal contributions made thus
far: other things aside, it has led to a curious situation
in which an examination of knowledge need and use is
significantly influenced by our identification of insider
or outsider.
In support of this discussion and the usefulnessof the
findings, Merton ( 1972, p. 9) observesthat
Especiallyin times of great social change,precipitated
by acute socialconflict and attendedby much cultural
disorganizationand reorganization,the perspectivesprovided by the various sociologiesof knowledgebear directly upon problemsagitatingthe society.It is then that
differencesin the values,commitments,and intellectual
orientationsof conflicting groupsbecomedeepenedinto
basiccleavages,
both socialand cultural.

Secrecy
What are some characteristics of this discussion that
have general applicability to studies of information and
poverty? For one, the insiders/outsiders literature suggests that knowledge about our personal experiences is
secretinformation. There isnt a discussion of situational
relevance because this concept does not appear in the
sociological literature. However, one can assumethat the
relevance of information to a group might be suspect if it
originates from outside the group.
The purpose of secrecy appears to be to protect ourselves from unwanted intrusion from whatever source.
According to Simmel(l950, p. 330), the secret, in this
sense, the hiding of realities by negative or positive
means, is one of mans greatest achievements. A plausi-

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

ble explanation is the desire we all have to claim an intimate or private dimension of life that is uniquely ours.
Bok ( 1983, p. 5) defines anything as a secret if its intent is intentional concealment. She states, it may be
shared with no one, or confided on condition that it goes
no farther. However, the overall intent of secret information is the idea that it will protect a person from unwanted intrusion into private space.As well, it conveys a
secret-laden way of experiencing reality (that is knowledge about ones life) that is primarily inaccessible to
others (Luhrmann, 1989, p. 13 1). Said another way,
concealed information is intended as a separation mechanism in which a person or select group of persons view
themselves as ultimate insiders.
Ironically, secret information also includes the element of control. Ericson ( 1989, p. 208) indicates that
control has an influence on the communication process.
The closer the affinities and involvements people have
with each other, the greater their need to protect their
secretive life-worlds. In everyday life, a secret might be
viewed as that which, if disclosed, carries an enormous
amount of risk. For example, with trusted others, such
as family members, we might hide financial problems.
Why? We withhold the information to preserve our autonomy and to give ourselves some fundamental say on
our personal lives (Redlinger & Johnston, 1980, p. 387 ).
The notion that secrecy might be shared, but that this
sharing is confined to a narrow and confined insider
membership, is supported by Rigney ( 1979, p. 52). He
observes that, the mechanisms of secrecy are all the
more complex as the number of insiders grows larger
. . . the probability of disclosure increaseswith every increasein the number of secretsshared.
Secretsprovide a solemn view of information acquisition and use. The point is that, in secrecy, the objective
is to guard against disclosure; consequently, we simply
ceaseto be receptive to advice or information. It seems
that the extraordinary power of secrecyis that it is not to
inform about our true state of affairs. Even in situations
in which informing might lead to assistance,sharing is
intended to control as little as possible. In this case, a
person with a secret hopes that the incomplete or untrue
information given would take care of the problem, thus
shutting off need for further disclosure.
Deception
A second factor associated with information poverty
is deception. According to Goffman ( 1974)) deception is
falsehood intended by persons not taken in by their own
fabrication (p. 112) .2 Bok ( 1983) raises the interesting
2 For a thorough and thought-provoking discussion dealing with the
notion of deception, see Goffmans Sfigma ( 1963), The Presentation
of Self in Everyday Life ( 1959), and Relations in Public ( 197 1). For a
delightful outsiders look at Goffmans influence on students of secrecy and role distance, see Marxs Role Models and Role Distance: A
Remembrance of Erving Goffman ( 1984).

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

195

idea that confusion exists regarding the difference between secrecy and deception. She argues that since all
deception involves keeping something secret, the confusion is understandable. Important to this discussion is
her opinion that, while all deception requires secrecy,
all secrecy is not meant to deceive ( p. 7 ) .
I suggestthat deception is a deliberate attempt to playact, that is, to engage in activities in which our personal
reality is consciously being distorted. It is a process
meant to hide our true condition by giving false and misleading information. What this does, of course, is shrink
the possibility of receiving useful information. The fundamental result of deception leads to a remarkably precarious position in which information sought is irrelevant.
Although the link between deception and information
acquisition has not been addressed in the literature, the
impression given is interesting. A summarization of this
body of work falls into three broad categories: Research
dealing with sexual abuse of children (Mikkelsen, Guthiel, & Emens, 1992), victims of wife assault (Dutton
and Hemphill, 1992), and information deception as discussed under manipulation theory. The works include
the self in everyday reality ( Rosie, 1993; Jacobs, 1992 ),
governmental deception ( Doyle, 1992; Bordua, 199 1))
and professions and ethics (Nolan, 199 1; Solovey &
Duncan, 1992; Friedman, 1992).
The contribution these works make is to allow deception, like secrecy, to be examined within a sociology of
knowledge. One primary issue has to do with information need and factors that hinder persons from making
use of relevant knowledge that, in many cases,is not only
public (that is, known) but also accessible.
It was the populations I described and the anomalies
such as the one I just identified that led to my development of the four concepts and their subsequent propositions. What proof do I have that my research has yielded
a conceptual framework for describing information poverty? To answer that, let us start by addressing the element of risk-taking.
Risk- Taking
A principle component affecting the informationseeking and sharing behaviors process is risk-taking. In
general, the purpose of secrecy and deception is to protect someone at risk or someone who perceives that revealing information about oneself is potentially dangerous. The ultimate end of both concepts, therefore, is selfprotection.
In this light, Goffman ( 1974) asks, Where does one
find situations in which reduced information must be relied upon? (pp. 448-449 ). My answer is that it lies with
our perception that to be an outsider necessitatesheightened self-protective behavior. In doing my research, it
became clear that an assumption I had about my respondents life-worlds needed to be abandoned. I assumed

196

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

that-at least among themselves-they would exhibit

characteristics that could identify them as insiders. As
my findings will later reveal, this was not the case. The
results, however, provide significant support to the roles
that self-protection and risk play in information poverty.
Risk-taking is borrowed from the diffusion literature
in which the concept of relative advantage3 is discussed.
In that context, it was examined as an attribute affecting
the acceptance or rejection of an innovation. That is, we
consider the acceptance of an innovation based on our
perception of whether it is worthwhile or not. It does not
seem to merit consideration if, weighed against personal
or economic cost, the result would be negative.
It is this notion of cost that makes risk-taking an attractive concept for studies of information and poverty.
As applied here, risk refers not only to whether or not an
idea is accepted, but, more importantly, if we should
even consider the possibility. Thus, in everyday discourse, for people to benefit from information received
from outsiders, there needs to be some aspect of trust
associated with the source. Otherwise, why should we
run the risk of telling others about our private life? Exploring the truth of outside claims, however, is not always feasible, particularly if the receiver of the information is already predisposed to skepticism and if the others claim to knowledge is not readily accessible to
individual plausibility testing. For example, Wilson
( 1983, p. 141) acknowledges that, a single unhappy experience with a lawyer or plumber may cause us to distrust all lawyers and all plumbers, and a single shocking
story told by a friend may have the same effect.
What then constitutes a trustworthy source which
might provide a situation supportive of information
sharing? According to Wilson ( 1983, p. 15 ), it is a person
who is honest, careful about claims, and disinclined to
deceive. These attributes find convincing evidence in
studies that focus on opinion leaders. Findings from my
own studies4 for example, revealed that opinion leaders
were sought by other respondents becausepeople trusted
them. In a study of technological change, Rogers and
Beal (1957-1958) observed that opinion leaders were
positive influences in the acceptance of change because
they were effective communicators of the need for
change and because they conveyed it in a way in which
their claims could be trusted. Lindstroms ( 1958) study
of a rural Japanesecommunity also found that respondents were willing to take a chance on the acceptance
of innovative farming practices on condition that some

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

3 For several studies dealing with relative advantage, see for examples, Lindstroms Diffusion of Agricultural and Home Economics
Practices in a Japanese Rural Community: Everett M. Rogers and F.
Floyd Shoemakers, Communication of Innovations; Frank Cancians,
Stratification and Risk-Taking: A Theory Tested on Agricultural Innovation.
4 See for examples, The D@iision of Information among the Working Poor, (Chatman, 1983) and Opinion Leadership, Poverty, and
Information Sharing, (Chatman, 1987).

SCIENCE-March

1996

marked degree of trustworthiness was evident. The author found that risk-taking rests on two factors. First, the
advisors advocating the practices were trusted insiders.
Second, they were perceived to be worthy of belief because they had proven themselves to be reliable sources
of new information.
Thus, in everyday life, for people to benefit from information received from outsiders, there needs to be
trust associated with this process. What appears to be
conditional influences of information poverty is poor
peoples desperation to shield the real state of need they
are experiencing. I suspect that this is due to their perception that it is too costly to themselves to share and
becausenetworks of trust between themselves and others
have not provided trustworthy opportunities.
Ifwe were to think about a situation in which a person
was in true information need and that need was not being shared (primarily due to self-protecting behaviors),
it is reasonable to assume the person lives in an impoverished life-world.
Theory Development

As I implied earlier in this article, a characteristic factor of studies I conducted is the interplay between conceptualization and empirical testing. In my own research, I used several specific theories to understand better how ordinary people search for information; e.g.,
gratification theory (Chatman, 199 1) and alienation theory (Chatman, 1990). I am particularly curious about
ways in which poor people view information and use it,
and whether or not they care to share it. In my examination of this process, I uncovered the four concepts described earlier.
The consortium of these four concepts are an outgrowth of both deductive theory application and inductive theorizing that arose from my field experiences.The
result of this process is the creation of six propositional
statements.
Propositional statements provide an explanation
about aspectsof social reality. These explanations designate relationships between the statements, that when
taken as a whole, provide the parameters for a theory.
In this instance, their purpose is to act as a guide when
examining issues of information-seeking behaviors and
information poverty.
An impoverished information world is one in which a
person is unwilling or unable to solve a critical worry or
concern. Becauseneeds are not being met, this information world is viewed by an insider as dysfunctional. A
contributing factor to information poverty is insiders
membership. Stated more clearly, this means that our
place within a social landscape is shaped by the norms of
other insiders ( Summer, 1907) . The role of such norms
is to aid and define things that are legitimate to seek and
appropriate to share.
Sometimes those norms include standards by which

JOURNAL

to define things that are legitimate to seek and appropriate to share. For example, Whyte ( 1981) discussesthe
social worlds of two types of young men; The college
boys and the corner boys. Although they inhabited
the same social society, their norms regarding approaches to life were remarkably different. For instance,
college boys had a future orientation which would lead
to a college life style, whereas corner boys valued things
that would enhance a free-spending life. Becauseof these
two separate worldviews, the young men neither shared
information nor sought information from each other.
What this example illustrates is that our membership
within a particular social group contributes to information poverty. How? Because we can experience a need
for information but are hindered from seeking it. Thus,
we engage in self-protective behaviors to keep others
from sensing our need. These behaviors are meant to
hide our true crisis in an effort to appear normal and to
exhibit acceptable coping behaviors.
The idea that others have an enormous influence on
the way in which we behave in a social setting finds support in Parks description about human communities. In
speaking about the role others play, Park ( 1952, p. 83)
explains:

OF THE AMERICAN

There is not now, if there ever was, any question that

the individuals conception of himself, the role which he
plays in any society, and the character which he eventually acquires are very largely determined by the associations which he makes and, in general, by the world in
which he lives.

Based on the focal concepts fundamental to this discussion, I devised six propositional statements. Keep in
mind that they represent a collective rather than an individualistic model of need. As a theoretical framework,
their purpose is to describe an impoverished information
world.
Theory of Information

Poverty

Proposition 1: People who are defined as information poor

perceive themselves to be devoid ofany sources
that might help them.
Proposition 2: Information poverty is partially associatedwith
class distinction. That is, the condition of information poverty is influenced by outsiders who
withhold privileged accessto information.
Proposition 3: Information poverty is determined by self-protective behaviors which are used in response to
social norms.
Proposition 4: Both secrecy and deception are self-protecting
mechanisms due to a sense of mistrust regarding the interest or ability of others to provide
useful information.
Proposition 5: A decision to risk exposure about our true problems is often not taken due to a perception that
negative consequences outweigh benefits.

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

197

Proposition6: New knowledgewill be selectivelyintroduced

into the information world of poor people.A
condition that influencesthis processis the relevanceof that information in responseto everydayproblemsand concerns.
To recapitulate, the role of propositions is to provide
explanations or information about an aspect of reality.
These explanations designate relationships between the
statements that, when taken as a whole, provide the parameters in which to examine that phenomena. The
value of propositions to theory construction lies in their
ability to be tested, thereby, strengthening or weakening
the theory.
Now that the four concepts, secrecy, deception, risktaking, and relevance have been developed into a conceptual framework, the discussion will illustrate how my
research has led to the creation of this framework. I
should mention that I did not begin my inquiries with
these concepts in mind. Rather, the findings reveal that
they are components of my studies that have not been
resolved.
Research Findings: Empirical
of Information Poverty

Support for the Theory

As mentioned earlier, the concepts of secrecy, deception, risk-taking, and relevance were first discovered through anomalies. For example, in an inquiry
I conducted exploring the world of CETA women
(Comprehensive Employment and Training Act)
(Chatman, 1987), I applied opinion leadership theory. I
chose the framework because of the focus of the study,
namely, information-seeking and sharing behavior.
Based on propositions comprising the theory, it seemed
reasonable that opinion leaders (persons from whom
others sought information or advice) would be present.
The results indicated that a small number of such leaders
was found. They were, however, not engaging in information sharing. This finding was particularly puzzling
because inherent in opinion leadership is the notion of
sharing. Reasons why this process was not occurring fell
outside the explanatory nature of the theory.
This anomaly led to the following observation. Not all
information is of equal value within a social system.
Some of it is more valuable than others, and some carries
some element of risk. Therefore, opinion leaders would
not share information of either type. Moreover, I concluded that if these conditions are present in the information exchange process, there will always be some degree of information hindrance.

the Attribute Model5 with its value-laden concept relative advantage. In modifying relative advantage to assume the notion of risk-taking, I was able to explain why
the CETA respondents would not share information, in
particular, job information. The reason was the information was too risky to share, especially when the CETA
respondents themselves needed information that might
result in permanent employment. I wrote an article titled
Opinion Leadership, Poverty, and Information Sharing6
as the conclusion of that inquiry.
In an earlier section I indicated the most important
finding was the discovery that the type of information
being sought influences the extent of information sharing. That is, if the information is viewed as fundamental
to ones private stock, signs of weighing consequences
regarding its sharing become obvious. An example is letting co-workers know you found a job. Thus, in situations in which the vaIue of the information is influenced
by its currency, my results revealed that most respondents saw no advantage in risking job opportunities by
sharing it. Moreover, because the women viewed themselves as essentially outsiders in the agencies in which
they were temporarily employed, they did not perceive
permanent workers as being supportive. Subsequently,
they felt the only persons who wanted to help were they
themselves.
Since I suspected the lack of sharing information in
the CETA study was due to competition for permanent
jobs, I turned to a study that focused on janitors. It was
my assumption that, in this more stable environment
(many had been at a southern university for several
years), I would have a clearer picture of risk-taking and
information-sharing. What I found, however, was that
there was an enormous need for information but that the
kind of information that could assist the people was
missing. Furthermore, they perceived themselves as outsiders even within their own social milieu.
My search for answersto explain this unexpected outcome led to alienation theory with its concepts of powerlessness,normlessness, and isolation. For example,
the data revealed that janitors did not risk sharing information, even about common problems, because they
perceived themselves to be isolated from each other.
They believed if their supervisors, neighbors, or even
friends knew of the problems they were having, that information would be used against them. They did not
trust anyone and kept their concerns private.

Risk- Taking
The CETA study was primarily guided by propositions comprising models developed in diffusion theory.
Within these models, the most relevant to my studies was

198

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

5 For my use of this conceptual framework see, Diffusion Theory:

A Review and Test of a Conceptual Model in Information Diffusion
(Chatman. 1986).
This article appeared in RQ, pp. 341-353 (Chatman, 1987).
Powerlessness is the sense that one is unable to control or influence
life-events; normlessness is a sense that normative behavior is lacking
in ones social milieu; isolation is that ones personal life is not influenced by the value systems held by outsiders. For further insights regarding these and other concepts associated with alienation. see Seemans, On the Meaning of Alienation ( 1959).

SCIENCE-March

1996

The careful weighing of consequencesassociatedwith

information-sharing was so overt in this inquiry that I
became thoroughly convinced that it was because the
janitors were outsiders within a supposedly insiders
worldview. It simply did not make senseto them to share
worries if no one cared.
To find evidence to support my assumption, a reexamination of the notion that no one caresis fruitful
here. Overall, it would seem that the janitors chose not
to make use of interpersonal sources of information because fellow workers have no interest in what you have
to say. They believed that personal misfortunes would
not receive a sympathetic response. Moreover, jobrelated accidents only decreased their chances for promotion and advancement. Part of the problem was that
it was too risky for them to share the information. Although supervisors were at times consulted, the janitors
were selective in the type of things they chose to share
with them. In most cases,this centered around things of
a general nature such as the need for more help when
doing special assignments or the need for more cleaning
supplies. Certainly, they shared nothing of a sort that
would put them in an unfavorable light.
Matters of greatest importance to the janitors, such as
ways to cope with personal or financial concerns, were
kept secret. Their perception was that disclosing this information to someone would put them in a lower social
position than fellow-workers. In addition, they did not
believe their confidences would be respected. As one respondent commented, I just keep to myself and try to
do my work to the best of my ability cause dont nobody
keep no confidence. According to the theory, what
should have occurred, was that their life-world would
have led to an insiders mentality and would have promoted, at least among themselves, some form of information-sharing. This lack of an insiders senseis another
anomaly that is still puzzling. What emerges from the
janitor study is a penetrating view that information is not
discussed freely with others. Because members of their
world are not seen as trustworthy or interested, it is not
surprising that they chose not to risk exposing themselves.This theme will also emerge in the study of older
women.
What clues regarding risk-taking were provided by the
aging study? The results from that inquiry revealed several instances in which the residents at Garden Towers
perceived that sharing information was too risky. The
retirement community was based on the assumption
that residents were ambulatory and in relatively good
health; those who required nursing facilities had to leave.
Since the respondents feared being institutionalized,
they chose to appear healthier than they were. They did
not tell anyone about declining health concerns, their
uncertainty about their future, inability to deal successfully with the aging process, or their sense of isolation
and loneliness. They even kept to themselves dire circumstances, not even telling their children. A reason for

JOURNAL

this could be seen in the notion of dependency. In other

words, the respondents felt that to tell their children how
bad off they were might result in their children shying
away from them, thereby decreasing or even eliminating
emotional or financial support.
The respondents also knew that residents who seemed
to be abandoned by some residents were also ignored by
other residents. Why? Becauseresidents did not want to
take on the responsibilities for caring for each other. So,
even though the women might have gained from sharing
their needs, after weighing the potential consequences,
they chose not to risk sharing them because, in some
way, they would become responsible for each other.

OF THE AMERICAN

Secrecy
Secrecy is to guard oneself against unwanted
exposure. It is a deliberate attempt not to inform others
about ones true state of affairs. In short, the object of
secrecy is to protect as closely as possible the true picture
of ones personal reality. Even if one did share the secret, the point of secrecy is to reveal as little as possible.
The hope is that the information would have absolute
relevance, thereby, shutting down the necessity for further disclosure. For instance, in everyday conversation,
people often ask how you are. Our usual response is
pretty good or fine, which in essence,ends the conversation.
I did not find (as some researchersindicated) that interpersonal communication channels were most preferred by poor people. In my studies the data revealed
that information of the most critical kind was not being
asked for or shared. This finding produced my first critical anomaly becauseit challenged a central argument in
studies of everyday need and usages,namely, that people
will share critical information with family, neighbors,
and friends. Rather, my studies consistently showed that
it is not just coincidence that information of the most
needed type was not being shared. To understand the
reasons why I had to return to my data. The end result
was the creation of the propositions identified earlier.
In the CETA study, it became clear that an influence
on ones decision to remain secretive about a concern
was fear. This fear is seen in the following illustration,
which focuses on a respondents observation that some
members of her social milieu were undesirable as CETA
workers. She believed that their inappropriate mannerisms and behaviors not only reflected badly on them, but
had negative consequencesfor herself as well. Her decision not to voice her concerns was due to her perception
that no one, including CETA officials, took the program
seriously. Here is her remarkable narrative:
There are some things here I would want to talk over
with the officials,but Im afraid. There should be some
standardsfor people enrolled in CETA. I dont want
street people to bring street attitudes into the program.

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

199

Since there are no standards, anything is coming in and

getting in. There is a lot of pressure around here and nobody is willing to lend a helping hand. Even if I told them
my worries, theres no one available for help.

In her assessmentof the situation, both the good

and the bad were being treated alike by the administration. Everyone was given the same lack of assistance,
and it is not surprising that the respondent was secretive.
The degree of wanting to succeed,the identification of
oneself as trying to be better than them (street
people), was perceived as an unrewarded trait.
The decision to keep things secretive is reasonable
when faced with a set of circumstances in which one
views things from an outsiders perspective. From this
stance, one encounters the world of others with utmost
suspicion. The description that follows will support these
observations. In this case, the respondent was a Latin0
woman who chose an insiders life as a means of selfprotection:

ing, checkingfor dust. I feellike shesmy boss.the one I

got to please.not them.
Shortly after my conversation with her, this respondent called her supervisor. One day at the door of my
office was Miss T., who wanted to know why I was spying on her workers. So, even though I thought I was
presenting a neutral, legitimate role to this janitor, her
dependency upon Miss T. led to her having secondthoughts about talking with me.
One of the things that I have learned in my work with
poor people is their distrust, and often distaste,of others,
supposedlyinsiders, who reside in their social world. Regarding disdain for other insiders, listen to the incredible
bitterness expressedby a female janitor regarding other
blacks. In her description a nigger is a low-level black.
Her secret is her resentment of the need to act out a persona in which the spirit of good will and cooperation
dominate her true feelings in order to keep her job:
We always knew whites is dirty. That all they wanted was
a working nigger. Then they put blacks over us. They
aint got no more learning than me. They stuck those
people over me. When the niggers came in, that be the
downfall for us. The white man dont know whats going
on. Thats where hes made his mistake.

Even though I live here, all my customs are the same. I

cook Mexican dishes, never American. We still do everything as if we are still in Mexico. My two boys both speak
Spanish. My friends been here five years. working for a
car dealer. One day, they are gone. I said the State got to

them. I think the Americanstold on them. So I dont

have no American or other culture friends. I keep on my
own. My friends, cousins, and family are all from the
same town. Only time I communicatewith Americansis

hereon thejob.
In the janitorial study, the findings revealed that respondents retreated from their social world. A principal
contributor was their sense that sharing information,
even of the most general kind, might be potentially dangerous.They describedtheir information world as one in
which there was a great reliance on self and in which the
need for information was suppressed.
Although I did not initially conclude that their world
of work was a competitive one, it did not take long to
realize that, indeed, it was. Things that I might have
thought relatively easyto sharewere held tightly. In fact,
the janitors made a considerable effort to keep others
from having any advantage over them. In the example
that follows, the respondent is secretive about her relationship with her supervisor. Mingled with wanting to fit
in with other janitors regarding their negative relationships with supervisors was her desire to avoid their patronizing attitude. She begins:
Some of my co-workers teaseme about following behind
Miss T. Hey, they got to stick their head in those toilets,
same as me. They cant do nothing for me. So, if Miss T.
wants me to go to Timbuktu, Im going. You cant even
get off probationunlessshetells you to. Plus,shellmake

a sneakyinspectionin a minute.Goingin the bathrooms

to make sure theyre clean, putting her hand on the rail-

200

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

The results from the aging study provided several instances in which the residents perceived the need to be
secretive. For example, a phenomenon associatedwith
living at Garden Towers was that the women concealed
physical and mental failings. A hindrance to sharing this
type of information was mistrust of others to keep the
information confidential. Also, revelation would surely
lead to expulsion. Not surprisingly, fear of ending ones
life in a nursing facility, if others suspected ones true
condition, was an effective deterrent to personal
exposure. I suspectanother reasonthe residentswere not
eager to solicit assistance was a desire not to be a
bother. Residentswho were constantly asking for assistance were often avoided by others. Knowing that,
women who could appear more independent chose to
do so.
What these observations revealed is that secrecy is
necessarybecauseto trust or confide in anyone would
adversely reveal the extent of ones need. Moreover, disclosure would surely lead to dire consequences.Finally,
sharing the information would not necessarilymean that
the audience would sympathize.
Deception
In addition to secrecy,deception was found to be an
important factor in information poverty. Deception conveys a slightly different meaning from secrecy.Secrecyis
an active process of shutting down or closing off information. Deception is a deliberate attempt to act out a

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

false social reality. In deception, one never had the slightest intention of telling a true story. Relieved of the truth,
one engagesin activities in which personal reality is consciously and forcefully distorted. The problem with deception is that because one shares information that is
meaningless, information received is the most irrelevant
kind.
Why would someone deliberately deceive? One reason, not unexpectedly, is to appear more well-off than
one really is. The need to appear to be coping successfully, or at the very least to be coping as well as everyone
else seemsto be derived by social norms. That is, no one
wants to be viewed less capable than ones neighbors or
friends at solving problems.
As an example, consider a janitor I visited during her
lunch hour. We sat a seat apart in an auditorium. As she
began to eat her lunch, I noticed that her sandwich consisted of two pieces of white bread with nothing in between. Since lunch time is one of the few times janitors
were seen socializing together, I suspect this was her way
of not calling attention to the fact that she couldnt afford
a more substantial sandwich. In this case, therefore, the
respondent wasnt deliberately shielding information
but, rather, was deceptive in her behavior regarding her
lunch.
A brief example from my CETA study also adds to the
notion that deception is used when one perceives oneself
as needing to appear normal or making appropriate behavioral judgments. In this case, the respondent indicated that she engagesin anti-social behavior to fit inor to appear to be an insider. She remarked:
There is a lot of turmoil around here.This placeneedsa
lot of help. I talked to a friend about wanting to help
make it better if I can. There is a lot of blaming, scapegoating,and backbiting.This isnt the way I treat people.
But everybodydoesit so I go along.Nobody really tries
to help eachother. Plus,the interpersonalrelationships
leavea lot to be desired.I know that in order to have
a good working relationship,you needcommunication,
trust, and cooperation.Since none of thesethings exist
here,I know this is not a safeplaceto promote my ideas.
The respondent knows that to be successfulshe needs
to assume behavior that stems from the world outside.
Becauseher social environment has not prepared her for
some acceptable behaviors, she engagesin pretense. Or,
as she says with significant insight, the need to put on
airs:
We needto try to get off welfare.Welfareis like goingto
mental institutions. We needto seemore blacks being
visible as nurses and doctors. They should be more
placedin jobs they are qualified for. Blacksneedsto pep
up their language.They shouldact and talk like the people theyreworking with and not talk street.When white
folks comesdown here,they know enoughto slap your
hand and give you the soul handshake.We shouldlearn

JOURNAL

the same.They shouldlearn how to put on airs if they

haveto. We all do it. I put on airs myselfwhen Im in a
situation that call for it. Im not putting on airs now but
I do know how to git down.
I should mention that despite this respondents bravado regarding her ability to cope with the world of work,
she later shared several situations in which she needed
but did not ask for advice. I was also told by co-workers
that they resented her superficiality. However, I cannot
fail to commiserate with her situation. In her singlemindedness to fit in, I suspect that her status of outsider
prevented her from truly understanding the social and
work norms of her place of employment. Thus, in her
desire to make an effort to belong, her actions only emphasized the differences between her world and the world
of co-workers.
Finally, the aging study with its seemingly homogeneous insulated environment revealed an argument for
deceptions influence on information-seeking. Respondents were not engaging in information-seeking or sharing behaviors becausethey wanted to give an appearance
of normalcy. That is, they did not want to be viewed as
less capable than their neighbors of coping with lifestresses.In some instances, their deception of well-being
meant their ability to maintain some degree of independent living. The end result was that many residents were
desperately in need of information but pretended they
were successfully coping without it.
Situational Relevance
The concept of situational-relevance8 was also instrumental in explaining information need and use. Although there is much debate about the definition of relevance, one aspect of the term that is fairly consistent is
utility.
This idea of relevance and poverty, although not explicitly addressed, does fit within a general discussion.
For instance, situational relevance theorists are busily
debating issues that examine things such as usefulness
(Cuadra & Katter, 1967), applicability to individual
concerns or interests (Wilson, 1973), and growth of new
knowledge (Swanson, 1977). Cooper ( 1973 ) does not
directly address usefulness, but the idea is incorporated
in his term, utility. For instance, in his exclamation,
the concept of utility is appealing becauseit encompasses
usefulness and because it is a cover term for anything
about a document that the user values (p. 92). This
* For background material that led to my use of this concept, see
Patrick Wilsons thoughtful essay, Situational Relevance, Information Storage and Retrieval(August 1973), 9,451~47 1.
9 For a cogent overview of the situation aspect of relevance, see
Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Nilan, M. S. ( 1990) A Re-Examination of Relevance: Toward a Dynamic, Situational Definition, In-

formation Processingand Management 26, 755-776.

OF THE AMERICAN

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

201

view, that relevance addressessome expressedneed of a

person, is supported by a number of researchers,such as
Froehlich ( 1994), who for the most part examined the
concept within retrieval discussions but whose observations are generalized to everyday use.
Although there is no absolute agreement regarding a
definition for relevance, the concept is promising. Its appeal lies in its ability to shape a collective perception
about ways in which new knowledge is brought into a
social system.
Ultimately, a discussion of situational relevance pertains to the notion of sense-making. Borrowing from
Dervins model (1977), the idea is that things that make
sense are relevant. More importantly, sources of information must make senseto an individual who is engaged
in some problematic situation.
An application of relevance in an everyday context
therefore means that which will be of interest is that
which is useful in responseto some concern or problem.
Moreover, understanding the concept of relevance provides insight as to why potentially helpful sources might
be ignored: because people who are experiencing a precarious existence do not seea generalized value of many
sources provided by outsiders intended to respond to
their situation. Even if a source is perceived as potentially useful, it will not do much good to the individual if
that source is not legitimized by contextual others.
In my application of relevance in an everyday context,
there is the assumption that what will be of interest to
ordinary people is that which responds to some concern
or problem.12 Understanding relevance in this context
sheds light on why some potentially helpful sources of
information were being ignored. Essentially, the respondents did not seethe value to their situations in searching
for these sources. Another reason was because a source,
even when perceived as useful, often required too much
effort or might lead to personal compromise.
The first example comes from the CETA research. As
the following narrative will reveal, the respondent
wanted some information to improve her interpersonal
skills, particularly when relating to other workers. She
For a brief overview of seminaltheorists, see Saracevics ( 1975)
and Coopers ( 1973) pragmatic use of utility to provide relevant information: Paisleys ( 1968) argument for accessibility and ease of use:
Fosketts ( 1972) view that for things to be relevant they must be linked
to what is considered public knowledge or what others in an environment define as relevant. There are other equally qualified and important researchers who have made significant contributions to the area of
relevance. A choice to include a sample ofthe work was made for those
items that appear most salient to the particular topic under current
discussion.
I Of course. a common sense way in which to accept a non-legitimate source is to identify with a different group. However, moving
from one social world to another is not an easy task.
l2 These concerns need not be of dire consequences but might include a desire to satisfy an intellectual curiosity. However. in the studies
1 have conducted, the necessity to manage problematic situations was
indeed critical.

202

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

did not pursue it, however, because she perceived the

kind of information she needed was not available to her
and she felt she would not receive a sympathetic response
if she revealed to others her need for the information:
A few months back I was going through somepersonal
changes,someattitude changes,and it affectedmy job
performance.I felt that collectively,the white womenon
my staff didnt understand[my situation]. They didnt
understandthat it wasnt becauseIm black that I was
not respondingto them.
As indicated in her observations, searching for ways
in which to relate better to co-workers seemeda fruitless
exercise. Apparently, the messages she was receiving
were outside her control. That is, they were not based on
mutual benefits or degreesof commonality that working
together might permit, but on racial barriers. In her case,
what would constitute relevant information is that which
would break down the distrust and resistance she was experiencing.
Findings from the janitors also indicated that sources
were not sought primarily because they held little or no
value to their lived experience. As 1 mentioned earlier,
this finding resulted in the applicability of gratification
and alienation theories to find rationale for their behavior. How was relevance shown in the study of janitors?
Examples were robberies, rapes, murders, firing, or job
suspensions. A conclusion from the data suggeststhat
these items were newsworthy to the janitors becausethey
alerted them to places in which to be wary, informed
them who was being victimized, and let them know who
was engaged in criminal activity. The news also gave
them a senseof co-workers to avoid on the job because
of deviant or inappropriate work habits.
Another source of news that fits the relevance model
was that which helped define things of interest to the janitors. For instance, tidbits regarding raises,fringe benefits
and retirements and news about job leads or vacancies
were of high interest. So was news about social, religious
(primarily gospel groups), and entertainment events and
weather reports (mainly about severe climatic conditions) and obituaries. As might be expected, what
made this information relevant was its first-level nature.
It is this information that has a direct and immediate
impact on the social world of the janitors.
In the aging study, 1 introduced the notion that relevant information which they could use for their situation
was not available. 1 also reported that, in some instances,
it might not have been due to sources being unavailable,
but rather that the residents perceived a search for information of the most relevant kind would be too costly.
Thus, they engaged in secrecy (in which they chose not
to tell others who might be in a position to help them)
and self-protective behaviors (to give an appearance of
normalcy). What resulted, therefore, was a social network devoid of the most critical kind of information.

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

Regarding relevance and its influence on self-protective behaviors, 1 found that the environment in which the
women lived played a critical role. For instance, having
a close relationship with their children was supported by
a filial norm expected by members of Garden Towers.
Even though parents might have wanted to discuss aspects of their lives that were becoming physically, emotionally, or financially dysfunctional, the most relevant
information was not in responseto these concerns. From
their point of view, rather, it was that which helped them
maintain a positive relationship with their children.
In many instances, the women chose to keep private
their most serious problems for fear of losing the affection of their children, thereby not only risking avoidance
by them, but also having the potential of being viewed
as a poor dear by other residents because they were
abandoned by their offspring.3
The result was that the women engagedin a search for
information that was relevant but of no great consequence.14I defined the degree of relevance as occurring
at three levels. The first level pertains to generalized information which occurs within the everyday lived experiences of the residents, the purpose of which is to help
the women engagein daily conversations, stay informed
about localized happenings, or stimulate some voyeur
curiosity such as discussions about media or public figures.
The second level is linked to ones personal need for
coping but within an appropriate standard or norm, such
as asking for advice about some medical problem. Sharing this information does not involve a great deal of risk.
Wishing to know more about some mental worries, such
as a fear of losing ones memory, however, was not
openly discussed,perhaps becauseit was an aspect of the
aging process of great concern to most residents. Thus,
an attitude of avoidance was the norm.
As this situation demonstrates, the notion of relevance becomes more selective the more personal the nature of the information being sought. The third level of
information is protected with the highest degree of secrecy. Because of the individualistic nature of this level
of information, if found, relevance could make a significant contribution. The women chose to shield this most
personal information from both family and friends. One
reason was the compromise to their self-esteem and independence they perceived disclosure would cost. It was
simply too risky to share. When they chose to describe
their physical or mental problems, it was to professional
caretakers. Unfortunately, in many casesthe women believed the information they received was not relevant or
they did not have a great deal of confidence in the advice
I3 Poor dear refers to women perceived to be worse off than other
residents.
I4 For a detailed discussion regarding my three levels ofinformation
and information
sharing, see The Information World of Retired
Women, Chapter 8.

JOURNAL

they were being given. Another factor was the perception

that caretakers were dispassionate about them and the
problematic conditions they were experiencing.
Poverty Life-World

Although there is a body of support for the situational

approach to information need and use, I prefer to address this concept in light of a life-world. A smaller picture of the big life-world is one defined by local customs
and norms. For purposes of this study, this is a poverty
life-world. I deliberately emphasized a poverty life- world
rather than a situational approach for several reasons.
For one, although problems might begin on an individualistic level, I5 for ones personal search strategiesto have
practical implications, they must be viewed within a
frame of social norms. That is, making sense from a
problematic situation is certainly worthwhile. To be
truly interesting, this sense-making process should be
viewed within our insiders/outsiders context. The value
of this approach is to lend legitimacy by insiders that the
search for information is an appropriate one. Otherwise,
one might indeed search for information but this information might be in response to an illusionary need i6or a need not recognized by others as relevant or normal.
So, even though each person will approach things from a
slightly different set of lenses,what holds a social reality
together, and ultimately, establishes proper bounds for
information-seeking is the recognition by others that
those behaviors are customary ones to pursue. Simply
stated, then, to convince others that ones problems are
not delusory, that they do speak to common experience
in my life-world, others who share this world must validate both the problems and authenticate the properness
of the search.
Social constructionists acknowledge the interplay between ones personal reality and the reality of everyday
life. . . shared by others (Berger and Luckmann, 1967,
p. 28 ). The idea that new information or new knowledge
enters a social system through a shared common sense
reality is apparent in Schultzs ( 1962, p. 149) observation regarding the notion of common-sense thinking and
social approval:
Their structure determines among other things the social
distribution
of knowledge and its relativity and relevance
to the concrete social environment of a concrete group

in a concretehistoricalsituation.
I5 See for example, the germinal work Dervin has done regarding
sense-making useful theory for librarianship: Communication, not information ( 1977), The everyday information needs ofthe average citizen ( 1976), Useful theory for Librarianship: Communication, not
Information (1977) Dervin and Greenberg The communication environment of the urban poor ( 1972).
I6 Regarding the need to recreate a worldview that is real to the individual but unable to be penetrated, even by insiders, see Goffmans
Asylums ( 196 I )

OF THE AMERICAN

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

203

At this point, my discussion suggeststhat risk-taking

does not occur in a communication void, And, interestingly, a persons idiosyncratic expression of need is not a
singular, isolated expression. Rather, the decision to take
a risk is reinforced by a social support system that exists
in which risk-taking is rewarded. Thus said, the act of
sharing ones true and honest concern happens because
an individuals problems reflect the everyday ambiguity
of life as experienced by others who reside within ones
social world.
This is an intriguing notion, that the willingness to
shield or take risks is influenced by the idea of legitimizing. That is, that contextual others shape and define
what problems are appropriate to pursue and acceptable
for public disclosure. What this observation implies is
that contextual others provide a legitimate channel
through some collective social norm and that an individual search for information is appropriate within this particular context.
The linkage of information-seeking with social norms
is deliberate. In my opinion. it suggestsa fundamental
process that might explain why some sources are sought
and others ignored. Essentially then, what are characteristics of social norms that are relevant to this discussion?
According to Sherif ( 1936, p. 3), social norms are customs, traditions, standards, rules, values, fashions, and
all other criteria of conduct which are standardized as a
consequence of the contact of individuals.
Social norms affect the exchange of information because they set parameters around the communication
process. They act, in other words, as reference points in
which information sharing might be expected to occur.
For example, Schultz and Luckmanns ( 1973, p. 4) observations support the interplay between social norms
and a persons relationship (including information
sharing) with others. The authors state that, My lifeworld is not my private world, but, rather, is intersubjective; the fundamental structure of its reality is that it is
shared by us.
World of Outsiders

Why would I characterize members of my research as

outsiders? From the studies I described throughout this
inquiry, a finding that is consistent pertains to marginality. For example, the issue of marginality (Hughes,
1949) can be linked to the environment of CETA
women. In this instance, they were temporary workers
who came into an employment situation in which social
norms regarding work behaviors and attitudes were
deeply established. Becausemany permanent employees
viewed them as assuming jobs based on criteria other
than qualifications, they chose not to associatewith them
socially or to share work-related information that could
increase their chances for permanency. This finding supports Cooleys ( 1956, p. 290) view of the poor as experiencing an impoverished life-world. He remarks:
204

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

the lack of adequatefood, clothing and housing commonly implies other lacks,amongwhich are poor early
training and education,the absenceof contactwith elevating and inspiring personalities,a narrow outlook
upon the world, and, in short, a generallack of social
opportunity
The absolute closure to avenues that might lead to acceptability was problematic for another reason. It meant
that interpersonal communication channels were perceived as unhelpful and the social exchangesamong the
CETA women and other workers were ones astonishingly devoid of support or mutual caring.
The work I conducted with janitors also provides convincing evidence of an outsiders worldview. The janitors
emphasized their identification in stratljied terms, e.g.,
as invisible people within the university and as helpless
in voicing their frustrations. An indication that they
viewed themselves in this light was their social dealing
with other workers and their minimal association with
members of the academic community. The results from
my janitorial research illustrate a barren information climate. With few exceptions, the overwhelming evidence
is that they had a minimal association with either coworkers or other members of the university. Significantly, the severity of their information world can be described as one in which there is a stratification of information acquisition and use. Persons most enriched by
information sources are those most removed from the
everyday life-worlds of janitors. What I concluded from
the studies is that the janitors were the most socially isolated from both formal and interpersonal sources of information. And, becauseof their position within the academic environment, there is precariously little margin
for information exchanges. The realization provided by
my work with janitors was so compelling that it led to
the formulations of alienation theory to explain the destitution of that information world.
Finally, my aging study ( 1992) provided unexpected
clues that furthered my understanding of the role that
outsider can play in information poverty. The respondents for this inquiry were Southern women. They were
intensely concerned about maintaining their heritage
and traditional values within the retirement community
that I called Garden Towers. In this process of learning
to live among strangers, they were experiencing a redefinition of their traditional roles of, for example,
mother, wife, and neighbor. More than other groups I
studied, this population was undergoing emotional, social, and psychological adjustments for which their familiar world had not prepared them.
In addition, they found that social values and norms
which had sustained them previously were not sufficient
to enhance their living among strangers. It wasnt that
others did not adhere to similar values, but rather that
private views were subsumed by open communal living
which determined appropriate behavior. The outcome

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

of leaving ones home, and going to live with other men I7

and women fed a perception that, to survive socially, one
needs to keep problems to oneself, appear as normal as
possible, and be extremely selective in the type of person
one might choose to cultivate as a neighbor or friend.
This element of caution was no doubt due to their fear
that severe illness would lead to involuntary expulsion
from their apartments.
As I indicated earlier, the repercussions of a worldview in which respondents view themselves as outsiders,
especially to people who are not part of their world, is not
surprising. Based on previous research, one can make a
prima facie casethat people who live in an arduous social
landscape view outsiders with skeptical and self-protective eyes.
What became apparent was that my respondents
view of insiders (people like themselves who shared a
common urgency regarding similar problems) was also
that of outsider. This particular finding is an anomaly.
I suppose it is because theorists debating an insiders/
outsiders worldview assume that it refers to us against
them rather than an I and everyone else is them.
Conclusion

From these studies, several observations might be

made regarding the information world of specialized
populations generally. For one, their world is one in
which the information needs and its sources are very localized. For another, it is one in which outsiders are usually not sought for information and advice. And it is a
world in which norms and mores define what is important and what is not.
As a profession, we are only beginning to serve the
needs of other populations. The process of understanding begins with research that looks at their social environment and that defines information from their perspective. In summary, this type of research that I and
others are doing strives to address the information needs
of people who, for whatever reasons, see themselves or
are viewed by others as outsiders. We, as members of an
information profession, have an obligation to continue
to work to identify issuesthat examine the information
needs of the poor, in particular, populations that have
traditionally been overlooked by our research efforts,
professional practice, and the published literature.
As I said when introducing this article, early in my
research career, I was influenced by a debate in which
information poverty and economic poverty were interchangeable conditions of need. After systematically examining this relationship, however, I cannot support this
argument. What modest advance then does this article

contribute to our understanding of information poverty?

Perhaps to suggesta theory to explore means whereby we
might explain this complex social and cultural phenomenon. A logical beginning would be carefully designed
studies based on important research questions. An important question would respond to an inquiry currently
being conducted, suggestgeneralizable links with similar
or other phenomena, and give fresh insight to matters of
professional concern. Working with conceptual frameworks and empirical research has never been an easy
task.
What then might our ultimate responsibility as professionals and scholars be? In Parks classical work, Human Communities ( 1952, p. 29), he arguesthat it is the
[recognition] of the existence of a critical situation
which converts what was otherwise mere information
into news. In closing, the challenge is to identify that
critical situation within the context of a social world that
will be newsworthy to its inhabitants.
Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful suggestions of Catherine Ross and Patricia Dewdney from
the University of Western Ontario; Paul Solomon and
Victoria Pendleton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Brenda Dervin at Ohio State University; and reviewers of JASIS.
References
Becker, H. S. ( 1973). Outsider: Studies in the sociology of deviance.
New York: The Free Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. ( 1967). The social construction efrealify. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bok, S. ( 1983). Secrets. New York: Random House.
Bordua, D. J. ( I99 1). The intelligence function and democratic policy:
A review of three books on intelligence. Journal ofPolitical and Military Sociology, 19. 306-3 13.
Cancian, F. ( 1967). Stratification and risk-taking: A theory tested on
agricultural innovation. American Sociological Review, 32, 9 I2926.
Caudra, C. A. & Katter, R. V. ( 1967). Opening the black box of relevance. Journal of Documentation, 23( 4)) 29 l-303.
Chatman, E. A. ( 1983). The d&Con of information among the working poor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Chatman, E. A. ( 1986). Diffusion theory: A review and test of a conceptual model in information diffusion. Journal of the American So-

cielyfor Information Science, 37, 377-386.

Chatman, E. A. ( 1987). Opinion leadership, poverty, and information
sharing. RQ, 26.341-353.
Chatman, E. A. ( 1990). Alienation theory: Application ofa conceptual
framework to a study of information among janitors. RQ, 29, 355368.
Chatman, E. A. ( 199 I). Life in a small world: Applicability of gratification theory to information-seeking behavior. Journal of the Amer-

ican Society for Information Science, 9, 265-283.

Single men, married couples, and single women lived at Garden
Towers. For purposes ofmy research, I chose to examine single women
and their social and information worlds.

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

Chatman, E. A. ( 1992). The information world ofretired women. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Cohen, A. ( 1975). The definition ofpublic identity: Managing margin-

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

SCIENCE-March

1996

205

ality in outpost Newfoundland. The Sociological Reviebv. 23, 93119.

Cooley, C. H. ( 1956). Social organization: Human nature and the social order. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Cooper, W. S. ( 1973). On selecting a measure ofretrieval effectiveness,
part I. The subjective philosophy ofevaluation. Journal qjthe Amer-

ican Socictyfi,r Irzformation Science, 24, 87- 100.

Dervin, B. ( 1976). The everyday information needs ofthe average citizen. A taxonomy for analysis. InJormation for the Community.
(Kochen, M., & Donohue, J. C., Eds). Chicago: American Library
Association: 19-38.
Dervin, B. ( 1977). Useful theory for librarianship: Communication,
not information. Drexel Library @tarterI): 13. 16-32.
Dervin, B., & Greenberg, B. S. ( 1972). The communication environment of the urban poor. In Current perspectives in mass communication research.I(pp. 195-233). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Dervin, B.. & Vilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual

Marx, G. T. ( 1984). Role models and role distance: A remembrance of

Erving Goffman. Theory and Society, 13. 649-662.
Merton, R. K. ( 1959). The role-set: Problems in sociological theory.

British Journal ofSociology, 8, IO6- 120.

Merton, R. K. ( 1972). Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge. American Journal ofSociology, 78, 9-47.
Mikkelsen, E. J.. Guthiel, T. G., & Emens, M. (1992). False sexual
abuse allegations by children and adolescents: Contextual factors
and clinical subtypes. dmerican Journal yfPs)rhotherapy, 46, 556570.
Nolan. K. ( 1991). Commentary: How do we think about the ethics
of human germ-line genetic therapy. The Journal ofMedicine and
Philosophy: 16, 6 13-6 19.
Oommen, T. K. (1986). Insiders and outsiders in India: Primordial
collectivism and cultural pluralism in nation-building. Internatiorud

Sociology, I. 53-74.
needs and uses. Annual Review q/
Inftirmation Science and Technology. 3, l-30.
Park, R. E. ( 1952). Human Communities Illinois: Free Press.
Paisley. W. J. ( 1968). Information

Review OfIrzftirmation Science and Technology, 21, 3-33.

Doyle, R. C. ( 1992). Unresolved mysteries: The myth of the missing
warrior and the government deceit theme in the popular captivity
culture of the Vietnam War. Journal @American Culture IS. 1- 18.
Dutton. D. G., & Hemphill, K. J. ( 1992). Patterns ofsocially desirable
responding among perpetrators and victims of wife assault. Viokence

Redlinger. L. J.. &Johnston, S. ( 1980). Secrecy, informational uncertainty, and social control. Clrban Life, 8. 387-397.
Rigney, D. ( 1979). Secrecy and social cohesion. Society, 16, 52-55.
Rogers,E. M..&Beal,G. M.( 1957-1958).Theimportanceofpersonal
influence in the adoption oftechnological changes. Sociul Forces, 36.
329-335.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker. F. F. ( 1971). Communication oflnnovarions. New York: The Free Press.
Rosie. A. ( 1993). Hes a liar, Im afraid: Truths and lies in a narrative
account. Sociology: 27. 144- 152.
Saracevic. T. ( I 975 ) Relevance: A review of and a framework for the
thinking on the notion in information science. Journal offhez4mer-

and Victims. 7, 29-39.

Ericson, R. V. (1989). Patrolling the facts: Secrecy and publicity in
police work. The British Journal @Sociology 40, 205-226.
Foskett, D. J. ( 1972). A note on the concept of relevance. Irzforma-

tion Storage and Retrieval 8, 77-78.

Friedman, P. J. ( 1992). Mistakes and fraud in medical research. Late.

Medicine and Health Care 20, 17-25.

Froehlich. T. J. ( 1994). Relevance reconsidered-Towards
an agenda
for the 2 1st century: Introduction to special topic issue on relevance
research. Journal c$the American Society.for Information Science.
45, 124-132.
Goffman, E. ( 1959). The presentation of self in everyda), lifti. New
York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. ( 196I ). Asylums: EssaJa in the .socialsituation c$mental
patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. ( 1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Goffman. E. ( 1971). Relations in public.
New York: Harper Colophon
Books.
Goffman. E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper Colophon
Books.
Goodman, M. J., &Goodman, L. E. ( 1989). Particularly amongst the
sunburnt nations-The
persistence of sexual stereotypes of race in
bio-science. International Journal ofGroup Tensions, 19, 365-384.
Hughes, E. V. ( 1949). Social change and status protest: An essay on the
marginal man. Phy/on IO, 58-65.
Jacobs. B. A. ( 1992). Undercover deception: Reconsidering presentations of self. Journal ~fContemporary Ethnography, 21, 200-225.
Latour. B. ( 198 1). Insiders and outsiders in the sociology of science:
or, how can we foster agnosticism? Knowledge and Society: Studies

ican Society,fiJr It$rmation Science, -76.32 l-343.

Schopmeyer, K. D., & Bradley J. F. ( 1993). Insiders and outsiders:
Exploring ethnocentrism and cultural relativity in sociology courses.
TeachingSociolog?, 21, 148-153.
Schultz, A. ( 1962). Co/lectedpapers( Vol. I). The Hague: Nijhoff.
Schultz, A., & T. Luckmann ( 1973). The Stnlctures ofthe I$-tisorld.7.
(M. Zaner and H. T. Engelhardt. Jr., Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Seeman, M. ( 1959). On the meaning of alienation. Americun Socio/og-

in the Sociology qjCulture Past and Present, 3, 199-2 16.

Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. J. ( 1988). The insider-outsider theory of
employment and unemployment. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lindstrom, D. E. ( 1958). Diffusion of agricultural and home economics practices in a Japanese rural community. Rural Sociology. 23,
171-183.
Luhrmann, T. M. ( 1989). The magic ofsecrecy. &has. 17, 13 I-165.

206

JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN

SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION

ical Revieu,, 24, 783-79 I.

Sherif, M. ( 1936). Thep.sycho/ogyc?fsocialnorm.r. New York: Harper
& Brothers.
Simmel, G. ( 1950). T/ze sociology of Georg Simmel. Woff. K. A..
Trans. Glencoe, Ill: The Free Press.
Solovey. A. D.. & Duncan, B. L. ( 1992). Ethics and strategic therapy:
A proposed ethical direction. Journal of.Maritu/ and Family Therapy, 1853-6 I.
Summer, W. G. ( 1907). Fo/kw,ays.Boston: Ginn &Co.
Swanson, D. R. ( 1977). Information retrieval as a trial-and-error pro-

cess.Library Quarterly. 47, I28- 148.

West. M. P. (1978). The role of the outsider in the social protest of
welfare rights of women. Socictvfbr the S1ud.vofSocial Problems.
(Association paper) Rutgers University, New Brunswick. NJ.
Whyte, W. F. ( 198I ) Srreef corner society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, P. ( 1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquir)] into cognitive
authority>.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Wilson. P. ( 1973). Situational relevance. Itz/i,rmation Storuge and Retrieval. 9, 457-47 1.

SCIENCE-March

1996