Keywords: Gatekeeper; Gatekeeping; Opinion leaders; Interpersonal information acquisition; Social networks;Interpersonal relations; Social network analysis (SNA); Sociocognitive perspective; Collectivism
1. Introduction
One prominent human information behavior that has been repeatedly reported in library andinformation science (LIS) research is that people rely on networks of personal contact to accessand acquire information. Despite the availability of numerous library and information services,
104 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
interpersonal communication has always been the favorite channel for the general population.As a result, library and information professionals have long ago realized the importance ofintegrating their services with these interpersonal networks in order to optimize informationservices (Wilkin, 1977). Today knowledge concerning the utilization and characteristics ofinterpersonal information activities still remains formative and fragmented, although a numberof disciplines, including communication, anthropology, sociology, organizational behavior,management science, and to a lesser extent, library and information science have all studiedprominent social behavior since the 1940s.
This article examines information acquisition through social networks, with a special focuson the widely researched phenomenon of “gatekeeping” based on research from multipledisciplines. It begins with a discussion of why interpersonal contact is preferred over otherchoices of information sources. It is followed by an analytical review of literature ongatekeeping: how people use interpersonal networks and who are the gatekeepers. Thisliterature is conceptualized through a sociological/anthropological lens in that informationbehavior is perceived within the social milieu and community interaction in which informationtransmissions occur. The article concludes with implications and a new research agendaappropriate for LIS scholarship.
2. Characteristics of interpersonal information sources
In the LIS research literature, especially information-seeking behavior research, it is almostuniversally reported that people tend to use interpersonal sources (for example, friends,relatives, colleagues, or neighbors) to obtain the information they need, rather than the publiclibrary or other institutional or mass media channels. For example, Chen and Hernon (1982), intheir analysis of a poll of New England residents, reveal that the general population tends touse information provided through interpersonal networks over formal means. This patternholds true for all kinds of information need situations as well as across both professional andnon-professional spheres. Similarly, in the United States, Durrance (1984) found that morethan 64% of her research participants used interpersonal sources, although 59% said they usedlibraries when they needed to look for printed information. Sturges (2001, p. 62) evenmaintains that there is “a fundamental preference for information mediated by humaninteraction” and that “there is evidence of this from all parts of the world and from mostimportant aspects of human life.”Why is this so? A number of characteristics of interpersonalinformation sources have been shown to be the reasons for their use over other means ofinformation acquisition.
2.1. Primary groups as anchors of information
As human beings, we live in societies where we are inherently tied to different socialconnections. These connections form various social groups. Mass media researchers Katz andLazarsfeld (1965, p. 50) call these groups “primary groups” defined as formal or informalsocial groupings of various kinds—families, friends, work teams, clubs, or organizations—
105Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
within which individuals form their interpersonal networks and through which individualsconduct all kinds of daily activities. These primary groups delineate major life boundaries foreach one of us in society—our routine activities are mainly confined within the sphere of thesegroups. Such groups are usually of small size, maintained by face-to-face interaction amongtheir members, and are relatively durable and informal (Shils, 1950).
Since our lives are mainly contained in primary groups, our attitudes and opinions tend toderive from them as well as our sources of information. According to Katz and Lazarsfeld(1965) and sociologist E.A. Shils (1950), at least two major benefits of conforming to primarygroups are evident.
First, people consciously build up primary groups consisting of members whom they admireand wish to emulate. This corresponds with reference group theories first developed bypsychologist H.H. Hyman in the 1940s (Kelley, 1952). Hyman uses the term “reference group” todenote any group to which a person relates and fromwhich derives his attitudes and opinions. Suchgroups have a normative function in that they set the standards of behavior and evaluation for theirmembers (Kelley, 1952).When a primary or reference group is attractive to an individual, he or sheis motivated to accept the group norms, which are manifested through attitudes and opinions. As aresult, an individual is very receptive to information transmitted out of such groups.
Second, primary groups provide us with “social reality” to validate our actions. As weencounter unknown situations and difficult decisions, we turn to and consult our socialcontacts, including both strong (e.g., family and friends) and weak ties (e.g., colleagues,acquaintances) (Granovetter, 1972), to help us form opinions and find solutions. Throughinteractions among members concerning a particular issue, a primary group tends to develop acommon view and collective approach, hence, provides social reality that helps and validatesdecision making by its members.
A third benefit is that primary group members can easily communicate with one another asthey have developed a pre-understanding by sharing common social reality (Capurro, 1992).Their communication is made effortless as they mutually share the community language andbackground information that outsiders do not have the privilege to acquire. Information sotransmitted becomes easily accessible and digestible.
Because conforming to primary groups can offer some major benefits illustrated above, it isnatural for people to demonstrate this fundamental propensity of seeking information throughsocial networks. Moreover, interpersonal information sources also have other characteristics,particularly accessibility, credibility, value-laden applicability, and manageability of informa-tion overload, which make them the preferred choices of information seekers.
2.2. Accessibility
Information-seeking and processing are resource intensive and time consuming. Accordingto the principle of least effort in information science (Poole, 1985; Zipf, 1949), peoplegenerally prefer to spend as little effort as possible in information searching in order tominimize the total work load needed. Oral communication usually entails much less effort andtime than going to and searching libraries, conducting an electronic search or reading frombooks (Cullen, 1997; Tushman, 1982; Tushman & Katz, 1980). Friends who can be
106 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
telephoned or e-mailed, or colleagues who sit across the hall from one’s office—people withwhom we can get in touch almost instantly—are normally preferred over other means ofinformation acquisition.
2.3. Credibility
A critical dimension of information is its credibility, which can be interpreted as the authority,reliability, trustworthiness, and competence of certain information (Fritch & Cromwell, 2001;Rieh, 2002; Wathen & Burkell, 2002; Wilson, 1977, 1983). Two aspects of credibility—competence and trustworthiness—have been identified as the most important in communicationresearch (Watts, 1998). Competence-based credibility is the judgment, made by an informationrecipient, of the expertise of an information sender in terms of whether he or she is capable ofknowing the correct answer. Trustworthiness-based credibility is the perceived truthfulness andintegrity of an information source. From an affective and a cognitive perspective in LIS, when anindividual perceives a piece of information as credible, he or she is willing to accept and digest it,and, after sense making, incorporate it into his or her mental models or schemes. Otherwise, theinformation is likely to be rejected or not acted upon (Watts, 1998).
An individual’s expertise and trustworthiness can be demonstrated fairly clearly over timethrough daily interactions with other people. Once judged credible, a person is very likely to besought after for information concerning matters relevant to his or her expertise. In our primarygroups, many of the social networks are formed with and through relatives, friends, andcolleagues, whom we trust even more. Personal contacts easily win over other informationsources which normally do not have such advantages.
2.4. Value-laden applicability
Personal communication enables the source party to customize his/her expertise to thespecific circumstances of the information seeker so that the information can be more applicableto the situation (Baldwin & Rice, 1997; Cullen, 1997; Wilson, 1977, p. 38). Moreover,immediate feedback and evaluation from the source party can further add value to theinformation provided, so the information seeker can be more confident in decision making. Forinstance, Cullen (1997) finds that because medical specialists can customize their expertise tospecific cases of patients, they are far more trusted than textbooks by family practitioners intreating patients.
People’s information needs are highly diversified and individualized (Chatman, 1987),making applicable and value-laden information most desirable, and yet the hardest to obtain.Interpersonal sources, to a great extent, can minimize these difficulties and maximize theutility of information.
2.5. Manageability of information overload
Information scientist M. R. Nelson (2004) has noted that “the information age hasarrived and with it comes a daily assault of increased information. Society is being held
107Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
hostage by a battery of information which threatens to exceed our ability to manage it.Information overload costs businesses and individuals valuable time, effort and additionalresources … and the cost is rising.” One means of managing information overload is throughaccessing value-added information—information that has been processed, filtered, anddigested in some way. As illustrated above, information, communicated through interpersonalnetworks, that has been adapted and customized to fit the specific situation, reducesinformation overload.
As social beings, surrounded and supported by primary groups, people rely on socialnetworks for a sense of belonging, for appropriate attitudes and opinions to function in society,and for constructing one’s social reality. Individuals have an innate propensity and social needto depend on each other for information and advice. Furthermore, interpersonal informationsources are relatively easier to access, recognized as more credible and reliable, and generallymore applicable. Meanwhile, interpersonal sources can add value through intermediateprocessing and evaluation and reduce information overload. No other information source isnearly as comparable to interpersonal sources in terms of all these characteristics. Therefore,the general public prefers personal contacts for information acquisition.
If personal networks play such a primary role in our information world, then how are thesenetworks used to satisfy our information needs? Whom do we contact for information? Is therea pattern that can be discerned?
3. Human use of interpersonal networks
Theoretically, it is possible that people interact with someone they know or just randomlywith anyone who happens to be available for information. However, through extensiveresearch, scholars in various disciplines have all found that there are strategic points for thetransmission of information in every group (Agada, 1999; Allen, 1977; Chatman, 1987; Katz,1957; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1965; Lewin, 1951; Metoyer-Duran, 1993a,1993b; Shoemaker,1991). Some researchers regard these strategic points as the roles members have within agroup, maintaining that the grouping of humans is never a simple aggregation no matter howinformal or chaotic it is on the surface, but a structural one with people assuming different roles(Benne & Sheats, 1948; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1965; Newcomb, 1950; Slater, 1955). In terms ofinformation, some individuals, who are more information savvy, will automatically occupystrategic positions to facilitate access to information to others. Depending on the subjectmatter, not everyone in a group is equally important or qualified in providing information.Some people are more knowledgeable than others, and they are usually the ones with whomgroup members tend to interact most.
People playing key communication roles in a group are named variously in different fields:“gatekeepers” in sociology, mass communication, library and information science, manage-ment science, health care, education and organization behavior (Agada, 1999; Cullen, 1997;Lewin, 1951; Metoyer-Duran, 1993a,1993b; Shoemaker, 1991; Tushman & Katz, 1980),“boundary spanners” and “communication stars” in management science (Nochur & Allen,1992; Zoch, 1993), “cultural brokers” in anthropology (Snyder, 1976), “language brokers” in
108 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
education (Tse, 1996), “mediators” (Chu, 1999) in library and information science, and“change agents” and “innovators” (Kurtz, 1968) in urban planning. Although the contextsdiffer, these terms all essentially refer to people of the same nature: people who not onlypossess or master large amounts of information or resources on certain matters in a group, butwho also maintain intensive interactions with other group members in order to transmit theinformation. Research literatures most frequently use “gatekeeper” to describe these people, sodoes this paper, although there are no precise and consistent definitions across differentdisciplines yet (Metoyer-Duran, 1993b).1,2
4. Defining gatekeepers
It is hard to define gatekeeper as the term has been applied in many contexts and acquiredseveral layers of meanings. Psychologist Lewin (1951, 1952) is the first researcher to use theconcept “gatekeeper” to study the eating habits of families. He maintains that housewives playthe role of a gatekeeper in deciding what gets on the family’s dinner table. Therefore, it maywork best that any social change starts with these gatekeepers who have control over people’sfood consumption. By this example, he conceptualizes gatekeepers as people who oversee achannel by filtering in things desired (including but not limited to information, goods, benefits,people, etc.) and filtering out things undesired under certain conditions or in accordance withcertain criteria (Dimmick, 1974; Shoemaker, 1991; Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim, & Wrigley,2001). The other major aspect of this concept is a gatekeeper’s inherent linking andintermediary function—a gatekeeper always links people to something “outside” (Katz &Lazarsfeld, 1965; Lewin, 1952). Here, being “outside” broadly refers to things unfamiliar orunknown—out of the immediate reference of an individual.
These two aspects, filtering and linking, have been researched mostly separately acrossdisciplines, either emphasizing one or the other.3 In fact, they are inseparable since one entailsthe other. Filtering is always performed for a purpose, and it eventually leads to linking;linking always requires filtering as the first step whether it is done intentionally or not. Agatekeeper, thus, can be defined as a person who controls a strategic portion of a channel, andthrough filtering, links people to something “outside”—whether that channel or thing“outside” is for information, goods, news, or people. In terms of human information transfer, agatekeeper is a person who, through filtering, links people in a group to unfamiliar or unknown
1 “Gatekeeper” may not always be the best word as it is sometimes applied to non-human mechanisms such aselectronic gateways and filtering systems (Brown, 2002); under circumstances, “mediator,” “boundary-spanner,”or other terminologies may suit the situations better; nevertheless, “gatekeeper” is used here to refer to thesehuman communication stars.2 To gather diverse literatures on gatekeeping, the author has mainly used citation trail and keyword searching by“gatekeeper” or “gatekeeping” in various article, book, and dissertation databases. The following overview andcited references are based on these collected literatures.3 For instance, mass communication emphasizes the filtering function while some library and informationscience literature on the linking/intermediary function. For typical examples, please refer to Shoemaker (1994) andMetoyer-Duran (1993a,1993b).
109Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
information resources he/she occupies or masters. A simple visual representation of the twofunctions of a gatekeeper is shown in Fig. 1.
5. The rise of gatekeepers
When relying on interpersonal information resources, people mainly acquire informationthrough strategic points in primary groups—information gatekeepers. To further understandthe nature of information acquisition through social networks, we now explore howgatekeepers originate, that is, why some people become gatekeepers while others do not, whatkinds of gatekeepers can be generally identified, and do they have common characteristics?
Information gatekeepers can be identified in virtually every group regardless of the group’ssize and structure (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1965; Sturges, 2001). Although they exist universally,the means to become recognized as a gatekeeper differ greatly. The following sections will usethe typologies of opinion leaders to analyze information gatekeepers. Typical examples drawnfrom various disciplines are provided below.
5.1. How opinion leaders arise
In investigating the presidential voting behavior of the masses, Katz and Lazarsfeld (1965)found that there are individuals like “molecular leaders” who are influential in theircommunities and capable of changing other people’s voting decisions. Similarly, Merton(1949a,1949b), Merton and Kitt (1950), and Lazersfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet (1954) alldiscovered the same phenomenon in their respective research. They later called thesemolecular leaders “opinion leaders” and defined them as “the individuals who were likely toinfluence other persons in their immediate environment” (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1965, p. 3).These opinion leaders may not be formal official leaders, although they may overlap.
In successive studies and drawing on other literatures, Katz and Lazarsfeld (1965) foundthat there are three ways by which a person can become an opinion leader in a group. First,opinion leaders emerge out of the interaction among group members under a given situation.An individual can be implicitly or explicitly “nominated” as the opinion leader if he/she isperceived to be the most appropriate person to deal with a particular event or need in a group.
Fig. 1. Function of gatekeepers.
110 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
The basic idea is that acquiring the power to influence is a result of group members reactingcollectively towards a situation and recognizing that some individuals have the authority tolead. Nominated opinion leaders usually maintain frequent interactions with group members,are highly knowledgeable in specific matters that concern the group at particular times, andconform closely to group norms.
Second, opinion leaders emerge by virtue of their structural location in a group. Someindividuals occupy a particular social position (e.g., secretaries, managers) that enables them tohave greater access to all the elements relevant to certain matters. Meanwhile, that positionalso provides them with greater mobility and wider contact. Due to these advantages, theseindividuals are likely to become opinion leaders since other group members frequently lookthem up for consultation.
Third, opinion leaders emerge out of cultural certification. These leaders are culturallylegitimated or endowed to exert influence on other group members. For instance, the mother ofthe family normally decides what to eat, the adolescent boy influences others what pop musicto listen to, and modern young ladies change the ideas of fashion. Katz and Lazarsfeld (1965,p. 115) assert, “culture not only ascribes influentiality to certain roles but prescribes thesubstantive spheres of influence in which that influentiality may be exerted.”
This categorizing scheme for opinion leaders can also be applied to classifying gatekeepers.Although they are not completely equivalent, gatekeepers and opinion leaders are highlycomparable. Opinion leaders and information gatekeepers both acquire their special groupstatus through amassing and acquainting themselves with information that others do not know.Influence must be exerted via conveying information, and gatekeeping must be carried out byfiltering and transmitting information. Furthermore, they all exist within a group or communitystructure and that makes the social conditions in which they arise largely comparable.Following the typologies of opinion leaders, information gatekeepers can be similarlycategorized as nominated, socially positioned, and culturally certified.
5.2. Culturally certified information gatekeepers
Similar to opinion leaders, some information gatekeepers emerge out of culturalcertification. Different conventions, customs, and cultural norms prevail in different societies,and they have traditionally legitimated some people as having the authority in transmittingcertain information. For instance, in some societies, a mother is usually the gatekeeper intransferring cooking secrets of the family; the oldest son, the gatekeeper in relaying communitynews to the family; and housewives are the gatekeepers of gossip. Such individuals becomegatekeepers not mainly by virtue of their expertise or possession of information resources, butbecause “culture awards [them] the upper hand” (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1965, p. 115). The reasonto discuss this category of gatekeepers first is that very few studies on culturally certifiedgatekeeping have been conducted so far,4 which may be attributed to the fact that the
4 Research by Strodtbeck (1951) illustrates the idea of cultural certification well. He studies how familydecisions were made by married couples from different cultural backgrounds. Some culture gives the husband theupper hand, but some to wives, and some to both.
111Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
information transferred is mainly among family members on a small scale. This paper will notprovide an in-depth analysis; instead, the emphasis is on the other two types of gatekeeping.However, cultural certification should be acknowledged as one of the major ways by whichgatekeepers arise.
5.3. Nominated information gatekeepers
Within our inner circle of peers, we can easily identify people who are just like us, but moreknowledgeable, well acquainted with information resources on certain subjects, and who liketo interact with their peers to discuss things. Over time, these individuals, due to their expertiseand active involvement in the current events or problems, are “nominated” as informationgatekeepers in a group or community. Like nominated opinion leaders, this kind of gatekeeperalso emerges out of the interaction with group members under a given situation. A multitude ofresearch on gatekeepers in various areas falls into this category.
5.3.1. Nominated information gatekeepers in a cultural contextResearch in information science, urban planning, and social anthropology has studied
gatekeepers within ethnolinguistic communities. In these scenarios, information gatekeepersare defined as “intermediaries,” or “acculturation agents,” moving between cultures, whilehelping ethnolinguistic minority people access mainly baseline survival informationconcerning health care, insurance, legal affairs, and so on (Agada, 1999; Kurtz, 1968, 1970;Metoyer-Duran, 1991, 1993a, 1993b).
Snyder (1976), one of the earliest researchers to study gatekeepers from the perspective ofurban adaptation, found that information gatekeepers provide systematic linkages between thedominant urban social system and immigrant ethnic groups living in enclaves. The particularcontribution of Snyder is his observation that many of the gatekeepers do not necessarilyoccupy “critical structural synapses”—social positions, as would have been expected. On thecontrary, these gatekeepers are ordinary community members who happen to know more andhave more extensive networks than others. He comments that the gatekeeping structure is moreelaborate than previous research has shown. This finding coincides with the argument made inthis article that gatekeepers arise via different ways, one of which is nomination.
Later on, Agada (1999) and Chatman (1987) conducted similar research on gatekeeping inlow-income ethnic communities. Their findings all indicated that people prefer interpersonalinformation resources, and this is especially true of ethnic minorities who are poor, less educated,and less aware of and capable of using institutional information services. The characteristics ofthe researched gatekeepers all implicitly correspond with the “nomination” denomination.
The most comprehensive research has been carried out by Metoyer-Duran (1991, 1993a,1993b). She not only investigated and compared the information-seeking behavior ofinformation gatekeepers in five ethnic groups, but also offered a user-centered gatekeepingmodel to include the cognitive and affective domains of gatekeepers. More to the point, sheclearly differentiates between informal and formal (institutionally affiliated), namely,nominated vs. socially positioned information gatekeepers. All informal gatekeepers in herdata were identified through references and recommendations from local community residents
112 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
and mass media. Formal gatekeepers are usually more resourceful and effective than informalones. Her empirical data further verify the social process by which informal gatekeepers arise—recognition and nomination by group members.
Children are a special group of nominated gatekeepers in ethnolinguistic communities dueto their literacy in the language of the host country. Researchers explicitly note that theseimmigrant children do not merely relay but mediate information, that is, they do notnecessarily impart all information word for word like a translator, but selectively transmitinformation to their limited English-speaking parents or relatives for the sake of efficiency andclarity (Chu, 1999; McQuillan & Tse, 1995). As valuable assets to the family and community,these children have played significant gatekeeping roles in a variety of environments,including education, health care, career opportunities, housing, transportation, and entertain-ment. Relevant library services are suggested by Chu (1999) to prepare these children tocompetently perform information gatekeeping activities.
Some of the common characteristics of nominated information gatekeepers in the culturalcontext are as follows: (1) having relatively better education or higher language literacy; (2)being mostly multilingual and multiliterate (in a cross-cultural environment); (3) havinggreater social participation, especially, in the local community; (4) being gregarious, well-known, and liked in the community; and (5) having more exposure to different kinds ofinformation resources.
5.3.2. Nominated gatekeepers in science and technologyInformation science has its origin in the scientific and technical revolution following the
Second World War (Saracevic, 1992). The initial strategic reasoning in supporting informationscience was to provide a means for providing relevant information to individuals, groups, andorganizations engaged in scientific research. As a result, research on the process of informationtransfer among scientists and engineers figured heavily in the 1950s to 1970s. Variouscommunication channels have been identified, one of which is interpersonal communication.Paisley (1968), especially, distinguishes interpersonal networks at different levels, includingmembership groups (professional membership systems), reference groups (the communities ofscientists with similar specialization and other characteristics), invisible colleges (groups ofscientists maintaining direct information exchange), and formal organizations (employingorganizations of scientists).
Having the opportunity to observe information transfer in R&D organizations, Allen andCohen (1969), Allen, Piepmeier, and Cooney (1971a, 1971b), and Allen (1977) madesignificant contributions by (1) ascertaining that the personal network is the most preferredinformation transfer channel in those organizations, and (2) identifying technologicalgatekeepers as the key to the information flow in R&D labs. These technological gatekeepersare very familiar with information resources outside the organization, and through interactingwith group members, disseminate relevant information to appropriate personnel.
Carrying Allen’s work further, Tushman (1976, 1979) and Tushman and Katz (1980)examined in detail the mechanism and effectiveness of informal information transfer and itsrelations to task performance. They found that gatekeepers not only transmit information fromexternal sources, but also socialize their peers in utilizing these resources. Complex tasks,
113Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
which require large amounts of new information in the initial stages and reduced informationoverload at later stages, were better performed if gatekeepers could play a key part in theprocess.
Technological gatekeepers are found to be (1) more experienced, having worked a long timeand in a variety of settings; (2) professionally more active by reading more journals and books,attending more conferences and workshops, and affiliating with more associations; and (3)consistent and effective in maintaining external networks. The majority of them are nominatedgatekeepers who do not occupy higher level or managerial positions in the organizations(Allen & Cohen, 1969; Tushman, 1976), but still attract colleagues within the organizationwho turn to them for information due to their extensive mastery of information and theirgregariousness. Wilkin (1977, p. 478) summarizes it nicely: “the gatekeeper provides aninformal information service as a natural extension of his professional activities,” and “appearsto have acquired them naturally (information transfer, high group status).” In other words, “…the gatekeeper role has traditionally been a naturally occurring, spontaneous phenomenonwhich develops informally among engineers and scientists” (Nochur & Allen, 1992, p. 265).Allen and Cohen (1969) even suggest that these gatekeepers should not be promoted to or putinto managerial positions for they would be too occupied with managerial affairs to be atransmitter of information, which would impede the information flow of the organization.However, the value of gatekeepers should be widely acknowledged and utilized.
These examples, and many more from the research literature, provide evidence of theexistence of nominated gatekeepers, and research also indicates that socially positionedgatekeepers coexist with nominated ones. Many nominated gatekeepers are often transformedinto socially positioned ones in time; while some socially positioned gatekeepers also have thecharacteristics of nominated ones—self-motivated to master information resources and linkthem to other people.
5.4. Socially positioned information gatekeepers
Socially positioned or structurally positioned gatekeepers are people who, by virtue of theirstructural locations in a group, have greater access to all the elements relevant to certainmatters. They become gatekeepers because people frequently look to them for consultation.
5.4.1. Socially positioned information gatekeepers in a cultural contextKurtz (1968) studies the acculturation process of a Spanish-surnamed population migrated
from rural areas to an urban environment. He finds that these newcomers relied heavily ongatekeepers for accessing resources they needed in the new urban setting. Most gatekeepersidentified in his sample became so due to their publicly held positions. One group ofgatekeepers was public employees whose official duties were to help people in need; a secondgroup was people affiliated with local churches, where their positions provided them with “asocial context” for gatekeeping; the third kind was successful politicians from local parties;and the fourth kind was persons who had political power in the local community. It wasthrough their social positions that gatekeepers acquired the advantage of possessinginformation resources others could not, and these positions meanwhile obliged them to
114 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
serve the people. As Kurtz (1968, p. 68) himself comments, one basic assumption in theresearch was that “some of these concerned (helping Spanish-surnamed persons) persons arein strategic positions for providing ready access to resources needed to solve problems.”
Socially positioned cultural gatekeepers emerge in the examples of nominated gatekeepersas well. As mentioned earlier, Metoyer-Duran (1993a, 1993b) makes a definite distinctionbetween formal (institutionally affiliated) and informal (nominated) gatekeepers in hersampling. Formal gatekeepers were selected from 12 types of community organizations,including social service and employment agencies; health care, legal, educational, or religiousorganizations; mass media enterprises; and so on. Informal gatekeepers were identifieddifferently from (1) a roster derived from references in the mass media; (2) advisory panels;and (3) referrals from formal gatekeepers. All these data illustrate that socially strategicpositions in a group can endow individuals with ready access to resources not availableotherwise, and if these individuals are willing to link these resources to group members, theybecome socially positioned gatekeepers.
5.4.2. Socially positioned technological gatekeepersSocially positioned technological gatekeepers were found in the research described earlier
(Allen & Cohen, 1969; Tushman 1976, 1979; Tushman & Katz, 1980). Nochur and Allen(1992) studied gatekeepers occupying formal boundary-spanning positions—the TechnologyResource Group in a major mineral company. The responsibilities of the technical staff were toconsult for internal technical problems and information, and be a liaison for connecting outsidetechnological advancement with company R&D. Contrary to the finding of Metoyer-Duran(1993a) that socially positioned cultural gatekeepers are more efficient and resourceful than thenominated ones, Nochur and Allen found that socially positioned technological gatekeepersare less influential and persuasive because they do not maintain as extensive connections withcolleagues as nominated ones.
Research in other scenarios also indicates that gatekeepers emerge by virtue of their socialpositions. A typical example is Pettigrew’s (2000) ethnographic study, which revealed thatnurses, as health professionals, often link seniors with human services information in localclinics.5
6. Gatekeepers as the human in human information acquisition: implications for LISresearch
The multidisciplinary research literature suggests that gatekeepers arise by many means:cultural certification, nomination, and social position. If we scrutinize our informationenvironment, it is not difficult to detect the existence and influence of gatekeepers all around
5 Examples of socially positioned gatekeepers discussed so far are within our primary groups. If we extend theconcept of socially positioned gatekeeping beyond the limits of our immediate environment, we can findgatekeepers who exert influence society wide. For example, editors, journalists, information professionals fornewspapers, journals, books, TV, radio broadcasting, and now the World Wide Web.
115Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
us. The most immediate benefit of gatekeeping is that gatekeepers make our lives moreinformation-rich by directing us to information resources otherwise unknown or unfamiliar.Moreover, by connecting us with a diversity of information resources, gatekeepers help usmake informed decisions in unclear situations. In the broadest sense, all gatekeepers throughfiltering and transmitting information subtly shape and inform our social reality andknowledge worlds. An individual’s life experience is a continuous process of informationacquisition and use, which depends immensely on gatekeeping procedures through socialnetworks. What we think we know, the way we define ourselves, and how we conceive ourworld are directly influenced by whom we are associated within our social networks,especially information gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are a very significant and fundamental entityin society. They are the humans in human information acquisition. Fig. 2 summarizes thegatekeeping process of interpersonal information acquisition.
This multidisciplinary understanding of the gatekeeping phenomenon also distills anothercrucial point: individuals’ interactions and the subsequent interpersonal relationships formedare the foundations for the existence of gatekeepers. Gatekeeping, or by extension, theassociation among individuals relating to information activities, will be non-existent andmeaningless without people engaging in social interactions. Information relationships amonghuman beings are natural and unavoidable by-products of people’s daily activities via socialnetworks. Sociologist C.S. Fischer (1982, pp. 2–3) says it well, “Individuals’ bonds to oneanother are the essence of society.… It is through personal connections that society isstructured and individuals integrated into society.”An individual’s social networks provide theover-arching conditions, which determine the individual’s way of life and ultimately affect hisor her information behavior (Savolainen, 1995, p. 267). Patterns of relationships amongindividuals determine how an individual is positioned and gatekeepers are dispersed in thenetwork, the likelihood of the kind of information an individual will be exposed to, and the
Fig. 2. Information acquisition through social networks.
116 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
routes by which information can possibly flow. This view of information behavior through thelens of social networks has implications for LIS scholarship and practice.
6.1. A collectivism meta-theory for LIS
Information behavior is inherent in the totality and integration of social relationships.In other words, people’s information needs arise out of the larger situational environment; theirinformation searching and how messages are received and interpreted are all embedded incultural, social and organizational practices. In short, social interactions and structures are theoverarching conditions determining human information practices. Cornelius (1996, p. 18)makes it clear by saying that: “[A]nyone […] who is using information is participating in apractice, is a part of social life. His or her actions should be understood as social actions[…].”
This conceptualization of information is generally labeled as the collectivism orsociocognitive viewpoint in LIS (Hjorland, 1998; Jacob & Shaw, 1998). It is influenced byVygostsky’s social constructivist theory of cognitive development that emphasizes that bothcognitive process and social milieu are important in knowledge formation. An encapsulation ofthe epistemological underpinnings is as follows:
From the Vygotskyan point of view, knowledge formation and the development of knowledge structures take placewithin a socio-cultural context. Individual development derives from social interactions within which culturalmeanings are shared by a group and eventually internalized by the individual. It is assumed that individuals constructknowledge in interaction with the environment and that in the process both the individual and the environment arechanged (Talja et al., 2005, p. 85).
Information scholars like Elfreda Chatman, Ellen Jacob, Leigh Star, Geoffrey Bowker, R.S. Taylor, T. D. Wilson all have sociological leanings. Collectivism thinking overlaps withthe cognitive paradigm (Dervin & Nilan, 1986) in LIS, but distinguishes itself by its uniqueinterpretation of the role of social milieu in knowledge formation. In collectivism, individualdevelopment and knowledge formation derive from social interaction and sharing of cul-turally constructed meanings. This shifts the attention from individual knowledge structuresof the cognitive paradigm to “knowledge-producing, knowledge-sharing and knowledge-consuming communities” (Jacob & Shaw, 1998, p. 142). Human reliance on social networksfor information acquisition illustrates that each community is more than a simple aggregationof people, and is an information space in which individuals’ information practices arestructured through social exchange. The existence of gatekeepers demonstrates this pointwell.
The subject of study of LIS from the sociological–epistemological perspective is thedialectical relationship between the individual and the sociocultural contexts (Talja et. al.,2005, p. 85). It will necessitate a sociobehavioral perspective on the part of researchers toflexibly conceptualize what information practices and relevance are. Specifically, they need toshift their focus beyond book acquisition, organization, document substance and representa-tion to the cultural practices, social relationships, personal networks, and idea transmissionmechanisms in communities, knowledge domains, or thought collectives. In so doing,researchers can truly understand the information needs and information practices of people intheir everyday lives and hence bring in a multitude of tailored information resources, not only
117Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
documentary/factual but also a variety of interpersonal, social, cultural, and local informationresources to fulfill the information practices of the collective.
Collectivism provides scaffolding for formulating new research efforts in LIS and theapproach lends itself to the application of multiple research methods and orientations.However, the challenge in applying the collectivist perspective is that it is a meta-theory withno guidelines for empirical research. It is hard for researchers to configure a concrete researchagenda, carve out units of analysis, and pin down what dimensions and parameters should beincluded in information behavior research in order to get hold of real information practices inreal life. The research by Chatman (1987), Taylor (1991), T. D. Wilson (1981), alldemonstrates how intricate and intertwined people’s information worlds, environments, andecologies can be.
6.2. Social network analysis
Social network analysis (SNA) in sociology, also having a collectivist orientation, offers afeasible strategy in studying the dialectical relationship between an individual and his/hersocial contexts. It is an approach to studying the exchange of resources, including informationresources, among actors (i.e., individuals, groups or organizations) bounded by a shared socialnetwork (Haythornthwaite, 1996, 2002; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). A person’s dependenceon interpersonal relations for information, gatekeepers, is fundamentally a resource–exchangeactivity in social networks; hence, SNA offers a rich variety of concepts and techniques todescribe and interpret human information behavior (Otte & Rousseau, 2002).
SNA provides a particular way of looking at how the world and social structures work.Succinctly, SNA is a “comprehensive paradigmatic way of taking social structure seriously bystudying directly how patterns of ties allocate resources in a social system” (Wellman &Berkowitz, 1988, p. 20). The point of departure for network analysis is the anti-categoricalimperative. “This imperative rejects all the attempts to explain human behavior or socialprocesses solely in terms of the categorical attributes of actors, whether individual orcollective” (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994, p. 1414). Research can never simply rely onattributes, such as age, social status, education, gender, profession, ethnicity, and so on, toexplicate the social behavior of people. Social behavior has never been merely the reflection ofthe possession of some common attributes or characteristics, but the result of acting in andreacting to structured social relations (Wellman, 1983). It bases the causal factors of behavioron the social structure or network relations. Network analysis rejects all forms ofmethodological individualism and expands its vision to the totality and integration of socialrelationships.
SNA generally makes use of one of two conceptual strategies to describe and explain hownetworks wield the exchange of resources, and thus to account for social behavior (Burt, 1980,1987; Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994; Haythornthwaite, 1996). One strategy is to employ a“relational” or “egocentric” approach that focuses on the ties and relationships of anindividual/ego from his/her perspective. Egocentric networks depict how many ties an actorhas that directly or indirectly connect to others, what kinds of ties he or she maintains and whatinformation that individual receives or gives through these ties. This approach can explain
118 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
information behavior through the density, strength, range, and other factors, of the ties thatbind relationships and people. A second strategy employs a “positional” or “whole network”approach to conceptualizing social networks. It focuses upon all the ties all members maintainwith one another in a community. This strategy makes sense of information behavior in termsof the pattern of relations that define an individual’s position relative to all other actors in thesocial system. What matters are the specific positions or roles that actors occupy within thesystem as a whole.
LIS as a field can benefit greatly from incorporating network analytic methods. It may shiftits focus from the narrowly attribute-based understanding of human information behavior to abroader and dynamic examination of information behavior co-evolving with social relationsand structures. The “egocentric” and “whole network” approaches provide two perspectivesfor researchers to examine the interpersonal information environment. The “egocentric”network can provide data to build information-seeking models of individuals and be used tooptimize information services for people in various communities; the “whole network”network can provide data to identify individuals occupying equivalent positions who needsimilar information resources, information routes developed to suit community informationneeds, and key players and roles (e.g., gatekeepers) that arise to satisfy these needs, etc.(Haythornthwaite, 1996).
6.3. An illustration of applying SNA within the collectivist approach
This section will take an ethnic population as an example to briefly illustrate the applicationof SNA in examining how people’s information practices evolve within their socialenvironment in daily life. Jeong (2004), relying on assimilation/dissimilation theory, exploredKorean graduate students’ everyday information behavior in the United States with a specialfocus on their relationship with mainstream society and the role of the ethnic church in theireveryday lives. Through ethnographic interviews, Jeong studied eight Korean doctoralstudents and their spouses. A “marginal, stressful, and iterative” life style of Korean graduatestudents emerged from his data—“marginal” because they cannot integrate into themainstream culture, “stressful” as they have to go through many difficulties associated withliving abroad, such as language barriers and economic burdens, and “iterative” as the abovetwo conditions interact and repeat continuously during their stay in the United States (p. 389).Faced with the demands of living in the United States, the majority of Korean students joinKorean churches for information and comfort, which causes their further isolation from thehost culture. Misinformation, lack of new information, and limited information resources dueto their over-dependency on the church characterize Korean students’ everyday informationexperiences.
Jeong (2004) made a compelling argument in asserting that Korean students are confined ina small and gloomy information world. However, focusing on the ethnic church alone, thestudy has left out other factors that might have contributed to the insulated information-seekingstyle of Korean students. Without probing into Korean students’ social interactions within thechurch in depth, it also missed the chance of providing a more nuanced and detailedunderstanding of why Korean students’ information resources are limited and how they are
119Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
misinformed. A network analytic perspective can offer a more comprehensive understandingof these aspects.
The study can be first approached by examining the characteristics and structure of Koreanstudents’ social networks from an egocentric standpoint. Possible research questionsappropriate for investigating Korean students are as follows: (1) What are the sizes of theirsocial networks? (2) What are the density of their social networks? (3) What are thereachability and extensity of their social networks? (4) What are the composition and tiestrengths of their social networks? The concepts and assumptions underlying these questionsare as follows:
(1) larger networks, usually containing more resources, provide more options for people inseeking new information and will lead to better information search results than smallernetworks (Burt, 1992);
(2) dense networks where individuals are highly interconnected can facilitate informationflow efficiently; however, due to limited links to outside resources, dense networks tendto circulate redundant information (Haythornthwaite, 1996, p. 332);
(3) reachability (how far an individual can reach upwards in social hierarchy) and extensity(the number of different positions the ego can access) measure the range of structuralpositions to which an individual has access. The higher the social hierarchy one can reachand the more diversified types of people one knows, the more likely one will have betterchoices in acquiring new and useful information (Erickson, 2001; Lin, 2001); and
(4) the composition of a network reveals the strength of ties an ego maintains with others.Stronger ties are usually better for emotional support, while weaker ties are better forbridging new information unavailable through strong ties (Granovetter, 1982; Lin, 2001).Research questions along this line of inquiry will show with whom an ego typicallyinteracts in daily life, what information resources are available to him or her, howinformation resources are distributed in the ego’s connections, to whom the ego goes fordifferent kinds of information, and from whom the ego receives it.
Meanwhile, the study can also be approached for or complemented by a whole networkperspective. Through this strategy, researchers can identify key players who control, facilitate,or inhibit information flow in the Korean community, gatekeepers connecting Korean studentsto outside groups, mainstream society or other resources, cliques (closed small subgroups) inthe community, and missed links in the networks where new resources are blocked. These twostrategies together, both egocentric and whole network, would reveal in detail how Koreanstudents’ information seeking are supported and/or constrained due to the characteristics oftheir social networks, how their information practices are molded by the social environment,how they are insulated by ethnic connections in the church from the dominant language andculture, and whether they are at a disadvantage in information seeking and use owing to thesefactors.
With the help of SNA, researchers can work toward extended models of communitynetwork dynamics, growth, boundaries, and evolution that account for interpersonalinteractions and information flows, as well as information needs and vocabularies that come
120 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
together in the process of information seeking and use. Moreover, a systematic program ofcommunity network analysis, grounded in an understanding of users, social and cultural andhistorical aspects of knowledge, is potentially rigorous and broadly applicable to manyquestions in our field.
7. Conclusion
The multidisciplinary literature reviewed herein constitutes a continuing and cumulativebody of research findings. It differs from previous reviews by providing an integratedframework to conceptualize gatekeeping in discourse communities. It shares and promotesthe understanding of human information practices in the totality of social interactions andstructures. The implications for LIS scholarship should be thoughtfully considered and anew socially based collectivist lens should be applied in future information behaviorresearch. Research into information behavior as a social process enhances our understandingof information seeking and use beyond traditional information institutions and providers.The results of such research will reveal implications for practice that will require informationprofessionals to consider how they can help to identify, diagnose, and actively modifyinformation access routes, how they can fill in “structural holes” (Burt, 1992) to bridgeinformation gaps and facilitate information delivery, and how they can advise communitymembers to make use of their embedded network resources.
Acknowledgments
I want to express my gratefulness to my advisor Clara M. Chu, whose vision andperseverance have sustained me through the meticulous revising process of this article. Sincerethanks also go to Marcia Bates and Anne Gilliland, who have offered me hearty support andencouragement from the very beginning.
References
Agada, J. (1999). Intercity gatekeepers: An exploratory survey of their information use environment. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science, 50(1), 74−85.
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technologicalinformation within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 14(1), 12−19.
Allen, T. J., Piepmeier, J. M., & Conney, S. (1971a). The international technological gatekeeper. Technology Review,36−42.
Allen, T. J., Piepmeier, J. M., & Cooney, S. (1971b). Technology transfer to developing countries: Theinternational technological gatekeeper. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alfred P. SloanSchool of Management.
Baldwin, N. S., & Rice, R. E. (1997). Information-seeking behavior of securities analysts: Individual andinstitutional influences, information sources and channels, and outcomes. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science, 48(8), 674−693.
121Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41−49.Brown, W. S. (2002). Defending the border: An application of gatekeeping theory to the issue of Internet privacy.
Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 79−141.Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of
Sociology, 92, 1287−1335.Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Capurro, R. (1992). What is information science for? A philosophical reflection. In Pertti Vakkari, & Blaise Cronin
(Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science (pp. 82−96). London: Taylor Graham.Chatman, E. A. (1987, Spring). Opinion leadership, poverty, and information sharing. RQ, 341−353.Chen, C.-c., & Hernon, P. (1982). Information seeking patterns. In P. Hernon, & C-c. Chen (Eds.), Information
seeking: Assessing and anticipating user needs (pp. 33−81). New York: Neal Schuman.Chu, C. (1999). Immigrant children mediators (ICM): Bridging the literacy gap in immigrant communities. New
Review of Children’s Literature and Librarianship, 5, 85−94.Cornelius, I. (1996). Meaning and method in information studies. Norwood, NJ: Albex.Cullen, R. (1997). The medical specialist: Information gateway or gatekeeper for the family practitioner. Bulletin of
the Medical Library Association, 85(4), 348−355.Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 21, 3−33.Durrance, J. C. (1984). Armed for action: Library response to citizen information needs. New York:
Neal-Schuman.Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agent. American Journal of
Sociology, 99(6), 1411−1454.Erickson, B. (2001). Good networks and good jobs: The value of social capital to employers and employees. In N.
Lin, J. M. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 127−158). New York: Aldine deGruyter.
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.
Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in anetworked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(6), 499−507.
Granovetter, M. S. (1972). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360−1380.Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory of revisited. In P. V. Marsden, & N. Lin
(Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105−130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information
exchange. Library & Information Science Research, 18, 323−342.Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society,
18, 385−401.Hjorland, B. (1998). Theory and metatheory of information science: A new interpretation. Journal of
Documentation, 54(5), 606−621.Jacob, E. K., & Shaw, D. (1998). Sociocognitive perspectives on representation. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual
review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 131–85). Medford, NJ: Information Today.Jeong, W. (2004). Unbreakable ethnic bonds: Information-seeking behavior of Korean graduate students in the
United States. Library & Information Science Research, 26, 384−400.Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on a hypothesis. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 21(1), 61−78.Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1965). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass
communications. New York: The Free Press.Kelley, H. H. (1952). Attitudes and judgments as influenced by reference groups. In G. E. Swanson, T. M.
Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 210−214). New York: Henry Holt andCompany.
122 Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
Kurtz, N. R. (1968). Gatekeepers: Agents in acculturation. Rural Sociology, 33(1), 64−70.Kurtz, N. R. (1970). Gatekeepers in the process of acculturation. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of
Colorado.Lazersfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1954). The people’s choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social sciences: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In N. Swanson, & Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social
psychology (pp. 459−473). New York: Henry Holt.Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.McQuillan, J., & Tse, L. (1995). Child language brokering in linguistic minority communities: Effects on cultural
interaction, cognition, and literacy. Language and Education, 9(3), 195−215.Merton, R. K. (1949a). Patterns of influence: A study of interpersonal influence and of communications behavior in
local community. In Lazersfeld & Stanton (Eds.), Communications research (pp. 1948−1949). New York:Harper and Brothers.
Merton, R. K. (1949b). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Merton, R. K., & Kitt, A. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R. K. Merton, & P. F.
Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in social research Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Metoyer-Duran, C. (1991). Information seeking behavior of gatekeepers in ethnolinguistic communities: Overview
of a taxonomy. Library & Information Science Research, 13(4), 319−346.Metoyer-Duran, C. (1993a). Gatekeepers in ethnolinguistic communities. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corp.Metoyer-Duran, C. (1993b). Information gatekeepers. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 28,
111−150.Nelson, M. R. (2004). We have the information you want, but getting it will cost you: Being held hostage by
information overload. Retrieved Sep., 28, 2004, from http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds1-1/mnelson.htmlNewcomb, T. M. (1950). Social psychology. New York: Dryden Press.Nochur, K., & Allen, T. J. (1992). Do nominated boundary spanners become effective technological gatekeepers.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39(3), 265−269.Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences.
Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441−453.Paisley, W. (1968). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 1−30.Pettigrew, K. E. (2000). Lay information provision in community settings: How community health nurses
disseminate human services information to the elderly. Library Quarterly, 70(1), 47−85.Poole, H. L. (1985). Theories of the middle range. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145−161.Saracevic, T. (1992). Information science: Origin, evolution and relations. In P. Vakkari, & B. Cronin
(Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoreticalperspectives (pp. 5−27). London: Taylor Graham.
Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “wayof life”. Library & Information Science Research, 17, 259−294.
Shils, E. A. (1950). Primary groups in the American army. In R. K. Merton, & P. F. Lazersfeld (Eds.), Continuitiesin social research (pp. 16−39). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Shoemaker, P. J. (1991). Communication concepts 3: Gatekeeping. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Shoemaker, P. J., Eichholz, M., Kim, E., & Wrigley, B. (2001). Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 233−246.Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small groups. American Sociological Review, 20, 300−310.Snyder, P. Z. (1976). Neighborhood gatekeepers in the process of urban adaptation: Cross-ethnic commonalities.
Urban Anthropology, 5(1), 35−52.Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Husband and wife interaction over revealed differences. American Sociological Review,
123Y. Lu / Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007) 103–123
Sturges, P. (2001). Gatekeepers and other intermediaries. Aslib Proceedings, 53(2), 62−67.Talja, S., Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (2005). bIsmsQ in information science: Constructivism, collectivism and
constructionism. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 79−101.Tushman, M. L. (1982). Managing communication networks in R&D laboratories. In M. L. Tushman, & W. L.
Moore (Eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovation (pp. 349−362). Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication and project performance: An investigation into the
role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071−1085.Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134−144.Watts, S. (1998). Adoption of mediated knowledge in organization: Source credibility and information usefulness.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Boston University.Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic principles. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological theory 1983
(pp. 155−200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.Wilkin, A. (1977). Personal roles and barriers in information transfer. In M. J. Voigt, & M. H. Harris (Eds.),
Advances in Librarianship (Vol. 7, pp. 257–297). New York: Academic Press.Wilson, P. (1977). Public knowledge, private ignorance: Toward a library and information policy. London:
Greenwood Press.Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport: Greenwood Press.Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology.
Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Zoch, L. M. (1993). The boundary spanning role: Nature, influence, communication satisfaction and gender
