Contributions to Conceptual Growth: The Elaboration
of Ellis’s Model for Information-Seeking Behavior
Reijo Savolainen
School of Information Sciences, FIN-33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: Reijo.Savolainen@uta.fi
Using Ellis’s seminal model of information seeking as an
example, this study demonstrates how the elaborations
made to the original framework since the late 1980s have
contributed to conceptual growth in information-seeking
studies. To this end, nine key studies elaborating Ellis’s
model were scrutinized by conceptual analysis. The find-
ings indicate that the elaborations are based on two main
approaches: adding novel, context-specific components
in the model and redefining and restructuring the compo-
nents. The elaborations have contributed to conceptual
growth in three major ways. First, integrating formerly
separate parts of knowledge; second, generalizing and
explaining lower abstraction-level knowledge through
higher-level constructs; and third, expanding knowledge
by identifying new characteristics of the object of study,
that is, information-seeking behavior. Further elaboration
of Ellis’s model toward a theory would require more
focused attempts to test hypotheses in work-related envi-
ronments in particular.
Introduction
There has long been an interest in the development of
conceptual frameworks for information behavior in the field
of library and information science as well as in other areas
such as health communication (Lambert & Loiselle, 2007;
Wilson, 2010). These endeavors have resulted in a rich tap-
estry of models that mostly focus on a subset of information
behavior, that is, information seeking (Case, 2012, pp. 133–
198). So far there is a dearth of genuine scientific theories of
information-seeking behavior, if such theories are under-
stood as empirically validated constructs capable of explain-
ing and predicting how people select and access sources of
information (Case, 2012, pp. 172–174). Overall, research on
information-seeking behavior is still at the pretheoretical or
modeling stage. However, the value of pretheoretical con-
structs should not be underestimated by calling them “just
models” because they are of great value in the development
theories (Bates, 2005, p. 3).
Received September 22, 2015; revised October 12, 2015; accepted
October 13, 2015
C 2016 ASIS&T  Published online 24 March 2016 in Wiley Online
V to Vakkari (1998), theoretical growth can be assessed by
Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23680
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 68(3):594–608, 2017
For the modeling of information behavior, the 1980s and
1990s were a golden age because many of the classic frame-
works were developed at that time. Highly influential frame-
works include the model for information-seeking behavior
proposed by Wilson (1981), the Anomalous State of Knowl-
edge (ASK) model elaborated by Belkin et al. (1982), the
berrypicking model of information searching (Bates, 1989),
the behavioral model of information seeking (Ellis (1989),
the Information Search Process (ISP) model (Kuhlthau,
1993), the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking
(CMIS) (Johnson, 1996), the model for information-seeking
of professionals (Leckie, Pettigrew, & Sylvain, 1996), and
the general model of information behavior (Wilson, 1997).
Since the beginning of the 2000s, the repertoire of models
has been enriched by new constructs such as the nonlinear
model of information seeking (Foster, 2004), the integrated
research framework for information seeking and retrieval
(Ingwersen & J€arvelin, 2005), and the information-seeking
and communication model (Robson & Robinson, 2013).
However, not all of the recent models are entirely novel
constructs because they build on the classic frameworks.
These frameworks are particularly interesting from the view-
point of the present study because they elicit the question
about the potential of elaborating existing models of infor-
mation behavior instead of adding the number of novel
frameworks. The elaboration of existing models is rational
because it serves the ends of cumulating and refining knowl-
edge. Unfortunately, as the research tradition of information
behavior research suggests, this is not always the case
because there is a tendency for new models to be published
but never developed further (Foster & Urquhart, 2012, p.
785). Although in itself the existence of diverse models is a
richness enabling a multiperspective view of the phenomena
of information behavior, the downside is that researchers
have to operate by using multiple maps (Dervin, 2003).
The above issues are pertinent from the perspective of
theoretical growth in information behavior research. The
present study departs from the assumption that theoretical
growth is a long-time process. From this perspective, the
elaboration of existing models toward theories may be more
productive than the proliferation of new models. According
focusing on two major aspects: the conceptual elaboration of
substantive (unit) theories and observing the empirical sup-
port gained by such theories. The present investigation sug-
gests that the assumptions about theoretical growth can be
expanded to involve scientific models as well. This is
because, similar to substantive theories, models consist of a
set of concepts and a set of relations interconnecting those
concepts in an account of some phenomenon. To strengthen
the focus of the study, the present investigation concentrates
on the aspect of conceptual growth. According to Vakkari
(1998), conceptual growth means that a new theory or model
is conceptually more specific, more general, or more com-
prehensive than its earlier variants. Conceptual growth may
also manifest itself in the introduction of new or alternative
concepts in the existing frame.
The present study has two overall goals. First, it attempts
to identify the ways in which models of information seeking
are elaborated. Second, an attempt is made to find out how
the refinement of models contribute to conceptual growth in
information-seeking studies. To achieve this, a conceptual
analysis was made by concentrating on the seminal model
developed by Ellis (1987, 1989). His model was chosen for
analysis because, different from most frameworks of
information-seeking behavior, it has been elaborated several
times by diverse researchers, thus exemplifying a relatively
long developmental line and an interest in cumulating
knowledge within the research community.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. First,
to give background, the nature of scientific models is character-
ized, followed by the specification of the research setting. The
next sections report the findings. The final section discusses
the findings and draws conclusions of their significance.
Scientific Models
There is no consensus among researchers about the defini-
tion of the concepts of theory and model (Frigg & Hartmann,
2012). However, theory can be generally understood as a set
of statements presenting a systematic view of a phenomenon
with the purpose of explanation or prediction. Models tend to
focus on more specific problems than do theories, typically
making their content more concrete (Jansen & Rieh, 2010
p. 1519). Scientific models represent a phenomenon, cover-
ing all relatively stable and general features of the world that
are interesting from a scientific point of view (Frigg &
Hartmann, 2012). Models simplify complex reality to make
it understandable. Nevertheless, models represent a way of
organizing a body of knowledge to pave the way toward the-
ories. A model can be conceived of as an interim stage in a
research discipline, before a theory can be established, serv-
ing as a “working strategy” for hypothesis testing (J€arvelin &
Wilson, 2003).
Models may be textual, mathematical, or graphic con-
structs. A model can simply be described in words by pre-
senting a set of theoretical propositions. Mathematical
models can take many forms, for example, differential equa-
tions. Models can also express the relationships of concepts
in graphic form by means of diagrams or flow charts
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
describing actions in a sequential or cyclic fashion (Wilson,
2010, p. 2392). Many models of information behavior
include textual and graphic representations so that diagrams
are used to express actual or theoretical relationships or ideal
processes of interaction with information (Wilson, 2010, p.
2393). The components of such models may include, for
example, the information user and her/his context and the
information resources available to the user.
Scientific models can be evaluated by diverse criteria.
While comparing competing models, attention may be devoted
to their accuracy, clarity, conceptual coherence, scope, and
explanatory power, for example (Pluta, Chinn, & Duncan,
2011, p. 486). Models can also be evaluated by devoting
attention to their basic aims (Bunge, 1967, p. 383; J€arvelin &
Wilson, 2003). Because the present investigation is mainly
interested in the conceptual growth brought by the elaboration
of models, the following aims identified by Bunge (1967, p.
383) are particularly relevant to the above aspect:
• Integrating formerly separate parts of knowledge;
• Generalizing and explaining lower abstraction level knowl-
edge (or observations, data) through higher level constructs;
• Expanding knowledge by deducing new propositions based
on selected starting points and collected information;
• Improving the testability of hypotheses through the control
context provided by systems of hypotheses;
• Explaining facts through systems of hypotheses, which entail
the facts.
The above list is not exhaustive. Scientific models can
also serve more practical ends such as providing a working
strategy for a research project (J€arvelin & Wilson, 2003).
This aim refers to the possibilities for further inquiry arising
from the contributions made through the use of the model in
research and practice. Because the present study concentrates
on the aims dealing with conceptual growth, the practical
ends of this type are not discussed in greater detail. To
strengthen the focus of the study, it was necessary to outline
the conceptual field in which the investigation operates. For
this purpose, the framework of human information behavior
and information systems developed by Jansen and Rieh
(2010, p. 1518) was particularly useful. By drawing on Wil-
son (1999), they identified three nested domains of informa-
tion behavior. At the highest level of generality, human
information behavior is the broadest domain, addressing all
aspects of human information interactions with various forms
of information. At a middle level, a subset is information-
seeking behavior, which encompasses the range of informa-
tion seeking employed in discovering and accessing informa-
tion resources (humans and systems) in response to goals and
intentions. Finally, at the micro level, information-searching
behavior is a subset of information seeking, referring to the
actions involved in interacting with an information search
system, including information retrieval (IR).
Given the plethora of frameworks modeling the above
domains, the present study concentrated on models primarily
operating at the middle level, that is, information-seeking
595
DOI: 10.1002/asi
behavior. Therefore, general models for human information
behavior (e.g., Wilson, 1997) were excluded from the study.
Because the boundary between the domains of information
seeking and information searching has been blurred due to
the increasing popularity of the networked sources, the pres-
ent study looked at models that are hospitable to information
searching. However, models primarily focusing on IR were
excluded (e.g., Saracevic, 1997). Another major criterion for
the selection of the model candidates was that they should
have been elaborated further by the model developer or other
researchers. Many of the candidates, such as Kuhlthau’s
(1993) ISP model, did not meet this criterion because they
have remained virtually unchanged. Finally, to dig deeper, a
decision was made to concentrate on a single framework
meeting best the above criteria, that is, the behavioral model
proposed by Ellis (1989). The inclusion of other models
would have provided opportunities for comparison, but this
approach would have required a separate article.
The present study makes an attempt to find out how the
elaboration of Ellis’s model exhibits the conceptual growth if
it is looked at from the perspective of the basic aims of scien-
tific models identified by Bunge (1967, p. 383). However,
two such aims reviewed above appeared to be unsuitable for
the examination of the elaborations made to Ellis’s model,
that is, explaining facts through systems of hypotheses that
entail the facts and improving the testability of hypotheses
through the control context provided by systems of hypothe-
ses. This is simply a result of the fact that the studies elaborat-
ing Ellis’s framework have not developed hypotheses for
empirical research. Thus, the present study focuses on three
aims identified by Bunge (1967, p. 383): (a) integrating for-
merly separate parts of knowledge, (b) generalizing and
explaining lower abstraction level knowledge through higher
level constructs, and (c) expanding knowledge by deducing
new propositions based on selected starting points and col-
lected information. However, because the models reviewed in
the current study do not deduce “propositions” understood as
true statements of the properties of objects, a broader view
was taken. The expression of “deducing new propositions”
was replaced by “identifying new characteristics of the object
of study.” Thereby, the above aim was modified as (3)
expanding knowledge by identifying new characteristics of
the object of study based on selected starting points and col-
lected information.
Drawing on the above specifications, the present study
addresses two research questions:
• RQ1: In which ways has the model proposed by Ellis been
elaborated since the late 1980s?
• RQ2: How have the elaborations made to Ellis’s model con-
tributed to conceptual growth in research on information-
seeking behavior?
Method
To answer the above questions, Ellis’s original model and
its revisions presented in nine key studies (Bronstein, 2007;
596 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Ellis, Cox, & Hall, 1993; Ellis & Haugan, 1997; Ge, 2010;
Makri, Blandford, & Cox, 2008a, 2008b; Meho & Tibbo,
2003; Rhee, 2012; Smith, 1988; Wilson, 1999) were ana-
lyzed in detail. The research material was identified by
searching main databases such as EBSCO and LISA. The
keywords used in the search included, for example, Ellis’s
model, information behavior, human information behavior,
information seeking, model, and theory. In addition, major
review articles focusing on information needs, seeking, and
use were consulted; these articles were mainly published in
the volumes of the Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology. Moreover, review articles and book chap-
ters focusing on this topic were scrutinized (e.g., Case, 2012;
Ellis, 2011; Wilson, 1999, 2010). The searches resulted in
the identification of 124 articles, book chapters, and confer-
ence papers reviewing the models of information-seeking
behavior. Of these investigations, 70 items were relevant for
the analysis of Ellis’s model or its elaborations.
The documents chosen for the analysis were scrutinized
by means of conceptual analysis. Following Furner (2004),
this method can be defined as an approach that treats the
components of models, for example, users and information
sources as classes of objects, events, properties, or relation-
ships. Conceptual analysis involves defining the meaning of
a given component by identifying and specifying the con-
texts in which it is classified under the concept in question.
More specifically, the documents were analyzed by devoting
attention to how researchers have characterized the compo-
nents constitutive of Ellis’s revised or modified model, as
well as the relationships between the components.
Relevant text portions (paragraphs and sentences) pertain-
ing to the research topic were first identified. This material
was then read several times to identify individual character-
izations of the components and their relationships. More spe-
cifically, the texts chosen for analysis were subjected to open
coding to identify the categories describing the elaborated
models. Categories thus identified include, for example,
novel characteristics, redefined characteristics, restructura-
tion of components, the way of elaboration, and contribution
to conceptual growth. In addition, subcategories were identi-
fied, for example, contribution to conceptual growth:
expanding knowledge. The contributions to conceptual
growth per aims defined by Bunge (1967, p. 383) were iden-
tified by scrutinizing the diagrams presenting the modified
versions of Ellis’s (1981) model as well as their textual
explanations. This was achieved by asking (a) what kind of
formerly separate parts of knowledge do the proposed model
integrate, (b) what kind of higher level constructs are devel-
oped to generalize and explain lower abstraction level
knowledge, and (c) what kind of new characteristics of infor-
mation behavior, seeking, and searching are introduced to
expand knowledge? However, the study approach was kept
flexible enough to allow for other categories to emerge.
However, no such categories describing aims relevant to
conceptual growth were identified. The conceptual analysis
was based on the identification of similarities and differences
between various characterizations of the subcategories.
Finally, the identified subcategories were named according
to the data they contained, for example, “adding novel
components.”
In the analysis, following Torrance (1979), elaboration
was understood as a process of adding more information to
existing, relatively simple information to create a more com-
plex whole. Thus, elaboration involves developing an idea by
incorporating details to amplify the original simple idea. It is
the process of enhancing ideas and objects by providing
nuance and more detail. Specifically, elaboration was defined
in the coding as a category that includes activities such as
introducing novel components as well as modifying, refining,
and renaming existing elements of Ellis’s original framework
or its revised versions. In the coding, a few borderline cases
were faced: What kind of modifications can be regarded as
genuine elaborations to Ellis’s original model or its revised
versions? For example, Choo et al. (2000) proposed an inte-
grated model for web searching by cross-tabulating the four
modes of environmental scanning identified by Aguilar
(1967), that is, undirected viewing, conditioned viewing,
informal search, and formal search, with the six characteristics
of information seeking defined by Ellis (1989). The cross-
tabulation provides a useful tool for the identification of key
variables relevant to web searching. However, constructs such
as these were not regarded as elaborations to Ellis’s model
because the components of his framework were not defined or
structured in a new way in the model proposed by Choo et al.
(2000). Other borderline cases were solved in a similar way
until there were no anomalies.
Findings
The findings are reported in two parts. The ways in which
Ellis’s model have been elaborated are reviewed first, fol-
lowed by the analysis of the contributions to conceptual
growth. The review mainly proceeds chronologically
because conceptual growth in science is often based on the
elaboration of ideas presented in earlier studies.
The Point of Departure: Ellis’s Behavioral Model
Early models of information seeking date back to the
1960s. Paisley (1968) pioneered by proposing a nested con-
ceptual framework depicting factors that affect information
seeking among scientists. However, broader interest in the
development of models for information seeking was not
indicated before the late 1970s. At that time, the information
studies field was being drawn toward the social science per-
spective that preferred the application of qualitative methods
and exhibited interest in the development of theoretical
models (Ellis, 2011, p. 32). In information behavior
research, the novel perspective was exemplified perhaps
best by the research project on Information Needs in Social
Services (INISS) conducted by Wilson and Streatfield (Wil-
son, Streatfield, & Mullings, 1979). The findings of this pro-
ject were used in Wilson’s (1981) model for information-
seeking behavior, one of pioneering frameworks in this
field.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
Similar to Wilson, Ellis’s interest in the modeling originated
from the dearth of empirically based models of information-
seeking behavior (Ellis, 2005, p. 138). His research project was
inspired by the idea that the focus of IR research needs to be
shifted from the IR system to the user and the user’s interaction
with information sources (Ellis, 1984). He intended to derive
an empirically based model depicting information seeking
among academic social scientists. The model could inform the
design of IR serving this user group but was believed to be of
more general interest for information-seeking behavior. This
aspiration was realized in his PhD dissertation (Ellis, 1987).
The empirical data of the PhD study were gathered by inter-
views with 60 academic social scientists who were seeking
paper-based information in a library setting at the University of
Sheffield. The development of the model drew on the assump-
tion that underlying the complex patterns of information-
seeking behavior there are a relatively small number of
different types of activity. Ellis (1989, p. 238) referred to such
types by different terms such as characteristics, features, and
patterns. These factors were understood as generic and higher
level constructs that are composed of lower-level elements,
that is, activities. The characteristics, features, or patterns can
interact in various ways in different information-seeking proc-
esses. Significantly, such constructs do not represent a set of
stages or phases that any or all researchers follow when seeking
information. Thus, the model is not meant to indicate sequen-
ces of events, but instead, the order of actions might vary and
be iterative as well.
The model was introduced to a wider audience in an arti-
cle published in the Journal of Information Science (Ellis,
1989). The model identifies six generic characteristics of
information seeking among social scientists. Although the
framework was originally termed “A behavioral model for
information retrieval system,” the characteristics identified
by Ellis (1989) operate at the levels of information-seeking
and information-searching behavior (Jansen & Rieh, 2010,
p. 1518). Different from Wilson (1981), Ellis did not depict
his model as a diagram, but described it textually by means
of a series of paragraphs. The six characteristics and their
constitutive components, that is, activities depicted in the
original model (Ellis, 1989) include:
• Starting: activities characteristic of the initial search for
information, for example, consulting a knowledgeable
colleague;
• Chaining: following backward or forward chains of citations
or other form of referential connection between material;
• Browsing: semidirected searching in an area of potential
interest;
• Differentiating: using differences between sources as a filter
on the nature and quality of material examined;
• Monitoring: maintaining awareness of developments in a
field through the monitoring of particular sources;
• Extracting: systematically working through a particular
source to locate material of interest.
Ellis (2011, p. 30) emphasizes that the above framework
exemplifies a concatenated model, the components of which
597
DOI: 10.1002/asi
could only be put together or articulated in an actual piece
of information behavior. Thus, the detailed interrelation or
interaction of the features in any individual information pat-
tern depends on the unique circumstances of the information
activities of the person concerned at that particular point in
time. The relationship between the features of the model
could, therefore, only be indicated in abstract and general
terms unless there is a reference to a particular information
action. Hence, relationships between features of the model
could only be described hypothetically: for example, starting
might lead to chaining, and extracting might complement
monitoring. However, in terms of any individual information
pattern or particular sequence of information activities, it
would be possible to state these relationships categorically.
As summarized by Ellis (2011, p. 30), the model presents “a
set of related categories, which taken together, could be
used to describe individual information patterns, and help to
explain details of their topography.”
The Elaboration of Ellis’s Model
The conceptual analysis indicated that the elaboration of
models for information seeking can be conducted in two
major ways. First, an original model may be complemented
by adding novel components such as features of information
seeking. This in an incremental strategy that does not change
the fundamental assumptions of the model. Second, and
more radically, a model can be elaborated by redefining and
restructuring the components of the framework. This
approach can result in a more detailed specification of the
components or change their constellation. However, this
strategy does not always manifest itself in a pure form
because the redefinition and restructuration of existing com-
ponents may be complemented by introducing novel compo-
nents. However, for the sake of simplicity, the approach
based on redefinition and restructuration of components will
be discussed as one category that may partially overlap with
the strategy of adding novel components.
Adding Novel Components
The model originally presented in Ellis’s (1987) PhD the-
sis was tested for the first time in Smith’s (1988) study focus-
ing on information behavior among English literature
researchers (see also Ellis, 1993, p. 483). In addition to the
starting, chaining, and monitoring identified by Ellis, Smith
(1988) found three new features: surveying (familiarization
with the literature of the area), selection and sifting (deciding
which references to follow up and which to cite), and assem-
bly and dissemination (drawing together material for publica-
tion and dissemination). The next elaboration of the original
model took place in an empirical study of information-
seeking behavior among physicists and chemists (Ellis et al.,
1993). This study revealed novel features such as initial
familiarization, chasing, prioritization, maintaining aware-
ness, locating, verifying, and ending (Ellis 1993, pp. 482–
483). Of them, however, only two features, that is, verifying
(checking the accuracy of the information) and ending (con-
598 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
DOI: 10.1002/asi
cluding the information-seeking process such as building
final summaries and organizing notes) were included in the
extended model (Ellis et al., 1993).
The extended model was tested further among engineers
and research scientists in an industrial environment (Ellis &
Haugan, 1997). This study resulted in the identification of
two novel features. Distinguishing refers to activities taken
when information sources are ranked according to their per-
ceived relative importance, whereas filtering characterizes
the use of criteria or mechanisms to make information as rel-
evant and precise as possible. In fact, these features are not
entirely new because they can be interpreted as specialized
forms of differentiating (Makri et al., 2008a, pp. 616–617).
Significantly, in both revised versions, the interrelations of
the features were left open and no specific order in which
the features may appear was indicated. Ellis (1993, p. 483)
pointed out that although the features of information seeking
among diverse groups of scientists differ in terminology and
detail, the features can be seen to be representing fundamen-
tally the same activities. Ultimately, such differences are
minor and they stem from subject differences between the
groups (e.g., English literature researchers vs. chemists).
Recently, Ge (2010) made use of Ellis’s (1989) model in
a study examining information-seeking behavior among aca-
demic researchers. The empirical findings confirmed that
the characteristics identified by Ellis continue to play a via-
ble role in research activities. Similar to Ellis and his associ-
ates, Ge (2010, p. 449) adopted an “additive approach” by
suggesting that the original model can be complemented by
a new feature, that is, preparation and planning. The need
for the novel component was justified by claiming that
effective searching requires planning, attention to detail, and
successful search strategies particularly because users are
facing an increasing overload of information.
Overall, adding novel components exemplifies a fairly
straightforward approach to the elaboration of scientific
models. As suggested by the above studies, this strategy ena-
bles a more detailed and context-sensitive representation of
the target phenomenon. On the other hand, this approach has
its limitations because the addition of still other context-
specific components may render it more difficult to retain
the generic nature of the framework.
Redefining and Restructuring of Components
Models can also be elaborated by approaching existing
components from a novel perspective or restructuring them
in a new way. Compared to the “additive approach” dis-
cussed above, this strategy has resulted in more sophisticated
elaborations to Ellis’s model.
From Characteristics to Staged Process (Wilson,
1994, 1999)
Probably the earliest attempt to approach Ellis’s model
from an alternative viewpoint was made by Wilson (1994,
pp. 33–34). Inspired by Kuhlthau’s (1993) ISP model, he
suggested that the extended framework proposed by Ellis
 FIG. 1. A stage process version of Ellis’s behavioral model (Wilson, 1999).
FIG. 2. Relating the components of Ellis’s and Kuhlthau’s models (Wilson, 1999).
et al. (1993) could be enhanced by conceptualizing the char-
acteristics of information seeking as components of a staged
process. Wilson’s key idea is to approach information seek-
ing as a process that proceeds from starting and chaining to
browsing and differentiating, followed by monitoring,
extracing, verifying, and ending. Later on, Wilson (1999, p.
254) elaborated the above idea further by providing a dia-
gram that illustrates a new viewpoint to Ellis’s extended
model (Figure 1).
Figure 1 suggests that starting is a logical point of depar-
ture of the information-seeking process and that ending is its
logical final point. According to Wilson (1999, p. 254), it is
equally logical to assume that extracting follows from a spe-
cific search behavior such as browsing. From the temporal
perspective, extracting would not be an information behav-
ior of the same kind as browsing, or chaining or monitoring
because the latter can be perceived as antecedents of extract-
ing behavior. Furthermore, extracting is more closely related
to information use than information searching. In a similar
vein, Wilson (1999, p. 254) suggests that differentiating is a
different kind of behavior: browsing, chaining, and monitor-
ing are search procedures, whereas differentiating is a filter-
ing process. The remaining behaviors do not necessarily
take place in a specific sequence and may be initiated in dif-
ferent sequences at different times in the overall search
process.
To elaborate the above framework further, Wilson (1999,
p. 256) returned to Kuhlthau’s (1993) idea about the stages
of information search. Wilson suggested that despite differ-
ent terminology, diverse models of information seeking
share some fundamental elements. For example, Kuhlthau’s
categories exploration and collection can be associated with
Ellis’ chaining, browsing, and monitoring, while presenta-
tion is equivalent to verifying and ending in Ellis’s extended
model. Wilson believed that the relating of core components
such as these would pave the way toward the development
of a general model of information seeking. Figure 2 exem-
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
plifies this endeavor by bringing Ellis’s and Kuhlthau’s
(1993) models together.
Although Ellis’s and Kulthau’s models do not map
directly on to one another, Wilson (1999, p. 256) believed
that there are important similarities between the frameworks.
Figure 2 suggests that, in effect, Ellis’s stages are an elabora-
tion of the activities described by Kuhlthau. The activities
related to recognizing of information sources are closely
associated with Ellis’s starting phase, whereas identifying
and formulating the focus of searching are associated with
Ellis’s chaining, browsing, differentiating, and monitoring.
Gathering information is closely related to extracting and
verifying, while search closure is equivalent to verifying and
ending in Ellis’s extended model. Interestingly, this idea is
contrary to Ellis’s (1989, p. 238) proposition that character-
istics such as browsing, monitoring, and extracting do not
represent a set of stages or phases that any or all researchers
follow when seeking information. Thus, Ellis’s model is not
meant to indicate sequences of events, but instead, the order
of actions might vary and be iterative as well. However,
Wilson (1999, p. 256) did not regard this as a barrier to the
relating of the above models: despite different terminology,
there is a question of an association in that Ellis’s character-
istics can be depicted similar to Kuhlthau’s stage categories.
Sophisticating the Stage Process Version (Meho
& Tibbo, 2003)
In retrospect, Wilson’s idea of integrating Ellis’s and
Kuhlthau’s models has largely been forgotten in information
behavior research. However, the stage process version
depicted in Figure 1 has remarkably influenced the elabora-
tion of Ellis’s model. The idea of the stage process occupies
a significant role in the revised model proposed by Meho
and Tibbo (2003). To justify their approach, Meho and
Tibbo (2003, p. 570) drew attention to the fact that Ellis’s
(1987) PhD study on social scientists was conducted prior to
599
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 FIG. 3. Stages in the information-seeking behavior of academic social scientists (Meho & Tibbo, 2003).
the development of the World Wide Web. Thus, it was
important to take into account new characteristics that are
being brought about by changes in information technology.
Based on the findings of an empirical investigation of
information-seeking behavior among social scientists study-
ing stateless nations, Meho and Tibbo (2003, p. 584) con-
firmed the validity of the Ellis’s original model. They also
agreed with Ellis in that the features of information seeking
do not necessarily appear sequentially. They argued, how-
ever, that a fuller description of the information-seeking pro-
cess of social scientists should include additional features
besides those identified by Ellis. The new features are ana-
lyzing, synthesizing, writing, networking, and information
managing. However, except for networking, these categories
are less relevant from the perspective of information seeking
because they primarily deal with information processing and
use, as well as personal information management.
The most radical change to the original model derives
from the incorporation of four stages of information seeking:
searching, accessing, processing, and ending (Meho &
Tibbo, 2003, p. 583). Different from Wilson’s (1999) semi-
linear framework depicted in Figure 1, Meho and Tibbo
adopted a more flexible approach. In the revised model, the
stages are also named differently, and they are presented as
components of a cycle. The characteristics identified by
Ellis’s extended model are reconceptualized as processual
elements characteristic of one or fewer stages, as depicted in
Figure 3.
The revised model can be interpreted by starting from
the component of searching (Meho & TIbbo, 2003, pp.
585–585). This stage stands for the period where identify-
ing relevant and potentially relevant materials is initiated.
The accessing stage can be defined as the bridge between
the searching stage and the processing stage. The process-
ing stage is where the synthesizing and analyzing of the
information gathered takes place. Thus, different from the
above stages, it primarily deals with information use.
Finally, the ending stage marks the end of the research
600 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
DOI: 10.1002/asi
cycle of a project. Therefore, this stage has a double mean-
ing: on the one hand, it indicates the final point of research
activity—a main context of information seeking. On the
other hand, it refers to the closure of information seeking.
Interestingly, Meho and Tibbo conceptualized ending as a
stage, whereas Ellis and associates (1993) termed it a fea-
ture. Significantly, however, Meho and Tibbo (2003, p.
584) showed that in each of the first three stages, that is,
searching, accessing, and processing, a number of features
(or activities) can take place. For example, during the
searching stage, researchers may use starting, chaining,
browsing, monitoring, differentiating, extracting, and net-
working activities, whereas during the processing stage,
researchers might use chaining, extracting, differentiating,
verifying, and information-managing activities.
In contrast to Wilson’s (1999) semilinear process stage
version, Meho and Tibbo’s model is more dynamic and flex-
ible because it allows multiple options for the information
seeker. The flowchart depicted in Figure 3 shows that once
the research cycle starts at the searching stage, a researcher
may continue to the accessing stage or to the processing
stage, or to both, depending on the initial types of informa-
tion used: direct or full-text sources (e.g., an electronic arti-
cle immediately accessible on computer screen) and indirect
or non-full-text sources (e.g., a foreign colleague). In the
case of direct sources, a researcher may skip the accessing
stage and go directly to the processing stage. However, if
indirect sources are used, the accessing stage becomes nec-
essary because without having access to information sources
identified in the searching stage, researchers may not be able
to proceed to the processing stage. In cases in which both
direct and indirect sources are used in the searching stage, a
researcher may proceed to both accessing and processing
stages. Thus, researchers may move back and forth between
the searching, accessing, and/or the processing stages until
the project is completed.
Compared to Wilson’s (1999) process version, Meho and
Tibbo’s model provides a broader repertoire of components
 FIG. 4. Phase-dependent elements of information-seeking behavior (Bronstein, 2007).
that are contextually sensitive. The inclusion of three new
features is an incremental contribution that updated the
framework so that it corresponds better to the modes of
information seeking from the networked sources. The incor-
poration of the stages is a more fundamental contribution
that brought the temporal dimension into the model and
made it more dynamic. The combination of features and
stages resulted in a flexible framework that is hospitable to
the cyclic nature of information seeking. As Ellis (1989)
departed from the assumption that the features of informa-
tion seeking are not sequential, the idea of cyclic stages
proposed by Meho and Tibbo (2003) exemplifies a compro-
mised view between the extremes of randomness and linear-
ity of information seeking.
Elaborating the Temporal Components (Bronstein, 2007)
Bronstein (2007) modified Ellis’s extended model in an
empirical investigation focusing on information-seeking
behavior among Jewish studies scholars. Bronstein employed
different terminology because she preferred the concepts of
information activity and information strategy over feature,
characteristic, or pattern. Even though the above terms are
used synonymously, they can be interpreted differently
because Ellis understood activities as constituents of features
and did not approach features from the viewpoint of informa-
tion strategies. Similar to Meho and Tibbo’s (2003) study, the
variations in terminology reflect the different views on the
same phenomenon. On the other hand, such variations may
render it more difficult to identify the conceptual growth
brought by diverse elaborations to the original model.
The major elaboration made by Bronstein (2007) is based
on the positioning of information activities (or Ellis’s fea-
tures) within a time frame and relating information activities
to a specific type of research activity. This modification was
justified by the fact that although all the features identified
by Ellis were present in the participants’ information behav-
ior, they were not used randomly, as Ellis suggested. Bron-
stein also identified two new information activities or
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
“elements”: starter references and citation tracking. Her
findings support Meho and Tibbo’s (2003) conclusion about
the strong relationship between the features of information
seeking and the stage of the research or purpose of the
search. However, in Bronstein’s (2007) model, the role of
the research phases is emphasized even more strongly. Her
model identifies three time frames or phases of research
activity:
1. initial phase: searching for information on a new subject
or searching for information at the beginning of the
research process;
2. current awareness phase: searching for information in
order to keep up-to-date while doing the research;
3. final phase: actions taken to end the research process.
Different from the diagram developed by Meho and
Tibbo, Bronstein’s model consists of two modules. Another
difference is that along with the specification of modules,
Bronstein’s framework is less dynamic because there are no
indications of cyclic feedback between the modules. Thereby,
her model bears more resemblance to Wilson’s (1999) stage
process version. The first module identifies the phase-
dependent elements and their relationships (Figure 4).
The revised model emphasizes the temporally sensitive
elements of information-seeking behavior. At the initial
phase of the research activity, a starter reference such as an
updated article functions as a useful a starting point for cita-
tion tracking, similar to Ellis’s category of chaining. Brows-
ing and extracting are understood similar to Ellis’s original
model. As a whole, the characterization of the current
awareness phase does not add much to Ellis’s original
model with regard to monitoring, or to Meho and Tibbo’s
way to define the feature of networking. However, Bronstein
has refined the picture by specifying the types of informa-
tion sources being monitored: electronic materials and
printed materials. At the final phase of research activity,
similar to Ellis’s extended model, ending refers to the
601
DOI: 10.1002/asi
closure of information seeking at the end of a project, for
example, during preparation of papers for publication.
The second module depicted in Figure 5 refers to those
elements of the information behavior that are not dependent
on a specific research phase.
Again, the three components of information seeking, that
is, verification, differentiating, and managing information
are understood similar to Meho and Tibbo (2003). The main
contribution lies in the finding that these components are
unrelated to a particular research phase. For example, differ-
entiating can take place at any stage of the research process
when the researcher differentiates between sources of infor-
mation based on the quality of the materials. As described
by Bronstein (2007), this information activity is based on
prior knowledge and past experiences that guide the user
when choosing one particular information source over others
available to them.
In sum, the model proposed by Bronstein (2007) pro-
vided two main elaborations to Ellis’s framework. First, the
FIG. 5. Phase-independent elements of information-seeking behavior
(Bronstein, 2007).
FIG. 6. Stages and features in historians’ information-seeking behavior (Rhee, 2012).
602 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
DOI: 10.1002/asi
relationships between features (or information activities)
and stages of research were refined. Seen along a timeline,
some information activities, for example, citation tracking,
may be used in both the initial phase and the current aware-
ness phase, but they are used differently in each phase. Sec-
ond, Bronstein showed that the nature of the information
activities can change according to the purpose of the search
even when talking about the same activity, for example,
browsing. When researchers browse through back issues of
a journal (extracting), or browse widely looking for a book
on a relevant shelf, the aim is to form an opinion on a sub-
ject with which they are probably not familiar. However,
when their goal is to keep up-to-date with the literature pub-
lished in their field (monitoring), they will browse only
through those journals that they know will most benefit their
research.
Refining the Stage-Based Approach (Rhee, 2012)
Recently, Rhee (2012) modeled historians’ information-
seeking behavior. Different from Bronstein (2007), she
selected Meho and Tibbo’s (2003) model as a point of
departure. Rhee believed their model allows the identifica-
tion of unique information-seeking activities of historians by
comparing their behavior with that of social scientists. The
empirical findings provided the basis for the development of
the model depicted in Figure 6.
Following Meho and Tibbo’s (2003) cyclic approach,
Rhee’s (2012) model incorporates four interrelated stages of
information-seeking behavior during a research project. As a
new contribution, Rhee (2012) identified three features charac-
teristic of historians’ information-seeking behavior: orienting,
constructing contextual knowledge, and assessing. Further-
more, different from Meho and Tibbo’s approach, the features
of analyzing, synthesizing, and writing were considered to be
information-using activities rather than information-seeking
activities.
The main elaboration to Meho and Tibbo’s model is
based on a different conceptualization of the role of individ-
ual features within diverse stages of the information-seeking
process. Rhee found that during the searching stage—
different from social scientists—historians may also conduct
orienting, verifying, information managing, constructing
contextual knowledge, and assessing activities. Furthermore,
during the accessing stage, accessing takes a double role
because it is also characterized as a feature. This is because
historians’ preference for direct sources, particularly original
sources, suggests that the accessing may be more critical and
difficult for historians than for other researchers. At the proc-
essing stage—different from social scientists—historians my
conduct constructing contextual knowledge activities and
assessing activities. Finally, at the ending stage, analyzing,
synthesizing, and writing activities are considered to be
information-using activities, rather than information-seeking
activities because those activities use information that was
already found and collected (Rhee, 2012). Historians write
up results of their research projects using information they
collected in their information-seeking process. Hence, Figure
6 includes synthesizing, analyzing, and writing in the ending
stage, whereas Meho and Tibbo’s (2003) model includes
them in the processing stage. Unlike social scientists, histori-
ans seem to go through the same process until a project is
either completed or abandoned.
In sum, Rhee’s (2012) model provides an incremental
contribution to the context-specific description of the fea-
tures of information seeking. The most significant elabora-
tion is based on the reinterpretation of the nature of
individual features within the four stages. As a whole, how-
ever, these elaborations are minor modifications of the
framework developed by Meho and Tibbo (2003). This sug-
gests that a more radical elaboration of Ellis’s original
model would require a new “quantum leap” that exceeds the
idea of information seeking as a staged cyclic process.
Refining the Conceptual Distinctions
So far, the most systematic conceptual elaboration of the
Ellis (1989) model has been conducted by Makri et al.
(2008a, 2008b). Drawing on the findings of Makri’s (2008)
doctoral dissertation, they illustrated the potential of Ellis’s
model by using it as a lens to analyze and make design sug-
gestions based on the information-seeking behavior of aca-
demic lawyers. The focus of the study was strengthened by
concentrating on lawyers’ ways to seek information from
electronic sources. Makri and associates preferred the term
Ellis behaviors over characteristics or features. Despite this
terminological preference, the revised model proposed by
Makri and associates does not draw on the idea of
information-seeking behavior as a staged process. Instead,
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
their approach comes closer to Ellis’s (1989, 2011, p. 30)
idea that the relationship between the features of the model
can only be indicated in abstract and general terms unless
there is a reference to a particular information action. The
model proposed by Makri and associates also comes close to
Ellis’s thinking in that the elaborations made to Ellis’s
model are reported textually; no diagrams are presented.
The elaborations bear resemblance with a taxonomic
approach because the concepts and their relationships are
defined in a detailed way.
The main elaboration of the Ellis (1989) model is framed
around the levels at which Ellis’s behaviors operate (Makri
et al., 2008a, p. 620). These levels include the resource level
(i.e., the level of the electronic resource itself), the source
level (i.e., the level of an information source or sources
within a particular electronic resource), the document level
(i.e., the level of a document or documents within a particu-
lar information source), and the content level (i.e., the level
of content within a particular document) and the search
query/result level (Makri et al., 2008a, pp. 620–621). In addi-
tion, the authors made a distinction between higher and
lower level behaviors. To this end, two higher level behav-
iors were specified: (a) identifying and locating and
(b) accessing and selecting and processing, as well as related
lower level behaviors for each level. For example, at the
level of identifying and locating, there may appear lower-
level behaviors such as surveying, monitoring, searching,
browsing, chaining, and extracting, whereas lower level
behaviors characteristic of accessing and selecting and proc-
essing include, for example, filtering, updating, and record-
ing. The study validated and refined Ellis’s model based on
the identification of the higher and lower level behaviors and
specifying the mode of both type behaviors with regard to
electronic resources. For example, monitoring—a lower
level behavior—can appear in two modes: active or passive.
Furthermore, monitoring can take place at the source level as
well as at a combined document/content level. As another
example, recording can be manual or automatic in nature,
and this lower level behavior can occur at resource, source,
combined document/content, and search query/result levels.
Makri et al. (2008a, pp. 619–641; 2000b, pp. 2247–2248)
identified a host of new features characteristic of informa-
tion behavior among lawyers. However, all of them are not
directly related to information seeking or searching because
they primarily deal with information use or personal infor-
mation management (PIM). Of PIM-related features, for
example, recording comes close to the category of informa-
tion managing identified by Meho and Tibbo (2003). Fea-
tures of information use entail analyzing. This behavior was
identified but not elaborated in greater detail by Meho and
Tibbo (2003); however, it was included in Rhee’s (2012)
model discussed above.
From the perspective of the present study, however, novel
features of information seeking and searching are more per-
tinent. Of them, searching involves formulating a query to
locate information (Makri et al., 2008a, p. 622). Searching
behavior was not discussed by Ellis and his colleagues,
603
DOI: 10.1002/asi
perhaps due to the paper-based nature of information seek-
ing in these studies. This behavior was, however, character-
ized by Meho and Tibbo (2003) and Rhee (2012), although
they conceptualized it as a stage of information seeking, not
a feature or activity. According to Makri et al. (2008a, p.
622), searching involves formulating a query to locate infor-
mation within a particular meta-resource such as catalogs.
Selecting involves carefully choosing resources, sources, or
documents as being potentially useful for the information
task at hand. As described by Makri et al. (2008b, p. 625),
selecting shares a conceptual similarity to distinguishing, fil-
tering, and extracting behaviors but is different from distin-
guishing because it does not involve ranking resources
based on perceived importance. Selecting is also different
from filtering because, although various criteria are used
when selecting which resource to use, these criteria are not
used as precise, explicit filters to help decide between which
document or source to select. Finally, updating is a feature
ensuring a current understanding of amendments or changes
to a particular legal document (Makri et al., 2008a, pp. 628–
629).
Contributions to Conceptual Growth
The findings concerning the conceptual growth brought
by the elaborations made to Ellis’s model are discussed with
regard to three basic aims of scientific theories and models
identified by Bunge (1967, p. 383). Such aims help to evalu-
ate the extent to which the elaborations made to scientific
theories and models have advanced knowledge in specific
fields of research.
Integrating formerly separate parts of knowledge.
From the perspective of this aim, the most significant con-
tribution to conceptual growth originates from studies that
have brought together or incorporated components captured
from diverse models. Integrating formerly separate parts of
knowledge has taken two major forms. First, such components
are related or loosely associated within a model, as exempli-
fied by Wilson’s (1999) model paralleling Kuhlthaus’s (1993)
categories and Ellis’s characteristics depicted in Figure 2. Sec-
ond, integration means that components captured from diverse
frameworks are incorporated as constituents of the refined
model. For example, Meho and Tibbo (2003) incorporated the
constituent of information managing to the stage of processing
information, whereas Rhee (2012) embedded the component
of constructing contextual knowledge to the searching stage.
These contributions have extended the scope of Ellis’s model
toward a framework of information behavior, thus exceeding
the limits of modeling information seeking or information
searching alone.
Interestingly, the elaborations to Ellis’s model exhibit
less interest in the utilization of ideas produced outside the
field of information behavior research. For example, the
development of Wilson’s (1997) general model of informa-
tion seeking provides a more advanced example because
Wilson incorporated elements captured from diverse areas
such as consumer studies, communication research, and
604 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
DOI: 10.1002/asi
health sociology. Overall, the contributions to conceptual
growth based on integrating formerly separate parts of
knowledge have remained quite modest in the context of
Ellis’s model.
Generalizing and explaining lower abstraction-level
knowledge through higher level constructs.
There are a number of elaborations serving this aim. The
extended versions of the original model (Ellis & Haugan,
1997; Ellis et al., 1993) identified novel highe level con-
structs such as distinguishing that subsumed lower level con-
stituents referred to as activities. According to Ingwersen
and J€arvelin (2005, p. 64), one of the strengths of Ellis’s
extended model is that it enables the description of many
information-seeking activities because the characteristics
identified by Ellis are general enough to fit a large number
of empirical situations. However, if one is to explain
information-seeking behavior, for example, in terms of the
work tasks the subjects are engaged with, the Ellis’s features
fall short because they are not explicitly related to such
external possible causative factors. Thus, it is not possible to
predict the order in which the categories appear in an
individual-seeking process. J€arvelin and Wilson (2003)
believed, however, that Ellis’s model may still be of indirect
help in finding explanations for information-seeking behav-
ior. It would mainly be possible to discern differences in any
of the features in different situations. For example, some
persons in some roles may be shown to engage more or less
in monitoring than other persons. This may then lead to an
examination of the factors that give rise to these differences.
The framework developed by Makri and his associates
(2008a, 2008b) serves particularly well the aim of generaliz-
ing and explaining lower abstraction level knowledge
through higher level constructs. Their model identifies
diverse levels at which the Ellis features operate. Makri and
associates developed a hierarchical setting which makes
lower level constructs such as browsing, chaining and
searching more understandable by locating them into a
higher level category termed identifying and locating. Simi-
larly, the models developed by Meho and Tibbo (2003),
Bronstein (2007), and Rhee (2012) contributed to conceptual
growth by placing lower level constructs such as features or
activities in a meaningful context of stages of information
seeking or phases of research activities. By the above crite-
rion, elaborations of this type have provided a strong contri-
bution to the conceptual growth.
Expanding knowledge by identifying new characteristics
of the object of study based on selected starting points and
collected information.
Drawing on empirical research, the above studies have
served this end by identifying novel components such as fil-
tering (Ellis & Haugan, 1997), information managing (Meho
& Tibbo, 2003), and preparation and planning (Ge, 2010).
The elaborations have also specified the relationships
between individual components in diverse contexts such as
academic research and engineering. These contributions are
based on the additive approach (e.g., Ellis et al., 1993; Ge,
2010), as well as redefining and restructuring the components
TABLE 1. Summary of the research findings.

Main approach used in Contribution to concep-

Author(s) Context of the study the elaboration tual growth Main elaboration to Ellis’s (1981) model

Smith (1988) Academic research Adding novel Expanding knowledge Identifying new characteristics of
(English literature) components information seeking, for example,
surveying and sifting
Ellis, Cox, and Hall Academic research Adding novel Expanding knowledge Identifying new characteristics, for
(1993) (physics, chemistry) components example, initial familiarization,
verifying, and ending
Ellis and Haugan Engineering, science in Adding novel Expanding knowledge Identifying new characteristics:
(1997) industry components distinguishing and filtering
Wilson (1999) Literature review Redefining and Integrating knowledge Relating Ellis’s characteristics and
restructuring Kuhlthaus’s (1993) categories
components
Meho and Tibbo Academic research Redefining and Integrating knowledge Identifying and incorporating novel
(2003) (social science) restructuring Expanding knowledge components such as information
components Generalizing and managing and writing to the revised
explaining model
Approaching features of information
seeking in the context of four stages:
searching, accessing, processing, and
ending
Bronstein (2007) Academic research Redefining and Integrating knowledge Identifying and incorporating novel
(humanities) restructuring Expanding knowledge components such as
components Generalizing and starter references and citation tracking
explaining to the revised model
Approaching features of information
seeking in the context of three phases
of research process
Makri et al. (2008a, Work context Redefining and Integrating knowledge Identifying and incorporating novel
2008b) (academic lawyers) restructuring Expanding knowledge components such as searching,
components Generalizing and recording and updating to the revised
explaining model
Specifying higher and lower level
behaviors and their constituents
Ge (2010) Academic research Adding novel Expanding knowledge Identifying a new characteristic:
(social science) components preparation and planning
Rhee (2012) Academic research Redefining and Integrating knowledge Identifying and incorporating novel
(humanities) restructuring Expanding knowledge components such as constructing
components Generalizing and contextual knowledge to the revised model
explaining Reinterpreting the role of characteristics in
the context of four stages identified by
Meho and Tibbo (2003)

of models (e.g., Bronstein, 2007; Makri et al., 2008a; Meho
& Tibbo, 2003; Rhee, 2012). However, instead of deriving
operationalizable propositions for the testing of hypotheses,
the contributions to conceptual growth are mainly descriptive
in nature, that is, characterizations of the attributes of novel
components or their relationships. By this criterion, the elabo-
rations provide a useful contribution to the conceptual growth
and lay a basis for the development of testable hypotheses.
Discussion
Focusing on the elaborations made to Ellis’s seminal
model, the present study examined how such refinements
contribute to conceptual growth in research on information-
seeking behavior. The research findings are summarized in
Table 1.
The first research question dealt with the ways in which
Ellis’s model has been elaborated since the late 1980s. The
findings indicate that the elaborations are based in two major
approaches. First, the original model has been enhanced by
adding novel components. This approach has resulted in the
identification of contextually sensitive characteristics of
information seeking with regard to diverse groups of users,
for example, chemists, historians, social scientists, and aca-
demic lawyers. Because new contexts or user groups exhibit
novel characteristics of information seeking, the additive
approach may lead to an endless list of features. The picture
of the context-specific information seeking can be refined,
but due to the increased diversity, the identification of the
core features of this activity will be rendered more difficult.
So far, due to the relatively low number of context-specific
characteristics of information seeking suggested by the elab-
orations, the forest can still be seen for the trees. This issue

JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017 605
DOI: 10.1002/asi
deals with one of the fundamental problems of modeling,
that is, the trade-off between simplification and detailed rep-
resentation of a target phenomenon.
Second, Ellis’s model has been elaborated by redefining
and restructuring of the components of the model. In this
regard, the most radical change originates from the introduc-
tion of the idea of stage process approach inspired by
Kuhlthau’s ISP model (Wilson, 1999). This idea was refined
in diverse ways in empirical studies conducted by Meho and
Tibbo (2003), Bronstein (2007), and Rhee (2012). The elab-
orations have resulted in the identification of three or four
major stages of information seeking. Diverse features have
been incorporated in such components, depending on the tar-
get groups such as social scientists and historians. The elab-
orations of this type have also led to the specification of the
attributes of the features, as exemplified by the study of
Makri et al. (2008a, 2008b). Overall, the main elaborations
to Ellis’s are based on the redefining and restructuring of
components of his model. The findings also suggest that this
approach has resulted in the most fundamental changes in
the original model.
The second research question dealt with the conceptual
growth brought by the elaborations. As a whole, the modifi-
cations and revisions have resulted in the conceptual growth
in information-seeking behavior research. Table 1 indicates
that the “additive approach” to model elaboration has mainly
contributed to expanding knowledge by means of identifying
new characteristics of information-seeking behavior. Such
characteristics include, for example, distinguishing and fil-
tering (Ellis & Haugan, 1996) and preparation and planning
(Ge, 2010).
The approach based on the redefining and restructuring
the components of the model is more sophisticated. On the
one hand, this approach has contributed to integrating for-
merly separate parts of knowledge. For example, Wilson
(1999) related Ellis’s characteristics and Kuhlthau’s (1993)
categories, whereas Meho and Tibbo (2003) incorporated
components such as information managing and writing to
the processes of information seeking. On the other hand, the
approach based on the redefining and restructuring the com-
ponents of the model has contributed to the generalizing and
explaining of lower level knowledge through higher level
constructs. As a whole, the approach bases of redefining and
restructuring components has resulted in the most funda-
mental elaborations to Ellis’s original model. Meho and
Tibbo showed that Ellis’s characteristics can be approached
as constituents of a staged and cyclic information-seeking
process, whereas Makri and associates elaborated Ellis’s
model by specifying the relationships between higher and
lower level behaviors and their constituents. For example,
Makri et al. (2008a, 2008b) made individual behaviors such
as browsing, chaining, and searching more understandable
by locating them into a higher level category termed identi-
fying and locating.
Table 1 indicates that, except for the studies of Wilson
(1999) and Makri et al. (2008a, 2000b), the elaborations to
Ellis’s model have been made in the context of academic
606 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
DOI: 10.1002/asi
research. Naturally, this limits the scope of the refined
frameworks. Of them, those proposed by Smith (1988),
Bronstein (2007), Makri et al. (2008a, 2008b), Ge (2010),
and Rhee (2012) are most strongly dependent on a specific
context of information seeking. The versions proposed by
Ellis and associates operate at a higher level of generality
and they may be applied more broadly to the study of work-
related information seeking. However, as Makri et al.
(2008a, p. 620) aptly point out, the elaboration of Ellis’s
model should not be regarded as a “complete” or “correct”
set of behaviors that are intended to generalize to a wide
range of contexts, but as a way of conceptualizing informa-
tion behaviors in terms of broader parent and lower level
behaviors, subtypes of behaviors, and different levels of
behaviors. All in all, the elaborations made to Ellis’s (1989)
model have gradually expanded its scope toward a frame-
work of information behavior by erasing the boundary lines
between information seeking, searching, and use as well as
personal information management.
Interestingly, the revised versions have not replaced
Ellis’s original model or the enhanced frameworks devel-
oped by Ellis and associates. These frameworks are still
widely cited as classic models for information seeking. As
far as I know, Ellis has not commented on the elaborations
made to his model. For example, while summarizing the
ways in which the behavioral model has been reviewed since
the 1990s, Ellis (2005) made no reference to Meho and Tib-
bo’s (2003) study, for example. Similarly, in a recent review
of the emergence of conceptual modeling in information
behavior research, the revised versions were not commented
on by Ellis (2011).
The evaluation of the conceptual growth brought by the
elaborations to Ellis’s model is rendered difficult due to the
fact that other frameworks of information seeking are not
directly comparable due to their differences in theoretical
background and terminology. For example, by certain crite-
ria, the models of task-based information seeking are more
advanced than Ellis’s extended framework, or its revised
versions. This is particularly evident with regard to the aim
of explaining facts through systems of hypotheses, which
entail the facts (Bunge, 1967, p. 383). By this criterion, the
elaborations to Ellis’s model are wanting when compared
with the model of task-based information seeking developed
by Bystr€om and J€arvelin (1995), for example. Vakkari
(1998) showed that Bystr€om and J€arvelins (1995) model
meant theory growth in terms of theory precision because
the model explicates dependencies (causality) between task
complexity, information needed, and information sources.
The strength of their model lies in that it explicitly generates
hypotheses through systematically categorizing the central
concepts.
The findings of the present study indicate that the elabo-
rations to Ellis’s model have not progressed to the formulat-
ing and testing of hypotheses. This suggests, more generally,
that if a long-time elaboration of a model does not lead to
success in the formulation and testing of hypotheses, the
refinement of the model may be stopped at a certain level,
preventing the developers of the model from taking the next
step, which would turn the model into an empirically vali-
dated theory. This task is even more demanding if there are
diverse versions of the same model, as exemplified by sev-
eral elaborations made to Ellis’s framework. An opposite
example is provided by the systematic attempts to test
Kuhlthau’s (1993) ISP model. Beheshti et al. (2015) demon-
strate in this context that on the way from a model to a
theory it is vitally important to strengthen the empirical
validity of the existing framework by carefully testing it in
diverse contexts, instead of just incorporating novel compo-
nents or changing their constellation. Similarly, it is obvious
that the further elaboration of Ellis’s model would require a
more focused approach with the intent of operationalizing
key concepts to develop and test specific hypotheses. The
“feature-based” approach preferred by Makri et al. (2008a,
2008b) holds good promise in this regard because the key
concepts are defined in detail and they can be operational-
ized for the needs of empirical research. Similarly, the
“stage-based” approach developed by Meho and Tibbo
(2003) and Rhee (2012) is hospitable to the development
and testing of hypotheses.
Conclusion
Ellis’s (1989) seminal model provided a fertile ground
for the study because it has been a subject to numerous mod-
ifications. The findings suggest more generally that the elab-
oration of existing models enables gradual cumulation of
knowledge, thus helping researchers to fight the problems
caused by the proliferation of frameworks. The present study
provided two major contributions. First, the findings shed
light on the ways in which scientific models are elaborated.
The simplest way is to supplement existing models by add-
ing novel components. A more sophisticated way is to refine
and restructure the components of the framework. Second,
the study showed how the elaborations to scientific models
contribute to conceptual growth. It may be based on integrat-
ing formerly separate parts of knowledge, generalizing and
explaining observations of the object of inquiry, and expand-
ing knowledge by identifying new characteristics of the
object of study.
As an in-depth analysis of the elaborations made to a
seminal model, the findings complement the general level
reviews of models for information-seeking behavior (e.g.,
Case, 2012, pp. 133–162; Wilson, 2010). The findings also
suggest that the basic aims of scientific theories identified
by Bunge (1967, p. 383) provide a useful point of departure
for the analysis of conceptual growth of models. The main
limitation of the present study is that it examines one model
only. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to apply to all
models of information behavior. However, it is believed that
the research results provide relevant material for compara-
tive studies, thus serving the ends of “digging deeper” in
information-behavior research.
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
References
Aguilar, F.J. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York:
Macmillan.
Bates, M.J (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques
for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407–424.
Bates, M.J. (2005). An introduction to metatheories, theories and mod-
els. In K.E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of
information behavior (pp. 1–24). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Beheshti, J., Cole, C., Abuhimed, D., & Lamourex, I. (2015). Tracking
middle school students information behavior via Kuhlthau’s ISP model:
Temporality. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 66(5), 943–960.
Belkin, N.J., Oddy, R.N., & Brooks, H.M. (1982). ASK for information
retrieval. Part I: Background and theory. Journal of Documentation, 38(2),
61–71.
Bronstein, J. (2007). The role of the research phase in information seek-
ing behavior of Jewish studies scholars: A modification of Ellis’s
behavioral characteristics. Information Research, 12(3). Retrieved
from http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper318.html.
Bunge, M.A. (1967). Scientific research. Vol. 1. The search for system.
Berlin: Springer.
Bystr€om, K., & J€arvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information
seeking and use. Information Processing & Management, 31(2), 191–
213.
Case, D.O. (2012). Looking for information. A survey of research on infor-
mation seeking, needs and behavior (3rd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Choo, C.W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Information seeking on
the Web: An integrated model of browsing and searching. First Mon-
day, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_2/
choo/index.html#author.
Dervin, B. (2003). Human studies and user studies: A call for methodo-
logical inter-disciplinarity. Information Research, 9(1). Retrieved from
http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper166.html.
Ellis, D. (1984). Theory and explanation in information retrieval
research. Journal of Information Science, 8(1), 25–38.
Ellis, D. (1987). The derivation of a behavioural model for information
retrieval systems design (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of
Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural model for information retrieval system.
Journal of Information Science, 15(4–5), 237–247.
Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic
researchers: A grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63(4),
469–486.
Ellis, D. (2005). Ellis’s model of information behavior. In K.E. Fisher,
S. Erdelez, & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior
(pp. 138–142). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Ellis, D. (2011). The emergence of conceptual modelling in information
behavior research. In A. Spink & J. Heinstr€ om (Eds.), New directions
in information behavior (pp. 17–35). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Ellis, D., Cox, D., & Hall, K. (1993). A comparison of the information
seeking patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences.
Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 356–369.
Ellis, D., & Haugan, M. (1997). Modeling the information seeking pat-
terns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment.
Journal of Documentation, 53(4), 384–403.
Foster, A. (2004). A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech-
nology, 55(3), 228–237.
Foster, A., & Urquhart, C. (2012). Modelling nonlinear information
behavior: Transferability and progression. Journal of Documentation,
68(6), 784–805.
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2012). Models in science. In Stanford Ency-
clopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/models-science/.
Furner, J. (2004). Conceptual analysis: A method for understanding
information as evidence, and evidence as information. Archival Sci-
ence, 4(3–4), 233–265.
607
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Ge, X. (2010). Information-seeking behavior in the digital age: A multi-
disciplinary study of academic researchers. College & Research Libra-
ries, 71(5), 435–445.
Ingwersen, P., & J€arvelin, K. (2005). The turn: Integration of information
seeking and retrieval in context. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Jansen, B.J., & Rieh, S.Y. (2010). The seventeen theoretical constructs
of information searching and information retrieval. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8),
1517–1534.
J€arvelin, K., & Wilson, T.D. (2003). On conceptual models for informa-
tion seeking and retrieval research. Information Research, 9(1).
Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper163.html.
Johnson, J.D. (1996). Information seeking: An organizational dilemma.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seek-
ing. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 339–355.
Lambert, S.D., & Loiselle, C.G. (2007). Health information-seeking
behavior. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1006–1019.
Leckie, G.J., Pettigrew, K.E., & Sylvain, C. (1996). Modelling the infor-
mation seeking of professionals: A general model derived from
research on engineers, health care professionals and lawyers. Library
Quarterly, 66(2), 161–193.
Makri, S. (2008). A study of lawyers’ information behaviour leading to
the development of two methods for evaluating electronic resources
(PhD thesis). University College London, London. Retrieved from
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/14729/1/14729.pdf.
Makri, S., Blandford, A., & Cox, A.L. (2008a). Investigating the
information-seeking behaviour of academic lawyers: From Ellis’s
model to design. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 613–
634.
Makri, S., Blandford, A., & Cox, A.L. (2008b). Using information
behaviors to evaluate the functionality and usability of electronic
resources: From Ellis’s model to evaluation. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(14), 2244–
2267.
Meho, L.I., & Tibbo, H.R. (2003). Modelling the information-seeking
behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6),
570–597.
608 JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2017
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Paisley, W.J. (1968). Information needs and uses. In C.A. Cuadra (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 1–30). Chi-
cago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Pluta, W., Chinn, C.A., & Duncan, R.G. (2011). Learners epistemic criteria for
good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–
511.
Rhee, H.L. (2012). Modelling historians’ information-seeking behavior with
an interdisciplinary and comparative approach. Information Research,
17(4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/17-4/paper544.html.
Robson, A., & Robinson, L. (2013). Building of models of information
behavior: Linking information seeking and communication. Journal of
Documentation, 69(2), 169–193.
Saracevic, T. (1997). The stratified model of information retrieval inter-
action: Extension and applications. In Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science (pp. 313–327). Medford, NJ: Infor-
mation Today.
Smith, K. (1988). An investigation of the information-seeking behaviour
of academics active in the field of English Literature. (Unpublished
M.A. thesis). University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Torrance, E.P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY:
Bearly Limited.
Vakkari, P. (1998). Growth of theories on information seeking: An anal-
ysis of growth of a theoretical research program on the relation
between task complexity and information seeking. Information Proc-
essing & Management, 34(2), 361–382.
Wilson, T.D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of
Documentation, 37(1), 3–15.
Wilson, T.D. (1994). Information needs and uses: Fifty years of pro-
gress. In B.C. Vickery (Ed.), Fifty years of information progress (pp.
15–51). London: Aslib.
Wilson, T.D. (1997). Information behavior: An interdisciplinary perspec-
tive. Information Processing & Management, 33(4), 551–572.
Wilson, T.D. (1999). Models in information behavior research. Journal
of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270.
Wilson, T.D. (2010). Information behavior models. In M.J. Bates & M.
Niles Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences
(3rd. ed.) (pp. 2392–2400). London: Taylor & Francis.
Wilson, T.D., Streatfield, D., & Mullings, C. (1979). Information needs
in local authority service departments: A second report on INISS.
Journal of Documentation, 35(2), 120–136.