Analyzing Information Creation Frameworks
When asked to conceptualize or analyze "information creation" (or an analogous under-theorized topic spanning multiple disciplinary traditions), organize the inquiry along three axes:
- Production/Process — What sequence of activities transforms raw material into information/records/documents? (e.g., records continuum, knowledge creation cycles, documentation processes)
- Makers — Who or what creates? (individuals, communities, organizations, algorithms; professional vs. everyday creators)
- Making — What is the lived, embodied, situated experience/activity of creating? (craft, maker culture, first-person documentation, tacit knowledge)
Map any given source, theory, or empirical case onto these three axes to reveal what it foregrounds and what it neglects.
Progress:
- Step 1: Identify the object of inquiry and its conventional framing (e.g., "information" typically studied as static artifact/output)
- Step 2: Survey how existing literature conceptualizes the "creation" side — group sources by whether they emphasize production/process, actors/makers, or embodied making
- Step 3: Identify disciplinary silos (e.g., archival science, information behavior, education/makerspaces, knowledge management, documentation studies) and note where terminology diverges but concepts converge
- Step 4: Surface tensions/gaps — e.g., process models that ignore agency, or maker-culture literature that ignores institutional/organizational context
- Step 5: Propose a synthesis or panel structure that lets each conceptualization foreground distinct aspects (who creates, how, why, in what context)
- Step 6: Draw implications for practice (information literacy instruction, information organization/management, systems/services design)
- Step 7: Write up as a structured position/abstract: state the gap, the multi-lens framework, and practical payoff
Example 1: Input: "Summarize how records continuum theory and maker-education literature both address 'creation' but differently." Output:
- Records continuum (McKemmish 2001; Foscarini 2010): creation is continuous and recursive, embedded in organizational/archival context; focus on process and context over time, records as always "in becoming."
- Maker-education (Koh 2013; Peppler, Halverson & Kafai 2016): creation is situated in hands-on, iterative, learner-driven activity; focus on makers (learners) and making (embodied, tacit, tool-mediated practice).
- Synthesis: continuum theory explains institutional/temporal context of creation; maker literature explains individual agency and skill-building. Combining both surfaces how personal creative acts get folded into (or excluded from) organizational recordkeeping — relevant for personal archiving research (Douglas 2018).
Example 2: Input: "Draft an abstract framing a panel on 'information creation' with four speakers covering archives, phenomenology, learning technology, and knowledge management." Output: A ~150-word abstract stating: (1) information creation is under-researched relative to information use/seeking; (2) an emerging literature conceptualizes it differently depending on lens — production/process, actors/makers, embodied making; (3) the panel brings together archival science (record creation types), phenomenology (first-person documentation and knowledge creation), learning sciences (maker learning and information behavior), and knowledge management (organizational knowledge creation) to compare conceptualizations; (4) the payoff is actionable insight for information literacy instruction, information organization, and systems design.
- Treat "creation" as a verb/process, not just a noun/artifact — resist collapsing it back into "information" as static output.
- Explicitly name the disciplinary lens each source/speaker uses; don't assume shared vocabulary means shared concept.
- Always connect theory back to at least one practice domain (literacy instruction, systems design, archival appraisal, curriculum).
- When synthesizing multiple contributors/panelists, structure output so each contributor's distinct angle remains visible rather than flattening into one voice.
- Use a three-part scaffold (process / makers / making) as a default organizing device for any "creation of X" topic, even outside information science.
- Don't conflate "information creation" with "information seeking/use" — they require different theoretical apparatus (creation precedes and enables the latter).
- Don't treat maker-culture/DIY literature as automatically compatible with institutional/archival creation literature — reconcile scale and context differences explicitly.
- Avoid presenting a single unified theory when the actual state of the field is fragmented; naming the fragmentation is itself a valid and useful contribution.
- Don't omit the practical implications section — panels/position pieces in this domain are expected to close with actionable relevance (instruction, management, systems).