Information creating

According to Trace (2008), information creating “pushes the boundaries of exploration back to the place where people put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard), and sets in motion the lifecycle of information” (p. 1540). Koh (2013) defines “information-creating behaviour” as “the way people create messages, cues, and informative content that can be used to meet the existing or potential information needs of the creator or other users” (p. 1827). Hektor (2001) speaks of “dressing,” an activity whereby “information is framed and a cognitive product is externalized (consciously or not)” by an individual (p. 86). Each of these ideas of information creating is grounded in the making of physical artefacts; creating occurs as “thoughts, ideas, facts, and pieces of knowledge are dressed in signs and symbols, words and text, images and pictures, and physical expressions” to be made public or kept private (Hektor, 2001, p. 87, 309). Information creating might thus be said to entail effort, skill, and the use of certain methods and tools (Marchionini, 2010), and to beget encoded,

embedded, or recorded “information-as-thing” outputs (Bates, 2005b, 2006; Buckland, 1991).8

Little ILS research focuses on information creating (Cox & Blake, 2011; Hartel, 2014; Koh, 2013; Trace 2007, 2008). Even less of this research is theoretically driven (scattered empirical examples are discussed below), or focuses on “imaginative and expressive” (Koh, 2013, p. 1827)

7_{Terms like information behaviour and information practice embed metatheoretical sensitivities that challenge researchers to} be self-reflexive (The behaviour/practice debate, 2009; cf. Savolainen, 2007). Not only does the thinking behind information practice align it well with (social) constructivism, but it also foregrounds the non-monological nature of information processes; balances “individual purposes, intentions, and interests” with “collective norms” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 245); perceives of mental knowing as inseparable from embodied and material knowing; works on the basis of observable doings and sayings; and sensitizes ILS research to actions and activities that may not, on the surface, appear entirely informational (Cox, 2012a; Gherardi, 2012; Olsson, 2005; Savolainen, 2007a; Talja, 1997; Tuominen, Talja, & Savolainen, 2005).

8 _{In the field of creativity research, creative outputs are thought to be novel, coherent, appropriate, useful, and valuable}

(Bawden, 1986; Rhodes, 1961; Sawyer, 2012). Expressed creative outputs (external, dependent upon a tangible product or public performance, and persuasion-based), as opposed to potential creative outputs (internal, neither product- nor performance-based), are of interest in this dissertation (Sawyer, 2012). Whether these expressed creative outputs are

information creating that does not follow from an imposed task or serve a primarily instrumental, utilitarian purpose. Information creating that may arise in everyday life and be encouraged by participatory culture is thus underemphasized—for example, “information production” is intentionally excluded from the scope of Savolainen’s (2008a, p. 51) everyday life information practices (ELIPs) model.

This dearth may be a result of some scholars viewing information creating as information use. Information use is usually defined as an interpretive, constructive (that is, internal) activity that involves individuals making meaning (Tuominen & Savolainen, 1997) and “incorporating

information found into [their] existing knowledge bases” (Wilson, 2000, p. 50). However, a handful of scholars have discussed information use as a productive, externalizing activity, the

“counterbalance of internalizing [… that] creates an expression of knowledge which others can also observe” (Kari, 2010, …Information Production). Information creating may also be little studied because it depends upon the creative process, which is “highly individual,” “highly personal” (Bawden, 1986, p. 204, p. 213), and difficult to observe, articulate, or generalize across. While there is some precedent and perhaps, in some cases, good reason to equate information creating with information use, or to totally subsume the former under the latter, the small amount of empirical studies that have given information creating substantial attention, covered below, suggest that it is rich and involved enough for ILS researchers to approach as a (related) practice in and of itself. Hartel, Cox, and Griffin (2016) note that, especially in Web 2.0 environments, however, distinctions between information creating and information sharing are less clear, sometimes eroding completely.

In 1986, Bawden reviewed the role of and place for information institutions and systems in creativity, underscoring the importance of browsing, serendipity, a ‘prepared mind,’ and

interdisciplinary interests in spurring creative thought. The limited precision inherent in browsing and the surprises inherent in serendipity lead individuals to confront speculative, possibly

artefacts. Similarly, a thorough and far-reaching, interdisciplinary cognitive foundation means that the depth and variation of individuals’ understanding will lead them to new information

combinations. Bawden (1986) also suggests, controversially, that information professionals limit and stifle creativity when they structure information provision, an idea that others have echoed, arguing that information creating tends to appear “unsystematic, or even [like] a skill failure” when it is judged against conventional standards (Koh, 2013, p. 1835; cf. Anderson, 2013, 2014).

Above, serious beauty and lifestyle YouTube content was positioned as entertaining and, perhaps because of this, informational. Below, the idea that information can be considered and called whatever befits a given practice (Cox, 2012a, 2012b) is detailed. Few serious beauty and lifestyle YouTubers may describe themselves or be described by others as “information creators” (but may be more apt to use a title such as “online content creator,” aligning themselves with other types of Web 2.0 creators, like bloggers), yet the Appendix C Glossary suggests some particular kinds of information from which they draw when creating their videos and around which their videos centre. Personal experiences and expressions, personal impressions, opinions, descriptions, and instructions, and personal advice based upon these are chief manifestations of information in this context. Highly subjective, rather than strictly objective, fact-based creating and sharing is a standard and norm of the serious beauty and lifestyle YouTube social world, though perhaps less traditionally considered within the ILS field; how subjectivity factors into their creating practice is described in Chapter 7.