Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment
Abstract
The study explores the role of information and information seeking in the Research and Development Department of an international oil and gas company. The information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists at Statoil’s Research Centre, in Trondheim, Norway were studied in relation to their research activities in different phases and types of project. The project phases were evaluation of alternative solutions; development and testing; and summary of experiences. The project types were incremental; radical; and fundamental. Eight major characteristics were identified in the patterns: surveying; chaining; monitoring; browsing; distinguishing; filtering; extracting and ending. The study analyses the requirements for different types of information in an environment where the need for internal and external resources are intertwined; it also compares features of the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists from this and previous studies. It was found that, although there were differences in the features of the information seeking patterns of the research scientists and engineers, the behavioural characteristics were similar; and the study identified identical or very similar categories of information seeking behaviour to those of previous studies of academic researchers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ellis's model conceptualizes information-seeking as a set of related activities that include starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, extracting, verifying, and ending.
“Ellis's model conceptualizes information-seeking as a set of related activities that include starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, monitoring, extracting, verifying, and ending [7,8,23].”
From Engineering student perceptions of generative AI use in learning trust judgment and information seeking (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns
Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., & Wu, L. (2009) · Aslib Proceedings · doi:10.1108/00012530910932267 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Mohammed, Y., Qandil, H., & Lund, B. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-02086-2
- Authors
- Ellis, D., & Haugan, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Documentation
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 1997-10-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 384-403
- ISSN
- 0022-0418
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review