From function to fulfillment: A practical guide to information need models

Historically, media research has focused on what's known as "functional needs" – the practical information people need to navigate daily life. 

This focus on the functional exists because these needs are often the most fundamental, dealing with essential things in life. And understanding how they are met - or not met - speaks to real, direct impact information can have on people’s lives. 

Yet this approach misses a crucial piece of the puzzle: we're not just information consumers, we're complex human beings with a wide range of psychological and social needs that influence how we interact with information.
This narrow focus on the functional has roots in the early days of information behavior research, a field that emerged from studies of library use and scientific communication. Researchers initially focused on how people choose and use information sources to meet specific, often practical, goals. While this laid important groundwork, it also created a blind spot that persists today.

In this post, we'll share some key theories that reveal the complexity of human information behavior and challenge the media to move beyond the functional and embrace the whole person. 

By reviewing models’ evolutions and their relevance to media, we'll explore how a more holistic approach to understanding information needs can lead to richer, more meaningful media experiences.

TL;DR: an overview of need models:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Introduced in 1943, Abraham Maslow's theory provides a framework for understanding human motivation that has been widely applied across various disciplines, including information behavior research. 

It is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels of needs, from basic physiological needs at the bottom to self-actualization at the top.

In the context of information behavior, researchers have drawn parallels between these levels of needs and different types of information needs and seeking behaviors:

1. Physiological and safety needs: At these levels, information seeking might focus on immediate, survival-related information such as where to find food, shelter, or medical care. In modern contexts, this could extend to information about job opportunities or housing.

2. Love and belonging: Information needs at this level might relate to finding social connections, understanding social norms, or accessing communication channels to maintain relationships.

3. Esteem: Information seeking at this level could involve looking for information to improve one's skills, understand one's rights, or gain recognition in a particular field.

4. Self-actualization: At the highest level, information needs might relate to personal growth, education, or creative pursuits.

The application of Maslow's hierarchy to information behavior has provided several valuable insights that enlighten the development of needs models later. First, Maslow proposed a hierarchy of motivational needs, some researchers have suggested that information needs may also follow a hierarchical structure. Basic, survival-related information needs may take precedence over higher-level needs for self-improvement or actualization.

Maslow's theory also highlights how different contexts or life circumstances might lead to different information needs and behaviors. For instance, individuals in precarious living situations might prioritize information related to basic needs, while those in stable environments might seek information for self-improvement or leisure. 

Additionally, it provides a framework for understanding the underlying motivations for information seeking. It suggests that information behavior is not just about filling knowledge gaps, but about satisfying fundamental human needs. By linking information needs to a comprehensive theory of human motivation, Maslow's hierarchy encourages a more holistic view of information behavior that considers the full spectrum of human experiences and motivations.

However, the application of Maslow's hierarchy to information behavior is not without criticism. Some argue that information needs, like motivational needs, may not follow a strict hierarchy and can vary across cultures and individuals. Other critics suggest that mapping information needs directly onto Maslow's hierarchy may oversimplify the complex and often non-linear nature of information behavior. 

Tom Wilson’s Information Model

Tom Wilson's model of information behavior moves from a system-centered approach to a user-centered one, and incorporates additional factors that can influence information behavior. His work has been particularly influential in providing a holistic framework for understanding how people interact with information. 

Wilson’s initial model, published in 1981, focused on the origin of information needs and the barriers to information seeking. This model was groundbreaking in its time for three reasons: 

It placed the information user at the center of the model, rather than the information system; it recognized that information-seeking behavior arises as a consequence of a need perceived by an information user; and it identified various barriers that might prevent an individual from seeking information, including personal, interpersonal, and environmental barriers. 

The 1981 model also introduced the concept of "information exchange," recognizing that people often share information with others as part of their information behavior.

In 1996, Wilson revised his model, expanding on the concept of intervening variables and introducing activating mechanisms in information seeking. Key additions included intervening variables (psychological, demographic, role-related, interpersonal, and environmental factors that could either support or hinder information seeking), activating mechanisms (incorporating stress/coping theory, risk/reward theory, and social learning theory to explain what activates information-seeking behavior), and the addition of an information processing and use stage to complete the information behavior cycle.

Wilson's 1999 model further refined his concepts and introduced, again, new elements. It emphasized the context of information need, highlighting the importance of the situation in which the information need arises. The concept of activating mechanism was expanded to include passive attention, passive search, active search, and ongoing search. Information use was more explicitly incorporated into the model, recognizing that how information is used is an integral part of information behavior.

Through these models, Wilson introduced several important concepts to information behavior research. It provides a framework that identifies a variety of factors affecting information behavior and shows how these factors are interrelated. Wilson justified the choice of theoretical concepts through empirical research, providing a solid foundation for the model. 

Some may argue that the later models are too complex for practical application in some research contexts. And despite attempts to show feedback loops, the models are sometimes criticized for presenting information behavior as a somewhat linear process. Other critics suggest that Wilson’s models primarily focus on individual information behavior, potentially underplaying the role of social and collaborative information practices. 

Despite these critiques, Wilson's models remain foundational in the field of information behavior research. They provide a framework for understanding the complex interplay of factors that influence how people interact with information, from the emergence of an information need to the use of acquired information. 

Uses and Gratifications Theory

First articulated by Herta Herzog in the 1940s and later refined by Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch in the 1970s, Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) shifts focus from how media affects people to how people actively use media to satisfy specific needs. 

This user-centered perspective aligns closely with the evolution of information behavior research away from system-centered approaches.

The theory's core premise – that individuals actively select media and information sources to fulfill particular gratifications – provides a valuable framework for understanding motivation in information seeking. These gratifications typically fall into several categories:

• cognitive (information acquisition),

• affective (emotional satisfaction),

• social integrative (strengthening connections),

• personal integrative (reinforcing identity),

• and tension release (escape and entertainment).

This categorization offers a nuanced way to understand why people seek different types of information and choose particular information channels.

The emphasis on active audience choice and need satisfaction has particular relevance for digital information behavior. The theory helps explain why people might choose different platforms for different information needs - for instance, using professional networking sites for career information while turning to social media for community news.

Like Maslow's hierarchy when applied to information behavior, UGT has faced criticism for potentially oversimplifying complex motivations and assuming too much rationality in user choices.

Media System Dependency Theory

Media System Dependency Theory (MSDT), developed by Sandra Ball-Rokeach and Melvin DeFleur in 1976, builds on UGT by examining how increasing reliance on media for need satisfaction leads to greater media influence in people's lives. 

While UGT focuses on needs driving media consumption, MSDT explores how this consumption creates dependencies that shape information-seeking patterns.

MSDT proposes three main types of dependencies that people develop with media systems:

1. Understanding (of self and social environment)

2. Orientation (for behavior and interaction decisions)

3. Entertainment (for relaxation and emotional release)

These dependencies become stronger when:

• Social change and conflict are high

• Media serves many central information functions

• Media access is relatively unrestricted

• Alternative information sources are limited

An important distinction from UGT is that MSDT examines the structural relationships between media, audiences, and society, rather than just individual motivations.

The theory helps explain why people might maintain strong attachments to particular information sources or platforms even when those sources don't fully satisfy their needs. This attachment develops because the perceived costs of switching to alternative sources (in terms of time, effort, and uncertainty) outweigh the potential benefits.

The theory has become particularly relevant in the digital age, where social media platforms and other digital information sources can create powerful dependencies through their integration into daily life routines and social connections.

Social Cognitive Theory 

Developed by Albert Bandura, social cognitive theory draws attention to the difference between what people hope to get from their media use (gratifications sought or GS) and what they actually obtain from it (gratifications obtained or GO).

The theory identifies several key aspects of this relationship:

First, there's the evaluation process. People actively assess whether their media experiences meet their expectations. For instance, someone might turn to social media hoping to feel more connected with friends (GS), but end up feeling more isolated instead (GO). This mismatch between expectations and reality influences future media choices.

Second, there's the learning component. Through repeated experiences with different media sources, people develop expectations about which sources will best meet their needs. When gratifications obtained consistently exceed those sought, people learn to trust and rely on those sources. This explains why people often develop strong loyalties to particular news websites, social media platforms, or information channels.

Third, there's the behavioral feedback loop. When people find a good match between their sought and obtained gratifications, they're more likely to:

• Return to that information source in the future

• Recommend it to others

• Invest more time and effort in using it effectively

• Develop more sophisticated strategies for extracting value from it

However, when obtained gratifications consistently fall short of what was sought, people typically:

• Reduce their use of that source

• Seek alternatives

• Adjust their expectations

• Develop more critical attitudes toward the source

Based on individuals’ gratification, people choose different information sources. This explains why people stick with seemingly inferior information sources that reliably meet specific needs and abandon highly rated sources that don't deliver on their personal expectations.

Another practical implication of this theory is explaining that eople develop complex patterns of media use, using different sources for different needs based on past experiences. 

The framework also acknowledges that gratifications aren't static - they can evolve over time as people's needs change and as they become more sophisticated media users. Someone might initially use a platform just for basic information but gradually discover and appreciate its more complex features and capabilities.

Understanding this dynamic between sought and obtained gratifications helps researchers and designers create better information systems that not only attract users initially but continue to meet their evolving needs over time.

Cultivation Theory

Developed by George Gerbner in the 1960s, Cultivation Theory originally focused on how repeated exposure to television content shapes viewers' perceptions of social reality. Its principles have become increasingly relevant across all forms of media consumption. 

When we combine this theory with Uses and Gratifications Theory, we can gain insights into how media choices and their effects create a feedback loop in information behavior.

Here's how these theories work together: Uses and Gratifications Theory tells us that people actively choose media to satisfy specific needs. Cultivation Theory then helps us understand how those choices, over time, shape how people see the world. This interaction creates what we might call a "perception-selection spiral."

Imagine someone who initially chooses to follow certain news sources because they align with their existing views (this is the UGT component - selecting media to gratify a need for validation). 

Over time, consistent exposure to these sources gradually strengthens their original perspectives (this is the cultivation effect). This reinforced worldview then influences future media choices, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

The combination of these theories helps explain several important phenomena in modern information behavior:

1. Echo chamber formation: People naturally gravitate toward information sources that confirm their existing beliefs (UGT), and prolonged exposure to these sources further solidifies these beliefs (cultivation), making them even more likely to seek similar sources in the future.

2. Selective exposure: In digital environments, where people have unprecedented control over their media diet, the cultivation effect can be particularly strong because users can easily avoid contradicting viewpoints and immerse themselves in preferred narratives.

3. Reality perception gaps: Different groups using different media sources may develop increasingly divergent views of reality, as each group's media choices cultivate distinct worldviews.

The digital age has intensified these effects in several ways: Algorithmic recommendations often amplify the cultivation effect by suggesting content similar to what users already consume. Social media platforms make it easier than ever to curate personal information environments. And the abundance of available sources allows people to find media that precisely matches their existing beliefs

Understanding this theoretical combination helps explain why simply providing access to diverse information sources isn't enough to broaden people's perspectives. The interplay between active media selection (UGT) and gradual belief cultivation suggests that information behavior is part of a complex system where choices and perceptions continuously influence each other.

Sanda Erdelez’s Unintentional Discovery

Sanda Erdelez's work since the 1990s has expanded our understanding of information behavior, particularly in the realm of unintentional information discovery. Erdelez coined the term "information encountering" to describe the serendipitous discovery of useful information while engaged in other activities or searches.

Her research has explored this phenomenon in various contexts, including digital environments, contributing to a broader view of information behavior that goes beyond intentional, goal-directed seeking. 

Erdelez has investigated individual differences in information encountering propensity and developed models to explain the process. Her work has important implications for the design of information systems, suggesting ways to facilitate opportunistic information discovery.

How to use these frameworks to craft research that sees the whole person

The shift toward more holistic, contextual approaches reflects the field's growing understanding of the complexities of human information interactions. 

Early research often took an atomistic view focused on specific information sources or tasks. Contemporary scholars recognize that information behaviors are deeply embedded in sociocultural contexts and shaped by many factors beyond immediate information needs.

Maslow's Hierarchy provided a crucial stepping stone by reminding us that information needs are intertwined with fundamental human needs, from basic survival to self-actualization. Wilson's models added further depth by emphasizing the importance of individual context and the dynamic interplay of psychological, social, and environmental factors.

Theories like Uses and Gratifications, Media System Dependency, and Social Cognitive Theory illuminated the active role we play in choosing and interacting with media, highlighting our diverse motivations and the potential for both positive and negative effects. Cultivation theory broadened the scope by showing how long-term media exposure can shape our perceptions of the world, for better or worse.

Review of previous theories helps us avoid the trap of viewing information needs and consumptions in isolation or in overly deterministic terms. Instead, we recognize that they are embedded in complex contexts of emotional, social, and cultural factors. 

Therefore, we start with building sympathy with the community, learning about their values and identities. This approach helps develop more nuanced and effective research strategies that yield deeper insights into the information behaviors of any community. 

In future posts, we will elaborate on how this holistic perspective informs our specific research methods and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the information needs and flows within the community.

If you have suggestions or questions, don’t hesitate to get in touch at hello@gazzetta.xyz. 

How research reviews can lead to new insights, even in challenging contexts

Before diving into reporting, we try understanding the community we aim to serve. That's why we began with a comprehensive research review, an essential step to glean insights from existing studies and save time and effort. By immersing ourselves in prior research, we gained a foundational understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by migrant workers in China. 

We employed a quantified method to analyze related research, which revealed underlying trends and patterns about the economic, social, and political changes influencing their lives. This revealed underlying trends and patterns related to the economic, social, and political changes influencing migrant workers' lives. This macro-level view helped us identify critical areas for further exploration and revealed gaps and challenges in existing research, signifying potential opportunities for our project.

Key points that emerge from our research review include:

1. A shift in focus from general migrant worker populations to specific subgroups, particularly the "new generation" of migrant workers born after 1980.

2. The growing importance of digital technologies in shaping migrant workers' information behaviors, despite persistent digital divides.

3. Significant gaps between information needs and satisfaction rates across various domains, including employment, rights protection, and health information.

4. The complex interplay between rural and urban information environments in migrant workers' lives.

5. The surprising role of public libraries and other social institutions in meeting migrant workers' information needs.

While research review methodologies vary greatly depending on the target group and context, our process of translating it into insights can offer valuable inspiration for the initial phase of audience research. This approach can open up new perspectives and possibilities for other projects.

Quantified analysis of research reveals historical trends and key focuses

We conducted a quantitative analysis of existing studies. This involved examining both the volume and focus of research to identify broader trends and shifts in attention over time. 

This historical perspective is crucial for understanding the evolving nature of migrant worker needs. By tracing how research priorities have shifted over time, we can identify emerging trends, persistent challenges, and areas where interventions are most needed.

Accessing and managing sources

Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) is the largest database of academic journals in China. The platform supports search for keywords and filters by multiple factors.  

However, accessing CNKI from outside China presented some challenges. The IP blocking of foreign addresses and identification authentication process poses obstacles for foreign researchers. Using VPN makes this far less likely to happen. We also used public library portals for easier, free access. In cases where direct access remains problematic, we recommend engaging local ventures who offer CNKI access as service.

To ensure the long-term availability of critical materials, consider implementing a robust document saving and management system. Maintaining a source database allows us to quickly revisit key findings, compare data points, and identify gaps that require further investigation. 

Bibliometric analysis

Bibliometric analysis of the CNKI database revealed significant trends in the volume of research related to migrant workers. We tracked the number of publications on certain keywords over the past two decades to understand the broader trajectory of research in this area.

We found that the volume of information need-related studies on migrant workers has experienced a marked decline since 2013, a bibliometric analysis of the database suggests.

This trend is part of a broader pattern, with research on migrant workers and information needs showing downward trajectories beginning in 2009 and 2014, respectively.

However, the proportion of information-related studies within the broader field of migrant worker research has actually increased from 10% to approximately 30% over the past two decades.

This may suggest a growing recognition of the importance of information in understanding the migrant worker experience, even as overall research volume has decreased.

Keyword frequency

Analysis of keyword frequency provides insight into the evolving focus of research. "New generation migrant workers" appeared as a keyword 93 times in the literature, while "migrant workers" appeared 148 times, indicating a significant focus on this demographic distinction.

Library-related journals appear to be the primary platforms for publishing research on migrant workers' information needs. One study identified "Library," "Library Science," "Library Forum," and "Library Theory and Practice" as core journals in the field, accounting for a significant portion of the publications.

Other research looked predominantly at government messaging efforts, and most only in passing looked at media as key suppliers in meeting information demand.

A closer look in methodologies informs evolution, gaps, and biases in research

The methodological approaches employed in studying migrant workers' information needs have diversified, reflecting a growing recognition of the complex, contextual nature of information behaviors and broader opportunities for research.

Early research primarily relied on straightforward survey methodologies, focusing on quantifying needs and satisfaction levels across various information categories. As the field has matured, researchers have increasingly adopted mixed-method approaches that combine quantitative data with rich qualitative insights.

Recent studies have employed innovative techniques to gather data:

1. Comparative experiments: A 2019 study used Morae user testing software to collect search behavior data, comparing 20 migrant workers with 20 college students to analyze online information searching behaviors.

2. Snowball sampling and workplace integration: A 2019 study negotiated with factory managers to distribute questionnaires along with team leaders, asking respondents to include their employee numbers. They also used snowball sampling through business owners' networks.

3. Seasonal opportunities: A 2021 study took advantage of the Spring Festival, when migrant workers return to their hometowns, to collect questionnaire data and conduct in-depth interviews.

4. Collaboration with health services: A 2021 study collaborated with a community health service center to conduct surveys, free clinics, and follow-up visits, integrating health service provision with research.

5. Virtual ethnography: A 2023 study employed internet ethnography, observing migrant workers in WeChat groups to understand their social media use and hometown identity.

These methodological innovations reflect efforts to overcome challenges in accessing migrant worker populations and to capture the nuanced, context-dependent nature of their information behaviors.

Despite these advancements, challenges persist in standardizing research approaches. The lack of standardized segmentation methods for categorizing migrant workers' information needs makes it difficult to draw robust comparisons across studies or to identify clear trends over time.

Identify key focus areas in research

With the research review, we found that migrant workers' information needs have coalesced around several key focus areas, reflecting the diverse challenges and opportunities faced by this population. To systematically analyze these areas, we:

• Summarized focus areas through keywords: This allowed us to quickly identify and categorize the main themes emerging from the research.

• Recorded key data points from research: We noted important statistics and findings to provide evidence and context for each focus area.

• Linked findings back to the original journal: This ensured traceability and facilitated revisiting the original source for further information.

Through this process, we identified the following key focus areas:

• Employment and skill training: Multiple studies have highlighted the importance of employment information for migrant workers. A 2013 study in Shaanxi by Jing found that 63.2% of new-generation migrant workers needed daily life information, but only 35.7% were satisfied with what they received.

• Rights protection and legal information: The same Shaanxi study found a significant gap between need (59.6%) and satisfaction (22.3%) regarding personal rights information among new-generation migrant workers. A study in the Pearl River Delta found that 40% of new-generation migrant workers considered rights protection information urgently needed, compared to only 14% of the older generation.

• Health information: A survey in Shaanxi showed that more than 50% of new-generation migrant workers require health information, yet only 33% are satisfied with the information they receive. Specific health concerns include prevention and treatment of chronic diseases such as pneumoconiosis, etc.

• Media usage and digital behavior: Research has shown that over 80% of migrant workers work 8-12 hours a day, with the most common mobile phone usage being 5-6 hours per day. Media usage falls into two categories: using fragmented time during breaks for entertainment or news consumption, and using social media while working for background noise and companionship.

• Rural-urban connections: Migrant workers tend to be more forgiving toward hometown media, with 42.2% believing that integrated media from their home counties is attentive to local issues, compared to only 16.8% of those still living within the county. They show more interest in rural policies than in national matters, particularly focusing on the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme, agricultural subsidies, and elderly support programs.

• Gender dynamics: A 2016 study on new-generation female migrant workers in Shaanxi revealed unique information needs, including high demand for entertainment information (75.5%), beauty and health information (69.2%), and information on preventing sexual assault (68.6%).

• Entrepreneurship information: The demand for entrepreneurship information among new-generation migrant workers in Shaanxi is 46%, with an overall cautious attitude. Satisfaction with this type of information is less than 30%. A study on Baoding migrant workers showed that key information needs for returning entrepreneurs include government policies, financial information, and sales channels.

Focus on quality, not quantity

As an important step of building sufficient empathy to the community, the success of research review is measured not by the volume of data collected, but by the quality of insights gained. We aim to challenge or confirm pre-existing assumptions, discover unexpected insights, and develop a "gut feeling" of sufficient understanding. The focus is on building empathy rather than achieving complete or perfect knowledge. 

Throughout this process, we remained mindful of the need to critically evaluate the confidence level of each data point. By considering factors such as sample size, methodology, and potential biases in each study, we aimed to prevent over-reliance on findings with low confidence levels. This critical approach ensured that our insights were built on a solid foundation of reliable and robust data.

Furthermore, we recognize that research review is part of an iterative process. We anticipate revisiting our review as our project progresses and new information becomes available. New research reviews focused on more specific areas may also be needed in the later phases of our research to address emerging questions and refine our understanding.

By prioritizing quality over quantity and maintaining a critical perspective throughout our research review, we are confident that we have established a strong foundation for understanding the information needs of our target community.

Confidence levels over data points: Our approach to understanding information needs

Traditional audience research typically follows a linear process: researchers identify a target population, design a survey instrument, distribute it widely, and analyze the resulting data. 

While this approach generates valuable statistics, it frequently fails to capture the deeper motivations, contextual factors, and behavioral nuances that shape how communities actually engage with information. It’s great for evaluative research, but fails in identifying information demand. 

The field of information behavior research has evolved significantly since its early focus on library usage patterns. Scholars like Tom Wilson and Carol Kuhlthau have demonstrated that information-seeking is not merely a transactional activity but one deeply embedded in people's emotional, physical, social, and cultural contexts.

Our research exposed several limitations of purely quantitative approaches:

• Survey responses in restricted information environments can be significantly distorted by factors including fear, cultural norms, and concerns about potential repercussions.

• Numerical data effectively shows what happens but rarely explains why people behave as they do.

• Quantitative measurements struggle to capture the values, trust dynamics, and contextual influences that shape information behavior.

• Achieving representative sampling becomes extraordinarily challenging when working with populations that are difficult to access.

An iterative approach uncovers deeper insights.

We've developed a research approach organized around three distinct focus areas rather than sequential phases. This distinction is crucial - while we typically begin with Focus 1, we maintain an iterative relationship between all three areas, continuously updating our understanding as new insights emerge. 

This flexibility allows us to adapt our research as we learn, rather than following a rigid linear progression.

Imagine three whiteboards in a research room, each dedicated to one focus area. Throughout the research process, we continually revisit each board, adding new questions, insights, and connections as our understanding deepens.

We prioritize questions over methods.

Our approach intentionally steps away from prescribed methodologies to focus instead on clarity about the information we need to gather. We remain method-agnostic, selecting whatever techniques will most effectively answer our questions within each focus area. This flexibility doesn't sacrifice rigor - instead, we maintain research integrity by assigning confidence levels to each insight based on the strength of our evidence.

This adaptable framework allows us to conduct meaningful audience research in virtually any context. Whether working in open information environments or highly restricted ones, the fundamental approach remains consistent - what changes is simply the confidence level we can assign to our findings.

Focus 1: We must build empathy before asking questions.

Our first focus involves building foundational understanding of the community itself before attempting to address specific information needs. This focus centers on five key areas of investigation:

On our Focus 1 whiteboard, you might see questions like:

• "What historical events have shaped this community's formation and identity?"

• "What brings joy and pride to members of this community?"

• "What social bonds and shared values create solidarity within this group?"

• "Which organizations or institutions exert significant influence over community members?"

In our research with migrant workers, this focus revealed crucial insights:

• We discovered that housing insecurity is a pervasive challenge, with workers frequently experiencing forced relocations due to urban redevelopment.

• We learned that many workers maintain powerful symbolic connections to their rural hometowns, often building houses there even when they remain empty.

• We found that online spaces have become critical for maintaining social connections in the face of physical isolation.

• We identified a generational divide in aspirations, with younger workers showing stronger desires for skill development and urban integration.

These findings provided essential context for understanding information needs, with moderate to high confidence levels based on the consistency of evidence across multiple sources.

Focus 2: We must discover and rank what information matters most. 

Our second focus involves identifying and validating the community's most significant information needs through a structured, evidence-based approach.

Our Focus 2 whiteboard might include questions such as:

• "Based on the challenges we've identified, what information might help community members navigate them more effectively?"

• "What does existing research tell us about information needs in similar communities?"

• "How prevalent is this information need across different segments of the community?"

• "To what extent are current information sources addressing this need adequately?"

For migrant workers, this focus showed:

• Labor rights information emerged as a critical need, particularly regarding wage theft, workplace safety, and contract understanding.

• Job opportunities and skills development information showed generational variation, with younger workers more focused on upskilling compared to older counterparts.

• Education information for children, while important, showed higher satisfaction rates than other categories. 

These findings carried high confidence levels due to triangulation across multiple data sources, including surveys, interviews, and existing research findings.

Focus 3: We map how this information travels. 

Our third focus investigates the channels, patterns, and obstacles that shape information movement within the community. It can’t be overstated that different information travels differently. 

The Focus 3 whiteboard might feature questions like:

• "Which communication channels do different segments of the community prefer for specific types of information?"

• "What factors prevent community members from accessing or trusting available information?"

• "How do information-sharing behaviors differ across demographic or psychographic segments?"

• "What role do trusted intermediaries play in information validation and distribution?"

For migrant workers, this investigation revealed:

• Channel preferences showed significant generational differences, with older workers relying more heavily on family networks while younger workers favored digital platforms.

• Information barriers remained consistent across information categories, with time constraints, reliability concerns, and comprehension difficulties emerging as primary obstacles.

• Social isolation significantly impacts information access, with many workers confined to narrow information networks that reinforce existing perspectives.

The confidence levels for these findings varied based on data sources, with channel preferences carrying high confidence due to robust survey data, while deeper behavioral patterns carried moderate confidence due to the challenges of direct observation.

We measure confidence first, not data points. 

While we remain method-agnostic, we maintain research integrity through rigorous confidence assessment of all findings. 

For each insight, we evaluate:

• Data quality (source reliability, sample representativeness, methodological soundness)

• Consistency across multiple sources

• Contextual validity

• Potential biases or limitations

This approach allows us to clearly communicate the strength of our evidence while acknowledging areas of uncertainty. For instance, quantitative findings from large, representative surveys might carry high confidence, while insights from smaller qualitative studies might receive moderate confidence ratings.

By focusing on information needs rather than methodological requirements, we gain the flexibility to adapt our approach to various contexts while maintaining transparency about the limitations of our findings.

This approach works anywhere.

This flexible framework allows us to conduct meaningful audience research across widely different environments. In open information settings, we might leverage extensive survey data, digital analytics, and in-depth fieldwork. In restricted environments, we might rely more heavily on proxy populations, digital ethnography, and analysis of existing datasets.

What remains consistent is our commitment to understanding:

1. The community's context and lived experiences

2. Their most significant information needs

3. How information currently flows through their networks

This adaptability makes our approach particularly valuable for organizations working across diverse information environments, from open democracies to highly restricted settings. By focusing on information goals rather than prescribed methods, we maintain the flexibility to gather meaningful insights regardless of contextual constraints.

The true measure of our research quality isn't adherence to standardized methodologies but rather the depth of understanding we develop and the confidence with which we can make recommendations that genuinely serve community information needs.

You may think you understand your readers, but there's always a disconnect (and that’s ok)

A remarkable disconnect exists between journalists and their audiences. According to Pew Research Center surveys, journalists and the public in the United States differ dramatically in their assessment of how well newsrooms fulfill their core functions. 

The gap is particularly striking when it comes to "covering the most important stories of the day." Anecdotally, we have found that to be just as true in China, both in state media and among independent outlets.

But this discrepancy also points to an opportunity: journalists and their audiences often have different perceptions of what information truly matters. Understanding this gap creates a pathway to greater relevance for journalism, a vast untapped potential.

Journalists and audiences see news value differently.

For decades, journalists have operated under the mission of serving the public by sharing critical information. Traditional journalism relies on established criteria like timeliness, proximity, and impact to determine newsworthiness.

However, when considering these factors – especially proximity and impact – we might ask: "For whom?" and "Who decides?" While journalists report the story, ultimately it's the audience who chooses whether to engage with it.

This realization has led us to evolve our thinking about media impact. We have traditionally believed in theories of change – thoughtful narratives about how journalism can help society transform itself. Over the past months, we have pivoted to a complementary framework that is more focused on the demand-side: a theory of service.

The difference is meaningful. A theory of service encourages a kind of specificity that creates productive reflection. It requires validation in immediate utility. 

Moving beyond our assumptions helps us discover what people really need.

Journalists naturally form assumptions about community information needs based on:

• Our understanding of what seems like "common sense".

• Our familiarity with certain topics.

• Our personal experiences and backgrounds.

For instance, in our own research in China among blue collar workers, we initially thought education would be a primary information need based on our assumptions. Through interviews and surveys, we discovered different priorities entirely (more on this in a later post). 

In open societies, we face opportunities for improvement. But in heavily restricted media contexts like China, these challenges become even more pronounced. Press freedom is non-existent, information circulation is tightly controlled, and producing content that truly serves audiences requires additional creativity.

These challenges emerge from several factors:

1. Platform constraints affect which stories can reach people.

2. Access constraints limit how information can be gathered.

3. Limited audience research makes it difficult to identify coverage gaps.

4. Social factors can make certain communities' needs less visible.

5. Censorship and surveillance lead to fear of engagement in any such work. 

Creating journalism that makes a meaningful difference requires rethinking service.

A theory of service helps us be specific about who we serve and how. It moves us from general aims of "informing the public" to concrete questions: How are we helping people make better healthcare decisions? Understand school choices? Navigate housing markets?

When we measure success by utility to real people alongside traditional metrics, we open new possibilities. The strongest media organizations understand that people engage with journalism that helps solve problems, improves lives, offers recognition, or builds community.

This approach enhances journalism's craft – the skills of critically and empathically observing, understanding, and conveying remain central. These skills simply become more focused on serving genuine human needs.

When we focus on being genuinely useful to people, we discover exciting new possibilities for journalism. The path forward involves creating value that audiences recognize and appreciate in their daily lives.

The question becomes not just whether journalism matters in the abstract, but how we're making a difference in people's lives. By answering that question thoughtfully, we create journalism that truly matters.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll publish bits and pieces of our research related to this. These bits may be very specific to a certain context but we invite you to think of them as inspiration for your own contexts. The truth is if we can do this remotely in China, chances are we can do this anywhere. It’s more a matter of perspective. 

If you have feedback, questions, don’t hesitate to get in touch at hello@gazzetta.xyz