A conceptual framework that analyses social spheres as distinct ‘worlds’ defined by their own information norms, practices, genres, authorities, and boundary mechanisms; within an Information World, actors assign value to information, regulate access, and establish expectations about trust, relevance and circulation.

Principle

Information behaviour and valuation are largely shaped by locally shared norms and boundary rules; the same data or document can have different meanings, uses, and legitimacy across different Information Worlds.

Demonstration

Illustrative scenario → Situation: A research group maintains an internal draft repository and publishes final reports to a public archive. Recognition: Group members treat drafts as confidential working material; outsiders consider only archived reports authoritative. Action: The group restricts draft access and annotates versions; a cross‑unit collaborator requests permission to reuse data. Consequence: Misunderstanding about provenance and permission is avoided when the group's internal norms and boundary practices are made explicit.

Misapplication

Assuming an Information World is homogeneous internally (ignoring subgroups, dissenting practices) or mapping a community's practices onto another world without adjusting for differing norms and authorities.

Consequence

Service design, metadata policies, and outreach require attention to local practices: imposing a single access or classification scheme risks misrepresenting value and trust relationships and can reduce discovery or reuse across worlds.

Reversal

In highly networked or hybrid contexts where actors participate in multiple overlapping worlds, boundary mechanisms weaken and normative differences may be negotiated, so rigid world‑based prescriptions may fail.

Boundary

Clearly within: analyses of communities of practice, workplace information flows, or cultural groups with distinctive information norms. Boundary case: interdisciplinary teams where members bring differing world norms—resolution depends on negotiated practices. Clearly outside: abstract information theory that treats information as decontextualized signal without social norms.

Semantic Tension

Openness ↔ Community Control — the value of broader access and interoperability can conflict with community norms that protect contextual meaning, privacy, or local authority.

Synthesis

Understanding information requires mapping the normative ecology that gives material and symbolic properties to information; effective systems acknowledge multiple Information Worlds and provide mechanisms to make norms and boundaries visible and negotiable.