The problem with problematic situations: Differences between practices, tasks, and situations as units of analysis

• Differences between the concepts “situation,” “task,” and “practice” are discussed.
• Practice theory, task theory, and person-in-situation theories guide researchers to outline research foci divergent ways.
• It is also possible to define these concepts within an integrated theoretical framework.
• In practice theory situations and tasks are understood as parts of a situated activity setting.

It is generally agreed that information activities should be studied within the work and everyday-life contexts, which provide the reasons for and aims of information seeking and use activities. Situation, task, and practice are some of the ways of conceptualizing the context of information activities. Differences between these concepts are rarely discussed, and their theoretical underpinnings are not necessarily well understood. This analysis describes the historical background of the person-in-situation approach, task theory, and practice theory. The underlying assumptions are brought into view and analyzed in detail. Practice theory, task theory, and person-in-situation theories guide researchers to carve out and define their research foci in divergent and incompatible ways. It is argued that it would also be possible to understand and define these concepts within an integrated theoretical framework. Practice theory is a theoretical framework within which both situations and tasks can be understood as distinct parts of a situated activity setting. Discussing the intellectual history of some of the key theoretical constructs of information science clarifies differences between research streams and their key premises.