The paper presents the conceptual framework adopted in the study, by discussing connections between the Arenas/Social Worlds Theory with discourse studies. The methodological approach adopted in this study, influenced by the three key principles that guided the original formulation of Grounded Theory, is presented and particular issues regarding its interpretation are discussed. The findings of the study, defined in terms of discursive tensions and connection in the university information arena, are then presented. These discursive tensions were articulated around three major categories of interpretative repertoires and discursive resources:

• - models of the information environment, expressed through the tension between information centripetalism and information centrifugalism;


• - models of information management approaches, expressed through the tension between a focus on the control over processes and a focus on sense-making and negotiation of different meanings;


• - and, underlying the previous elements, assumptions about the nature and complexity of the environment, strategies for dealing with uncertainty and correlated models of learning, expressed through exploitation as a complexity reduction strategy and exploration as a complexity absorbing strategy.

The paper concludes with key lessons learned from this approach in relationship to the roles of codification, of relationships between conceptual categories and between theoretical influences and empirical work, as well as those emerging from the lived experience of research analysts.