INTRODUCTION TO DOCTORAL RESEARCH AND THEORY I
INF 391D.8
Unique Number 25995
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
Fall 2005
Class time:
Friday, 1:00 – 4:00 PM
Place:
SZB 556
Office:
SZB 570
Office hrs:
Monday 10:00 AM – 12:00 N
By appointment other times
Telephone:
512.471.3746 – direct line
512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist
512.471.3821 – main iSchool office
Internet:
pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm
Class URL:
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~inf391pd/fa2005
TA:
Lance Hayden
lhayden@ischool.utexas.edu
Office hours to be announced
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the course
3
Expectations of PhD students’ performance
5
Standards for written work
6
Editing conventions
10
Grading
11
Texts and other tools
12
List of assignments
14
Outline of course
15
Schedule
17
Assignments
22
References
Readings from the class schedule and assignments
25
Selected ARIST chapters 1966-2005
33
Sources on doing research
37
Research and research methods in Information Studies
Research methods
Nature of science and systematic inquiry
Important serial sources
43
Additional sources
48
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
2
Important professional associations and organizations
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
64
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
“We live in a period of profound skepticism. We have exposed all of the
‘good lies’ but still crave their solace.”
Sue Curry Jansen, Censorship: The Knot
that Binds Power and Knowledge (1991,
p. 190)
INF 391D.8, Introduction to Doctoral Research and Theory I, is the first in a two-course sequence
of seminars required of doctoral students in the School of Information. The overarching goal of
the two courses is to enable students to understand the processes of systematic inquiry in the
discipline of Information Studies and to understand how they can be part of those efforts.
Because the field is both trans- and interdisciplinary, the literatures we read, the concepts we
engage, the modes of knowing and argumentation we mobilize, and the criteria we use for
judging knowledge claims will reflect a number of positions, traditions, and disciplines.
More specifically, INF 391D.8 has the following aims:







To ensure that students have an adequate understanding of the process of research and some
of the important ways it has been pursued in the western tradition; review of the foundations
of doing science are of special interest as are its critiques
To give students an introduction to the making of theory in the field and cognate disciplines
To consider important questions in epistemology, identity, and community that are of special
interest to doing research and making theory in our field – questions related to how we
know, how we determine what we know, and how we know in concert with others infuse the
course
To expose students to important research methods and traditions in the field and beyond,
especially to investigate positivist and more constructivist methods of research. These may
include the empirical social scientific, historical, philosophical, literary, theoretical,
ethnographic, quantitative/statistical, qualitative, policy analytic, rhetorical, systems
analytic, and so on
To consider how concerns with theory and method have taken shape in the field of
Information Studies
To consider, among others, three of the major schools of thought, both historically and
currently, that characterize systematic inquiry in our field: the useful if limited simile of
information as thing, the cognitivist approach to information retrieval and learning, and the
performative perspective emphasizing practice, materiality, community, and the social
construction of knowledge
To identify a wide variety of the important research fronts in our discipline and cognate
disciplines, e.g., the organization of information, intellectual history, information behavior,
management of information organizations, information systems design and evaluation, and
so on. The particular character of these research fronts will vary according to the interests of
the students and the instructor.
The course comprises five short units that will overlap to some extent:
1.
2.
Unit 1: “Defining” Information Studies (classes 1-2)
Unit 2: Thinking about systematic inquiry (classes 3-7)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
4
3.
4.
5.
Unit 3: Theoretical and methodological overviews of Information Studies (classes 8-9)
Unit 4: Examining specific theories and methods of inquiry in Information Studies (classes
10-12)
Unit 5: Presentations of students’ research (classes 13-14).
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
5
There are two major reasons that much of DRT I is dedicated to understanding systematic
inquiry, especially science, from a number of perspectives:

As a discipline and field of inquiry, Information Studies itself springs from the social and
behavioral sciences, humanities, and computational sciences, as well as the natural and
physical sciences to a lesser degree. The more we understand the creation, sharing, and use
of knowledge and the practice of inquiry, the better we understand our own discipline and
how to do good research.

In part, our discipline springs from the marriage of library service and information science
and their concerns with scholarly communication and the distribution of scientific and
technical information. The more we understand the processes of systematic inquiry and the
roles of communication in it, the better able we are to design, implement, evaluate, and redesign information systems to serve all kinds of people in all sorts of situations.
Thus, nine of the 14 classes in this iteration of DRT I focus on our field (classes 1-2, 8-9, 10-12, and
13-14), while the other five focus on the bases of systematic inquiry and the practice of
knowledge production (classes 3-7). The boundary between a disciplinary-specific focus and a
wider look at systematic inquiry, of course, is quite permeable. Throughout the semester, we will
also try to remain acutely aware of our “cognitive insecurity and our vulnerability to good lies”
(Jansen, 1991, p. 191), learning to exercise engaged skepticism, not dismissive cynicism, about the
various points of view and disagreements we will examine. It is vitally important to remember
that reasonable people can disagree, that the classroom is a place where such disagreement is
welcome, and that disagreement is one of our major resources for learning.
One of the implicit themes in the course will be the role of research in the university, the history
of the research university in America, the status of the university in American life, what graduate
(especially doctoral) education concerns, and related themes. While readings about these topics
will not be required, they will be useful supplements to the class readings and useful over the
course of students’ academic programs and professional careers. See, e.g., Ehrlich (1995),
Graham & Diamond (1997a, b, and c), Kennedy (1997a, b, c, and d), and Shils (1997a and b).
Another way to conceive of the course is to see it as a way to integrate students more fully into
the field, to help them become more active readers and writers, to help them develop a more fully
realized research persona, and to enhance their understanding, use, and (eventual) development
of theory in the field. The course encourages students to consider explicitly what our field
recognizes as convincing evidence, strong modes of argumentation, and appropriate and
productive rhetorics. At the same time, students must also begin to develop their own goals,
methods, and standards for their scholarly work and that of others.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
6
EXPECTATIONS OF PHD STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE
PhD students are especially expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class
discussions and in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:
•
Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with
another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets
•
Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to
inform their classroom participation and their writing assignments. Students must learn
to integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is
essential to the development of professional expertise and to the development of a collegial
persona in doctoral education.
•
Educate themselves and their peers. Your successful completion of this program and your
participation in the information professions depend upon your willingness to demonstrate
initiative and creativity. Your participation in the professional and personal growth of your
colleagues is essential to your success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of
professional life, especially among scholars, so some assignments are designed to encourage
collaboration.

Spend at least 5-6 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom of a PhD seminar;
therefore, a 3-credit hour course requires a minimum of 15 hours per week of work outside
the classroom
•
Participate in all class discussions
•
Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late assignments will not be accepted except in
the particular circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will
result in failure for the course.
•
Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve
•
Ask for any explanation and help from the instructor or the Teaching Assistant, either in
class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way.
Email is especially appropriate for information questions but please recall that I do not have
access to email at home and that I try to stay home one day a week. It may be several days
after you send email before I see it. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is
always wise to send a copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA as well; he has
access to email more regularly.
Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and
will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior
that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT
General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . .
HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
7
The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for qualified students with
documented disabilities. The University’s Office of the Dean of Students at 471.6259, 471.4641
TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
8
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
Review these standards before and after writing; they are used to evaluate your work. While a
few are idiosyncratic ;~), most are key to being part of the community of scholars.
You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and
organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks.
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the
topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott
reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not
know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of
language, and clarity of syntax are mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes for good thinking
and vice versa. Remember that writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of
some supposed static thought “in” the mind.
All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1"
margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.
Certain writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and
references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information
that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological
Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in
engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA.
Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing
submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also
consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.) and
http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm (a useful if non-canonical source).
Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in
professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, a better choice would
be a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or subject-specific
encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The best
alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to
provide a definition in the context of that literature. This understanding is vital to the
development of your identity as an independent scholar.
Use the spell checker in your word processing package to review your documents, but be aware
that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including personal and place
names; omit most technical terms; include very few foreign words and phrases; and cannot
identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their," or in writing "the"
instead of "them."
It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often
helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity.
Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the
date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 391D.8). If you have any questions
about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.
Remember, every assignment must include a title page with
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
9
•
•
•
•
The title of the assignment
Your name
The date
The class number – INF 391D.8.
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
10
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)
Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read
and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session
at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professionallevel written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14,
15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error):
1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or
other means of keeping the pages together.
2. Number all pages after the title page. Ordinarily, notes and references do NOT count against
page limits.
3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in
graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction -- be serious
and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in
between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem
with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and
"option."
4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant
input."*
5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except
when using such terms in specific technical ways; similarly avoid using “content” as a noun.
6. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a
colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies.
7. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "highquality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.
8. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*
9. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms
entail major epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven,"
and related constructions for similar reasons.
10. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.
11. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is
often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear
referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in
number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is a
singular form, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the
referent or the pronoun must change in number.
12. “If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
11
13. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate
in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place
he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes
only to Antone's."
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
12
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)
14. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.
15. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will
not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.
16. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As
someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the
lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the
history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then,
obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by
preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in
the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.
17. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited
technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision.
18. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all
PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a
singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(.
19. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many
horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an
amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this
distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for
uncountable nouns.
20. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*
21. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.
22. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to
persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates
as appropriate in APA.
23. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give
an indication, as specifically as possible, of:
-
responsibility
title
date of creation
date viewed
place to find the source
(who?)
(what?)
(when?)
(when?)
(where? how?).
See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214,
231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see
Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at
http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
13
24. "Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun; similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun.
25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
14
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)
26. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of
course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.
27. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page
or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues,
e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”
28. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.
29. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
30. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to
identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics
about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general
terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.
31. “Impact” is a noun; so is “research.”
32. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”
33. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.
34. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”
“participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms and have been for decades.
35. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not
footnotes.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
15
SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS
Symbol
Meaning
#
number OR insert a space; context will help you decipher its meaning
AWK
awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well
block
make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with
quotations ≥ 4 lines
caps
capitalize
COLLOQ
colloquial and to be avoided
dB
database
FRAG
sentence fragment; often that means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence
is missing
j
journal
lc
make into lower case
lib'ship
librarianship
org, org’l
organization, organizational
PL
plural
Q
question
Q’naire
questionnaire
REF?
what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?
RQ
research question
sp
spelling
SING
singular
w/
with
w.c.?
word choice?
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
16
I also use check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point and wavy
lines under or next to a term to indicate that the usage is suspect.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
17
GRADING
The grading system for this class includes the following grades:
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CF
Extraordinarily high achievement
Superior
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Barely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unacceptable and failing.
not recognized by the University
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.00
2.67
2.33
2.00
1.67
0.00
See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in
the School of Information student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students
should consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/index.html) and
the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0305/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0305/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept
the grade of A+, the instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is extraordinary.
A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. For PhD students,
however, a grade of B signals some difficulties with academic study. In this class, the grade of A
is reserved for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques
discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and
communicate them effectively, successfully informing the work of other students.
The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be
negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's
memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.
I use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined
using an arithmetic not a proportional algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment
does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is very roughly equivalent
to a B. If any student's semester point total > 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will
have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total > 80, then s/he will have earned at
least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison
of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 90 points and the highest
point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a student earns
90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn an A. This
system will be further explained throughout the semester.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
18
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are six required texts for this class. You can purchase Fisher et al. (2005), Godfrey-Smith
(2003), Latour (1987), Miller (2004), and Pickering (1995) at the Co-op (476.7211). The reading
packet is at University Duplicating Service at the Graduate School of Business, GSB 3.136
(471.8281). As many of the required readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL, including the
reading packet; many of the readings are available online. I also list a number of recommended
books – these can be supplemented by the many sources in the various parts of the references at
the end of this syllabus.
The required texts are:
Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of
information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through
society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Miller, Jane E. (2004). The Chicago guide to writing about numbers. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
One volume of readings.
We will also use most of the papers from special issues of three important journals:
Journal of Documentation, 61(1) – a 2005 special issue on library and information science and
the philosophy of science edited by Birger Hjørland at the Royal School of Library and
Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Library Trends, 50(3) – a 2002 special issue on theory in LIS edited by William E. McGrath,
formerly of the School of Information and Library Studies, SUNY-Buffalo.
Social Epistemology, 16(1) – a 2002 special issue on social epistemology and information
science edited by Don Fallis at the School of Information Resources, University of Arizona.
In addition to reviewing the ALISE Doctoral Students Special Interest Group
(http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/jesse.html), you may also wish to subscribe to these discussion
lists:
Doctoral Students in Library and Information Sciences Discussion List
http://www.listserv.net/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=DOCDIS&H=BAMA.UA.EDU
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
19
jESSE listserv
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/jesse.html
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
20
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS (CONTINUED)
I recommend these books, some of which you may examine in DRT II:
Benton, Ted, & Craib, Ian. (2001). Philosophy of social science: The philosophical foundation of
social thought. New York: Palgrave.
Biagioli, Mario. (Ed.). (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.
Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Cornelius, Ian. (1996b). Meaning and method in information studies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso. (Original work
published 1975)
Fleck, Ludwik. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Thaddeus J. Trenn and
Robert K. Merton (Eds.). (Fred Bradley & Thaddeus J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of
Chicago. (Original work published 1935)
Garvey, William D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information
exchange among scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon.
Hiley, David R., Bohman, James F., & Shusterman, Richard. (1991). The interpretive turn:
Philosophy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Kaplan, Abraham. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. New
York: Harper & Row.
Klee, Robert. (1999). Scientific inquiry: Readings in the philosophy of science. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz, & Mansfield, Una. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary
messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [see especially the Prologue and Epilogue, as well
as the sections on Informatics, Library and Information Sciences, and System Theory]
Steinmetz, George. (Ed.). (2005). The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its
epistemological others. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Students may find the following books on the so-called science wars particularly interesting:
Brown, James Robert. (2001). Who rules in science?: An opinionated guide to the wars.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994c). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels
with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
21
Gross, Paul R., Levitt, Norman, & Lewis, Martin W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and
reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 775). New York: New York Academy
of Sciences.
Ross, Andrew. (1996). Science wars. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
22
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments
are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins.
Assignments are due in class unless otherwise indicated.
Assignment
Preparation and participation
Date Due
---
Percent of Grade
10%
Blog reviewing a research journal -all due on WED, 12:00 N (2 pp.)
SEP 7, 21
OCT 5, 19
NOV 2, 16
30
In-class discussion of the philosophy of science
using a chapter from Godfrey-Smith (2003)
SEP 16, 23
5
Topic and abstract (2 pp.) for state of theory
and research paper
OCT 28
---
Choice of state of theory and research paper to review
NOV 11
---
Draft of paper on the state of theory and
research (≥ 10 pp.)
DEC 2
---
Public presentation on final paper
DEC 2,
DEC 9
10
Peer review of another student’s draft of final paper
(3-4 pp.)
DEC 9
15
Final paper on state of theory and research (20-25 pp.)
WED, DEC 14,
12:00 N
30
All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course
grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will not be accepted unless three
criteria are met:
1.
At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor gives explicit permission to the student to
hand the assignment in late.
2.
At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission.
3.
The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time.
The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
23
All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear,
succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and
other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your
papers.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
24
OUTLINE OF COURSE
Meeting
Date
TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Unit 1: “Defining” Information Studies
1
(Sep 7, WED)
2
Sep 2
Introduction to the course
Review of the syllabus
When we do information studies, what are we doing?
• DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Sep 9
Some ways to view the field
Unit 2: Thinking about systematic inquiry
3
Sep 16 Introduction to the philosophy of science
Student-led discussion (5%)
(Sep 21, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
4
Sep 23 Philosophy of science – continued
Student-led discussion (5%)
5
Sep 30 Making quantitative arguments
(Oct 5, WED)
• DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
6
Oct 7
Science as a material assemblage
Undermining mentalism, defending realism
7
Oct 14 Science as a material assemblage – continued
Constructivism and other views of systematic inquiry
(Oct 19, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Unit 3: Theoretical and methodological overviews of Information
Studies
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
25
8
Oct 21 Philosophy of science and Information Studies
Thinking about systematic inquiry in the field beyond the philosophy of
science
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
26
9
ASIS&T
Oct 28 Some overviews of theory and social epistemology in the field
• DUE: Topic and abstract – state of research and theory paper (2 pp.)
(Nov 2, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Unit 4: Examining specific theories and methods of inquiry in
Information Studies
10
Nov 4 Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members
Information behavior and general theory
11
Nov 11 Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members -- continued
Information behavior and LIS research
• DUE: Choice of state of research and theory paper to review
(Nov 16, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
12
Nov 18 Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members -- continued
Information behavior: Information seeking and information retrieval
Nov 25 No class – Thanksgiving vacation!
Unit 5: Presentations of students’ research
13
Dec 2
Students’ presentations (10%)
• DUE: Draft of final paper (≥ 10 pp.)
14
Dec 9
Students’ presentations (10%)
Course evaluation
Course summary
• DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (≥ 3-4 pp.) (15%)
DEC 14, WED, 12:00 N
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
27
• DUE: State of research and theory paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
28
SCHEDULE
The schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester. Some
readings are in the reading packet (R), while many other required readings are available online as
indicated. Some of the readings require you to be logged in with your UTEID through the UT
libraries. AS indicates Additional Sources, listed in the last several sections of the syllabus.
DATE
TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS
Unit 1: “Defining” Information Studies
Sep 2
Introduction to the course
Review of the syllabus
When we do information studies, what are we doing?
READ: Ortega y Gassett (1961/1934) online
Shera (1968) R
Agre (1995) online
Bates (1999a) online
Bates (1999b) online
Buckland (1996) online
Delamont & Atkinson (2001) online
AS:
Day (2005)
Hahn (1996)
Scarrott (1994)
(Sep 7, WED)
• DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Sep 9
Some ways to view the field
READ: Augst (2001) R
Bates (1999c) online
Day (2000) online
Floridi (2002) online
Harmon (1987) R
Hjørland (2005c) online
McKechnie & Pettigrew (2002) online
Wiegand (2003) online
AS:
Capurro (1992)
Cole (1994)
Frohmann (1992)
Reeling (1992)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
29
Vakkari (1996)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
30
Unit 2: Thinking about systematic inquiry
Sep 16
Introduction to the philosophy of science
Student-led discussion of Godfrey-Smith (5%)
READ: Godfrey-Smith (2003), 1 (“Introduction”), 2 (“Logic Plus Empiricism”), 4
(“Popper: Conjecture and Refutation”), 5 (“Kuhn and Normal
Science”), 6 (“Kuhn and Revolutions”), 7 (“Lakatos, Laudan,
Feyerabend, and Frameworks”)
Miller (2004), 1 (“Why Write About Numbers?”), 2 (“Seven Basic
Principles”), Appendix A (“Implementing ‘Generalization,
Example, Exceptions’ (GEE)”)
AS:
Godfrey-Smith (2003), 3
(Sep 21, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Sep 23
Philosophy of science – continued
Student-led discussion of Godfrey-Smith (5%)
READ: Godfrey-Smith (2003), 8 (“The Challenge from Sociology of Science”), 9
(“Feminism and Science Studies”), 10 (“Naturalistic Philosophy
in Theory and Practice”), 12 (“Scientific Realism”), 15 (“Empiricism,
Naturalism, and Scientific Realism?”)
Miller (2004), 3 (“Causality, Statistical Significance, and Substantive
Significance”), 4 (“Technical but Important: Five More Basic
Principles”), 9 (“Writing About Distributions and Associations”)
AS:
Sep 30
Godfrey-Smith (2003), 11
Quine (1969)
Making quantitative arguments
READ: Miller (2004), 10 (“Writing About Data and Methods”), 11 (“Writing
Introductions, Results, and Conclusions”)
Porter (1999) R
Rotman (1999) R
AS:
(Oct 5, WED)
Logan (1995)
MacKenzie (1999)
Miller (2004), 5, 6, 7, 8
Tufte (1997)
• DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
31
Oct 7
Science as a material assemblage
Undermining mentalism, defending realism
READ: Latour (1987), Introduction (“Opening Pandora’s Box”), 1
(“Literature”), 2 (“Laboratories”), 3 (“Machines”), 4 (“Insiders Out”),
5 (“Tribunals of Reason”), 6 (“Centres of Calculation”), Appendix 1
(“Rules of Method”), and Appendix 2 (“Principles”)
Pickering (1995), Preface, 1 (“The Mangle of Practice”)
Gross & Levitt (1994a) R
Gross & Levitt (1994b) R
Gross & Levitt (1994d) R
Reddy (1993) R
AS:
Oct 14
Pickering (1999)
Science as a material assemblage – continued
Constructivism and other views of systematic inquiry
READ: Bauer (1992) R
Daston (2005) online
Hammers & Brown (2004), online
Pickering (1995), 2 (“Machines: Building the Bubble Chamber”), 4
(“Concepts: Constructing Quarks”), 5 (“Technology:
Numerically Controlled Machine Tools”), 6 (“Living in the
Material World”), 7 (“Through the Mangle”)
Talja et al. (2005) online
AS:
Pickering (1995), 3 (“Facts: The Hunting of the Quark”)
Daston (1999)
Hacking (1999)
(Oct 19, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Unit 3: Theoretical and methodological overviews of Information
Studies
Oct 21
Philosophy of science and Information Studies
Thinking about systematic inquiry in the field beyond the philosophy of science
READ: Budd (2005) online
Burke et al. (1996) online
Day (1996) online
Frohmann (2000) online
Hansson (2005) online
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
32
Hjørland (2005a) online
Hjørland (2005b) online
Hjørland (2005c) online (reprise)
McGrath (2002b) online
Seldén (2005) online
Sundin & Johannison (2005) online
Oct 28
Some overviews of theory and social epistemology in the field
ASIS&T
READ: Bates (2005b)
Budd (1995) online
Budd (2002) online
Carlin (2003) online
Dervin (2005)
Fallis (2002) online
McDowell (2002) online
Pettigrew & McKechnie (2001) online
Zwadlo (1997) online
AS:
Dick (1999)
Swanson (1988)
• DUE: Topic and abstract – state of research and theory paper (2 pp.)
(Nov 2, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Unit 4: Examining specific theories and methods of inquiry in
Information Studies
Nov 4
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members
Information behavior and general theory
READ: Davidsen (2005) online
Davies (2005)
Dixon (2005)
Ellis, M. (2005) online
Julien (2005)
Lowe & Eisenberg (2005)
McKechnie (2005)
Ross (2005)
Van House (2002) online
Yakel (2005)
Nov 11
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members -- continued
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
33
Information behavior and LIS research
READ: Chatman (1996) online
Eisenhardt (1989) online
Hersberger (2005)
McGrath (2002a) online
Palmquist (2005)
Tidline (2005)
Williamson (2005)
Wilson (2005)
• DUE: Choice of state of research and theory paper to review
(Nov 16, WED) • DUE: Journal blog entry (500 words, 2 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Nov 18
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members -- continued
Information behavior: Information seeking and information retrieval
READ: Bates (2005a)
Belkin (2005)
Case (2005)
Edwards (2005)
Ellis, D. (2005)
Erdelez (2005)
Fayyad et al. (1996) online
Kuhlthau (1991) online
Kuhlthau (2005)
Rioux (2005)
Savolainen (2005)
Smiraglia (2002) online
Taylor (1968) R
Turnbull (2005)
AS:
Nov 25
Bates (1989)
No class – Thanksgiving vacation!
Unit 5: Presentations of students’ research
Dec 2
Students’ presentations (10%)
READ: Miller (2004), 12 (“Speaking about Numbers”)
AS:
Wilkinson and Task Force (1999) online
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
34
• DUE: Draft due – final paper (≥ 10 pp.)
Dec 9
Students’ presentations (10%)
Course evaluation
Course summary
READ: Bates (2000) online
Midgley (1999) R
Taylor (1991) R
• DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (≥ 3-4 pp.) (15%)
DEC 14, WED, 12:00 N
• DUE: State of research and theory paper (20-25 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
35
ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor will provide more specific information about each assignment as the semester
proceeds.
Blog reviewing a research journal – Due throughout semester (30%)
Every student will choose one journal from the list below to read throughout the semester and
will keep an informal blog about the journal:
American Archivist
First Monday
Information Processing & Management
The Information Society
Journal of Documentation
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Library & Information Science Research
Library Quarterly.
No more than two students may choose any one journal from the list. The blog will be kept in a
BlackBoard forum set up for that purpose, but students are encouraged to share their thoughts
more publicly as they see fit, especially with other doctoral students, as long as they do not
breach the privacy of the classroom.
The goal of the blog is to record the student’s reactions to the journal, especially to use the review
of the journal’s papers, editorials, identities of contributors, and the like to enhance the student’s
understanding of the field and the development of a research persona. How does the journal
reflect the questions we engage in class? How does it ignore them? What other questions and
concerns does the journal consider? What continuing themes or singular questions does it
engage? Who are the major actors in the community that the journal comprises and serves, both
individually and institutionally? Who edits the journal? Who publishes it? What does the
journal consider good research? These are only indicative of the kinds of questions the blog
might engage.
Students should, at a minimum, read the full 2005 volume of the journal, but they are free to
discuss material from anywhere in the journal’s run.
Every student will post a 500-word entry (about two double-spaced pp.) in the blog space every
other Wednesday by 12:00 N. Since we have 14 class meetings, each student will write six (6)
blog entries. They are due on the following Wednesdays: September 7, September 21, October 5,
October 19, November 2, and November 16. By class the weeks that students write their blog
entries, each student must read:
1.
2.
The blog entries of any other student reviewing the same journal
The entries of at least two other students; these entries must be for at least two different
journals.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
36
The instructor will also create another forum in BlackBoard for students to talk to each other
about their blogs. Students in the class will determine if that second space will be strictly for
them or for the instructor as well.
The blog is a place to consider how the material read for DRT, the rest of students’ reading, and
their professional experiences are part of our shared, larger disciplinary conversation.
Paper on state of theory and research – Due various dates
Every student’s final paper of the semester will report on the current state of theory and research
of a topic in our field. While the topic must be determined in negotiation with the instructor,
students are especially encouraged to consult with their classmates about their topics.
The topic should be sufficiently narrow that the student can apply the concepts, literatures, and
other class resources in order to report on and evaluate the state of theory and research on the
topic in 20-25 double-spaced pp. from a perspective informed by our work together this
semester. The student should:
1.
2.
3.
Review the important literature about the topic, both historically and recently
Consider how the topic does or does not reflect three of the major perspectives in our field:
the simile of information as thing, cognitivist conceptions of information users, and the more
materialist, community-, and practice-based understanding of the field
Examine, explicitly, the research methods and modes of argumentation that have
characterized studies of the topic.
Since such a considered examination of any topic is of the type shown in monographs, it is
imperative that students keep their topics narrowly focused and that their papers be succinct,
clear, and focused.
Topic and abstract -- Each student will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by
October 28. Each student must provide a clear statement of her topic and a two-page abstract of
how the final paper will address the topic by that date, preferably before.
In addition to their own knowledge and interests, students may find a number of
resources of value in identifying a topic for the paper: discussion with the instructor and
colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), review of the supplemental parts of the
references in the class syllabus, students’ own and others’ journal blogs, the mass media, class
readings, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what the class reads. The
instructor will create a list of students and topics to be distributed online and in class no later
than November 4.
Choice of paper to review – Due November 11. Each student will choose another
student’s paper to review no later than November 11. The choices will generally be on a firstcome, first-served basis, although the instructor reserves the right to assign students to particular
drafts keeping in mind such criteria as students’ genders, research interests, education,
employment, native languages, and the like.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
37
Draft -- Due December 2. Each student will submit an initial draft of his final paper on
December 2. The draft will be at least 10 double-spaced pp. long, will have a one-page abstract,
will indicate how the rest of the paper will develop, and will have a substantial part of the
bibliography identified and complete in APA format. Students will submit two copies of this
draft -- one for the student peer editor and one for the instructor.
Presentation -- December 2 and December 9 (10%) -- each student will make a 20minute oral presentation related to her final paper. This will be a public presentation, probably
in SZB 468, to which all constituencies of the School will be invited, particularly PhD students,
MS students, and the iSchool faculty with advisees in the class.
Every student should use the computer and projection device available, as well as
prepare an appropriate handout with, at the least, an outline of the presentation (this handout
may include copies of PowerPoint slides if the student is using PowerPoint) and a short list of
appropriate sources. Three students will present in each half of class, with questions saved for
15-20 minutes at the end of each half of class. This arrangement parallels one common in
professional conferences. Each student peer editor will act as the initial respondent to any one
paper.
The dates for the presentations are December 2 and December 9. The instructor and the
class TA will organize the presentation sessions and announce the schedule on the class and
Insider email lists no later than November 18.
Review of another student’s draft – Due December 9 (15%). Each student will review
the draft of another student’s final paper and submit two copies of a three- to four-page, doublespaced critique of the paper. One copy will go to the student who wrote the draft and one to the
instructor. Be specific in the critique -- what works in the draft? What does not? Why or why
not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper, whether about the
topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and so on? The major
criterion used to evaluate these reviews will be how valuable each one is in helping the author to
improve her work.
Final draft -- Due Wednesday, December 14, 12:00 N (30%). This is a final paper of 2025 double-spaced pages that reports on the current state of research and theory in any approved
topic in the field. This final version, like the first draft, will have a one-page abstract outlining
the topic, methods of discussion and analysis used in the paper, and other pertinent elements of
the paper.
The paper should be both analytic and holistic, using the texts and other general material
read for the course, as well as that material more focused on our own discipline. Students should
remember to consult the syllabus on standards for written work both before and after they write
and put two copies of their final papers in the instructor’s box in the iSchool main office, SZB 564,
no later than 12:00 noon on Wednesday, December 14.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
38
REFERENCES
I. Readings from the class schedule and assignments
Some of the readings are in the course packet from University Duplicating (R). Several
other required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule,
and some of them require you to be logged in with your UTEID through the UT libraries.
Agre, Philip E. (1995). Institutional circuitry: Thinking about the forms and uses of information.
Information, Technology and Libraries, 14(4), 225-230. Also available at
http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/192/918/69085623w6/purl=rc1_EAIM_0_A17814
175&dyn=9!ar_fmt?sw_aep=txshracd2598
Augst, Thomas. (2001). Introduction: American libraries as agencies of culture. American
Studies, 42(3), 5-22. R
Bates, Marcia J. (1999a). A tour of information science through the pages of JASIS. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 975-993. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Bates, Marcia J. (1999b). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043-1050. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/69500790
Bates, Marcia J. (1999c). The role of the PhD in a professional field. Available at
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/phdrole.html
Bates, Marcia J. (2000). Selecting a publication venue. Available at http://listserv.utk.edu/cgibin/wa?A2=ind0005&L=jesse&T=0&P=1761
Bates, Marcia J. (2005a). Berrypicking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 58-62). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Bates, Marcia J. (2005b). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. In Karen Fisher,
Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 1-24).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Bauer, Henry H. (1992). In praise of science. In Scientific literacy and the myth of scientific method
(pp. 141-151 and 172-173). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. R
Belkin, Nicholas J. (2005). Anomalous state of knowledge. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 44-48). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Benton, Ted, & Craib, Ian. (2001). Philosophy of social science: The philosophical foundation of social
thought. New York: Palgrave.
Biagioli, Mario. (Ed.). (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
39
Brown, James Robert. (2001). Who rules in science?: An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Buckland, Michael. (1996). Documentation, information science, and library science in the U.S.A.
Information Processing & Management, 32(1), 63-76. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235948%231996%23
999679998%23146315%23FLP%23Volume_32,_Issue_1,_Pages_1125_(January_1996)%2BMHistory_of_Information_Science%2BMEdited_by_W._Boyd_Rayward&
_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=e73ee
b67466d1feb204abe98c7da06d8
Budd, John M. (1995). An epistemological foundation for library and information science.
Library Quarterly, 65(3), 295-318. Also available at
http://weblinks1.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bt+ID++LIQ+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bo+B%5
F+26D8&_ug=sid+59BCFD4C%2DB5BC%2D4136%2D9AE6%2D6CB28067DC9E%40sessionmgr2
+dbs+aph+4A97&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACBZD00109072+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+
0477&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Library++Quarterly%22++and++DT++19
950701+tg%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+8A96&
lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S1
Budd, John M. (2002). Jesse Shera, social epistemology and praxis. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 9398. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
Budd, John M. (2005). Phenomenology and information studies. Journal of Documentation, 61(1),
44-59. Also available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Burke, Mary, Chang, Min-min, Davis, Charles, Hernon, Peter, Nicholls, Paul, Schwartz, Candy,
Shaw, Debora, Smith, Alastair, Wiberley, Stephen. (1996). Fraud and misconduct in library and
information science research. Library & Information Science Research, 18(3), 199-206. Also available
at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236577%231996%23
999819996%23322125%23FLP%23Volume_18,_Issue_3,_Pages_199293_(Summer_1996)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid
=108429&md5=b3f7027b40a0dcaa31ac7c44d342fbee
Carlin, Andrew P. (2003). Disciplinary debates and bases of interdisciplinary studies: The place
of research ethics in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 25(1),
3-18. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236577%232003%23
999749998%23400053%23FLA%23Volume_25,_Issue_1,_Pages_1123_(Spring_2003)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=
108429&md5=2957e47573e3ffe9cf20025c0d121cbd
Case, Donald O. (2005). Principle of least effort. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 289-292). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
40
Chatman, Elfreda. (1996). Impoverished life world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 47(3), 193-206. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Cornelius, Ian. (1996b). Meaning and method in information studies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Daston, Lorraine. (2005). Scientific error and the ethos of belief. Social Research, 72(1), 1-28. Also
available at
http://weblinks3.epnet.com/authHjafDetail.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+db+aphjnh+bt+ID++SRE
+1CB8&_ug=sid+130A4F1E%2D2B64%2D46F1%2D8214%2DA8D917DBCFAF%40sessionmgr2+d
bs+aph+E542&_us=hd+False+sm+ES+1C03&_uso=st%5B0+%2DID++SRE+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5
B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+7AAC&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&tlog=1&lfr=Persistent+Link
Davidsen, Susanna L. (2005). The Internet Public Library and the history of library portals.
Journal of Library Administration, 43(1/2), 5-18. Also available at
http://www.haworthpress.com/Store/E-Text/ViewLibraryEText.asp?s=J111&m=0
Davies, Elisabeth. (2005). Communities of practice. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne
(E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 104-107). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.
Day, Ronald E. (1996). LIS, method, and postmodern science. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 37(4), 317-324. Also available at
http://www.lisp.wayne.edu/~ai2398/method.html
Day, Ronald E. (2000). The “conduit metaphor” and the nature and politics of information
studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(9), 805-811. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/72502537
Delamont, Sara, & Atkinson, Paul. (2001). Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge.
Social Studies of Science, 31(1) , 87-107. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org/view/03063127/ap010105/01a00050/0?frame=noframe&userID=8053f82b
@utexas.edu/01cc99333c00501973648&dpi=3&config=jstor
Dervin, Brenda. (2005). What methodology does to theory: Sense-making methodology as
exemplar. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of
information behavior (pp. 25-30). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Dixon, Christopher M. (2005). The strength of weak ties. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 344-348). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Edwards, Philip M. (2005). Taylor’s question-negotiation. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 358-362). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org/view/03637425/ap010056/01a00060/0?currentResult=03637425%2bap010
056%2b01a00060%2b0%2cFFEF0F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FAd
vancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26All%3Dcase%2Bstudies%26Exact%3D%26One%3D%
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
41
26None%3D%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jt%3D%26ic%3D03637425%26ic%3D03637425%26node.Bu
siness%3D1%26node.Sociology%3D1
Ellis, David. (2005). Ellis’s model of information-seeking behavior. In Karen Fisher, Sanda
Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 138-142). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Ellis, Mary. (2005). Establishing a research culture for archive administration in the UK.
Education for Information, 23(1/2), 91-101. Also available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bt+ID++%22EFI%22+shn+1+db+aphjnh+
bo+B%5F+5938&_ug=sid+EE849A39%2D876F%2D4C38%2D8396%2DF0B5C96DFB92%40session
mgr2+dbs+aph+47BE&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00088426+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%
2D1+E6EE&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Education++for++Information%22
++and++DT++20050301+tg%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+
hd+False+FBA5&lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S1
Erdelez, Sanda. (2005). Information encountering. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne
(E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 179-184). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.
Fallis, Don. (2002). Introduction: Social epistemology and information science. Social
Epistemology, 16(1), 1-4. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
Fayyad, Usama, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Gregory, & Smyth, Padhraic . (1996). The KDD [Knowledge
Discovery in Databases] process for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data.
Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 27-34. Also available at
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=240455.240464&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&idx=240455&part=
periodical&WantType=periodical&title=Communications%20of%20the%20ACM&CFID=://ww
w.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.882004&CFTOKEN=www.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.88-2004
Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso. (Original work published
1975)
Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of
information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Fleck, Ludwik. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K.
Merton (Eds.). (Fred Bradley & Thaddeus J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
(Original work published 1935)
Floridi, Luciano. (2002). On defining library and information science as applied philosophy of
information. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 37-49. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/issue.asp?wasp=58c3797c38b64cf0a863f9779f58f1af&ref
errer=parent&backto=journal,10,20;linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
Frohmann, Bernd. (2000). Discourse and documentation: Some implications for pedagogy and
research. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42(1), 13-28. Also available at
http://www.fims.uwo.ca/people/faculty/frohmann/Jelis.htm
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
42
Garvey, William D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange
among scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994a). The academic left and science. In Higher superstition:
The academic left and its quarrels with science (pp. 1-15 and 259). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University. R
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994b). Does it matter? In Higher superstition: The academic
left and its quarrels with science (pp. 234-257 and 286-289). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
R
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994c). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels
with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994d). Science as power struggle. In Higher superstition: The
academic left and its quarrels with science (pp. 57-62 and 263-264). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University. R
Gross, Paul R., Levitt, Norman, & Lewis, Martin W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and
reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 775). New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.
Hammers, Corie, & Brown, Alan D. III. (2004). Towards a feminist-queer alliance: A
paradigmatic shift in the research process. Social Epistemology, 18(1), 85-101. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
Hansson, Joacim. (2005). Hermeneutics as a bridge between the modern and the postmodern in
library and information science. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 102-113. Also available at
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Harmon, E. Glynn. (1987). The interdisciplinary study of information: A review essay. The
Journal of Library History, 22(2), 206-227. R
Hersberger, Julie. (2005). Chatman’s information poverty. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 75-78). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Hiley, David R., Bohman, James F., & Shusterman, Richard. (1991). The interpretive turn:
Philosophy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Hjørland, Birger. (2005a). Comments on the articles and proposals for further work. Journal of
Documentation, 61(1), 156-163. Also available at
http://miranda.emeraldinsight.com/vl=3107758/cl=15/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/0022
0418/v61n1/s10/p156
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
43
Hjørland, Birger. (2005b). Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information
science. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 130-155. Also available at
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Hjørland, Birger. (2005c). Library and information science and the philosophy of science. Journal
of Documentation, 61(1), 5-10. Also available at
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Jansen, Sue Curry. (1991). Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge. New York:
Oxford University.
Julien, Heidi. (2005). Women’s ways of knowing. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 387-391). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Kaplan, Abraham. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. New York:
Harper & Row.
Klee, Robert. (1999). Scientific inquiry: Readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kuhlthau, Carol C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s
perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (2005). Kuhlthau’s information search process. In Karen Fisher, Sanda
Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 230-234). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Lowe, Carrie A., & Eisenberg, Michael B. (2005). Big6 Skills for information literacy. In Karen
Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 6368). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Machlup, Fritz, & Mansfield, Una. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary
messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McDowell, Ashley. (2002). Trust and information: The role of trust in the social epistemology of
information science. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 51-63. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
McGrath, William E. (2002a). Explanation and prediction: Building a unified theory of
librarianship, concept and review. Library Trends, 50(3), 350-370. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
44
McGrath, William E. (2002b). Introduction. Library Trends, 50(3), 309-316. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (2005). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. In Karen Fisher,
Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 373-376).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), & Pettigrew, Karen E. (2002). Surveying the use of theory in library
and information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library Trends, 50(3), 406-417.
Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
Midgley, Mary. (1999). Being scientific about our selves. In Shaun Gallegher & Jonathan Shear
(Eds.), Models of the self (pp. 467-480). Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic. R
Miller, Jane E. (2004). The Chicago guide to writing about numbers. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Ortega y Gassett, José. (1961). The mission of the librarian (trans. James Lewis & Ray Carpenter).
Antioch Review, 22(1), 133-154. (Original work published 1934) Also available in John David
Marshall (Ed.), Of, by, and for librarians, Second Series (1975, pp. 190-213). s.l.: Shoe String.
(Original work published 1961)
Also available at http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.882003&res_dat=xri:pqil:res_ver=0.1&rft_val_fmt=ori:format:pl:ebnf:jarticle&rft_id=xri:pcift:article:
5022-1961-021-02-000001&res_id=xri:pcift-us
Palmquist, Ruth A. (2005). Taylor’s information use environments. In Karen Fisher, Sanda
Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 354-357). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Pettigrew, Karen E., & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (2001). The use of theory in information science
research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 62-73. Also
available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/76502080
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Pickstone, John V. (2000). Ways of knowing: A new history of science, technology and medicine.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University.
Porter, Theodore M. (1999). Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. In Mario Biagioli
(Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 394-406). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1992) R
Reddy, Michael J. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language
about language. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 164-201).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. R
Rioux, Kevin. (2005). Information acquiring-and-sharing. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 169-173). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Ross, Andrew. (1996). Science wars. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
45
Ross, Catherine Sheldrick. (2005). Reader response theory. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 303-307). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Rotman, Brian. (1999). Thinking dia-grams: Mathematics and writing (abridged). In Mario
Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 430-441). New York: Routledge. (Original published
1995) R
Savolainen, Reijo. (2005). Everyday life information seeking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 143-148). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Seldén, Lars. (2005). On grounded theory – with some malice. Journal of Documentation, 61(1),
114-129. Also available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Shera, Jesse. (1972). An epistemological foundation for library science. In Edward B.
Montgomery (Ed.), The foundations of access to knowledge (pp. 7-25). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University. R
Smiraglia, Richard P. (2002). The progress of theory in knowledge organization. Library Trends,
50(3), 330-349. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
Steinmetz, George. (Ed.). (2005). The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its
epistemological others. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Sundin, Olof, & Johannisson, Jenny. (2005). Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and sociocultural
theory: Communicative participation as a perspective in LIS. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 2343. Also available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Talja, Sanna, Tuominen, & Savolainen, Reijo. (2005). “Isms” in information science:
Constructivism, collectivism, and constructionism. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 79-101. Also
available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Taylor, Charles. (1991). The dialogical self. In David R. Hiley, James F. Bohman, & Richard
Shusterman (Eds.), The interpretive turn: Philosophy, science, culture (pp. 304-314). Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University. R
Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College &
Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194. R
Tidline, Tonyia J. (2005). Dervin’s sense-making. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 113-117). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Turnbull, Don. (2005). World Wide Web information seeking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 397-400). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Van House, Nancy. (2002). Digital libraries and practices of trust: Networked biodiversity
information. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 99-114. Also available at h
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
46
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
Wiegand, Wayne A. (2003). To reposition a research agenda: What American Studies can teach
the LIS community about the library in the life of the user. Library Quarterly, 73(4), 369-382.
Available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bt+ID++LIQ+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bo+B%5
F+26D8&_ug=sid+ED734B2E%2D5C89%2D425A%2DA033%2D592CE66A289D%40sessionmgr2+
dbs+aph+F4F7&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00088819+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+F
A65&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Library++Quarterly%22++and++DT++20
031001+tg%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+8F8C&
lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S1
Williamson, Kristy. (2005). Ecological theory of human information behavior. In Karen Fisher,
Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 128-132).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Wilson, Thomas D. (2005). Evolution in information behavior modeling: Wilson’s model. In
Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp.
31-36). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Yakel, Elizabeth. (2005). Archival intelligence. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 49-53). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Zwadlo, Jim. (1997). We don’t need a philosophy of library and information science: We’re
confused enough already. Library Quarterly, 67(2), 103-121. Available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
47
II. Selected ARIST chapters 1966 - 2005
Allen, Bryce L. (1991). Cognitive research in information science: Implications for design. In
Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp. 3-37).
Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Allen, Thomas J. (1969). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-29). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Bar-Ilan, Judith. (2003). The use of Web search engines in information science research. In Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 231-288). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Bishop, Ann P., & Star, Susan Leigh. (1996). Social informatics of digital library use and
infrastructure. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol.
31, pp. 301-401). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Blair, David C. (2002). Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. In Blaise Cronin
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 3-50). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Borgman, Christine L., & Furner, Jonathan. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics.
In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 3-72).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Boyce, Bert R., & Kraft, Donald H. (1985). Principles and theories in information science. In
Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 20, pp. 153-178).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Buckland, Michael K., & Liu, Ziming. (1995). History of information science. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 30, pp. 385-416). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Burt, Patricia V., & Kinnucan, Mark T. (1990). Information models and modeling techniques for
information systems. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology
(Vol. 25, pp. 175-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Callahan, Ewa. (2004). Interface design and culture. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 257-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Capurro, Rafael, & Hjørland, Birger. (2002). The concept of information. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 343-412). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Chang, Shan-Ju, & Rice, Ronald E. (1993). Browsing: A multidimensional framework. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 28, pp. 231-276). Medford,
NJ: Learned Information.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
48
Cool, Coleen. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. In Martha Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp. 5-42). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.
Cornelius, Ian. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393-425). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Crane, Diana. (1971). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 6, pp. 3-39). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Crawford, Susan. (1978). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 13, pp. 61-81). Medford, NJ: Knowledge Industry.
Davenport, Elisabeth, & Hall, Hazel. (2002). Organizational knowledge and communities of
practice. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp.
171-227). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Davenport, Elizabeth, & Snyder, Herbert W. (2004). Managing social capital. In Blaise Cronin
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 517-550). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 21, pp. 3-33). Medford, NJ:
Knowledge Industry.
Dillon, Andrew, & Morris, Michael G. (1996). User acceptance of information technology:
Theories and models. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology
(Vol. 31, pp. 3-32). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Doctor, Ronald D. (1992). Social equity and information technologies: Moving toward
information democracy. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and
technology (Vol. 27, pp. 43-96). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Toward a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha
E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp. 115-245).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Eisenberg, Michael B., & Spitzer, Kathleen L. (1991). Information technology and services in
schools. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp.
243-285). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Ellis, David, Oldridge, Rachael, & Vasconcelos, Ana. (2003). Community and virtual community.
In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 144-186).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Harter, Stephen P., & Hert, Carol A. (1997). Evaluation of information retrieval systems:
Approaches, issues, and methods. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science
and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 3-94). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
49
Haythornthwaite, Caroline, & Hagar, Christine. (2004). The social worlds of the Web. Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 311-346). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Herner, Saul, & Herner, Mary. (1967). Information needs and uses in science and technology. In
Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-34). New
York: Wiley Interscience.
Hewins, Elizabeth T. (1990). Information needs and use studies. In Martha Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 25, pp. 145-172). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Large, Andrew. (2004). Children, teenagers, and the Web. Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 347-392). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Lievrouw, Leah A., & Farb, Sharon E. (2002). Information and equity. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 499-540). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Lin, Nan, & Garvey, William. (1972). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 7, pp. 5-37). Washington, DC: American
Society for Information Science.
Lipetz, Ben-Ami. (1970). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 5, pp. 3-32). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Marchionini, Gary, & Komlodi, Anita. (1998). Design of interfaces for information seeking. In
Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 89-120).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Martyn, John. (1974). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 9, pp. 3-22). Washington, DC: American Society for
Information Science.
Menzel, Herbert. (1966). Information needs and uses in science and technology. In Carlos A.
Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 41-69). New York:
Wiley Interscience.
Paisley, William J. (1968). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 3, pp. 1-30). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Palmquist, Ruth Ann. (1992). The impact of information technology on the individual. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 27, pp. 3-42). Medford, NJ:
Learned Information.
Pettigrew, Karen, Fidel, Raya, & Bruce, Harry. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp.
43-78). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Rogers, Yvonne. (2003). New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. In Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 87-144). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
50
Rorvig, Mark E. (1988). Psychometric measurement and information retrieval. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 23, pp. 157-189).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sawyer, Steve, & Eschenfelder, Kristin R. (2002). Social informatics: Perspectives, examples, and
trends. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 427466). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Schamber, Linda. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual
review of information science and technology (Vol. 29, pp. 3-48). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Smith, Martha Montague. (1997). Information ethics. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 339-366). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Snyder, Herbert W., & Pierce, Jennifer Burek. (2002). Intellectual capital. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 467-500). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Solomon, Paul. (2002). Discovering information in context. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 229-264). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Spink, Amanda, & Losee, Robert M. (1996). Feedback in information retrieval. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 31, pp. 33-78). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Sugar, William. (1995). User-centered perspective of information retrieval research and analysis
methods. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 30, pp.
77-109). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Tibbo, Helen R. (1991). Information systems, services, and technology for the humanities. In
Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp. 287-346).
Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Vakkari, Pertti. (2002). Task-based information searching. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 413-464). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Science and technology studies and information studies. In Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 3-86). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1989). Bibliometrics. In Martha Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 24, pp. 119-186). Medford, NJ: Learned
Information.
White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 99-168). Medford,
NJ: Learned Information.
Yang, Kiduk. (2004). Information retrieval on the Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 33-80). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
51
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
52
III. Sources on Doing Research
Research and research methods in Information Studies
Biggs, Mary. (1991). The role of research in the development of a profession or a discipline. In
Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon (Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives
and strategies for improvement (pp. 72-84). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bookstein, Abraham. (1986). Questionnaire research in a library setting. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 11(1), 24-28.
Borgman, Christine L. (Ed.). (1990). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Bowker, Geoffrey, & Star, Susan Leigh. (1998). Sorting things out: Classification and its
consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boyce, Bert R., Meadow, Charles T., & Kraft, Donald H. (1994). Measurement in information
science. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Busha, Charles H., & Harter, Stephen P. (1980). Research methods in librarianship: Techniques and
interpretation. New York: Academic Press.
Cronin, Blaise. (1992). When is a problem a research problem? In Leigh Stewart Estabrook (Ed.),
Applying research to practice: How to use data collection and research to improve library management
decision making (pp. 117-132). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of
Library and Information Science.
Dervin, Brenda. (1977). Useful theory for librarianship: Communication, not information.
Drexel Library Quarterly, 13(3), 16-32.
Estabrook, Leigh Stewart. (Ed.). (1992). Applying research to practice: How to use data collection and
research to improve library management decision making. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
Glazier, Jack D., & Powell, Ronald R. (Eds.). (1992). Qualitative research in information
management. Englewood, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Gorman, G.E., & Clayton, Peter. (1997). Qualitative research for the information professional: A
practical handbook. London: Library Association.
Haddow, Gaby, & Klobas, Jane E. (2994). Communication of research to practice in library and
information science: Closing the gap. Library & Information Science Research, 26(1), 29-43.
Hafner, Arthur W. (1989). Descriptive statistical techniques for librarians. Chicago: American
Library Association.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
53
Harris, Michael H. (1986). The dialectic of defeat: Antimonies in research in library and
information science. In Donald G. Davis & Phyllis Dain (Eds.), History of library and information
science education [Special issue] (pp. 515-531). Library Trends, 34(3).
Hernon, Peter. (1991b). Access to the research literature of library and information science. In
Statistics: A component of the research process (pp. 31-38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hernon, Peter. (1991a). The elusive nature of research in LIS. In Charles R. McClure and Peter
Hernon (Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives and strategies for improvement
(pp. 3-14). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hertzel, Dorothy H. (1987). History of the development of ideas in bibliometrics. Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science, 42, 144-219.
Katzer, Jeffrey, Cook, Kenneth H., & Crouch, Wayne W. (1998). Evaluating information: A guide
for users of social science research (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Losee, Robert M., & Worley, Karen A. (1993). Research and evaluation for information professionals.
San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
McClure, Charles R. (1991). Communicating applied library/information science research to
decision makers: Some methodological considerations. In Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon
(Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives and strategies for improvement (pp. 253266). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McClure, Charles R., & Bishop, Ann. (1989). The status of research in library/information
science: Guarded optimism. College & Research Libraries, 50(2), 127-143.
McClure, Charles R., & Hernon, Peter. (Eds.). (1991). Library and information science research:
Perspectives and strategies for improvement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mellon, Constance Ann. (1990). Naturalistic inquiry for library science: Methods and applications for
research, evaluation, and teaching. New York: Greenwood Press.
Peritz, B. (1980). The methods of library science research: Some results from a bibliometric
study. Library research, 2(3), 251-268.
Rice-Lively, Mary Lynn. (1997a). Analyzing qualitative data in information organizations. In
G.E. Gorman & Peter Clayton, Qualitative research for the information professional: A practical
handbook (pp. 198-221). London: Library Association.
Rice-Lively, Mary Lynn. (1997b). Recording fieldwork data in information organizations In G.E.
Gorman & Peter Clayton, Qualitative research for the information professional: A practical handbook
(pp. 177-197). London: Library Association.
Robbins, Jane B. (1992). Affecting librarianship in action: The dissemination and communication
of research findings. In Leigh Stewart Estabrook (Ed.), Applying research to practice: How to use
data collection and research to improve library management decision making (pp. 78-88). UrbanaChampaign, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
54
Stenstrom, Patricia E. (1994). Library literature. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 368-373). New York: Garland.
Tague-Sutcliffe, Jean. (1995). Measuring information: An information services perspective. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Van House, Nancy. (1991). Assessing the quantity, quality, and impact of LIS research. In
Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon (Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives
and strategies for improvement (pp. 85-100). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Westbrook, Lynn. (1993). User needs: A synthesis and analysis of current theories for the
practitioner. RQ, 32(4), 541-549.
Westbrook, Lynn. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of major stages, data analysis
techniques, and quality controls. Library and Information Science Research, 16(3), 241-254.
Research methods
Babbie, Earl. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Babbie, Earl. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Bazerman, Charles. (1987). Codifying the social scientific style: The APA Publication Manual as
a behaviorist rhetoric. In John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, & Donald N. McCloskey (Eds.), The
rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs (pp. 125-144).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Berg, Bruce L. (1998). Writing research papers: Sorting the noodles from the soup. In Qualitative
research methods for the social sciences (pp. 253-272). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Best, Joel. (2001). Damned lies and statistics: Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and
activists. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Bloor, Michael. (2001). Focus groups in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, Harris M. (1984). The integrative research review: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Creswell, John W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, John W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, Norman K., & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hacking, Ian. (1999). Making up people. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp.
161-171). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1986)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
55
Hamel, Jacques. (1993). Case study methods. With Stéphane Dufour & Dominic Fortin (Maureen
Nicholson, Trans.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Holsti, Ole R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Human subjects policies and documents. (2005). Office of Sponsored Projects, The University of
Texas at Austin. Available http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humanresearch/
Institutional review board procedures manual for faculty, staff, and student researchers with human
participants. (2005). Office of Research Support and Compliance, The University of Texas at
Austin. Available http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humanresearch/manual/index.php
Krippendorff, Klaus. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krueger, Richard A., & Casey, Mary Anne. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Bryman, Alan, & Liao, Tim Futing. (Eds.). (2004). The Sage encyclopedia of
social science research methods (3 vols.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Logan, Ralph H. (1995). Significant digits. Available at
http://members.aol.com/profchm/sig_fig.html
Miles, Matthew B., & Huberman, A. Michael. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mohr, Lawrence B. (1990). Understanding significance testing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, David L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, Susan E., Reichert, Tom, & Harrison, Tyler R. (2002). From numbers to words: Reporting
statistical results for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oakley, Ann. (2000). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. New York:
The New Press.
Patton, Michael Quinn. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rowntree, Derek. (1981). Statistics without tears: A primer for non-mathematicians. New York:
Scribner.
Salsburg, David. (2001). The lady tasting tea: How statistics revolutionized science in the twentieth
century. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Spatz, Chris. (2005). Basic statistics: Tales of distributions (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
56
Stewart, David W., & Shamdasani, Prem N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, Anselm, & Corbin, Juliet. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tomm, Winnie. (Ed.). (1987). The effects of feminist approaches on research methodologies. Calgary:
Wilfrid Laurier University.
Trochim, William K. (2001). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
Atomic Dog.
Tufte, Edward R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics
Press.
Tufte, Edward R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, Edward R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT:
Graphics Press.
Tukey, John W. (1977)> Exploratory data analysis. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Vogt, W. Paul. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social
sciences (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Webb, Eugene J., Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard D., & Sechrest, Lee. (1969).
Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wilkinson, Leland, & Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs. (1999).
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist,
54(8), 594-604. Also available at
http://weblinks1.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+8B64AF08%2DADD5%2D4258%2D845
7%2D5AA1D62A8D3B%40sessionmgr2+dbs+pdh+84D2&_us=hd+False+or+Date+frn+1+sm+ES
+sl+%2D1+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACBZD00040997+ADD3&_uso=st%5B2+%2Dguidelines+st%5B1+%
2Dmethods+st%5B0+%2Dstatistical+tg%5B2+%2DTI+tg%5B1+%2DTI+tg%5B0+%2DTI+db%5B0
+%2Dpdh+op%5B2+%2DAnd+op%5B1+%2DAnd+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+C474&fn=1&rn=1
Wolcott, Harry F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Weisberg, Herbert F. (1992). Central tendency and variability. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Williams, Frederick. (1992). Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative research (4th ed.).
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Nature of science and systematic inquiry
Alkoff, Linda, & Potter, Elizabeth. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
57
Audi, Robert. (Ed.). (1995). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University.
Beveridge, W.I.B. (1950). The art of scientific investigation. New York: Vintage.
Butterfield, Herbert. (1957). The origins of modern science. New York: Freepress.
Daston, Lorraine. (1999). Objectivity and the escape from perspective. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.),
The science studies reader (pp. 110-123). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1992)
Fleck, Ludwik. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K.
Merton (Eds.). (Fred Bradley & Thaddeus J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
(Original work published 1935)
Garvey, William D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange
among scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon.
Gordon, Scott. (1993). The history and philosophy of social science. London: Routledge. (Original
published 1991)
Gross, Paul R., Levitt, Norman, & Lewis, Martin W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and
reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 775). New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.
Hacking, Ian. (2001). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
(Original published 1999)
Hempel, Carl G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science.
New York: Free Press.
Hiley, David R., Bohman, James F., & Shusterman, Richard. (Eds.). (1991). The interpretive turn:
Philosophy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1999). The gender/science system: Or, is sex to gender as nature is to
science? In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 234-242). New York: Routledge.
(Original published 1987)
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago. (Original work published 1962)
Polanyi, Michael. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Popper, Karl R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Popper, Karl R. (1980). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge. (Original work
published 1934)
Schilpp, Moritz. (1991). Positivism and realism (trans. Peter Heath). In Richard Boyd, Philip
Gasper, & J.D. Trout (Eds.), The philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original published
1932-1933)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
58
Schwandt, Thomas A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Tobias, Sheila. (1994). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.
Watson, James D. (1968). The double helix. New York: Atheneum.
Wilson, Patrick. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Ziman, John. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. London:
Cambridge University.
Ziman, John. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of
science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
59
IV. Important Serial Sources
The numbers in parentheses before some of the titles indicate positions in the latest ISI
citation rankings, a useful if flawed metric of publications’ importance. Not all of the 55
publications in the ISI rankings appear here. For the full list, see the ISI Web site for
journals in Information and Library Science
http://isi17.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi?DestApp=JCR&Func=Frame
Advances in Librarianship
(1) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST)
http://www.asis.org/Publications/ARIST/
Journals
Those journals available online are available for only part of their publication run;
further, UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals
online, so there may be more than one URL for each journal, especially those from the ISI
list.
Administrative Science Quarterly
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&jn=%22ASQ%22&scope=site
American Anthropologist
American Archivist
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/index.html
(50) Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science
http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=cjils/cjils.html
Communication Yearbook
http://www.sagepub.com/book.aspx?pid=2623
Canadian Journal of Information Science/ Revue canadienne des sciences de l'information
http://www.cais-acsi.ca/journal.htm
(8) College & Research Libraries (C&RL)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
60
http://hwwilsonweb.com/login/?sp.username=AVE06&sp.password=UNTX045919&s
p.dbid.p=S(Y6)&sp.nextfform=advsrch.htm
Communications of the ACM
http://www.acm.org/pubs/cacm/
Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=d70b3a9988404c2d93a5a0
12ce2b0f4c&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:100250,1
Educause Review
http://www.educause.edu/er/
(16) Government Information Quarterly (GIQ)
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620202/description
(5) Information and Management
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505553/description
#description
Information, Communication, and Society
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1369118x.asp
(11) Information Processing & Management (IP&M)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
(25) The Information Society
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%221HQ%22&scope=site
(4) Information Systems Research (ISR)
http://isr.katz.pitt.edu/
(45) Information Technology and Libraries
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=periodicals&template=/ContentManageme
nt/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=78982
(22) Journal of Academic Librarianship (JAL)
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620207/description
#description
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
61
Journal of Communication
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&bquery=is+00219916&scope=site
(6) Journal of Documentation (JDoC)
http://ariel.emeraldinsight.com/vl=1648860/cl=23/nw=1/rpsv/jd.htm
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS)
http://www.alise.org/publications/jelis.html
(52) Journal of Information Ethics
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?isbn=JIE0000028
(12) Journal of Information Science
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Journal.asp?JournalID=103633
(3) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?journal=76
(7) Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873
Formerly the Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources (formerly
Government Publications Review)
http://www.lib.auburn.edu/madd/docs/jgi/contents.html
Now merged with Government Information Quarterly
Journal of Information Science
http://jis.sagepub.com/
Knowledge, Technology & Policy (formerly Knowledge in Society)
http://weblinks1.epnet.com/authHjafDetail.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+db+aphjnh+bt+I
D++F90+1631&_ug=sid+D47B8228%2DBBD4%2D4295%2D9239%2DF1DAA8E7B68D%40session
mgr2+dbs+aph+6E52&_us=hd+False+sm+ES+1C03&_uso=st%5B0+%2DID++F90+tg%5B0+%2D
+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+DE02&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&tlog=1&lfr=Persistent+
Link
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
62
(19) Library and Information Science
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/mslis/journal-e.html
(20) Library & Information Science Research (LISR)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
(29) Library Quarterly (LQ)
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site
(15) Library Resources & Technical Services (LRTS)
http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctspubs/librestechsvc/Default2594.htm
Library Trends
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
(36) Libri
http://www.librijournal.org/
Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=af75067e342d44f6af170c3e
8853d79c&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102961,1
(2) MIS Quarterly (MISQ)
http://www.misq.org/
(36) Libri
http://www.librijournal.org/
Organization Science
http://pubsonline.informs.org/main/index.php?user=52882
(24) Restaurator
http://www.saur.de/index.cfm?content=kurzanzeige.cfm?show=0000006512&menu=ca
talog1
Science
http://www.jstor.org/journals/00368075.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/contents-by-date.0.shtml
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
63
Scientific American
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=06-222010&RQT=318&PMID=42280&VType=PQD&VInst=PRODUCTION&VName=HNP
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/authHjafDetail.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+db+aphjnh+bt+I
D++SIA+FACB&_ug=sid+D74F617B%2D6D06%2D47AC%2D919C%2D5EAC0F7073B1%40sessio
nmgr2+dbs+aph+4124&_us=hd+False+sm+ES+1C03&_uso=st%5B0+%2DID++SIA+tg%5B0+%2
D+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+7D3F&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&tlog=1&lfr=Persisten
t+Link
(9) Scientometrics
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=b352ae0c80354c8f8362870
2efb2e6a2&referrer=parent&backto=subject,212,241;
Science, Technology, & Human Values
http://www.jstor.org/journals/01622439.html
Social Epistemology
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02691728.asp
(43) Social Science Information
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journal.aspx?pid=105779
Technology Review
http://www.techreview.com/
(18) Telecommunications Policy
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#
description
Wired
http://www.wired.com/wired/index.html
Electronic journals
D-Lib Magazine -- http://www.dlib.org/
First Monday -- http://www.firstmonday.dk/
Information Research -- http://InformationR.net/ir/
JoDI: Journal of Digital Information-- http://jodi.tamu.edu/
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
64
Proceedings of important meetings
CoLIS – Conference on the Future of Library and Information Science
CoLIS 5 (June 2005): http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/external/colis5/colis.html
ISIC – Conferences on Information Seeking in Context
ISIC 2004 (September): http://www.eirviaservlets.com/isic2004/index.jsp
JCDL – Joint Conferences on Digital Libraries
http://www.jcdl.org/
(54) Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST Annual
Meeting)
http://www.asis.org/am05call.htm
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
65
V. Additional Sources
Agre, Philip E. (1998). Designing genres for new media: Social, economic, and political contexts.
In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting CMC and community (pp. 69-99). Newberry
Park, CA: Sage.
Agre, Philip E. (2003). Information and institutional change: The case of digital libraries. In Ann
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 219-240). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Allen, Bryce. (1996a). From research to design: A user-centered approach. In Peter Ingwersen &
Niels Ole Pors (Eds.), Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 45-59). From the Second
International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2).
Copenhagen: The Royal School of Librarianship.
Allen, Bryce. (1996b). Information tasks: Toward a user-centered approach to information systems. San
Diego, CA: Academic.
Allen, Robert B. (1990). User models: Theory, method, and practice. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 32(5), 511-543.
Anderson, Benedict. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso. (Original published 1983)
Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2002). Libraries as agencies of culture. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin. Reprint of Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2001).
The library as an agency of culture [special issue]. American Studies, 42(3).
Ayer, A.J. (1936). Language, truth, and logic. London: V. Gollancz.
Bannon, Liam. (1990). A pilgrim’s progress: From cognitive science to cooperative design. AI
and Society, 4(4), 259-275. Also available at
http://www.ul.ie/~idc/library/papersreports/LiamBannon/2/Aisoc.html
Bar-Ilan, J. & Peritz, B. (2002). Informetric theories and methods for exploring the Internet: An
analytical survey of recent research literature. Library Trends, 50(3), 371-392. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
Barry, Carol L., & Schamber, Linda. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A crosssituational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3), 219-236. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Barton, Daniel, & Hamilton, Mary. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge.
Bates, Marcia J. (1984). The fallacy of the perfect thirty-item search. RQ [Reference Quarterly],
24(1), 43-50.
Bates, Marcia J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online
search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
66
Bateson, Gregory. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Original
published 1972)
Baum, Christina D. (1992). Feminist thought in American librarianship. Jeffrey, NC: McFarland.
Bawden, David. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of
Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.
Belkin, Nicholas, Oddy, Robert, & Brooks, Helen M. (1982a). ASK for information retrieval I.
Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.
Belkin, Nicholas, Oddy, Robert, & Brooks, Helen M. (1982b). ASK for information retrieval II.
Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 145-164.
Bell, Daniel. (1980). The social framework of the Information Society. In T. Forester (Ed.), The
microelectronics revolution (pp. 500-549). Boston: MIT.
Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Toward a critical theoretic perspective in information systems. Library
Quarterly, 72(4), 441-471. Available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/HJAFdetail.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+4+ln+en%2Dus+sid+51836345%2D
D971%2D4D2B%2D8AE1%2DE1197B82F515%40Sessionmgr2+79EB&_uh=btn+N+idb+aphish+jd
b+aphjnh+op+phrase+ss+ID++LIQ+B8FF&_us=db+4+sm+ES+7B8A&
Berg, Marc. (1996). Practices of reading and writing: The constitutive role of the patient record
in medical work. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8(4), 499-524.
Berring, Robert C. (1993). Future librarians. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future
libraries (pp. 94-115). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Bielawski, Ellen. (1996). Inuit indigenous knowledge and science in the Arctic. In Laura Nader
(Ed.), Naked science: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power and knowledge (pp. 216-227).
New York: Routledge.
Bijker, Wiebe E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bijker, Wiebe E., & Law, John. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in
sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bishop, Ann P. (1999). Document structure and digital libraries: How researchers mobilize
information in journal articles. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 255-279. Also
available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Bishop, Ann Peterson, Mehra, Bharat, Bazzell, Imani, & Smith, Cynthia. (2001). Scenarios in the
design and evaluation of networked information services: An example from community health.
In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services:
Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 45-66). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Bishop, Ann Peterson, Mehra, Bharat, Bazzell, Imani, & Smith, Cynthia. (2003). Participatory
action research and digital libraries: Reframing evaluation. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
67
House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation
(pp. 161-189). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bishop, Ann P., Neumann, Laura J., Star, Susan Leigh, Merkel, C., Ignacio, E., & Sandusky, R.J.
(2000). Digital libraries: Situating use in changing information infrastructure. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 394-413. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Bishop, Ann Peterson, Van House, Nancy A., & Buttenfield, Barbara P. (Eds.). (2003). Digital
library use: Social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bloch, R. Howard, & Hesse, Carla. (Eds.). (1993). Future libraries. Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Borges, Jorge Luis. (1964). The library of Babel. In Donald A. Yates & James E. Irby (Eds.),
Labyrinths: Selected stories & other writings (pp. 51-58). (James E. Irby, Trans.). New York: New
Directions Paperback.
Borgman, Christine L., Hirsh, Sandra G., Walter, Virginia A., & Gallagher Andrea L. (1995).
Children’s searching behavior on browsing and keyword online catalogs: The science library
catalog project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(9), 663-684. Also available
at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Borgmann, Albert. (1999). Holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the
millennium. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Boulding, Kenneth E. (1956). The image: Knowledge in life and society. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan.
Boyarin, Jonathan. (Ed.). (1993). The ethnography of reading. Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-ofpractice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1),
40-57. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&jn=%222VO%22&scope=site
Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (1996). The social life of documents. First Monday, 1
Available at http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue1/documents/index.html
Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (2002). The social life of information (2nd ed.). Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Bruner, Jerome. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Bruner, Jerome. (1996). Frames for thinking: Ways of making meaning. In David R. Olson &
Nancy Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 93-105).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
68
Buckland, Michael K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 42(5), 351-360. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Buckland, Michael K. (1997). What is a “document”? Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 48(9), 804-809. Also available in Trudi Bellardo Hahn & Michael Buckland
(Eds., 1998), Historical studies in information science (pp. 215-220). Medford, NJ: Information
Today. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/39748
Budd, John. (1995). An epistemological foundation for library and information science. Library
Quarterly, 65(3), 295-318. Also available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bt+ID++LIQ
+EA6C&_ug=sid+62AAD279%2DC6B3%2D47D6%2D88B9%2DF4C78843C780%40sessionmgr2+
dbs+aph+7C59&_us=hd+False+fcl+Aut+or+Date+frn+1+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+dstb+ES+ri+KAAAC
B1D00072493+B922&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Library++Quarterly%22++
and++DT++19950701+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+hd+False+op%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%
2Dimh+8C62&fn=1&rn=3
Bush, Vannevar. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108. Also available
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm
Capurro, Rafael. (1992). What is information science for? A philosophical reflection. In Peter
Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical
and theoretical perspectives (pp. 82-96). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.
Case, Donald O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs,
and behavior. Amsterdam: Academic.
Chartier, Roger. (1993). Libraries without walls. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.),
Future libraries (pp. 39-52). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Chartier, Roger. (1995). Forms and meanings: Texts, performances, and audiences from codex to
computer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Chatman, Elfreda. (1991). Channels to a larger social world: Older women staying in contact
with the great society. Library & Information Science Research, 13(3), 281-300. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Chatman, Elfreda. (1996). Impoverished life world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 47(3), 193-206. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Chatman, Elfreda A. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 50(3), 207-217. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Chatman, Elfreda. (2000). Framing social life in theory and research. The New Review of
Information Behaviour Research, 1, 3-17.
Cockburn, Cynthia. (1988). Machinery of dominance: Women, men, and technical know-how. Boston:
Northeastern University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
69
Cole, Charles. (1994). Operationalizing the notion of information as a subjective construct.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 465-476. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/10050053
Cole, Charles, & Kuhlthau, Carol. (2000). Information and information seeking of novice expert
lawyers: How experts add value. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 103-115.
Concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. (2000). London: Routledge. Also available at
http://www.netlibrary.com/Details.aspx
Cornelius, Ian. (1996a). Information and interpretation. In Peter Ingwersen & Niels Ole Pors
(Eds.), Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 11-21). From the Second International
Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2). Copenhagen: The
Royal School of Librarianship.
Crane, Gregory. (1991). The authority of an electronic text. Current Anthropology, 32(3), 293-311.
Crawford, Walt, & Gorman, Michael. (1995). Deconstructing dreams of the all-electronic future.
In Future libraries: Dreams, madness & reality (pp. 88-103). Chicago: American Library Association.
Cronin, Blaise. (1982). Invisible colleges and information transfer: A review and commentary
with particular reference to the social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 212-236.
Crowder, Robert G., & Wegner, Richard K. (1992). The psychology of reading: An introduction (2nd
ed.). New York: Oxford University.
Davenport, Thomas H. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowledge
environment. New York: Oxford University.
Day, Ronald E. (2005). Clearing up “implicit knowledge”: Implications for knowledge
management, information science, psychology, and social epistemology. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science & Technology, 56(6), 630-635. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/110432640
Derrida, Jacques. (1995). Archive fever (Eric Prenowitz, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Dervin, Brenda. (1976). The everyday information needs of the average citizen: A taxonomy for
analysis. In M. Rochen & J.C. Donohue (Eds.), Information for the community (pp. 19-38). Chicago:
American Library Association.
Dervin, Brenda. (1977). Useful theory for librarianship: Communication, not information.
Drexel Library Quarterly, 13(3), 16-32.
Dervin, Brenda. (1989). Users as research inventions. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 216-232.
Also available at
http://pcift.chadwyck.com/pcift/search?source=loi.cfg&Action=DisplaySGML&SEARCH=Sear
ch&HISTLOGGING=N&JID=5419
Dick, Archie L. (1999). Epistemological positions and library and information science. Library
Quarterly, 69(3), 305-323. Also available at
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
70
http://weblinks1.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bt+ID++LI
Q+EA6C&_ug=sid+59BCFD4C%2DB5BC%2D4136%2D9AE6%2D6CB28067DC9E%40sessionmgr
2+dbs+aph+4A97&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACBZD00109108+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1
+43AB&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Library++Quarterly%22++and++DT++
19990701+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+hd+False+op%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+9B70
&lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S3
Dick, Archie L. (2002). Social epistemology, information science and ideology. Social
Epistemology, 16(1), 23-35. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
Doty, Philip. (2001b). Policy analysis and networked information: “There are eight million
stories . . . .” In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information
services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 213-253). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Eco, Umberto. (1984). Introduction: The role of the reader. In The role of the reader: Explorations
in the semiotics of texts (pp. 3-43). Bloomington, IN: Bloomington University.
Ehrlich, Thomas. (1995). Research is not a dirty word. In The courage to inquire: Ideals and realities
in higher education (pp. 45-70). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (1988). Curriculum initiatives: An agenda and
strategy for library media programs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (2005). Information literacy for the Information Age
[Big6 skills]. http://www.big6.com
Ellis, David. (1998). Paradigms and research traditions in information retrieval research.
Information Services and Use, 18(4), 225-241. Available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22ISU%22&scope=site
Englebart, Douglas. (1988). A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect. In
Irene Greif (Ed.), Computer-supported cooperative work: A book of readings (pp. 35-65). San Mateo,
CA: Morgan Kaufmann. (Original work published 1963)
Floridi, Luciano. (2005). Is semantic information meaningful data? Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, LXX(2), 351-370. Also available at
http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~floridi/
Foucault, Michel. (1992). Archaeological description. Part IV in The archaeology of knowledge and
The discourse on language (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.) (pp. 133-195). New York: Pantheon
Books. (Original work published 1970)
Foucault, Michel. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York:
Vintage Books. (Original work published 1966)
Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
71
Frohmann, Bernd. (1992). Knowledge and power in library and information science: Toward a
discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint. In Peter Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.),
Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135148). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.
Frohmann, Bernd. (1994). Communication technologies and the politics of postmodern
information science. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 19(2), 1-22.
Galvin, Thomas J. (1984). The significance of information science for the theory and practice of
librarianship. Libri, 34(2), 81-87.
Gardner, Howard. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
books.
Garfinkel, Harold. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garrison, Dee. (1979). Apostles of culture: The public librarian and American society, 1876-1920.
New York: Macmillan.
Geertz, Clifford. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York:
Basic Books.
Gordon, Scott. (1993b). Some features of models. In The history and philosophy of social science (pp.
106-110). London: Routledge. (Original published 1991)
Gordon, Scott. (1993c). [Selection from] The philosophy of science. In The history and philosophy
of social science (pp. 604-624). London: Routledge. (Original published 1991)
Graham, Hugh Davis, & Diamond, Nancy. (1997a). Introduction. In The rise of American research
universities Ethics and challengers in the postwar era (pp. 1-8). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University.
Graham, Hugh Davis, & Diamond, Nancy. (1997b). Origins of the American research university.
In The rise of American research universities Ethics and challengers in the postwar era (pp. 9-25).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Graham, Hugh Davis, & Diamond, Nancy. (1997c). The public research universities. In The rise
of American research universities Ethics and challengers in the postwar era (pp. 174-198). Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University.
Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The strength of loose ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 13601380.
Grunberg, Gérald, & Giffard, Alain. (1993). New orders of knowledge, new technologies of
reading. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 80-93). Berkeley, CA:
University of California.
Hacking, Ian. (1996). Normal people. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (Eds.), Modes of
thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 59-71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
72
Hahn, Trudi Bellardo. (1996). Pioneers of the online age. Information Processing & Management,
32(1), 33-48. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235948%231996%23
999679998%23146315%23FLP%23&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersio
n=0&_userid=108429&md5=3b33d5445cd7ae4c6e0de9b5c9b8b82e
Haraway, Donna. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism
in the 1980s. In Linda J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 190-233). New York:
Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. (1999). Situated knowledge: The science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspective. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 394-406).
New York: Routledge. (Original published 1988)
Harris, Michael. (1973). The purpose of the American public library: Revisionist interpretation
of history. Library Journal, 98(16), 2509-2514.
Harris, Michael H., Hannah, Stan A., & Harris, Pamela C. (1998). Into the future: The foundations
of library and information services in the post-industrial era (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Hauser, L. (1988). A conceptual analysis of information science. Library and Information Science
Research, 10(1), 3-34.
Hayes, Robert M. (1992). Measurement of information. In Peter Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.),
Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 268285). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.
Henderson, Kathryn. (1996). The visual culture of engineers. In Susan Leigh Star (Ed.), The
cultures of computing (pp. 196-218). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hernon, Peter, & Schwartz, Candy. (2002). Editorial: The word “research”: Having to live with
a misunderstanding. Library & Information Science Research, 24(4), 207-208. Available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Hert, Carol A. (2001). User-centered evaluation and connection to design. In Charles R.
McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy,
and issues (pp. 155-173). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Hjørland, Birger. (1998). Theory and metatheory of information science: A new interpretation.
Journal of Documentation, 54(5), 606-621.
Hjørland, Birger. (2000). Information seeking behaviour: What should a general theory look
like? The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 19-33.
Hobart, Michael E., & Schiffman, Zachary S. (1998). Information ages: Literacy, numeracy, and the
computer revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Hofstadter, Richard. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Knopf.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
73
Huotari, Maija-Leena, & Chatman, Elfreda. (2001). Using everyday life information seeking to
explain organizational behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 23(4), 351-366. Available
at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Hutchins, Edwin. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Information. (1966, September). [Special issue]. Scientific American, 215(3).
Israel, Jonathan I. (2001). Libraries and enlightenment. In Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and
the making of modernity 1650-1750 (pp. 119-141). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Jarvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1990). Content analysis of research articles in library and information
science. Library and Information Science Research, 12(4), 395-421. Also available at
Johns, Adrian. (1998). The nature of the book: Print and knowledge in the making. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Johnson, J. David. (1996). Information seeking: An organizational dilemma. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Kahneman, Daniel. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997a). Preparing. In Academic duty (pp. 23-58). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997b). To publish. In Academic duty (pp. 186-209). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997c). To teach. In Academic duty (pp. 59-96). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997d). To tell the truth. In Academic duty (pp. 210-240). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Kenner, Hugh. (1986). Libraries and glowlamps: A strategy of reassurance. Scholarly Publishing,
18(1), 17-22.
Kling, Rob. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The
contribution of social informatics. The Information Society, 16(3), 217-232. Also available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/utis/2000/00000016/00000003;jsessionid=1m0
eji43lawmt.henrietta
Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, Lil. (1993). Critical teaching and the idea of literacy. Portsmouth, NH:
Reed Publishing.
Kramarae, Cheris. (Ed.). (1988). Technology and women's voices: Keeping in touch. New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Krikelas, James. (1983). Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library
Quarterly, 19(11), 5-20.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
74
Kuhlthau, Carol C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s
perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (1999). The role of experience in the information search process of an
early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction, and
sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(5), 399-412. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Kuhlthau, Carol. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd
ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, Carol C., & Vakkari, Pertti. (1999). Information seeking in context (ISIC). Information
Processing & Management, 35(6), 723-725. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Kuhn, Deanna. (1996). Is good thinking scientific thinking? In David R. Olson & Nancy
Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 261-281). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Latour, Bruno. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge
and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (Vol. 6, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Lave, Jean. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Étienne. (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Levy, David M. (2003). Documents and libraries: A sociotechnical perspective. In Ann Peterson
Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in
design and evaluation (pp. 25-42). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2002). Insights into library services and users from qualitative research.
Library & Information Science Research, 24(1), 3-16. Available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Losee, Robert M. (1990a). Information. In The science of information: Measurement and applications
(pp. 1-43). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Losee, Robert M. (1990b). Information retrieval. In The science of information: Measurement and
applications (pp. 195-236). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Losee, Robert M. (1997). A discipline-independent definition of information. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 48(3), 254-269. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Lynch, Clifford. (2003). Colliding with the real world: Heresies and unexplored questions about
audience, economics, and control of digital libraries. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House,
& Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 191218). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
75
Lynch, Mary Dykstra, & Wilson, Thomas D. (1997). The impact of doctoral research in information
science and librarianship. British Library Research and Innovation Centre Report No. 61. Also available
at http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/impact/impact1.html
Machlup, Fritz. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz. (1980). Knowledge and knowledge production. Knowledge, its creation, distribution,
and economic significance (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz. (1982). The branches of learning. Knowledge, its creation, distribution, and economic
significance (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz. (1983). Epilogue: Semantic quirks in studies of information. In Fritz Machlup &
Una Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 641-671). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Machlup, Fritz. (1984). The economics of information and human capital. Knowledge, its creation,
distribution, and economic significance (Vol. 3). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz, & Mansfield, Una. (1983). Prologue: Cultural diversity in studies of information.
In Fritz Machlup & Una Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp.
3-56). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
MacKenzie, Donald. Rotman, Brian. (1999). Nuclear missile testing and the social construction of
accuracy (abridged). In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 342-357). New York:
Routledge. (Original published 1990)
MacMullin, Susan, & Taylor, Robert. (1984). Problem dimensions and information traits. The
Information Society, 3(1), 91-111.
Marchionini, Gary. (1995). Information seekers and electronic environments. In Information
seeking in electronic environments (pp. 11-26). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.
Marchionini, Gary. (1998). Research and development in digital libraries. In Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science (vol. 63, pp. 259-279). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Marien, Michael. (1984). Some questions for the Information Society. The Information Society,
3(2), 181-197. (Original work published 1983)
Marshall, Catherine. (2003). Finding the boundaries of the library without walls. In Ann
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 43-64). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), Pettigrew, Karen E., & Joyce, Steven L. (2001). The origins and
contextual use of theory in human information behaviour research. The New Review of Information
Behavior Research 2001, 2, 47-63.
McNeely, C.V. (1999). Repositioning the Richmond Public Library for the digital age: One
library’s perspective. Library & Information Science Research, 21(3), 391-406.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
76
Mehra, Bharat, Bishop, Ann Peterson, Bazzell, Imani, & Smith, Cynthia. (2002). Scenarios in the
Afya project as a participatory action research (PAR) tool for studying information seeking and
use across the “digital divide.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 53(14), 1259-1266. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=76501873
Mizzaro, Stefano. (1998). Relevance: The whole history. In Trudi Bellardo Hahn & Michael
Buckland (Eds.), Historical studies in information science (pp. 221-244). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.
Molz, Redmond Kathleen, & Dain, Phyllis. (1999). Civic space/Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Morton, Sandy. (1989). The FBI library awareness program: What we know . . . what we do not
know. Information Management Review, 4(3), 53-58.
Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication: Rethinking and renewal. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mosco, Vincent, & Wasco, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Myers, Greg. (1991). Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles. In Charles
Bazerman & James Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary
studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 45-75). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Nagel, Thomas. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University.
Nardi, Bonnie. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Nardi, Bonnie A., O’Day, Vicki L. (1996). Intelligent agents: What we learned at the library.
Libri, 46(2), 59-88.
Nardi, Bonnie A., & O’Day, Vicki L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Nardi, Bonnie, & O’Day, Bonnie. (2003). In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara
P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 161-189).
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Neuliep, J.W. (1996). The study of human communication. In Human communication theory:
Applications and case studies (pp. 1-22). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic.
Nitecki, J.Z. (1993). Metalibrarianship: A model for intellectual foundations of library
information science. Nitecki Trilogy (vol. 1). Available at
http://www.du.edu/LIS/collab/library/niteck
Norman, D.A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
77
Noyes, Janet M., & Baber, Christopher. (1999). User-centered design of systems. London: SpringerVerlag.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1993). The place of books in the age of electronic reproduction. In R.
Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 13-37). Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1996a). Farewell to the Information Age. In Geoffrey Nunberg (Ed.), The
future of the book (pp. 103-133). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Also available
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:y-uqPo1wPSIJ:wwwcsli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/farewell.pdf+farewell+to+the+information+age&hl=en
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (Ed.). (1996b). The future of the book. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1998). Will libraries survive? American Prospect, 41. Available at
http://epn.org/prospect/41/41numb.html
Odi, A. (1982). Creative research and theory building in library and information sciences.
College & Research Libraries, 43(4), 312-319.
O'Donnell, James Joseph. (1998). Avatars of the word: From papyrus to cyberspace. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Olaisen, Johan, Munch-Petersen, Erland, & Wilson, Patrick. (Eds.). (1996). Information science:
From the development of the discipline to social interaction. Boston: Scandinavian University.
Olson, David R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and
reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Ong, Walter J. (1982). Orality & literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.
Paisley, William. (1980). Information work. In Brenda Dervin & Melvin J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress
in communications sciences (Vol. 2, 113-165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Palmer, Carole L. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: Linking library services
to research practices. Library Trends, 45(1), 165-191.
Perry, Ruth. (1993, Spring). Embodied knowledge. Harvard Library Bulletin, 4(1), 57-62.
Pickering, Andrew. (1999). The mangle of practice: Agency and the emergence in the sociology
of science. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 372-392). New York: Routledge.
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Pierce, J. (1972). Communication. Scientific American, 227(3), 31-41.
Poster, Mark. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
78
Quine, William V. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays
(pp. 69-90). New York: Columbia University.
Reeling, Patricia G. (1992). Doctorate recipients in library science: How they compare with
doctorate recipients in other disciplines. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,
33(4), 311-329.
Roszak, Theodore. (1994). The cult of information: A neo-Luddite treatise on high-tech, artificial
intelligence, and the true art of thinking (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Rouse, Joseph. (1999). Understanding scientific practices: Cultural studies of science as a
philosophical program. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 394-406). New York:
Routledge. (Original published 1998)
Rowley, Jennifer. (1998). What is information? Information Services and Use, 18(4), 243-254.
Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22ISU%22&scope=site
Royce, Bert R., Meadow, Charles T., & Kraft, Donald H. (1994). Measurement in information
science. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ryle, Gilbert. (2000). The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Original published
1949)
Savolainen, Reijo. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking
in the context of “way of life.” Library and Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294. Available
at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Scarrott, Gordon G. (1994). Some functions and properties of information. Journal of Information
Science, 20(2), 88-98.
Schamber, Linda, Eisenberg, Michael B., & Nilan, Michael S. (1990). A re-examination of
relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6),
755-776. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Schiller, Dan. (1988). How to think about information. In Vinnie Mosco & Janet Wasco (Eds.),
The political economy of information (pp. 27-43). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Schiller, Herbert I., & Schiller, Anita R. (1988). Libraries, public access, and commerce. In Vinnie
Mosco & Janet Wasco (Eds.), The political economy of information (pp. 146-166). Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Schön, Donald. (1983). From technical rationality to reflection-in-action. In The reflective
practitioner: How professionals think in action (pp. 21-69 and 357-359). New York: Basic Books.
Schön, Donald. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Shapin, Steven. (1999). The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. In Mario
Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 479-504). New York: Routledge. (Original published
1988)
Schuler, Douglas. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. New York: ACM.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
79
Schuler, Douglas, & Namioka, Aki. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practice.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erblaum.
Shannon, Claude E., & Weaver, Warren. (1971). The mathematical theory of communication.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. (Original work published 1949)
Shils, Edward. (1997a). The order of learning in the United States from 1865 to 1920: The
ascendancy of the universities. In The order of learning: Essays on the contemporary university (pp.
1-38). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1978)
Shils, Edward. (1997b). Universities since 1900: A historical perspective. In The order of learning:
Essays on the contemporary university (pp. 39-70). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
(Original work published 1992)
Smith, H.J., & Hasnas, J. (1999). Ethics and information systems: The corporate domain. MIS
Quarterly, 23(1), 109-127.
Smith, J. F., & Kida, T. (1991). Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing.
Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 472-489.
Sokal, Alan. (2005). http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/#papers
Spink, Amanda, & Cole, Charles. (2001). Introduction to the special issue: Everyday life
information-seeking research. Library & Information Science Research, 23(4), 301-304. Available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Star, Susan Leigh. (Ed.). (1995). Ecologies of knowledge. New York: State University of New
York.
Star, Susan Leigh, Bowker, Geoffrey, & Neumann, Laura J. (2003). Transparency beyond the
individual level of scale: Convergence between information artifacts and communities of
practice. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital
library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 241-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Star, S. Leigh, & Griesemer, James R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary
objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.
Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
Star, Susan Leigh, & Strauss, Anselm. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The dialogues
between visible and invisible work. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 9-30.
Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1
Starbuck, W.H., & Milliken, F.J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how
they make sense. In D.C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top
managers (pp. 35-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Subramanyam, K. (1979). Characteristics and structure of scientific literature. In "Scientific
literature." Encyclopedia of library and information science (pp. 391-403). New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
80
Suchman, Lucy. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine
communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Suchman, Lucy. (1996). Supporting articulation work. In Rob Kling (Ed.), Computerization and
controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed., pp. 407-423). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Suchman, Lucy, Blomberg, Jeanette, Orr, Julian E., & Trigg, Randall. (1999). Reconstructing
technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392-408.
Swann, W.B., Jr. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics.
Psychological Review, 91(4), 457-477.
Swanson, Don R. (1988). Historical note: Information retrieval and the future of an illusion.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(2), 92-98. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Taylor, Charles. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College &
Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194.
Taylor, Robert S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Taylor, Robert S. (1991). Information use environments. Progress in Communication Sciences (Vol.
10, pp. 217-255). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thomas, Nancy P., & Nyce, James M. (2001). Context as category: Opportunities for
ethnographic analysis in library and information science research. The New Review of Information
Behavior Research 2001, 2, 105-118.
Toms, E.G., & Kinnucan, M.T. (1996). The effectiveness of the city metaphor for organizing the
menus of Free-Nets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(12), 919-931.
Tuominen, Kimmo, Talja, Sanna, & Savolainen, Reijo. (2002). Discourse, cognition and reality:
Toward a social constructionist metatheory for library and information science. In Bruce, Harry,
Fidel, Raya, Ingwersen, Peter, & Vakkari, Pertti (Eds.), Emerging frameworks and methods:
Proceedings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science
(CoLIS4) (pp. 271-283). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Vakkari, Pertti. (1996). Library and information science: Content and scope. In Johan Olaisen,
Erland Munch-Petersen, & Patrick Wilson (eds.), Information science: From the development of the
discipline to social interaction (pp. 169-231). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Vakkari, Pertti. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating
studies on information seeking and retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 819-837.
Varlejs, J. (Ed.). (1991). Information literacy: Learning how to learn. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
81
Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. In Ann
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 271-296). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Vickery, B.C. (Ed.). (1994). Fifty years of information progress: A Journal of Documentation review.
London: ASLIB.
Weaver, Warren. (1949). The mathematics of communication. Scientific American, 181(1), 11-15.
Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, Karl E., & Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating
on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.
Wenger, Étienne. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Westbrook, Lynn. (1997). Information access issues for interdisciplinary scholars: Results of a
Delphi study on women’s studies research. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(3), 211-216.
Wiegand, Wayne A. (1988). The role of the library in American history. In Filomena Simora
(Ed.), The Bowker annual (pp. 69-76). New York: R.R. Bowker.
Williams, Christine L. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women’s work. Berkeley, CA:
University of California.
Wilson, Patrick. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Wilson, Patrick. (1996). Interdisciplinary research and information overload. Library Trends,
45(2), 192-203.
Wilson, Thomas D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation,
37(1), 3-15.
Wilson, Thomas D. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. In Pertti
Vakkari, Reijo Savolainen & Brenda Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context (pp. 39-52).
London: Graham Taylor.
Wilson, Thomas D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation,
55(3), 249-270.
Wilson, Thomas D., Ford, N.J., Ellis, D., Foster, A.E., & Spink, Amanda. (2000). Uncertainty and
its correlates. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 69-84.
Winograd, Terry, & Flores, Fernando. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new
foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Winterowk, W. Ross. (1989). The culture and politics of literacy. New York: Oxford University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
82
Yakel, Elizabeth. (2000). Thinking inside and outside the boxes: Archival reference services at
the turn of the century. Archivaria, 49, 140-160.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
83
IMPORTANT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANZIATIONS
There are many organizations of special interest to the researchers, faculty members, and
practitioners in our field. This very selective list gives some indications of professional
associations and organizations to consider for membership, and to be aware of when looking
for publication venues, making professional presentations, searching for jobs, expanding
your professional travel, applying for research and other grants, and the like.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) http://www.aaup.org/
American Library Association (ALA) http://www.ala.org/
American Association of School Librarians (AASL)
http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslindex.htm
Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL)
http://www.ala.org/ACRLTemplate.cfm?Section=acrl&Template=/TaggedPage/Tagge
dPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=15&ContentID=7768
Library & Information Technology Association (LITA)
http://www.ala.org/ala/lita/litahome.htm
American Society for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T) http://www.asis.org/
See list of Special Interest Groups (SIGs)
http://www.asis.org/AboutASIS/asis-sigs.html#SIGAH
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
http://www.acm.org/
See list of SIGs http://www.acm.org/sigs/guide98.html
Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) http://www.alise.org/
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) http://www.cni.org/
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.cpsr.org/
Educause http://www.educause.edu/
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) http://www.eff.org/
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) http://www.ieee.org/portal/site
International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) http://www.ifla.org/
Society of American Archivists (SAA) http://www.archivists.org/
Special Libraries Association (SLA) http://www.sla.org/
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
84
Texas Library Association (TLA) http://www.txla.org/
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, July 2005
85