Download the syllabus as a Word document

UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS

INF 382C

Unique Number 27875

Dr. Philip Doty

School of Information

University of Texas at Austin

FA 2008

Telephone:

Internet:

Class URL:

TA:

Class time:

Place:

Office:

Office hrs:

Tuesday 12:00 N – 3:00 PM

SZB 468

SZB 570

Tuesday 10:00 – 11:00 AM

By appointment other times

512.471.3746 – direct line

512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist

512.471.3821 – main iSchool office pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/ http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2008/fall/INF382C/

Sarah Kim srhkim@gmail.com

Office hours TBA

By appointment other times

Copyright Philip Doty August 2008

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the course

Expectations of students’ performance

Standards for written work

Editing conventions

Grading

Texts and other tools

List of assignments

Outline of course

Schedule

Additional sources

Assignments

References

Readings in the class schedule

Selected ARIST chapters 1966-2008

Useful digital sources for evaluating digital information

11

13

9

10

3

4

5

22

26

14

16

3

Copyright Philip Doty August 2008

2

INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

INF 382C, Understanding and Serving Users, is animated by efforts to understand people’s information behavior and practices beyond their role as users of particular information systems.

The course explores how social theory and empirical research help us understand people, their information behavior, and information practices and how we can design information services and systems to greatest effect. These services and systems can range from the paper-based to the digital and from the institutionalized to the less formal. The course is also intended to help prepare students for more advanced study and for more informed evaluation of information services, as students and as practitioners.

To achieve those ends, the course looks at social, humanistic, system design, and other modes of investigation. We look especially at the interactions among interpretation, meaning making, identity, community, practice, narrative, information agencies, information policy, and information technologies.

How these and other material/social conditions interact in complex ways is of special interest to the course, as is how we learn and know as members of communities, in particular, situated circumstances. We will not make the common error of believing that membership in a particular community explains the totality of one’s information behavior or practices. Nor will we equate information behavior and practice with the more limited concept of “information seeking.”

Students in this course will engage the literatures of many fields: information studies, computer science, system design, communication, cognitive psychology, education, sociology, cultural studies, intellectual history, anthropology, philosophy, and organizational studies. Besides considering these perspectives, we will look at three modes of understanding and serving users:

 Empirical studies of users of all kinds; these studies will include the use of human, paperbased, and digital information systems and will be drawn from a wide variety of sources.

 The practice of the information professions, especially the provision of reference services in libraries and archives both in-person and digitally; this set of readings will feature research based in information studies.

 Examining and generating social theory related to understanding people and their use of information; this set of readings will be based on our discipline as well as a wider set of disciplinary perspectives.

These literatures and modes are not mutually exclusive. One of the major goals of the course is an increased awareness of similarities and differences among disciplines interested in information practices and behavior.

Efforts to understand these information practices and behavior have evolved from system-centric to people-centric perspectives, an important step in the maturity of the information disciplines; from an emphasis on scientists and engineers to the study of people more generally, especially the socially marginalized such as women, children, and the poor; from the study of cognition in the early days of the “user turn” to the wider array of behaviors and practices involved with information and communication, especially the material and embodied; from a focus on the atomistic individual to a focus on communities and their mutual negotiation of meaning and creation of information and communication practices; and from a focus on “professional use of information resources” to the study of people’s wider everyday information practice.

We will examine the “user perspective” and use more recent social, community-, and practicebased approaches to knowledge to gain a more holistic understanding of people and information.

Copyright Philip Doty June 2008 3

Structurally, the course comprises three units:

 Unit 1: Understanding information and people’s information behavior/information practices

 Unit 2: Providing information services

 Unit 3: Students’ research.

While all of the topics we address deserve more attention, there are a number that are especially pertinent that we cannot explore in any depth, e.g., browsing, so-called resistance to technology, genre studies, anomalous states of knowledge, problem-solving and bounded rationality (and the weaknesses of problem-based approaches to information behavior), information overload, boundary objects, information and referral services, reading studies, and social informatics.

Students are encouraged to engage these and other topics as their professional goals dictate.

EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

Students are 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. 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 professional persona.

• Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate programs and participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to one’s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

 Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit graduate hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the classroom.

• Participate in all class discussions.

• Complete all assignments on time. Late assignments will not be accepted except in the limited circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result in a failing grade for the course.

• Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve.

• Ask for 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 the instructor limits access to email outside the office. 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; she has access to email more regularly.


Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, is intolerable 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.

The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for 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.


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

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, you will find the following remarks useful. Review these standards both before and after writing.

Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what 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 interrelated and mutually reinforcing.

Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. A vivid example of how this complex process of composition and thought works appears in the unexpurgated version of

Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie (1994, p. 144):

Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort, what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings which thus found words took hold upon him.

We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.

All written work for the class must be word processed and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.

Some 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 impeccable. 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, employers, professional conferences, and the like. You may want to consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.).

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, use a specialized dictionary, e.g., 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 about the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.

Use a standard spell checker when writing, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, particularly personal and place names; omit most technical terms; include few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their” or "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. If you have any questions about these standards, please ask the instructor at any time.


CONTINUED


Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:

• The title of the assignment

• Your name

• The date

• The class number – INF 382C.

Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, the instructor 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 professional written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s

3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 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. 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.

6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipses*. . . .*

10. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts,"

"factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.

11. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.


12. 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

CONTINUED


number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is singular, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent or the pronoun must change in number.

13. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."

14. 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."

15. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.

16. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. "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.

21. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*

22. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.

23. 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.

24. 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

(who?)

(what?)

(when?)


- date viewed

- place to find the source

(when?)

(where? how?).

CONTINUED


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 for more guidance.

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

26. “Citation,” “quotation,” and “reference” are nouns; “cite,” “quote,” and “refer to” are verbs.

27. 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.

28. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source without page numbers, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”

29. To maximize the clarity of your writing, please do not use “as” as a synonym for “because.”

30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."

31.

Many scholars in the social sciences and humanities use the term "issue" in a technical way to identify sources of public controversy or dissensus, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like. Generally avoid using the term.

32. For a number of reasons, do NOT use “debate” or similar locutions to identify public discussions about political and other conflicts. Use of the term implies that there are only two points of view on the conflict, that one side is “correct,” that one side must and will

“win,” and that there are no alternatives to this adversarial approach to disagreement. All these assumptions are highly questionable.

33. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”

34. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.

35. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”

“participants,” and “informants” are preferred and have been for decades.

36. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary. If you must use them, use endnotes rather than footnotes.


SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS

Symbol Meaning

#

AWK

BLOCK number OR insert a space; the context will help you decipher its meaning awkward and usually compromises clarity as well make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with quotations ≥ 4 lines caps

COLLOQ dB

FRAG j

ITAL lc lib'ship capitalize colloquial and to be avoided database sentence fragment; often means that the verb or subject of the sentence is missing italicize journal make into lower case librarianship

Q org, org’l

PL

Q’naire

REF?

RQ sp

SING organization, organizational plural question questionnaire what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer? research question spelling singular w/ w.c.? with word choice?

The instructor also uses check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point. Wavy lines indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.


GRADING

Grades for this class include:

A+

A

A-

B+

B

B-

C+

C

C-

F

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 packet for explanations of this system. Consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate

School Catalogue (e.g., http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01a.grad.html#The-

Nature-and-Purpose-of-Graduate-Work and http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-

09/ch01/ch01b.grad.html#Student-Responsibility) 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.

The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor reserves the grade of A 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.

The instructor uses points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. He uses an arithmetic – not a proportional – algorithm to determine points on any assignment. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is 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.


TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are three required and four recommended texts for this class. Brown & Duguid (2002),

Norman (2002), and Suchman (1987) can be purchased at the Co-op (476.7211). As many of the required and recommended readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL; many of the readings are available online.

The required texts are:

Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (2002). The social life of information (2 nd ed.). Boston:

Harvard Business School.

Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (with a new introduction). New

York: Basic Books.

Suchman, Lucy. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine

communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

The recommended texts are:

Bishop, Ann Peterson, Van House, Nancy A., & Buttenfield, Barbara P. (Eds.). (2003). Digital

library use: Social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of

information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Nunberg, Geoffrey. (Ed.). (1996a). The future of the book. Berkeley, CA: University of

California.

Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-

computer interaction (2 nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

The course Blackboard site, as well as direct email messages, will be used to inform students of changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. All course participants can use both means to communicate with each other, notify the class about interesting events and sources, and the like. The TA will post many, if not all, of the overheads used in class to the appropriate dates in the syllabus online.

While I always have reservations about readings that I assign, I want to mention some particular concerns I have with two of the three required texts for this semester’s course, as well as with one of the recommended texts from which we will read several chapters.

Brown & Duguid’s The Social Life of Information (2002) is a widely cited and influential book, but there are two concepts important to their argument and problematic in the context of this course:

1.

The “content/conduit” distinction – although the authors explicitly discuss this mistaken dualism’s ill effects and how it misleads us, like all English speakers, they allow this metaphor to seep into their analysis. Be aware of its use and sensitive to how it tends to obscure important questions.


2.

On a related note, Brown & Duguid talk about information as if it were exclusively a “thing.”

They talk about how it is “transmitted,” “acquired,” and the like, and they do the same to knowledge. This way of speaking, as we know, is controversial and problematic, especially for those of us who do not limit the concept of information to the mathematical/message context and those who do not support the supposed distinction between information and knowledge. See Buckland (1991) for a contrasting view.

Remember, however, that I think that The Social Life of Information is an excellent book and well worth our attention.

Many people consider Donald Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things (2002), originally published in 1988, as a classic in the study of people and their use of artifacts of all kinds, especially information systems. This book, too, has some important weaknesses that the informed reader, especially one in our discipline, needs to be aware of while still recognizing the book’s strengths and ability to inform our study of people and their information behavior and practices. Among the most important limitations of the book are:

1.

As a cognitive psychologist, Norman, naturally enough, emphasizes cognition and the individual character of knowledge and behavior. As with Brown & Duguid (2002), this perspective is useful but limiting – our understanding of users must go well beyond the cognition, decision-making, and atomism that have characterized too much research into users.

2.

The book, like many others including The Social Life of Information, adopts the pernicious content/conduit distinction that too narrowly confines the concepts of information and knowledge, talking, for example, about knowledge “in the mind” and “in the world” and as if knowledge and information were reified. Recall the contested and limited nature of such a belief.

3.

His view of language, models, and “correspondence” are also deeply contested and a rather limited view of how human beings experience and create their worlds.

While I have many other concerns about this book, it is valuable to read closely and be familiar with.

Finally, I would like to mention a few of the reservations I have about Sharp, Rogers, & Preece

(2007). The second edition of their book, Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction has a great deal to recommend it; that’s why we’re reading several chapters from it, especially to help you prepare for the final assignment of the course. At the same time, however, it has some consistent linguistic and conceptual difficulties, some of which I would like to point out to you:

1.

Like many works in English, especially those in technical and scientific fields (including our own), this book exhibits a systematic use of agglutination, stringing together many nouns, often at the expense of clarity or meaning. All Germanic languages have similar tendencies, but phrases like “user test index determination” and “system design methodology limitations” are not only ugly but are often indecipherable.

2.

They sometimes speak of requirements as if they were things in and of themselves. As they discuss, this perspective is highly contested even among software developers and other designers.


3.

They tend to use terms like “user research,” “user habits,” and “user experience.” Besides being rather vapid marketing speech, these phrases might be more usefully expressed as

“research about users,” “users’ habits,” and “the experiences that users have.” While the shorter phrases are just that (short), they tend to obscure that we are talking about people and what we observe empirically and theorize about them – not these things called “users.”

While some readers may not be concerned with what they regard as simple stylistic differences, other readers are not so sanguine about the use of words.

So be an engaged, but skeptical reader, a reader concerned with clarity and ease of expression, not a simple “consumer” of techno-speak and the worst of marketing blather. I will read your papers with a similarly critical eye.


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. GRP indicates a group assignment.

Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade

----- 10% Preparation and participation

Formation of groups

Paper on models of information behavior (5 pp.)

Choice of user group GRP

SEP 9

SEP 23

SEP 23

---

15

---

SEP 30 --- IRB ethical training

(1987) (5 pp.)

Paper on Brown & Duguid (2002) and Suchman

Abstract of TX Legacy Web site or Wiki (2 pp.) GRP

TX Legacy video annotation

GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.)

Annotated bibliography GRP

TX Legacy Web site or Wiki GRP

Presentation on user group and TX Legacy

Web site or Wiki GRP

Research proposal (5-7 pp.) GRP

OCT 14

OCT 21

OCT 28

OCT 28

NOV 11

NOV 18

NOV 18

DEC 2

20

---

10

5

10

20

---

10

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 be accepted only if:

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.


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.


5

Meeting Date

1 Sep 2

OUTLINE OF COURSE

TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Unit 1: Understanding information and people’s information behavior and practices

Introduction to the course

Review of the syllabus

Introduction to the history of user studies (1): Scientists and engineers

2 Sep 9 History of user studies (2): Beyond professional work to ordinary people and ordinary tasks

“Information literacy” and introduction to interaction design

• DUE: Formation of groups – GRP

3 Sep 16 Exploring the concept of information (1): Cognition, mentalist metaphors, and the “content/conduit” distinction

4 Sep 23 Introduction to the Texas Legacy Project

Quinn Stewart – using GLIFOS to support the Texas Legacy Project

• DUE: Paper on models of information behavior (5 pp.) (15%)

• DUE: Choice of user group – GRP

Sep 30 Exploring the concept of information (2): Materialist and practice- oriented views and critiquing the “content/conduit” distinction

Communities of practice

• DUE: Institutional review board (IRB) training

6 Oct 7 More on interaction

GUEST – introduction to information retrieval and relevance

7 Oct 14 Designing for error and affect

Introduction to interfaces

• DUE: Paper on Brown & Duguid (2002) and Suchman (1987) (5 pp.)

(20%)


8 Oct 21 More on interfaces

• DUE: Abstract of TX Legacy Web site or Wiki (2 pp.) – GRP


9 Oct 28 Prototyping

• DUE: TX Legacy video annotation (10%)

• DUE: GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.) (5%)

13

14

Unit 2: Providing information services

10 Nov 4 The information intermediary

Public information services

11 Nov 11 What is censorship?

Policy analysis and Internet filters

Invisible and articulation work

• DUE: Annotated bibliography (10%) – GRP

Unit 3: Students’ research

12 Nov 18 Narrative

What are documents?

• DUE: TX Legacy Project Web site OR Wiki (20%) – GRP

• DUE: Presentation on user group and TX Legacy Web site OR Wiki

– GRP

Nov 25 Indexicality, interpretation, and beyond the “view from nowhere”

Dec 2 Course evaluation

Summary discussion

• DUE: Research proposal (5-7 pp.)(5%) – GRP


SCHEDULE

DATE TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Unit 1: Understanding information and people’s information behavior and practices

Sep 2 Introduction to the course

Review of the syllabus

Introduction to the history of user studies (1): Scientists and engineers

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), Preface, Acknowledgements, Introduction, and

Chapters 1 and 6

Borgman (2007b) CD

Dervin & Nilan (1986) CD

AS: Delamont & Atkinson (2001) online

Garvey (1979)

Israel (2001)

Maher (1986)

Subramanyam (1979)

Tenopir et al. (2005)

Turnbaugh (1986)

Sep 9 History of user studies (2): Beyond professional work to ordinary people and ordinary tasks

“Information literacy” and introduction to interaction design

READ: Norman (2002), Prefaces to 2002 and 1988 editions, Chapters 1 and 2

Sharp et al. (2007), Foreword, Preface, and Chapter 1 CD

Eisenberg & Berkowitz (2008) online

Bates (2005a) CD

Kuhlthau (2005) CD

Lowe & Eisenberg (2005) CD

AS: Bishop et al. (2001)

Barton & Hamilton (1998a)

Borgman et al. (1995) online

Cooper (2002a)

Eisenberg & Spitzer (1991)

Fidel et al. (1999) online

Marcum (2002) online

Large (2004)

Large et al. (2002) online

Walter (1994)

• DUE: Formation of groups – GRP


Sep 16

Sep 23

Exploring the concept of information (1): Cognition, mentalist metaphors, and the “content/conduit” distinction

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 2 and 3

Norman (2002), 3 and 4

Wilson (2000) online

Bates (2005b) CD

Belkin (2005) CD

MacMullin & Taylor (1984) CD

Reddy (1993) CD

Weaver (1949) CD

AS: Cole (1994)

Cornelius (2002)

Losee (1990a)

Losee (1997)

Scarrott (1994)

David Todd and Quinn Stewart – introduction to the Texas Legacy Project

Quinn Stewart – using GlifosMedia to support the Texas Legacy Project

AS: Daft & Weick (1984)

Davenport & Hall (2002)

Dervin (1976)

Gardner (1983)

Granovetter (1973)

Lave (1988) passim

Lave & Wenger (1992) passim

Wenger (1998) passim

• DUE: Paper on models of information behavior (5 pp.) (15%)

• DUE: Choice of user group – GRP


Sep 30

Oct 7

Oct 14

Copyright Philip Doty June 2008

Exploring the concept of information (2): Materialist and practice- oriented views and critiquing the “content/conduit” distinction

Communities of practice


Norman (2002), 6 and 7

Brown & Duguid (1991) online

Nunberg (1996b) online

Widén-Wulff & Ginman (2004) online

Davies (2005) CD

Hersberger (2005) CD

Nahl (2007) CD

Star et al. (2003) CD

Schiller (1988) CD

Tidline (2005) CD

AS: Bates (1989)

Belkin, Oddy, & Brooks (1982 a and b)

Case (2002) passim especially 6

Enser (2008)

Harter & Hert (1997)

Kuhlthau (1993a)

Ruthven (2008)

Schamber (1994)

Swanson (1988)

Vakkari & Sormunen (2004) online

• DUE: Institutional review board (IRB) training

More on interaction

GUEST – introduction to information retrieval and relevance

READ: Sharp et al. (2007), 3 CD

Suchman (1987), Preface, Acknowledgements, and Chapters 1-3

Barry & Schamber (1998) online

Choi & Rasmussen (2003) online

Kuhlthau (1991) online

AS: Sharp et al. (2007), 2

Designing for error and affect

Introduction to interfaces

GUEST Luis Francisco-Revilla – introduction to interfaces

READ: Sharp et al. (2007), 5 and 6 (pp. 219-251) CD

Suchman (1987), 4 and 5

Norman (2002), 5

Parker & Berryman (2007) CD

25

AS: Sharp et al. (2007), 4

• DUE: Paper on Brown & Duguid (2002) and Suchman (1987) (5 pp.)

(20%)


Oct 21 More on interfaces

READ: Sharp et al. (2007), 6 (pp. 251-285) and 9 (pp. 412-444 and 464-470) CD

Suchman (1987), 6-8

• DUE: Abstract of TX Legacy Web site or Wiki (2 pp.) – GRP

Oct 28 Prototyping

READ: Sharp et al. (2007), 11 CD

AS: Sharp et al. (2007), 12, 13, and 14

• DUE: TX Legacy video annotation (10%)

• DUE: GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.) (5%)

Unit 2: Providing information services

Nov 4 The information intermediary

Public information services

PANEL DISCUSSION

READ: Abbott (1998) online

Ehrlich & Cash (1999) online

Nardi & O’Day (2003) CD

Taylor (1968) CD

Yakel (2000) CD

AS: Abbott (1988)

Duff & Johnson (2002) online

Edwards (2005) CD

Marshall (2003)

Nunberg (1998) online

Ortega y Gassett (1975)

Palmquist (2005) CD

Schön (1983)

Taylor (1986a)

Taylor (1986b)

Tissing (1984)


Nov 11 What is censorship?

Policy analysis and Internet filters

Invisible and articulation work

READ: American Library Association (2004) online

Asheim (1953) CD

Asheim (1983) CD

Curry Jansen (1991) CD

Nardi & Engeström (1999) online

Star & Strauss (1999) online

Suchman (1996)

U.S. v. ALA (2003) on Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) online

[the plurality opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by

Kennedy and Breyer, and the two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter]

AS: Heins et al. (2006) online

Hilden (2003)

Janes (2001)

Janes (2002) online

Nardi & O’Day (1999), 7 (“Librarians: A Keystone Species,” pp. 79-104)

Preer (1994)

Tucker (1981)

Wasik (2005)

White (2001) online

• DUE: Annotated bibliography (10%) – GRP

Unit 3: Students’ research

Nov 18 Narrative

What are documents?


Bishop (1999) online

Buckland (1997) online

Borgman (2007a) CD

Levy (2003) CD

McKechnie et al. (2007) CD

AS: Andersen (2008)

Borges (1964)

Crane (1991)

Eco (1984)

Geertz (1983) CD

Leckie (2005) CD

• DUE: TX Legacy Project Web site OR Wiki (20%) – GRP


• DUE: Presentation on user group and TX Legacy Web site OR Wiki – GRP


Nov 25

Dec 2

Indexicality, interpretation, and beyond the “view from nowhere”

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), Afterword

Cornelius (1996a) CD

Long (1993) CD

AS: Augst (2001)

Augst & Wiegand (2001)

Nagel (1986)

Toms & Duff (2002) online

Wiegand (2003)

Course evaluation

Summary discussion

• DUE: Research proposal (5-7 pp.)(5%) – GRP


ASSIGNMENTS

Paper on models of information behavior – Due September 23, 2008 (15%)

Each student in the class will do a close, holistic analysis of at least two of the information behavior models we have examined in our readings and/or discussed in class. Please address the following questions in your analysis:

1.

What is your overall assessment of the authors’ models? (1 p.)

2.

What are the most important strengths and weaknesses of these models? How do they compare? (2-3 pp.)

3.

In your opinion, what are most important elements missing from the models? Why? (1-2 pp.)

Each student will produce an essay five (5) double-spaced pages long in response to these questions. Please be sure to be as specific as possible in addressing them. As usual, consult the standards for written work both before and after writing your paper.

Paper on Brown & Duguid (2002) and Suchman (1987) – Due October 14, 2008 (20%)

The goal of this assignment is to allow you to integrate our study of Brown & Duguid’s The Social

Life of Information (2002) and Lucy Suchman’s Plans and Situated Actions (1987) with each other and with other concepts in the course.

In a paper five (5) double-spaced pp. long:

1.

Identify one important concept for understanding and serving users that appears in both The

Social Life of Information and Plans and Situated Actions.

2.

How do the two books differ and/or resemble each other in their discussion of this concept?

3.

How can this concept and the two books’ discussion of it help you to understand and serve users?

Be sure to be specific, explicit, and clear (especially in your discussion of question #3), grounding your argument in the two texts and any other sources you consider appropriate. A simple catalogue or recitation of what the books say is inadequate – I’ve read them – what do you think?

Be analytic, holistic, and reflective.

Be certain to adhere to the usual standards for written work. The paper is due in class on October

14.

Texas Legacy video project – Due various dates

The Texas Legacy Project involves a series of interviews with important figures in politics, natural resource management, environmental activism, and environmental protection in Texas over the past several decades. In order to bring the various elements of the course together, students will work individually and in groups using various interviews in the Texas Legacy

Project.


• Individual TX Legacy video annotation – due October 28, 2008 (10%)

The first part of this assignment will be done individually. Each student will be assigned one TX

Legacy video interview that has not yet been annotated. Then, using GlifosMedia and Google

Earth as demonstrated in class and in the online tutorials, each student will complete three annotation tasks:

1.

Create and synchronize a table of contents (ToC) for the interview based upon the existing interview log, using GlifosMedia Creator.

2.

Synchronize the pre-existing interview transcript with the video using GlifosMedia Creator.

3.

Using Google Earth, create appropriate links from the interview to some large or small areas on earth.

Quinn Stewart has created online tutorials that will walk students through each phase of this assignment. While the tutorials can be used remotely, the annotations themselves must be done on Windows or Mac computers (running Windows) in the iSchool IT Lab, SZB 451 (see http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/technology/about/facilities.php) for lab hours. The IT Lab also provides laptops with the appropriate software installed that students can check out. These include both Windows and Mac laptops (running Windows) that can be used to complete this assignment.

The video annotation assignment will be completed by October 27, 2008, and students will upload their files to an iSchool directory. The instructor will provide more information about the directory as the semester progresses.

• GlifosMedia design diary – October 28, 2008 (3 double-spaced pp., 5%) – IND

Each student will write an informal but clear reflective essay about annotating a Texas Legacy

Project video. What was the process like? What worked easily and clearly? What did not? How did you overcome any difficulties encountered in the assignment? How might each student or team do things differently if given the opportunity? We are particularly interested in how useful students found the online tutorials. Were they useful? How? How, specifically, might they be improved to help students complete the assignments? Each student should feel free to address any other concerns that s/he found important in the annotation.

Please write three (3) double-spaced pp. addressing these questions and any others you find engaging about the assignments and the use of GlifosMedia. Please be clear, explicit, and succinct – recall that you have only three pages. Hand in a hard copy of this assignment in class on Tuesday, October 28.

• Adding value to TX Legacy videos for particular user groups – due various dates GRP

This multi-part element of the assignment will be done in groups. The class will self-select into teams of five students each, or four if the number of students is not divisible by five. In order to make the Texas Legacy Project material as valuable as possible to the members of the chosen user community, students will create a new thematic compilation of three or more interviews.

Focusing on a specific user group, the teams will provide links to other material, e.g., online reference materials such as specialized dictionaries, encyclopedias, and thesauri; databases of environmental and weather data; geographic information systems (GIS); specific archival collections and archival finding aids; biographical material about the speaker and persons related to the interview; syllabi of high school-level courses in ecology; publications of professional


associations of environmental engineers; state and federal governmental analyses of watersheds; timber estimates; and so on. The possibilities are many, limited only by the team’s collective imagination, the three (or more) interviews the team chooses to compile, and the team’s particular user group.

Each team’s collection must use Google Earth to provide appropriate links to specific geographic points on earth related to the collection’s interviews.

Since each team will design a sub-collection of the Texas Legacy video collection for a user community using GlifosMedia and Google Earth, student teams will choose one of the communities from the list below or provide some alternative that the instructor approves. No more than one team may choose any particular user community.


Agricultural field agents

Archaeologists

Architects

Art historians

Chemists

Civil engineers

Economists

Hang gliding enthusiasts

Electrical engineers

Environmental engineers

Environmental research centers

Geoscientists

Gerontologists

Managers in not-for-profit enterprises

Mechanical engineers

Middle school science teachers

Military field commanders

Nurses

Performance artists

Persons with “disabilities”

Physicians

Public safety specialists

Public utility regulators

Real estate professionals

Skilled crafts persons, e.g.,

High school art teachers

Hydrologists

K-8 geography teachers

Literary scholars

Managers in for-profit enterprises electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics, assembly line workers

(choose one group)

Soil scientists

Undergraduate engineering educators

Community of users – Due September 23 – GRP. Each team will select the proposed community of users and notify the instructor of the choice by September 23. Since the choices will be strictly first come, first served, the sooner you tell the instructor which communities you are interested in the better.

IRB ethical training – Due September 30 – IND. Each individual student will complete the five-part Human Participant Training provided by the UT Office of Research Compliance and

Support (http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humansubjects/training/index.html). The instructor will provide further information about documenting the completion of this training.

Abstract of TX Legacy Web site or Wiki – Due October 21 (two double-spaced pp.) –

GRP. Each team will provide a full abstract of their final Web site or Wiki with at least these elements: the specific user group for which the team is designing its collection, the thematic compilation the team will be creating, and the ways that the team will add value to the interviews, i.e., to what other resources will the collection link? Since this abstract must be two

(2) double-spaced pp. long, be specific in identifying the external sources that the collection will link to and make it plain how they supplement the online interview(s) from the Texas Legacy

Project. Be sure that the title page identifies all of the team members as well as the user group the team aims to serve.

Turn a hard copy of this abstract in class and post a copy to the appropriate Blackboard forum by

9:00 AM, Tuesday, October 21.

Annotated bibliography – Due November 11 (10%) – GRP

Each team of students will produce an annotated bibliography of no more than twenty (20) items we have not read in class but are related to the user community in question and its information behavior. Include the twenty items you consider most valuable to understanding this community. This bibliography should be distributed in print form in class, including two (2) copies for the instructor, and should have annotations that:


1.

Explain specifically how the resource is of value to understanding the information behavior of the user community and its identity as a community of practice.

2.

Clarify specifically how this source helped you design your Texas Legacy Web site or Wiki.

3.

Are two to three sentences long.

Texas Legacy Project Web site or Wiki – Due November 18 (20%) – GRP

Each student group will create a Web site or Wiki that presents their compilation of three or more

Texas Legacy Project videos that the group has identified as well as links to the external sources that the group regards as particularly valuable to support their target user group’s use of the video compilation. This site can be a “traditional” Web site, or it can be designed as a Wiki; in either case, the site will be available on a public Web site hosted by the iSchool and may be further connected to the Texas Legacy Project main Web site. The instructor will provide further and more specific instructions about this final phase of the assignment as the semester proceeds.

Presentation on Texas Legacy Web site or Wiki – Due November 18 – GRP

Each team will make an in-class presentation no more than 20 minutes long about their Texas

Legacy Project Web site or Wiki. Each student will do roughly 4-5 minutes of the presentation, and the team should clearly identify the interview(s) used, the intended user group, the external sources and other material linked to the interviews, important sources about that user group’s information behavior, and the like. All members of the team will earn the same grade for the presentation. Students should plan to use visuals, e.g., PowerPoint, and handouts as appropriate.

The classroom is equipped with Mac and Windows computers, an Internet connection, and projector.

In your presentation, please be sure to consider the following questions and concerns:

1.

What are the most important elements of the community’s information behavior and practice? How do you know?

2.

What are the noteworthy ways in which this community is like and unlike others in its information behavior and practice?

3.

How can you characterize this group as a community of practice? Rely on sources from earlier classes on communities of practice and focus on the group’s information behavior.

4.

How have the things we have read and discussed as a class helped you understand this particular user community and its similarities and dissimilarities when compared to others?

5.

How does your Texas Legacy video compilation use what we know about this group and its information practices and behaviors?

6.

Be sure to discuss at least some of the sources noted in your annotated bibliography in your presentation.

Post the full presentation and annotated bibliography in the appropriate forum in blackboard.

Make the presentation and annotated bibliography available at a public URL and notify the class of the URL in your class handouts and in the appropriate blackboard forum.

Research proposal – Due December 2 (5-7 double-spaced pp., 5%) – GRP

How would you determine if the intended user group would find your TX Legacy Project Web site or Wiki valuable? For example, how usable is the site or Wiki? How would you determine if it is? Are the resources at the site ones that the user group would use to achieve its goals? Are

Copyright Philip Doty August 2008 35

the user group’s members’ computers sufficiently powerful to run the software necessary for the linked applications? And so on.

Each team will consider how to address the question of value through the eyes of the intended user group by conceptualizing a short, empirical study of the use of the Texas Legacy collection by those intended users. This proposal describing the study should be five to seven (5-7) doublespaced pp. long and must be handed in in class on Tuesday, December 2.

What specific empirical data collection activities would you use to determine the collection’s value? How would you analyze the data collected using those data collection methods? How would such analysis help you determine the value of the Web site or Wiki? Be as specific as possible in answering these questions.


REFERENCES

Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of the course readings are in the Course Documents section of the Blackboard site ( CD ).

Some of the readings, on the other hand, require you to be logged in with your UT EID through the

UT libraries. Those journals are usually available online 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. Feel free to explore the various online journal packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.

I. Readings in the class schedule

Abbott, Andrew. (1998). Professionalism and the future of librarianship. Library Trends, 46(3),

430-443. Also available at http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/556/943/84829109w3/purl=rc11_EAIM_0__sn+0

024-2594+&dyn=75!cnb_281_300?sw_aep=txshracd2598

American Library Association. (2004). CIPA. http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.htm

Asheim, Lester. (1953). Not censorship but selection. Wilson Library Bulletin, 28(1), 63-67. CD

Asheim, Lester. (1983). Selection and censorship: A reappraisal. Wilson Library Bulletin, 58(3),

180-184. CD

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

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.

CD

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. CD

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. CD

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, Van House, Nancy A., & Buttenfield, Barbara P. (Eds.). (2003). Digital

library use: Social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.


Borgman, Christine. (2007a). Building an infrastructure for information. In Scholarship in the

digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet (pp. 149-177). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

CD

Borgman, Christine. (2007b). Disciplines, documents, and data. In Scholarship in the digital age:

Information, infrastructure, and the Internet (pp. 179-226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD

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. (2002). The social life of information (2 nd ed.). Boston:

Harvard Business School.

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

Choi, Youngok, & Rasmussen, Edie M. (2003). Searching for images: The analysis of users' queries for image retrieval in American history. Journal of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology, 54 (6), 498-511. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/103520066/PDFSTART

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. CD

Curry Jansen, Sue. (1991). The imprimatur of power. In Censorship: The knot that binds power and

knowledge (pp. 181-191 and 246-248). New York: Oxford University. CD

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. CD

Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams

(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 3-33). Medford, NJ: Learned

Information. CD

Edwards, Philip M. (2005). Taylor’s question-negotiation. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &



Ehrlich, Kate, & Cash, Debra. (1999). The invisible world of intermediaries: A cautionary tale.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 147-167. Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1

Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (2008). Information & technology skills for student

achievement [the Big6]. http://www.big6.com


Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of

information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Geertz, Clifford. (1983). The way we think now: Toward an ethnography of modern thought. In

Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (pp. 147-163). New York: Basic Books.

(Original work published 1982) CD

Hersberger, Julie. (2005). Chatman’s information poverty. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &



Janes, Joseph. (2002). Digital reference: Reference librarians’ experiences and attitudes. Journal

of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(7), 549-566. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

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. CD

Leckie, Gloria J. (2005). General model of the information seeking of professionals. In Karen

Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 158-

1644). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

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.

Long, Elizabeth. (1993). Textual interpretation as collective action. In Jonathan Boyarin (Ed.),

The ethnography of reading (pp. 180-211). Berkeley, CA: University of California. CD

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. 63-

68). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

MacMullin, Susan, & Taylor, Robert. (1984). Problem dimensions and information traits. The

Information Society, 3(1), 91-111. CD

McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), Ross, Catherine Sheldrick, & Rothbauer, Paulette. (2007). Affective dimensions of information seeking in the context of reading. In Diane Nahl & Dania Bilal (Eds.),

Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory

(pp. 187-195). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Nahl, Diane. (2007). The centrality of the affective in information behavior. In Diane Nahl &

Dania Bilal (Eds.), Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior

research and theory (pp. 3-37). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD


Nardi, Bonnie, & Engeström, Yrjö. (1999). A web on the wind: The structure of invisible work.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 1-8. Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1

Nardi, Bonnie, & O’Day, Bonnie. (2003). An ecological perspective on digital libraries. In Ann

Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social

practice in design and evaluation (pp. 65-83). Cambridge, MA: MIT. CD

Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (with a new introduction). New York:

Basic Books.

Nunberg, Geoffrey. (Ed.). (1996a). The future of the book. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1996b). 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

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. CD

Parker, Nicola, & Berryman, Jennifer. (2007). The role of affect in judging “what is enough.” In

Diane Nahl & Dania Bilal (Eds.), Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in

information behavior research and theory (pp. 85-95). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

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. CD

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. CD

Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer

interaction (2 nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

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.

Suchman, Lucy. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine

communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College &

Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194. CD

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.

CD

United States et al. v. ALA et al. [Children’s Internet Protection Act case] 539 U.S. 194 (2003)


[read the plurality opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter] Available at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZS.html and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-

361

Weaver, Warren. (1949). The mathematics of communication. Scientific American, 181(1), 11-15.

CD

Widén-Wulff, Gunilla, & Ginman, Mariam. (2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 448-

458. Also available at http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol30/issue5/

Wilson, Thomas D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-56. Also available at http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:0tGFx42BMTkJ:inform.nu/Articles/Vol3/v3n2p49-

56.pdf+human+information+behavior+wilson&hl=en

Yakel, Elizabeth. (2000). Thinking inside and outside the boxes: Archival reference services at the turn of the century. Archivaria, 49, 140-160. CD


II. Selected ARIST chapters 1966 - 2008

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.

Andersen, Jack. (2008). The concept of genre in information studies. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),

Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 339-367). Medford, NJ:

Information Today.

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.

Bearman, David. (2007). Digital libraries. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information

science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 223-272). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Data mining. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science

and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 265-310). 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.

Black, Alistair. (2006). Information history. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information


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


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,


Burke, Colin. (2007). History of information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of

information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 3-53). 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


Capurro, Rafael, & Hjørland, Birger. (2002). The concept of information. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


Information Today.

Case, Donald. (2006). Information seeking. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information


Chang, Shan-Ju, & Rice, Ronald E. (1993). Browsing: A multidimensional framework. In Martha


NJ: Learned Information.

Chen, Hsinchen, & Xu, Jie. (2006). Intelligence and security informatics. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


Information Today.

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.

Courtright, Christina. (2007). Context in information behavior research. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


Information Today.

Cornelius, Ian. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


Information Today.

Crane, Diana. (1971). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of


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


Information Today.

Davies, Philip H.J. (2002). Intelligence, information technology, and information warfare. In

Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 313-352).



Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams


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).


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).


Enser, Peter G.B. (2008). Visual image retrieval. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of


Fallis, Don. (2006). Social epistemology and information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual

review of information science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 475-519). Medford, NJ: Information

Today.

Ford, Nigel. (2008). Educational informatics. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information


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.

Haythornthwaite, Caroline, & Hagar, Christine. (2004). The social worlds of the Web. Blaise



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.

Houston, Ronald D., & Harmon, Glynn. (2007). Vannevar Bush and Memex. In Blaise Cronin


Information Today.


Jones, William. (2007). Personal information management. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review

of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 453-504). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Large, Andrew. (2004). Children, teenagers, and the Web. Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of


Legg, Catherine. (2007). Ontologies on the semantic Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review


Lievrouw, Leah A., & Farb, Sharon E. (2002). Information and equity. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


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


Marchionini, Gary, & Komlodi, Anita. (1998). Design of interfaces for information seeking. In



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.

Palmer, Carole L., & Cragin, Melissa H. (2008). Scholarship and disciplinary practices. In Blaise



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.


Rieh, Soo Young, & Danielson, David R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In

Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 307-364).



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.

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.

Ruthven, Ian. (2008). Interactive information retrieval. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of


Sawhney, Harmeet, & Jayakar, Krishna P. (2007). Universal access. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


Information Today.

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. 427-

466). 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.),


Information Today.

Solomon, Paul. (2002). Discovering information in context. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review


Sonnenwald, Diane H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of


Spink, Amanda, & Losee, Robert M. (1996). Feedback in information retrieval. In Martha



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.


Tibbo, Helen R. (1991). Information systems, services, and technology for the humanities. In


Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Vakkari, Pertti. (2002). Task-based information searching. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review



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


NJ: Learned Information.

Yang, Kiduk. (2004). Information retrieval on the Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of


III. Useful digital sources for evaluating digital information

Ciolek, T. Matthew. (2006). Information quality WWW virtual library. http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVL-InfoQuality.html

Fitzgerald, Mary Ann. (1999). Evaluating information: An information literacy challenge. http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/vol2/evaluating.html

Grassian, Esther. (2006). Thinking critically about World Wide Web resources. http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/help/critical/index.htm

Grassian, Esther. (2006b). Thinking critically about discipline-based World Wide Web resources. http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/help/critical/discipline.htm

Smith, Alastair G. (1997). Testing the surf: Criteria for evaluating Internet information resources.

The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 8(3). http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v8/n3/smit8n3.html

Smith, Alastair G. (2006). Evaluation of information sources. http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/evaln.htm

Student learning in an Information Age bibliography. (1999). Conference within a Conference, ACRL

9th National Conference, April 8-11, 1999. http://www.ala.org/acrl/biblio.html

IV. Additional sources

Abbott, Andrew. (1988). The information professions. Notes and References. In The system of

professions: An essay on the division of expert labor (pp. 215-246, 367-373, and 389-421). Chicago:

University of Chicago.

Agada, John. (1999). Inner-city gatekeepers: An exploratory survey of their information use environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 74-85. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981


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. (2003). Information and institutional change: The case of digital libraries. In Ann


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 Man-

Machine 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. (2001). Introduction: American libraries as agencies of culture. American

Studies, 42(3), 5-22.

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).

Autrey, Pamela Sanders. (1980). Using information skills. In Betty-Carol Sellen (Ed.), What else

you can do with a library degree (pp. 10-16). Syracuse, NY: Gaylord Professional Publications.

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

Barlow, J.P. (1995, March/April). Is there a there in cyberspace? Utne Reader, 68, 52-56. Also available http://www.eff.org/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/utne_community.html

Barton, Daniel, & Hamilton, Mary. (1998a). Understanding literacy as social practice. In Local

literacies (pp. 3-22). London: Routledge.

Barton, Daniel, & Hamilton, Mary. (1998b). Becoming expert: Literacy and sense making. In

Local literacies (pp. 231-246). London: Routledge.

Barton, Daniel, & Hamilton, Mary. (1998c). Vernacular literacies. In Local literacies (pp. 247-262).

London: Routledge.

Barzun, Jacques, & Graff, Henry F. (1992). The modern researcher (5 th ed.). Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.


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.

Bates, Marcia J. (1994). The design of databases and other information resources for humanities scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 4. Online & CD-ROM Review, 18(6), 331-

340.

Bates, Marcia J. (1999). 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, Mary Ellen. (1998). Finding the question behind the question. Information Outlook, 2(7),

19-21. http://www.sla.org/pubs/serial/io/1998/jul98/bates.html

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.

Bawden, David, & Robinson, Kay. (1997). Information behavior in nursing specialties. Journal of

Information Sciences, 23(6), 407-421.

Bawden, David, & Robinson, Lyn. (2002). Promoting literacy in a digital age: Approaches to training for information literacy. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 297-301.

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.

Benko, R.P. (1987). Economic theory and intellectual property rights. In Protecting intellectual

property rights (pp. 15-25). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy

Research.

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.

Beyer, Hugh, & Holtzblatt, Karen. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems.

San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.


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.

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.

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. (1994). The role of computer networks in aerospace engineering. Library Trends,

42(4), 624-729. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

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

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


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. (2003). Designing digital libraries for usability. In Ann Peterson Bishop,

Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and

evaluation (pp. 85-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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.

Branscomb, Anne Wells. (1994). Who owns information?: From privacy to public access. s.l.: Basic

Books.


Brittain, J.M. (1982). Pitfalls of user research, and some neglected areas. Social Science Information

Studies, 2, 139-148.

Britz, Johannes J. (2004). To know or not to know: A moral reflection on information poverty.

Journal of Information Science, 30(3), 192-204. Also available at http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/30/3/192

Bruce, Bertram C. [Chip]. (1997). The relational approach: A new model for information literacy. New Review of Information and Library Research, 3(???), 1-22.

Bruce, Bertram C. [Chip]. (1999). Workplace experiences of information literacy. International

Journal of Information Management, 19(1), 33-47.

Bruce, Bertram C. [Chip]. (2000). Credibility of the Web: Why we need dialectical reading.

Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(1), 97-109. Also available http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/%7Echip/pubs/credibility.shtml

Bruner, Jerome. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Brusilovsky, Peter, Kobsa, Alfred, & Nejdl, Wolfgang. (Eds.). (2007). The adaptive Web: Methods

and strategies for Web personalization. Berlin: Springer.

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

Bush, Vannevar. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108. Also available http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm

Busha, Charles H., & Wedgeworth, Robert. (1993). Censorship and intellectual freedom. In

Robert Wedgeworth (Ed.), World encyclopedia of library and information services (3rd ed.) (pp. 182-

185). Chicago: American Library Association.

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.

Carvin, Andy. (2000). More than just access: Fitting literacy and content [sic] into the digital divide equation. Educause Review, 35(6), 29-36. Also available http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0063.pdf

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

Choo, Chun Wei, Detlor, Brian, & Turnbull, Don. (2000). Information seeking on the Web: An integrated model of browsing and searching. First Monday, 5(2). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_2/choo/index.html

Cobbledick, Susie. (1996). The information-seeking behavior of artists: Exploratory interviews.

Library Quarterly, 66(4), 343-372. Also available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

Cockburn, Cynthia. (1988). Machinery of dominance: Women, men, and technical know-how. Boston:

Northeastern University.

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/jtoc?ID=27981

Cole, Charles, Cantero, P., & Ungar, A. (2000). The development of a diagnostic-prescriptive tool for undergraduates seeking information for a social science/humanities assignment. III.

Enabling devices. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 481-500.

Conway, Paul. (1986). Research in presidential libraries: A user survey. The Midwestern

Archivist, XI(1), 35-56.

Cooper, Linda. (2002a). A study of the relationship between categories of library information use as typified by young children. In Harry Bruce, Raya Fidel, Peter Ingwersen, & Pertti Vakkari

(Eds.), Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on

conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS4) (pp. 17-31). Greenwood Village, CO:

Libraries Unlimited.

Cooper, Linda. (2002b). Methodology for a project examining cognitive categories for library information use in young children. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 53(14), 1223-1231. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=76501873

Cornelius, Ian. (1996b). Meaning and method in information studies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cornelius, Ian. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


Information Today. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=76501873

Covi, Lisa M., & Kling Rob. (1996). Organizational dimensions of effective digital library use:

Closed rational and open natural systems models. Journal of the American Society for Information

Science, 47(9), 672-689.


Crane, Gregory. (1991). The authority of an electronic text. Current Anthropology, 32(3), 293-311.

Crawford, Walt. (1998). Uncommon knowledge: Mythbreaking for the future. In Cheryl

LaGuardia & Barbara A. Mitchell (Eds.), Finding common ground: Creating the library of the future

without diminishing the library of the past (pp. 16-24). New York: Neal-Schuman.

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 (2 nd ed.). New York: Oxford University.

Davenport, Thomas H. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowledge

environment. New York: Oxford University.

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

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

Dresang, Eliza, & Gross, Melissa. (2001). Evaluating children’s resources and services in a networked environment. In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked

information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 23-44). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Duff, Wendy M., & Johnson, Catherine A. (2002). Accidentally found on purpose: Informationseeking behavior of historians in archives. Library Quarterly, 72(4), 472-496. Also available http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

Duguid, Paul. (1996). Material matters: The past and futurology of the book. In Geoffrey

Nunberg (Ed.), The future of the book (pp. 63-101). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Eason, Ken. (1988). Information technology and organisational change. New York: Taylor & Francis.

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.


Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (1988). Curriculum initiatives: An agenda and

strategy for library media programs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ellen, Deborah. (2001). Bridging the digital divide: Is access enough? ASSIGNation, 18(2), 32ff.

Ellis, David. (1993). Modeling the information seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469-486. Also available http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

Ellis, David. (1998). Paradigms and research traditions in information retrieval research.

Information Services and Use, 18(4), 225-241.

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)

Feldman, Ronen, & Sanger, James. (2007). The text mining handbook: Advanced approaches in

analyzing unstructured data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Fidel, Raya, Davies, Rachel K., Douglass, Mary H., Holder, Jenny K., Hopkins, Carla J., Kushner,

Elisabeth J., Miyagishima, Bryan K., & Toney, Christina D. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for


Ford, Nigel. (2000). Cognitive styles and virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for


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)

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. 135-

148). 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). The socialization of human intelligence through symbols. In Frames of

mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (pp. 299-327 and 422-423). 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.

Garvey, William D. (1979). The role of scientific communication in the conduct of research and the creation of scientific knowledge. In Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating

information exchange among scientists, engineers, and students (pp. 1-39). New York: Pergamon.

Geertz, Clifford. (2000). Imbalancing act: Jerome Bruner’s cultural psychology. In Available light:

Anthropological reflections on philosophical topics (pp. 187-202). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Gillespie, Tarleton. (2007). Wired shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge, MA:

MIT.

Gollop, Claudia J. (1997). Health information-seeking behavior and older African American women. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 85(2), 141-146.

Gorman, Paul N. (1995). Information needs of physicians. Journal of the American Society for


Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The strength of loose ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-

1380.

Greenberg, Jane, & Méndez, Eva. (Eds.). (2007). Knitting the semantic Web. [published simultaneously as Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43(3/4), 2007]. Binghamton, NY:

Haworth.

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.

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.

Harmon, E. Glynn. (1987). The interdisciplinary study of information: A review essay [Review of The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages]. The Journal of Library History, 22(2), 206-227.

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 (2 nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Harris, Roma, & Dewdney, Patricia. (1994a). Information transfer failures, or why it’s so hard to locate the information you need. In Barriers to information: How formal help systems fail battered

women (pp. 1-6). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Harris, Roma, & Dewdney, Patricia. (1994b). Theory and research on information seeking. In

Barriers to information: How formal help systems fail battered women (pp. 7-34). Westport, CT:

Greenwood.


Hauptman, Robert. (Ed.). (1991a). Ethics and the dissemination of information [Special Issue].

Library Trends, 40(2).

Hauptman, Robert. (1991b). Five assaults on our integrity. In F.W. Lancaster (Ed.), Ethics and the

librarian (pp. 83-91). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

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. 268-

285). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.

Heins, Marjorie, Cho, Christina, & Feldman, Ariel. (2006). Internet filters: A public policy report (2 nd ed.). Brennan Center for Justice. New York University School of Law. Free Expression Policy

Project. http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2intro.html

Henderson, Kathryn. (1996). The visual culture of engineers. In Susan Leigh Star (Ed.), The

cultures of computing (pp. 196-218). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Hendry, D.G., & Harper, D.J. (1997). An informal information-seeking environment. Journal of

the American Society for Information Science, 48(1), 1036-1048. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

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.

Hertzum, M., & Pejtersen, A.M. (2000). The information-seeking practices of engineers:

Searching for documents as well as for people. Information Processing & Management, 36(5), 761-

778.

Hilden, Julie. (2002). A recent Supreme Court decision allowing the government to force public libraries to filter users' Internet access is less significant than it might at first appear (FindLaw

Legal Commentary). http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20030701.html

Hinnebusch, Nicole. (1998). Restricting Internet access in public libraries. The Yale Political

Quarterly, 19(4). http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/may98/may98a.html

Hirsh, Sandra G. (1997). How do children find information on different types of tasks?

Children’s user of the science library catalog. Library Trends, 45(4), 725-745.

Hobart, Michael E., & Schiffman, Zachary S. (1998). Information ages: Literacy, numeracy, and the

computer revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Hofstadter, Richard. (1963a). On the unpopularity of intellect. In Anti-intellectualism in American

life (pp. 24-51). New York: Knopf.

Hofstadter, Richard. (1963b). The school and the teacher. In Anti-intellectualism in American life

(pp. 299-322). New York: Knopf.

Hoskisson, Tam. (1997). Making the right assumptions: Know your user and improve the reference interview. The Reference Librarian, 59, 67-75.


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.

Janes, Joseph. (2001). Digital reference services in public and academic libraries. In Charles R.

McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy,

and issues (pp. 175-196). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Jeavons, Thomas H. (1994). Ethics in nonprofit management: Creating a culture of integrity. In

Robert D. Herman & Associates (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and

Management (pp. 184-207). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, J. David. (1996). Information seeking: An organizational dilemma. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Jones, William, & Teevan, Jaime. (Eds.). (2007). Personal information management. Seattle:

University of Washington.

Kahneman, Daniel. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kenner, Hugh. (1986). Libraries and glowlamps: A strategy of reassurance. Scholarly Publishing,

18(1), 17-22.

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.

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 Collier. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information

services (2 nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

LaGuardia, Cheryl, & Mitchell, Barbara A. (Eds.). (1998). Finding common ground: Creating the

library of the future without diminishing the library of the past. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Lancaster, F.W. (Ed.). (1991). Ethics and the librarian. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

Lankes, R. David, Collins, J.W. III, & Kasowitz, A.S. (Eds.). (2000). Digital reference service in the

new millennium: Planning management, and evaluation. New York: Neal-Schuman.


Large, Andrew. (1988). Information seeking in an online age. East Grinstead, UK: Bowker-Saur.

Large, Andrew, Behesti, Jamshil, &Rahman, Tarjin. (2002). Design criteria for children’s Web portals: The users speak out. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,

53(2), 79-94. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

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.

Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Lave, Jean. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Étienne. (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Leckie, Gloria, Pettigrew, & Sylvain, Christian. (1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: A general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193.

Levy, David M. (2000). Digital libraries and the problem of purpose. D-Lib Magazine, 6(1). http://www.dlib/org/january2000/01levy.html

Lievrouw, Leah A., & Farb, Sharon E. (2002). Information and equity. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),


Information Today.

Lindsey, Jonathan A. (1994). Ethics. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 187-188). New York: Garland Publishing.

Littlewood, Bev, & Stringini, Lorenzo. (1992). The risks of software. Scientific American, 267(5),

62-66, 75.

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


Lynch, Clifford A. (1998). Finding common ground. In Cheryl LaGuardia & Barbara A. Mitchell

(Eds.), Finding common ground: Creating the library of the future without diminishing the library of the

past (pp. 1-15). New York: Neal-Schuman.

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. 191-

218). Cambridge, MA: MIT.


Maack, Mary Niles. (1994). Gender issues in librarianship. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G.

Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 227-232). New York: Garland Publishing.

Machlup, Fritz. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University.

Machlup, Fritz. (1980). Alternative classifications of knowledge. In Knowledge: Its creation,

distribution, and economic significance. Volume I: Knowledge and knowledge production (pp. 100-

109). 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. (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. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary

messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Maher, William J. (1986). The use of user studies. The Midwestern Archivist, XI(1), 15-26.

Mainstream Loudoun et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library. (1998). http://lw.bna.com/lw/19981208/2049.htm

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.

Marcum, James W. (2002). Rethinking information literacy. Library Quarterly, 72(1), 1-26. Also available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

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



Matson, Lisa Dallape, & Bonski, David J. (1997). Do digital libraries need librarians?: An experiential dialog. Online, 21(6), 68-76. Also available http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag/NovOL97/matson11.html

McCain, Roger A. (1988). Information as property and as a public good: Perspectives from the economic theory of property rights. Library Quarterly, 58(3), 265-282.

McCarthy, John. (1966). Information. Scientific American, 215(3), 64-73.


McClure, Charles R. (1994). Network literacy: A role for libraries. Information Technology and

Libraries, 13(???), 115-125.

McGarry, K.J. (1975). Communication: Definitions and models. In Communication, knowledge and

the librarian (pp. 7-37). London: Clive Bingley.

McKechnie, L. M., & Pettigrew, K. E. (2002). Surveying the use of theory in library and information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library Trends, 50(3), 406-417.

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.

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

Mele, C. (1999). Cyberspace and disadvantaged communities: The Internet as a tool for collective action. In M.A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 290-310).

London: Routledge.

Miksa, Francis, & Doty, Philip. (1994). Intellectual realities and the digital library. In John

Schnase, John Leggett, Richard Furuta, & Ted Metcalfe (Eds.), Digital libraries '94 (pp. 1-5).

College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, Hypermedia Research Laboratory.

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.

Montgomery, Kathryn C. (2007). Generation digital: Politics, commerce, and childhood in the age of

the Internet. 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.

Murfin, Margery E., & Gugelchuk, Gary M. (1987). Development and testing of a reference transaction assessment instrument. College & Research Libraries, 48(4), 314-38.

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.

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). Executive summary. In Usability engineering (pp. 1-21). Boston: Academic.

Noble, David F. (1997). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First

Monday, 3(1). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_1/noble/index.html

Norman, Donald A. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.

Noyes, Janet M., & Baber, Christopher. (1999). User-centered design of systems. London: Springer-

Verlag.

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. (1998). Will libraries survive? American Prospect, 41. Available at http://epn.org/prospect/41/41numb.html

O'Donnell, James Joseph. (1998). Avatars of the word: From papyrus to cyberspace. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University.

Office of Intellectual Freedom. American Library Association. (1996). Intellectual freedom manual

(5th ed.). Chicago: American Library Association.

Olaisen, Johan, Munch-Petersen, Erland, & Wilson, Patrick. (Eds.). (19vvv). 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.

Ortega y Gassett, José. (1975). The mission of the librarian. In John David Marshall (Ed.), Of, by,

and for librarians, Second Series (pp. 190-213). s.l.: Shoe String. (Original work published 1961)

O’Toole, James M. (1989). On the idea of permanence. American Archivist, 52(1), 10-25.

Paisley, William. (1980). Information work. Progress in Communication Sciences, 2, 113-165. xyz.

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.


Pettigrew, Karen E. (1999). Waiting for chiropody: Contextual results from an ethnographic study of the information behavior among attendees at community clinics. Information Processing

& Management, 35(6), 801-817.

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.

Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643-675.

Preer, Jean. (1994). Censorship. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

library history (pp. 117-123). New York: Garland Publishing.

Rasmussen, Jens. (2000). Human factors in a dynamic information society: Where are we heading? Ergonomics, 43(7), 869-879.

Resnick, Lauren B., Sälijö, Roger, Pontecorvo, Clotilde, Burge, Barbara. (Eds.). (1998).

Discourse, tools and reasoning: Situated cognition and technologically supported environments.

Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Rice-Lively, Mary Lynn, & Racine, J. Drew. (1997). The role of academic libraries in the era of information technology. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(1), 31-41.

Rieh, Soo Young. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

Rieh, Soo Young, & Belkin, Nicholas J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. In Cecilia M. Preston (Ed.), Information access in the global information economy: Proceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the American Society for Information

Science (pp. 279-289). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Roszak, Theodore. (1994). Ben Franklin's information service: Libraries, literacy, and the ecology of mind. In The cult of information: A neo-Luddite treatise on high-tech, artificial intelligence,

and the true art of thinking (2nd ed.) (pp. 173-201). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Rothenberg, Jeff. (1995). Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American, 272(1),

42-47.

Rouse, W.B., & Rouse, S.H.. (1984). Human information seeking and design of information systems. Information Processing & Management, 20(1-2), 129-138.

Royce, Bert R., Meadow, Charles T., & Kraft, Donald H. (1994). Measurement in information

science. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Sales, G. (1987). Developing a human services taxonomy: A case study. Reference Services

Review, 15(4), 35-44.

Saracevic, Tefko. (1996). Relevance reconsidered ‘96. In Peter Ingwersen & Niels Ole Pors (Eds.),

Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 201-218). From the Second International


Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2). Copenhagen: The

Royal School of Librarianship.

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.

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.

Schuler, Douglas. (1996). Community and technology: A marriage of necessity. In New

community networks: Wired for change (pp. 1-34). New York: ACM.

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)

Shera, Jesse. (1972). An epistemological foundation for library science. In The foundations of

education for librarianship (pp. 109-134). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shurkin, Joel. (1984). Engines of the mind: A history of the computer. New York: W.W. Norton.

Simonsen, J., & Kensing, F. (1997). Using ethnography in contextual design. Communications of

the ACM, 40(7), 82-88.

Sloan, Bernie. (2002). Digital reference services bibliography. http://www. Lis.uiuc.edu/~bsloan/digiref.html

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.

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.

Sonnenwald, D.H., & Pierce, L.G. (2000). Information behavior in dynamic work contexts:

Interwoven situational awareness, dense social networks and contested collaboration in command and control. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 461-479.


Special Libraries Association. (1996). Competencies for special librarians of the 21 st century. http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/professional/meaning/competency.cfm

Star, Susan Leigh. (Ed.). (1995). Ecologies of knowledge. New York: State University of New

York.

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.

Stepp, Ermel. (1993). The virtualization of institutes of research. The Arachnet Electronic Journal

on Virtual Culture, 1(6). http://www.infomotions.com/serials/aejvc/aejvc-v1n06-steppvirtualization.txt

Strauss, Anselm, Fagerhaugh, Shizuko, Suczek, Barbara, & Wiener, Carolyn. (1985). Social

organization of medical work. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Street, Brian. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

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.

Suchman, Lucy. (1996). Supporting articulation work. In Rob Kling (Ed.), Computerization and

controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2 nd ed., pp. 407-423). San Diego, CA: Academic. R

Suchman, Lucy, Blomberg, Jeanette, Orr, Julian E., & Trigg, Randall. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392-408.

Sutcliffe, A.G., Ennis, M., & Watkinson, S.J. (2000). Empirical studies of end-user information searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(13), 1211-1231. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Swan, John. (1994). Intellectual freedom. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 280-285). New York: Garland Publishing.

Swann, William 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


Tague-Sutcliffe, Jean. (1995). Measuring information: An information services perspective. San Diego,

CA: Academic.

Taylor, Charles. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University.

Taylor, Robert S. (1986a). The user-driven model and information use environments. In Value-

added processes in information systems (pp. 23-47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Taylor, Robert S. (1986b). The value-added model. In Value-added processes in information systems

(pp. 48-70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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.

Tenopir, Carol, King, Donald W., Boyce, Peter, Grayson, Matt, & Paulson, Keri-Lynn. (2005).

Relying on electronic journals: Reading patterns of astronomers. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 56(8), 786-802. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/76501873

Tissing, Robert W., Jr. (1984). The orientation interview in archival research. American Archivist,

47(2), 173-178.

Toms, Elaine G., & Duff, Wendy. (2002). “I spent 1 1/2 hours sifting through one large box . . . .”:

Diaries as information behavior of the archives user: Lessons learned. Journal of the American

Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1232-1238.

Toms, Elaine 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.

Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Tucker, Nicholas. (1981). Selection, censorship and control. In The child and the book: A

psychological and literary exploration (pp. 190-217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Tufte, Edward R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics.

Tufte, Edward R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics.

Tufte, Edward R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT:

Graphics.

Turnbaugh, Roy C. (1986). Archival mission and user studies. The Midwestern Archivist, XI(1),

27-33.

U.S Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

(2003). Report to Congress: Children’s Internet Protection Act [PL 106-554]: Study of technology

protection measures in section 1703. Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/cipa2003/index.html


Vakkari, Pertti. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 819-837.

Vakkari, Pertti, & Sormunen, Eero. (2004). The influence of relevance levels on the effectiveness of interactive information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 55(11), 963-969. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jissue/109580889

Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. In Ann



Varlejs, J. (Ed.). (1991). Information literacy: Learning how to learn. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Vickery, B.C. (Ed.). (1994). Fifty years of information progress: A Journal of Documentation review.

London: ASLIB.

Virnoche, M. (1998). The seamless web and communication equity: The social shaping of a community network. Science, Technology & Human Values, 23(2), 199-220.

Walter, Virginia A. (1994). The information needs of children. Advances in Librarianship (Vol. 18, pp. 111-129).

Wang, Peiling, & White, Marilyn Domas. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the


Wasik, Joann M. (2005). Digital reference bibliography. Available at http://www.webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent;jsessionid=FFBB8699B5FF14270F93B90A2

D4769AE?id=11878

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.

Weinberger, David. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: the power of the new digital disorder. New

York: Holt.

Wenger, Étienne. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University.

Westbrook, Lynn. (1993). User needs: A synthesis and analysis of current theories for the practitioner. RQ, 32(4), 541-549.

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.

White, Marilyn Domas. (2001). Digital reference services: Framework for analysis and evaluation. Library & Information Science Research, 23(2), 211-231.


Wiegand, Shirley A., & Wiegand, Wayne A. (2007). Books on trial: Red scare in the heartland.

Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

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.

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.

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, 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.

Winograd, Terry, & Flores, Fernando. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new

foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Winter, Michael F. (1988). The trick question: Thinking through the occupation/profession debate. In The culture and control of expertise: Toward a sociological understanding of librarianship (pp.

97-113). New York: Greenwood.

Winterowk, W. Ross. (1989). The culture and politics of literacy. New York: Oxford University.


Download the syllabus as a Word document

Related documents

Products

Support

Download the syllabus as a Word document

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib