UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS
INF 382C
Unique Number 27960
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
Fall 2009
Class time:
Tuesday 12:00 N – 3:00 PM
Place:
UTA 1.208
Office:
UTA 5.448
Office hrs:
Tuesday 10:00 –11:00 AM
By appointment other times
Telephone:
512.471.3746 – direct line
512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist
512.471.3821 – main iSchool office
Internet:
pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/
Class URL:
http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2009/fall/INF382C/
TA:
Shelley E. Rowland
srowland@ischool.utexas.edu
Monday 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM, UTA 5.428
Tuesday 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM on Gmail Chat, shelleyrowland@gmail.com
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the course
3
Expectations of students’ performance
4
Standards for written work
5
Editing conventions
9
Grading
10
Texts and other tools
11
List of assignments
13
Outline of course
14
Schedule
16
Assignments
21
References
25
Readings in the class schedule
25
Selected ARIST chapters 1966-2008
29
Useful digital sources for evaluating digital information
33
Additional sources
34
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
2
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
INF 382C, Understanding and Serving Users, aims 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 helps 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.”
One of the major goals of the course is an increased awareness of similarities and differences
among disciplines interested in information practices and behavior: information studies,
computer science, system design, communication, cognitive psychology, science and technology
studies, education, sociology, cultural studies, intellectual history, anthropology, philosophy, and
organizational studies. 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.
Efforts to understand information practices and behavior have evolved in a number of ways:





From system-centric to people-centric perspectives, an important step in the maturity of the
information disciplines; this evolution has been accompanied by a growing recognition of the
agency of users as co-creators of information systems and technologies of all kinds
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, their mutual negotiation
of meaning, and creation of information and communication practices
From a focus on professionals’ use of “information resources” to the study of people’s wider
everyday information practices.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
3
Structurally, the course comprises three units:



Understanding information and people’s information behavior/information practices (6
classes)
Providing information services (3 classes)
Students’ research, social theories of information work, and information policy (5 classes).
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 should engage these and other topics as their interests and 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 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 an additional
copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA who has access to email more
regularly.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
4
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.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
5
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, I offer the following remarks.
Review these standards both before and after writing; I use them to evaluate your work.
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 mutually reinforcing.
Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a
way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Theodore Dreiser’s
Sister Carrie shows how this process of composition and thought works (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 done on a word-processor 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 impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological
Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in
engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA.
Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing
submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also
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 such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or
subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term
sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.
Use a standard spell checker, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries have systematic
weaknesses: they exclude most proper nouns, e.g., personal and place names; they omit most
technical terms; they omit most foreign words and phrases; and they cannot identify the error in
using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their,” or in writing "the" instead of "them."
It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in
editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to
increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your
full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 382C). If you have any
questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
6
Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:
•
•
•
•
The title of the assignment
Your name
The date
The class number – INF 382C.
CONTINUED
Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read
and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session
at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional
written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,
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 ellipsis*. . . .*
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
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.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
7
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.
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
8
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
date viewed
place to find the source
(who?)
(what?)
(when?)
(when?)
(where? how?).
See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214,
231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see
Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at
http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE 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.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
9
28. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page
or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues,
e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”
29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.
30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
10
31. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to
identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics
about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general
terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.
32. On a related note, avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of
faulty assumptions:
- It presumes that a public policy issue has only two “sides.” There are usually three or four
or more perspectives on any topic of public dissensus that merit consideration. “Debate”
hides this complexity.
- “Debate” implies that one “side” and only one “side” can be correct; that presumption
ignores the fact that the many perspectives on a public policy issue have contributions to
make to its resolution.
- “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This
presumption naively ignores the fact that some public policy issues are intractable, that
these issues are often emergent as are their resolutions, and that compromise is success
rather than failure or “surrender.”
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 terms and have been for decades.
36. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not
footnotes.
37. Please adhere to these orthographic (spelling) conventions:
- Web with a capital “W.”
- Web site, two words, with a capital “W.”
- Internet with a capital “I” to indicate the TCP/IP-compliant computer network with a
shared address convention. Otherwise, internet with a lower-case “i” simply means any of
the many millions of networks of networks.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
11
SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS
Symbol
Meaning
#
number OR insert a space; the context will help you decipher its meaning
AWK
awkward and usually compromises clarity as well
BLOCK
make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with
quotations ≥ 4 lines
caps
capitalize
COLLOQ
colloquial and to be avoided
dB
database
FRAG
sentence fragment; often means that the verb or subject of the sentence is missing
ITAL
italicize
j
journal
lc
make into lower case
lib'ship
librarianship
org, org’l
organization, organizational
PL
plural
Q
question
Q’naire
questionnaire
REF?
what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?
RQ
research question
sp
spelling
SING
singular
w/
with
w.c.?
word choice?
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.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
12
GRADING
Grades for this class include:
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CF
Extraordinarily high achievement
Superior
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Barely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unacceptable and failing.
not recognized by the University
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.00
2.67
2.33
2.00
1.67
0.00.
See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in
the School of Information student orientation 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/grad0709/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.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
13
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are three required and two recommended texts for this class. Brown & Duguid (2002),
Norman (2002), and Suchman (2007) are at the Co-op (476.7211). As many of the required and
recommended readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL; many are available online.
The required texts are:
Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (2002). The social life of information (2nd ed.). Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (with a new introduction). New
York: Basic Books.
Suchman, Lucy. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd
ed.). 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.
The course Blackboard site, as well as direct email messages, will inform students about 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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
14
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 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 these:
1.
As a cognitive psychologist, Norman 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 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 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 Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction has a great
deal to recommend it; that’s why we’re reading some chapters from it. 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 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.
Be an engaged, but skeptical 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.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
15
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
Preparation and participation
Date Due
-----
Percent of Grade
15%
Formation of groups GRP
TUE, SEP 8
---
Choice of user group GRP
TUE, SEP 15
---
Frameworks and models for information
behavior (6 pp.)
TUE, OCT 13
20
Abstract of TX Legacy Web site (2 pp.) GRP
TUE, OCT 20
---
TX Legacy synchronization
TUE, OCT 27
see NOV 10
Annotated bibliography GRP
TUE, NOV 3
20
TX Legacy video annotation
TUE, NOV 10
10
GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.)
TUE, NOV 10
5
TX Legacy Web site GRP
TUE, NOV 17
20
Presentation on user group and TX Legacy
Web site GRP
TUE, NOV 17
TUE, 24
---
Research proposal (5-7 pp.) GRP
MON, DEC 7
12:00 N
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
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
16
other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your
papers.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
17
OUTLINE OF COURSE
Date
TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Unit 1: Understanding information and people’s information behavior and practices
1
SEP 1
Introduction to the course
Review of the syllabus
Introduction to the history of user studies (1): Scientists and engineers
2
SEP 8
History of user studies (2): Beyond professional work to ordinary people
and ordinary tasks
• DUE: Formation of groups – GRP
3
SEP 15
David Todd – Introduction to the Texas Legacy Project
Quinn Stewart – using GLIFOS to support the Texas Legacy Project
• DUE: Choice of user group – GRP
4
SEP 22
Exploring the concept of information (1): Cognition, mentalist metaphors,
and the “content/conduit” distinction
Group meeting
5
SEP 29
Guest -- Exploring the concept of information (2): Information retrieval
and relevance
6
OCT 6
Exploring the concept of information (3): Materialist and practice-oriented
views and critiquing the “content/conduit” distinction
Unit 2: Providing information services
7
OCT 13
Communities of practice
Affect and information behavior
• DUE: Frameworks and models for information behavior (6 pp.) (20%)
8
OCT 20
Guest – Interfaces
• DUE: Abstract of TX Legacy Web site (2 pp.) – GRP
9
OCT 27
Panel – The information intermediary
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
18
Invisible and articulation work
• DUE: Synchronize TX Legacy Project video transcript
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
19
Unit 3: Students’ research, social theories of information work, and information policy
10
NOV 3
Information policy issues (1): Privacy and social networking
Group meetings
• DUE: Annotated bibliography (20%) – GRP
11
NOV 10
Information policy issues (2): “Censorship”
• DUE: TX Legacy video annotation (10%)
• DUE: GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.) (5%)
12
NOV 17
Students’ presentations
What are documents?
• DUE: TX Legacy Project Web site (20%) – GRP
• DUE: Presentation on user group and TX Legacy Web site – GRP
13
NOV 24
Students’ presentations
Indexicality, interpretation, and “beyond the ‘view from nowhere’”
• DUE: Presentation on user group and TX Legacy Web site – GRP
14
DEC 1
MON DEC 7
Course evaluation
Summary discussion
• DUE: Research proposal (5-7 pp.)(10%) – GRP
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
20
SCHEDULE
DATE
TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Unit 1: Understanding information and people’s information behavior and practices
SEP 1
Introduction to the course
Review of the syllabus
Introduction to the history of user studies (1): Scientists and engineers
READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), Acknowledgements, Preface, Introduction,
Chapters 1, 6
Norman (2002), Prefaces to both editions, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4
Borgman (2007b) CD
Dervin & Nilan (1986) CD
Tenopir et al. (2005) online
AS:
SEP 8
Delamont & Atkinson (2001) online
Garvey (1979)
Israel (2001)
Maher (1986)
Subramanyam (1979)
Turnbaugh (1986)
History of user studies (2): Beyond professional work to ordinary people
and ordinary tasks
READ: Sharp et al. (2007), Foreword, Preface, and Chapter 1 CD
Bates (2005a) CD
Borgman et al. (1995) online
Eisenberg & Berkowitz (2008) online
Hersberger (2005) CD
Kline & Pinch (1996) online
Kuhlthau (2005) CD
Lowe & Eisenberg (2005) CD
AS:
Barton & Hamilton (1998a)
Bishop et al. (2001)
Cooper (2002a)
Eisenberg & Spitzer (1991)
Fidel et al. (1999) online
Large (2004)
Large et al. (2002) online
Marcum (2002) online
Walter (1994)
• DUE: Formation of groups – GRP
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
21
SEP 15
David Todd – Introduction to the Texas Legacy Project
Quinn Stewart – using GLIFOS to support the Texas Legacy Project
READ: Norman (2002), 5, 6, 7
Pettigrew et al. (2001) CD
• DUE: Choice of user group – GRP
SEP 22
Exploring the concept of information (1): Cognition, mentalist metaphors,
and the “content/conduit” distinction
Group meeting
READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 2 and 3
Suchman (2007), 2-5
Bates (2005b) CD
Belkin (2005) CD
MacMullin & Taylor (1984) CD
Weaver (1949) CD
Wilson (2000) online
AS:
SEP 29
Cole (1994)
Cornelius (2002)
Losee (1990a)
Losee (1997)
Scarrott (1994)
Guest -- Exploring the concept of information (2): Information retrieval
and relevance
READ: Suchman (2007), 6
Sharp et al. (2007), 3 CD
Kuhlthau (1991) online
Saracevic (2007a) online
Saracevic (2007b) online
AS:
OCT 6
Barry & Schamber (1998) online
Choi & Rasmussen (2003) online
Ruthven (2008) online
Sharp et al. (2007), 2
Exploring the concept of information (3): Materialist and practiceoriented views and critiquing the “content/conduit” distinction
READ: Buckland (1991) online
Nunberg (1996b) online
Reddy (1993) CD
Schiller (1988) CD
Tidline (2005) CD
AS:
Bates (1989)
Belkin, Oddy, & Brooks (1982 a and b)
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
22
Case (2002) passim especially 6
Enser (2008)
Harter & Hert (1997)
Kuhlthau (1993a)
Schamber (1994)
Swanson (1988)
Vakkari & Sormunen (2004) online
Unit 2: Providing information services
OCT 13
Communities of practice
Affect and information behavior
READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 4, 5
Suchman (2007), 7, 8
Sharp et al. (2007), 5 CD
Brown & Duguid (1991) online
Davenport & Hall (2002) CD/online
Davies (2005) CD
McKechnie et al. (2007) CD
Nahl (2007) CD
Parker & Berryman (2007) CD
Star et al. (2003) CD
AS:
Daft & Weick (1984)
Dervin (1976)
Granovetter (1973)
Lave (1988) passim
Lave & Wenger (1992) passim
Wenger (1998) passim
• DUE: Frameworks and models for information behavior (6 pp.) (20%)
OCT 20
Guest – Interfaces
READ: Suchman (2007), 9, 10
Sharp et al. (2007), 6 both parts CD
• DUE: Abstract of TX Legacy Web site (2 pp.) – GRP
OCT 27
Panel – the information intermediary
Invisible and articulation work
READ: Suchman (2007), Acknowledgements, Preface to 2 nd edition,
Introduction, 1, 11, 12
Ehrlich & Cash (1999) online
Nardi & Engeström (1999) online
Star & Strauss (1999) online
Suchman (1995) online
Suchman (1996) CD
Taylor (1968) CD
Yakel (2000) CD
AS:
Abbott (1988)
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
23
Abbott (1998) online
Duff & Johnson (2002) online
Edwards (2005) CD
Marshall (2003)
Nardi & O’Day (1999), 7 (“Librarians: A Keystone Species,” pp. 79-104)
Nunberg (1998) online
Ortega y Gassett (1975)
Palmquist (2005) CD
Schön (1983)
Taylor (1986a)
Taylor (1986b)
Tissing (1984)
• DUE: Synchronize TX Legacy Project video transcript
Unit 3: Students’ research, social theories of information work, and information policy
NOV 3
Information policy issues (1): Privacy and social networking
READ: EPIC (2008a) online
EPIC (2008b) online
Grassian (2006) online
AS:
Heins et al. (2006) online
• DUE: Annotated bibliography (20%) – GRP
NOV 10
Information policy issues (2): “Censorship”
READ: American Library Association (2004) online
Asheim (1953) CD
Asheim (1983) CD
Curry Jansen (1991) CD
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:
Preer (1994)
Tucker (1981)
• DUE: TX Legacy video annotation (10%)
• DUE: GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.) (5%)
NOV 17
Students’ presentations
What are documents?
READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 7, 8. Afterword
Bishop (1999) online
Borgman (2007a) CD
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
24
Buckland (1997) online
Levy (2003) CD
AS:
Andersen (2008)
Borges (1964)
Crane (1991)
Eco (1984)
Geertz (1983) CD
Leckie (2005) CD
• DUE: TX Legacy Project Web site (20%) – GRP
• DUE: Presentation on user group and TX Legacy Web site – GRP
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
25
NOV 24
Students’ presentations
Indexicality, interpretation, and “beyond the ‘view from nowhere’”
READ: Suchman (2007), 13, 14
Cornelius (1996a) CD
Long (1993) CD
O’Day & Nardi (2003) CD
AS:
Nagel (1986)
Toms & Duff (2002) online
• DUE: Presentation on user group and TX Legacy Web site – GRP
DEC 1
Course evaluation
Summary discussion
READ: Hauptman (1998) online
Karat (1998) online
Marchionini (2008) online
Suchman (2007), 15
AS:
DEC 7
Augst (2001)
Augst & Wiegand (2001)
Wiegand (2003)
MONDAY, 12:00 N
• DUE: Research proposal (5-7 pp.)(10%) – GRP
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
26
ASSIGNMENTS
Frameworks and models for information behavior – Due Tuesday, October 13, 2009 (20%)
In 2001, Karen Pettigrew, Raya Fidel, and Harry Bruce published the analytic literature review
“Conceptual Frameworks in Information Behavior” in the Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology (ARIST). Using this review in conjunction with at least two of the information
behavior models we have examined in our readings and/or discussed in class, including any we
have discussed that also appear in “Conceptual Frameworks,” please address all three parts of
the following question:
How do the models you have chosen compare along these characteristics?
1.
2.
3.
The models’ discussion of the concept of information. (2 pp.)
How the models’ discussions of information relate to Pettigrew et al.’s consideration of the
idea of information. (2 pp.)
How Pettigrew et al.’s tripartite typology of research into information behavior helps you
understand the two models of information behavior you have chosen to discuss. (2 pp.)
Please be as specific as possible in addressing these three questions, using material we have read
in class, other material you are familiar with, and our class discussions to help you respond.
Each student will produce an essay six (6) double-spaced pages long in response to these
questions to submit in class on Tuesday, October 13. 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.
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 Tuesday, October 27 and Tuesday, November
10, 2009 (10%)
Students will do this assignment individually. Quinn Stewart and the instructor will assign each
student 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.
2.
3.
Synchronize the pre-existing interview transcript with the video using GlifosMedia Creator.
This part of the assignment is due on Tuesday, October 27.
Create and synchronize a table of contents (ToC) for the interview based upon the existing
interview log, using GlifosMedia Creator.
Using Google Earth, create appropriate links from the interview to some large or small areas
on earth.
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
27
Quinn Stewart has created online tutorials that will walk students through each phase of this
assignment. The tutorials can be used remotely, and the annotations themselves can be done on
your own machines or on Windows or Mac computers (running Windows) in the iSchool IT Lab,
UTA 1.210 (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 synchronization of the video transcript with the video is due on Tuesday, October 27, while
the table of contents and Google Earth links are due November 10. Students will upload their
files to an iSchool directory; the instructor will provide more information about the directory.
• GlifosMedia design diary – November 10, 2009 (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.
Write three (3) double-spaced pp. addressing these questions and any others you find engaging
about the assignments and 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, November
10.
• Adding value to TX Legacy videos for particular user groups – due various dates GRP
This multi-part 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 imagination,
the three (or more) interviews the team chooses to compile, and the team’s particular user group.
Each team must use Google Earth to provide appropriate links to specific geographic points
related to the interviews used. Provide direct links to these sites rather than to just the .kmz files.
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
Copyright Philip Doty August 2009
Architects
28
Chemists
Civil engineers
Cyclists
Economists
Hang gliding enthusiasts
Electrical engineers
Elementary school science teachers
Engineering educators
Environmental engineers
Environmental research centers
Geoscientists
Gerontologists
Home schoolers
Hydrologists
Managers in for-profit enterprises
Managers in not-for-profit
enterprises
Mechanical engineers
Middle school geography teachers
Military field commanders
Graphic artists
Persons with “disabilities”
Physicians
Public safety specialists
Public utility regulators
Real estate professionals
Skilled crafts persons, e.g.,
electricians, plumbers, auto
mechanics (choose one group)
Soil scientists
Community of users – Due Tuesday, September 15 – GRP. Each team will select the
proposed community of users and notify the instructor of the choice by September 15. Since the
choices will be strictly first come, first served, the sooner you tell the instructor which
communities you are interested in the better.
Abstract of TX Legacy Web site – Due Tuesday, October 20 (two double-spaced pp.) –
GRP. Each team will provide a full abstract of their final Web site 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 plain
how they supplement the online interviews 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. Post a
copy of the abstract to the appropriate Blackboard forum by 9:00 AM, Tuesday, October 20, and
turn a hard copy in during class later that day.
Annotated bibliography – Due Tuesday, November 3 (20%) – GRP
Each team of students will produce a double-spaced annotated bibliography of 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.
2.
3.
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.
Clarify specifically how this source helped you design your Texas Legacy Web site.
Are two to three sentences long.
Texas Legacy Project Web site – Due Tuesday, November 17 (20%) – GRP
Each student group will create a Web site 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. The site will be available on a public Web site hosted by the iSchool and may be
Copyright Philip Doty December 2008
29
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 – Due Tuesday, November 17, or Tuesday,
November 24 – GRP
Each team will make an in-class presentation no more than 20 minutes long about their Texas
Legacy Project Web site. Each student will do roughly 4-5 minutes of the presentation, and the
team should clearly identify the interviews 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What are the most important elements of the community’s information behavior and
practice? How do you know?
What are the noteworthy ways in which this community is like and unlike others in its
information behavior and practice?
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.
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?
How does your Texas Legacy video compilation use what we know about this group and its
information practices and behaviors?
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 Monday, December 7 (5-7 double-spaced pp., 10%) – GRP
Each team will conceptualize a short, empirical study of the value of the Texas Legacy collection
for its intended users. This proposal describing the study should be five to seven (5-7) doublespaced pp. long and must be handed in on Monday, December 7, as a Word attachment to an
email message to the instructor and posted in the appropriate Blackboard forum.
Please keep in mind the following as you prepare this assignment:
1.
2.
3.
"Empirical" means based on observations rather than speculation or "theorizing."
The proposed study should not be simply a usability study; its interests and rationale are
much wider.
The instructor starts with the assumption that no student in the class has completed the
required MS course INF 397C, Introduction to Research in Information Studies, or equivalent.
Please use Gary Marchionini’s 2008 paper in Library & Information Science Research, “HumanInformation Interaction Research and Development,” in writing your research proposal,
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
30
especially our discussion about the paper in the last class meeting and these elements of the
paper:
1.
2.
3.
His important discussion of the “redefinition” of the three major elements in information
interactions – “information objects,” people, and technologies
Human-information interaction
The research challenges he identifies that result from the changes in information behavior
research he describes.
While it is very easy to say that “we will do a survey!” consider data collection methods beyond
the administration of standardized self-administered questionnaires, e.g., personal interviews,
focus groups, transaction log analysis, think-aloud protocols, observation of naturalistic tasks, a
census of hardware and software used by the intended users, use diaries, and so on. The
instructor will be happy to discuss these matters with particular student teams and the class as a
whole and review any outlines or drafts of proposals before the due date.
Your research methods must explicitly discuss data analysis as well as data collection, i.e., you
must be able to answer the question "how will we analyze these data so that they can help us
understand if our Web site is useful for our intended users?" Be specific and as explicit as
possible about data analysis. Simply saying that “we’ll count, and calculate statistics” (whatever
that means) is not sufficient. Always remember that you have to say how you would analyze the
data from such data collection techniques to address your research question(s). Be as specific in
that regard as you can be.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
31
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 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
American Library Association. (2009). CIPA.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.cfm
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
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
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
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
32
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 (2nd ed.). Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Buckland, Michael K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 42(5), 351-360. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Buckland, Michael K. (1997). What is a “document”? Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 48(9), 804-809. Also available in Trudi Bellardo Hahn & Michael Buckland
(Eds., 1998), Historical studies in information science (pp. 215-220). Medford, NJ: Information
Today. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/39748
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
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. CD Also available at
www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109861081/toc
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
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
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center). (2008a). Facebook privacy.
http://epic.org/privacy/facebook
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center). (2008b). Social networking privacy.
http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/default.html
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
33
Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of
information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Grassian, Esther. (2006). Thinking critically about Web 2.0 and beyond.
http://www2.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/11605_12008.cfm
Hauptman, Robert. (1998). Information technology: Seduction & peril. Educom Review, 33(3), 4849. Also available at
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=101&sid=68e9e55459a2-4e9b-b992eb83a98f152b%40sessionmgr111&bquery=(JN+%22Educom+Review%22+and+DT+19980501)&b
data=JmRiPWE5aCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl
Hersberger, Julie. (2005). Chatman’s information poverty. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 75-78). Medford, NJ:
Information Today. CD
Karat, Clare-Marie. (1998). Guaranteeing rights for the user. Communications of the ACM, 41(12),
29-31. Also available at
http://portal.acm.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/toc.cfm?id=J79&idx=J79&type=periodical&coll=A
CM&dl=ACM,ACM&part=magazine&WantType=Magazines&title=Communications&CFID=48
845888&CFTOKEN=61758569
Kline, Ronald, & Pinch, Trevor. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social
construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology & Culture, 37(4), 763-795.
Also available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/i356128
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
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. CD
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. 6368). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD
MacMullin, Susan, & Taylor, Robert. (1984). Problem dimensions and information traits. The
Information Society, 3(1), 91-111. CD
Marchionini, Gary. (2008). Human-information interaction research and development. Library &
Information Science Research, 30(3), 165-174. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236577%2320
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
34
08%23999699996%23698481%23FLA%23&_cdi=6577&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000059713
&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=d0e78297f252f6d50f36cb0e9625d9b6
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
Nahl, Diane, & Dania, Bilal. (Eds.). (2007). Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm
in information behavior research and theory. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
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.springerlink.com/content/5lj9lh0jmmw2/?p=d3beeb88bfa24a5cb2cc5f4db666a15c
&pi=40
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://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/farewell.pdf
O’Day, Vicki, & Nardi, 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
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
Pettigrew, Karen, Fidel, Raya, & Bruce, Harry. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp.
43-78). Medford, NJ: Information Today. 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
Saracevic, Tefko. (2007a). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for
thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(13), 2621-2644. Also
available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journal/116833768/issue
Saracevic, Tefko. (2007b). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for
thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: Nature and manifestations of
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
35
relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(13), 19151933. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journal/116833768/issue
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 (2nd 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. CD
Star, Susan Leigh, & Strauss, Anselm. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The dialogues
between visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 9-30. Also
available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/5lj9lh0jmmw2/?p=d3beeb88bfa24a5cb2cc5f4db666a15c
&pi=40
Suchman, Lucy [A.]. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56-63. Also
available at
http://portal.acm.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/toc.cfm?id=J79&idx=J79&type=periodical&coll=A
CM&dl=ACM,ACM&part=magazine&WantType=Magazines&title=Communications&CFID=48
845888&CFTOKEN=61758569
Suchman, Lucy [A.]. (1996). Supporting articulation work. In Rob Kling (Ed.), Computerization
and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed., pp. 407-423). San Diego, CA: Academic.
CD
Suchman, Lucy A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College &
Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194. CD
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
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=02361
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
36
Weaver, Warren. (1949). The mathematics of communication. Scientific American, 181(1), 11-15.
CD
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/v3n2p4956.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
science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 441-473). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Blair, David C. (2002). Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. In Blaise Cronin
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 3-50). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Borgman, Christine L., & Furner, Jonathan. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics.
In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 3-72).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Boyce, Bert R., & Kraft, Donald H. (1985). Principles and theories in information science. In
Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 20, pp. 153-178).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
37
Buckland, Michael K., & Liu, Ziming. (1995). History of information science. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 30, pp. 385-416). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
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
information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 257-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Capurro, Rafael, & Hjørland, Birger. (2002). The concept of information. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 343-412). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Case, Donald. (2006). Information seeking. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information
science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 293-327). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Chang, Shan-Ju, & Rice, Ronald E. (1993). Browsing: A multidimensional framework. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 28, pp. 231-276). Medford,
NJ: Learned Information.
Chen, Hsinchen, & Xu, Jie. (2006). Intelligence and security informatics. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 229-289). Medford, NJ:
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.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 273-306). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Cornelius, Ian. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393-425). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Crane, Diana. (1971). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 6, pp. 3-39). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Crawford, Susan. (1978). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 13, pp. 61-81). Medford, NJ: Knowledge Industry.
Davenport, Elisabeth, & Hall, Hazel. (2002). Organizational knowledge and communities of
practice. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp.
171-227). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
38
Davenport, Elizabeth, & Snyder, Herbert W. (2004). Managing social capital. In Blaise Cronin
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 517-550). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
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).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 21, pp. 3-33). Medford, NJ:
Knowledge Industry.
Dillon, Andrew, & Morris, Michael G. (1996). User acceptance of information technology:
Theories and models. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology
(Vol. 31, pp. 3-32). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Doctor, Ronald D. (1992). Social equity and information technologies: Moving toward
information democracy. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and
technology (Vol. 27, pp. 43-96). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Toward a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha
E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp. 115-245).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Eisenberg, Michael B., & Spitzer, Kathleen L. (1991). Information technology and services in
schools. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp.
243-285). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Ellis, David, Oldridge, Rachael, & Vasconcelos, Ana. (2003). Community and virtual community.
In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 144-186).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Enser, Peter G.B. (2008). Visual image retrieval. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 3-42). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
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
science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 497-544). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Harter, Stephen P., & Hert, Carol A. (1997). Evaluation of information retrieval systems:
Approaches, issues, and methods. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science
and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 3-94). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Haythornthwaite, Caroline, & Hagar, Christine. (2004). The social worlds of the Web. Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 311-346). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Herner, Saul, & Herner, Mary. (1967). Information needs and uses in science and technology. In
Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-34). New
York: Wiley Interscience.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
39
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
(Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 55-92). Medford, NJ:
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
information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 347-392). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Legg, Catherine. (2007). Ontologies on the semantic Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 407-451). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Lievrouw, Leah A., & Farb, Sharon E. (2002). Information and equity. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 499-540). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Lin, Nan, & Garvey, William. (1972). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 7, pp. 5-37). Washington, DC: American
Society for Information Science.
Lipetz, Ben-Ami. (1970). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 5, pp. 3-32). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Marchionini, Gary, & Komlodi, Anita. (1998). Design of interfaces for information seeking. In
Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 89-120).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Martyn, John. (1974). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 9, pp. 3-22). Washington, DC: American Society for
Information Science.
Menzel, Herbert. (1966). Information needs and uses in science and technology. In Carlos A.
Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 41-69). New York:
Wiley Interscience.
Paisley, William J. (1968). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 3, pp. 1-30). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Palmer, Carole L., & Cragin, Melissa H. (2008). Scholarship and disciplinary practices. In Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 165-212). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
40
Pettigrew, Karen, Fidel, Raya, & Bruce, Harry. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information
behavior. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp.
43-78). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
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).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Rogers, Yvonne. (2003). New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. In Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 87-144). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
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
information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 43-91). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Sawhney, Harmeet, & Jayakar, Krishna P. (2007). Universal access. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 159-221). Medford, NJ:
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. 427466). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Schamber, Linda. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual
review of information science and technology (Vol. 29, pp. 3-48). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Smith, Martha Montague. (1997). Information ethics. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 339-366). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Snyder, Herbert W., & Pierce, Jennifer Burek. (2002). Intellectual capital. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 467-500). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Solomon, Paul. (2002). Discovering information in context. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 229-264). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Sonnenwald, Diane H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 643-681). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Spink, Amanda, & Losee, Robert M. (1996). Feedback in information retrieval. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 31, pp. 33-78). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Sugar, William. (1995). User-centered perspective of information retrieval research and analysis
methods. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 30, pp.
77-109). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
41
Tibbo, Helen R. (1991). Information systems, services, and technology for the humanities. In
Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp. 287-346).
Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Vakkari, Pertti. (2002). Task-based information searching. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 413-464). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Science and technology studies and information studies. In Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 3-86). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1989). Bibliometrics. In Martha Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 24, pp. 119-186). Medford, NJ: Learned
Information.
White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 99-168). Medford,
NJ: Learned Information.
Yang, Kiduk. (2004). Information retrieval on the Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 33-80). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
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/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume2
1999/vol2fitzgerald.cfm
Grassian, Esther. (1997). Thinking critically about discipline-based World Wide Web resources.
http://www.mscare.org/cmsc/Articles-Thinking-Critically-about-Discipline.html
Grassian, Esther. (2009). Thinking critically about World Wide Web resources.
http://www2.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/11605_12337.cfm
Smith, Alastair G. (1997). Testing the surf: Criteria for evaluating Internet information resources.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 8(3).
http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pr/v8/n3/smit8n3.html
Smith, Alastair G. (2009). Evaluation of information sources.
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/evaln.htm
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.
Abbott, Andrew. (1998). Professionalism and the future of librarianship. Library Trends, 46(3),
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
42
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
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. (1995). Institutional circuitry: Thinking about the forms and uses of information.
Information, Technology and Libraries, 14(4), 225-230. Also available at
http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/192/918/69085623w6/purl=rc1_EAIM_0_A17814
175&dyn=9!ar_fmt?sw_aep=txshracd2598
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
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 219-240). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Allen, Bryce. (1996a). From research to design: A user-centered approach. In Peter Ingwersen &
Niels Ole Pors (Eds.), Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 45-59). From the Second
International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2).
Copenhagen: The Royal School of Librarianship.
Allen, Bryce. (1996b). Information tasks: Toward a user-centered approach to information systems. San
Diego, CA: Academic.
Allen, Robert B. (1990). User models: Theory, method, and practice. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 32(5), 511-543.
Allen, Thomas. (1966). Managing the flow of scientific and technical information. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Allen, Thomas. (1970). Managing the flow of technology transfer and the dissemination of technological
information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
43
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
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
Barlow, J.P. (1995, March/April). Is there a there in cyberspace? Utne Reader, 68, 52-56. Also
available at
http://w2.eff.org/Misc/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 (5th 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), 331340.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
44
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
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
45
American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 394-413. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
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.
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://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:0gChgfCegIQJ:www.isrl.illinois.edu/~chip/pubs
/01credibility/credibility.pdf+%22credibility+of+the+web%22+bertram+bruce&hl=en&gl=us
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.
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. 182185). 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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
46
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
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
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
47
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.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393-425). Medford, NJ:
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 (2nd
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.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/285819
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://pao.chadwyck.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/articles/displayItem.do?QueryType=articles
&ResultsID=1229ABA489D18A0955&filterSequence=0&ItemNumber=1&journalID=5419
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
48
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.
Edwards, Philip M. (2005). Taylor’s question-negotiation. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 358-362). Medford, NJ:
Information Today. CD
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
Information Science, 50(1), 24-37. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Ford, Nigel. (2000). Cognitive styles and virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 51(6), 543-557. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
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)
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
49
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. 135148). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.
Frohmann, Bernd. (1994). Communication technologies and the politics of postmodern
information science. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 19(2), 1-22.
Galvin, Thomas J. (1984). The significance of information science for the theory and practice of
librarianship. Libri, 34(2), 81-87.
Gardner, Howard. (1983). 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. (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
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
Information Science, 46(10), 729-736. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The strength of loose ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 13601380.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
50
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 (2nd 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. 268285). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.
Heins, Marjorie, Cho, Christina, & Feldman, Ariel. (2006). Internet filters: A public policy report (2nd
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), 761778.
Hilden, Julie. (2002). A recent Supreme Court decision allowing the government to force public
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
51
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).
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.
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
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
52
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 (2nd 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.
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. 1581644). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD
Levy, David M. (2000). Digital libraries and the problem of purpose. D-Lib Magazine, 6(1).
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january00/01levy.html
Lievrouw, Leah A., & Farb, Sharon E. (2002). Information and equity. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 499-540). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
53
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
American Society for Information Science, 48(3), 254-269. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
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. 191218). 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. 100109). 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
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
54
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
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 43-64). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Matson, Lisa Dallape, & Bonski, David J. (1997). Do digital libraries need librarians?: An
experiential dialog. Online, 21(6), 68-76. Also available
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=108&sid=ed77ad4a-2aa8-4380-9157e8dab18bfc30%40sessionmgr111&bquery=(JN+%22Online%22+and+DT+19971101)&bdata=JmRi
PWE5aCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
55
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.
Nahl, Diane. (1996). The user-centered revolution [sic]: 1970-1995. Encyclopedia of
Microcomputers, 19, 143-199.
Nahl, Diane. (2003). The user-centered revolution [sic]: Complexity in information behavior.
Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (2nd ed., revised and expanded; pp. 3028-3042). New
York: Marcel Dekker.
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://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490
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: SpringerVerlag.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
56
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, 9(41). Available at
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&ri
sb=21_T7198803779&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7198
803782&cisb=22_T7198803781&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=161341&docNo=7
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.
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
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
57
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
58
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.
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 21st 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.
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
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
59
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 [A.]. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine
communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
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 Valueadded 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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
60
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
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 271-296). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
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
American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 98-114. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Wasik, Joann M. (2005). Digital reference bibliography. Available at
http://www.webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent;jsessionid=FFBB8699B5FF14270F93B90A2
D4769AE?id=11878
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
61
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.
Widén-Wulff, Gunilla, & Ginman, Mariam. (2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in
organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 448458. Also available at http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol30/issue5/
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
62
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.
Copyright Philip Doty April 2009
63