INTRODUCTION TO DOCTORAL RESEARCH AND THEORY I
INF 391D.8
Unique Number 28055
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
Fall 2008
Class time:
Thursday, 9:00 AM – 12:00 N
Place:
SZB 556
Office:
SZB 570
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/2008/fall/INF391D8/
TA:
Sarah Kim
srhkim@gmail.com
Office hours: TBA
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the course
3
Expectations of PhD students’ performance
5
Standards for written work
6
Editing conventions
10
Grading
11
Texts and other tools
12
List of assignments
14
Outline of course
15
Schedule
17
Assignments
24
References
Readings from the class schedule and assignments
28
Selected ARIST chapters 1966-2008
36
Sources on doing research
41
Research and research methods in information studies
Research methods
Nature of science and systematic inquiry
Useful serial sources
49
Additional sources
54
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
2
Important professional associations and organizations
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
74
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
“We live in a period of profound skepticism. We have exposed all of the ‘good lies’ but still crave their
solace.”
Sue Curry Jansen, Censorship: The Knot that Binds Power
and Knowledge (1991, p. 190)
INF 391D.8, Introduction to Doctoral Research and Theory I, is the first in a two-course sequence
of seminars required of doctoral students in the School of Information. The overarching goal of
the two courses is to enable students to understand systematic inquiry in information studies and
to understand how they can be part of that inquiry. Because the field is both trans- and
interdisciplinary, the literatures we read, the concepts we engage, the modes of knowing and
argumentation we mobilize, and the criteria we use for judging knowledge claims will reflect a
number of positions and traditions.
The course comprises five short units that overlap to some extent:
Unit 1:
Unit 2:
Unit 3:
Unit 4:
Exploring the character of information studies (classes 1-2)
Thinking about systematic inquiry (classes 3-7)
Theoretical and methodological overviews of information studies (classes 8-9)
Examining specific theories and methods of inquiry in information studies including
the work of iSchool faculty members and senior doctoral students (classes 10-12)
Unit 5: Presentations of students’ research and summary (classes 13 and 14).
More specifically, INF 391D.8 has the following aims:







To ensure that students adequately understand the process of research and some of the
important ways it has been pursued in the western tradition; review and critique of the
principles of scientific inquiry are of special interest.
To introduce students to the making of theory in the field and cognate disciplines.
To consider important questions related to epistemology, identity, and community that are of
special importance to doing research and making theory in our field. Questions about how
we know, how we determine what we know, and how we know in concert with others infuse
the course.
To expose students to important research methods and traditions in the field and beyond,
especially to investigate positivist, post-positivist, and constructivist methods of research.
These methods may include the empirical social scientific, historical, philosophical, literary,
theoretical, ethnographic, quantitative/statistical, qualitative, policy analytic, rhetorical,
systems analytic, and so on.
To consider some of the ways that theory and method have taken shape in the field of
information studies.
To examine three of the major schools of thought that characterize systematic inquiry in our
field: (1) the useful if limited simile of information as thing, (2) the cognitivist approach to
information retrieval and learning, and (3) the performative perspective emphasizing
practice, materiality, community, and the social construction of knowledge.
To identify a wide variety of the important research fronts in our discipline and cognate
disciplines, including the organization of information, intellectual history, information
behavior, management of information organizations, and information systems design and
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
4
evaluation. The particular character of these research fronts will vary according to the
interests of the students and the instructor.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
5
There are three major reasons that much of DRT I is dedicated to understanding systematic
inquiry, especially science:
1.
The PhD is a research degree, and enrollment in such a program indicates a commitment to
systematic inquiry in its many forms.
2.
As a discipline and field of inquiry, information studies itself springs from the social and
behavioral sciences, humanities, and computational sciences, as well as from the natural and
physical sciences to a lesser degree. The more we understand the creation, sharing, and use
of knowledge and the practice of inquiry, the better we understand our own discipline and
how to do good research.
3.
In part, our discipline emerged from the marriage of library service and information science
and their shared concerns with scholarly communication and the distribution of scientific
information. The more we understand the processes of systematic inquiry and the roles of
communication in it, the better able we are to design, implement, evaluate, and re-design
information systems to serve all kinds of people in all sorts of situations.
With these reasons in mind, nine of the 14 classes in this version of DRT I focus on our field
(classes 1-2, 8-9, 10-12, and 13-14), while the other five focus on the bases of systematic inquiry
and the practices of knowledge production (classes 3-7). The boundary between a disciplinaryspecific focus and a wider look at systematic inquiry is, of course, quite permeable.
Generally, the instructor will begin each class with a brief review of logistics, e.g., readings for
next class, assignments, and academic housekeeping. He will then usually talk a bit about the
topic(s) and readings for the day’s class, usually keeping his remarks to 30 minutes or less. Then
the students will generally have the floor for the rest of the class to engage the readings,
discussion questions, assignments, and related topics. Thus, active reading, active participation,
and academic initiative are key to our mutual success this semester.
Throughout the semester, we will also try to remain acutely aware of our “cognitive insecurity
and our vulnerability to good lies” (Jansen, 1991, p. 191), learning to exercise engaged skepticism
– not dismissive cynicism – about the points of view and disagreements we will examine. It is
important to remember that reasonable people can disagree and that the classroom is a place
where such disagreement is welcome. Not only do humility and academic courtesy demand
respect for others, but recall that disagreement is one of our major resources for learning.
One of the implicit themes of the course will be the role of research in the university, the history
of the research university in America, the status of the university in American life, and the
purpose of graduate (especially doctoral) education. While readings about these topics will not
be required, they will be useful supplements to the class readings and useful over the course of
students’ academic and professional careers. See, e.g., Ehrlich (1995), Graham & Diamond
(1997a, b, and c), Kennedy (1997a, b, c, and d), and Shils (1997a and b).
The course is a way to integrate students more fully into the field, to help them become more
active readers and writers, to help them develop as more fully realized researchers, and to
enhance their understanding, use, and development of theory in the field. The course encourages
students to consider what our field recognizes as convincing evidence, strong modes of
argumentation, and appropriate and productive rhetorics. At the same time, students must
further develop their own goals, methods, and standards for their scholarly work and that of
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
6
others.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
7
EXPECTATIONS OF PHD STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE
Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and
in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:
•
Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with
another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.
•
Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform
their classroom participation and their writing. Students must learn to integrate what they
read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of
professional expertise and to the development of a collegial professional persona.
•
Educate themselves and their peers; successful completion of graduate academic 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 5-6 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom of a PhD seminar; a 3credit hour course requires a minimum of 15 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
particular 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 please recall that Doty limits his use of email
outside the office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is always wise to send a
copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA as well.
Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and
will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior
that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT
General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . .
HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.
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, UT-Austin, August 2008
8
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK
You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and
organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, you will find the following
remarks useful. Review these standards both before and after writing.
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what her audience knows about the topic
at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott
reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not
know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of
language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing.
Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Writing is a form of inquiry, a way to
think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. A vivid example of how
this complex process of composition and thought works appears in the unexpurgated version of
Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie (1994, p. 144):
Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all
effort, what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he
could find words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those
inmost breathings which thus found words took hold upon him.
We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.
All written work for the class must be word processed and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the
way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.
Some writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and
references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information
that notes and references are impeccable. Please use APA (American Psychological Association)
standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in engineering
and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA. Familiarity with
standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to
journals, funding agencies, employers, professional conferences, and the like. You may want to
consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.).
Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in
graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to
define a term, use a specialized dictionary, e.g., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or
subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature about the term
sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.
Use a standard spell checker when writing, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not
include most proper nouns, particularly personal and place names; omit most technical terms;
include few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g.,
writing "there" instead of "their” or "the" instead of "them."
It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in
editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
9
increase clarity. If you have any questions about these standards, please ask the instructor at any
time.
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
10
Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:
•
The title of the assignment
•
Your name
•
The date
•
The class number – INF 391D.8.
Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, the
instructor will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of
a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you
prepare professional written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s
3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 25 (some have more than one error):
1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or
other means of keeping the pages together.
2. Number all pages after the title page. Notes and references do not count against page limits.
3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in
graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction – be serious
and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in
between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem
with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and
"option."
4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant
input."*
5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except
when using such terms in specific technical ways.
6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.
7. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a
colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies.
8. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "highquality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.
9. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipses*. . . .*
10. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms
entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts,"
"factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.
11. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
11
12. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *This* is
often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear
referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
12
number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is
singular, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent
or the pronoun must change in number.
13. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."
14. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate
in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place
he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes
only to Antone's."
15. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.
16. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will
not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.
17. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: *As
someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the
lecture.* The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the
history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then,
obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by
preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in
the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.
18. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited
technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision.
19. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all
PLURAL forms. They *takes* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a singular
construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy.
20. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many
horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an
amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this
distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for
uncountable nouns.
21. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*
22. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.
23. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to
persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates
as appropriate in APA.
24. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give
an indication, as specifically as possible, of:
- responsibility
- title
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
(who?)
(what?)
13
- date of creation
- date viewed
- place to find the source
(when?)
(when?)
(where? how?).
CONTINUED
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
14
See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214,
231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see
Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at
http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE for more guidance.
25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*
26. “Citation,” “quotation,” and “reference” are nouns; “cite,” “quote,” and “refer to” are verbs.
27. Use double quotation marks (“abc”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz’), as a matter of course.
Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.
28. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page
or other digital source without page numbers, provide at least the paragraph number and/or
other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”
29. To maximize the clarity of your writing, please do not use “as” as a synonym for “because.”
30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
31. Many scholars in the social sciences and humanities use the term "issue" in a technical way to
identify sources of public controversy or dissensus, NOT synonymously with general terms
such as "area," "topic," or the like. Generally avoid using the term.
32. For a number of reasons, do NOT use “debate” or similar locutions to identify public
discussions about political and other conflicts. Use of the term implies that there are only
two points of view on the conflict, that one side is “correct,” that one side must and will
“win,” and that there are no alternatives to this adversarial approach to disagreement. All
these assumptions are highly questionable.
33. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”
34. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.
35. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”
“participants,” and “informants” are preferred and have been for decades.
36. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary. If you must use them, use endnotes rather than
footnotes.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
15
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?
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
16
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, UT-Austin, August 2008
17
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/grad07-09/ch01/ch01a.grad.html#TheNature-and-Purpose-of-Graduate-Work and http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad0709/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. For PhD
students, however, a grade of B signals some difficulties with academic study. The instructor
reserves the grade of A for students who demonstrate a command of the concepts and techniques
discussed, have the ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner,
communicate them effectively, and successfully inform 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, UT-Austin, August 2008
18
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are five required texts for this class, and you can purchase them at the Co-op (476.7211).
As many of the required readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL; many of the readings are
available online. I also list a number of recommended books, and these can be supplemented by
the many sources in the various parts of the references at the end of this syllabus.
The required texts are:
Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of
information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Miller, Jane E. (2004). The Chicago guide to writing about numbers: The effective presentation of
quantitative information. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. (2006). Scandalous knowledge: Science, truth and the human. Durham,
NC: Duke University. (Original work published 2005)
We will also use many of the papers from three special issues of two major journals; they are all
available online:
Journal of Documentation, 61(1) – a 2005 special issue on library and information science and the
philosophy of science edited by Birger Hjørland at the Royal School of Library and
Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Library Trends, 50(3) – a 2002 special issue on theory in LIS edited by William E. McGrath,
formerly of the School of Information and Library Studies, SUNY-Buffalo.
Library Trends, 52(3) – a 2004 special issue on philosophy of information edited by Ken Herold,
director of library systems at the Burke Library of Hamilton College, Clinton, NY.
Students may be interested in these discussion lists:
See the resources, including discussion lists, at the ALISE Doctoral Students Doctoral
Students Special Interest Group (SIG)
http://ils.unc.edu/phd/ALISE/resour.htm#ALISE-related
jESSE listserv http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/jesse.html
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
19
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS (CONTINUED)
I recommend these books, some of which you may examine in DRT II:
Bauer, Henry H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of scientific method. Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois.
Ben-Ari, Moti. (2005). Just a theory: Exploring the nature of science. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Benton, Ted, & Craib, Ian. (2001). Philosophy of social science: The philosophical foundation of social
thought. New York: Palgrave.
Biagioli, Mario. (Ed.). (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.
Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Cornelius, Ian. (1996b). Meaning and method in information studies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso. (Original work published
1975)
Fleck, Ludwik. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K.
Merton (Eds.). (Fred Bradley & Thaddeus J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
(Original work published 1935)
Garvey, William D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange
among scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon.
Haack, Susan. (2003). Defending science – within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 2003)
Hiley, David R., Bohman, James F., & Shusterman, Richard. (1991). The interpretive turn:
Philosophy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Horgan, John. (1996). The end of science: Facing the limits of knowledge in the twilight of the scientific
age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kaplan, Abraham. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. New York:
Harper & Row.
Klee, Robert. (1999). Scientific inquiry: Readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kline, Morris. (1985a). Mathematics and the search for knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Koertge, Noretta. (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. New
York: Oxford University.
Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through
society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Lawrence, Christopher, & Shapin, Steven. (Eds.). (1998). Science incarnate: Historical embodiments
of natural knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Machlup, Fritz, & Mansfield, Una. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary
messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [See especially the Prologue and Epilogue, as well
as the sections on Informatics, Library and Information Sciences, and System Theory]
Steinmetz, George. (Ed.). (2005). The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its
epistemological others. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Students may find the following books on the so-called science wars particularly interesting:
Brown, James Robert. (2001). Who rules in science?: An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994c). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels
with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
20
Gross, Paul R., Levitt, Norman, & Lewis, Martin W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and
reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 775). New York: New York Academy
of Sciences.
Ross, Andrew. (1996). Science wars. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
21
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, and with 1" margins, and
are due in class unless otherwise indicated.
Assignment
Date Due
Percent of Grade
Preparation and participation
Discussion questions and informal presentations
--SEP 11, 18, 25
OCT 2, 16, 23
NOV 13
10%
Short online postings reviewing a research
journal -- all due on WED, 12:00 N (3 pp.; 5% each)
SEP 16, 30
OCT 14, 28
20
In-class discussion of the philosophy of science
using a chapter from Godfrey-Smith (2003)
SEP 11, 18
---
Paper on quantitative reasoning in information
studies (5 pp.)
SEP 25
15
Topic and abstract (2 pp.) for state of theory
and research paper
OCT 23
---
Choice of state of theory and research paper to review
NOV 6
---
Draft of paper on theory and research (≥ 10 pp.)
NOV 20
---
Public presentation on final paper
NOV 20
10
Peer review of draft of final paper (3-4 pp.)
DEC 4
15
Final paper on state of theory and research (18-20 pp.)
WED, DEC 10,
12:00 N
30
All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course
grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will 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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
22
Your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear, succinct, and
specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and other sources
as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your papers.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
23
OUTLINE OF COURSE
Meeting
Date
TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Unit 1: Exploring the character of information studies
1
Aug 28
Introduction to the course
Review of the syllabus
When we do information studies, what are we doing?
2
Sep 4
Some ways to view the field
Questioning the ideology of information
Unit 2: Thinking about systematic inquiry
3
Sep 11
(Sep 16, TUE)
Introduction to the philosophy of science
Student-led discussion
• DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
4
Sep 18
Philosophy of science – continued
Student-led discussion
5
Sep 25
Making quantitative arguments
• DUE: Quantitative reasoning in information studies (5 double-spaced pp.)
(15%)
(Sep 30, WED) • DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
6
Oct 2
Science as a material assemblage
Undermining mentalism, defending realism
The “science wars”
7
Oct 9
Science as a material assemblage – continued
Constructivism and other views of systematic inquiry
(Oct 14, TUE)
• DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Unit 3: Theoretical and methodological overviews of information studies
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
24
8
ASIST
Oct 16
Philosophy of science and information studies
Thinking about systematic inquiry in the field beyond the philosophy of
science
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
25
9
Oct 23
Some overviews of theory and in the field
• DUE: Topic and abstract – state of research and theory paper (2 pp.)
(Oct 28, TUE)
• DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Unit 4: Examining specific theories and methods of inquiry in information studies
10
Oct 30
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members
Information behavior (1): General theory
11
Nov 6
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members -- continued
Information behavior (2): Information studies research
• DUE: Choice of state of research and theory paper to review
12
Nov 13
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members -- continued
Information behavior (3): “Information seeking”
Unit 5: Presentations of students’ research
13
Nov 20
Information behavior (4): Information retrieval
Students’ presentations (10%)
• DUE: Draft of final paper (≥ 10 pp.)
14
Nov 27
No class – Happy Thanksgiving!
Dec 4
Course evaluation
Course summary
• DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (≥ 3-4 pp.) (15%)
DEC 10, WED, 12:00 N
• DUE: State of research and theory paper (18-20 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
26
SCHEDULE
The schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester. Some
readings are in the Course Documents section of BlackBoard (CD), while many other required
readings are available online as indicated. Some of the readings require you to be logged in with
your UT EID through the UT libraries. I deliberately do not identify persistent URL’s for the
online readings so that you will browse more online than you otherwise might. AS indicates
Additional Sources, listed in the last several sections of the syllabus.
DATE
TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS
Unit 1: Exploring the character of information studies
Aug 28
Introduction to the course
Review of the syllabus
When we do information studies, what are we doing?
READ: Ortega y Gassett (1961/1934) online
Shera (1968) [1972] CD and Heilprin (1972) CD
Agre (1995) online
Bates (1999a) online
Bates (1999b) online
Buckland (1996) online
Hider & Pymm (2008) online
AS:
Sep 4
Day (2005)
Delamont & Atkinson (2001) online
Hahn (1996)
Scarrott (1994)
Some ways to view the field
Questioning the ideology of information
READ: Bates (2005b)
Cornelius (2004) online
Frohmann (2004) online
Harmon (1987) CD
Hjørland (2005b) online
McKechnie & Pettigrew (2002) online
Nunberg (1996a) online
AS:
Augst (2001)
Capurro (1992)
Cole (1994)
Day (2000) online
Floridi (2002) online
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
27
Frohmann (1992)
Hjørland (2005c) online
Reeling (1992)
Vakkari (1996)
Wiegand (2003) online
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
28
Unit 2: Thinking about systematic inquiry
Sep 11
Introduction to the philosophy of science
Student-led discussion of Godfrey-Smith
READ: Godfrey-Smith (2003), 1 (“Introduction”), 2 (“Logic Plus Empiricism”), 4
(“Popper: Conjecture and Refutation”), 5 (“Kuhn and Normal
Science”), 6 (“Kuhn and Revolutions”), 7 (“Lakatos, Laudan,
Feyerabend, and Frameworks”)
Best & Kellner (1997) CD
Hjørland (2005c) online
Miller (2004), 1 (“Why Write About Numbers?”), 2 (“Seven Basic
Principles”), Appendix A (“Implementing ‘Generalization,
Example, Exceptions’ (GEE)”)
Tashakkori & Teddlie (1998) CD
AS:
Godfrey-Smith (2003), 3
(Sep 16, TUE)
• DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Sep 18
Philosophy of science – continued
Student-led discussion of Godfrey-Smith
READ: Godfrey-Smith (2003), 8 (“The Challenge from Sociology of Science”), 9
(“Feminism and Science Studies”), 10 (“Naturalistic Philosophy
in Theory and Practice”), 12 (“Scientific Realism”), 15 (“Empiricism,
Naturalism, and Scientific Realism?”)
Miller (2004), 3 (“Causality, Statistical Significance, and Substantive
Significance”), 4 (“Technical but Important: Five More Basic
Principles”), 9 (“Writing About Distributions and Associations”)
VanHouse (2003) CD
AS:
Sep 25
Godfrey-Smith (2003), 11
Quine (1969)
Making quantitative arguments
READ: Miller (2004), 10 (“Writing About Data and Methods”), 11 (“Writing
Introductions, Results, and Conclusions”)
Kline (1985b) CD
Porter (1999) CD
Tufte (1997a) CD
Dilevko (2007) online
Wainer (1984) online
AS:
Logan (1995)
MacKenzie (1999)
Miller (2004), 5, 6, 7, 8
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
29
Rotman (1999) CD
Tufte (1997b)
Wainer (1992) online
• DUE: Quantitative reasoning in information studies (5 double-spaced pp.)
(15%)
(Sep 30, TUE)
• DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Oct 2
Science as a material assemblage
Undermining mentalism, defending realism
The “science wars”
READ: Smith (2006), all chapters
Pickering (1995), Preface, 1 (“The Mangle of Practice”)
Gross & Levitt (1994a) CD
Gross & Levitt (1994b) CD
Gross & Levitt (1994d) CD
Reddy (1993) CD
AS:
Oct 9
Latour (1987), passim
Hjørland (2004)
Pickering (1999)
Science as a material assemblage – continued
Constructivism and other views of systematic inquiry
READ: Bauer (1992) CD
Hammers & Brown (2004), online
Pickering (1995), 2 (“Machines: Building the Bubble Chamber”), 4
(“Concepts: Constructing Quarks”), 5 (“Technology:
Numerically Controlled Machine Tools”), 6 (“Living in the
Material World”), 7 (“Through the Mangle”)
Talja et al. (2005) online
AS:
(Oct 14, TUE)
Pickering (1995), 3 (“Facts: The Hunting of the Quark”)
Daston (1999)
Daston (2005) online
Hacking (1999)
• DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
30
Unit 3: Theoretical and methodological overviews of information studies
Oct 16
Philosophy of science and information studies
Thinking about systematic inquiry in the field beyond the philosophy of science
READ: Buckland (2002) online
Budd (2005) online
Day (1996) CD
Frohmann (2000) online
Hider & Pymm (2008) online (reprise)
Hjørland (2005a) online
McGrath (2002b) online
Sundin & Johannison (2005) online
AS:
Burke et al. (1996) online
Hansson (2005) online
Herold (2001) online
Hjørland (2005c) online (reprise)
Seldén (2005) online
Oct 23
Some overviews of theory in the field
ASIST
READ: Budd (1995) online
Cronin (2008) online
Dervin (2005)
Hernon & Schwartz (2007) online
Pettigrew & McKechnie (2001) online
Zwadlo (1997) online
AS:
Budd (2002) online
Carlin (2003) online
Dick (1999) online
Fallis (2002) online
Floridi (2004) online
Furner (2004a)
Furner (2004b)
Hjørland (2004)
Jones (2008) online
McDowell (2002) online
Swanson (1988) online
Zandonade (2004)
• DUE: Topic and abstract – state of research and theory paper (2 pp.)
(Oct 28, TUE)
• DUE: Short online journal posting (750 words, 3 double-spaced pp.) (5%)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
31
Unit 4: Examining specific theories and methods of inquiry in information studies
Oct 30
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members
Information behavior (1): General theory
Information organization, design, and display (1)
READ: Davies (2005)
Dillon & Turnbull (2005) CD
Dixon (2005)
Julien (2005)
Lowe & Eisenberg (2005)
Lynch (2002) online
McKechnie (2005)
Norman (2002b) CD
Norman (2002d) CD
Ross (2005)
Yakel (2005)
AS:
Nov 6
Davidsen (2005) online
Ellis, M. (2005) online
Van House (2002) online
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members – continued
Information behavior (2): Information studies research
Information organization, design, and display (2)
READ: Chatman (1996) online
Cook (1997) CD
Hersberger (2005)
McGrath (2002a) online
Norman (2002c) CD
Palmquist (2005)
Tidline (2005)
Wilson (2005)
Wilson (2008) online
AS:
Eisenhardt (1989) online
Williamson (2005)
• DUE: Choice of state of research and theory paper to review
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
32
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
33
Nov 13
Research and theory in the work of senior PhD students and
faculty members -- continued
Information behavior (3): “Information seeking”
READ: Bates (2005a)
Belkin (2005)
Case (2005)
Edwards (2005)
Ellis, D. (2005)
Erdelez (2005)
Kuhlthau (1991) online
Savolainen (2005)
Savolainen (2007) online
AS:
Fayyad et al. (1996) online
Pettigrew et al. (2001)
Smiraglia (2002) online
Spink & Cole (2004)
Unit 5: Presentations of students’ research
Nov 20
Students’ presentations (10%)
Information behavior (4): Information retrieval
READ: Chartier (2004) online
Miller (2004), 12 (“Speaking About Numbers”)
Kuhlthau (2005)
Taylor (1968) CD
AS:
Bates (1989)
Rioux (2005)
Turnbull (2005)Wilkinson and Task Force (1999) online
• DUE: Draft due – final paper (≥ 10 pp.)
Nov 27
No class – Happy Thanksgiving!
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
34
Dec 4
Course evaluation
Course summary
READ: Budd (2006) online
Medawar (1963/1990) CD
Midgley (1999) CD
Rowley (2007) online
Taylor (1991) CD
AS:
Bates (1999c) online
Bates (2000) online
Cox (2005) online
Janssens et al. (2006) online
Jones (2005) online
• DUE: Review of another student’s draft of final paper (≥ 3-4 pp.) (15%)
DEC 10, WED, 12:00 N
• DUE: State of research and theory paper (18-20 pp.) (30%)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
35
ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor will provide more information about each assignment as the semester proceeds.

Informal presentations and discussion questions for class – Due throughout the semester
Seminars demand that students be active participants in their own learning and in the learning of
others. To that end, to help the students in the class engage the material more fully, and to
develop their individual professional voices, students will make some informal presentations and
lead class discussions. The instructor’s evaluations of the informal presentations and class
discussions will be integrated into students’ class preparation and participation grade.
On September 11 or 18, each student will make a 5-10 minute information presentation on one
chapter of Godfrey-Smith’s book on the philosophy of science (2003) and lead the class discussion
of that chapter. This activity will require a one- or two-page handout to distribute to the other
members of the class. Students will design the handout according to whatever criteria the
student regards as important to understanding that particular chapter, e.g., terms, citations,
important schools of thought, references to other parts of the book, links to other readings and
earlier class discussions, and the like. Each student will act as a respondent to another student’s
information presentation; the instructor will make these pairings by September 10.
In addition to this individually graded assignment, each student will complete these activities:
1.
September 18 – prepare one “summary” question or comment about Godfrey-Smith’s 2003
book as a whole for class
2.
September 25 – submit one discussion question to the appropriate BlackBoard forum about
quantitative arguments; the question will be posted before class and will serve as one part of
the class discussion for that day
3.
October 2 – come to class with one question, response, or comment based on each of the
seven chapters in Smith’s Scandalous Knowledge (2006), seven questions, responses, or
comments in toto
4.
October 16 – prepare comments on two of the papers read for that class
5.
October 23 – come to class with answers to the following questions:
6.

Budd (1995) discusses an “epistemological foundation for library and information
science.” What is the foundation that he describes? What is your evaluation of it? Be
specific in considering this question, and especially link it to the readings on October 16
about the philosophy of science and our field.

What is your evaluation of Pettigrew & McKechnie’s (2001) typology of theories in
information studies? What is your evaluation of their operationalization of the concept
“use of theory”? Why?
November 13 – come to class with one question for your classmates on any one reading from
Theories of Information Behavior.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
36

Short online postings reviewing a research journal – Due Tuesday, September 16,
September 30, October 14, October 28 (20%)
Every student will choose one journal from the list below to read throughout the semester and
will make four short online postings about the journal. It is in the student’s best interest to
choose an unfamiliar journal:
American Archivist
College & Research Libraries
Communications of the ACM
First Monday
Information Processing & Management
The Information Society
Journal of Documentation
Journal of Information Science
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Libraries & the Cultural Record (produced here at the UT School of Information)
Library & Information Science Research
Library Trends
Library Quarterly.
No more than one student may choose any one journal from the list. The short online posting
will be kept in a BlackBoard forum set up for that purpose, but students are encouraged to share
their thoughts more publicly as they see fit, especially with other doctoral students, as long as
they do not breach the privacy of the classroom.
The goal of the short online postings is to document the student’s reactions to the journal,
especially to use the review of the journal’s papers, editorials, identities of contributors, and the
like to enhance the student’s understanding of the field and the development of a research
persona. How does the journal reflect the questions we engage in class? Does it engage them at
all? What other questions and concerns does the journal consider? What singular questions or
continuing themes does it engage? Who are the major actors in the community that the journal
serves, both individually and institutionally? Who edits the journal? Who publishes it? What
does the journal consider good research? These are only indicative of the kinds of questions the
short online postings might discuss.
Students should, at a minimum, read the full 2007 volume of the journals, but they are free to
discuss material from anywhere in the journals’ run.
Every student will post a 750-word entry (about three double-spaced pp.) every other Tuesday
by 12:00 N. Each student will write four (4) short online postings, due on the following
Wednesdays: September 16, September 30, October 14, and October 28. By the Friday class the
weeks that students write their short online posting entries, each student must read the entries of
the other students in the course.
These postings are a means to consider how the material read for DRT I, the rest of students’
reading, and their professional experiences are part of our shared, larger disciplinary
conversation.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
37

Paper on quantitative reasoning in information studies – Due September 25 (15%)
For this assignment:
1.
2.
3.
Choose one recent (2007, 2008) empirical study that uses quantitative methods, at least in
part. This study should appear in one of the information studies journals that the class as a
whole is considering throughout the semester; see p. 25 of this syllabus for the list.
Be sure to pick a paper from one of the journals that you are NOT reviewing.
Address the following questions in a paper of five (5) double-spaced pages:
How does the use of quantitative reasoning in this paper follow or not follow the suggestions
that Miller (2004) makes?
Are those differences important? Why or why not? Are the differences prompted by good
reasons?
Do the other papers we have read about quantitative reasoning (Dilevko, 2007; Kline, 1984b;
Porter 1999; and Wainer, 1984) offer useful suggestions for the paper you have chosen to
discuss? Why or why not?
In writing the paper, feel free to draw on class discussions, especially about the conceptual
foundations of our discipline, the philosophy of science, ontology and mathematics place in it,
and other concepts you find useful. Please recall, however, that the paper must be only five (5)
pages long, so the argument must be succinct and specific.

Paper on state of theory and research – Due various dates
Every student’s final paper of the semester will report on the current state of theory and research
of a topic in our field. While the topic must be determined in negotiation with the instructor,
students are especially encouraged to consult with their classmates about their topics.
The topic should be sufficiently narrow that the student can report on and evaluate the state of
theory and research on the topic in 18-20 double-spaced pp. from a perspective informed by our
work together this semester. The student should:
1.
2.
3.
Review the important literature about the topic, both historically and more recently
Consider how the topic does or does not reflect three of the major perspectives in our field:
the simile of information as thing, cognitivist conceptions of information users, and the more
materialist, community-, and practice-based understanding of the field
Examine, explicitly, the research methods and modes of argumentation that have
characterized studies of the topic.
Since such a considered examination of any topic is of the type expressed in monographs, it is
imperative that students keep their topics narrowly focused and that their papers be succinct and
clear.
Topic and abstract – Each student will clear the proposed topic with the instructor by
October 23. Each student must provide a clear statement of her topic and a two-page abstract of
how the final paper will address the topic by that date, preferably before.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
38
In addition to their own knowledge and interests, students may find a number of
resources of value in identifying a topic for the paper: discussion with the instructor and
colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), review of the supplemental parts of the
references in the class syllabus, students’ own and others’ online journal postings, the mass
media, class readings, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what the class
reads. The instructor will create a list of students and topics to be distributed online and in class
by October 30.
Choice of paper to review – Due November 6. No later than November 6, each student
will choose another student’s final paper to review. The choices will generally be on a firstcome, first-served basis, although the instructor reserves the right to assign students to particular
drafts keeping in mind such criteria as students’ genders, research interests, educations,
employment histories, native languages, and the like.
Draft – Due November 20. Each student will submit an initial draft of the final paper on
November 20. The draft will be at least 10 double-spaced pp. long, will have a one-page
abstract, will indicate how the rest of the paper will develop, and will have a substantial part of
the bibliography identified and complete in APA format. Students will submit two copies of this
draft – one for the student peer editor and one for the instructor.
Presentation – November 20 (10%). Each student will make a 20- minute oral
presentation related to her final paper. This will be a public presentation, probably in SZB 468,
to which all constituencies of the School will be invited, particularly PhD students, MS students,
and the iSchool faculty with advisees in the class.
Every student should use the computer and projection device available, as well as
prepare an appropriate handout with, at the least, an outline of the presentation (this handout
may include copies of PowerPoint slides if the student is using PowerPoint) and a short list of
appropriate sources. Students will present in the first half of class, with questions saved for 15-20
minutes at the end. This arrangement parallels one common in professional conferences. Each
student peer editor will act as an initial respondent.
The instructor and the class TA will organize the presentation session and announce the
schedule on the class and Insider email lists by November 16.
Review of another student’s draft – Due December 4 (15%). Each student will review
the draft of another student’s final paper and submit two copies of a three- to four-page, doublespaced critique of the paper. One copy will go to the student who wrote the draft and one to the
instructor. Be specific in the critique – what works in the draft? What does not? Why or why
not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper, whether about the
topic, the argument, definitions, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and so on? The major
criterion used to evaluate these reviews will be how valuable each one is in helping the author to
improve her work.
Final draft – Due Wednesday, December 10, 12:00 N (30%). This is a final paper of 18-20
double-spaced pages that reports on the current state of research and theory in any approved
topic in the field. This final version, like the first draft, will have a one-page abstract outlining
the topic, methods of discussion and analysis used in the paper, and other pertinent elements of
the paper.
The paper should be both analytic and holistic, using the texts and other general material
read for the course, as well as that material more focused on our own discipline. Students should
remember to consult the syllabus on standards for written work both before and after they write
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
39
and put two copies of their final papers in the instructor’s box in the iSchool main office, SZB 564,
no later than 12:00 noon on Wednesday, December 10.
This paper should be prepared as if for submission to the Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, using that journal’s format for abstracts, headers and subheaders, citations, notes, and length; since JASIST gives authors some freedom in citations, please
adhere to APA style in your paper. See http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jabout/76501873/ForAuthors.html for this journal’s instructions to authors.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
40
REFERENCES
I. Readings from the class schedule and assignments
Some of the readings are in the Course Documents section of BlackBoard (CD). Several other required
readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule, and some of them require you to
be logged in with your UT EID through the UT libraries.
Agre, Philip E. (1995). Institutional circuitry: Thinking about the forms and uses of information.
Information, Technology and Libraries, 14(4), 225-230. Also available at
http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/192/918/69085623w6/purl=rc1_EAIM_0_A17814
175&dyn=9!ar_fmt?sw_aep=txshracd2598
Bates, Marcia J. (1999a). A tour of information science through the pages of JASIS. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 50(11), 975-993. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Bates, Marcia J. (1999b). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043-1050. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/69500790
Bates, Marcia J. (2005a). Berrypicking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 58-62). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Bates, Marcia J. (2005b). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. In Karen Fisher,
Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 1-24).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Bauer, Henry H. (1992). In praise of science. In Scientific literacy and the myth of scientific method
(pp. 141-151 and 172-173). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. 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.
Ben-Ari, Moti. (2005). Just a theory: Exploring the nature of science. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Benton, Ted, & Craib, Ian. (2001). Philosophy of social science: The philosophical foundation of social
thought. New York: Palgrave.
Best, Steven, & Kellner, Douglas. (1997). Entropy, chaos, and organism in postmodern science.
In The postmodern turn (pp. 195-251). New York: the Guilford Press. CD
Biagioli, Mario. (Ed.). (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.
Brown, James Robert. (2001). Who rules in science?: An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
41
Buckland, Michael. (1996). Documentation, information science, and library science in the U.S.A.
Information Processing & Management, 32(1), 63-76. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science//journal/03064573
Buckland, Michael. (2002). Five grand challenges for library research. Library Trends, 51(4), 675686. Also available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=84e3ce6f78e6-4c88-9232-a81fad78bbc3%40SRCSM1
Budd, John M. (1995). An epistemological foundation for library and information science.
Library Quarterly, 65(3), 295-318. Also available at
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=15&sid=bdb70c66-2242-48b3-8611d63b48418e08%40SRCSM2
Budd, John M. (2005). Phenomenology and information studies. Journal of Documentation, 61(1),
44-59. Also available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Budd, John M. (2006). What we say about research: Rhetoric and argument in library and
information science. Library Quarterly, 76(2), 220-240. Also available at
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/LQ/journal/contents/v76n2.html
Case, Donald O. (2005). Principle of least effort. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 289-292). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Chartier, Roger. (2004). Language, books, and reading from the printed word to the digital text.
Critical Inquiry, 31(1), 133-152. Also available at
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CI/journal/contents/v31n1.html
Chatman, Elfreda A. (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/27981/1996
Cook, Terry. (1997). What is past is prologue: A history of archival ideas since 1898, and the
future paradigm shift. Archivaria, 43, 17-63). Also available at
http://www.mybestdocs.com/cookt-pastprologue-ar43fnl.htm
Cornelius, Ian. (1996b). Meaning and method in information studies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cornelius, Ian. (2004). Information and its philosophy. Library Trends, 52(3), 377-386. Also
available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=84e3ce6f-78e6-4c889232-a81fad78bbc3%40SRCSM1
Cronin, Blaise. (2008). The sociological turn in information science. Journal of Information Science,
34(2), 465-475. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/content/vol34/issue4/
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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
42
Day, Ronald E. (1996). LIS, method, and postmodern science. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 37(4), 317-324. CD
Delamont, Sara, & Atkinson, Paul. (2001). Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge.
Social Studies of Science, 31(1) , 87-107. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org/view/03063127/ap010105/01a00050/0?frame=noframe&userID=8053f82b
@utexas.edu/01cc99333c00501973648&dpi=3&config=jstor
Dervin, Brenda. (2005). What methodology does to theory: Sense-making methodology as
exemplar. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of
information behavior (pp. 25-30). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Dillon, Andrew, & Turnbull, Don. (2005). Information architecture. Encyclopedia of library and
information science (2nd ed., first update supplement). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Dilevko, Juris. (2007). Inferential statistics and librarianship. Library & Information Science
Research, 29(2), 209-229. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=
%23TOC%236577%232007%23999709997%23661328%23FLA%23&_cdi=6577&_pubType=J&_auth
=y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=c93b5cc9c12fc402b22
dfa6f7ddda9ba
Dixon, Christopher M. (2005). The strength of weak ties. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 344-348). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Dreiser, Theodore. (1994). Sister Carrie (John C. Berkey, Alice M. Winters, James L.W. West, &
Neda M. Westlake, eds.). New York: Penguin Books. (Original published 1900, 1981)
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.
Ellis, David. (2005). Ellis’s model of information-seeking behavior. In Karen Fisher, Sanda
Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 138-142). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Erdelez, Sanda. (2005). Information encountering. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne
(E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 179-184). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.
Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso. (Original work published
1975)
Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of
information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Fleck, Ludwik. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K.
Merton (Eds.). (Fred Bradley & Thaddeus J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
(Original work published 1935)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
43
Frohmann, Bernd. (2000). Discourse and documentation: Some implications for pedagogy and
research. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42(1), 13-28. Also available at
http://www.fims.uwo.ca/people/faculty/frohmann/selected%20papers.htm
Frohmann, Bernd. (2004). Documentation redux: Prolegomenon to (another) philosophy of
information. Library Trends, 52(3), 387-407. Also available at
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=84e3ce6f-78e6-4c88-9232a81fad78bbc3%40SRCSM1
Garvey, William D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange
among scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994a). The academic left and science. In Higher superstition:
The academic left and its quarrels with science (pp. 1-15 and 259). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University. CD
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994b). Does it matter? In Higher superstition: The academic
left and its quarrels with science (pp. 234-257 and 286-289). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
CD
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994c). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels
with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Gross, Paul R., & Levitt, Norman. (1994d). Science as power struggle. In Higher superstition: The
academic left and its quarrels with science (pp. 57-62 and 263-264). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University. CD
Gross, Paul R., Levitt, Norman, & Lewis, Martin W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and
reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 775). New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.
Haack, Susan. (2007). Defending science – within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 2003)
Hammers, Corie, & Brown, Alan D. III. (2004). Towards a feminist-queer alliance: A
paradigmatic shift in the research process. Social Epistemology, 18(1), 85-101. Also available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/tsep;jsessionid=137ng289a2fd7.victoria?
Harmon, E. Glynn. (1987). The interdisciplinary study of information: A review essay. The
Journal of Library History, 22(2), 206-227. CD
Heilprin, Laurence B. (1972). Response [to Jesse Shera’s “An Epistemological Foundation for
Library Science”]. In Edward B. Montgomery (Ed.), The foundations of access to knowledge (pp. 2635). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. CD
Hernon, Peter, & Schwartz, Candy. (2007). What is a problem statement? Library & Information
Science Research, 29(3), 307-309. Also available at
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
44
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=
%23TOC%236577%232007%23999709996%23668822%23FLA%23&_cdi=6577&_pubType=J&_auth
=y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=d28ef13201e6d9bf7d
06e9c04736acb4
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.
Hider, Philip, & Pymm, Bob. (2008). Empirical research methods reported in high-profile LIS
journal literature. Library & Information Science Research, 30(2), 108-114. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/science//journal/07408188
Hiley, David R., Bohman, James F., & Shusterman, Richard. (1991). The interpretive turn:
Philosophy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Hjørland, Birger. (2005a). Comments on the articles and proposals for further work. Journal of
Documentation, 61(1), 156-163. Also available at
http://miranda.emeraldinsight.com/vl=3107758/cl=15/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/0022
0418/v61n1/s10/p156
Hjørland, Birger. (2005b). Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information
science. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 130-155. Also available at
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Hjørland, Birger. (2005c). Library and information science and the philosophy of science. Journal
of Documentation, 61(1), 5-10. Also available at
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Horgan, John. (1996). The end of science: Facing the limits of knowledge in the twilight of the scientific
age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jansen, Sue Curry. (1991). Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge. New York:
Oxford University.
Jones, Bonna. (2008). Reductionism and library and information science philosophy. Journal of
Documentation, 64(4), 482-495. Also available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/Insight/viewContainer.do;jsessionid=6
41BF2CC5A4452B7FC9893ED989EF2E2?containerType=JOURNAL&containerId=1298
Julien, Heidi. (2005). Women’s ways of knowing. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 387-391). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Kaplan, Abraham. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. New York:
Harper & Row.
Klee, Robert. (1999). Scientific inquiry: Readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kline, Morris. (1985a). Mathematics and the search for knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
45
Kline, Morris. (1985b). Why does mathematics work? In Mathematics and the search for knowledge
(pp. 210-227 and 253-254). Oxford, UK: Oxford University. CD
Koertge, Noretta. (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. New
York: Oxford University.
Kuhlthau, Carol C[ollier]. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s
perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (2005). Kuhlthau’s information search process. In Karen Fisher, Sanda
Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 230-234). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Latour, Bruno, & Woolgar, Steve. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Lawrence, Christopher, & Shapin, Steven. (Eds.). (1998). Science incarnate: Historical embodiments
of natural knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago.
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.
Lynch, Clifford. (2002). Digital collections, digital libraries and the digitization of cultural
heritage information. First Monday, 7(5). Available at
Http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_5/lynch/index.html
Machlup, Fritz, & Mansfield, Una. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary
messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McGrath, William E. (2002a). Explanation and prediction: Building a unified theory of
librarianship, concept and review. Library Trends, 50(3), 350-370. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
McGrath, William E. (2002b). Introduction. Library Trends, 50(3), 309-316. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (2005). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. In Karen Fisher,
Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 373-376).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), & Pettigrew, Karen E. (2002). Surveying the use of theory in library
and information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library Trends, 50(3), 406-417.
Available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=21&sid=0e984920-cdc5-48a7a90c-711665869a7e%40sessionmgr3
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
46
Medawar, Peter. (1990). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In The threat and the glory: Reflections on
science and scientists (pp. 228-233). New York: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1963)
Midgley, Mary. (1999). Being scientific about our selves. In Shaun Gallegher & Jonathan Shear
(Eds.), Models of the self (pp. 467-480). Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic. CD
Miller, Jane E. (2004). The Chicago guide to writing about numbers: The effective presentation of
quantitative information. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Norman, Donald A. (2002b). Preface to the 2002 edition. The design of everyday things (vii-xv).
New York: Basic Books.
Norman, Donald A. (2002c). The psychology of everyday things. The design of everyday things
(34-53). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1988)
Norman, Donald A. (2002d). The psychopathology of everyday things. The design of everyday
things (1-33). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1988)
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1996a). Farewell to the Information Age. In Geoffrey Nunberg (Ed.), The
future of the book (pp. 103-133). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Also available at
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:y-uqPo1wPSIJ:wwwcsli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/farewell.pdf+farewell+to+the+information+age&hl=en
Ortega y Gassett, José. (1961). The mission of the librarian (trans. James Lewis & Ray Carpenter).
Antioch Review, 22(1), 133-154. (Original work published 1934) Also available in John David
Marshall (Ed.), Of, by, and for librarians, Second Series (1975, pp. 190-213). s.l.: Shoe String.
(Original work published 1961) Also available at
http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.882003&res_dat=xri:pqil:res_ver=0.1&rft_val_fmt=ori:format:pl:ebnf:jarticle&rft_id=xri:pcift:article:
5022-1961-021-02-000001&res_id=xri:pcift-us
Palmquist, Ruth A. (2005). Taylor’s information use environments. In Karen Fisher, Sanda
Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 354-357). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.
Pettigrew, Karen E., & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (2001). The use of theory in information science
research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 62-73. Also
available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/76502080
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Pickstone, John V. (2000). Ways of knowing: A new history of science, technology and medicine.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University.
Porter, Theodore M. (1999). Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. In Mario Biagioli
(Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 394-406). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1992)
CD
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
47
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
Ross, Andrew. (1996). Science wars. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Ross, Catherine Sheldrick. (2005). Reader response theory. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 303-307). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Rowley, Jennifer. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy.
Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 163-180. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/content/vol33/issue2/
Savolainen, Reijo. (2005). Everyday life information seeking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 143-148). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Savolainen, Reijo. (2007). Information behavior and information practice: Reviewing the
“umbrella concepts” of information seeking studies. Library Quarterly, 77(2), 109-132. Also
available at
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/LQ/journal/contents/v77n2.html
Shera, Jesse. (1972). An epistemological foundation for library science. In Edward B.
Montgomery (Ed.), The foundations of access to knowledge (pp. 7-25). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University. CD
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. (2006). Scandalous knowledge: Science, truth and the human. Durham,
NC: Duke University. (Original work published 2005)
Steinmetz, George. (Ed.). (2005). The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its
epistemological others. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Sundin, Olof, & Johannisson, Jenny. (2005). Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and sociocultural
theory: Communicative participation as a perspective in LIS. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 2343. Also available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Talja, Sanna, Tuominen, Kimmo, & Savolainen, Reijo. (2005). “Isms” in information science:
Constructivism, collectivism, and constructionism. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 79-101. Also
available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Tashakkori, Abbas, & Teddlie, Charles. (1998). Introduction to mixed method and mixed model
studies in the social and behavioral science. Paradigm wars and mixed methodologies. In Mixed
methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 3-13). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. CD
Taylor, Charles. (1991). The dialogical self. In David R. Hiley, James F. Bohman, & Richard
Shusterman (Eds.), The interpretive turn: Philosophy, science, culture (pp. 304-314). Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University. CD
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
48
Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College &
Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194. CD
Tidline, Tonyia J. (2005). Dervin’s sense-making. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 113-117). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Tufte, Edward R. (1997a). Visual and statistical thinking: Displays of evidence for making
decisions. In Visual explanations: Images, evidence and narrative (pp. 27-37). Cheshire CT:
Graphics Press.
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. CD
Wainer, Howard. (1984). How to display data badly. The American Statistician, 38(2), 137-147.
Available at
http://www.jstor.org/browse/00031305/di020581?frame=noframe&userID=8053f82b@utexas.e
du/01cce4401e0050e99d3&dpi=3&config=jstor
Wilson, Thomas D. (2005). Evolution in information behavior modeling: Wilson’s model. In
Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp.
31-36). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Wilson, Tom [Thomas D.]. (2008). The information user: Past, present and future. Journal of
Information Science, 34(4), 457-464. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/content/vol34/issue4/
Yakel, Elizabeth. (2005). Archival intelligence. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.)
McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 49-53). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Zwadlo, Jim. (1997). We don’t need a philosophy of library and information science: We’re
confused enough already. Library Quarterly, 67(2), 103-121. Available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
49
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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
50
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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
51
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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
52
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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
53
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.
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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
54
Vakkari, Pertti. (2002). Task-based information searching. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review
of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 413-464). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Science and technology studies and information studies. In Blaise
Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 3-86). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1989). Bibliometrics. In Martha Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 24, pp. 119-186). Medford, NJ: Learned
Information.
White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. In Martha
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 99-168). Medford,
NJ: Learned Information.
Yang, Kiduk. (2004). Information retrieval on the Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of
information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 33-80). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
55
III. Sources on doing research
Research and research methods in information studies
Biggs, Mary. (1991). The role of research in the development of a profession or a discipline. In
Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon (Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives
and strategies for improvement (pp. 72-84). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bookstein, Abraham. (1986). Questionnaire research in a library setting. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 11(1), 24-28.
Borgman, Christine L. (Ed.). (1990). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Bowker, Geoffrey, & Star, Susan Leigh. (1998). Sorting things out: Classification and its
consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boyce, Bert R., Meadow, Charles T., & Kraft, Donald H. (1994). Measurement in information
science. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Busha, Charles H., & Harter, Stephen P. (1980). Research methods in librarianship: Techniques and
interpretation. New York: Academic Press.
Cronin, Blaise. (1992). When is a problem a research problem? In Leigh Stewart Estabrook (Ed.),
Applying research to practice: How to use data collection and research to improve library management
decision making (pp. 117-132). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of
Library and Information Science.
Dervin, Brenda. (1977). Useful theory for librarianship: Communication, not information.
Drexel Library Quarterly, 13(3), 16-32.
Encyclopedia of library and information science. (1968-2003). Allen Kent & Harold Lancour (Eds.).
(1st ed.). (Vols. 1-73). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Encyclopedia of library and information science. (2003). Miriam Drake (Ed.). (2 nd ed.). New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Estabrook, Leigh Stewart. (Ed.). (1992). Applying research to practice: How to use data collection and
research to improve library management decision making. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
Glazier, Jack D., & Powell, Ronald R. (Eds.). (1992). Qualitative research in information
management. Englewood, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Gorman, G.E., & Clayton, Peter. (1997). Qualitative research for the information professional: A
practical handbook. London: Library Association.
Haddow, Gaby, & Klobas, Jane E. (2994). Communication of research to practice in library and
information science: Closing the gap. Library & Information Science Research, 26(1), 29-43.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
56
Hafner, Arthur W. (1989). Descriptive statistical techniques for librarians. Chicago: American
Library Association.
Harris, Michael H. (1986). The dialectic of defeat: Antimonies in research in library and
information science. In Donald G. Davis & Phyllis Dain (Eds.), History of library and information
science education [Special issue] (pp. 515-531). Library Trends, 34(3).
Hernon, Peter. (1991b). Access to the research literature of library and information science. In
Statistics: A component of the research process (pp. 31-38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hernon, Peter. (1991a). The elusive nature of research in LIS. In Charles R. McClure and Peter
Hernon (Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives and strategies for improvement
(pp. 3-14). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hernon, Peter. (2001). Components of the research process: Where do we need to focus
attention? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 81-89.
Hernon, Peter, & Schwartz, Candy. (2002). The word “research”: Having to live with a
misunderstanding. Library and Information Science Research, 24(3), 207-208.
Hertzel, Dorothy H. (1987). History of the development of ideas in bibliometrics. Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science, 42, 144-219.
Katzer, Jeffrey, Cook, Kenneth H., & Crouch, Wayne W. (1998). Evaluating information: A guide
for users of social science research (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Koufogiannakis, Denise, & Crumley, Ellen. (2006). Research in librarianship: Issues to consider.
Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 324-340.
Losee, Robert M., & Worley, Karen A. (1993). Research and evaluation for information professionals.
San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
McClure, Charles R. (1991). Communicating applied library/information science research to
decision makers: Some methodological considerations. In Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon
(Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives and strategies for improvement (pp. 253266). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McClure, Charles R., & Bishop, Ann. (1989). The status of research in library/information
science: Guarded optimism. College & Research Libraries, 50(2), 127-143.
McClure, Charles R., & Hernon, Peter. (Eds.). (1991). Library and information science research:
Perspectives and strategies for improvement. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mellon, Constance Ann. (1990). Naturalistic inquiry for library science: Methods and applications for
research, evaluation, and teaching. New York: Greenwood Press.
Nicholas, David, & Ritchie, Maureen. (1978). Literature and bibliometrics. London: Linnet Books.
Peritz, B. (1980). The methods of library science research: Some results from a bibliometric
study. Library Research, 2(3), 251-268.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
57
Powell, Ronald R., & Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. (2004). Basic research methods for librarians (4th
ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Powell, Ronald R., Baker, Lynda M., & Mika, Joseph J. (2002). Library and information science
practitioners and research. Library and Information Science Research, 24(1), 49-72.
Rice-Lively, Mary Lynn. (1997a). Analyzing qualitative data in information organizations. In
G.E. Gorman & Peter Clayton, Qualitative research for the information professional: A practical
handbook (pp. 198-221). London: Library Association.
Rice-Lively, Mary Lynn. (1997b). Recording fieldwork data in information organizations. In
G.E. Gorman & Peter Clayton, Qualitative research for the information professional: A practical
handbook (pp. 177-197). London: Library Association.
Robbins, Jane B. (1992). Affecting librarianship in action: The dissemination and communication
of research findings. In Leigh Stewart Estabrook (Ed.), Applying research to practice: How to use
data collection and research to improve library management decision making (pp. 78-88). UrbanaChampaign, IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.
Stenstrom, Patricia E. (1994). Library literature. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 368-373). New York: Garland.
Tague-Sutcliffe, Jean. (1995). Measuring information: An information services perspective. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Van House, Nancy. (1991). Assessing the quantity, quality, and impact of LIS research. In
Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon (Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives
and strategies for improvement (pp. 85-100). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vaughn, Liwen. (2001). Statistical methods for the information professional: A practically painless
approach to understanding, using, and interpreting statistics. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Westbrook, Lynn. (1993). User needs: A synthesis and analysis of current theories for the
practitioner. RQ, 32(4), 541-549.
Westbrook, Lynn. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of major stages, data analysis
techniques, and quality controls. Library and Information Science Research, 16(3), 241-254.
Research methods
Babbie, Earl. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Babbie, Earl. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Bazerman, Charles. (1987). Codifying the social scientific style: The APA Publication Manual as
a behaviorist rhetoric. In John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, & Donald N. McCloskey (Eds.), The
rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs (pp. 125-144).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
58
Berg, Bruce L. (1998). Writing research papers: Sorting the noodles from the soup. In Qualitative
research methods for the social sciences (pp. 253-272). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Best, Joel. (2001). Damned lies and statistics: Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and
activists. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Bloor, Michael. (2001). Focus groups in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, Harris M. (1984). The integrative research review: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Creswell, John W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, John W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, Norman K., & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, Norman K., & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hacking, Ian. (1999). Making up people. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp.
161-171). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1986)
Hamel, Jacques. (1993). Case study methods. With Stéphane Dufour & Dominic Fortin (Maureen
Nicholson, Trans.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Holsti, Ole R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Human subjects [sic] policies and documents. (2005). Office of Sponsored Projects, The University of
Texas at Austin. Available http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humanresearch/
Institutional review board procedures manual for faculty, staff, and student researchers with human
participants. (2005). Office of Research Support and Compliance, The University of Texas at
Austin. Available http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humanresearch/manual/index.php
Krippendorff, Klaus. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krueger, Joachim. (2001). Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed
method. American Psychologist, 56(1), 16-26.
Krueger, Richard A., & Casey, Mary Anne. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Bryman, Alan, & Liao, Tim Futing. (Eds.). (2004). The Sage encyclopedia of
social science research methods (3 vols.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
59
Lincoln, Yvonna, & Guba, Egon. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Logan, Ralph H. (1995). Significant digits. Available at
http://members.aol.com/profchm/sig_fig.html
Miles, Matthew B., & Huberman, A. Michael. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mohr, Lawrence B. (1990). Understanding significance testing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, David L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, Susan E., Reichert, Tom, & Harrison, Tyler R. (2002). From numbers to words: Reporting
statistical results for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oakley, Ann. (2000). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. New York:
The New Press.
Patton, Michael Quinn. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paulos, John Allen. (1990). Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. New York:
Vintage.
Paulos, John Allen. (1992). Beyond numeracy: Ruminations of a numbers man. New York: Vintage.
Paulos, John Allen. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: BasicBooks.
Rowntree, Derek. (1981). Statistics without tears: A primer for non-mathematicians. New York:
Scribner.
Salsburg, David. (2001). The lady tasting tea: How statistics revolutionized science in the twentieth
century. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Schwandt, Thomas A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Spatz, Chris. (2005). Basic statistics: Tales of distributions (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Stewart, David W., & Shamdasani, Prem N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, Anselm, & Corbin, Juliet. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tomm, Winnie. (Ed.). (1987). The effects of feminist approaches on research methodologies. Calgary:
Wilfrid Laurier University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
60
Trochim, William K., & Donnelly, James P. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.).
Mason, OH: Thomson. See http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/
Tufte, Edward R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics
Press.
Tufte, Edward R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, Edward R. (1997b). Visual explanations: Images, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT:
Graphics Press.
Tukey, John W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Vogt, W. Paul. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social
sciences (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Webb, Eugene J., Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard D., & Sechrest, Lee. (1969).
Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Weisberg, Herbert F. (1992). Central tendency and variability. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weiss, Robert S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York: The Free Press.
Wilkinson, Leland, & Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs. (1999).
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist,
54(8), 594-604. Also available at
http://weblinks1.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+8B64AF08%2DADD5%2D4258%2D845
7%2D5AA1D62A8D3B%40sessionmgr2+dbs+pdh+84D2&_us=hd+False+or+Date+frn+1+sm+ES
+sl+%2D1+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACBZD00040997+ADD3&_uso=st%5B2+%2Dguidelines+st%5B1+%
2Dmethods+st%5B0+%2Dstatistical+tg%5B2+%2DTI+tg%5B1+%2DTI+tg%5B0+%2DTI+db%5B0
+%2Dpdh+op%5B2+%2DAnd+op%5B1+%2DAnd+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+C474&fn=1&rn=1
Williams, Frederick, & Monge, Peter. (2001). Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative
research (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Wolcott, Harry F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Yin, Robert K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nature of science and systematic inquiry
Alkoff, Linda, & Potter, Elizabeth. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.
Audi, Robert. (Ed.). (1995). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University.
Beveridge, W.I.B. (1950). The art of scientific investigation. New York: Vintage.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
61
Butterfield, Herbert. (1957). The origins of modern science. New York: Freepress.
Daston, Lorraine. (1999). Objectivity and the escape from perspective. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.),
The science studies reader (pp. 110-123). New York: Routledge. (Original published 1992)
Eagleton, Terry. (2003). After theory. New York: Basic Books.
Fish, Stanley. (1980). Is there a text in this class?: The power of interpretive communities. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Fleck, Ludwik. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K.
Merton (Eds.). (Fred Bradley & Thaddeus J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
(Original work published 1935)
Garman, Noreen. (1996). Qualitative inquiry: Meaning and menace for educational researchers.
In Peter Willis & Bernie Neville (Eds.), Qualitative research practice in adult education (pp. 11-29).
Ringwood, Victoria, Australia: David Lovell.
Garratt, Dean, & Hodkinson, Phil. (1998). Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? – A
hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 515-539.
Garvey, William D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange
among scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon.
Gordon, Scott. (1993). The history and philosophy of social science. London: Routledge. (Original
published 1991)
Gross, Paul R., Levitt, Norman, & Lewis, Martin W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and
reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 775). New York: New York Academy of
Sciences.
Guba, Egon G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hacking, Ian. (2001). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
(Original published 1999)
Hempel, Carl G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science.
New York: Free Press.
Hiley, David R., Bohman, James F., & Shusterman, Richard. (Eds.). (1991). The interpretive turn:
Philosophy, science, culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Jones, James H. (1993). Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment (2nd ed.). New York: The Free
Press.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1999). The gender/science system: Or, is sex to gender as nature is to
science? In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 234-242). New York: Routledge.
(Original published 1987)
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago. (Original work published 1962)
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
62
Madigan, Robert, Johnson, Susan, & Linton, Patricia. (1995). The language of psychology: APA
style as epistemology. American Psychologist, 50(6), 428-436.
Marshall, Catherine. (1990). Goodness criteria: Are they objective or judgment calls? In Egon G.
Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 188-197). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
National Academy of Sciences. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research.
Available at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/
Oakley, Ann. (2000a). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. New York:
The New Press.
Polanyi, Michael. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Polanyi, Michael. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Popper, Karl R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Popper, Karl R. (1980). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge. (Original work
published 1934)
Richardson, Laurel, & St. Pierre, Elizabeth Adams. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In
Norman Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959-978).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schilpp, Moritz. (1991). Positivism and realism (trans. Peter Heath). In Richard Boyd, Philip
Gasper, & J.D. Trout (Eds.), The philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Original published
1932-1933)
Schwandt, Thomas A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 58-72.
Schwandt, Thomas A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Smith, John K. (1990). Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In Egon G.
Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 167-187). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, John K., & Deemer, Deborah K. (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism. In
Norman Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 877-896).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, John K., & Hodkinson, Phil. (2005). Relativism, criteria, and politics. In Norman Denzin
& Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 915-932). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Tarnas, Richard. (1991). The passion of the western mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Tobias, Sheila. (1994). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
63
Watson, James D. (1968). The double helix. New York: Atheneum.
Wilson, Patrick. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Ziman, John. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. London:
Cambridge University.
Ziman, John. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of
science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
64
IV. Useful serial sources
The numbers in parentheses before some of the titles indicate positions in the latest ISI
citation rankings, a useful if flawed metric of publications’ importance. Not all of the 55
publications in the ISI rankings appear here. For the full list, see the ISI Web site for
journals in Information and Library Science
http://isi17.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi?DestApp=JCR&Func=Frame
Advances in Librarianship
(2) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST)
http://www.asis.org/Publications/ARIST/
Journals
Those journals available online are available for only part of their publication run;
further, UT often has more than one arrangement to make these journals available online,
so there may be more than one URL for each journal, especially those from the ISI list.
Administrative Science Quarterly
http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/publications/asq/
American Anthropologist
http://www.aaanet.org/publications/ameranthro.cfm
American Archivist
http://archivists.metapress.com/home/main.mpx
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/index.html
(34) Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science
http://www.cais-acsi.ca/journal/journal.htm
Canadian Journal of Information Science/ Revue canadienne des sciences de l'information
http://www.cais-acsi.ca/journal.htm
(11) College & Research Libraries (C&RL)
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crljournal/collegeresearch.cfm
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
65
Communication Yearbook
http://www.sagepub.com/booksSeries.nav?series=Series77&seriesDesc=Communicatio
n%20Yearbook&_requestid=101669
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
66
Communications of the ACM
http://www.acm.org/pubs/cacm/
Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/100250/
Educause Review
http://connect.educause.edu/er?time=1219289381
(28) Government Information Quarterly (GIQ)
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620202/description
(5) Information and Management
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505553/description
#description
Information, Communication, and Society
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1369118x.asp
(13) Information Processing & Management (IP&M)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
(14) The Information Society
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/01972243.asp
(4) Information Systems Research (ISR)
http://isr.journal.informs.org/
(45) Information Technology and Libraries
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=periodicals&template=/ContentManageme
nt/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=78982
(23) Journal of Academic Librarianship (JAL)
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620207/description
#description
Journal of Communication
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9916&site=1
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
67
(15) Journal of Documentation (JDoC)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=JOURNAL
&containerId=1298
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS)
http://www.alise.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=55627
(54) Journal of Information Ethics
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?isbn=JIE0000028
(12) Journal of Information Science
http://jis.sagepub.com/
(2) Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?journal=76
(6) Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117946195/grouphome/home.html
Formerly the Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS)
(52) Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources
(formerly Government Publications Review)
http://www.lib.auburn.edu/madd/docs/jgi/contents.html
Now merged with Government Information Quarterly
(19) Journal of Information Science
http://jis.sagepub.com/
Knowledge, Technology & Policy (formerly Knowledge in Society)
http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/social+sciences,+general/journal/12130
(19) Library and Information Science
http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/mslis/journal-e.html
(54) Library & Information Science Research (LISR)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
68
(21) Library Quarterly (LQ)
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/lq/current
(27) Library Resources & Technical Services (LRTS)
http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/pubs/librestechsvc/lrts_home.cfm
(36) Library Trends
http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/
(49) Libri
http://www.librijournal.org/
Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy
http://www.springerlink.com/content/102961/
(1) MIS Quarterly (MISQ)
http://www.misq.org/
Organization Science
http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/
(37) Restaurator
http://www.degruyter.de/journals/restaur/detailEn.cfm
Science
http://www.jstor.org/journals/00368075.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/current.dtl
Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/
(5) Scientometrics
http://www.springerlink.com/content/101080/
Science, Technology, & Human Values
http://www.jstor.org/journals/01622439.html
Social Epistemology
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/02691728.asp
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
69
(43) Social Science Information
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal200955&
Technology Review
http://www.techreview.com/
(32) Telecommunications Policy
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#
description
Wired
http://www.wired.com/wired/index.html
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
70
Electronic journals
D-Lib Magazine -- http://www.dlib.org/
First Monday -- http://www.firstmonday.dk/
Information Research -- http://InformationR.net/ir/
JoDI: Journal of Digital Information-- http://jodi.tamu.edu/
Proceedings of important meetings
CoLIS – Conference on the Future of Library and Information Science
CoLIS 5 (June 2005): http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/external/colis5/colis.html
ISIC – Conferences on Information Seeking in Context
ISIC 2004 (September): http://www.eirviaservlets.com/isic2004/index.jsp
JCDL – Joint Conferences on Digital Libraries
http://www.jcdl.org/
(54) Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST Annual
Meeting)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109861970/home
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
71
V. Additional sources
Agre, Philip E. (1998). Designing genres for new media: Social, economic, and political contexts.
In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting CMC and community (pp. 69-99). Newberry
Park, CA: Sage.
Agre, Philip E. (2003). Information and institutional change: The case of digital libraries. In Ann
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 219-240). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Allen, Bryce. (1996a). From research to design: A user-centered approach. In Peter Ingwersen &
Niels Ole Pors (Eds.), Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 45-59). From the Second
International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2).
Copenhagen: The Royal School of Librarianship.
Allen, Bryce. (1996b). Information tasks: Toward a user-centered approach to information systems. San
Diego, CA: Academic.
Allen, Robert B. (1990). User models: Theory, method, and practice. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 32(5), 511-543.
Anderson, Benedict. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso. (Original published 1983)
Augst, Thomas. (2001). Introduction: American libraries as agencies of culture. American
Studies, 42(3), 5-22.
Augst, Thomas. (2007a). Faith in reading: Public libraries, liberalism, and the civil religion. In
Thomas Augst & Kenneth Carpenter (Eds.), Institutions of reading: The social life of libraries in the
United States (pp. 148-183). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Augst, Thomas. (2007b). Introduction. In Thomas Augst & Kenneth Carpenter (Eds.),
Institutions of reading: The social life of libraries in the United States (pp. 1-23). Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts.
Augst, Thomas, & Carpenter, Kenneth. (Eds.) (2007). Institutions of reading: The social life of
libraries in the United States. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2002). Libraries as agencies of culture. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin. Reprint of Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2001).
The library as an agency of culture [special issue]. American Studies, 42(3).
Ayer, A.J. (1936). Language, truth, and logic. London: V. Gollancz.
Bannon, Liam. (1990). A pilgrim’s progress: From cognitive science to cooperative design. AI
and Society, 4(4), 259-275. Also available at
http://www.ul.ie/~idc/library/papersreports/LiamBannon/2/Aisoc.html
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
72
Bar-Ilan, J. & Peritz, B. (2002). Informetric theories and methods for exploring the Internet: An
analytical survey of recent research literature. Library Trends, 50(3), 371-392. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
Barjak, Franz. (2006). The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350-1367. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/76501873/?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Barry, Carol L., & Schamber, Linda. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A crosssituational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3), 219-236. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Barton, Daniel, & Hamilton, Mary. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge.
Bates, Marcia J. (1984). The fallacy of the perfect thirty-item search. RQ [Reference Quarterly],
24(1), 43-50.
Bates, Marcia J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online
search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.
Bates, Marcia J. (1999c). The role of the PhD in a professional field. Available at
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/phdrole.html
Bates, Marcia J. (2000). Selecting a publication venue. Available at http://listserv.utk.edu/cgibin/wa?A2=ind0005&L=jesse&T=0&P=1761
Bateson, Gregory. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Original
published 1972)
Baum, Christina D. (1992). Feminist thought in American librarianship. Jeffrey, NC: McFarland.
Bawden, David. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of
Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.
Belkin, Nicholas, Oddy, Robert, & Brooks, Helen M. (1982a). ASK for information retrieval I.
Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.
Belkin, Nicholas, Oddy, Robert, & Brooks, Helen M. (1982b). ASK for information retrieval II.
Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 145-164.
Bell, Daniel. (1980). The social framework of the Information Society. In T. Forester (Ed.), The
microelectronics revolution (pp. 500-549). Boston: MIT.
Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Toward a critical theoretic perspective in information systems. Library
Quarterly, 72(4), 441-471. Available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/HJAFdetail.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+4+ln+en%2Dus+sid+51836345%2D
D971%2D4D2B%2D8AE1%2DE1197B82F515%40Sessionmgr2+79EB&_uh=btn+N+idb+aphish+jd
b+aphjnh+op+phrase+ss+ID++LIQ+B8FF&_us=db+4+sm+ES+7B8A&
Berg, Marc. (1996). Practices of reading and writing: The constitutive role of the patient record
in medical work. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8(4), 499-524.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
73
Berring, Robert C. (1993). Future librarians. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future
libraries (pp. 94-115). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Bielawski, Ellen. (1996). Inuit indigenous knowledge and science in the Arctic. In Laura Nader
(Ed.), Naked science: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power and knowledge (pp. 216-227).
New York: Routledge.
Bijker, Wiebe E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bijker, Wiebe E., & Law, John. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in
sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bishop, Ann P. (1999). Document structure and digital libraries: How researchers mobilize
information in journal articles. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 255-279. Also
available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Bishop, Ann Peterson, Mehra, Bharat, Bazzell, Imani, & Smith, Cynthia. (2001). Scenarios in the
design and evaluation of networked information services: An example from community health.
In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services:
Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 45-66). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Bishop, Ann Peterson, Mehra, Bharat, Bazzell, Imani, & Smith, Cynthia. (2003). Participatory
action research and digital libraries: Reframing evaluation. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van
House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation
(pp. 161-189). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bishop, Ann P., Neumann, Laura J., Star, Susan Leigh, Merkel, C., Ignacio, E., & Sandusky, R.J.
(2000). Digital libraries: Situating use in changing information infrastructure. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 394-413. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Bishop, Ann Peterson, Van House, Nancy A., & Buttenfield, Barbara P. (Eds.). (2003). Digital
library use: Social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bloch, R. Howard, & Hesse, Carla. (Eds.). (1993). Future libraries. Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Borges, Jorge Luis. (1964). The library of Babel. In Donald A. Yates & James E. Irby (Eds.),
Labyrinths: Selected stories & other writings (pp. 51-58). (James E. Irby, Trans.). New York: New
Directions Paperback.
Borgman, Christine L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the
Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Borgman, Christine L., Hirsh, Sandra G., Walter, Virginia A., & Gallagher Andrea L. (1995).
Children’s searching behavior on browsing and keyword online catalogs: The science library
catalog project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(9), 663-684. Also available
at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
74
Borgmann, Albert. (1999). Holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the
millennium. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Boulding, Kenneth E. (1956). The image: Knowledge in life and society. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan.
Boyarin, Jonathan. (Ed.). (1993). The ethnography of reading. Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-ofpractice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1),
40-57. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&jn=%222VO%22&scope=site
Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (1996). The social life of documents. First Monday, 1
Available at http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue1/documents/index.html
Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (2002). The social life of information (2nd ed.). Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Brusilovsky, Peter, Kobsa, Alfred, & Nejdl, Wolfgang. (Eds.). (2007). The adaptive Web: Methods
and strategies for Web personalization. Berlin: Springer.
Bruner, Jerome. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Bruner, Jerome. (1996). Frames for thinking: Ways of making meaning. In David R. Olson &
Nancy Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 93-105).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Buckland, Michael K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 42(5), 351-360. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Buckland, Michael K. (1997). What is a “document”? Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 48(9), 804-809. Also available in Trudi Bellardo Hahn & Michael Buckland
(Eds., 1998), Historical studies in information science (pp. 215-220). Medford, NJ: Information
Today. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/39748
Budd, John M. (2002). Jesse Shera, social epistemology and praxis. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 9398. Also available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/tsep;jsessionid=137ng289a2fd7.victoria?
Burke, Mary, Chang, Min-min, Davis, Charles, Hernon, Peter, Nicholls, Paul, Schwartz, Candy,
Shaw, Debora, Smith, Alastair, Wiberley, Stephen. (1996). Fraud and misconduct in library and
information science research. Library & Information Science Research, 18(3), 199-206. Also available
at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236577%231996%23
999819996%23322125%23FLP%23Volume_18,_Issue_3,_Pages_199293_(Summer_1996)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid
=108429&md5=b3f7027b40a0dcaa31ac7c44d342fbee
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
75
Bush, Vannevar. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108. Also available
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm
Capurro, Rafael. (1992). What is information science for? A philosophical reflection. In Peter
Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical
and theoretical perspectives (pp. 82-96). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.
Carlin, Andrew P. (2003). Disciplinary debates and bases of interdisciplinary studies: The place
of research ethics in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 25(1),
3-18. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236577%232003%23
999749998%23400053%23FLA%23Volume_25,_Issue_1,_Pages_1123_(Spring_2003)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=
108429&md5=2957e47573e3ffe9cf20025c0d121cbd
Case, Donald O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs,
and behavior. Amsterdam: Academic.
Chartier, Roger. (1993). Libraries without walls. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.),
Future libraries (pp. 39-52). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Chartier, Roger. (1995). Forms and meanings: Texts, performances, and audiences from codex to
computer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Chatman, Elfreda. (1991). Channels to a larger social world: Older women staying in contact
with the great society. Library & Information Science Research, 13(3), 281-300. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Chatman, Elfreda. (1996). Impoverished life world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 47(3), 193-206. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Chatman, Elfreda A. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 50(3), 207-217. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jtoc?ID=27981
Chatman, Elfreda. (2000). Framing social life in theory and research. The New Review of
Information Behaviour Research, 1, 3-17.
Cockburn, Cynthia. (1988). Machinery of dominance: Women, men, and technical know-how. Boston:
Northeastern University.
Cole, Charles. (1994). Operationalizing the notion of information as a subjective construct.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 465-476. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/10050053
Cole, Charles, & Kuhlthau, Carol. (2000). Information and information seeking of novice expert
lawyers: How experts add value. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 103-115.
Concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. (2000). London: Routledge. Also available at
http://www.netlibrary.com/Details.aspx
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
76
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.
Cox, Andrew. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal
[ovular!] works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527-540. Also available at
http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol31/issue6/
Crane, Gregory. (1991). The authority of an electronic text. Current Anthropology, 32(3), 293-311.
Crawford, Walt, & Gorman, Michael. (1995). Deconstructing dreams of the all-electronic future.
In Future libraries: Dreams, madness & reality (pp. 88-103). Chicago: American Library Association.
Cronin, Blaise. (1982). Invisible colleges and information transfer: A review and commentary
with particular reference to the social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 212-236.
Crowder, Robert G., & Wegner, Richard K. (1992). The psychology of reading: An introduction (2nd
ed.). New York: Oxford University.
Daston, Lorraine. (2005). Scientific error and the ethos of belief. Social Research, 72(1), 1-28. Also
available at
http://weblinks3.epnet.com/authHjafDetail.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+db+aphjnh+bt+ID++SRE
+1CB8&_ug=sid+130A4F1E%2D2B64%2D46F1%2D8214%2DA8D917DBCFAF%40sessionmgr2+d
bs+aph+E542&_us=hd+False+sm+ES+1C03&_uso=st%5B0+%2DID++SRE+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5
B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+7AAC&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&tlog=1&lfr=Persistent+Link
Davenport, Thomas H. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowledge
environment. New York: Oxford University.
Davidsen, Susanna L. (2005). The Internet Public Library and the history of library portals.
Journal of Library Administration, 43(1/2), 5-18. Also available at
http://www.haworthpress.com/Store/E-Text/ViewLibraryEText.asp?s=J111&m=0
Day, Ronald E. (2000). The “conduit metaphor” and the nature and politics of information
studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(9), 805-811. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/72502537
Day, Ronald E. (2005). Clearing up “implicit knowledge”: Implications for knowledge
management, information science, psychology, and social epistemology. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science & Technology, 56(6), 630-635. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/110432640
Derrida, Jacques. (1995). Archive fever (Eric Prenowitz, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Dervin, Brenda. (1976). The everyday information needs of the average citizen: A taxonomy for
analysis. In M. Rochen & J.C. Donohue (Eds.), Information for the community (pp. 19-38). Chicago:
American Library Association.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
77
Dervin, Brenda. (1977). Useful theory for librarianship: Communication, not information.
Drexel Library Quarterly, 13(3), 16-32.
Dervin, Brenda. (1989). Users as research inventions. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 216-232.
Also available at
http://pcift.chadwyck.com/pcift/search?source=loi.cfg&Action=DisplaySGML&SEARCH=Sear
ch&HISTLOGGING=N&JID=5419
Dick, Archie L. (1999). Epistemological positions and library and information science. Library
Quarterly, 69(3), 305-323. Also available at
http://weblinks1.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bt+ID++LI
Q+EA6C&_ug=sid+59BCFD4C%2DB5BC%2D4136%2D9AE6%2D6CB28067DC9E%40sessionmgr
2+dbs+aph+4A97&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACBZD00109108+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1
+43AB&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Library++Quarterly%22++and++DT++
19990701+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+hd+False+op%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+9B70
&lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S3
Dick, Archie L. (2002). Social epistemology, information science and ideology. Social
Epistemology, 16(1), 23-35. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
Doty, Philip. (2001b). Policy analysis and networked information: “There are eight million
stories . . . .” In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information
services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 213-253). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Eco, Umberto. (1984). Introduction: The role of the reader. In The role of the reader: Explorations
in the semiotics of texts (pp. 3-43). Bloomington, IN: Bloomington University.
Ehrlich, Thomas. (1995). Research is not a dirty word. In The courage to inquire: Ideals and realities
in higher education (pp. 45-70). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (1988). Curriculum initiatives: An agenda and
strategy for library media programs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (2005). Information literacy for the Information Age
[Big6 skills]. http://www.big6.com
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org/view/03637425/ap010056/01a00060/0?currentResult=03637425%2bap010
056%2b01a00060%2b0%2cFFEF0F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FAd
vancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26All%3Dcase%2Bstudies%26Exact%3D%26One%3D%
26None%3D%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jt%3D%26ic%3D03637425%26ic%3D03637425%26node.Bu
siness%3D1%26node.Sociology%3D1
Ellis, David. (1998). Paradigms and research traditions in information retrieval research.
Information Services and Use, 18(4), 225-241. Available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22ISU%22&scope=site
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
78
Ellis, Mary. (2005). Establishing a research culture for archive administration in the UK.
Education for Information, 23(1/2), 91-101. Also available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bt+ID++%22EFI%22+shn+1+db+aphjnh+
bo+B%5F+5938&_ug=sid+EE849A39%2D876F%2D4C38%2D8396%2DF0B5C96DFB92%40session
mgr2+dbs+aph+47BE&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00088426+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%
2D1+E6EE&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Education++for++Information%22
++and++DT++20050301+tg%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+
hd+False+FBA5&lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S1
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)
Fallis, Don. (2002). Introduction: Social epistemology and information science. Social
Epistemology, 16(1), 1-4. Also available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/tsep;jsessionid=137ng289a2fd7.victoria?
Fayyad, Usama, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Gregory, & Smyth, Padhraic. (1996). The KDD [Knowledge
Discovery in Databases] process for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data.
Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 27-34. Also available at
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=240455.240464&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&idx=240455&part=
periodical&WantType=periodical&title=Communications%20of%20the%20ACM&CFID=://ww
w.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.882004&CFTOKEN=www.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.88-2004
Feldman, Ronen, & Sanger, James. (2007). The text mining handbook: Advanced approaches in
analyzing unstructured data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Floridi, Luciano. (2002). On defining library and information science as applied philosophy of
information. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 37-49. Also available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/tsep;jsessionid=137ng289a2fd7.victoria?
Floridi, Luciano. (2004). Afterword – LIS as applied philosophy of information: A reappraisal.
Library Trends, 52(3), 658-665. Also available at
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=14&sid=84e3ce6f-78e6-4c88-9232a81fad78bbc3%40SRCSM1
Floridi, Luciano. (2005). Is semantic information meaningful data? Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, LXX(2), 351-370. Also available at
http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~floridi/
Foucault, Michel. (1992). Archaeological description. Part IV in The archaeology of knowledge and
The discourse on language (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.) (pp. 133-195). New York: Pantheon
Books. (Original work published 1970)
Foucault, Michel. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York:
Vintage Books. (Original work published 1966)
Fraser, Nancy. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
79
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.
Furner, Jonathan. (2004a). “A brilliant mind”: Margaret Egan and social epistemology. Library
Trends, 52(4), 792-809. Also available at
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml?_requestid=14159
Furner, Jonathan. (2004b). Information studies without information. Library Trends, 52(3), 427446. Also available at http://plinks.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=1&sid=25ac707bbcf2-4baf-8854-8a372f5f20f9%40sessionmgr4
Galvin, Thomas J. (1984). The significance of information science for the theory and practice of
librarianship. Libri, 34(2), 81-87.
Gardner, Howard. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
books.
Garfinkel, Harold. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garrison, Dee. (1979). Apostles of culture: The public librarian and American society, 1876-1920.
New York: Macmillan.
Geertz, Clifford. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York:
Basic Books.
Gillespie, Tarleton. (2007). Wired shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Gordon, Scott. (1993b). Some features of models. In The history and philosophy of social science (pp.
106-110). London: Routledge. (Original published 1991)
Gordon, Scott. (1993c). [Selection from] The philosophy of science. In The history and philosophy
of social science (pp. 604-624). London: Routledge. (Original published 1991)
Graham, Hugh Davis, & Diamond, Nancy. (1997a). Introduction. In The rise of American research
universities Ethics and challengers in the postwar era (pp. 1-8). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University.
Graham, Hugh Davis, & Diamond, Nancy. (1997b). Origins of the American research university.
In The rise of American research universities Ethics and challengers in the postwar era (pp. 9-25).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Graham, Hugh Davis, & Diamond, Nancy. (1997c). The public research universities. In The rise
of American research universities Ethics and challengers in the postwar era (pp. 174-198). Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
80
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.
Hacking, Ian. (1996). Normal people. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (Eds.), Modes of
thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 59-71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Hahn, Trudi Bellardo. (1996). Pioneers of the online age. Information Processing & Management,
32(1), 33-48. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235948%231996%23
999679998%23146315%23FLP%23&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersio
n=0&_userid=108429&md5=3b33d5445cd7ae4c6e0de9b5c9b8b82e
Hansson, Joacim. (2005). Hermeneutics as a bridge between the modern and the postmodern in
library and information science. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 102-113. Also available at
http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Haraway, Donna. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism
in the 1980s. In Linda J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 190-233). New York:
Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. (1999). Situated knowledge: The science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspective. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 394-406).
New York: Routledge. (Original published 1988)
Harris, Michael. (1973). The purpose of the American public library: Revisionist interpretation
of history. Library Journal, 98(16), 2509-2514.
Harris, Michael H., Hannah, Stan A., & Harris, Pamela C. (1998). Into the future: The foundations
of library and information services in the post-industrial era (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Hauser, L. (1988). A conceptual analysis of information science. Library and Information Science
Research, 10(1), 3-34.
Hayes, Robert M. (1992). Measurement of information. In Pertti Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.),
Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 268285). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.
Henderson, Kathryn. (1996). The visual culture of engineers. In Susan Leigh Star (Ed.), The
cultures of computing (pp. 196-218). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hernon, Peter, & Schwartz, Candy. (2002). Editorial: The word “research”: Having to live with
a misunderstanding. Library & Information Science Research, 24(4), 207-208. Available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
81
Herold, K[enneth] R. (2001). Librarianship and the philosophy of information. Library Philosophy
and Practice, 3(2). Available at http://www.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/lppv3n2.htm
Hert, Carol A. (2001). User-centered evaluation and connection to design. In Charles R.
McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy,
and issues (pp. 155-173). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Hjørland, Birger. (1998). Theory and metatheory of information science: A new interpretation.
Journal of Documentation, 54(5), 606-621.
Hjørland, Birger. (2000). Information seeking behaviour: What should a general theory look
like? The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 19-33.
Hjørland, Birger. (2004). Arguments for philosophical realism in library and information science.
Library Trends, 52(3), 488-506. Also available at
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml?_requestid=14035
Hobart, Michael E., & Schiffman, Zachary S. (1998). Information ages: Literacy, numeracy, and the
computer revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Hofstadter, Richard. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Knopf.
Huotari, Maija-Leena, & Chatman, Elfreda. (2001). Using everyday life information seeking to
explain organizational behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 23(4), 351-366. Available
at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Hutchins, Edwin. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Information. (1966, September). [Special issue]. Scientific American, 215(3).
Israel, Jonathan I. (2001). Libraries and enlightenment. In Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and
the making of modernity 1650-1750 (pp. 119-141). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Janssens, Frizo, Leta, Jacqueline, Glänzel, Wolfgang, & De Moor Bart. (2006). Towards mapping
library and information science. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 1614-1642. Also
available at
Jarvelin, K., & Vakkari, P. (1990). Content analysis of research articles in library and information
science. Library and Information Science Research, 12(4), 395-421. Also available at
Johns, Adrian. (1998). The nature of the book: Print and knowledge in the making. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Johnson, J. David. (1996). Information seeking: An organizational dilemma. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Jones, Bonna. (2005). Revitalizing theory in library and information science: The contribution of
process philosophy. Library Quarterly, 75(2), 101-121. Also available at
http://plinks.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=3&hid=1&sid=4c6536df-ae0b-44d1-bb155787c1e246b4%40sessionmgr4
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
82
Jones, William, & Teevan, Jaime. (Eds.). (2007). Personal information management. Seattle:
University of Washington.
Kahneman, Daniel. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997a). Preparing. In Academic duty (pp. 23-58). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997b). To publish. In Academic duty (pp. 186-209). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997c). To teach. In Academic duty (pp. 59-96). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Kennedy, Donald. (1997d). To tell the truth. In Academic duty (pp. 210-240). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Kenner, Hugh. (1986). Libraries and glowlamps: A strategy of reassurance. Scholarly Publishing,
18(1), 17-22.
Kling, Rob. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The
contribution of social informatics. The Information Society, 16(3), 217-232. Also available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/utis/2000/00000016/00000003;jsessionid=1m0
eji43lawmt.henrietta
Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, Lil. (1993). Critical teaching and the idea of literacy. Portsmouth, NH:
Reed Publishing.
Kramarae, Cheris. (Ed.). (1988). Technology and women's voices: Keeping in touch. New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Krikelas, James. (1983). Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library
Quarterly, 19(11), 5-20.
Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (1999). The role of experience in the information search process of an
early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction, and
sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(5), 399-412. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Kuhlthau, Carol. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd
ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, Carol C., & Vakkari, Pertti. (1999). Information seeking in context (ISIC). Information
Processing & Management, 35(6), 723-725. Also available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Kuhn, Deanna. (1996). Is good thinking scientific thinking? In David R. Olson & Nancy
Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 261-281). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
83
Lanham, Richard A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Latour, Bruno. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge
and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (Vol. 6, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Lave, Jean. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Étienne. (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Levy, David M. (2003). Documents and libraries: A sociotechnical perspective. In Ann Peterson
Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in
design and evaluation (pp. 25-42). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2002). Insights into library services and users from qualitative research.
Library & Information Science Research, 24(1), 3-16. Available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Liu, Alan. (2004). The laws of cool: Knowledge work and the culture of information. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Losee, Robert M. (1990a). Information. In The science of information: Measurement and applications
(pp. 1-43). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Losee, Robert M. (1990b). Information retrieval. In The science of information: Measurement and
applications (pp. 195-236). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Losee, Robert M. (1997). A discipline-independent definition of information. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 48(3), 254-269. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Lynch, Clifford. (2003). Colliding with the real world: Heresies and unexplored questions about
audience, economics, and control of digital libraries. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House,
& Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 191218). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Lynch, Mary Dykstra, & Wilson, Thomas D. (1997). The impact of doctoral research in information
science and librarianship. British Library Research and Innovation Centre Report No. 61. Also available
at http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/impact/impact1.html
Machlup, Fritz. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz. (1980). Knowledge and knowledge production. Knowledge, its creation, distribution,
and economic significance (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz. (1982). The branches of learning. Knowledge, its creation, distribution, and economic
significance (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
84
Machlup, Fritz. (1983). Epilogue: Semantic quirks in studies of information. In Fritz Machlup &
Una Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 641-671). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Machlup, Fritz. (1984). The economics of information and human capital. Knowledge, its creation,
distribution, and economic significance (Vol. 3). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Machlup, Fritz, & Mansfield, Una. (1983). Prologue: Cultural diversity in studies of information.
In Fritz Machlup & Una Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp.
3-56). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
MacKenzie, Donald. Rotman, Brian. (1999). Nuclear missile testing and the social construction of
accuracy (abridged). In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 342-357). New York:
Routledge. (Original published 1990)
MacMullin, Susan, & Taylor, Robert. (1984). Problem dimensions and information traits. The
Information Society, 3(1), 91-111.
Marchionini, Gary. (1995). Information seekers and electronic environments. In Information
seeking in electronic environments (pp. 11-26). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.
Marchionini, Gary. (1998). Research and development in digital libraries. In Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science (vol. 63, pp. 259-279). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Marien, Michael. (1984). Some questions for the Information Society. The Information Society,
3(2), 181-197. (Original work published 1983)
Marshall, Catherine. (2003). Finding the boundaries of the library without walls. In Ann
Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 43-64). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Maturana, Humberto R., & Varela, Francisco J. (1988). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of
human understanding. Boston: Shambhala.
McDowell, Ashley. (2002). Trust and information: The role of trust in the social epistemology of
information science. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 51-63. Also available at
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
McInerney, Claire R., & Day, Ronald E. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking knowledge management: From
knowledge objects to knowledge processes. Berlin: Springer.
McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), Pettigrew, Karen E., & Joyce, Steven L. (2001). The origins and
contextual use of theory in human information behaviour research. The New Review of Information
Behavior Research 2001, 2, 47-63.
McNeely, C.V. (1999). Repositioning the Richmond Public Library for the digital age: One
library’s perspective. Library & Information Science Research, 21(3), 391-406.
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
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
85
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
Mitchell, W.J.T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
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.
Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication: Rethinking and renewal. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mosco, Vincent, & Wasco, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Myers, Greg. (1991). Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles. In Charles
Bazerman & James Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary
studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 45-75). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Nagel, Thomas. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University.
Nahl, Diane, & Bilal, Dania. (Eds.). (2007). Information and emotion: The emergent affective
paradigm in information behavior and theory. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Nardi, Bonnie. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Nardi, Bonnie A., O’Day, Vicki L. (1996). Intelligent agents: What we learned at the library.
Libri, 46(2), 59-88.
Nardi, Bonnie A., & O’Day, Vicki L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Nardi, Bonnie, & O’Day, Bonnie. (2003). In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara
P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 161-189).
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Neuliep, J.W. (1996). The study of human communication. In Human communication theory:
Applications and case studies (pp. 1-22). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
86
Nitecki, J.Z. (1993). Metalibrarianship: A model for intellectual foundations of library
information science. Nitecki Trilogy (vol. 1). Available at
http://www.du.edu/LIS/collab/library/niteck
Norman, Donald A. (2002a). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. (Original
work published 1988)
Noyes, Janet M., & Baber, Christopher. (1999). User-centered design of systems. London: SpringerVerlag.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1993). The place of books in the age of electronic reproduction. In R.
Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 13-37). Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (Ed.). (1996b). The future of the book. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1998). Will libraries survive? American Prospect, 41. Available at
http://epn.org/prospect/41/41numb.html
Odi, A. (1982). Creative research and theory building in library and information sciences.
College & Research Libraries, 43(4), 312-319.
O'Donnell, James Joseph. (1998). Avatars of the word: From papyrus to cyberspace. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Olaisen, Johan, Munch-Petersen, Erland, & Wilson, Patrick. (Eds.). (1996). Information science:
From the development of the discipline to social interaction. Boston: Scandinavian University.
Olson, David R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and
reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Ong, Walter J. (1982). Orality & literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.
Paisley, William. (1980). Information work. In Brenda Dervin & Melvin J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress
in communications sciences (Vol. 2, 113-165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Palmer, Carole L. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: Linking library services
to research practices. Library Trends, 45(1), 165-191.
Pawley, Christine. (2007). Blood and thunder on the bookmobile: American public libraries and
the construction of “the reader,” 1950-1995. In Thomas Augst & Kenneth Carpenter (Eds.),
Institutions of reading: The social life of libraries in the United States (pp. 264-282). Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts.
Perry, Ruth. (1993, Spring). Embodied knowledge. Harvard Library Bulletin, 4(1), 57-62.
Pickering, Andrew. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
87
Pickering, Andrew. (1999). The mangle of practice: Agency and the emergence in the sociology
of science. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 372-392). New York: Routledge.
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.
Quine, William V. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays
(pp. 69-90). New York: Columbia University.
Radford, Gary P. (2003). Trapped in our own discourse formations: Toward an archaeology of
library and information science. Library Quarterly, 73(1), 1-18.
Reeling, Patricia G. (1992). Doctorate recipients in library science: How they compare with
doctorate recipients in other disciplines. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,
33(4), 311-329.
Rioux, Kevin. (2005). Information acquiring-and-sharing. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 169-173). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Rosenzweig, Roy. (2007). Scarcity or abundance?: Preserving the past in a digital era. In
Thomas Augst & Kenneth Carpenter (Eds.), Institutions of reading: The social life of libraries in the
United States (pp. 310-342). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Roszak, Theodore. (1994). The cult of information: A neo-Luddite treatise on high-tech, artificial
intelligence, and the true art of thinking (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Rotman, Brian. (1999). Thinking dia-grams: Mathematics and writing (abridged). In Mario
Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 430-441). New York: Routledge. (Original published
1995) CD
Rouse, Joseph. (1999). Understanding scientific practices: Cultural studies of science as a
philosophical program. In Mario Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 394-406). New York:
Routledge. (Original published 1998)
Rowley, Jennifer. (1998). What is information? Information Services and Use, 18(4), 243-254.
Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22ISU%22&scope=site
Royce, Bert R., Meadow, Charles T., & Kraft, Donald H. (1994). Measurement in information
science. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ryle, Gilbert. (2000). The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Original published
1949)
Savolainen, Reijo. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking
in the context of “way of life.” Library and Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294. Available
at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
88
Scarrott, Gordon G. (1994). Some functions and properties of information. Journal of Information
Science, 20(2), 88-98.
Schamber, Linda, Eisenberg, Michael B., & Nilan, Michael S. (1990). A re-examination of
relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6),
755-776. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
Schiller, Dan. (1988). How to think about information. In Vinnie Mosco & Janet Wasco (Eds.),
The political economy of information (pp. 27-43). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Schiller, Herbert I., & Schiller, Anita R. (1988). Libraries, public access, and commerce. In Vinnie
Mosco & Janet Wasco (Eds.), The political economy of information (pp. 146-166). Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin.
Schön, Donald. (1983). From technical rationality to reflection-in-action. In The reflective
practitioner: How professionals think in action (pp. 21-69 and 357-359). New York: Basic Books.
Schön, Donald. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Shapin, Steven. (1999). The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. In Mario
Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 479-504). New York: Routledge. (Original published
1988)
Schuler, Douglas. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. New York: ACM.
Schuler, Douglas, & Namioka, Aki. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practice.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erblaum.
Seldén, Lars. (2005). On grounded theory – with some malice. Journal of Documentation, 61(1),
114-129. Also available at http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Issue.asp?IssueID=394302
Shannon, Claude E., & Weaver, Warren. (1971). The mathematical theory of communication.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. (Original work published 1949)
Shapin, Steven, & Lawrence, Christopher. (1998). Introduction: The body of knowledge. In
Christopher Lawrence & Steven Shapin (Eds.), Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural
knowledge (pp. 1-19). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Shils, Edward. (1997a). The order of learning in the United States from 1865 to 1920: The
ascendancy of the universities. In The order of learning: Essays on the contemporary university (pp.
1-38). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1978)
Shils, Edward. (1997b). Universities since 1900: A historical perspective. In The order of learning:
Essays on the contemporary university (pp. 39-70). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
(Original work published 1992)
Smiraglia, Richard P. (2002). The progress of theory in knowledge organization. Library Trends,
50(3), 330-349. Also available at
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
89
Smith, H.J., & Hasnas, J. (1999). Ethics and information systems: The corporate domain. MIS
Quarterly, 23(1), 109-127.
Smith, J. F., & Kida, T. (1991). Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing.
Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 472-489.
Sokal, Alan. (2005). http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/#papers
Spink, Amanda, & Cole, Charles. (2001). Introduction to the special issue: Everyday life
information-seeking research. Library & Information Science Research, 23(4), 301-304. Available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188
Spink, Amanda, & Cole, Charles. (2004). A human information behavior approach to a
philosophy of information. Library Trends, 52(3), 617-628.
Star, Susan Leigh. (Ed.). (1995). Ecologies of knowledge. New York: State University of New
York.
Star, Susan Leigh, Bowker, Geoffrey, & Neumann, Laura J. (2003). Transparency beyond the
individual level of scale: Convergence between information artifacts and communities of
practice. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital
library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 241-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Star, S. Leigh, & Griesemer, James R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary
objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.
Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
Star, Susan Leigh, & Strauss, Anselm. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The dialogues
between visible and invisible work. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 9-30.
Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1
Starbuck, W.H., & Milliken, F.J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how
they make sense. In D.C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top
managers (pp. 35-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Subramanyam, K. (1979). Characteristics and structure of scientific literature. In "Scientific
literature." Encyclopedia of library and information science (pp. 391-403). New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Suchman, Lucy. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine
communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Suchman, Lucy. (1996). Supporting articulation work. In Rob Kling (Ed.), Computerization and
controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed., pp. 407-423). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Suchman, Lucy, Blomberg, Jeanette, Orr, Julian E., & Trigg, Randall. (1999). Reconstructing
technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392-408.
Swann, W.B., Jr. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics.
Psychological Review, 91(4), 457-477.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
90
Swanson, Don R. (1988). Historical note: Information retrieval and the future of an illusion.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(2), 92-98. Also available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981
Taylor, Charles. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College &
Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194.
Taylor, Robert S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Taylor, Robert S. (1991). Information use environments. Progress in Communication Sciences (Vol.
10, pp. 217-255). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thomas, Nancy P., & Nyce, James M. (2001). Context as category: Opportunities for
ethnographic analysis in library and information science research. The New Review of Information
Behavior Research 2001, 2, 105-118.
Toms, E.G., & Kinnucan, M.T. (1996). The effectiveness of the city metaphor for organizing the
menus of Free-Nets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(12), 919-931.
Tuominen, Kimmo, Talja, Sanna, & Savolainen, Reijo. (2002). Discourse, cognition and reality:
Toward a social constructionist metatheory for library and information science. In Bruce, Harry,
Fidel, Raya, Ingwersen, Peter, & Vakkari, Pertti (Eds.), Emerging frameworks and methods:
Proceedings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science
(CoLIS4) (pp. 271-283). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Turnbull, Don. (2005). World Wide Web information seeking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, &
Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 397-400). Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Vakkari, Pertti. (1996). Library and information science: Content and scope. In Johan Olaisen,
Erland Munch-Petersen, & Patrick Wilson (eds.), Information science: From the development of the
discipline to social interaction (pp. 169-231). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Vakkari, Pertti. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating
studies on information seeking and retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 819-837.
Varlejs, J. (Ed.). (1991). Information literacy: Learning how to learn. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Van House, Nancy. (2002). Digital libraries and practices of trust: Networked biodiversity
information. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 99-114. Also available at h
http://www.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=872b11757f144d16a0bb729c787ad02a
&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:102489,1
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.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
91
Vickery, B.C. (Ed.). (1994). Fifty years of information progress: A Journal of Documentation review.
London: ASLIB.
Wainer, Howard. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 14-23.
Available at
http://www.jstor.org/browse/0013189x/ap040209?frame=noframe&userID=8053f82b@utexas.e
du/01cce4401e0050e99dd&dpi=3&config=jstor
Weaver, Warren. (1949). The mathematics of communication. Scientific American, 181(1), 11-15.
Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, Karl E., & Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating
on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.
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. (1997). Information access issues for interdisciplinary scholars: Results of a
Delphi study on women’s studies research. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(3), 211-216.
Wiegand, Wayne A. (1988). The role of the library in American history. In Filomena Simora
(Ed.), The Bowker annual (pp. 69-76). New York: R.R. Bowker.
Wiegand, Wayne A. (2003). To reposition a research agenda: What American Studies can teach
the LIS community about the library in the life of the user. Library Quarterly, 73(4), 369-382.
Available at
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/resultlist.asp?tb=1&_ua=bt+ID++LIQ+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bo+B%5
F+26D8&_ug=sid+ED734B2E%2D5C89%2D425A%2DA033%2D592CE66A289D%40sessionmgr2+
dbs+aph+F4F7&_us=hd+False+dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00088819+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+F
A65&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Library++Quarterly%22++and++DT++20
031001+tg%5B0+%2D+mdb%5B0+%2Dimh+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+8F8C&
lfr=Hierarchical+Journal&uh=1&sci=S1
Williams, Christine L. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women’s work. Berkeley, CA:
University of California.
Williamson, Kristy. (2005). Ecological theory of human information behavior. In Karen Fisher,
Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 128-132).
Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Wilson, Patrick. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Wilson, Patrick. (1996). Interdisciplinary research and information overload. Library Trends,
45(2), 192-203.
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
92
Wilson, Thomas D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation,
37(1), 3-15.
Wilson, Thomas D. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. In Pertti
Vakkari, Reijo Savolainen & Brenda Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context (pp. 39-52).
London: Graham Taylor.
Wilson, Thomas D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation,
55(3), 249-270.
Wilson, Thomas D., Ford, N.J., Ellis, D., Foster, A.E., & Spink, Amanda. (2000). Uncertainty and
its correlates. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 69-84.
Winograd, Terry, & Flores, Fernando. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new
foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Winterowk, W. Ross. (1989). The culture and politics of literacy. New York: Oxford University.
Yakel, Elizabeth. (2000). Thinking inside and outside the boxes: Archival reference services at
the turn of the century. Archivaria, 49, 140-160.
Zandonade, Tarcisio. (2004). Social epistemology from Jesse Shera to Steve Fuller. Library
Trends, 52(4), 810-832. Also available at
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml?_requestid=14159
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
93
IMPORTANT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
There are many organizations of special interest to the researchers, faculty members, and
practitioners in our field. This very selective list gives some indications of professional
associations and organizations to consider for membership, and to be aware of when looking
for publication venues, making professional presentations, searching for jobs, expanding
your professional travel, applying for research and other grants, and the like.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) http://www.aaup.org/
American Library Association (ALA) http://www.ala.org/
American Association of School Librarians (AASL)
http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslindex.htm
Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL)
http://www.ala.org/ACRLTemplate.cfm?Section=acrl&Template=/TaggedPage/Tagge
dPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=15&ContentID=7768
Library & Information Technology Association (LITA)
http://www.ala.org/ala/lita/litahome.htm
American Society for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T) http://www.asis.org/
See list of Special Interest Groups (SIGs)
http://www.asis.org/AboutASIS/asis-sigs.html#SIGAH
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) http://www.acm.org/
See list of SIGs http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigs
Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) http://www.alise.org/
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) http://www.cni.org/
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.cpsr.org/
Educause http://www.educause.edu/
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) http://www.eff.org/
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) http://www.ieee.org/portal/site
International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) http://www.ifla.org/
Society of American Archivists (SAA) http://www.archivists.org/
Special Libraries Association (SLA) http://www.sla.org/
Texas Library Association (TLA) http://www.txla.org/
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
94
Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, August 2008
95