USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION

LIS 391D.1

Unique Number #45525

Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin

Spring 2003

Class time: Friday 2:00 – 5:00 PM

Place: SZB 556

Office: SZB 570

Office hrs: Thursday 1:00 – 2:00 PM
Friday 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM

    By appointment other times

Telephone: (512) 471-3746 (Direct line)
(512) 471-3821 (Main iSchool office)

Internet: [email protected]
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm

Class URL: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~lis391pd/sp2003

TA: Elena Demidova
[email protected]

Office hours: TBA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the course 3

Assignment descriptions 5

Expectations of PhD students’ performance 9

Standards for written work 10

Editing conventions 14

Grading 15

Texts 16

List of assignments 17

Outline of course 18

Schedule 20

References 25

Readings in the class schedule

Selected ARIST “use and users” chapters 1966-2002

Selected important serial and other sources about users

Additional sources

 
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

LIS 391D.1, Use and Users of Information, is one of the seminars currently required in the School of Information doctoral program. The purpose of the course, most broadly construed, is to consider some of the many ways in which users and information interact and create each other.

As such, the course has these goals:

• To consider what information is and to examine the many ways that our field and others have identified information – at the same time, however, we will also discuss how the idea of information as a noun, a substantive, is a useful fiction, but only a fiction.

• To discuss what a “user” is and how we have (unfortunately) naturalized our highly contingent, historicized judgments about that question.

• To explore the concept of “the document” and how that concept both limits and offers clarity to our understanding of users.

• To understand the increased cognitivist emphasis of research into users’ behavior, and then undermine a purely cognitive understanding of the use of information. To this end, we will consider some of the literature on communities of practice and the formative role that knowledge plays in forming communities.

• To identify and evaluate major efforts to understand and model what we might informally but usefully call “users’ information behaviors.”

• To consider the meaning and use of models in research.

• To see how empirical user-based research leads to theory development and how theory leads to empirical research.

• To examine closely some of the research methods used to understand users.

• To understand the important concepts of information retrieval and relevance in their various historical permutations, especially how they grew out of an emphasis on scientific and technical communication and the documentation movement.

• To explore important terms and authors from many disciplines and to determine how these terms and authors can help us in trying to understand users.

• Most importantly, to immerse students in the very large interdisciplinary literatures related to information users.

As we all know, research and theory about users have evolved from system-centric to user-centric perspectives, an important and essential step in the maturity of the information disciplines. Despite the rich results of such efforts, we cannot fall prey to their limitations, i.e., we cannot regard users as simply cognitive and atomistic beings. To avoid such a (tempting) mistake, we will self-consciously consider some of the contexts, meanings, and cultural productions important to understanding how it is that people define and use “information.” At the same time, however, we will not focus on user groups per se or on information institutions qua institutions. Further, we will not rely on the supposed hierarchy of “facts” → data → information → knowledge → wisdom for reasons we will discuss throughout the semester.

Structurally, the course comprises three units:

• Unit 1: Empirical and conceptual foundations (classes 1-7)

• Unit 2: Examining the research of others (classes 8-12)

• Unit 3: Students’ presentations of their own research and course summary (classes 13-15).

As I tell the students in the Master’s users class, all of the topics we address this semester deserve more attention than we can give them and there are a number of ideas that are especially pertinent that we cannot explore in any depth. A partial list of such important topics includes:

• Browsing
• Gender
• Resistance to technology
• Cognitive authority and the evaluation of information
• Versioning
• Digital libraries
• Problem-solving and bounded rationality
• Collection development
• The value-added model
• Formal evaluation of information systems
• Epistemology
• The contribution of the American pragmatist philosophers to the study of information users
• Censorship
• Human-computer interaction
• Information policy
• Scientific and technical communication
• Information overload
• Scholarly communication
• Information equity
• Usability
• Collaboratories
• Information infrastructures
• Marketing
• “Information literacy,” itself a highly contested concept.

Students are encouraged, however, to engage these and other topics as their interests and professional goals dictate. This imperative is especially strong for doctoral students.

ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTIONS

I will provide you more specific information about each assignment as the semester proceeds.

1. Students in the seminar will engage some important terms and concepts in a variety of literatures of interest to our understanding users. To help us engage these terms more profitably, each student will choose a minimum of three of the following terms and contribute to the class Web glossary. No more than two students can choose any term. These terms are sprinkled through the schedule for the first seven classes, and students will post their working definitions at various times of the semester as indicated in the class schedule.

epistemology
sub-text
ontology
genre and genre studies
theory
praxis/practice
community of practice
constructivism
ethnography
critical incident
think aloud protocols
hermeneutics
strong program(me) of sociology of science
intersubjectivity
phenomenology
thick description
invisible college
quasi-experiment
semiotics
indexicality
theories of the middle range
constructivism
literacy
dramaturgical view of self
social informatics
loose ties
intertextuality
discourse.

Each student will prepare working definitions of his/her three terms. Each definition will:

• Be one or two double-spaced pages long
• Include a personal interpretation of the term
• Include a discussion of its importance in our domain
• Provide examples of how researchers who study users employ the term.

The parroting of definitions from encyclopedias, dictionaries, or other sources will not suffice for this assignment. Instead, each student is expected to provide a scholarly level, value-added explanation of the term for us all. This assignment is worth 10% of your class grade.

1. You will write two or three double-spaced pages on which of the two major “schools” in research you find more powerful: (1) the qualitative approach or (2) the quantitative approach. You should indicate specifically what you mean by “qualitative” and “quantitative” in your paper. You should also identify factors in your life (especially in your previous education and work experience) that have led you to that particular choice while avoiding the easy dichotomies that often result from this kind of contrast. As we know, methodologically diverse studies that combine qualitative and quantitative methods are increasingly common. This assignment is due on January 24, the second class meeting and has no credit associated with it.

2. For five classes of the semester, students will work in self-selected groups of two or three, depending on the number of students enrolled in the course. These teams will determine what we will read and how we will discuss those readings for those classes. Each student team will choose the work of one of the 15 researchers in List A below as the focus of the class discussion. With approval of the instructor, a team could choose another researcher.

Each team will be responsible for leading discussion for the entire class period and will
have at least one formal meeting with the instructor three weeks before the class in which
it facilitates the discussion to discuss plans for the readings, presentation, and other
elements of the class. Thus, the team that leads discussion on March 7, the date of the
first class led entirely by students, must have provided all appropriate materials and met
with the instructor no later than February 14, preferably earlier.

List A

Gary Marchionini
Philip Agre
Reijo Savolainen
Christine Borgman
Raya Fidel
Robert S. Taylor
Pertti Vakkari
Nicholas Belkin
Brenda Dervin
Michael Buckland
Marcia Bates
Tefko Saracevic
Elfreda Chatman
Carol Kuhlthau
Thomas Wilson

List B

Paul Otlet
Ben Schneiderman
Nancy van House
Cyril Cleverdon
David Levy
Fritz Machlup
(Bertram) Chip Bruce
Donald Swanson
Cathy Marshall
Derek de Solla Price
J.C.R. Licklider
Peter Ingwersen
Kimmo Tuominen
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver
Douglas Englebart
Carol Tenopir
Amanda Spink
Michael Eisenberg
Bruce Croft
Ann Peterson Bishop
Rob Kling
Gerald Salton
Carol Berry and Linda Schamber
Jesse Shera
Corinne Jörgensen
David Ellis
Sanda Erdelez

• Each presenting team will identify two or more readings written by or about the work of the person(s) we are considering for that particular day (about 75-100 pp. of reading in toto).
• It is important that you emphasize the research methods these researchers have used in order to investigate what we can broadly call information behavior and information. Thus, one of the major criteria used for evaluating your work will be how clearly and substantially you engage these research methods and help your colleagues do the same.
• One of these readings should be empirical.
• At least one of the readings should be available in hard copy.
• Each student team will provide hard copies of the print materials to the instructor no later than three weeks ahead of the class in question; provide URL’s for the material available online at the same time.
• Be sure to contextualize these researchers’ work in their fields and in the study of information users and use.
• Prepare discussion questions, emphasizing at least three points in each piece we will be reading for the week. These questions will help us discuss the works read.
• Facilitate discussion in class about that person and his/her work, starting with a 45-60 minute presentation, then moving to a more general discussion focusing on the particular discussion questions developed for the remainder of class.
• This assignment is worth 25% of your class grade.

1. Each student will act as a member of a two- or three-member team responding to one of the other student teams’ presentations and discussions. These respondents, like the presenters, will also be expected to facilitate the discussion for the day.

The respondents as a group will be expected to produce an annotated bibliography of works pertinent to the topic(s) of the presentations, up to approximately 30 items with
one or two paragraph annotations for each item and an introductory, discursive overview of the works of six or seven double-spaced pages. This bibliography can include but must go beyond the works of the researcher(s) being discussed to focus more generally on research methods (data collection and data analysis in particular) and topics. As appropriate, I strongly encourage you to include works by one or more of the 28 researchers from List B above as well as at least one ARIST chapter we have not read as a class. The bibliography is due the day of the presentation. This assignment is worth 15% of your semester grade.

1. Each participant in the seminar will respond to an appropriate call for papers for a professional conference, with an emphasis on users. For those students with the interest, the instructor strongly encourages them to perform and report an empirical investigation of users to satisfy this course requirement. Such a choice, however, requires early planning and writing, especially to meet Institutional Review Board requirements related to research involving human beings. Such experience, however, is invaluable.

Generally all students will:

• Write and submit an abstract in response to the call for papers.
• Write a full draft of the paper (10-12 double-spaced pages long), even if the abstract is rejected or if you have not heard from the organizers by the time the paper is due.
• Act as a peer editor for another student’s draft. Each student will write a paper two or three (2-3) double-spaced pages long reacting to another student’s paper. This effort is worth 10% of your final grade. The goal of this review is to help the author of the paper under review to improve that paper.
• Present the final version of the paper publicly. We will emulate the logistics of a professional conference, with each student having about 20 minutes to present, with another 10 minutes for questions. This schedule will probably result in two classes with four papers discussed and one class with five papers discussed. The presentation will be worth 5% of your semester grade.
• Members of the seminar, with a minimal amount of guidance from the instructor, will reserve an appropriate room in the Sánchez building for the presentations, ensure that all presentation equipment is reserved and there, be sure that the room is set up properly, and so on. Members of the Master’s users class (LIS 382L.20, Understanding and Serving Users), as well as the iSchool faculty, doctoral students, and others, will be invited to attend.
• A final 15-page draft of the paper will be handed in on May 9 (25% of grade).
• The students who sit in the class rather than enrolling will perform several tasks. They will:

a. Act as the initial evaluators of the abstracts submitted, offering advice and direction to the members of the seminar
b. Organize the papers into thematic groups for the three class periods used for these presentations
c. Moderate the sessions.

The instructor will try to ensure that students will be able to submit abstracts to real conferences. If that is not possible, then the students sitting in will develop their own call for papers focusing on users and their behavior to which the enrollees’ papers will respond.

 
EXPECTATIONS OF PHD STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

PhD students are especially expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:

• Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is his or her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets

• Read all material prior to class

• Spend at least 5-6 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom of a PhD seminar; therefore, a 3-credit hour course requires a minimum of 15 hours per week of work outside the classroom

• Participate in all class discussions

• Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late assignments will not be accepted except in the particular circumstances noted below

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

• Ask for any explanation and help from the instructor or the Teaching Assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions but please recall that I do not do email at home and that I try to stay home two days a week. It may be several days after you send email before I even see it.

Academic or scholastic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and will incur the most severe penalties, including failure for the course. Naturally, PhD students are held to the highest academic standards.

If there is any concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, please consult the instructor. Students are also encouraged to refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and the brochure Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.
 

STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

Review the standards for written work both before and after writing; they are used to evaluate your work.

You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks. Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa.

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

Certain assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA. Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals, professional conferences, and the like. You may also consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.) and http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm (a useful if non-canonical source).

Never use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, a better choice would be a specialized dictionary or subject-specific encyclopedia. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.

Use the spell checker in your word processing package to review your documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including personal and place names; omit most technical terms; include very few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their," or in writing "the" instead of "them."

It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (LIS 391D.1). If you have any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.

Remember, every assignment must include a title page with

• The title of the assignment

• Your name

• The date

• The class number.
CONTINUED

STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)

Doctoral students must be especially sensitive to words and their meanings, as well as to the canons of good writing. As we know, however, what constitutes good writing and what constitutes permissible use of words in professional situations can vary widely. What follows are reminders to help you prepare professional-level work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error).

Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. Your colleagues expect the same from you when you review their work. Attention to the writing of others is an essential skill, no matter what your professional ambitions might be.

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.

                            CONTINUED

STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)

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

2. 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."

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

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

5. 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.

6. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited technical ways. These are important terms and should be used with care and precision.

7. 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 :-(.

8. "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.

9. The passive voice should generally not be used.

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

11. 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.

12. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give an indication, as specifically as possible, of:

• responsibility (who?)
• title (what?)
• date of creation (when?)
  • date viewed (when?)
• place to find the source (where? how?).

See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214, 231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE
CONTINUED
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)

1. "Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun; similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun.

Symbol Meaning

# number OR insert a space; context will help you decipher its meaning

AWK awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well

block make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with quotations ≥ 4 lines

caps capitalize

COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided

dB database

FRAG sentence fragment; often that means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence is missing

ITAL italicize

j journal

lc make into lower case

lib'ship librarianship

org, org’l organization, organizational

PL plural

Q question

REF? what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?

SING singular

sp spelling

w/ with

w.c.? word choice? 

GRADING

The grading system for this class includes the grades of:

A+ Extraordinarily high achievement
A Superior
A- Excellent
B+ Good
B Satisfactory
B- Barely satisfactory
C+ Unsatisfactory
C Unsatisfactory
C- Unsatisfactory
D Unacceptable
F Unacceptable and failing.

Please see the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students should consult the ISchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/information.html) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad99-01/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad99-01/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. The University of Texas does not use the +/- grading system that we do at the iSchool; UT accepts only full letter grades. Therefore, for example, a B- and B+ final grade at the School of Information both translate to a final grade of B at the University level.

A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. In this class, the grade of A is reserved for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and communicate them effectively.

The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.

I use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined using an arithmetic not a proportional algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is very roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total > 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total > 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student earns 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 earns an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.

The presumption is that all students, especially doctoral students, will earn A unless they demonstrate otherwise.
 

TEXTS

There are two required texts for this class. The New Review can be purchased from the instructor, while the reading packets can be purchased from University Duplicating Service at the Graduate School of Business, GSB 3.136 (471-8281). The required texts will also be on Reserve at PCL.

The required texts are:

Höglund, Lars, & Wilson, Tom. (Eds.). (2000). Studies of information seeking in context.
The New Review of Information Behaviour Research 2000. Volume 1. Taylor Graham
Publishing.

A packet of readings (in two volumes).

The 2000 issue of The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, like the 2001 issue, publishes papers from ISIC III, the third International Conference on Information Seeking in Context held in Göteborg, Sweden.

I also recommend these texts:

Allen, Bryce. (1996). Information tasks: Toward a user-centered approach to information systems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bloch, R. Howard, & Hesse, Carla. (Eds.). (1993). Future libraries. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.

Bruce, Harry, Fidel, Raya, Ingwersen, Peter, & Vakkari, Pertti. (Eds.). (2002). Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS4). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Höglund, Lars, & Wilson, Tom. (Eds.). (2001). Studies of information seeking in context.
The New Review of Information Behaviour Research 2001. Volume 2. Taylor Graham
Publishing.

Ingwersen, Peter, & Pors, Niels Ole. (Eds.). (1995). Information science: Integration in perspective. Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship.

Marchionini, Gary. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

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

Rice, Ronald E., McCreadie, Maureen, & Chang, Shan-Ju. (2001). Accessing and browsing information and communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The required texts, recommended texts, and other material will be on Reserve in PCL to the extent that they are available. While at PCL, you should also make a point of diving into the current periodicals. Doing so will help you further develop the habit of systematically checking the journal literature as well as browsing in journal collections. It is also imperative to develop such strategies for online journal material, given that so many journal titles exist only in electronic form, that many titles exist in both print and electronic form, and that UT-Austin gets many journals in this second category only in electronic form. As you know, consortial arrangements, which major academic libraries like ours have developed, are often the major sources of online journal materials of all kinds.

LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS

The instructor will provide additional information about each assignment (also see pp. 5-8 of this syllabus). Written assignments are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins. Assignments are due in class unless otherwise indicated. GRP indicates a group assignment.

Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade

Preparation and participation ----- 10%

Qualitative/quantitative orientation paper JAN 24 ---
(2-3 double-spaced pp.)

Contribution to class Web glossary various dates 10
(three terms, 1-2 double-spaced pp. each)

Choice of researcher for class presentation FEB 7 ---
GRP

Choice of date for acting as presentation FEB 7 ---
respondent

Class presentation and discussion GRP various dates 25

Annotated bibliography (c. 30 items and various dates 15
overview of 6-7 double-spaced pp.) GRP

Abstract of “conference” paper MAR 21 ---

Full draft of “conference” paper (10-12 double- APR 18 ---
spaced pp.)

Peer review of full draft of “conference” paper MAY 2 10
(2-3 double-spaced pp.)

Presentation of “conference” paper various dates 5

Final version of “conference” paper (15 double- MAY 9 25
spaced pp.)

All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will not be accepted unless three criteria are met:

1. At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor gives explicit permission to the student to hand the assignment in late.

The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations.
 
OUTLINE OF COURSE

Meeting Date Topics

Unit 1 Empirical and conceptual foundations (classes 1-7)

1 Jan 17 Introduction to the course and each other
Brief review of the syllabus

What is information? How can we conceptualize this important term better without reifying it? Why does doing so matter?

2 Jan 24 What are models? How and why are they useful? What do we
think of important models of information behavior we have
seen? What is the “traditional” reference interview, what are
models of that interaction, and how can understanding the
reference process help us understand users?

DUE: Qualitative/quantitative orientation paper (2-3 double-
spaced pp.)

3 Jan 31 What is theory? What is practice? What theories have we seen
in our readings about information behavior? How are models
and theories related?

4 Feb 7 How can information retrieval research, and the concept of
relevance, help us understand users? What, if anything, do
researchers interested in users owe to the documentation
movement, especially as it developed in Great Britain and
elsewhere in Europe? How can we avoid the cognitivistic,
solipsistic bias of much information retrieval research?

DUE: Choice of researcher and date for class presentation

Choice of date for acting as presentation respondent

5 Feb 14 What are the ways that empirical and other research methods we
have read about can help us understand information and
information users? What is a user? What is a reader?

6 Feb 21 What is everyday life information seeking (ELIS)? How is it like
other forms of information use? How do researchers investigate
ELIS? What is information use?

7 Feb 28 How can the concepts of communities of practice and shared
cognition help us in thinking about users? What about the
concept of genre?

Unit 2 Examining the research of others (classes 8-12)

8 Mar 7 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

Mar 14 Spring break – no class!

9 Mar 21 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

            DUE:    Abstract of “conference” paper

10 Mar 28 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

11 Apr 4 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

12 Apr 11 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

Unit 3 Students’ presentations of their research and course
summary (classes 13-15)

13 Apr 18 Students’ presentations of “conference papers” 5%

            DUE:    Full draft of “conference” paper (10-12 double-spaced

pp.)

14 Apr 25 Students’ presentations of “conference papers” 5%

15 May 2 Summary and course evaluation
Students’ presentations of “conference papers” 5%
Information narratives . . .

            DUE:    Peer review of another student’s draft of “conference”

paper (2-3 double-spaced pp.) (10%)

    May 9       DUE:    Final version of “conference” paper (15 double-spaced

pp.) (25%) 
SCHEDULE

The schedule is tentative and may be adjusted slightly as we progress through the semester. Those sources with “(2000) [New Review]” appended to them are in the textbook, the 2000 issue of The New Review of Information Behaviour Research. Several required and other readings are available online as indicated.

DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS

Unit 1 Empirical and conceptual foundations (classes 1-7)

Jan 17 Introduction to the course and each other
Brief review of the syllabus

What is information? How can we conceptualize this important
term better without reifying it? Why does doing so matter?

    READ:   Buckland (1991) [online]
        Chatman (2000) [New Review]
        Cole & Kuhlthau (2000) [New Review]
        Cornelius (2002)
        Högland & Wilson (2000) [New Review]
        Reddy (1993)
        Rowley (1998) [online]

Schiller (1988)
Weaver (1949)
Wilson et al. (2000) [New Review]

AS: Braman (1989)
Buckland (1999)
Capurro (2000)
Cole (1994)
Cool & Belkin (2002)
Cooper (2002)
Harmon (1987)
Losee (1990a)
Losee (1997)
MacMullin & Taylor (1984)
Norton (2000b)
Roberts (1982)
Scarrott (1994)

    Discussion topic -- Choose three of the papers listed above that we have all

read and identify two important similarities and two important differences between them. Such differences might be in their conceptualizations of information, their models of how human beings learn and live together, how the authors analyze users, or other topics. These are only suggestions; please develop your own description of the papers’ attributes and differences, and come to class prepared to discuss them explicitly. Be sure to be ready to explain why the attributes and differences matter specifically.

While these are very complex questions and can be answered neither comprehensively nor easily, I am particularly interested in what you think about them. Please recall that reasonable people can disagree about the questions and how to address them.

Jan 24 What are models? How and why are they useful? What do we think of
important models of information behavior we have seen? What is the
“traditional” reference interview, what are models of that interaction, and how
can understanding the reference process help us understand users?

GLOSSARY TERM: model

READ: Allen (1990)
Christian (2001) [handout] Dervin & Nilan (1986)
Gordon (1993a)
Hurst (2001) [handout] Sonnenwald et al. (2001)
Taylor (1968)
Wilson (1999)

    AS: Berring (1993)

Dervin (1976)
Dewdney & Gillian (1997)
Frohmann (1992c)
Hoskisson (1997)
Janes (2001)
Maher (1986)
Nardi & O’Day (1999), 7 (“Librarians: A Keystone Species,” pp. 79-104)
Ortega y Gassett (1975)
Tissing (1984)
Wilson (2000)

DUE: Qualitative/quantitative orientation paper (2-3 double-spaced pp.)

Jan 31 What is theory? What is practice? What theories have we seen in our readings
about information behavior? How are models and theories related?

GLOSSARY TERMS: theory, praxis/practice

READ: Day (1996)
Glazier and Grover (2002)
Grover and Glazier (1986)
Hjørland (1998)
Kuhlthau & Vakkari (1999) [online] McGrath (2002) [online] McKechnie et al. (2001)
McKechnie and Pettigrew (2002) [online] Pettigrew and McKechnie (2001)
Tuominen et al. (2002)
Zwadlo (1997) [online]

    AS: Åström (2002)

Chatman (1996)
Conway (1986)
Frohmann (1992b)
Marchionini (1995)
Gardner (1983)
Granovetter (1973)
Talja et al. (1999)
Taylor (1986b)
Taylor (1986c)
Westbrook (1993)

Feb 7 How can information retrieval research and the concept of relevance help us
understand users? What, if anything, do researchers interested in users owe to the documentation movement, especially as it developed in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe? How can we avoid the cognitivistic, solipsistic bias of much information retrieval research?

GLOSSARY TERMS: epistemology, phenomenology, constructivism

    READ:   Anderson (2000) [New Review]

Bates (1989) [online] Belkin, Oddy, & Brooks (1982a)
Belkin, Oddy, & Brooks (1982b)
Bush (1945) [online] Ellis (1998) [online] Frohmann (1992a)
Kuhlthau (1991)
Schamber, Eisenberg, & Nilan (1990) [online]

AS: Allen (1991)
Barry & Schamber (1998) [online] Belkin (1990)
Frohmann (2000)
Harris & Dewdney (1994b)
Kuhlthau (1993a)
Losee (1990b)
Mizzaro (1998)
Norton (2000c)
Schamber (1994)
Swanson (1988)
Vakkari (1999)

DUE: Choice of researcher and date for class presentation
Choice of date for acting as presentation respondent

Feb 14 What are the ways that empirical and other research methods we have read
about can help us understand information and information users? What is a
user? What is a reader?

GLOSSARY TERMS: semiotics, discourse, hermeneutics, sub-text

    READ:   Buckland (1998)

Dervin (1989)
Eco (1984)
Gordon (1993b)
Hernon & Schwartz (2002) [online] Hjørland (2000) [New Review] Limberg (2000) [New Review] Lincoln (2002) [online] O’Connor & Park (2001) [online] Thomas & Nyce (2001)

    AS: Berg (1996)

Chang & Rice (1993)
Ellis (1993)
Long (1993)
Mick et al. (1980)
Talja (1997)
Tuominen & Savolainen (1997)

Feb 21 What is everyday life information seeking (ELIS)? How is it like other forms of
information use? How do researchers investigate ELIS? What is information
use?

GLOSSARY TERMS: ethnography, intersubjectivity, social informatics,
thick description, grounded theory

READ: Byström (2000) [New Review] Carey et al. (2001) [online] Cool (2001)
Dervin (1999) [online] Huotari and Chatman (2001) [online] Savolainen (1995) [online] Savolainen (2000) [New Review] Solomon (2002)
Spink & Cole (2001) [online]

AS: Bishop (1999) [online] Spivey & King (1994)
Wang & White (1999)

Feb 28 How can the concepts of communities of practice and shared cognition help us in
thinking about users? What about the concept of genre?

GLOSSARY TERMS: genre, communities of practice, invisible college

    READ:   Brown & Duguid (1991) [online]
        Brown & Duguid (1996) [online]
        Chartier (1995a)
        Chartier (1995b)
        Davenport & Hall (2002)

Erdelez & Rioux (2000) [New Review] Fidel et al. (2000) [New Review] Kenner (1986)
Orlikowski & Yates (1994)
Perry (1993)
Star & Griesemer (1989)

    AS: Brown & Duguid (2000)
        Granovetter (1982)
        Hertzum (2000) [New Review]
        Mutch (2000) [New Review]
        Sonnenwald (1999)
        Taylor (1991)

Unit 2 Examining the research of others (classes 8-12)

Mar 7 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

Mar 14 Spring break – no class!

Mar 21 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

    DUE:    Abstract of “conference” paper

Mar 28 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

Apr 4 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

Apr 11 Student-led discussions of other researchers’ work

Unit 3 Students’ presentations of their research and course
summary (classes 13-15)

Apr 18 Students’ presentations of “conference papers” 5%

    DUE:    Full draft of “conference” paper (10-12 double-spaced pp.)

Apr 25 Students’ presentations of “conference papers” 5%

May 2 Summary and course evaluation
Students’ presentations of “conference papers” 5%
Information narratives . . .

    READ:   Borges (1964) [online]

Chatman (1999) [online] Chatman (2000) [New Review] -- reprise
Haraway (1991) [online] Pettigrew et al. (2001)

    AS: Benoît (2002) [online]

Brittain (1982)
Yoon & Nilan (1999)

    DUE:    Peer review of another student’s draft of “conference” paper (2-3

double-spaced pp.) (10%)

May 9 DUE: Final version of “conference” paper (15 double-spaced pp.) (25%)
 
REFERENCES

I. Readings in the class schedule and assignments

Allen, Robert B. (1990). User models: Theory, method, and practice. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 32(5), 511-543.

Anderson, Theresa Dirndorfer. (2000). Doing relevance research: An ethnographic exploration of relevance assessment. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 201-218.

Bates, Marcia J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424. Also available at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html

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.

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. Also available http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html

Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: 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

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/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Buckland, Michael K. (1998). What is a “document”? In Trudi Bellardo Hahn & Michael Buckland (Eds.), Historical studies in information science (pp. 215-220). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Byström, Katriina. (2000). The effects of task complexity on the relationship between information types acquired and information sources used. The New Review of Information Behaviour, 1, 85-101.

Carey, Robert F., McKechnie, Lynne E.F., & McKenzie, Pamela J. (2001). Gaining access to everyday life information seeking. Library & Information Science Research, 23(4), 319-334. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

Chartier, Roger. (1995a). Introduction. In Forms and meanings: Texts, performances, and audiences from codex to computer (pp. 1-5). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Chartier, Roger. (1995b). Representations of the written word. Chapter 1 in Forms and meanings: Texts, performances, and audiences from codex to computer (pp. 6-24). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

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/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Chatman, Elfreda. (2000). Framing social life in theory and research. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 3-17.

Christian, Eliot. (2001). Making a global information locator service. In Richard Saul Wurman, Information anxiety2 (pp. 176-177). Indianapolis, IN: Que.

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.

Cool, Coleen. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp. 5-42). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Cornelius, Ian. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393-425). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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.

Day, Ronald. (1996). LIS, method, and postmodern science. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 37(4), 317-324.

Dervin, Brenda. (1989). Users as research inventions. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 216-232.

Dervin, Brenda. (1999). On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting methatheory to method. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 727-750. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 3-33). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

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 Press.

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

Erdelez, Sanda, &Rioux, Kevin. (2000). Sharing information encountered for others on the Web. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 219-233.

Fidel, Raya, Bruce, Harry, Pejtersen, Annelise Mark, Dumais, Susan, Grudin, Jonathan, & Poltrock, Steven. (2000). Collaborative information retrieval (CIR). The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 235-247.

Frohmann, Bernd. (1992a). Knowledge and power in library and information science: Toward a discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint. In Peter Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135-148). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.

Glazier, Jack D., & Grover, Robert. (2002). A multidisciplinary framework for theory building. Library Trends, 50(3), 317-329. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

Gordon, Scott. (1993a). Some features of models. In The history and philosophy of social science (pp. 106-110). London: Routledge. (Original published 1991)

Gordon, Scott. (1993b). [Selection from] The philosophy of science. In The history and philosophy of social science (pp. 604-624). London: Routledge. (Original published 1991)

Grover, Robert, & Glazier Jack D. (1986). A conceptual framework for theory building in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 8(3), 227-242.

Haraway, Donna. (1991). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the 1980s. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149-181). New York: Routledge. Also available http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html

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

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.

Höglund, Lars, & Wilson, Tom. (2000). Introduction. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 1-2.

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

Hurst, Mark. (2001). Bit literacy. In Richard Saul Wurman, Information anxiety2 (pp. 6-7). Indianapolis, IN: Que.

Kenner, Hugh. (1986). Libraries and glowlamps: A strategy of reassurance. Scholarly Publishing, 18(1), 17-22.

Kuhlthau, Carol C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.

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

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

McGrath, William E. (2002). Introduction [to special issue on theory]. Library Trends, 50(3), 309-316. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), & Pettigrew, Karen E. (2002). Surveying the use of theory in library and information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library Trends, 50(3), 406-417. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

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.

O’Connor, Daniel O., & Park, Soyeon. (2001). Guest editorial: Crisis in LIS research capacity. Library & Information Science Research, 23(2), 103-106. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

Orlikowski, W., & Yates, JoAnne. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541-574.

Perry, Ruth. (1993, Spring). Embodied knowledge. Harvard Library Bulletin, 4(1), 57-62.

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.

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/jtoc?ID=76501873

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 Press.

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

Savolainen, Reijo. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “way of life.” Library & Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

Savolainen, Reijo. (2000). Incorporating small parts and gap-bridging: Two metaphorical approaches to information use. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 35-49.

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 Press.

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, Wildemuth, Barbara M., & Harmon, Gary L. (2001). A research method to investigate information seeking using the concept of information horizons: An example from a study of lower socio-economic students’ information seeking behaviour. The New Review of Information Behavior Research 2001, 2, 65-86.

Spink, Amanda, & Cole, Charles. (2001). Introduction to the special issue: Everyday life information-seeking research. Library & Information Science Research, 23(4), 301-304. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

Star, 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.

Taylor, Robert S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194.

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.

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.

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

Wilson, Thomas D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 3-15.

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.

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

II. Selected ARIST “use and users” chapters 1966-2002

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cool, Coleen. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp. 5-42). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Cornelius, Ian. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393-425). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Crane, Diana. (1971). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 6, pp. 3-39). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Crawford, Susan. (1978). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 13, pp. 61-81). Medford, NJ: Knowledge Industry.

Davenport, Elisabeth, & Hall, Hazel. (2002). Organizational knowledge and communities of practice. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 171-227). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lin, Nan, & Garvey, William. (1972). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 7, pp. 5-37). Washington, DC: American Society for Information Science.

Lipetz, Ben-Ami. (1970). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 5, pp. 3-32). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Marchionini, Gary, & Komlodi, Anita. (1998). Design of interfaces for information seeking. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 89-120). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Martyn, John. (1974). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 9, pp. 3-22). Washington, DC: American Society for Information Science.

Menzel, Herbert. (1966). Information needs and uses in science and technology. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 1, pp. 41-69). New York: Wiley Interscience.

Paisley, William J. (1968). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 3, pp. 1-30). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Palmquist, Ruth Ann. (1992). The impact of information technology on the individual. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 27, pp. 3-42). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Pettigrew, Karen, Fidel, Raya, & Bruce, Harry. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information behavior. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp. 43-78). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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.

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.

Solomon, Paul. (2002). Discovering information in context. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 229-264). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Spink, Amanda, & Losee, Robert M. (1996). Feedback in information retrieval. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 31, pp. 33-78). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Sugar, William. (1995). User-centered perspective of information retrieval research and analysis methods. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 30, pp. 77-109). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Tibbo, Helen R. (1991). Information systems, services, and technology for the humanities. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp. 287-346). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

III. Selected Important Serial and Other Sources about Users

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Journals

Those journals available online are available for only part of their publication run; further, UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so there may be more than one URL for each journal.

Administrative Science Quarterly

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&jn=%22ASQ%22&scope=site

Canadian Journal of Information Science/ Revue canadienne des sciences de l'information

College & Research Libraries

http://hwwilsonweb.com/login/?sp.username=AVE06&sp.password=UNTX045919&sp.dbid.p=S(Y6)&sp.nextfform=advsrch.htm

Information Processing & Management

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

The Information Society

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%221HQ%22&scope=site

Journal of Communication

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&bquery=is+00219916&scope=site

Journal of Documentation

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science

Journal of Information Science

http://ejournals.ebsco.com/Journal.asp?JournalID=103633

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

formerly the Journal of the American Society for Information Science

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

Library & Information Science Research

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

Library Quarterly

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

Library Trends

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

Libri

New Review of Information Behaviour Research: Studies of Information Seeking in Context

Organization Science

http://pubsonline.informs.org/main/index.php?user=52882
 
Electronic journals

D-Lib Magazine -- http://www.dlib.org/

First Monday -- http://www.firstmonday.dk/

Information Research -- http://InformationR.net/ir/index.html

Proceedings of important meetings

Annual meeting of ASIST – the American Society for Information Science and Technology

CoLIS – Conference on the Future of Library and Information Science

DL 9x, DL 0x – Conferences on digital libraries

ISIC – Conferences on Information Seeking in Context

IV. Additional sources

Abbott, Andrew. (1988). The information professions. Notes. References. In The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor (pp. 215-246; pp. 367-373; pp. 389-421). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Agada, John. (1999). Inner-city gatekeepers: An exploratory survey of their information use environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 74-85.

Allen, Bryce. (1996). Information tasks: Toward a user-centered approach to information systems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

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

Asheim, Lester. (1983). Selection and censorship: A reappraisal. Wilson Library Bulletin, 58(3), 180-184.

Åström, Fredrik. (2002). Visualizing library and information science concept spaces through keyword and citation based maps and clusters. 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. 185-197). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Autrey, Pamela Sanders. (1980). Using information skills. In Betty-Carol Sellen (Ed.), What else you can do with a library degree (pp. 10-16). Syracuse, NY: Gaylord Professional Publications.

Baecker, R., Grudin, J., Buxton, W., & Greenberg, S. (1995). Readings in human-computer interaction: Toward the year 2000. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

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

Barry, Carol L., & Schamber, Linda. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3), 219-236. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Barton, Daniel, & Hamilton, Mary. (1998a). Understanding literacy as social practice. In Local literacies (pp. 3-22). London: Routledge.

Barton, Daniel, & Hamilton, Mary. (1998b). Becoming expert: Literacy and sense making. In Local literacies (pp. 231-246). London: Routledge.

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

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

Bates, Marcia J. (1984). The fallacy of the perfect thirty-item search. RQ, 24(1), 43-50.

Bates, Marcia J. (1999). A tour of information science through the pages of JASIS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(11), 975-993.

Bates, Mary Ellen. (1998). Finding the question behind the question. Information Outlook, 2(7), 19-21. http://www.sla.org/pubs/serial/io/1998/jul98/bates.html

Baum, Christina D. (1992). Feminist thought in American librarianship. Jeffrey, NC: McFarland.

Bawden, David. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.

Bawden, David, & Robinson, Kay. (1997). Information behavior in nursing specialties. Journal of Information Sciences, 23(6), 407-421.

Belkin, Nicholas J. (1980). Anomalous state of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5, 133-144.

Belkin, Nicholas J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information Science, 16(1), 11-15.

Bell, Daniel. (1980). The social framework of the Information Society. In T. Forester (Ed.), The microelectronics revolution (pp. 500-549). Boston: MIT Press.

Benko, R.P. (1987). Economic theory and intellectual property rights. In Protecting intellectual property rights (pp. 15-25). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Toward a critical theoretic perspective in information systems. Library Quarterly, 72(4), 441-471. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

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.

Berger, P.L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor books.

Berring, Robert C. (1993). Future librarians. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 94-115). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Beyer, H., & Holzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Bielawski, Ellen. (1996). Inuit indigenous knowledge and science in the Arctic. In Laura Nader (Ed.), Naked science: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power and knowledge (pp. 216-227). New York: Routledge.

Biggs, Mary. (1991). The role of research in the development of a profession or a discipline. In Charles R. McClure and Peter Hernon (Eds.), Library and information science research: Perspectives and strategies for improvement (pp. 72-84). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bilal, D. (2000). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine. I. Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 646-665.

Bishop, Ann P. (1994). The role of computer networks in aerospace engineering. Library Trends, 42(4), 624-729. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

Bishop, Ann 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 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

Borgman, Christine L. (1989). All users of information retrieval systems are not created equal: An exploration into individual differences. Information Processing & Management, 25(3), 237-251. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Borgman, Christine L., Hirsh, Sandra G., Walter, Virginia A., & Gallagher Andrea L. (1995). Children’s searching behavior on browsing and keyword online catalogs: The science library catalog project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(9), 663-684. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Borgmann, Albert. (1999). Holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the millennium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Braman, Sandra. (1989). Defining information: An approach for policymakers. Telecommunications Policy, 13(3), 233-242. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03085961

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

Brittain, J.M. (1982). Pitfalls of user research, and some neglected areas. Social Science Information Studies, 2, 139-148.

Brookes, B.C. (1974). Robert Fairthorne and the scope of information science. Journal of Documentation, 30(x), 139-152.

Brown, John Seely, & Duguid, Paul. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bruce, Bertram C. [Chip]. (2000). Credibility of the Web: Why we need dialectical reading. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(1), 97-109. Also available http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/%7Echip/pubs/credibility.shtml

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

Buckland, Michael K. (1999). The landscape of information science: The American Society for Information Science at 62. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(11), 970-974. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Bunch, A. (1982). Community information: Meanings and origins. In Community information services (pp. 1-20). London: Clive Bingley.

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.

Capurro, Rafael. (n.d.). Foundations of information science: Review and perspectives. [A modified and updated version of Capurro (1992).] Available at http://www.capurrode/tampere91.htm

Capurro, Rafael. (2000). Hermeneutics and the phenomenon of information. In Carl Mitcham (Ed.), Metaphysics, epistemology, and technology: Research in philosophy and technology (Vol. 19, pp. 79-85). Available at http://www.capurrode/ny86.htm

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

Chartier, Roger. (1993). Libraries without walls. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 39-52). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Chatman, Elfreda. (1987). Alienation theory: Application of a conceptual framework to a study of information among janitors. RQ, 29(2), 355-368.

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. (1991). Life in a small world: Applicability of gratification theory to information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(6), 265-283. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

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/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

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

Cobbledick, Susie. (1996). The information-seeking behavior of artists: Exploratory interviews. Library Quarterly, 66(4), 343-372. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

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

Cole, Charles. (1994). Operationalizing the notion of information as a subjective construct. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 465-476. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Cole, Charles, Cantero, P., & Ungar, A. (2000). The development of a diagnostic-prescriptive tool for undergraduates seeking information for a social science/humanities assignment. III. Enabling devices. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 481-500. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Conway, Paul. (1986). Research in presidential libraries: A user survey. The Midwestern Archivist, XI(1), 35-56.

Cool, Coleen, & Belkin, Nicholas J. (2002). A classification of interactions with information. 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. 1-15). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Cooper, Linda. (2002). A study of the relationships between categories of library information as typified by young children. 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. 17-31). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

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

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

Crawford, Walt. (1998). Uncommon knowledge: Mythbreaking for the future. In Cheryl LaGuardia & Barbara A. Mitchell (Eds.), Finding common ground: Creating the library of the future without diminishing the library of the past (pp. 16-24). New York: Neal-Schuman.

Crawford, Walt, & Gorman, Michael. (1995). Deconstructing dreams of the all-electronic future. In Future libraries: Dreams, madness & reality (pp. 88-103). Chicago: American Library Association.

Cronin, Blaise. (1982). Invisible colleges and information transfer: A review and commentary with particular reference to the social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 212-236.

Crowder, Robert G., & Wegner, Richard K. (1992). The psychology of reading: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Davenport, Thomas H. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowledge environment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Derrida, Jacques. (1995). Archive fever (Eric Prenowitz, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dervin, Brenda. (1976). The everyday information needs of the average citizen: A taxonomy for analysis. In M. Rochen and J.C. Donohue (Eds.), Information for the community (pp. 19-38). Chicago: American Library Association.

Dervin, Brenda. (1977). Useful theory for librarianship: Communication, not information. Drexel Library Quarterly, 13(3), 16-32.

Dewdney, Patricia, & Gillian, Michell. (1997). Asking “why” questions in the reference interview: A theoretical justification. Library Quarterly, 67(1), 50-71. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

Dresang, Eliza, & Gross, Melissa. (2001). Evaluating children’s resources and services in a networked environment. In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 23-44). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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. (n.d.). Big6 skills overview. http://www.big6.com/overview.htm

Ellen, Deborah. (2001). Bridging the digital divide: Is access enough? ASSIGNation, 18(2), 32ff.
Busha, Charles H., & Wedgeworth, Robert. (1993). Censorship and intellectual freedom. In Robert Wedgeworth (Ed.), World encyclopedia of library and information services (3rd ed.) (pp. 182-185). Chicago: American Library Association.

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

Fidel, Raya, Davies, Rachel K., Douglass, Mary H., Holder, Jenny K., Hopkins, Carla J., Kushner, Elisabeth J., Miyagishima, Bryan K., & Toney, Christina D. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 24-37. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Ford, Nigel. (2000). Cognitive styles and virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 543-557. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Foucault, Michel. (1992). Archaeological description. Part IV in The archaeology of knowledge and The discourse on language (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.) (pp. 133-195). New York: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1970)

Foucault, Michel. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1966)

Frohmann, Bernd. (1992b). The ethics of information science theory. Paper presented at Information Democracy: Creating an Agenda for Action, 55th ASIS Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, October 26-29. Available at http://fims.uwo.ca/people/faculty/frohmann/Ethics.htm

Frohmann, Bernd. (1992c). The power of images: A discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint. Journal of Documentation, 48, 365-386.

Frohmann, Bernd. (1994). Communication technologies and the politics of postmodern information science. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 19(2), 1-22.

Frohmann, Bernd. (2000). Discourse and documentation: Some implications for pedagogy and research. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42, 13-28.

Galvin, Thomas J. (1984). The significance of information science for the theory and practice of librarianship. Libri, 34(2), 81-87.

Gardner, Howard. (1983). The socialization of human intelligence through symbols. In Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (pp. 299-327 and 422-423). New York: Basic books.

Garfinkel, Harold. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Garrison, Dee. (1979). Apostles of culture: The public librarian and American society, 1876-1920. New York: Macmillan.

Garvey, William D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange among scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon.

Geertz, Clifford. (1983). The way we think now: Toward an ethnography of modern thought. In Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (pp. 147-163). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1982)

Geertz, Clifford. (2000). Imbalancing act: Jerome Bruner’s cultural psychology. In Available light: Anthropological reflections on philosophical topics (pp. 187-202). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

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

Gorman, Paul N. (1995). Information needs of physicians. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(10), 729-736. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The strength of loose ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

Granovetter, Mark S. (1982). The strength of loose ties: A network theory revisited. In Marsden, Peter V., & Lin, Nan (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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 Press.

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

Harris, Michael. (1973). The purpose of the American public library: Revisionist interpretation of history. Library Journal, 98(16), 2509-2514.

Harris, Michael H., Hannah, Stan A., & Harris, Pamela C. (1998). Into the future: The foundations of library and information services in the post-industrial era (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Harris, Roma, & Dewdney, Patricia. (1994a). Information transfer failures, or why it’s so hard to locate the information you need. In Barriers to information: How formal help systems fail battered women (pp. 1-6). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Harris, Roma, & Dewdney, Patricia. (1994b). Theory and research on information seeking. In Barriers to information: How formal help systems fail battered women (pp. 7-34). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hauptman, Robert. (Ed.). (1991a). Ethics and the dissemination of information [Special Issue]. Library Trends, 40(2). Also available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

Hauptman, Robert. (1991b). Five assaults on our integrity. In F.W. Lancaster (Ed.), Ethics and the librarian (pp. 83-91). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

Hayes, Robert M. (1992). Measurement of information. In Peter Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 268-285). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.

Haynes, K.S. (1995). Information and referral services. In Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed.) (pp. 1464-1469). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Henderson, Kathryn. (1996). The visual culture of engineers. In Susan Leigh Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 196-218). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Hendry, D.G., & Harper, D.J. (1997). An informal information-seeking environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(1), 1036-1048. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Hert, Carol. (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.

Heins, Marjorie, & Cho, Christina. (2001). Internet filters: A public policy report. National Coalition Against Censorship. Available at http://www.ncac.org/issues/internetfilters.html

Hertzum, Morten. (2000). People as carriers of experience and sources of commitment: Information seeking in a software design project. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 135-149.

Hertzum, M., & Pejtersen, A.M. (2000). The information-seeking practices of engineers: Searching for documents as well as for people. Information Processing & Management, 36(5), 761-778. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Hinnebusch, Nicole. (1998). Restricting Internet access in public libraries. The Yale Political Quarterly, 19(4). Also available at http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/may98/may98a.html

Hirsh, Sandra G. (1997). How do children find information on different types of tasks? Children’s user of the science library catalog. Library Trends, 45(4), 725-745. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

Hobart, Michael E., & Schiffman, Zachary S. (1998). Information ages: Literacy, numeracy, and the computer revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hofstadter, Richard. (1963a). On the unpopularity of intellect. In Anti-intellectualism in American life (pp. 24-51). New York: Knopf.

Hofstadter, Richard. (1963b). The school and the teacher. In Anti-intellectualism in American life (pp. 299-322). New York: Knopf.

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

Hutchins, Edwin. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Information. (1966, September). [Special issue]. Scientific American, 215(3).

Janes, Joseph. (2001). Digital reference services in public and academic libraries. In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 175-196). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Jansen, Sue Curry. (1991). Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jeavons, Thomas H. (1994). Ethics in nonprofit management: Creating a culture of integrity. In Robert D. Herman & Associates (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 184-207). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, J.D. (1996). Information seeking. Westport, CT: Quorum.

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

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.

Kuhlthau, Carol. (1993a). The information search process. In Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (pp. 1-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kuhlthau, Carol. (1993b). Verification of the model of the information search process. In Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (pp. 33-63). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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

LaGuardia, Cheryl, & Mitchell, Barbara A. (Eds.). (1998). Finding common ground: Creating the library of the future without diminishing the library of the past. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Lancaster, F.W. (Ed.). (1991). Ethics and the librarian. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

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

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 Press.

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

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

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

Leckie, Gloria, Pettigrew, & Sylvain, Christian. (1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: A general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIQ%22&scope=site

Lindsey, Jonathan A. (1994). Ethics. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 187-188). New York: Garland Publishing.

Littlewood, Bev, & Stringini, Lorenzo. (1992). The risks of software. Scientific American, 267(5), 62-66, 75.

Long, Elizabeth. (1993). Textual interpretation as collective action. In Jonathan Boyarin (Ed.), The ethnography of reading (pp. 180-211). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Losee, Robert M. (1990a). Information. In The science of information: Measurement and applications (pp. 1-43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Losee, Robert M. (1990b). Information retrieval. In The science of information: Measurement and applications (pp. 195-236). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Losee, Robert M. (1997). A discipline-independent definition of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(3), 254-269. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Lynch, Clifford A. (1998). Finding common ground. In Cheryl LaGuardia & Barbara A. Mitchell (Eds.), Finding common ground: Creating the library of the future without diminishing the library of the past (pp. 1-15). New York: Neal-Schuman.

Maack, Mary Niles. (1994). Gender issues in librarianship. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 227-232). New York: Garland Publishing.

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

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

Marchionini, Gary. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Marien, Michael. (1984). Some questions for the Information Society. The Information Society, 3(2), 181-197. (Original work published 1983)

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

Machlup, Fritz. (1980). Knowledge and knowledge production. Knowledge, its creation, distribution, and economic significance (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Machlup, Fritz. (1982). The branches of learning. Knowledge, its creation, distribution, and economic significance (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Machlup, Fritz. (1984). The economics of information and human capital. Knowledge, its creation, distribution, and economic significance (Vol. 3). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Machlup, Fritz, & Mansfield, Una. (Eds.). (1983). The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

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

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

McGarry, K.J. (1975). Communication: Definitions and models. In Communication, knowledge and the librarian (pp. 7-37). London: Clive Bingley.

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. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

Meadows, A.J. (Ed.). The origins of information science. London: Taylor Graham and contributors.

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

Mick, Colin K., Lindsey, George N., & Callahan, Daniel. (1980). Toward usable user studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31, 347-356.

Miksa, Francis, & Doty, Philip. (1994). Intellectual realities and the digital library. In John Schnase, John Leggett, Richard Furuta, & Ted Metcalfe (Eds.), Digital libraries '94 (pp. 1-5). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, Hypermedia Research Laboratory.

Mizzaro, Stefano. (1998). Relevance: The whole history. In Trudi Bellardo Hahn & Michael Buckland (Eds.), Historical studies in information science (pp. 221-244). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Molz, Redmond Kathleen, & Dain, Phyllis. (1999). Civic space/Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Morton, Sandy. (1989). The FBI library awareness program: What we know . . . what we do not know. Information Management Review, 4(3), 53-58.

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

Mutch, Alistair. (2000). Mangers, information and teams: A tale of two companies. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 1, 151-165.

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.

Nardi, Bonnie. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nardi, Bonnie A., & O’Day, Vicki L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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 Press.

Noble, David F. (1997). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First Monday, 3(1). Available at http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_1/noble/index.html

Norman, D.A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Norton, Melanie J. (2000a). Communication. Chapter 3 in Introductory concepts in information science (pp. 39-50). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Norton, Melanie J. (2000b). Information and information science. Chapter 1 in Introductory concepts in information science (pp. 3-18). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Norton, Melanie J. (2000c). Information retrieval. Chapter 4 in Introductory concepts in information science (pp. 51-62). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1993). The place of books in the age of electronic reproduction. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 13-37). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

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

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

Office of Intellectual Freedom. American Library Association. (1996). Intellectual freedom manual (5th ed.). Chicago: American Library Association.

Olson, David R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ong, Walter J. (1982). Orality & literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.

Ortega y Gassett, José. (1975). The mission of the librarian. In John David Marshall (Ed.), Of, by, and for librarians, Second Series (pp. 190-213). s.l.: Shoe String Press. (Original work published 1961)

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

Palmer, Carole L. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: Linking library services to research practices. Library Trends, 45(1), 165-191. Available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jn=%22LIT%22&scope=site

Pettigrew, K.E. (1999). Waiting for chiropody: Contextual results from an ethnographic study of the information behavior among attendees at community clinics. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 801-817. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Pierce, J. (1972). Communication. Scientific American, 227(3), 31-41.

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

Preer, Jean. (1994). Censorship. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 117-123). New York: Garland Publishing.

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

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

Rieh, Soo Young, & Belkin, Nicholas J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. In Cecilia M. Preston (Ed.), Information access in the global information economy: Proceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 279-289). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Roberts, Norman. (1982). A search for information man. Social Science Information Studies, 2, 93-104.

Roszak, Theodore. (1994). Ben Franklin's information service: Libraries, literacy, and the ecology of mind. In The cult of information: A neo-Luddite treatise on high-tech, artificial intelligence, and the true art of thinking (2nd ed.) (pp. 173-201). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Rothenberg, Jeff. (1995). Ensuring the longevity of digital documents. Scientific American, 272(1), 42-47.

Rouse, W.B., & Rouse, S.H.. (1984). Human information seeking and design of information systems. Information Processing & Management, 20(1-2), 129-138. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Royce, Bert R., Meadow, Charles T., & Kraft, Donald H. (1994). Measurement in information science. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sales, G. (1987). Developing a human services taxonomy: A case study. Reference Services Review, 15(4), 35-44.

Scarrott, Gordon G. (1994). Some functions and properties of information. Journal of Information Science, 20(2), 88-98.

Schiller, Herbert I., & Schiller, Anita R. (1988). Libraries, public access, and commerce. In Vinnie Mosco & Janet Wasco (Eds.), The political economy of information (pp. 146-166). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

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.

Schrader, A. (1984). In search of a name: Information science and its conceptual antecedents. Library & Information Science Research, 6(3), 227-271.

Schuler, Douglas. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. New York: ACM Press.

Shannon, Claude E., & Weaver, Warren. (1971). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. (Original work published 1949)

Shera, Jesse. (1972). An epistemological foundation for library science. In The foundations of education for librarianship (pp. 109-134). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Simonsen, J., & Kensing, F. (1997). Using ethnography in contextual design. Communications of the ACM, 40(7), 82-88.

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.

Sonnenwald, Diane. (1999). Evolving perspectives of human information behaviour: Contexts, situations, social networks and information horizons. In Wilson, Thomas D., & Allen, D.K. (Eds.), Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts (pp. 176-190). London: Taylor Graham.

Sonnenwald, D.H., & Pierce, L.G. (2000). Information behavior in dynamic work contexts: Interwoven situational awareness, dense social networks and contested collaboration in command and control. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 461-479. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

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

Spivey, N.N., & King, J.R. (1994). Readers as writers composing from sources. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer, Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.) (pp. 668-694). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

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.

Stepp, Ermel. (1993). The virtualization of institutes of research. The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture, 1(6). Available at http://www.infomotions.com/serials/aejvc/aejvc-v1n06-stepp-virtualization.txt

Subramanyam, K. (1979). Characteristics and structure of scientific literature. In "Scientific literature" (pp. 391-403). Encyclopedia of library and information science. New York: Marcel Dekker.

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

Swan, John. (1994). Intellectual freedom. In Wayne A. Wiegand & Donald G. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 280-285). New York: Garland Publishing.

Swann, W.B., Jr. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91(4), 457-477.

Swanson, Don R. (1988). Historical note: Information retrieval and the future of an illusion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(2), 92-98. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

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

Talja, Sanna. (1997). Constituting “information” and “user” as research objects: A theory of knowledge formations as an alternative to the information man-theory. In Vakkari, Pertti, Savolainen, Reijo, & Dervin, Brenda (Eds.), Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts (pp. 67-80). London: Taylor Graham.

Talja, Sanna, Keso, Heidi, & Pietilainen, Tarja. (1999). The production of “context” in information seeking research: A metatheoretical view. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 751-763. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

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

Taylor, Robert S. (1986a). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Taylor, Robert S. (1986b). The user-driven model and information use environments. In Value-added processes in information systems (pp. 23-47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Taylor, Robert S. (1986c). The value-added model. In Value-added processes in information systems (pp. 48-70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Taylor, Robert S. (1991). Information use environments. Progress in Communication Sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 217-255). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tissing, Robert W., Jr. (1984). The orientation interview in archival research. American Archivist, 47(2), 173-178.

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

Tucker, Nicholas. (1981). The child and the book: A psychological and literary exploration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tuominen, Kimmo, & Savolainen, Reijo. (1997). A social constructionist approach to the study of information use as discursive action. In Vakkari, Pertti, Savolainen, Reijo, & Dervin, Brenda (Eds.), Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts (pp. 81-96). London: Taylor Graham.

Turnbaugh, Roy C. (1986). Archival mission and user studies. The Midwestern Archivist, XI(1), 27-33.

Vakkari, Pertti. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 819-837. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

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

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

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

Wang, Peiling, & White, Marilyn Domas. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 98-114. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Wersig, G., & Neveling, U. (1975). The phenomena of interest to information science. Information Scientist, 9, 127-140.

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. Also available at http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&jn=%22ASQ%22&scope=site

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

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

Westbrook, Lynn. (1997). Information access issues for interdisciplinary scholars: Results of a Delphi study on women’s studies research. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(3), 211-216.

Wiegand, Wayne A. (1988). The role of the library in American history. In Filomena Simora (Ed.), The Bowker annual (pp. 69-76). New York: R.R. Bowker.

Williams, Christine L. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women’s work. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wilson, Patrick. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

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. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-56.

Winograd, Terry, & Flores, Fernando. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Winter, Michael F. (1988). The trick question: Thinking through the occupation/profession debate. In The culture and control of expertise: Toward a sociological understanding of librarianship (pp. 97-113). New York: Greenwood Press.

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

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

Yoon, Kyunghye, & Nilan, Michael S. (1999). Toward a reconceptualization of information seeking research: Focus on the exchange of meaning. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 871-890. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

Yuan, W. (1997). End-user searching behavior in information retrieval: A longitudinal study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(3), 218-234. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981