UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS - …inf382pd/ss2005... · Web viewINF 382C, Understanding and...

UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS

INF 382C

Unique Number 81380

Dr. Philip DotySchool of Information

University of Texas at Austin

SS I 2005

Class time: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 4:00 – 6:30 PM

Place: SZB 468

Office: SZB 570

Office hrs: Wednesday 1:00 – 2:30 PM

By appointment other times

Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line512.471.3821 – main iSchool office

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

Class URL: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~inf382pd/ss2005

TA: Melanie [email protected]

Office hours to be announced

Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, May 2005 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the course 3 3

Expectations of students’ performance 4

Standards for written work 5

Editing conventions 9

Grading 10

Texts and other tools 11

List of assignments 12

Outline of course 13

Schedule 15

Assignments 21

References 23

Readings in the class schedule

Selected ARIST chapters 1966-2004

Useful digital sources for evaluating digital information

Additional sources


INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

INF 382C, Understanding and Serving Users, is animated by our discipline’s efforts to understand people’s information behavior beyond their role as users of particular information systems or services. The course explores how social theory and empirical research help us understand people and their information behavior and how knowledge of people’s lives and practices can be used to design, implement, and evaluate information services. The course is also intended to help prepare students for more advanced study and for more informed evaluation of information services, as students and as practitioners.

To achieve those ends, the course looks at social, humanistic, and other modes of investigation. We look especially at the interactions among these important elements of information behavior:

Interpretation Meaning

making Identity

Community Practice Narrative

Information agencies

Information technologies.

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

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

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

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

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

Plainly, these sets of literatures and modes are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one of the major goals of the course is an increased awareness of major similarities and differences among disciplines interested in information behavior.

Efforts to understand people’s information behavior have evolved from system-centric to people-centric perspectives, an important step in the maturity of the information disciplines; from an emphasis on scientists and engineers to the study of people more generally, especially the socially marginalized such as women, children, and the poor; and from a focus on “professional use of information resources” to the study of people’s wider everyday information behavior.


Unfortunately, too many of these efforts have tended to consider users as largely cognitive and atomistic beings. While we will examine the “user perspective” closely, we will also use more recent social, community-, and practice-based approaches to knowledge and learning to help us gain a more holistic understanding of people and their behavior.


Structurally, the course comprises four units:

Unit 1: Modeling information and people’s information behavior Unit 2: Providing information services Unit 3: Investigating specific communities and information services Unit 4: Ethics, equity, and presentations of students’ research.

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

EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the overall conduct of the class. 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. The assignments presume that students are familiar with all material discussed in class.

• Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform their classroom participation and their writing assignments. Students must learn to integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of professional expertise.

• Educate themselves and their peers. Your successful completion of this program and your participation in the information professions depend upon your willingness to demonstrate initiative and creativity. Your participation in the professional and personal growth of your colleagues is essential to your success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of professional practice, so some assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

• 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 help from the instructor or the Teaching Assistant. Email is especially appropriate for questions, but please recall that I do not have access to email at home. It may be several days after you send email before I see it. It is always wise to send a copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA as well; she has access to email more regularly.


Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.

The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for qualified students with documented disabilities, and the University’s Office of the Dean of Students at 471.6259, 471.4641 TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

Review these standards 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 mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Remember that writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind.

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

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

Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, a better choice would be a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.

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

It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 382C). 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


http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm

• The title of the assignment

• Your name

• The date

• The class number – INF 382C.

CONTINUED


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)

Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional-level written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error):

1.Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or other means of keeping the pages together.

2.Number all pages after the title page. Ordinarily, notes and references do NOT count against page limits.

3.Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction -- be serious and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and "option."

4.Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."*

5.Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways; similarly avoid using “content” as a noun.

6.Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies.

7.Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "high-quality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.

8.Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*

9.Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.

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

11.Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is a singular form, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent or the pronoun must change in number.


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

13.Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes only to Antone's."

CONTINUED



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

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

16. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then, obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.

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

18. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(.

19. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for uncountable nouns.

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

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

22. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates as appropriate in APA.

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

- responsibility (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

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

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

CONTINUED


http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE


26. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.

27. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”

28. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.

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

30. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.

31. “Impact” is a noun; so is “research.”

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

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

34. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms and have been for decades.

35. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not footnotes.


SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS

Symbol Meaning

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

AWK awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well

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

caps capitalize

COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided

dB database

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

j journal

lc make into lower case

lib'ship librarianship

org, org’l organization, organizational

PL plural

Q question

Q’naire questionnaire

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

RQ research question

sp spelling

SING singular

w/ with

w.c.? word choice?

I also use check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point and wavy lines under or next to a term to indicate that the usage is suspect.


GRADING

The grading system for this class includes the following grades:

A+ Extraordinarily high achievementA SuperiorA- ExcellentB+ GoodB SatisfactoryB- Barely satisfactoryC+ UnsatisfactoryC UnsatisfactoryC- UnsatisfactoryD UnacceptableF Unacceptable and failing.

See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the School of Information student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students should consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/index.html) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad03-05/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad03-05/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. The University of Texas does not yet use the +/- grading system that we do at the iSchool; UT accepts only full letter grades but will change in fall 2005. Therefore, for example, a B- and B+ final grade at the iSchool both translate currently 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 a total of


90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.


TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are four required and two recommended texts for this class. Bishop et al. (2003), Brown & Duguid (2002), and Bruner (1990) can be purchased at the Co-op (476.7211). The reading packet is at University Duplicating Service at the Graduate School of Business, GSB 3.136 (471.8281). All of the required readings will be on Reserve at PCL; many of the readings are available online.

The required texts are:

Bishop, Ann Peterson, Van House, Nancy A., & Buttenfield, Barbara P. (Eds.). (2003). Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

One volume of readings.

The recommended texts are:

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

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

communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

The course Web site, as well as direct email messages, will be used to inform students of changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. Both means can be used by all course participants to communicate with each other, pass along information regarding interesting events and resources, and the like. The TA will post many, if not all, of the overheads used in class to the appropriate dates in the syllabus online.

While I always have reservations about readings that I assign, I want to mention some particular concerns I have with Brown & Duguid’s The Social Life of Information (2002). It is a superb book, but there are two particular concepts important to their argument and problematic in the context of this course:

1. The “content/conduit” distinction – although the authors are quite self-conscious about its ill effects and how it misleads us, like all English speakers, they allow this metaphor to seep into their analysis – be aware of its use and sensitive to how it tends to obfuscate important questions.


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

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


LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS

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

Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade

Preparation and participation ----- 15%

Discussion questions (DQs) in BlackBoard JUN15JUN 21JUN 23JUL 5

User community topic GRP JUN 21 ---

Dialectical reading (4 pp.) JUN 22 25

Presentation and annotated bibliography JUN 30 30on user community GRP JUL 5, JUL 6

Information literacy, “information poverty” JUL 7 30(5 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.

2. At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission.

3. The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time.

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

All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear, succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your papers.


OUTLINE OF COURSE

Meeting Date TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Unit 1: Modeling information and people’s information behavior

1 Jun 2 THU Introduction to the courseReview of the syllabusParadigms in information studies: Library science and information

science

2 Jun 7 TUE The growth of “user studies”Communities of practice

3 Jun 8 WED Modeling people’s information behavior I: Analyzing information needs

4 Jun 9 THU Modeling people’s information behavior II: Situating users and use

History of “user studies”

5 Jun 14 TUE Modeling people’s information behavior III: Information seeking

6 Jun 15 WED Introduction to information retrievalThe concept of relevance

• DUE: Discussion questions (DQs) on Bruner (1990) on BlackBoard

Unit 2: Providing information services

7 Jun 16 THU The information intermediaryThe reference interview: Face-to-face and digital reference

8 Jun 21 TUE Deepening our understanding of censorshipInternet filters and the Children’s Internet Protection Act/U.S.

v. ALA (2003)

• DUE: User community topic – GRP

• DUE: DQs on the CIPA decision on BlackBoard

Unit 3: Investigating specific communities and information services


9 Jun 22 WED Mobilizing theory: Knowing, narrative, and contextWhat are documents?Perspectives on information utilizationEvaluating information

• DUE: Dialectical reading (4 pp.) (25%)


10 Jun 23 THU Research methods: Key to understanding people and their behavior

• DUE: Discussion questions (DQs) on Geertz (1983) on BlackBoard

11 Jun 28 TUE The information behavior of scientists and engineers

12 Jun 29 WED Children’s information behaviorInformation literacyThe Big6

Unit 4: Ethics, equity, and presentations of students' research

13 Jun 30 THU Selected topics in information ethics: “Information poverty” and equity

User community presentations and annotated bibliographies (30%)—

GRP

14 Jul 5 TUE User community presentations and annotated bibliographies (30%)—

GRP

• DUE: DQs on gender and articulation work on BlackBoard

15 Jul 6 WED User community presentations and annotated bibliographies (30%)—

GRP

16 Jul 7 THU Course evaluationSummary discussion: Indexicality, interpretation, and beyond

“the view from nowhere”

• DUE: Information literacy, “information poverty” (5 pp.)

(30%)


SCHEDULE

The schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester. Several readings are in the reading packet (R), while several other required readings are available online as indicated. Some of the readings require you to be logged in with your UTEID through the UT libraries.

DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND REQUIRED READINGS

Unit 1: Modeling information and people’s information behavior

June 2 THU Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus

Paradigms in information studies: Library science and information science

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

Chapter 1Cornelius (1996a) (R)Schiller (1988) (R)Weaver (1949) (R)

AS: Cole (1994)Cornelius (2002)Israel (2001)Losee (1990a)Losee (1997)Scarrott (1994)Wiegand (2003)

June 7 TUE The growth of “user studies”

Communities of practice

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 5Bishop, Van House, & Buttenfield (2003), Preface, IntroductionAgre (2003)Star et al. (2003)Van House (2003)Brown & Duguid (1991) onlineWidén & Ginman (2004) online

AS: Davenport & Hall (2002)Lave (1988) passimLave & Wenger (1992) passimWenger (1998) passim


June 8 WED Modeling people’s information behavior I: Analyzing information needs

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 2 and 3Dervin & Nilan (1986) (R)MacMullin & Taylor (1984) (R)Wilson (2000) onlineNunberg (1996b) online

June 9 THU Modeling people’s information behavior II: Situating information users and use

History of “user studies”

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 4Suchman (1996) (R)Star & Strauss (1999) online

AS: Conway (1986)Dervin (1976)Gardner (1983)Granovetter (1973) Marchionini (1995)Taylor (1986a)Taylor (1986b)

June 14 TUE Modeling people’s information behavior III: Information seeking

READ: Krikelas (1983) (R)Kuhlthau (1991) onlineChoo et al. (2000) onlineSavolainen (1995) onlineChoi & Rasmussen (2003) online

AS: Belkin, Oddy, & Brooks (1982 a and b)Case (2002) passim especially 6Gollop (1997)Harris & Dewdney (1994b)Kuhlthau (1993a)Reddy (1993)

June 15 WED Introduction to information retrieval

The concept of relevance

READ: Barry & Schamber (1998) onlineVakkari & Sormunen (2004) onlineBruner (1990), Preface, Acknowledgements, and Chapter 1,

“The Proper Study of Man” [sic]

AS: Bates (1989)Copyright Philip Doty, UT-Austin, May 2005 24

Geertz (2000)Harter & Hert (1997)Schamber (1994)Swanson (1988)Vakkari (1999)

• DUE: Discussion questions (DQs) on Bruner (1990) on BlackBoard


Unit 2: Providing information services

June 16 THU The information intermediary

The reference interview: Face-to-face and digital reference

READ: Taylor (1968) (R)Marshall (2003)Nardi & O’Day (2003)Abbott (1998) onlineJanes (2002) onlineNardi & Engeström (1999) onlineEhrlich & Cash (1999) online

AS: Abbott (1988)Bates (1998) online Berring (1993)Hoskisson (1997)Nunberg (1998) onlineOrtega y Gassett (1975)Schön (1983)Sloan (2002) onlineTissing (1984)White (2001) online

June 21 TUE Deepening our understanding of censorship

Internet filters and the Children’s Internet Protection Act/U.S. v. ALA (2003)

READ: American Library Association (2004) onlineAsheim (1953) (R)Asheim (1983) (R)Jansen (1991) (R)U.S. v. ALA (2003) online [read the majority opinion by

Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and

the two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter]

AS: Heins & Cho (2001) onlineHilden (2003)Hinnebusch (1998)Janes (2001)Morton (1989)Nardi & O’Day (1999), 7 (“Librarians: A Keystone Species,”

pp. 79-104)Preer (1994)

• DUE: User community topic – GRP


• DUE: DQs on the CIPA decision on BlackBoard


Unit 3: Investigating specific communities and information services

June 22 WED Mobilizing theory: Knowing, narrative, and contextWhat are documents?Perspectives on information utilizationEvaluating information

READ: Bishop (1999) onlineBrown & Duguid (2002), 7 and 8Bruce (2000) onlineBuckland (1997) onlineLevy (2003)Borgman (2003)Bruner (1990), 2, “Folk Psychology as an Instrument of

Culture”Geertz (1983) (R)

Scan some of these Web sites:

Auer (2001)Ciolek (2004)Fitzgerald (1999)Grassian (2000a)Grassian (2000b)

Smith (1997)Smith (2003)Student learning in an Information

Age bibliography (1999)

AS: Borges (1964)Crane (1991)Eco (1984) Rieh (2002)Wang & White (1999)Wilson (1983)

• DUE: Dialectical reading (4 pp.) (25%)

June 23 THUResearch methods: Key to understanding people and their behavior

READ: Ellis (1993) onlineDervin (1989) online

AS: Bates (1994)Brittain (1982)Case (2002), 8Cooper (2002b) onlineDervin (1977)Hert (2001)Mehra et al. (2002) onlineNardi & O’Day (1996)Palmer (1996)Toms & Duff (2002) onlineWestbrook (1993)


Westbrook (1997)

• DUE: DQs on Geertz (1983) on BlackBoard


June 28 TUE The information behavior of scientists and engineers

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 6Delamont & Atkinson (2001) onlineTenopir et al. (2005) onlineYakel (2000) (R)

AS: Duff & Johnson (2002) onlineGarvey (1979)Maher (1986)Subramanyam (1979)Turnbaugh (1986)

June 29 WED Children’s information behaviorInformation literacyThe Big6

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 5 (reprise)Fidel et al. (1999) onlineMarcum (2002) onlineEisenberg & Berkowitz (2004) onlineBruner (1990), 3, “Entry into Meaning”

AS: Bishop et al. (2001)Borgman et al. (1995) onlineCooper (2002a)Dresang & Gross (2001)Eisenberg & Spitzer (1991)Hirsh (1997)Large (2004)Large et al. (2002) onlineTucker (1981)Walter (1994)

Unit 4: Ethics, equity, and presentations of students' research

June 30 THU Selected topics in information ethics: “Information poverty” and equity

User community presentations and annotated bibliographies (30%)-- GRP

READ: Bishop, Mehra, Bazzell, & Smith (2003)Britz (2004) onlineCarvin (2000) onlineChatman (1996) online

AS: Doctor (1992)Hauptman (1991a), passim presentations


July 5 TUE User community presentations and annotated bibliographies (30%)-- GRP

July 6 WED User community presentations and annotated bibliographies (30%)-- GRP

July 7 THU Course evaluation

Summary discussion: Indexicality, interpretation, and beyond “the view from

nowhere”

READ: Bannon (1990) onlineBrown & Duguid (2002), AfterwordBruner (1990), 4, “Autobiography and Self”Long (1993) (R)Lynch (2003)

AS: Augst (2001)Augst & Wiegand (2001)Barton & Hamilton (1998a)McKechnie & Pettigrew (2002)Nagel (1986)Wiegand (2003), reprise

• DUE: Information literacy, “information poverty” (5 pp.) (30%)


ASSIGNMENTS

Dialectical reading -- Due June 22 (25%)

Using Walter Kaufmann’s "The Art of Reading" (1977) as a foundation, Chip Bruce (2000) discusses dialectical reading and its necessity when reading on the World Wide Web. Please write an essay 4 double-spaced pages long considering the following questions:

1. What is dialectical reading? (2 pp.)2. How can this concept be used to help us understand people’s information

behavior? In addressing this second question, be sure to consider dialectical reading beyond the Web. (2 pp.)

Use Bruce’s paper, Nunberg (1996b), and Brown & Duguid (2002) to address these two questions. Consult the standards for written work before and after writing, be specific and clear, and feel free to use other sources as appropriate.

Presentation and annotated bibliography on user community(Group assignment)

Topic due June 21Presentation and bibliography due June 30, July 5, and July 6 (30%)

The class will self-select into teams of 5-6 students. Each team will choose one of the communities from the list below; no more than one team may choose any one user community:

Performance artistsHydrologistsSkilled craftspersons, e.g.,

electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics, assembly line workers (choose one group)

Public utility regulatorsPublic safety specialistsBiotechnologists

Agricultural field agentsArchitectsElectrical engineersHistoriansLiterary scholarsClerics other than Catholic

priests, e.g., ministers, rabbis, nuns, and monks.

Each student team will make a formal presentation to the class no more than 30 minutes long. Each student will do roughly 5-6 minutes of the presentation, and all members of the team will receive the same grade. You should plan to use visuals, e.g., PowerPoint, and handouts as appropriate. There will be a computer, Internet connection, and projector available.

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


make the presentation and annotated bibliography available at a public url and notify the class of the url in the appropriate blackboard forum.


In your presentation (10%), please be sure to consider the following questions and concerns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are two to three sentences long.

There is one common deadline and one variable deadline for this assignment:

June 21 Each team will notify the instructor about (1) the identities of the

team’s members, (2) their choice of user community, (3) their

choice of date for the in-class presentation.

June 30, July 5, July 6 Teams will make their presentations.

INFORMATION LITERACY, “INFORMATION POVERTY”

Due July 7 (30%)

In a paper 5 double-spaced pp. long, discuss the concepts of information literacy and so-called “information poverty.” Use Lievrouw & Farb (2002) from the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, at least two other groups’ presentations, and at least two of the following sources:


Bishop, Mehra, Bazzell, & Smith (2003) Britz (2004) Carvin (2000) Chatman (1996) Long (1993) Marcum (2000).

Be sure to be specific, explicit, and clear, grounding your argument in the texts, the presentations, and other sources you consider appropriate. A simple catalogue or recitation of the sources is inadequate – I’ve read them – what do you think? Be analytic, holistic, and reflective.

Be certain to adhere to the usual standards for written work. The paper is due on Thursday, July 7, the day of the last class.

REFERENCES

I. Readings in the class schedule

Some of the readings are in the course packet from University Duplicating (R). Several other required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule, and some of them require you to be logged in with your UTEID through the UT libraries.

Abbott, Andrew. (1998). Professionalism and the future of librarianship. Library Trends, 46(3), 430-443. Also available at http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/556/943/84829109w3/purl=rc11_EAIM_0__sn+0024-2594+&dyn=75!cnb_281_300?sw_aep=txshracd2598

Agre, Philip. (2003). Information and institutional change: The case of digital libraries. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 219-240). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

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

Bannon, Liam. (1990). A pilgrim’s progress: From cognitive science to cooperative design. AI and Society, 4(4), 259-275. Also available at http://www.ul.ie/~idc/library/papersreports/LiamBannon/2/Aisoc.html

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

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. (2003). Participatory action research and digital libraries: Reframing evaluation. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 161-189). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Bishop, Ann Peterson, Van House, Nancy A., & Buttenfield, Barbara P. (Eds.). (2003). Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Borgman, Christine. (2003). Designing digital libraries for usability. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 85-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Britz, Johannes J. (2004). To know or not to know: A moral reflection on information poverty. Journal of Information Science, 30(3), 192-204. Also available at http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/30/3/192

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

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.

Buckland, Michael K. (1997). What is a “document”? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 804-809. Also available in Trudi Bellardo Hahn & Michael Buckland (Eds., 1998), Historical studies in information science (pp. 215-220). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/39748

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

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

Choi, Youngok, & Rasmussen, Edie M. (2003). Searching for images: The analysis of users' queries for image retrieval in American history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (6), 498-511. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/103520066/PDFSTART


http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0063.pdf

http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~chip/pubs/credibility.shtml

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=buh&jn=%222VO%22&scope=site

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

Cornelius, Ian. (1996a). Information and interpretation. In Peter Ingwersen & Niels Ole Pors (Eds.), Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 11-21). From the Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2). Copenhagen: The Royal School of Librarianship. R

Delamont, Sara, & Atkinson, Paul. (2001). Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 31(1) , 87-107. Also available at http://www.jstor.org/view/03063127/ap010105/01a00050/0?frame=noframe&[email protected]/01cc99333c00501973648&dpi=3&config=jstor

Dervin, Brenda. (1989). Users as research inventions. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 216-232. Also available at http://pcift.chadwyck.com/pcift/search?source=loi.cfg&Action=DisplaySGML&SEARCH=Search&HISTLOGGING=N&JID=5419

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. R

Ehrlich, Kate, & Cash, Debra. (1999). The invisible world of intermediaries: A cautionary tale. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 147-167. Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1

Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (2004). Information literacy for the Information Age [Big6 skills]. http://www.big6.com

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

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

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) R

Janes, Joseph. (2002). Digital reference: Reference librarians’ experiences and attitudes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(7), 549-566. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

Jansen, Sue Curry. (1991). The imprimatur of power. In Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge (pp. 181-191 and 246-248). New York: Oxford University. R


http://www.big6.com/

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_2/choo/index.html

Krikelas, James. (1983). Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly, 19(11), 5-20. R

Kuhlthau, Carol C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Levy, David M. (2003). Documents and libraries: A sociotechnical perspective. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 25-42). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Lievrouw, Leah A., & Farb, Sharon E. (2002). Information and equity. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 499-540). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Lynch, Clifford. (2003). Colliding with the real world: Heresies and unexplored questions about audience, economics, and control of digital libraries. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 191-218). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

MacMullin, Susan, & Taylor, Robert. (1984). Problem dimensions and information traits. The Information Society, 3(1), 91-111. R

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

Marshall, Catherine. (2003). Finding the boundaries of the library without walls. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 43-64). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Nardi, Bonnie, & Engeström, Yrjö. (1999). A web on the wind: The structure of invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 1-8. Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1

Nardi, Bonnie, & O’Day, Bonnie. (2003). In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 161-189). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1996b). Farewell to the Information Age. In Geoffrey Nunberg (Ed.), The future of the book (pp. 103-133). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Also available http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:y-uqPo1wPSIJ:www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/farewell.pdf+farewell+to+the+information+age&hl=en


http://ecot.rice.edu/~Tony.Gorry/NunbergFarewell.pdf

http://ecot.rice.edu/~Tony.Gorry/NunbergFarewell.pdf

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

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. R

Star, Susan Leigh, Bowker, Geoffrey, & Neumann, Laura J. (2003). Transparency beyond the individual level of scale: Convergence between information artifacts and communities of practice. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 241-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Star, Susan Leigh, & Strauss, Anselm. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The dialogues between visible and invisible work. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 9-30. Also available at http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=161888&PDF=1

Strauss, Anselm, Fagerhaugh, Shizuko, Suczek, Barbara, & Wiener, Carolyn. (1985). Social organization of medical work. Chicago: University of Chicago.

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

Suchman, Lucy. (1996). Supporting articulation work. In Rob Kling (Ed.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed., pp. 407-423). San Diego, CA: Academic. R

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

Tenopir, Carol, King, Donald W., Boyce, Peter, Grayson, Matt, & Paulson, Keri-Lynn. (2005). Relying on electronic journals: Reading patterns of astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(8), 786-802. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/76501873

United States et al. v. ALA et al. [Children’s Internet Protection Act case] 539 U.S. xx (2003)[read the majority opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-361

Vakkari, Pertti, & Sormunen, Eero. (2004). The influence of relevance levels on the effectiveness of interactive information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(11), 963-969. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/109580889

Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 271-296). Cambridge, MA: MIT.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_issn=07408188&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=6d0fbd0ecd0115ef9e535819b74d8f18

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_issn=07408188&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=6d0fbd0ecd0115ef9e535819b74d8f18

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

Widén-Wulff, Gunilla, & Ginman, Mariam. (2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 448-458. Also available at http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol30/issue5/

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

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

II. Selected ARIST chapters 1966 - 2004

Allen, Bryce L. (1991). Cognitive research in information science: Implications for design. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp. 3-37). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Allen, Thomas J. (1969). Information needs and uses. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-29). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Bar-Ilan, Judith. (2003). The use of Web search engines in information science research. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 231-288). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Bishop, Ann P., & Star, Susan Leigh. (1996). Social informatics of digital library use and infrastructure. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 31, pp. 301-401). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Blair, David C. (2002). Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 3-50). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Burt, Patricia V., & Kinnucan, Mark T. (1990). Information models and modeling techniques for information systems. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 25, pp. 175-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Callahan, Ewa. (2004). Interface design and culture. Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 257-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Capurro, Rafael, & Hjørland, Birger. (2002). The concept of information. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 343-412). Medford, NJ: Information Today.


Chang, Shan-Ju, & Rice, Ronald E. (1993). Browsing: A multidimensional framework. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 28, pp. 231-276). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

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

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

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

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

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

Davenport, Elizabeth, & Snyder, Herbert W. (2004). Managing social capital. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 517-550). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 21, pp. 3-33). Medford, NJ: Knowledge Industry.

Dillon, Andrew, & Morris, Michael G. (1996). User acceptance of information technology: Theories and models. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 31, pp. 3-32). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Doctor, Ronald D. (1992). Social equity and information technologies: Moving toward information democracy. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 27, pp. 43-96). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Eisenberg, Michael B., & Spitzer, Kathleen L. (1991). Information technology and services in schools. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 26, pp. 243-285). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Ellis, David, Oldridge, Rachael, & Vasconcelos, Ana. (2003). Community and virtual community. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 144-186). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Harter, Stephen P., & Hert, Carol A. (1997). Evaluation of information retrieval systems: Approaches, issues, and methods. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 3-94). Medford, NJ: Information Today.


Haythornthwaite, Caroline, & Hagar, Christine. (2004). The social worlds of the Web. Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 311-346). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Herner, Saul, & Herner, Mary. (1967). Information needs and uses in science and technology. In Carlos A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-34). New York: Wiley Interscience.

Hewins, Elizabeth T. (1990). Information needs and use studies. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 25, pp. 145-172). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Large, Andrew. (2004). Children, teenagers, and the Web. Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 347-392). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Lievrouw, Leah A., & Farb, Sharon E. (2002). Information and equity. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 499-540). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Rogers, Yvonne. (2003). New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 87-144). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Rorvig, Mark E. (1988). Psychometric measurement and information retrieval. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 23, pp. 157-189). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sawyer, Steve, & Eschenfelder, Kristin R. (2002). Social informatics: Perspectives, examples, and trends. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 427-466). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Schamber, Linda. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 29, pp. 3-48). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Snyder, Herbert W., & Pierce, Jennifer Burek. (2002). Intellectual capital. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 467-500). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

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

Vakkari, Pertti. (2002). Task-based information searching. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 37, pp. 413-464). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Van House, Nancy A. (2003). Science and technology studies and information studies. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 38, pp. 3-86). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Yang, Kiduk. (2004). Information retrieval on the Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 39, pp. 33-80). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

III. Useful digital sources for evaluating digital information

Auer, Nicole. (2001). Bibliography on evaluating Internet resources. http://www.lib.vt.edu/research/libinst/evalbiblio.html


http://www.lib.vt.edu/research/libinst/evalbiblio.html

Ciolek, T. Matthew. (2004). Information quality WWW virtual library. http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVL-InfoQuality.html

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

Grassian, Esther. (2000a). Thinking critically about World Wide Web resources. http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/help/critical/index.htm

Grassian, Esther. (2000b). Thinking critically about discipline-based World Wide Web resources. http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/help/critical/discipline.htm

Smith, Alastair G. (1997). Testing the surf: Criteria for evaluating Internet information resources. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 8(3). http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v8/n3/smit8n3.html

Smith, Alastair G. (2003). Evaluation of information sources. http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/evaln.htm

Student learning in an Information Age bibliography. (1999). Conference within a Conference, ACRL 9th National Conference, April 8-11, 1999. http://www.ala.org/acrl/biblio.html

IV. Additional sources

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

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

Agre, Philip E. (1998). Designing genres for new media: Social, economic, and political contexts. In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting CMC and community (pp. 69-99). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Allen, Bryce. (1996a). From research to design: A user-centered approach. In Peter Ingwersen & Niels Ole Pors (Eds.), Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 45-59). From the Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2). Copenhagen: The Royal School of Librarianship.

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

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


http://www.ala.org/acrl/biblio.html

http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v8/n3/smit8n3.html

http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/help/critical/discipline.htm

http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/help/critical/index.htm

Anderson, Benedict. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. (Original published 1983)

Augst, Thomas. (2001). Introduction: American libraries as agencies of culture. American Studies, 42(3), 5-22.

Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2002). Libraries as agencies of culture. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Reprint of Augst, Thomas, & Wiegand, Wayne A. (Eds.). (2001). The library as an agency of culture [special issue]. American Studies, 42(3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bates, Marcia J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.

Bates, Marcia J. (1994). The design of databases and other information resources for humanities scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 4. Online & CD-ROM Review, 18(6), 331-340.

Bates, Marcia J. (1999). A tour of information science through the pages of JASIS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 975-993. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

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

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

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


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

http://www.eff.org/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/utne_community.html

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

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

Belkin, Nicholas, Oddy, Robert, & Brooks, Helen M. (1982a). ASK for information retrieval I. Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.

Belkin, Nicholas, Oddy, Robert, & Brooks, Helen M. (1982b). ASK for information retrieval II. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 145-164.

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

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

Berg, Marc. (1996). Practices of reading and writing: The constitutive role of the patient record in medical work. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8(4), 499-524.

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

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

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

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

Bijker, Wiebe E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Bijker, Wiebe E., & Law, John. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

Bishop, Ann Peterson, Mehra, Bharat, Bazzell, Imani, & Smith, Cynthia. (2001). Scenarios in the design and evaluation of networked information services: An example from community health. In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 45-66). Medford, NJ: Information Today.


Bishop, Ann 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

Borges, Jorge Luis. (1964). The library of Babel. In Donald A. Yates & James E. Irby (Eds.), Labyrinths: Selected stories & other writings (pp. 51-58). (James E. Irby, Trans.). New York: New Directions Paperback.

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

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

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.

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

Bruce, Bertram C. [Chip]. (1999). Workplace experiences of information literacy. International Journal of Information Management, 19(1), 33-47.

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

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

Busha, Charles H., & Wedgeworth, Robert. (1993). Censorship and intellectual freedom. In Robert Wedgeworth (Ed.), World encyclopedia of library and information services (3rd ed.) (pp. 182-185). Chicago: American Library Association.

Capurro, Rafael. (1992). What is information science for? A philosophical reflection. In Peter Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 82-96). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.

Case, Donald O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Amsterdam: Academic.

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


http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm

Chartier, Roger. (1995). Forms and meanings: Texts, performances, and audiences from codex to computer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Chatman, Elfreda. (1991). Channels to a larger social world: Older women staying in contact with the great society. Library & Information Science Research, 13(3), 281-300. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

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

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

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

Cole, Charles, Cantero, P., & Ungar, A. (2000). The development of a diagnostic-prescriptive tool for undergraduates seeking information for a social science/humanities assignment. III. Enabling devices. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 481-500.

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

Cooper, Linda. (2002a). A study of the relationship between categories of library information use as typified by young children. In Harry Bruce, Raya Fidel, Peter Ingwersen, & Pertti Vakkari (Eds.), Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS4) (pp. 17-31). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Cooper, Linda. (2002b). Methodology for a project examining cognitive categories for library information use in young children. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1223-1231. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

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

Cornelius, Ian. (2002). Theorizing information for information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 393-425). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

Covi, Lisa M., & Kling Rob. (1996). Organizational dimensions of effective digital library use: Closed rational and open natural systems models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(9), 672-689.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctor, Ronald D. (1992). Social equity and information technologies: Moving toward information democracy. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 43-96). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

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

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

Duguid, Paul. (1996). Material matters: The past and futurology of the book. In Geoffrey Nunberg (Ed.), The future of the book (pp. 63-101). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

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

Eco, Umberto. (1984). Introduction: The role of the reader. In The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts (pp. 3-43). Bloomington, IN: Bloomington University.


Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (1988). Curriculum initiatives: An agenda and strategy for library media programs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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

Ellis, David. (1998). Paradigms and research traditions in information retrieval research. Information Services and Use, 18(4), 225-241.

Englebart, Douglas. (1988). A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect. In Irene Greif (Ed.), Computer-supported cooperative work: A book of readings (pp. 35-65). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. (Original work published 1963)

Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garvey, William D. (1979). The role of scientific communication in the conduct of research and the creation of scientific knowledge. In Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange among scientists, engineers, and students (pp. 1-39). New York: Pergamon.


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

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.

Grunberg, Gérald, & Giffard, Alain. (1993). New orders of knowledge, new technologies of reading. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 80-93). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Haraway, Donna. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In Linda J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 190-233). New York: Routledge.

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

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

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

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

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

Hauptman, Robert. (Ed.). (1991a). Ethics and the dissemination of information [Special Issue]. Library Trends, 40(2).

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

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


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

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

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

Hert, Carol A. (2001). User-centered evaluation and connection to design. In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 155-173). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Hertzum, M., & Pejtersen, A.M. (2000). The information-seeking practices of engineers: Searching for documents as well as for people. Information Processing & Management, 36(5), 761-778.

Hilden, Julie. (2002). A recent Supreme Court decision allowing the government to force public libraries to filter users' Internet access is less significant than it might at first appear (FindLaw Legal Commentary). http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20030701.html

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

Hirsh, Sandra G. (1997). How do children find information on different types of tasks? Children’s user of the science library catalog. Library Trends, 45(4), 725-745.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel, Jonathan I. (2001). Libraries and enlightenment. In Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity 1650-1750 (pp. 119-141). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.


http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/may98/may98a.html

http://www.ncac.org/issues/internetfilters.html

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

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

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

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

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

Knoblauch, C.H., & Brannon, Lil. (1993). Critical teaching and the idea of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Reed Publishing.

Kramarae, Cheris. (Ed.). (1988). Technology and women's voices: Keeping in touch. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kuhlthau, Carol. (1993a). The information search process. In Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (pp. 33-53). 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.

Lankes, R. David, Collins, J.W. III, & Kasowitz, A.S. (Eds.). (2000). Digital reference service in the new millennium: Planning management, and evaluation. New York: Neal-Schuman.

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


Large, Andrew, Behesti, Jamshil, &Rahman, Tarjin. (2002). Design criteria for children’s Web portals: The users speak out. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 79-94. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

Latour, Bruno. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (Vol. 6, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Machlup, Fritz. (1980). Alternative classifications of knowledge. In Knowledge: Its creation, distribution, and economic significance. Volume I: Knowledge and knowledge production (pp. 100-109). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marchionini, Gary. (1995). Information seekers and electronic environments. In Information seeking in electronic environments (pp. 11-26). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.

Marchionini, Gary. (1998). Research and development in digital libraries. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (vol. 63, pp. 259-279). New York: Marcel Dekker.

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

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

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

McClure, Charles R. (1994). Network literacy: A role for libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 13(???), 115-125.

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


http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag/NovOL97/matson11.html

http://lw.bna.com/lw/19981208/2049.htm

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

McNeely, C.V. (1999). Repositioning the Richmond Public Library for the digital age: One library’s perspective. Library & Information Science Research, 21(3), 391-406.

Mehra, Bharat, Bishop, Ann Peterson, Bazzell, Imani, & Smith, Cynthia. (2002). Scenarios in the Afya project as a participatory action research (PAR) tool for studying information seeking and use across the “digital divide.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1259-1266. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myers, Greg. (1991). Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles. In Charles Bazerman & James Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 45-75). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Nagel, Thomas. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University.

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

Nardi, Bonnie A., O’Day, Vicki L. (1996). Intelligent agents: What we learned at the library. Libri, 46(2), 59-88.

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


http://www.ischool.washington.edu/fisher/pubs/LT.2002.pdf

http://www.ischool.washington.edu/fisher/pubs/LT.2002.pdf

Neuliep, J.W. (1996). The study of human communication. In Human communication theory: Applications and case studies (pp. 1-22). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Executive summary. In Usability engineering (pp. 1-21). Boston: Academic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olaisen, Johan, Munch-Petersen, Erland, & Wilson, Patrick. (Eds.). (19vvv). Information science: From the development of the discipline to social interaction. Boston: Scandinavian University.

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

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

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

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

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

Palmer, Carole L. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: Linking library services to research practices. Library Trends, 45(1), 165-191.

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


http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_1/noble/index.html

Pettigrew, Karen E. (1999). Waiting for chiropody: Contextual results from an ethnographic study of the information behavior among attendees at community clinics. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 801-817.

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

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

Poster, Mark. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. Chicago: University of Chicago.

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

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

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

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.

Resnick, Lauren B., Sälijö, Roger, Pontecorvo, Clotilde, Burge, Barbara. (Eds.). (1998). Discourse, tools and reasoning: Situated cognition and technologically supported environments. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

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

Rieh, Soo Young. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=76501873

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

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

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

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


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

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

Saracevic, Tefko. (1996). Relevance reconsidered ‘96. In Peter Ingwersen & Niels Ole Pors (Eds.), Information science: Integration in perspective (pp. 201-218). From the Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2). Copenhagen: The Royal School of Librarianship.

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

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

Schön, Donald. (1983). From technical rationality to reflection-in-action. In The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (pp. 21-69 and 357-359). New York: Basic Books.

Schön, Donald. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schuler, Douglas. (1996). Community and technology: A marriage of necessity. In New community networks: Wired for change (pp. 1-34). New York: ACM.

Schuler, Douglas, & Namioka, Aki. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erblaum.

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

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

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

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

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

Smith, H.J., & Hasnas, J. (1999). Ethics and information systems: The corporate domain. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 109-127.

Smith, J. F., & Kida, T. (1991). Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 472-489.


http://www/

Smith, Martha Montague. (1997). Information ethics. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 339-366). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Sonnenwald, D.H., & Pierce, L.G. (2000). Information behavior in dynamic work contexts: Interwoven situational awareness, dense social networks and contested collaboration in command and control. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 461-479.

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

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

Star, S. Leigh, & Griesemer, James R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.

Starbuck, W.H., & Milliken, F.J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D.C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.infomotions.com/serials/aejvc/aejvc-v1n06-stepp-virtualization.txt

http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/professional/meaning/competency.cfm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toms, Elaine G., & Duff, Wendy. (2002). “I spent 1 1/2 hours sifting through one large box . . . .”: Diaries as information behavior of the archives user: Lessons learned. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1232-1238.

Toms, Elaine G., & Kinnucan, M.T. (1996). The effectiveness of the city metaphor for organizing the menus of Free-Nets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(12), 919-931. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Tucker, Nicholas. (1981). Selection, censorship and control. In The child and the book: A psychological and literary exploration (pp. 190-217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

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

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

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

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

U.S Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2003). Report to Congress: Children’s Internet Protection Act [PL 106-554]: Study of technology protection measures in section 1703. Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/cipa2003/index.html


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

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

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

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

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

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

Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weick, Karl E., & Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.

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

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

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

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

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

Wiegand, Wayne A. (2003). To reposition a research agenda: What American Studies can teach the LIS community about the library in the life of the user. Library Quarterly, 73(4), 369-382.

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

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


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

Wilson, Thomas D. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. In Pertti Vakkari, Reijo Savolainen & Brenda Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context (pp. 39-52). London: Graham Taylor.

Wilson, Thomas D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-270.

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

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

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


UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS - …inf382pd/ss2005... · Web viewINF 382C, Understanding and...

Documents

Transcript of UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS - …inf382pd/ss2005... · Web viewINF 382C, Understanding and...