Paisey 1  

Florence M. Paisey

Dr. Donald Latham

Preliminary Preparation: Theory

July 2014

Building Digital Archives: Realistic Social Constructions

Scientific, social, and humanistic theories largely proceed from a

discipline’s dominant ontological and epistemological perspectives. This paper

emphasizes the importance of epistemological clarity in relation to theory and

two theories that provide principles for research in understanding the acceptance

of digital humanities and digital resources by humanities scholars. The Social

Construction of Technology as well as Foucault’s notion of discursive

communities offer conceptual frames to understand digital resource use as well

as information behavior, organization, and knowledge production.

Digital humanities approaches knowledge production in both the

humanities and social sciences with unconventional theory and methods. It

brings quantitative project and application driven technologies to both

humanities and social sciences, often in a cross disciplinary way. Digital scholars

“work with an abundance of empirical material using modern automated analysis

methods...across a number of disciplines” (Evans and Rees 23).

Digital technologies enable scholars to ask new questions and extend

interpretive potentialities. Automated means of analyzing massive textual data

sets enable “distant reading.” Other digital tools afford conceptual mapping and

graphing across disciplines and within socio-cultural contexts over centuries

(Moretti 18). As a result, “genuinely new modes of inquiry...such as building,

Paisey 2  

modeling, simulating, sampling or experimenting” emphasize topics and

interpretation through numerical, machine generated data (Liu Academic 19;

Meaning 414).

This emphasis implies a positivist epistemology and challenges the long

standing epistemological, ontological, theoretical, and methodological

underpinnings of humanities and recent social science research, bringing tension

to some, enthusiasm to others. Texts or data analyzed through automated

processing and quantitative emphasis stand in stark contrast to traditional

humanist concerns with qualitative data concerned with individuals, expressivity,

uniqueness, and ambiguity. Alan Liu believes the humanistic interpretive

tradition and search for meaning accounts for the humanist tension over

realigned epistemological approaches. How does the humanist move from

numbers to meanings? What meanings and what kind of knowledge can be

adduced from quantifiable aspects of culture? (Liu Academic 19; Liu Meaning

411).

Manoff states that “scholars are raising questions about what counts as

knowledge and what are appropriate objects of study in specific disciplines” (14).

She observes that there is growing confusion among librarians, the archival

community, and disciplinary scholars about the concept of the archive. As Manoff

points out, the notion of the archive “reflects the development of theories about

the nature of the disciplines and about what constitutes their legitimate objects of

study” (11). Are archives repositories and collections of artifacts and

manuscripts? Are they repositories of published materials and other cultural

objects? If electronic, are they simply anything that exists as a digital

Paisey 3  

assemblage? Are they a discrete collection of related electronic documents – a

thematic text?

Drucker typifies the philosophical tension in the humanities, observing

that digital humanists have crossed their epistemic boundaries by adopting

digital tools blindly without due consideration for “their epistemological biases”

(Humanities 1). She cites Google maps, timelines, topic mapping, and other

digital representations as realist “observer independent” abstractions, describing

a priori conditions, and that this empiricist approach conflicts with interpretative

epistemologies of humanistic inquiry and knowledge production.

And yet, Drucker appreciates the techniques, insights, and understandings

that “data mining and large corpus processing” bring to the humanities

(Humanities 8). The challenge she presents is “rethinking digital tools for

visualization” on basic principles of the humanities (Humanities 7). Her issue is

well-taken – textual elements, specifically graphical elements, produce meaning

(Drucker Graphical 275).

How can GIS tools, topic mapping, literary maps, and graphs serve as

tools, particularly for subtle, graphic expressivity? (Drucker Graphical 271;

Reuschel 2). Bodenhamer, Corrigan, and Harris recognize the epistemological

implications for humanists, particularly with GIS tools, but they point out that

humanities scholarship “entails moving beyond traditional disciplinary and

methodological boundaries and scholarly comfort zones.” They believe the true

potential of GIS and spatial humanities emerges from an interdisciplinary nexus

(168).

Paisey 4  

McCarty states that digital tools belong in the humanities, asserting that

they help scholars ask better questions (1224). He reviews the role of computing

in the humanities, beginning with Busa’s Index Thomisticus, and criticizes the

traditional model of humanities scholarship for its failure to describe serious

intellectual work in humanities computing (1227). Unsworth identifies several

sophisticated digital archives and emphasizes the activities that digital

information, particularly networked digital information, bring to higher level

scholarly activity “across disciplines, over time, and independent of theoretical

orientation” (1).

Clearly, regardless of one’s academic discipline or epistemic culture,

prevailing intellectual assumptions or epistemologies describe the nature of

knowledge, the forms it takes, and how one acquires it (Corbetta 12). Given that

digital tools cross disciplinary boundaries and digital archives contain materials

representative of all disciplines, clarification of the role epistemology plays in

theory, research, and practice is essential in developing robust understandings of

epistemic cultures, particularly in humanistic subjects. Budd recognizes that LIS

is a practical profession and probes the role epistemology plays in the field as well

as the purpose a philosophical investigation on knowledge serves

(Phenomenology 7).

Hjorland asserts that one’s epistemological roots or claims – whether

positivist, empiricist, rationalist, structuralist, post-structuralist, or realist – bear

deeply on information science and on research questions one asks, particularly

regarding information behavior, collection development, knowledge

organization, and, ultimately, the criteria on which one determines available

Paisey 5  

information resources as well as their description (Arguments 497; Empiricism

140-145). While LIS is admittedly a practical field, practical problems are

resolved on the basis of “theoretical and epistemological assumptions” (Talja,

Tuominen, Savolainen 79). Hjorland emphasizes the need for LIS scholars to

consider epistemological problems or how knowledge is “understood and

acquired” (LIS and Philosophy 5).

In general a scholar’s view of what constitutes knowledge generates his or

her theoretical orientation and LIS practices. Budd states:

All this [epistemology] may seem so specialized as to be useless to

us in LIS. On the contrary, we in LIS must be concerned with

knowledge, both in the critical examination of our profession and in

the daily workings of those who ask questions, seek information,

and read (Knowledge 204).

What one acknowledges as knowledge will directly affect “the conceptions and

the purpose of a library, uses of information, the organization of information for

use, and the behaviors of users” (Budd Knowledge 7).

Epistemology explores the nature of knowledge, the different kinds of

knowledge, and those conventions associated with domains, disciplines, or “set[s]

of principles and procedures” (Bruner 2). Hansson states that LIS is “on the

border between social sciences and humanities, so perspectives on epistemology

and interpretative methodology are important” (Hermeneutics 102). LIS

professionals study information seeking, classify and organize knowledge, index

and represent it, provide document retrieval, and build information collections

across all domains or disciplinary boundaries – physically and virtually. As such,

Paisey 6  

one’s perspective on knowledge and its discovery directly impinges on the

foundation of information science, theoretical development, and LIS practices.

Hjorland points out that anti-realist, anti-essentialist epistemologies

currently dominate discourse and theoretical orientations in the field of

information science. The anti-realist epistemology maintains that reality exists

only as “ideas, concepts, and social constructions” (Arguments 489). As such,

individuals are inextricably bound within their perceptual, experiential, and

informational range and this range will vary with contextual factors – socio-

cultural norms, historical trends, and socio-cognitive factors. The possibility of a

mind-independent reality does not exist. Burr emphasizes that with anti-realism

“we construct our own versions of reality between us” and “that there can be no

given, determined nature to the world or people” (5-6).

Hjorland opposes this anti-realist foundation and expresses his

frustration, stating, “It is shocking that one has to argue for a mind independent

reality” (Arguments 489). With specific reference to information organization

and description, he argues that “what they [users] know about resources and

potentialities” is very different from the objective possibilities of resources.

Hjorland states, “A given document may be relevant to a given purpose whether

or not the user believes this to be so” (Arguments 497). From this perspective,

information systems and collections should relate to objective, realist knowledge

claims, rather than subjective, anti-realist, or constructionist epistemologies. If

not, according to Hjorland, one risks eliminating significant information sources

and descriptors due to user biases and limitations. Barrett’s study of humanist’s

information behavior emphasizes the broad range of documents these scholars

Paisey 7  

need. Such resources include printed books, specific editions, primary sources,

images, film, sound recordings, newspapers, dissertations, maps, museum

artifacts, databases, and historical contextual materials (327).

When it comes to the nature of knowing – epistemology – most of us agree

that certain objects and entities exist regardless of whether or not we can observe

them, perceive them, or have direct knowledge of them (Hjorland Arguments

488). The Pacific Ocean exists regardless of one’s experience with it. Atoms are

elements that are invisible, but make up matter and energy. Oxygen is unseen but

necessary for human and animal respiration. Yet, anti-realist epistemologies

reject this notion, claiming, “truth is found only within community” (Gergen and

Gergen 7). In other words, if a community agrees that the sun revolves around

the earth, this is reality and this becomes the knowledge base for a particular

community.

Unlike positivist, empiricist, or rationalist views, critical realist

perspectives do not deny that socio-cultural and subjective reality or knowledge

exists. It accepts both an independent reality and a socially negotiated reality –

“events that we can experience and describe, and the hidden, but nonetheless

real, mechanisms behind them.” This conception views reality as “hierarchically

ordered where a lower level creates conditions for, but does not determine, the

higher level” (Wikgren 17).

Bhaskar, a leading exponent of critical realism, envisions reality as

multilayered. It exists independently of what we think of it (intransitive) and how

we think of it (transitive). Knowledge forms include the physical, social, and

conceptual with variant epistemological and ontological characteristics.

Paisey 8  

According to Bhaskar, conflating the epistemological and ontological is “to

commit the epistemic fallacy” (Scientific Realism 50). Bhaskar and Lawson state:

...reality is constituted not only by experiences and the course of

actual events, but also by structures, powers, mechanisms, and

tendencies – by aspects of reality that underpin, generate or

facilitate the actual phenomena that we may experience

(Introduction 31).

With regard to Bhaskar’s concept of CR, Budd claims:

Society, in critical realism, is not an object separate from people,

but neither do people at a point in time make society. It [society]

both preexists the individuals who live right now and is

shaped by those individuals (Bhaskar’s CR 36).

Within the perspective of critical realism, an individual experiences a

hierarchically ordered socio-cultural reality and constructs meanings. However,

this perceived reality is always underpinned by a mind independent reality and

hidden causal mechanisms. Wikgren states:

Critical realists recognize the reality of the natural world as well as

the events and discourses of the social world...In other words, CR

distinguishes between a reality independent of what we think of it

(the intransitive dimension) and our thinking of it (the transitive

dimension) (16).

Critical realism offers a philosophical basis for numerous disciplines,

topics, and social theories. In information science Wikgren relates CR to a

foundation for “analysis of information needs, seeking, and use” (15). In terms of

Paisey 9  

CR, a meta-theory of information seeking should center on “socially and

linguistically negotiated production of knowledge” (16). Models of information

seeking and use that critical realism could frame include Kuhlthau’s Information

Search Model (ISM) and Dervin’s sense-making theory.

Critical realism’s perspective on information behavior emphasizes an

individual’s immediate information need, phenomenological experience, and the

wider, objective, realist possibilities relating to that need. “The research process

is a continuous expansion of knowledge involving generation, application, and

refutation of theories” (Mir and Watson 2013). Critical realism recognizes that

one’s knowledge is limited, but with continuous research an individual

progressively builds toward a formalization of reality. Constructivism, closely

related to critical realism, emphasizes “the way in which knowledge is actively

built up by the individual mind to serve the organization of internal and external

reality” (Talja, Tuominen, Savolainen 81). Critical realism would acknowledge

the veracity of this statement while also recognizing an external, underlying

reality that is open and that individuals continuously serve in knowledge

production.

Critical realism’s acknowledgement of “a reality independent of what we

think of it and our thinking of it” relates to Hjorland’s argument that a user’s

knowledge of a subject differs from the “objective possibilities of resources”

(Arguments 497). From this perspective, information systems and collections

should relate to objective, realist knowledge claims, rather than subjective, anti-

realist, or constructionist epistemologies. If not, according to Hjorland, one risks

Paisey 10  

eliminating significant information sources and descriptors due to user biases

and limitations.

Yet, how does one develop a digital archive, a thematic collection, based on

objective, realist knowledge claims? (Palmer Thematic 349). First, in keeping

with the critical realist epistemology, it is important to establish that digital

archives involve a suite of information resources including multimedia, graphing,

and spatial technologies and that these technologies are tools; they are social

constructions that we have actively brought about as aids in discovering hidden

structural contingencies that give rise to observable events. In terms of their

reality, we can concur with Heidegger. He states, “the essence [reality] of

technology is by no means anything technological” (35). The reality relates to an

“uncovering” or “revealing” [of truth] (Heidegger 36-37).

The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) offers a model of

technological development “by focusing on meanings given to them

[technologies] by relevant social groups” (Pinch and Bijker Directions 46). These

relevant social groups assign meaning to an artifact or tool and shape it according

to the solutions to problems that a technology may solve. In terms of Bhaskar’s

epistemological and ontological perspective, individuals and groups –

stakeholders – interpret and ascribe meanings to technology, thereby shaping it

through an interactive discourse among relevant stakeholders. In other words,

stakeholders experience, describe, and embed meanings in an artifact as social

beings and as part of a socio-political world. The meanings and interpretations

that stakeholders embed in technologies form “developmental paths” that

eventually lead to a technology’s stabilization (Kline and Pinch 113).

Paisey 11  

Technologies, their development, and stabilization come about through

the experience and meanings stakeholders ascribe to them. Epistemological

variations on SCOT include a constructivist emphasis as with Bijker and Pinch

and Callon’s, Latour’s and Law’s wider realist view that treats both human actors

and natural phenomena as networks (Bijker et al. Directions 5). Whether the

emphasis is constructivist or realist, within SCOT technologies develop as a social

or socio-political negotiation. Each relevant group is characterized by variables

and each group holds a stake – power – in a particular technology (Bijker &

Pinch 404).

In this sense, critical realism offers a compatible epistemological basis for

SCOT. Wikgren states:

Critical realism maintains that people cannot be reduced to society

or society to people; social structures, cultural systems, and

human agents each possess their own emergent properties which

have to be taken into account when analyzing social phenomena.

Both critical realism and specific versions of SCOT include the independence of

the physical world, individual experience, and the consequent networks. In

addition to stakeholders, interpretive flexibility, and stabilization, SCOT views

controversy and closure as key stages in forging the development path for all

technologies.

Stakeholders in digital archives vary from general users to subject-specific

and multidisciplinary scholars. Each group’s information needs and behavior

differ. Scholarly cultures seek information differently from general users.

Humanities scholars seek information differently from scientific scholars. Their

Paisey 12  

research path – like Bates’ berry picking – is often non-linear and their interests

or stake in a digital archive will depend on its relevance to their study, the site’s

documentation, usability, and functionality (Warwick 3). The First World War

Poetry Digital Archive is an excellent example of such a resource

(oucs.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/). This resource, based on realist possibilities enables

literary and interdisciplinary scholars to “explore broadly across a wide array of

materials working through collected texts from unfamiliar areas to build their

knowledge base” (Palmer and Neumann 107).

While Hjorland questions the worth of user studies, Warwick claims that

research developers should study users, not the resource, using mixed methods

(4). In terms of SCOT, one would study a cohesive stakeholders’ group prior to

building a technology, tool, or digital archive. Users’ needs, problems, and

surmised solutions will shape the concept of the technology and its facets – in

this case a digital archive – and, to the extent that the site satisfies user’s

information needs and behavior, the archive will form a developmental path,

eventually stabilizing until its usefulness is outgrown. At this point, the archive

may respond to stakeholder’s interests, and re-form.

Michel Foucault’s post-structuralist concept of discursive formation

relates well to the organization or open, hyper-textual functionality of a robust

digital archive. The digital archive “Civil War Washington” is an example of an

open, complex collection of Civil War documents – including primary source

materials, images, multimedia, journals, and current writing (Lawrence et al.)

Foucault’s notion of the discursive community does not address digital or

information technologies explicitly. Rather, the emphasis is on knowledge

Paisey 13  

production as texts relate to other texts and within sociopolitical contexts. In

addition, discourses are open; they “form part of a broader network of power

relations” – often crossing disciplinary boundaries (Olsson Foucault 68).

Foucault believes patterns and formations between texts constitute knowledge

production, and he maintains that individuals construct knowledge through

discursive formation or the way a person organizes texts in a collection with

respect to each other (Radford and Radford 70).

While Foucault falls within some constructionist claims he may also be

viewed as a critical realist. Foucault does not deny the existence of a mind

independent reality; knowledge claims are realist – they are open and recognize

progressive development of thought as knowledge production. Foucault believes

specific “statements,” materials, texts, or documents form “regularity” or a

rhetorical network within a particular context or “conditions of their historical

appearance” (Foucault 48). This interdisciplinary narrative is reminiscent of

Hjorland’s domain analysis where “knowledge domains are discourse

communities” (Hjorland and Albrechtsen 400; Hjorland 422).

Foucault’s discursive communities involve the user, his or her information

behavior within a sociopolitical context. The focus is on knowledge production

rather than technological development. Bikjer and Pinch’s SCOT focuses on the

user and technology. Foucault’s concept of discursive communities and SCOT can

form a strong alliance in the conception and development of digital resources,

archives, and their functionality.

The applications of both Foucault’s concepts and SCOT’s form an

extensive list – much too long for the scope of this discussion. Moretti’s

Paisey 14  

groundbreaking, quantitative study of book history tracing the rise and fall of the

novel and its “structures” over three centuries necessitated an open, realist

epistemology, an understanding of the in-depth subject expertise, user’s

information needs, discursive communities, and the development of digital tools.

His notion of the archive, its organization, and description is "radically" different

from conventional concepts. Moretti’s resource organization, like SCOT’s,

emphasizes a group's or community's "shared engagement with a text" as well as

a "set of interpretations." One text may have different "identities" for different

discourse communities. A study of the Christian Bible would exemplify variant

groups and their engagement with a text. The Christian Bible has been written,

interpreted, and described by many discourse communities within the context of

time and space (Olsson 66).

SCOT’s purpose aims to explain how technological objects develop and

stabilize. Foucault focuses on the narratives and discursive practices across

subjects. These communities are a “complex network of relationships between

individuals, texts, ideas, and institutions with each node impacting to varying

degrees on other nodes and on the dynamics of the discourse as a whole” (Olsson

65). Digital archives can offer an expanse of texts, each open through hyper-

textual functionality, so users can discover variant, meaningful narratives.

Foucault’s conception of discursive communities anticipated networked

information.

In short, critical realism provides the epistemological and ontological

foundation that underpins SCOT and Foucault’s notion of discursive

communities. Both theories offer “a system of assumptions, principles, and

Paisey 15  

relationships posited to explain a specified set of phenomena” (Tennis 104).

Epistemology defines the nature of knowledge – what it is and how to get it. Its

assumptions form a foundation for theory and methods, clarifying the nature of

knowledge, epistemic cultures, and furthering knowledge production.

Paisey 16  

Questions:

1. What role and significance does epistemology play in LIS theory and practice.

2. What are the fundamental distinctions between realist and anti-realist

epistemologies? Identify and explain three LIS theories that represent each

group.

3. Are critical realism and the Social Construction of Technology compatible

epistemological and theoretical foundations? Define each and discuss and their

relationship.

4. What is Foucault’s concept of discursive formation and how does this theory

apply to and strengthen the construction of digital archives?

Paisey 17  

Works Cited

Barrett, Andy. “The Information Seeking Habits of Graduate Student Researchers

in the Humanities.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31.4 (2005):

324-331.

Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, eds. The Social

Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge: MIT, 1987. Print.

Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, eds. The Social

Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology

and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT, 2012. Print.

Birger, Hjorland. "Epistemology and the Socio-Cognitive Perspective in

Information Science." JASIST 53.4 (2002): 257-70. Web.

---. "Domain Analysis in Information Science: Eleven Approaches --

Traditional as Well as Innovative." JDOC 58.422-462 (2002). Web.

---. "Arguments for Philosophical Realism in Information Science." Library

Trends 52.3 (2004): 488-506. Web.

---. "Empiricism, Rationalism, and Positivism in Library and Information

Science." Journal of Documentation 61.1 (2004): 130-55. Print.

---. "Domain Analysis: A Socio-Cognitive Orientation for Information Science."

Bulletin of ASIST. February-March (2004): 17-21. Print.

---. "Library and Information Science and the Philosophy of Science." JDOC 61.1

(2005): 5-10. Web.

Bruner, Jerome. "The Narrative Construction of Reality." Critical Inquiry 18.1

(1991): 1-21. Web.

Paisey 18  

Budd, John M. Knowledge and Knowing and Library and Information Science.

Lanham: Scarecrow, 2001. Print.

---. "Phenomenology and Information Studies." JDOC 61.1 (2004): 44-59. Print.

Budd, John M. "Roy Bhaskar's Critical Realism." Critical Theory for Library and

Information Science. Ed. Leckie, Gloria J., Lisa M. Given, and John E.

Buschman. Chicago: Libraries Unlimited, 2010. 29-40. Print.

Burdick, Anne, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunennfeld Todo Presner, and Jeffrey

Schapp. "Emerging Methods and Genres." Digital Humanities. Ed. Anne

Burdick, Johanna Drucker, Peter Presner, and Jeffrey Schapp.

Cambridge: MIT, 2010. 27-72. Print.

Burr, Vivien. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge,

1995. Print.

Corbetta, Piergiorgio. "Paradigms of Social Research." Social Research: Theory,

Methods and Techniques. London: Sage, 2003. 9-29. Print.

Drucker, Johanna. "Graphical Readings and the Visual Aesthetics of Textuality."

Text 16 (2006): 267-76. Web.

---. "Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display." DHQ 5.1 (2011). Print.

---. "Humanistic Theory and Digital Scholarship." Debates in the Digital

Humanities. Ed. Gold, Matthew E. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press, 2012. 85-95. Print.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. NY: Vintage, 2010. Print.

Gergen, Kenneth J. and Mary Gergen. Social Construction: Entering the

Dialogue. Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Focus, 2008. Print.

Paisey 19  

Hansson, Joacim. "Hermeneutics as a Bridge between the Modern and the

Postmodern in Library and Information Science." Journal of

Documentation 61.1 (2005). Web.

Harris, Trevor M., John Corrigan, and David J. Boderhamer. "Challenges for the

Spatial Humanities: Toward a Research Agenda." Spatial Humanities:

GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship. Ed. Bodenhamer, David

J., John Corrigan, and Trevor M. Harris. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press, 2010. Print.

Heidegger, Martin. "Question Concerning Technology " Readings in the

Philosophy of Technology. Ed. Kaplan, David M. Oxford: Rowman and

Littlefield, 1977. Print.

Kline, Ronald and Trevor Pinch. “The Social Construction of Technology.” The

Social Shaping of Technology. Eds. Donald MacKenzie and Judy

Wajcman. NY: NY: Open University Press, 2010. Print.

Leighton, Evans and Sian Rees. “An Interpretation of Digital Humanities.”

Understanding Digital Humanities. Ed. David M. Berry. NY: Palgave,

2012. Print.

Leckie, Gloria J., Lisa M. Given, and John E. Buschman, ed. Critical Theory for

Library and Information Science. 1 ed. Chicago: Libraries Unlimited,

2010. Print.

McCarty, Willard. "Humanities Computing." Encyclopedia of Library and

Information Science. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003. 1224-35. Web.

Paisey 20  

Mingers, John, Alistair Mulch, and Leslie Wilcocks. “Criticial Realism in

Information Systems Research.” MIS Quarterly 37.3 (2013): 795-802.

Web.

Moretti, Franco, and Alberto Piazza. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a

Literary Theory. London; NY: Verso, 2005.

Olsson, Michael R. "Michel Foucault: Discourse, Power/Knowledge and the

Battle for Truth." Critical Theory for Library and Information Science:

Exploring the Social from across the Disciplines. Ed. Leckie, Gloria J.,

Lisa M. Given, and John E. Buschman. Chicago: Libraries Unlimited,

2010. 63-74. Print.

Palmer, Carole L. "Thematic Research Collections." A Companion to Digital

Humanities. Ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, John Unsworth.

Oxford: Blackwells, 2004. Print.

Palmer, Carol L. and Laura J. Neumann. "The Information Work of

Interdisciplinary Humanities Scholars: Exploration and Translation." The

Library Quarterly 72.1 (2002): 85-117. Web.

Price, Kenneth M. "Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research

Collection: What's in a Name?" DHQ 3.3 (2009). Web.

Radford, Gary P. and Marie L. Radford. "Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and

the Library: De Saussure and Foucault." Journal of Documentation 61.1

(2004): 61-78. Web.

Sanna, Talja, Kimmo Tuominen, and Reijo Savolainen. “Isms; In Information

Science: Constructivism, Collectivism, and Constructionism.” Journal of

Documentation 61.1 (2004): 70-101. Web.

Paisey 21  

Tennis, Joseph T. “Epistemology, Theory, and Methodology in Knowledge

Organization.” Knowledge Organization 35.3/2 (2008). 102-112. Web.

Unsworth, John. ""Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do Humanities

Researchers Have in Common, and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?"

Humanities Computing: Formal Methods, Experimental Practice." (2000).

Web.

Warwick, Claire. "Studying Users in Digital Humanities." Digital Humanities in

Practice. Ed. Warwick, Claire, Melissa Terras, and Julianne Nyhan.

London: Facet, 2012. 1-22. Print.

Warwick, Claire, Melissa Terras, and Julienne Nyhan. Digital Humanities in

Practice. London: Facet, 2012. Print.

Wikgren, Marianne. "Critical Realism as a Philosophy and Social Theory in

Information Science." Journal of Documentation 61.1 (2004): 11-22. Web.