UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS -...

UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS

INF 382C

Unique Number 27960

Dr. Philip DotySchool of Information

University of Texas at Austin

Fall 2009

Class time: Tuesday 12:00 N – 3:00 PM

Place: UTA 1.208

Office: UTA 5.448

Office hrs: Tuesday 10:00 –11:00 AM

By appointment other times

Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist512.471.3821 – main iSchool office

Internet: [email protected]://www.ischool.utexas.edu/

Class URL: http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2009/fall/INF382C/

TA: Shelley E. [email protected]

Monday 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM, UTA 5.428Tuesday 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM on Gmail Chat,

[email protected]

Copyright Philip Doty August 2009 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 13

Outline of course 14

Schedule 16

Assignments 21

References 25

Readings in the class schedule 25

Selected ARIST chapters 1966-2008 29

Useful digital sources for evaluating digital information 33

Additional sources 34


INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

INF 382C, Understanding and Serving Users, aims to understand people’s information behavior and practices beyond their role as users of particular information systems. The course explores how social theory and empirical research help us understand people, their information behavior, and information practices and how we can design information services and systems to greatest effect. These services and systems can range from the paper-based to the digital and from the institutionalized to the less formal. The course helps prepare students for more advanced study and for more informed evaluation of information services, as students and as practitioners.

To achieve those ends, the course looks at social, humanistic, system design, and other modes of investigation. We look especially at the interactions among interpretation, meaning making, identity, community, practice, narrative, information agencies, information policy, and information technologies.

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

One of the major goals of the course is an increased awareness of similarities and differences among disciplines interested in information practices and behavior: information studies, computer science, system design, communication, cognitive psychology, science and technology studies, education, sociology, cultural studies, intellectual history, anthropology, philosophy, and organizational studies. We will look at three modes of understanding and serving users:

Empirical studies of users of all kinds; these studies will include the use of human, 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.

These literatures and modes are not mutually exclusive.

Efforts to understand information practices and behavior have evolved in a number of ways:

From system-centric to people-centric perspectives, an important step in the maturity of the information disciplines; this evolution has been accompanied by a growing recognition of the agency of users as co-creators of information systems and technologies of all kinds

From an emphasis on scientists and engineers to the study of people more generally, especially the socially marginalized such as women, children, and the poor

From the study of cognition in the early days of the “user turn” to the wider array of behaviors and practices involved with information and communication, especially the material and embodied


From a focus on the atomistic individual to a focus on communities, their mutual negotiation of meaning, and creation of information and communication practices

From a focus on professionals’ use of “information resources” to the study of people’s wider everyday information practices.

Structurally, the course comprises three units:

Understanding information and people’s information behavior/information practices (6 classes)

Providing information services (3 classes) Students’ research, social theories of information work, and information policy

(5 classes).

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

EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

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

• Attend all class sessions. If a student misses a class, it is her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.

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

• Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate programs and participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to one’s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit graduate hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the classroom.

• Participate in all class discussions.

• Complete all assignments on time. Late assignments will not be accepted except in the limited circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result in a failing grade for the course.


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

• Ask for help from the instructor or the teaching assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, but the instructor limits access to email outside the office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is always wise to send an additional copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA who has access to email more regularly.

Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, is intolerable and will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.

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


STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks. Review these standards both before and after writing; I use them to evaluate your work.

Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are mutually reinforcing.

Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie shows how this process of composition and thought works (1994, p. 144):

Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort, what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings which thus found words took hold upon him.

We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.

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

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

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

Use a standard spell checker, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries have systematic weaknesses: they exclude most proper nouns, e.g., personal and place names; they omit most technical terms; they omit most foreign words and phrases; and they cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their,” or in writing "the" instead of "them."


It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 382C). If you have any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.

Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:

• The title of the assignment• Your name• The date• The class number – INF 382C.

CONTINUEDSince the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 25 (some have more than one error):

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

2. Number all pages after the title page. Notes and references do not count against page limits.

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

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

5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways.

6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.

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

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

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

10. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid


terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUED


17. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- responsibility (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 for more guidance.

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

26. Citation, quotation, and reference are nouns; cite, quote, and refer to are verbs.

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


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

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

29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.

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

CONTINUED


31. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to

identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.

32. On a related note, avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of faulty assumptions:

- It presumes that a public policy issue has only two “sides.” There are usually three or four or more perspectives on any topic of public dissensus that merit consideration. “Debate” hides this complexity.

- “Debate” implies that one “side” and only one “side” can be correct; that presumption ignores the fact that the many perspectives on a public policy issue have contributions to make to its resolution.

- “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This presumption naively ignores the fact that some public policy issues are intractable, that these issues are often emergent as are their resolutions, and that compromise is success rather than failure or “surrender.”

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

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

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

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

37. Please adhere to these orthographic (spelling) conventions:

- Web with a capital “W.”- Web site, two words, with a capital “W.”- Internet with a capital “I” to indicate the TCP/IP-compliant computer network

with a shared address convention. Otherwise, internet with a lower-case “i” simply means any of the many millions of networks of networks.


SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS

Symbol Meaning

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

AWK awkward and usually compromises clarity as well

BLOCK make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with

quotations ≥ 4 lines

caps capitalize

COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided

dB database

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

ITAL italicize

j journal

lc make into lower case

lib'ship librarianship

org, org’l organization, organizational

PL plural

Q question

Q’naire questionnaire

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

RQ research question

sp spelling

SING singular

w/ with

w.c.? word choice?

The instructor also uses check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point. Wavy lines indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.


GRADING

Grades for this class include:

A+ Extraordinarily high achievement not recognized by the UniversityA Superior 4.00A- Excellent 3.67B+ Good 3.33B Satisfactory 3.00B- Barely satisfactory 2.67C+ Unsatisfactory 2.33C Unsatisfactory 2.00C- Unsatisfactory 1.67F Unacceptable and failing. 0.00.

See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the School of Information student orientation packet for explanations of this system. Consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01a.grad.html#The-Nature-and-Purpose-of-Graduate-Work and http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01b.grad.html#Student-Responsibility) for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept the grade of A+, the instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is extraordinary.

The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor reserves the grade of A for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and communicate them effectively, successfully informing the work of other students.

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

The instructor uses points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. He uses an arithmetic – not a proportional – algorithm to determine points on any assignment. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total ≥ 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total ≥ 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.


TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are three required and two recommended texts for this class. Brown & Duguid (2002), Norman (2002), and Suchman (2007) are at the Co-op (476.7211). As many of the required and recommended readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL; many are available online.

The required texts are:

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

Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (with a new introduction). New York: Basic Books.

Suchman, Lucy. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

The recommended texts are:

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

Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sanda, & McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). (Eds.). (2005). Theories of

information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

The course Blackboard site, as well as direct email messages, will inform students about changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. All course participants can use both means to communicate with each other, notify the class about interesting events and sources, and the like.

While I always have reservations about readings that I assign, I want to mention some particular concerns I have with two of the three required texts for this semester’s course, as well as with one of the recommended texts from which we will read several chapters.

Brown & Duguid’s The Social Life of Information (2002) is a widely cited and influential book, but there are two concepts important to their argument and problematic in the context of this course:

1. The “content/conduit” distinction – although the authors explicitly discuss this mistaken dualism’s ill effects and how it misleads us, like all English speakers, they allow this metaphor to seep into their analysis. Be aware of its use and sensitive to how it tends to obscure important questions.

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


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

Many people consider Donald Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things (2002), originally published in 1988, as a classic in the study of people and their use of artifacts of all kinds, especially information systems. This book, too, has some important weaknesses that the informed reader needs to be aware of while still recognizing the book’s strengths and ability to inform our study of people and their information behavior and practices. Among the most important limitations of the book are these:

1. As a cognitive psychologist, Norman emphasizes cognition and the individual character of knowledge and behavior. As with Brown & Duguid (2002), this perspective is useful but limiting; our understanding of users must go well beyond the cognition, decision-making, and atomism that have characterized too much research into users.

2. The book, like many others including The Social Life of Information, adopts the pernicious content/conduit distinction that too narrowly confines the concepts of information and knowledge, talking, for example, about knowledge “in the mind” and “in the world” and as if knowledge and information were reified. Recall the contested nature of such a belief.

3. His view of language, models, and “correspondence” are also deeply contested and a rather limited view of how human beings experience and create their worlds.

While I have other concerns about this book, it is valuable to read closely and be familiar with.

Finally, I would like to mention a few of the reservations I have about Sharp, Rogers, & Preece (2007). The second edition of Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction has a great deal to recommend it; that’s why we’re reading some chapters from it. At the same time, however, it has some consistent linguistic and conceptual difficulties, some of which I would like to point out to you:

1. Like many works in English, especially those in technical and scientific fields (including our own), this book exhibits a systematic use of agglutination, stringing together many nouns, often at the expense of clarity or meaning. All Germanic languages have similar tendencies, but phrases like “user test index determination” and “system design methodology limitations” are not only ugly but are often indecipherable.

2. They sometimes speak of requirements as if they were things in and of themselves. As they discuss, this perspective is highly contested among software developers and other designers.

3. They tend to use terms like “user research,” “user habits,” and “user experience.” Besides being rather vapid marketing speech, these phrases might be more usefully expressed as “research about users,” “users’ habits,” and “the experiences that users have.” While the shorter phrases are just that (short), they tend to obscure that we are talking about people and what we observe empirically and theorize about them – not these things called “users.” While some readers may not be concerned with what they regard as simple stylistic differences, other readers are not so sanguine about the use of words.


Be an engaged, but skeptical reader, concerned with clarity and ease of expression, not a simple “consumer” of techno-speak and the worst of marketing blather. I will read your papers with a similarly critical eye.


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%

Formation of groups GRP TUE, SEP 8 ---

Choice of user group GRP TUE, SEP 15 ---

Frameworks and models for information TUE, OCT 13 20behavior (6 pp.)

Abstract of TX Legacy Web site (2 pp.) GRP TUE, OCT 20 ---

TX Legacy synchronization TUE, OCT 27 see NOV 10

Annotated bibliography GRP TUE, NOV 3 20

TX Legacy video annotation TUE, NOV 10 10

GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.) TUE, NOV 10 5

TX Legacy Web site GRP TUE, NOV 17 20

Presentation on user group and TX Legacy TUE, NOV 17 ---Web site GRP TUE, 24

Research proposal (5-7 pp.) GRP MON, DEC 7 1012:00 N

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

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

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

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

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


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


OUTLINE OF COURSE

Date TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Unit 1: Understanding information and people’s information behavior and practices

1 SEP 1 Introduction to the courseReview of the syllabusIntroduction to the history of user studies (1): Scientists and

engineers

2 SEP 8 History of user studies (2): Beyond professional work to ordinary people

and ordinary tasks

• DUE: Formation of groups – GRP

3 SEP 15 David Todd – Introduction to the Texas Legacy ProjectQuinn Stewart – using GLIFOS to support the Texas Legacy

Project

• DUE: Choice of user group – GRP

4 SEP 22 Exploring the concept of information (1): Cognition, mentalist metaphors,

and the “content/conduit” distinctionGroup meeting

5 SEP 29 Guest -- Exploring the concept of information (2): Information retrieval

and relevance

6 OCT 6 Exploring the concept of information (3): Materialist and practice-oriented

views and critiquing the “content/conduit” distinction

Unit 2: Providing information services

7 OCT 13 Communities of practiceAffect and information behavior

• DUE: Frameworks and models for information behavior (6 pp.) (20%)

8 OCT 20 Guest – Interfaces


• DUE: Abstract of TX Legacy Web site (2 pp.) – GRP

9 OCT 27 Panel – The information intermediaryInvisible and articulation work

• DUE: Synchronize TX Legacy Project video transcript


Unit 3: Students’ research, social theories of information work, and information policy

10 NOV 3 Information policy issues (1): Privacy and social networkingGroup meetings

• DUE: Annotated bibliography (20%) – GRP

11 NOV 10 Information policy issues (2): “Censorship”

• DUE: TX Legacy video annotation (10%)

• DUE: GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.) (5%)

12 NOV 17 Students’ presentationsWhat are documents?

• DUE: TX Legacy Project Web site (20%) – GRP

• DUE: Presentation on user group and TX Legacy Web site – GRP

13 NOV 24 Students’ presentationsIndexicality, interpretation, and “beyond the ‘view from nowhere’”


14 DEC 1 Course evaluationSummary discussion

MON DEC 7 • DUE: Research proposal (5-7 pp.)(10%) – GRP


SCHEDULE

DATE TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Unit 1: Understanding information and people’s information behavior and practices

SEP 1 Introduction to the courseReview of the syllabusIntroduction to the history of user studies (1): Scientists and

engineers

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

Chapters 1, 6Norman (2002), Prefaces to both editions, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4Borgman (2007b) CDDervin & Nilan (1986) CDTenopir et al. (2005) online

AS: Delamont & Atkinson (2001) onlineGarvey (1979)Israel (2001)Maher (1986)Subramanyam (1979)Turnbaugh (1986)

SEP 8 History of user studies (2): Beyond professional work to ordinary people

and ordinary tasks

READ: Sharp et al. (2007), Foreword, Preface, and Chapter 1 CDBates (2005a) CDBorgman et al. (1995) onlineEisenberg & Berkowitz (2008) onlineHersberger (2005) CDKline & Pinch (1996) onlineKuhlthau (2005) CDLowe & Eisenberg (2005) CD

AS: Barton & Hamilton (1998a)Bishop et al. (2001)Cooper (2002a)Eisenberg & Spitzer (1991)Fidel et al. (1999) onlineLarge (2004)Large et al. (2002) onlineMarcum (2002) onlineWalter (1994)

• DUE: Formation of groups – GRP


SEP 15 David Todd – Introduction to the Texas Legacy ProjectQuinn Stewart – using GLIFOS to support the Texas Legacy Project

READ: Norman (2002), 5, 6, 7Pettigrew et al. (2001) CD

• DUE: Choice of user group – GRP

SEP 22 Exploring the concept of information (1): Cognition, mentalist metaphors,

and the “content/conduit” distinctionGroup meeting

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 2 and 3Suchman (2007), 2-5Bates (2005b) CDBelkin (2005) CDMacMullin & Taylor (1984) CDWeaver (1949) CDWilson (2000) online

AS: Cole (1994)Cornelius (2002)Losee (1990a)Losee (1997)Scarrott (1994)

SEP 29 Guest -- Exploring the concept of information (2): Information retrieval

and relevance

READ: Suchman (2007), 6Sharp et al. (2007), 3 CDKuhlthau (1991) onlineSaracevic (2007a) onlineSaracevic (2007b) online

AS: Barry & Schamber (1998) onlineChoi & Rasmussen (2003) onlineRuthven (2008) onlineSharp et al. (2007), 2

OCT 6 Exploring the concept of information (3): Materialist and practice-oriented views and critiquing the “content/conduit” distinction

READ: Buckland (1991) onlineNunberg (1996b) onlineReddy (1993) CDSchiller (1988) CDTidline (2005) CD

AS: Bates (1989)Belkin, Oddy, & Brooks (1982 a and b)Case (2002) passim especially 6


Enser (2008)Harter & Hert (1997)Kuhlthau (1993a)Schamber (1994)Swanson (1988)Vakkari & Sormunen (2004) online

Unit 2: Providing information services

OCT 13 Communities of practiceAffect and information behavior

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 4, 5Suchman (2007), 7, 8Sharp et al. (2007), 5 CDBrown & Duguid (1991) onlineDavenport & Hall (2002) CD/onlineDavies (2005) CDMcKechnie et al. (2007) CDNahl (2007) CDParker & Berryman (2007) CD Star et al. (2003) CD

AS: Daft & Weick (1984)Dervin (1976)Granovetter (1973)Lave (1988) passimLave & Wenger (1992) passimWenger (1998) passim

• DUE: Frameworks and models for information behavior (6 pp.) (20%)

OCT 20 Guest – Interfaces

READ: Suchman (2007), 9, 10Sharp et al. (2007), 6 both parts CD

• DUE: Abstract of TX Legacy Web site (2 pp.) – GRP

OCT 27 Panel – the information intermediaryInvisible and articulation work

READ: Suchman (2007), Acknowledgements, Preface to 2nd edition, Introduction, 1, 11, 12

Ehrlich & Cash (1999) onlineNardi & Engeström (1999) onlineStar & Strauss (1999) onlineSuchman (1995) onlineSuchman (1996) CDTaylor (1968) CDYakel (2000) CD

AS: Abbott (1988)Abbott (1998) onlineDuff & Johnson (2002) onlineEdwards (2005) CD


Marshall (2003)Nardi & O’Day (1999), 7 (“Librarians: A Keystone Species,”

pp. 79-104)Nunberg (1998) onlineOrtega y Gassett (1975)Palmquist (2005) CDSchön (1983)Taylor (1986a)Taylor (1986b)Tissing (1984)

• DUE: Synchronize TX Legacy Project video transcript

Unit 3: Students’ research, social theories of information work, and information policy

NOV 3 Information policy issues (1): Privacy and social networking

READ: EPIC (2008a) onlineEPIC (2008b) onlineGrassian (2006) online

AS: Heins et al. (2006) online

• DUE: Annotated bibliography (20%) – GRP

NOV 10 Information policy issues (2): “Censorship”

READ: American Library Association (2004) onlineAsheim (1953) CDAsheim (1983) CDCurry Jansen (1991) CDU.S. v. ALA (2003) on Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

online [the plurality opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter]

AS: Preer (1994)Tucker (1981)

• DUE: TX Legacy video annotation (10%)

• DUE: GlifosMedia diary (3 pp.) (5%)

NOV 17 Students’ presentationsWhat are documents?

READ: Brown & Duguid (2002), 7, 8. AfterwordBishop (1999) onlineBorgman (2007a) CDBuckland (1997) onlineLevy (2003) CD

AS: Andersen (2008)


Borges (1964)Crane (1991)Eco (1984)Geertz (1983) CDLeckie (2005) CD

• DUE: TX Legacy Project Web site (20%) – GRP



NOV 24 Students’ presentationsIndexicality, interpretation, and “beyond the ‘view from nowhere’”

READ: Suchman (2007), 13, 14Cornelius (1996a) CDLong (1993) CDO’Day & Nardi (2003) CD

AS: Nagel (1986)Toms & Duff (2002) online


DEC 1 Course evaluationSummary discussion

READ: Hauptman (1998) onlineKarat (1998) onlineMarchionini (2008) onlineSuchman (2007), 15

AS: Augst (2001)Augst & Wiegand (2001)Wiegand (2003)

DEC 7 MONDAY, 12:00 N

• DUE: Research proposal (5-7 pp.)(10%) – GRP


ASSIGNMENTS

Frameworks and models for information behavior – Due Tuesday, October 13, 2009 (20%)

In 2001, Karen Pettigrew, Raya Fidel, and Harry Bruce published the analytic literature review “Conceptual Frameworks in Information Behavior” in the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Using this review in conjunction with at least two of the information behavior models we have examined in our readings and/or discussed in class, including any we have discussed that also appear in “Conceptual Frameworks,” please address all three parts of the following question:

How do the models you have chosen compare along these characteristics?

1. The models’ discussion of the concept of information. (2 pp.)2. How the models’ discussions of information relate to Pettigrew et al.’s

consideration of the idea of information. (2 pp.)3. How Pettigrew et al.’s tripartite typology of research into information behavior

helps you understand the two models of information behavior you have chosen to discuss. (2 pp.)

Please be as specific as possible in addressing these three questions, using material we have read in class, other material you are familiar with, and our class discussions to help you respond.

Each student will produce an essay six (6) double-spaced pages long in response to these questions to submit in class on Tuesday, October 13. Please be sure to be as specific as possible in addressing them. As usual, consult the standards for written work both before and after writing your paper.

Texas Legacy video project – Due various dates

The Texas Legacy Project involves a series of interviews with important figures in politics, natural resource management, environmental activism, and environmental protection in Texas over the past several decades. In order to bring the various elements of the course together, students will work individually and in groups using various interviews in the Texas Legacy Project.

• Individual TX Legacy video annotation – due Tuesday, October 27 and Tuesday, November 10, 2009 (10%)

Students will do this assignment individually. Quinn Stewart and the instructor will assign each student one TX Legacy video interview that has not yet been annotated. Then, using GlifosMedia and Google Earth as demonstrated in class and in the online tutorials, each student will complete three annotation tasks:

1. Synchronize the pre-existing interview transcript with the video using GlifosMedia Creator. This part of the assignment is due on Tuesday, October 27.

2. Create and synchronize a table of contents (ToC) for the interview based upon the existing interview log, using GlifosMedia Creator.

3. Using Google Earth, create appropriate links from the interview to some large or small areas on earth.


Quinn Stewart has created online tutorials that will walk students through each phase of this assignment. The tutorials can be used remotely, and the annotations themselves can be done on your own machines or on Windows or Mac computers (running Windows) in the iSchool IT Lab, UTA 1.210 (see http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/technology/about/facilities.php) for lab hours. The IT Lab also provides laptops with the appropriate software installed that students can check out. These include both Windows and Mac laptops (running Windows) that can be used to complete this assignment.

The synchronization of the video transcript with the video is due on Tuesday, October 27, while the table of contents and Google Earth links are due November 10. Students will upload their files to an iSchool directory; the instructor will provide more information about the directory.

• GlifosMedia design diary – November 10, 2009 (3 double-spaced pp., 5%) – IND

Each student will write an informal but clear reflective essay about annotating a Texas Legacy Project video. What was the process like? What worked easily and clearly? What did not? How did you overcome any difficulties encountered in the assignment? How might each student or team do things differently if given the opportunity? We are particularly interested in how useful students found the online tutorials. Were they useful? How? How, specifically, might they be improved to help students complete the assignments? Each student should feel free to address any other concerns that s/he found important in the annotation.

Write three (3) double-spaced pp. addressing these questions and any others you find engaging about the assignments and GlifosMedia. Please be clear, explicit, and succinct – recall that you have only three pages. Hand in a hard copy of this assignment in class on Tuesday, November 10.

• Adding value to TX Legacy videos for particular user groups – due various dates GRP

This multi-part assignment will be done in groups. The class will self-select into teams of five students each, or four if the number of students is not divisible by five. In order to make the Texas Legacy Project material as valuable as possible to the members of the chosen user community, students will create a new thematic compilation of three or more interviews.

Focusing on a specific user group, the teams will provide links to other material, e.g., online reference materials such as specialized dictionaries, encyclopedias, and thesauri; databases of environmental and weather data; geographic information systems (GIS); specific archival collections and archival finding aids; biographical material about the speaker and persons related to the interview; syllabi of high school-level courses in ecology; publications of professional associations of environmental engineers; state and federal governmental analyses of watersheds; timber estimates; and so on. The possibilities are many, limited only by the team’s imagination, the three (or more) interviews the team chooses to compile, and the team’s particular user group.

Each team must use Google Earth to provide appropriate links to specific geographic points related to the interviews used. Provide direct links to these sites rather than to just the .kmz files.


Since each team will design a sub-collection of the Texas Legacy video collection for a user community using GlifosMedia and Google Earth, student teams will choose one of the communities from the list below or provide some alternative that the instructor approves. No more than one team may choose any particular user community.

Agricultural field agentsArchitectsChemistsCivil engineersCyclistsEconomistsHang gliding enthusiastsElectrical engineersElementary school science teachersEngineering educators Environmental engineersEnvironmental research

centersGeoscientistsGerontologistsHome schoolersHydrologists

Managers in for-profit enterprisesManagers in not-for-profit

enterprisesMechanical engineersMiddle school geography teachers Military field commandersGraphic artistsPersons with “disabilities”PhysiciansPublic safety specialistsPublic utility regulatorsReal estate professionalsSkilled crafts persons, e.g.,

electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics (choose one group)

Soil scientists

Community of users – Due Tuesday, September 15 – GRP. Each team will select the proposed community of users and notify the instructor of the choice by September 15. Since the choices will be strictly first come, first served, the sooner you tell the instructor which communities you are interested in the better.

Abstract of TX Legacy Web site – Due Tuesday, October 20 (two double-spaced pp.) – GRP. Each team will provide a full abstract of their final Web site with at least these elements: the specific user group for which the team is designing its collection, the thematic compilation the team will be creating, and the ways that the team will add value to the interviews, i.e., to what other resources will the collection link? Since this abstract must be two (2) double-spaced pp. long, be specific in identifying the external sources that the collection will link to and make plain how they supplement the online interviews from the Texas Legacy Project. Be sure that the title page identifies all of the team members as well as the user group the team aims to serve. Post a copy of the abstract to the appropriate Blackboard forum by 9:00 AM, Tuesday, October 20, and turn a hard copy in during class later that day.

Annotated bibliography – Due Tuesday, November 3 (20%) – GRP

Each team of students will produce a double-spaced annotated bibliography of twenty (20) items we have not read in class but are related to the user community in question and its information behavior. Include the twenty items you consider most valuable to understanding this community. This bibliography should be distributed in print form in class, including two (2) copies for the instructor, and should have annotations that:


1. 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.

2. Clarify specifically how this source helped you design your Texas Legacy Web site.

3. Are two to three sentences long.

Texas Legacy Project Web site – Due Tuesday, November 17 (20%) – GRP

Each student group will create a Web site that presents their compilation of three or more Texas Legacy Project videos that the group has identified as well as links to the external sources that the group regards as particularly valuable to support their target user group’s use of the video compilation. The site will be available on a public Web site hosted by the iSchool and may be further connected to the Texas Legacy Project main Web site. The instructor will provide further and more specific instructions about this final phase of the assignment as the semester proceeds.

Presentation on Texas Legacy Web site – Due Tuesday, November 17, or Tuesday,

November 24 – GRP

Each team will make an in-class presentation no more than 20 minutes long about their Texas Legacy Project Web site. Each student will do roughly 4-5 minutes of the presentation, and the team should clearly identify the interviews used, the intended user group, the external sources and other material linked to the interviews, important sources about that user group’s information behavior, and the like. All members of the team will earn the same grade for the presentation. Students should plan to use visuals, e.g., PowerPoint, and handouts as appropriate. The classroom is equipped with Mac and Windows computers, an Internet connection, and projector.

In your presentation, please be sure to consider the following questions and concerns:

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

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

3. 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.

4. 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?

5. How does your Texas Legacy video compilation use what we know about this group and its information practices and behaviors?

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

Post the full presentation and annotated bibliography in the appropriate forum in Blackboard. Make the presentation and annotated bibliography available at a public URL and notify the class of the URL in your class handouts and in the appropriate Blackboard forum.


Research proposal – Due Monday, December 7 (5-7 double-spaced pp., 10%) – GRP

Each team will conceptualize a short, empirical study of the value of the Texas Legacy collection for its intended users. This proposal describing the study should be five to seven (5-7) double-spaced pp. long and must be handed in on Monday, December 7, as a Word attachment to an email message to the instructor and posted in the appropriate Blackboard forum.

Please keep in mind the following as you prepare this assignment:

1. "Empirical" means based on observations rather than speculation or "theorizing."

2. The proposed study should not be simply a usability study; its interests and rationale are much wider.

3. The instructor starts with the assumption that no student in the class has completed the required MS course INF 397C, Introduction to Research in Information Studies, or equivalent.

Please use Gary Marchionini’s 2008 paper in Library & Information Science Research, “Human-Information Interaction Research and Development,” in writing your research proposal, especially our discussion about the paper in the last class meeting and these elements of the paper:

1. His important discussion of the “redefinition” of the three major elements in information interactions – “information objects,” people, and technologies

2. Human-information interaction3. The research challenges he identifies that result from the changes in information

behavior research he describes.

While it is very easy to say that “we will do a survey!” consider data collection methods beyond the administration of standardized self-administered questionnaires, e.g., personal interviews, focus groups, transaction log analysis, think-aloud protocols, observation of naturalistic tasks, a census of hardware and software used by the intended users, use diaries, and so on. The instructor will be happy to discuss these matters with particular student teams and the class as a whole and review any outlines or drafts of proposals before the due date.

Your research methods must explicitly discuss data analysis as well as data collection, i.e., you must be able to answer the question "how will we analyze these data so that they can help us understand if our Web site is useful for our intended users?" Be specific and as explicit as possible about data analysis. Simply saying that “we’ll count, and calculate statistics” (whatever that means) is not sufficient. Always remember that you have to say how you would analyze the data from such data collection techniques to address your research question(s). Be as specific in that regard as you can be.


REFERENCES

Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of the course readings are in the Course Documents section of the Blackboard site (CD).

Some of the readings require you to be logged in with your UT EID through the UT libraries. Those journals are usually available online for only part of their publication run; further, UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so there may be more than one URL for each journal. Feel free to explore the various online journal packages – the more familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.

I. Readings in the class schedule

American Library Association. (2009). CIPA. http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.cfm

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

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

Bates, Marcia J. (2005a). Berrypicking. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 58-62). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Bates, Marcia J. (2005b). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 1-24). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Belkin, Nicholas J. (2005). Anomalous state of knowledge. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 44-48). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Bishop, Ann P. (1999). Document structure and digital libraries: How researchers mobilize information in journal articles. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 255-279. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573

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

Borgman, Christine. (2007a). Building an infrastructure for information. In Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet (pp. 149-177). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD

Borgman, Christine. (2007b). Disciplines, documents, and data. In Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet (pp. 179-226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD

Copyright Philip Doty April 2009 33

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

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.

Buckland, Michael K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 351-360. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

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

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

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

Davenport, Elisabeth, & Hall, Hazel. (2002). Organizational knowledge and communities of practice. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 171-227). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD Also available at www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109861081/toc

Davies, Elisabeth. (2005). Communities of practice. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 104-107). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

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

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

Eisenberg, Michael B., & Berkowitz, Robert E. (2008). Information & technology skills for student achievement [the Big6]. http://www.big6.com

EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center). (2008a). Facebook privacy. http://epic.org/privacy/facebook


http://www.big6.com/

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

EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center). (2008b). Social networking privacy. http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/default.html

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

Grassian, Esther. (2006). Thinking critically about Web 2.0 and beyond. http://www2.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/11605_12008.cfm

Hauptman, Robert. (1998). Information technology: Seduction & peril. Educom Review, 33(3), 48-49. Also available at http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=101&sid=68e9e554-59a2-4e9b-b992-eb83a98f152b%40sessionmgr111&bquery=(JN+%22Educom+Review%22+and+DT+19980501)&bdata=JmRiPWE5aCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

Hersberger, Julie. (2005). Chatman’s information poverty. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 75-78). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Karat, Clare-Marie. (1998). Guaranteeing rights for the user. Communications of the ACM, 41(12), 29-31. Also available at http://portal.acm.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/toc.cfm?id=J79&idx=J79&type=periodical&coll=ACM&dl=ACM,ACM&part=magazine&WantType=Magazines&title=Communications&CFID=48845888&CFTOKEN=61758569

Kline, Ronald, & Pinch, Trevor. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology & Culture, 37(4), 763-795. Also available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/i356128

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

Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (2005). Kuhlthau’s information search process. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 230-234). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

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

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

Lowe, Carrie A., & Eisenberg, Michael B. (2005). Big6 Skills for information literacy. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 63-68). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD


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

Marchionini, Gary. (2008). Human-information interaction research and development. Library & Information Science Research, 30(3), 165-174. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236577%232008%23999699996%23698481%23FLA%23&_cdi=6577&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000059713&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=d0e78297f252f6d50f36cb0e9625d9b6

McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.), Ross, Catherine Sheldrick, & Rothbauer, Paulette. (2007). Affective dimensions of information seeking in the context of reading. In Diane Nahl & Dania Bilal (Eds.), Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory (pp. 187-195). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Nahl, Diane. (2007). The centrality of the affective in information behavior. In Diane Nahl & Dania Bilal (Eds.), Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory (pp. 3-37). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Nahl, Diane, & Dania, Bilal. (Eds.). (2007). Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Nardi, Bonnie, & Engeström, Yrjö. (1999). A web on the wind: The structure of invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 1-8. Also available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/5lj9lh0jmmw2/?p=d3beeb88bfa24a5cb2cc5f4db666a15c&pi=40

Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (with a new introduction). New York: Basic Books.

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

Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1996b). Farewell to the Information Age. In Geoffrey Nunberg (Ed.), The future of the book (pp. 103-133). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Also available http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/farewell.pdf

O’Day, Vicki, & Nardi, Bonnie. (2003). An ecological perspective on digital libraries. In Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy Van House, & Barbara P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 65-83). Cambridge, MA: MIT. CD

Parker, Nicola, & Berryman, Jennifer. (2007). The role of affect in judging “what is enough.” In Diane Nahl & Dania Bilal (Eds.), Information and emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory (pp. 85-95). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

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


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

Reddy, Michael J. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 164-201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. CD

Saracevic, Tefko. (2007a). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(13), 2621-2644. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journal/116833768/issue

Saracevic, Tefko. (2007b). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: Nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(13), 1915-1933. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journal/116833768/issue

Schiller, Dan. (1988). How to think about information. In Vinnie Mosco & Janet Wasco (Eds.), The political economy of information (pp. 27-43). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. CD

Sharp, Helen, Rogers, Yvonne, & Preece, Jenny. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

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

Star, Susan Leigh, & Strauss, Anselm. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The dialogues between visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1-2), 9-30. Also available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/5lj9lh0jmmw2/?p=d3beeb88bfa24a5cb2cc5f4db666a15c&pi=40

Suchman, Lucy [A.]. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56-63. Also available at http://portal.acm.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/toc.cfm?id=J79&idx=J79&type=periodical&coll=ACM&dl=ACM,ACM&part=magazine&WantType=Magazines&title=Communications&CFID=48845888&CFTOKEN=61758569

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

Suchman, Lucy A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

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

Tenopir, Carol, King, Donald W., Boyce, Peter, Grayson, Matt, & Paulson, Keri-Lynn. (2005). Relying on electronic journals: Reading patterns of astronomers. Journal of


the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(8), 786-802. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/76501873

Tidline, Tonyia J. (2005). Dervin’s sense-making. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 113-117). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

United States et al. v. ALA et al. [Children’s Internet Protection Act case] 539 U.S. 194 (2003)[read the plurality opinion by Rehnquist, the two concurring opinions by Kennedy and Breyer, and the two dissenting opinions by Stevens and Souter] Available at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZS.html andhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-361

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

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

II. Selected ARIST chapters 1966 - 2008

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

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

Andersen, Jack. (2008). The concept of genre in information studies. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 339-367). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Bearman, David. (2007). Digital libraries. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 223-272). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Benoît, Gerald. (2002). Data mining. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 265-310). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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


Black, Alistair. (2006). Information history. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 441-473). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Borgman, Christine L., & Furner, Jonathan. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 3-72). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Boyce, Bert R., & Kraft, Donald H. (1985). Principles and theories in information science. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 20, pp. 153-178). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Buckland, Michael K., & Liu, Ziming. (1995). History of information science. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 30, pp. 385-416). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Burke, Colin. (2007). History of information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 3-53). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

Case, Donald. (2006). Information seeking. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 293-327). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Chen, Hsinchen, & Xu, Jie. (2006). Intelligence and security informatics. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 229-289). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Courtright, Christina. (2007). Context in information behavior research. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 273-306). Medford, NJ: Information Today.


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

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

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

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

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

Davies, Philip H.J. (2002). Intelligence, information technology, and information warfare. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 313-352). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Toward a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 35, pp. 115-245). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

Enser, Peter G.B. (2008). Visual image retrieval. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 3-42). Medford, NJ: Information Today.


Fallis, Don. (2006). Social epistemology and information science. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 40, pp. 475-519). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Ford, Nigel. (2008). Educational informatics. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 497-544). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

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

Houston, Ronald D., & Harmon, Glynn. (2007). Vannevar Bush and Memex. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 55-92). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Jones, William. (2007). Personal information management. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 453-504). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

Legg, Catherine. (2007). Ontologies on the semantic Web. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 407-451). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Palmer, Carole L., & Cragin, Melissa H. (2008). Scholarship and disciplinary practices. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 165-212). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

Rieh, Soo Young, & Danielson, David R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 307-364). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

Ruthven, Ian. (2008). Interactive information retrieval. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 42, pp. 43-91). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Sawhney, Harmeet, & Jayakar, Krishna P. (2007). Universal access. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 159-221). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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


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

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

Sonnenwald, Diane H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. In Blaise Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 643-681). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

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

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

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

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

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

White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1989). Bibliometrics. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 24, pp. 119-186). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

White, Howard D., & McCain, Katherine W. (1997). Visualization of literatures. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 99-168). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

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

III. Useful digital sources for evaluating digital information

Ciolek, T. Matthew. (2006). Information quality WWW virtual library. http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVL-InfoQuality.html

Fitzgerald, Mary Ann. (1999). Evaluating information: An information literacy challenge.http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume21999/vol2fitzgerald.cfm


Grassian, Esther. (1997). Thinking critically about discipline-based World Wide Web resources.http://www.mscare.org/cmsc/Articles-Thinking-Critically-about-Discipline.html

Grassian, Esther. (2009). Thinking critically about World Wide Web resources. http://www2.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/11605_12337.cfm

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

Smith, Alastair G. (2009). Evaluation of information sources. http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/evaln.htm

IV. Additional sources

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

Abbott, Andrew. (1998). Professionalism and the future of librarianship. Library Trends, 46(3), 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

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

Agre, Philip E. (1995). Institutional circuitry: Thinking about the forms and uses of information. Information, Technology and Libraries, 14(4), 225-230. Also available at http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/192/918/69085623w6/purl=rc1_EAIM_0_A17814175&dyn=9!ar_fmt?sw_aep=txshracd2598

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

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

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

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


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

Allen, Thomas. (1966). Managing the flow of scientific and technical information. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Allen, Thomas. (1970). Managing the flow of technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

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

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

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

Barlow, J.P. (1995, March/April). Is there a there in cyberspace? Utne Reader, 68, 52-56. Also available athttp://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/utne_community.html

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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.


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

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

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

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

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

Bishop, Ann P., Neumann, Laura J., Star, Susan Leigh, Merkel, C., Ignacio, E., & Sandusky, R.J. (2000). Digital libraries: Situating use in changing information infrastructure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 394-413. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce, Bertram C. [Chip]. (2000). Credibility of the Web: Why we need dialectical reading. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(1), 97-109. Also available http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:0gChgfCegIQJ:www.isrl.illinois.edu/~chip/pubs/01credibility/credibility.pdf+%22credibility+of+the+web%22+bertram+bruce&hl=en&gl=us


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

Brusilovsky, Peter, Kobsa, Alfred, & Nejdl, Wolfgang. (Eds.). (2007). The adaptive Web: Methods and strategies for Web personalization. Berlin: Springer.

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

Busha, Charles H., & Wedgeworth, Robert. (1993). Censorship and intellectual freedom. In Robert Wedgeworth (Ed.), World encyclopedia of library and information services (3rd ed.) (pp. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Chatman, Elfreda. (1996). Impoverished life world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(3), 193-206. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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.

Delamont, Sara, & Atkinson, Paul. (2001). Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 31(1) , 87-107. Also available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/285819

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

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

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

Dervin, Brenda. (1989). Users as research inventions. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 216-232. Also available at http://pao.chadwyck.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/articles/displayItem.do?QueryType=articles&ResultsID=1229ABA489D18A0955&filterSequence=0&ItemNumber=1&journalID=5419

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.

Edwards, Philip M. (2005). Taylor’s question-negotiation. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 358-362). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

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

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


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

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

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

Feldman, Ronen, & Sanger, James. (2007). The text mining handbook: Advanced approaches in analyzing unstructured data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gillespie, Tarleton. (2007). Wired shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

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

Greenberg, Jane, & Méndez, Eva. (Eds.). (2007). Knitting the semantic Web. [published simultaneously as Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43(3/4), 2007]. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

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

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, & Feldman, Ariel. (2006). Internet filters: A public policy report (2nd ed.). Brennan Center for Justice. New York University School of Law. Free Expression Policy Project. http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2intro.html

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

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

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

Hertzum, M., & Pejtersen, A.M. (2000). The information-seeking practices of engineers: Searching for documents as well as for people. Information Processing & Management, 36(5), 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). Hirsh, Sandra G. (1997). How do children find information on different types of tasks? Children’s user of the science library catalog. Library Trends, 45(4), 725-745.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jones, William, & Teevan, Jaime. (Eds.). (2007). Personal information management. Seattle: University of Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (1999). The role of experience in the information search process of an early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction, and sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(5), 399-412. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=27981

Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leckie, Gloria J. (2005). General model of the information seeking of professionals. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 158-1644). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

Levy, David M. (2000). Digital libraries and the problem of purpose. D-Lib Magazine, 6(1). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january00/01levy.html

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Matson, Lisa Dallape, & Bonski, David J. (1997). Do digital libraries need librarians?: An experiential dialog. Online, 21(6), 68-76. Also available http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=108&sid=ed77ad4a-2aa8-4380-9157-e8dab18bfc30%40sessionmgr111&bquery=(JN+%22Online%22+and+DT+19971101)&bdata=JmRiPWE5aCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Montgomery, Kathryn C. (2007). Generation digital: Politics, commerce, and childhood in the age of the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

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

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

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

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

Nahl, Diane. (1996). The user-centered revolution [sic]: 1970-1995. Encyclopedia of Microcomputers, 19, 143-199.

Nahl, Diane. (2003). The user-centered revolution [sic]: Complexity in information behavior. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (2nd ed., revised and expanded; pp. 3028-3042). New York: Marcel Dekker.

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

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

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

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

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

Noble, David F. (1997). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First Monday, 3(1). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490

Norman, Donald A. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.

Noyes, Janet M., & Baber, Christopher. (1999). User-centered design of systems. London: 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, 9(41). Available at http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7198803779&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7198803782&cisb=22_T7198803781&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=161341&docNo=7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palmquist, Ruth A. (2005). Taylor’s information use environments. In Karen Fisher, Sanda Erdelez, & Lynne (E.F.) McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 354-357). Medford, NJ: Information Today. CD

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

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

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

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


http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7198803779&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7198803782&cisb=22_T7198803781&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=161341&docNo=7



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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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.

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.


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

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

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

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

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

Wasik, Joann M. (2005). Digital reference bibliography. Available at http://www.webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent;jsessionid=FFBB8699B5FF14270F93B90A2D4769AE?id=11878

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

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

Weinberger, David. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: the power of the new digital disorder. New York: Holt.

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

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

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

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

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

Wiegand, Shirley A., & Wiegand, Wayne A. (2007). Books on trial: Red scare in the heartland. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 -...

Documents

Transcript of UNDERSTANDING AND SERVING USERS -...