Introduction and Basic Concepts

Wednesday, August 24: Trends in human information interaction research

These two brief articles were written as part of the 10th anniversary celebration (in 2009) of the Special Interest Group on Information Needs, Seeking, and Use of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. Together, they provide a brief historical overview of the general directions taken in information behavior research.

  1. Read the syllabus carefully.
  2. Wilson, T.D. (2010). Fifty years of information behavior research. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 36(3), 27-34. http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-10/FebMar10_Wilson.pdf.
  3. Wildemuth, B.M., & Case, D.O. (2010). Early information behavior research. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 36(3), 35-38. http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-10/FebMar10_Wildemuth_Case.pdf.
  4. Marchionini, G. (2008). Human-information interaction. Library & Information Science Research, 30(3), 165-174. UNC libraries
    • Focus on sections 2 and 6.

Monday, August 29: Theoretical perspectives and basic concepts

  1. Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-55. Retrieved from http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/576?Source=%2FJournals%2FInformingSciJ%2FArticles%3FVolume%3D3-2000
    • Focus on the introduction and definitions section. (~1 page)
  2. Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what does CSCW need to DO with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal, 11(1-2), 243–267. UNC Libraries
    • Read through the end of section 2. (~3 pages)
  3. Bates, M. J. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043-1050. UNC libraries
    • In this article, Bates discusses the "below-the-water-line" portion of information science. While she focuses more of her attention on the content/information of concern, she does include human-information interactions among her "Three Big Questions" in information science.
  4. Choose at least ONE from the following:

Wednesday, August 31: Information {Behavior, Seeking and Search) Models; Cognitive approaches to information behaviors

Due: What is your information science, part 1

  1. Case, D.O. (2012). Models of Information Behavior. In Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior. 2nd or 3rd edition. Boston: Academic Press, Chapter 6. [in Sakai resources, book on reserve in SILS Library - ZA3075 .L665 2012]]
    • Read through Sections 6.1 and 6.2. Read Section 6.1 carefully as it provides an overview of models.
    • Section 6.2 presents an overview of quite a few models including several we will examine in detail (e.g., Kuhlthau's model of the Information Search Process, Savolainen's model of Everyday Life Information-Seeking).
  2. Dinet, J., Chevalier, A., & Tricot, A. (2012). Information search activity: An overview. Revue européene de psychologie appliqué, 62(2), 49-62. UNC libraries
    • Read through the entire article, but focus special attention on sections 2.1-2.2.1.
    • Several models are reviewed here. Of particular interest are those described in sections 2.1-2.2.1 (as background for understanding the Ingwersen and Järvelin model.)
  3. Ingwersen, P., & Järvelin, K. (2005). The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Springer. UNC libraries
    • Read the introduction and Section 6.1, Building the conceptual framework, p. 259-274. Feel free to skim other parts of this chapter. We'll walk though this model in class, so don't panic if you don't grasp it quickly.
    • This section of this important book walks through the model that the authors are proposing. They believe that the model encompassses all of the information behaviors of interest to our field. The cognitive aspects of those information behaviors are at center stage.

Monday, September 5: NO CLASS. Labor Day holiday

Wednesday, September 7: Affective approaches to information behavior

  1. Kuhlthau, C., Heinström, J., & Todd, R.J. (2008). The 'information search process' revisited: Is the model still useful? Information Research, 13(4), Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Information Seeking in Context, Vilnius, September 2008). http://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper355.html.
    • Kuhlthau's model of the information search process is well-known and widely-used to understand the process that people go through while searching for information. It includes their cognitive behaviors (such a learning) as well as their feelings and how they vary throughout the process. The model itself is summarized in Figure 1; to read the original work on it, see the reference list and/or the references on the additional readings list.
  2. Lopatovska, I., & Arapakis, I. (2011). Theories, methods and current research on emotions in library and information science, information retrieval and human-computer interaction. Information Processing & Management, 47(4), 575-592. UNC libraries
    • Focus your reading on sections 2 and 4.1. The first and last sections are overviews, so will help you put the detail into context. Skim section 3, just to get a sense of what methods have been used in studies of emotions.
    • This literature review provides a strong foundation for moving forward with research about emotions and their relationships with information behaviors.

Information Needs

Monday, September 12: Kilgour Lecture

Revision: Attend Shneiderman talk. Readings moved to next session.

Wednesday, September 14: Experiencing an information need

Due: brief description of information-seeking event for Diary and Analysis assignment

Revision: The readings listed for today were originally for Monday, September 12. We shifted the schedule due to student interest in Professor Shneiderman's Kilgour Lecture.

  1. Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 29(3),178-194. (Read about the four levels of "questions," on pages 182-183; we'll come back to the rest in a few weeks.) [in Sakai resources, reprint available through UNC Libraries]
    • This is a classic reading, so you'll want to eventually study it all. For now, we want to focus our attention on Taylor's explanation of visceral, conscious, formalized, and compromised needs.
  2. Belkin, N. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5,133-143. [in Sakai resources]
    • Read entire article, but focus on the specifiability of an information need, p. 136-139 and Figure 3.
    • This, along with his 1982 Journal of Documentation article with Oddy and Brooks, are the classic works explaining this concept.
  3. Savolainen, R. (2006). Information use as gap-bridging: The viewpoint of sense-making methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(8), 1116-1125. UNC libraries
    • Dervin has proposed a Sense-Making Theory to explain how people experience information needs and act on them. In this article, Savolainen focuses on gaps (i.e., information needs). One of Dervin's articles on this theory and an additional article on it by Savolainen are listed among the optional readings for today.
  4. Optional:
    • Case, D.O. (2012). Information needs and information seeking. In Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior. 3rd edition. Boston: Academic Press, 77-93. [in Sakai resources, book on reserve in SILS Library - ZA3075 .L665 2012]
      • This chapter summarizes what we know about people's information needs, so will provide you with a good overview.

Monday, September 19: Expressing information needs

Revision: The readings listed for today were originally for Wednesday, September 14; we shifted the schedule due to student interest in Professor Shneiderman's Kilgour Lecture.

  1. Bates, M.E. (1998). Finding the question behind the question. Information Outlook, 2(7), 19-21. Retrieved from ProQuest [in Sakai resources]
    • This article has some very practical advice about helping library users to express their information needs. I believe that you'll find this advice reminiscent of Taylor's 1968 suggestions for filtering the questions received at the library reference desk.
  2. Sparck-Jones, K., Robertson, S.E., & Sanderson, M. (2007). Ambiguous requests: Implications for retrieval tests, systems and theories. ACM SIGIR Forum, 41(2), 8-17. UNC libraries
    • The problem of clear specification of information needs still causes worries for those of us who want to design effective information retrieval systems. This is a relatively recent discussion of the problem by three of the field's leaders.
  3. Nückles, M., & Ertelt, A. (2006). The problem of describing a problem: Supporting laypersons in presenting their queries to the internet-based helpdesk. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 648-669. (Read sections 1-3, p648-651.) UNC libraries
    • The literature on expressing information needs covers a broad range of questions and domains. This article focuses on a particular situation: a computer user trying to request help in using a computer. The authors were particularly interested in developing a "script" that the user would fill out, in order to provide complete and accurate information to the expert/helper, but we'll focus our discussion on the more conceptual aspects of this problem, described in the first few sections of the article.

Wednesday, September 21: Studying and analyzing information needs

Revision: The readings listed for today were originally for Monday September 19; we shifted the schedule due to student interest in Professor Shneiderman's Kilgour Lecture. Due date for description of population and setting for Service/System project shifted to Monday, September 26.

  1. Herman, E. (2004). Research in progress: Some preliminary and key insights into the information needs of the contemporary academic research. Part 1. Aslib Proceedings, 56(1), 34-47. UNC libraries
    • Based on interviews with faculty at the University of Haifa, Herman investigated 11 aspects of information needs: subject, function, nature, intellectual level, viewpoint, quantity, quality/authority, date/currency, speed of delivery, place of publication/origina, and processing/packaging. This paper focuses only on the subject and function of their information needs; Part 2, listed in our optional readings, provides more detail on other aspects of their information needs.
  2. Watson, B. R. & Cavanah, S. (2015). Community Information Needs: A theory and methodological framework. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 651-673. UNC libraries
  3. (optional) Gabridge, C., Gaskell, M., & Stout, A. (2008). Information seeking through students' eyes: The MIT Photo Diary Study. College & Research Libraries, 69(6), 510-523. UNC libraries
    • This article is a good example of a study carried out in an academic library to understand students' information needs and information seeking behaviors.
  4. Koufogiannakis, D. (2013). EBLIP7 Keynote: What we talk about when we talk about evidence. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(4), 6-17. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/20486.
    • This will help us understand what we're looking for during our searching lab.

Information-Seeking

Monday, September 26: Selection of information sources

Due: description of population and setting of interest for Service/System Proposal project

Revision: The readings listed for today were originally for Wednesday, September 21; we shifted the schedule due to student interest in Professor Shneiderman's Kilgour Lecture.

  1. Savolainen, R. (2008). Source preferences in the context of seeking problem-specific information. Information Processing & Management, 44(1): 274-293. UNC libraries
    • Savolainen uses the concepts of information source horizon and information pathway to study the sources people use in resolving everyday information needs. You'll want to read the entire paper, to get a good feel for both the concepts and his findings.
  2. Lu, L, & Yuan, Y.C. (2011). Shall I Google it or ask the competent villain down the hall? The moderating role of information need in information source selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(1), 133-145. UNC libraries
    • This study looks at the tradeoffs that people make when selecting an information source, between the quality of the source and the accessibility of the source. The literature review will be particularly useful. The study itself, particularly the analysis, is fairly complex, but skim it to understand the main findings and their implications for practice.

Wednesday, September 28: Interactive information retrieval as part of the information seeking process

Revision: The readings listed for today were originally for Monday, September 26; we shifted the schedule due to student interest in Professor Shneiderman's Kilgour Lecture.

  1. Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: From finding to understanding. Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 41-46. UNC libraries
    • Exploratory search is differentiated from lookup searches (including fact retrieval, known item searches, etc.) and incorporates searches conducted for the purposes of learning and investigating. A few examples of systems that support exploratory search are presented.
  2. Bates, M.J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424. [in Sakai resources]
    • Skim quickly, to get her idea of berrypicking as a metaphor for information seeking. Also, pay special attention to the techniques listed on page 412; you're expected to incorporate all of them in your searching for Assignment 3.
  3. Choose ONE of the following articles:
    • Vakkari, P., & Huuskonen, S. (2012). Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(4), 657-670. UNC libraries
      • Unlike most studies of searching, this study goes beyond the link between search behaviors and search results and also examines the link between search results and task outcomes.
    • Saarinen, K., & Vakkari, P. (2013). A sign of a good book: Readers' methods of accessing fiction in the public library. Journal of Documentation, 69(5), 736-754. UNC libraries
      • Most IR systems are designed to support retrieving non-fiction. This study examines how public library users search for fiction, with an eye toward designing systems that will support such searches. Skim sections 1-3, so that you can focus your attention on sections 4 and 5 (pages 744-752).
  4. (optional) Ruthven, I. (2008). Interactive information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 43–91. UNC Libraries
    • Read the introduction and scope (p. 43-46) as well as the Themes and Improving Interactions sections (49-67). I recommend at least skimming the rest of the chapter.

Monday, October 3: Henderson Lecture, Assessment of information quality and value

This class session will begin immediately after the Henderson Lecture to be given by Cassidy Sugimoto, a UNC SILS alumna (MSLS '07, PhD '10). The Henderson Lecture starts at 3pm in Wilson Library.

Readings for Assessment of information quality and value

These two studies are examining very similar behaviors, so we'll focus our attention on the differences between them. Pay attention to the research questions asked, who is included in the study sample, what data were collected, and what conclusions were drawn.

  1. Rieh, S.Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 53(2), 145-161. UNC libraries
  2. Tombros, A., Ruthven, I., & Jose, J.M. (2005). How users assess web pages for information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 56(4), 327-344. UNC libraries

Wednesday, October 5: Relevance judgments

Form groups for Scholarly Communication project (originally 9/28)

  1. Choose ONE of the following by Tefko Saracevic. The JASIST articles are foundational, and the chapter is in a book that was just published.
    • Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: Nature and manifestations of relevance, [and] Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(13), 1915-1933, 2126-2144. [UNC libraries: Part II, Part III
      • Part I of this series is his 1975 article on the topic of relevance. In this update, he provides a really-compact overview of a huge amount of the literature on relevance. Read these two parts for the primary concepts, not necessarily for the nuanced details.
    • Saracevic, T. (2016). Relevance: In search of a theoretical foundation. In D. Sonnenwald (Ed.), Theory Development in the Information Sciences (pp. 141–163). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. [book in SILS Library, not on reserve - Z665 .T49636 2016, in Sakai resources]
  2. Xie, I., & Benoit, E., III. (2013). Search result list evaluation versus document evaluation: Similarities and differences. Journal of Documentation, 69(1), 49-80. UNC libraries
    • Making a relevance judgment based on the snippet in a results list is different than making a relevance judgment based on the full document. Xie and Benoit looked closely at these two processes, to identify both the similarities and differences. Lightly skim the introduction and literature review, to see the similarities with the Saracevic articles (and also identify any new ideas); focus your reading on their results and discussion (pages 60-76).
  3. Recommended reading, especially for those who wish to work in a library

Unit 4: Information Use

Monday, October 10: Browsing and Serendipity; Ways of using information

Due: preliminary search plan for Service/System Proposal project

We'll start by reading about browsing and serendipity and then move on to how information is used.

Browsing and Serendipity

  1. Bates, M.J. (2007). What is browsing -- really? A model drawing from behavioural science research. Information Research, 12(4), Paper 330. http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/paper330.html
    • Bates take a very fine-grained look at browsing behaviors and finds a series of four steps: "1) glimpsing a field of vision, 2) selecting or sampling a physical or informational object within the field of vision, 3) examining the object, 4) acquiring the object (conceptually and/or physically) or abandoning it."
  2. Bawden, D. (2011). Encountering on the road to Serendip? Browsing in new information environments. In Foster, A., & Rafferty, P. (eds.), Innovations in Information Retrieval: Perspectives for Theory and Practice. London: Facet Publishing, 1-22. [book in SILS Library - Z699 .I56 2011, in Sakai resources]
    • Bawden argues that browsing behaviors pre-Web may have different characteristics that browsing on the Web. He provides an extensive review of the relevant literature.

Read ONE of the studies below which examined or proposed a different type/aspect of information use. Focus your attention on how information USE was studied; if the study examined other information behaviors (e.g., information-seeking), you can skim those sections.

Make sure you are able to describe the study (e.g., purpose, key concepts and how measured/identified, study sample, data collection and analysis methods, primary findings).

Wednesday, October 12: Re-using and re-finding information; Information sharing

Due: Topic selection for Scholarly Communication project (originally 10/3)

  1. Capra, R., & Pérez-Quiñones, M.A. (2005). Using Web search engines to find and refind information. IEEE Computer, 38(10), 36-42. UNC libraries
    • Finding and refinding present different user challenges. Synthesizing results from one of their studies with related work, the authors propose a search engine use model based on prior task frequency and familiarity.
  2. Jones, W., Bruce, H., & Dumais, S. (2001). Keeping found things found on the Web. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 119-126. UNC libraries
    • This is one of the earliest serious studies of re-finding and re-use, based on observation of the methods people use to manage web information for re-use.
  3. Talja, S., & Hansen, P. (2006). Information sharing. In Spink, A., & Cole, C. (eds.), New Directions in Human Information Behavior, Vol. 8. Springer, 113-134. UNC libraries
    • After providing some context and definitions, Talja and Hansen review the research that has been conducted on collaborative information behaviors/practices, then conclude with a discussion of CIB as a social practice. Skim sections 1 and 2, then focus your reading on section 3.
  4. Evans, B.M., & Chi, E.H. (2010). An elaborated model of social search. Information Processing & Management, 46(6), 656-678. UNC libraries
    • Based on two surveys of Mechanical Turkers, the authors propose a social model of user activities before, during, and after a search episode. Skim the first 3 sections; read section 4 closely enough so that you understand Figure 2.

Unit 5: The Impact of Context on Information Seeking and Use

Monday, October 17: Domain, disciplinary, and organizational context

Due: final deliverable for Diary and Analysis assignment

  1. Cool, C. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 35, 5-42. [SILS Library Reference - Z699.A1 A65 v.35][in Sakai resources]
    • ARIST chapters are comprehensive literature reviews in a particular area. Of interest to us in this chapter is the section on "Situation, context, and interaction with information," pages 7-9. It will introduce you to a bit of the terminology in this area. The chapter, as a whole, is organized around several theoretical perspectives on situation: the problematic situation, social interaction theory, situated action, situation awareness, the person-in-situation model, and situation as information environment.
  2. Sonnenwald, D.H. (1999). Evolving perspectives of human information behaviour: Contexts, situations, social networks and information horizons. In Exploring the Contexts of Information Behaviour: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts (August 13-15, 1998, Sheffield, UK). Taylor Graham, 176-190. [in Sakai resources]
    • This paper provides some foundational definitions. Read the sections on context and situations, p178-180.
  3. Taylor, R.S. (1991). Information use environments. Progress in Communication Sciences, 10, 217-255. [Davis Library - P87 .P74 v10][in Sakai resources]
    • This is a classic reading that examines the effects of context on information behaviors. Read Section II (p221-233). Then read about one of the three information use environments studied (engineers, legislators, or physicians), based on the following schedule: last name beginning with A-D, engineers; last name beginning with G-K, legislators; last name beginning with M-S, physicians.

Wednesday, October 19: Domain, disciplinary, and organizational context, continued

  1. Ellis, D., Cox, D., & Hall, K. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 356-369. UNC libraries
    • You will recall that we already looked briefly at the information seeking strategies Ellis identified; now you'll get a chance to look at them more closely. In this classic study, Ellis and his colleagues examined the effects of disciplinary context on scholars' information behaviors. They compared physicists, chemists, and social scientists.
  2. Rieh, S.Y. (2004). On the Web at home: Information seeking and web searching in the home environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(8), 743-753. UNC libraries
    • This is an example of looking at an everyday life information seeking context, and its characteristics and effects. Focus special attention on the literature review, and the results for research questions 1 and 2.

Monday, October 24: Information poverty, small worlds and community context

Due: preliminary population/client description for Service/System Proposal project

Guest: Professor Amelia Gibson

  1. Chatman, E.A. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(3), 193-206. UNC libraries
    • Chatman draws on results from four previous studies to identify four concepts that serve as a basis for defining information poverty: risk-taking, secrecy, deception, and situational relevance.
  2. Yu, L. (2006). Understanding Information Inequality: Making Sense of the Literature of the Information and Digital Divides. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38(4), 229–252. UNC Libraries
  3. Jaeger, P. T., & Burnett, G. (2010). Information Worlds: Social Context, Technology, and Information Behavior in the Age of the Internet (1 edition.). New York: Routledge. Chapter 2. [Sakai Resources]
  4. Sandra Fisher-Martins: The Right to Understand http://www.ted.com/talks/sandra_fisher_martins_the_right_to_understand

Wednesday, October 26: Everyday life information seeking

Guest: John Martin.

  1. Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of "way of life". Library & Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294. UNC libraries
    • This is the seminal article on everyday life information seeking, which is now an important area of information behavior research. One question for us is which types of everyday life information needs are we likely to be able to address via our current information institutions or systems. See the "additional readings" for Savolainen's book on this research area, and the Givens (2002) paper on that list for an investigation of how much students' academic and everyday information needs overlap.
  2. Fisher, K.E., & Naumer, C.M. (2006). Information grounds: Theoretical basis and empirical findings on information flow in social settings. In Spink, A., & Cole, C. (eds.), New Directions in Human Information Behavior. Springer, 93-111. UNC libraries
    • Fisher and her students have been developing the concept of an information ground. This chapter reviews several of her studies that address the definition of this concept. For an example of a single well-developed study of information grounds, see the JASIST (2004) article on the "additional readings" list.
  3. McKenzie, P.J. (2003). A model of information practices in accounts of everyday-life information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 59(1), 19-40. UNC libraries
    • The model proposed by McKenzie adds a social dimension to our thinking about everyday life information seeking behaviors.

Monday, October 31: Information overload, imposed queries, catch-up

Due: preliminary proposal for Service/System Proposal project

  1. Gross, M. (1995). The imposed query. RQ, 35(2), 236-243. [in Sakai resources, Retrieved from UNC Libraries]
    • This is Gross's seminal work on the imposed query, defined as "the acquisition of information in service to or on behalf of someone else" (p.236). If you have time, also skim through one of the articles on health information seeking in the "additional readings" list.
  2. Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191. UNC libraries
    • This paper provides an overview of the issues associated with the quantity and diversity of information now available. Read the entire paper, but focus particular attention on sections 3 and 4 (in case you're feeling overloaded).

Wednesday, November 2: Class cancelled

Unit 6: Intermediation and Dis-intermediation in Information-Seeking

Wednesday, November 2: Human intermediaries: Reference and help desk services

  1. Ellis, D., Wilson, T.D., Ford, N., Foster, A., Lam, H.M., Burton, R., & Spink, A. (2002). Information seeking and mediated searching. Part 5. User-intermediary interaction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 53(11), 883-893. UNC libraries
    • Twenty-five interactions between information seekers and intermediaries were examined. The interaction had a positive impact on the search process. Specifically, the intermediary helped the users to identify their search terms more clearly and focus on the references obtained. Focus your reading on the study itself; just skim the literature review.
  2. Crabtree, A., O'Neill, J., Tolmie, P., Castellani, S., Colombino, T., & Grasso, A. (2006). The practical indispensability of articulation work to immediate and remote help-giving. CSCW '06: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 219-228. UNC libraries
    • This paper argues that the design of remote help-giving systems should be grounded in the methodical ways in which help-givers and help-seekers coordinate their problem solving activities. They call this coordination process, "articulation work".
  3. Choose (at least) ONE of the following.
    • Agosto, D.E., Rozaklis, L., MacDonald, C., & Abels, E.G. (2011). A model of the reference and information service process: An educators' perspective. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(3), 235-244. UNC libraries
      • Based on focus groups and town hall meetings, six trends in reference services were identified. Of particular interest to us for today's discussion are the results related to reference services as a collaborative process (p239), but do make sure you understand the other trends, too.
    • Shah, C., & Kitzie, V. (2012). Social Q&A and virtual reference -- Comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(10), 2020-2036. UNC libraries
      • Both experts and users were interviewed about their experiences with asking questions online. In particular, they were asked to evaluate their experiences with both social Q&A site and virtual reference services, in relation to relevance, quality, and satisfaction. This reading foreshadows an upcoming discussion.

Wednesday, November 9: Information retrieval systems as intermediaries

Revision: moved from 9/7.

  1. Marchionini, G., & White, R. (2007). Find what you need, understand what you find. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3), 205-238. UNC libraries
    • Using Marchionini's model of the information seeking process as a framework, this article reviews many aspects of today's IR systems that are intended to help searchers succeed.
  2. White, R.W. (2009). Designing information-seeking support systems. In Information Seeking Support Systems: An Invitational Workshop (June 26-27, 2008, Chapel Hill, NC), 55-58. http://ils.unc.edu/ISSS/ISSS_final_report.pdf.
    • White's very brief paper outlines some of the key challenges yet to be addressed in designing information-seeking support systems. Consider which of these have been addressed (five years later) and which remain as opportunities for design and development.
  3. Parser, E. (2011). Beware online "filter bubbles". TED Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html.
    • Parser warns about the dark side of algorithmic search personalization.

Monday, November 14: Social intermediation: Recommender systems, social Q&A, etc.

Guest: John Martin.

Revision: Moved from 11/9. Readings changed 11/7

Due: search plan and preliminary bibliography for Scholarly Communication project

  1. Eysenbach, G. (2007). From intermediation to disintermediation and apomediation: New models for consumers to access and assess the credibility of health information in the age of Web 2.0. In MEDINFO 2007 Proceedings. IOS Press, 162-166. PubMed.
    • Through the social process of disintermediation, traditional intermediaries are replaced by what Eysenbach calls apomediaries (online tools and peers that will guide information seekers to trustworthy information). While Eysenbach is focused on the medical domain, his views may apply equally well to other domains.
  2. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103, PubMed
  3. Vasilescu, B., Capiluppi, A., & Serebrenik, A. (2012). Gender, Representation and Online Participation: A Quantitative Study of StackOverflow. In Social Informatics. (pp. 332–338). doi:10.1109/SocialInformatics.2012.81, UNC Libraries
  4. Vasilescu, B., Filkov, V., & Serebrenik, A. (2013). StackOverflow and GitHub: Associations between Software Development and Crowdsourced Knowledge. In Social Computing (SocialCom). (pp. 188–195). doi:10.1109/SocialCom.2013.3, UNC Libraries
  5. You may read these articles originally assigned for this class; however, they have been replaced as official readings with those listed above.
    • Shah, C., & Kitzie, V. (2012). Social Q&A and virtual reference -- Comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(10), 2020-2036. UNC libraries
      • This study examined both social Q&A systems and libraries' virtual reference systems, from the perspectives of librarians and students in relation to the relevance, quality, and satisfication of interacting with each type of system. You read this article for last week, so you just need to refresh your memory of it.
    • Wakeling, S., Clough, P., Sen, B., & Connaway, L.S. (2012). "Readers who borrowed this also borrowed...": Recommender systems in UK libraries. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 134-150. UNC libraries
      • The authors first review different models of recommender systems (content-based, collaborative filtering, and knowledge-based) and the report on a study comparing several existing recommender systems for libraries. For more on the technology of recommender systems, read the Schafer et al. (2007) chapter on the additional readings list.

Unit 7: Scholarly Communication

Wednesday, November 16: Scholarly work and the role of scholarly communication

Due: final deliverable for Service/System Proposal project

  1. Evans, J.A. (2008, July 18). Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science, 321(5887), 395-399. UNC libraries
    • As scientists have become more heavily dependent on online journals, there is evidence that they are citing fewer journals and articles, and that more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles (narrowing their field of vision).
  2. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108. Reprinted in interactions, 3(2), 35-46, March 1996. UNC Libraries
    • This is the famous article in which Bush outlines his ideas for the Memex, a personal knowledge base to be used by scientists. His ideas about the way a scientist could record an "intricate web of trails" that reflect his/her thinking foreshadow the development of hypertext and, later, the Web. It is primarily of historic interest, but every well-educated ILS professional should have read it. So take a look. If you've read it before, focus your attention on sections 5-6 (p41-44).
  3. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2012). The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about success in science. Journal of American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(10), 2037-2051. UNC libraries
    • This article focuses on success in science in terms of peer review, citations, and new scientific discoveries. The authors argue that the scientific enterprise can be successful only if several key prerequisites for the allocation of resources (e.g., journal space, funds, reception, and recognition) are fulfilled. Overall, this article provides a higher-level view of the scientific/research enterprise.

Monday, November 21: Metrics of scholarly productivity; Future of scholarly communication

  1. Smith, L.C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83-106. [in Sakai resources]
    • Though this article is older, it is not really outdated as a clear introduction to the use of citation data for both assessing scholarly productivity and for mapping the relationships among scholars.
  2. Chang, Y.-W. (2013). The influence of Taylor's paper, Question-Negotiation and Information-Seeking in Libraries. Information Processing & Management, 49(5), 983-994. UNC libraries
    • Chang conducted a bibliometric analysis of a paper with which you're vey familiar by now: Taylor's 1968 paper. Your completion of Assignment 4 will be similar to Chang's work, though on a much smaller scale.
  3. Monastersky, R. (2013). The library reboot. Nature, 495(7442), 430-432. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-frontiers-the-library-reboot-1.12664.
    • Monastersky suggests that libraries begin to take on a new role, as repositories for open data (not just documents). (Both the Priem and the Monastersky articles are related to a feature section in this article of Nature, focusing on the future of scholarly publishing. Be sure to check out others in the issue, also.)
  4. Optional:
    • Priem, J. (2013). Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature, 495(7442), 437-440. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7442/full/495437a.html.
      • Priem argues that the journal and article are being superseded by algorithms that filter, rate and disseminate scholarship as it happens.
    • Priem, J., & Hemminger, B.M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2874/2570.
      • The evaluation of scholarly productivity with citation (i.e., bibliometric) data is often called scientometrics. In this paper, the authors describe and discuss several alternative metrics (based on social bookmarking or microblogging) that could provide a more complete picture of a scholar's impact.
    • Procter, R., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2013). Fostering the human infrastructure of e-research. Information, Communication & Society, 16(10), 1668-1691. UNC libraries
      • While the advantages of e-infrastructure are relatively obvious, users often find e-infrastructure adoption to be complex and challenging. These views are examined here, and several interventions are proposed for overcoming the challenges.
    • Hogan, N.M., & Sweeney, K.J. (2013). Social networking and scientific communication: A paradoxical return to Mertonian roots? [Opinion paper]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 64(3), 644-646. UNC libraries
      • Hogan and Sweeney wonder whether the use of social media by scientists help them to uphold their deep-seated roots in open communication, or risk compromising the integrity of science by bypassing traditional gatekeepers.

Wednesday, November 23: NO CLASS. Thanksgiving Holiday.

Monday, November 28: Scholarly publishing as an industry: Traditional and open access models; Intellectual property issues

  1. Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing. International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers. www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf.
    • Section 4 (p45-57) provides a great summary of open access issues. Also read section 2.18 (p39-40) for a brief introduction to some of the copyright issues involved in scholarly publishing.
  2. Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Hajjem, C., & Hilf, E.R. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review, 34(1), 36-40. UNC libraries
    • The "golden" road and the "green" road to open access publishing are described. The authors see self-archiving as the best way forward to improve access to scholarly publications.
  3. Seadle, M. (2007). Copyright cultures. Library Hi Tech, 25(3), 430-435. UNC libraries
    • Seadle identifies and discusses three different copyright cultures: for authors who require long-term protection for financial gain from their works; for authors who require short-term protection for financial gain from their works; and for authors whose value depends on access instead of protection.
  4. Heather Brooke: My battle to expose government corruption (TED Talk). http://www.ted.com/talks/heather_brooke_my_battle_to_expose_government_corruption

Wednesday, November 30: The invisible college: discovery and representation; Diffusion theory and how it applies to the diffusion of information and information technologies

Due: What is your information science, part 2

  1. White, H.D. (2003). Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 54(5), 423-434. UNC libraries
    • Updates his earlier work with Kate McCain, visualizing information science. He briefly reviews the methods used in the previous work, but focuses on introducing the advantages of a new approach to cocitation analysis: Pathfinder networks. Focus your reading on two sections: "ACA Mapping" and "PFNETs and Their Advantages." Also study the figures, and skim the text around them in enough depth to get a basic understanding of what the figures mean.
  2. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & Information Science Research, 18, 323-342. UNC libraries
    • This is a fairly brief tutorial on the basic concepts and methods of social network analysis, with a discussion of how they can be used to study the exchange of information. Be sure you understand all the basic concepts described on pages 323-331; then you can skim lightly to page 338, then focus on the last section (pages 338-340).
  3. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press. [in Sakai resources, book on reserve in SILS Library - HM101 .R57 1995]
    • Read pages 5-31 in Chapter 1. Start with "What is diffusion?" and read through "hybrid corn". The boxed "scurvy" example is optional.
    • Examine Figure 5-1 closely for an overview of the innovation decision process (p. 163).
    • optional: pages 389-400, "The innovation process in organizations".

Unit 8: The Current Future of Information

Monday, December 5: A new era of information? Course wrap-up

  1. Levy, D.M. (2005). To grow in wisdom: Vannevar Bush, information overload, and the life of leisure. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 281-286. UNC libraries
    • Bush's Memex was intended to address the problem of information overload. With the increasing pace of scholarly publication, this problem has only gottten worse. Levy argues that, in addition to developing better information management tools, we also need to create space and time for thinking and reflection. In this version of this paper, he comments on the role of digital libraries; in his journal article on the same theme, he goes into more depth on other facets of his argument. (See the additional readings list for that citation.)
  2. Optional: Rangaswami, J.P. (2012). Information is food. TED Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/jp_rangaswami_information_is_food.html.
    • Rangaswami discusses the production, preparation, and consumption of information as if those processes were parallel to the production, preparation, and consumption of food. Should information professionals strive to be the equivalent of nutritionists?

Wednesday, December 7: Course wrap-up

Final exam: December 10, 2016 at 4pm

Due: final deliverable for Scholarly Communication project

Revision history

Any changes to the course schedule will be listed here as well as announced in class and in Sakai. Changes to assignment due dates will also be noted on the assignments page.