• Faculty participants: Barbara Moran
• Doctoral student guests: Amanda Click, Ericka Patillo

• Gilstrap, D.L. (2009). A complex systems framework for research on leadership and organizational dynamics in academic libraries. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 57-77. [UNC libraries]
  • This article reviews a number of theories of organizational behavior, as they pertain to libraries. They can also be applied in studies of IS/IS organizations, so get familiar with all of them.
• Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. (2014). Beyond the organizational 'container': Conceptualizing 21st century sociotechnical work. Information & Organization, 24(4), 250-269. [UNC libraries]
  • The sociotechnical systems (STS) approach is often used to conceptualize information system design and implementation. We'll use this new look at the STS approach to get acquainted with it. Read sections 1-2 (p.251-258) and more if you have a chance.
• Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. [UNC libraries]
  • Weick's work on sensemaking, in contrast to Dervin's theory, takes an organizational view. Read at least the introduction and first section (p.409-413). If you have time, review the other sections of the paper, too.
• Jones, M.R., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127-157. [UNC libraries, via JSTOR]
  • Structuration theory has been relatively influential in information systems research, so we should get a taste of that work. Read these sections: Structuration Theory (p129-130), Table 1 (p135), and The Use of Structuration Theory in IS Research (p.138-142). If you have time, skim the rest, too.
• Choo, C.W., Bergeron, P., Detlor, B., & Heaton, L. (2008). Information culture and information use: An exploratory study of three organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(5), 792-804. [UNC libraries]
  • This study explored the link between organizational culture and information use in a law firm, a public health agency, and an engineering company. The details of the study are interesting, but focus your attention on the Introduction, Literature Review and Conceptual Framework, and Summary and Discussion of Results sections (p.792-795, 802-803).
• More...

• Overall, P.M. (2009). Cultural competence: A conceptual framework for library and information science professionals. Library Quarterly, 79(2), 175-204. [UNC libraries]
  • Skim as much of this article as you can. Focus your reading on the framework itself, pages 190-198.
• Pawley, C. (2006). Unequal legacies: Race and multiculturalism in the LIS curriculum. LIbrary Quarterly, 76(2), 149-168. [UNC libraries]
  • Pawley identifies four models in LIS research and teaching that continue to perpetuate white privilege, but that also have potential for positive transformation.
• More...

• "Looking outward" review, on curation, archiving and preservation, due

Session 12: November 12, Professional ethics (T); Information policy (T); Locating your research interests within the areas of information services and the organizations that provide them
Information professionals are guided by codes of ethics, as well as their own moral reasoning about emerging information issues. These considerations often evolve into federal information policies. Today's discussion will touch on a variety of current ethical and policy issues.

• Faculty participants: Brian Sturm (2-3)
• Doctoral student guests: Nina Exner

• Gorman, M. History and philosophy. In Our Enduring Values Revisited: Librarianship in an Ever-Changing World. Chicago: ALA Editions, 23-38. [SILS Reserves - Z716.4 .G673 2015; copy of chapter in Sakai Resources]
  • This chapter quickly reviews some of the philosophical underpinnings of librarianship, many of which also apply to related information professions. Core values of the profession are also listed; we'll discuss them in terms of their role in ILS education.
• ALA Code of Ethics. (2008, January 22). American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics
• ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. (1992, October 16). Association for Computing Machinery. http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html.
• ASIS&T professional guidelines. Adopted 5/30/92. http://www.asis.org/AboutASIS/professional-guidelines.html.
  • Read at least two of these three codes of ethics, so that we can discuss similarities and differences between them.

• Jaeger, P.T., & Bertot, J.C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4, special issue), 371-376. [UNC libraries]
  • E-government and social media services may be seen as a means to make government policymaking more accessible to citizens; this article explores the challenges of this approach.
• Holt, J., & Malcic, S. (2015). The privacy ecosystem: Regulating digital identity in the United States and European Union. Journal of Information Policy, 5, 155-178. [UNC Libraries]
  • Differing regulatory strategies for governing privacy in digital space (i.e., the cloud) have been taken in the European Union and the United States, and are compared here.
• Epstein, D., Nisbet, E.C., & Gillespie, T. (2011). Who's responsible for the digital divide? Public perceptions and policy implications. Information Society, 27(2), 92-104. [UNC libraries]
  • The authors present two different ways to frame the concept of the digital divide, and then use survey results to demonstrate that the two different view have different policy implications.

• Brief description of "Looking outward" review, on information services and the organizations that provide them, due; be prepared to discuss your ideas about this review
• Be prepared to discuss your evolving ideas for the "Looking inward" review

Session 13: November 19, Research ethics, including research with human subjects (S); Reflections on what we've learned so far
Particular issues arise when your research involves human subjects/participants. This session will cover research ethics generally and, more specifically, the ethical issues associated with working with human subjects.

• Locke, L.F., Spirduso, W.W., & Silverman, S.J. (2014). Doing the right thing: "The habit of truth". In Proposals that Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals. Los Angeles: SAGE, 25-40. [SILS reserves - Q180.55 .P7 L814p 2014; copy in Sakai Resources]
  • This chapter discusses the ethical issues that arise during both the process of conducting research and the process of writing it up and publishing it.
• The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Office of the Secretary, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. April 18, 1979. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.
  • This brief report is the basis for most of our IRB regulations to date.
• A guide to the IRB process. http://ohre.unc.edu/guide_to_irb.php
• Complete the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative online training course for human subjects research, linked from http://research.unc.edu/offices/human-research-ethics/getting-started/training/.
  • To conduct human subjects research at UNC, you need to be familiar with these resources and complete the required training module.
• Allen, G.N., Ball, N.L., & Smith, H.J. (2011). Information systems research behaviors: What are the normative standards? MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 533-551. [UNC libraries, via EBSCOhost]
  • This article reports on a study of AIS members and their ethical reasoning related to research. Read pages 533-545. We'll speculate about whether the survey results would be different if it had been conducted among members of our own professional associations.
• More...

Session 14, Saturday, December 5, noon (final exam period)

• "Looking outward" review, on information services and the organizations that provide them, due
• "Looking inward" review due

Session 15: January 14, Information needs and their expression (T); Presenting orally (S)
It could be argued that the raison d'etre of the ILS profession is to bring together information that has been created with the people who need it for their own purposes. This will be the first of a series of sessions examining the processes by which this professional goal can be reached. We'll begin from the perspective of the person needing information, looking at some of the important theoretical models in this field, augmented with examples of empirical work based on those models. Be sure to read the papers describing the models; take a look at the examples if you have time.

• Wilson, T. D. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. Information Processing & Management, 33(4), 551-572. [UNC libraries]
  • In addition to taking a close look at Wilson's overall model, we'll take a quick look at one empirical application of it: Kostagiolas, P.A., Lavranos, C., Korfiatis, N., Papadatos, J., & Papavlasopoulos, S. (2015). Music, musicians and information seeking behaviour: A case study on a community concert band. Journal of Documentation, 71(1), 3-24. [UNC libraries]
• Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5, 133-145. [SILS Library; also available via Course Tools: Resources on class Sakai site]
  • The operationalization of the ASK concept presents significant challenges, so we'll look at one study to see how this might be done: Cole, C., Leide, J., Beheshti, J., Large, A., & Brooks, M. (2005). Investigating the Anomalous States of Knowledge hypothesis in a real-life problem situation: A study of history and psychology undergraduates seeking information for a course essay. Journal of the American Society for INformation Science & Technology, 56(14), 1544-1554. [UNC libraries]
• Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194. [SILS Library; also available via Course Tools: Resources on class Sakai site]
  • Taylor's idea of four successive levels of information needs is widely cited but infrequently investigated. We'll consider it in light of the following review of studies of compromised need: Nicolaisen, J. (2009). Compromised need and the label effect: An examination of claims and evidence. Journal of the American Society for INformation Science & Technology, 60(10), 2004-2009. [UNC libraries]
• Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 54(10), 913-925. [UNC libraries]
  • Relevance is a core concept in information science. Consider the role it plays in each of the other models we're discussing.
• More...

• Radel, J. (2012). Developing an oral presentation: Suggestions and strategies for scientific and academic settings. KU Medical Center On-Line Tutorial Series. http://www.kumc.edu/SAH/OTEd/jradel/Preparing_talks/TalkStrt.html.
• Gallo, C. (2006, Nov. 21). Your audience will thank you. Bloomberg Business. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-11-21/your-audience-will-thank-youbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
• More...

Session 16: January 21, Information seeking behaviors: models and frameworks, future directions (T)
When someone experiences an information need, what happens next? What theoretical models and frameworks can we use to anticipate people's information seeking behaviors?

• Faculty participant: Amelia Gibson
• Current doctoral student participant: Emily Vardell

• Review one of the following major theories/frameworks related to information seeking behaviors, from the optional reading list. Be prepared to explain it to your classmates, critiquing its strengths and weaknesses.
  • the information search process model (Kuhlthau, 1991)
  • Dervin's sense-making theory and methodology (Savolainen, 1993)
  • information behaviors of researchers (Ellis, 1993)
  • theory of life in the round (Chatman, 1999)
• Marchionini, G. (2008). Human-information interaction research and development. Library & Information Science Research, 30(3), 165-174. [UNC libraries]
  • Marchionini proposes an interaction-centric view of our field. Over the past 8 years, has our research moved in the direction he predicts?
• Burnett, G., & Erdelez, S. (2010). Forecasting the next 10 years in information behavior research: A fish bowl dialogue. Bulletin of ASIST, 36(3), 44-48. [UNC libraries]
  • Some of the trends that were discussed during this ASIST session included the role of context in information behaviors, the evolving impact of new technologies on information behaviors, and the cross-disciplinary nature of information behavior research.
• Buente, W., & Robbin, A. (2008). Trends in internet information behavior, 2000-2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(11), 1743-1760. [UNC libraries]
  • Analyzing cross-section data from the Pew studies of internet use, Buente and Robbin identify trends in internet searching and use -- an important platform for information seeking behaviors.
• More...

Session 17: January 28, Information sources: documentary, social (T); Interdisciplinary collaboration in reserach(S)
When people are seeking information, they identify and use particular information sources. We'll look at three empirical studies of source selection, each taking a slightly different approach to understanding this phenomenon.
Most social science research today is conducted in collaborative teams, and often in interdisciplinary teams. What's the most effective way to identify potential collaborators? Why is interdisciplinary research important and what are its key characteristics?

• Faculty participant: Claudia Gollop
• Current doctoral student participant: John Martin

• Zhang, Y. (2014). Beyond quality and accessibility: Source selection in consumer health information searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 65(5), 911-927. [UNC libraries]
  • With a focus on health information sources, this study examines a variety of factors that influence source selection.
• Woudstra, L., van den Hooff, B., & Schouten, A.P. (2012). Dimensions of quality and accessibility: Selection of human information sources from a social capital perspective. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 618-630. [UNC libraries]
  • This study examines two important attributes affecting source selection -- quality and accessibility -- applying them to human/interpersonal sources.
• Lopatovska, I., Fenton, M.R., & Campot, S. (2012). Examining preferences for search engines and their effects on information behavior. ASIST Proceedings, 49. [UNC libraries]
  • This study examines one particular source: search engines, examining the behaviors and emotions related to availability or unavailability of a search engine when seeking information.
• More...

• Cronin, B. (2004). Bowling alone together: Academic writing as distributed cognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 55(6), 557-560. [UNC libraries]
  • In this brief commentary, Cronin uses the concept of distributed cognition to take another look at the rise in co-authorship over the last decades.
• Reich, S.M., & Reich, J.A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 51-62. [UNC libraries]
  • This paper positions disciplines as cultures, and examines the cultural competence needed to successfully conduct interdisciplinary research.
• More...

Session 18: February 4, Locating your research interests within this area

• Faculty participants: Mary Grace Flaherty, Brian Sturm
• Current doctoral student guest: Rachael Clemens

• Brief description of "Looking outward" review on information needs, seeking, and sources due; be prepared to discuss your ideas for this review
• Initial specification of "Looking inward" review and prospectus due; be prepared to discuss your ideas for this review and prospectus

Session 19: February 11, Information retrieval systems (T)
Information retrieval systems provide access to recorded information/knowledge objects. The design and evaluation of such systems is a core area of research in ILS.

Special schedule for today:

• 2:00-3:00 - Attend faculty candidate job talk
• 3:15-4:45 - Resume regular class session
• Faculty participant: Jaime Arguello
• Current doctoral student guest: Sandeep Avula

• Croft, W.B., Metzler, D., & Strohman, T. (2015). Search engines and information retrieval. In Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice, p1-10. Available online at http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/downloads/SEIRiP.pdf. [SILS reserves - TK5105.884 .C765 2010]
  • Croft et al. provide a brief introduction to information retrieval and its "big issues". Focus your reading on sections 1.1 and 1.2.
• Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (2011). IR models. In Modern Information Retrieval. Harlow, England: Pearson Education, p57-64. [SILS reserves - ZA3075 .B34 2011]
  • In the introduction to this chapter, the authors give us a brief overview of modeling and ranking and the basic concepts associated with each. Read all of section 3.1 and also section 3.2.1.
• Harman, D. (2011). Information Retrieval Evaluation. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services #19. Morgan & Claypool. [UNC libraries]
  • Evaluation is an important component of IR research. Read sections 2.1-2.3 (p27-34), to get a sense of the TREC approach to evaluation. Also read section 4.4 (p82-85) for Harman's view of the research challenges we face.
• Fuhr, N. (2012). Information retrieval as engineering science [Salton Award lecture]. ACM SIGIR Forum, 46(2), 19-28. [UNC libraries]
  • We'll discuss two questions raised in Fuhr's lecture: Is information retrieval an engineering science? What role do/can IR experiments play in the field's progress?
• More...

Session 20: February 18, Interactive information retrieval (T)

• Faculty participant: Diane Kelly
• Current doctoral student guests: Kathy Brennan, Anita Crescenzi

• Belkin, N.J. (2015). People, interacting with information [Salton award lecture]. ACM SIGIR Forum, 49(2), 13-27. [UNC libraries]
• Cool, C., & Belkin, N.J. (2011). Interactive information retrieval: History and background. In Ruthven, I., & Kelly, D., (eds.), Interactive Information Seeking, Behaviour and Retrieval. London: Facet Publishing.
• Huang, X., & Soergel, D. (2013). Relevance: An improved framework for explicating the notion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 64(1), 18-35. [UNC libraries]
  • Huang and Soergel quickly review past definitionso f relevance,and then propose a more unified framework based on the relationships between information/document/surrogate and problem/need/request/query. Concentrate on the section on "A unified conceptual framework of relevance," p19-24, and skim the rest.
• Kelly, D., Arguello, J., Edwards, A., & Wu, W. (2015). Development and evaluation of search tasks for IIR experiments using a cognitive complexity framework. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval (ICTIR '15), 101-110. [UNC libraries]
• Arguello, J., & Capra, A. (2014). The effects of rank and border on aggregated search coherence and search behavior. Proceedings of the 23st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '14), 539-548. [UNC libraries]
  • The Kelly et al. (2015) and Arguello and Capra (2014) studies are typical examples of interactive IR experiments. We'll take a look at their findings, but will focus most of our attention on the research methods used.
• More...

• Final draft of "Looking outward" review on information needs, seeking, and sources due to peer reviewer; comments to be returned to author by February 25

Session 21: February 25, Creating and presenting a poster (S); Human-computer interaction (T)

• Guest presenter (2:00-3:00): Jennie Goforth, Research & Design Services Librarian

• Faculty participants: David Gotz, Gary Marchionini
• Current doctoral student guest: Kathy Brennan

• Several SILS faculty incorporate issues of human-computer interaction in their research. We'll look at several studies they've conducted, with a focus on the questions asked and the methods used.
• Chen, A.T., Capra, R., & Wu, W.-C. (2014). An investigation of the effects of awareness and task orientation on collaborative search. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 51 (10p.). [UNC libraries]
• Gotz, D., & Stavropoulos, H. (2014). DecisionFlow: Visual analytics for high-dimensional temporal event sequence data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12), 1783-1792. [UNC libraries]
• Ramdeen, S., & Hemminger, B.M. (2012). A tale of two interfaces: How facets affect the library catalog search experience. Journal of the American Association for Information Science & Technology, 63(4), 702-715. [UNC libraries]
• Fan, X., Mostafa, J., Mane, K., & Sugimoto, C. (2012). Personalization is not a panacea: Balancing serendipity and personalization in medical news content delivery. Proceedings of the ACM International Health Informatics Symposium, 709-714. [UNC libraries]
• Wildemuth, B. M., Marchionini, G., Yang, M., Geisler, G., Wilkens, T., Hughes, A., & Gruss, R. (2003). How fast is too fast?  Evaluating fast forward surrogates for digital video.  Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 221-230. [UNC libraries]
• More...

• Designing effective posters. UNC Health Sciences Library. (2015). http://guides.lib.unc.edu/posters
• Guide to creating research posters. University of Texas at Austin, Office of Undergraduate Research. (2015). http://www.utexas.edu/ugs/our/poster
  • Includes sample posters and templates.
• More...

Session 22: March 3, Locating your research interests within this area; Developing a research proposal (S)
Writing a research proposal is a critical skill that doctoral students must develop; in addition, you need to be able to manage a research project,if approved/funded. Some of these basic skills will be discussed in this session.

• Current doctoral student guest: John Martin

• Wildemuth, B.M. (2009). Developing a research question. In Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 11-20. [SILS Reserve - Z669.7 .W55 2009; copy of 2016 draft chapter available in Sakai resources]
• Brause, R.S. (2000). Writing your dissertation proposal while designing your dissertation research. Writing Your Doctoral Dissertation: Invisible Rules for Success. London: Falmer, 97-110. [UNC libraries, online text]
• Robson, C. (2002). Appendix A: Writing a project proposal. In Real World Research.2nd ed. Blackwell, 526-533. [SILS Library - H62 .R627 2002; additional copy avaialble in Sakai resources]
• More...

• Brief description of "Looking outward" review on information retrieval (IR), interactive IR, and human-computer interaction due; be prepared to discuss your ideas for this review
• Final product of "Looking outward" review on information needs, seeking, and sources due for grading

Session 23: March 10, Information use (T); Grant writing and finding funding (S)

• Current doctoral student guests: Rachael Clemens, Emily Vardell

• Latham, K.F. (2014). Experiencing documents. Journal of Documentation, 70(4), 544-561. [UNC Libraries]
  • Focus your reading on pages 544-551. In this first section, Latham discusses two different types/purposes of document use, so will set the stage for our discussion.
• Vakkari, P. (2016). Searching as learning: A systematization based on literature. Journal of Information Science, 42(1), 7-18. [UNC libraries]
  • Vakkari is concerned with the process of searching, rather than reading the retrieved document. Even with this focus, he argues that learning occurs. In what situations would you consider learning to be a type of information use?
• Du, J.T. (2014). The information journey of marketing professionals: Incorporating work task-driven information seeking, information judgments, information use, and information sharing. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(9), 1850-1869. [UNC Libraries]
  • In this recent study, Du considers the information behaviors of a particular population. Skim the paper, to get the general idea of the study; pay particular attention to results related specifically to information use.
• Renear, A.H., & Palmer, C.L. (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science, 325(5942), 828-832. [UNC libraries, or at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5942/828.pdf.
  • As with the Du study, this paper focuses on a particular population of information users: scientists. The particular use of interest is strategic reading. Consider how it differs from other types of reading.
• Zhang, L., Kopak, R., Freund, L., & Rasmussen, E. (2011). Making functional units functional: The role of rhetorical structure in use of scholarly journal articles. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 21-29. [UNC libraries]
  • This paper also focuses on reading/use of scholarly articles. Skim it to get a general idea of the study; pay particular attention to section 4.1, Table 1, and the first column of Table 2.
• More...

• Browse the resources provided by UNC's Office of Research, at http://research.unc.edu/researchers/proposal-development/ and http://fundingportal.unc.edu/proposal-writing/
• Dalton, R., & Siverson, R. (1998). Gee! I've never spent $5.5 million before: The six fallacies of NSF proposal writing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31(1), 74-76. [UNC libraries, JSTOR]
• More...

• Discussion of progress and evolving ideas for "Looking inward" review and prospectus

March 17, Spring break: No class

Session 24: March 24, Information and data sharing (T); Social media (T); Data management (S)

• Faculty participant: Reagan Moore
• Current doctoral student guests: Thu-Mai Christian, Sarah Beth Nelson

• Kennedy, J. (2016). Conceptual boundaries of sharing. Information, Communication & Society, 19(4), 461-474. [UNC libraries]
  • To put our more empirical discussions in context, quickly read through this article.
• Borgman, C.L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(6), 1059-1078. [UNC libraries]
  • Borgman focuses on the sharing of research data in this article. Skim through the beginning of the article, but spend most of your time on the section on "Why share research data?" (p.1066-1072).
• Tenopir, C., Dalton, E.D., allard, S., Frame, M., Pjesivac, I., Birch, B., Pollock, D., & Dorsett, K. (2015). Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0134826. [Online]
  • Skim through the introductory and methods sections of this paper, so you understand what was done. Spend most of your time on the overall results (p.7-9) and the discussion of them (p.17-18).
• More...

• Ngai, E.W.T., Tao, S.S.C., & Moon, K.K.L. (2015). Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 33-44. [UNC libraries]
  • Quickly read through this article, to get a sense of the scope of current research issues related to social media.
• Tufekci, Z. (2014). Big questions for social media big data: Representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 505-514. [Online]
  • In this paper, Tufekci outlines some of the methodological problems associated with working with social media data.
• Oh, S., & Syn, S.Y. (2015). Motivations for sharing information and social support in social media: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr. Journal of the Associatino for Information Science & Technology, 66(10), 2045-2060. [UNC libraries]
  • This empirical study of social media use is an example of what you might consider. Read through it quickly, with a focus on how you might carry out a related or similar study.
• More...

• Final draft of "Looking outward" review on information retrieval (IR), interactive IR, and human-computer interaction due to peer reviewer; comments to be returned to author by March 31

Session 25: March 31, Creation of knowledge (T); The scholarly publication process (T); Writing refereed articles and conference papers (S)
The information life cycle begins when someone records their current knowledge. These information objects are of great interest to information professionals, and their later use is affected by how they are created and recorded. They are also the means by which scholars' work can have an impact, and so may be viewed as an indicator of scholarly productivity.

• Faculty participant: Brad Hemminger

• Hurd, J. M. (2000). The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1279-1283. [UNC libraries]
  • Hurd reviews the lifecycle of scientific publishing, as it was in 2000 and as she imagined it would be by 2020. We'll use this model as a basis for our discussion of the publication lifecycle.
• Zhao, J.L., & Resh, V.H. (2001). Internet publishing and transformation of knowledge processes. Communications of the ACM, 44(12), 103-109. [UNC libraries]
  • Consider Zhao and Resh's ideas in relation to Hurd's projections for the present/future.
• Friedman, B. (2014). Structural challenges and the need to adapt [Viewpoint]. Communications of the ACM, 57(7), 34-37. [UNC libraries]
  • Friedman comments more directly on the processes of knowledge creation. Again, juxtapose her views against those of Hurd and of Zhao and Resh.
• Shaw, D., & Vaughan, L. (2008). Publication and citation patterns among LIS faculty: Profiling a "typical professor". Library & Information Science Research, 30(1), 47-55. [UNC libraries]
  • We're most interested in the findings of this paper. So skim it all, but focus your attention on Tables 3-5 and Figure 2 and the text that discusses them. For next week's discussion, pay attention to Tables 6-12 and the text that discusses them.
• Nitecki, D.A. (2010). Finalizing a research paper -- Findings through conclusion [Guest editorial]. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 1-3. [UNC libraries]
  • Nitecki provides some specific advice about writing the final three sections of a standard empirical paper. Also note the list of related publications, and take a look at any of them you'd like to discuss with the class.
• Syrett, K.L., & Rudner, L.M. (1996). Authorship ethics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(1). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=1
  • Several ethical issues are reviewed: authorship definition, acknowledgments, redundant publication, competing manuscripts, conflict of interest, and citation of sources.
• More...

• Final draft of"Looking inward" review and prospectus due to peer reviewer; comments to be returned to author by April 7

Session 26: April 7, Impact of scholarly communication (T); Bibliometrics, webmetrics, altmetrics (T)

• Currrent doctoral student guest: Shenmeng Xu

• Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2015). Foundations of citation analysis. In Analysis and Visualization of Citation Networks. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services #39. Morgan & Claypool, 1-20. [UNC libraries]
  • Skim this one to get an overview of the purposes and role of citation analysis. Their focus is more on citation networks than evaluative uses of citation data, but still useful for us.
• Lariviere, V., Sugimoto, C.R., & Cronin, B. (2012). A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(5), 997-1016. [UNC libraries]
  • This study used citation analysis methods to understand how ILS has evolved (in terms of topics covered) over its history. Skim the first sections, so that you can focus your attention on the Results (p.1001-1012).
• Eyre-Walker, A., & Stoletzki, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biology, 11(10), e1001675. [Online]
  • As the title indicates, the authors compare the strengths and weaknesses of three approaches to evaluating the quality of a research paper. Two of these approaches are based on citation data.
• Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open-access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(12), 1963-1972. [UNC libraries]
  • A number of studies have analyzed whether open access articles are more likely to be cited ; this is one example. Read the literature review, so you get a sense of earlier work; then skim to get the gist of the findings from this study.
• Priem, J. (2013, March 28). Beyond the paper [Comment]. Nature, 495(7442), 437-440. [Online]
  • Priem argues for a 'share early, share often' approach to scientific communication, undergirded by algorithms.
• Piwowar, H. (2013, Jan. 10). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159. [Online]
  • Piwowar has been collaborating with Jason Priem over the past several years, to encourage the use of altmetrics (based on a variety of social media products from scientists) along with the more traditional bibliometrics to assess impact. This very brief article can fill you in, but you may also want to check the Priem and Hemminger (2010) article listed in the optional reading list for more details.
• More...

• Final product of "Looking outward" review on information retrieval (IR), interactive IR, and human-computer interaction due for grading

Session 27: April 14, Locating your research interests within this area

• Current doctoral student guest: Sarah Beth Nelson

• Methods reports
  • Byron, P., Albury, K., & Evers, C. (2013). “It would be weird to have that on Facebook”: Young people's use of social media and the risk of sharing sexual health information. Reproductive Health Matters, 21(41), 35-44. [UNC libraries] (Focus groups, Megan)
  • Navalpakkam, V., & Churchill, E.F. (2014). Eye tracking: A brief introduction. In Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer New York, 323-348. [UNC libraries] (Yinglong)
  • Rawson, C., & Hughes-Hassell, S. (2015). Research by design: The promises of design-based research for school library research. School Libraries Worldwide, 21(2), 11-25. [UNC libraries] (Kimberly)
  • Acker, A. (2014). The Short Message Service: Standards, infrastructure and innovation. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 559–568. [UNC libraries] (Patrick)

• Brief description of "Looking outward" review on information use and sharing, with particular emphasis on scholarly communication, due; be prepared to discuss your ideas for this review

Session 28: April 21: Year-end review: What have you learned?
What have you learned? Consider the two Looking Inward assignments you've completed. What research opportunities and hot topics now interest you? How do you want to contribute to them in the next year? During the rest of your doctoral studies? Afterwards? What do you need to learn to accomplish these goals?

• Current doctoral student guests: Amanda Click, John Martin

• Gallos, J.V. (1996). On becoming a scholar: One woman's journey. In Frost, P.J., & Taylor, M.S. (eds.), Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 11-18. [SILS reserve - LB1778.2 .R59 1996; copy of chapter in Sakai Resources]
  • Gallos shares her personal reflections on her development at the beginning of her academic career.
• Lovitts, B.E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn't, and why. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296-325. [UNC libraries]
  • Lovitts provides advice for an academic career, based on focus groups involving 55 highly-productive faculty members. She organizes their comments in terms of six major theoretical constructs: intelligence, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and environment.
• Gardner, S.K. (2008). "What's too much and what's too little?": The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326-350. [UNC libraries]
  • Gardner's advice for us is based on interviews with 50 doctoral students in chemistry and history at two different universities. She presents the results in terms of three phases of doctoral study: admission, integration, and candidacy.
• More...

• Methods report
  • Buhi, E. R., Daley, E. M., Fuhrmann, H. J., & Smith, S. A. (2009). An observational study of how young people search for online sexual health information. Journal of American College Health, 58(2), 101-111. [UNC libraries] (Observation, Megan)

May 5, noon (final exam date)

• Final product of "Looking outward" review on information use and sharing, with particular emphasis on scholarly communication, due for grading
• Final product of"Looking inward" review and prospectus due for grading

Syllabus / Assignments / Sakai class site

The INLS 881-882 website, UNC-CH, 2015-2016, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Address all comments and questions to Barbara M. Wildemuth at wildem@ils.unc.edu. This page was last modified on April 19, 2016, by Barbara M. Wildemuth.