School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Introduction

Session 1, January 12: Frameworks, models, and theories; Scope of this course

• Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Reading and writing about theories (Chapter 12). In Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford Press, 331-346. [SILS Reserves - H62 .J29 2010; copy in Sakai resources]
  • Read only pages 331-337 for now. This part of this chapter provides some guidance on how to read about theories in two distinct styles of research, one that emphasizes hypothesis/theory testing and one that emphasizes grounded/emergent theory.
• Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). The nature of understanding (Chapter 2). In Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford Press, 6-21. [SILS Reserves - H62 .J29 2010; copy in Sakai resources]
  • This chapter is probably the most important reading for today's class session. It introduces the ideas of "concepts" and the relationships among them - the building blocks of any theory.
• Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642. [UNC libraries]
  • This article follows up on the previous reading by categorizing theories based on the purposes that they can serve, with a focus on theories in the field of information systems (closely related to information science, with a number of overlapping theoretical underpinnings). It's a pretty long article, but read it through; you'll also want to return to it as we move through the semester.
• Poole, H.L. (1985). Introduction: A problem of long standing. In Theories of the Middle Range. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1-12. [SILS Reserve - Z669.7 .P66 1985; copy in Sakai resources]
  • Most of the theories that use in information and library science might be described as theories of the middle range. In the Poole book, skim through the first sections (about defining information science, p1-6) and focus more of your attention on the discussion of the role of theory in claims about information science being a science (p6-12).
• Additional readings of interest

Session 2, January 19: Scientific reasoning; The role of theory in science

• Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Science as an approach to understanding (Chapter 3). In Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford Press, 22-36 [SILS Reserves - H62 .J29 2010; copy in Sakai resources]
  • This textbook chapter provides an overview of many of the concepts you'll also read about in some of the original sources from Popper and Kuhn, as well as others.
• Popper, K. (1963). Science: Conjectures and refutations (Parts I-III). In Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 33-39.
  • Reprinted in Balashov, Y., & Rosenberg, A. (eds.) (2002). Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge, 294-301. [Davis Library - Q175.3 .P49 2002; copy in Sakai resources]
  • The problem of induction, as discussed by Popper, is "whether inductive inferences are justified, or under what conditions". In the social sciences, where interpretive approaches often involve induction at some point in the process, this problem is particularly acute.
• Kuhn, T. (1962). Paradigms. In McErlean, J. (2000). Philosophies of Science: From Foundations to Contemporary Issues. Wadsworth, 159-165. [SILS Reserve - Q175 .M4167 2000; copy in Sakai resources]
  • An excerpt from Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1961). In "normal" science, new discoveries build very directly on previous discoveries and theories. Kuhn is most known for his work on scientific revolutions, or paradigm shifts (as discussed at length in his book). This brief excerpt will give you a flavor of his thinking on this topic, and we'll consider whether ILS has experienced any paradigm shifts during its relatively short history.
• Bates, M.J. (2016). Many paths to theory: The creative process in the information sciences. In Sonnenwald, D.H. (ed.), Theory Development in the Information Sciences. Austin: University of Texas Press, 21-49. [SILS Library - Z665 .T49636 2016; copy in Sakai resources]
  • Pay particular attention to the advice Bates offers in relation to the skills needed for theory development (p.21-30).
• Additional readings of interest

Applying a Theory in a Particular Study

Session 3, January 26: Dangers and pitfalls when applying an existing theory

• Nardi, B. (2016). Appropriating theory. In Sonnenwald, D.H. (ed.), Theory Development in the Information Sciences. Austin: University of Texas Press, 204-221. [SILS Library - Z665 .T49636 2016]
  • Nardi focuses on her person experiences with appropriating theory into her work. We can all learn from these experiences.
• Sutton, R.I., & Staw, B.M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-384. [UNC libraries]
• Weick, K.E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385-390. [UNC libraries]
• DiMaggio, P.J. (1995). Comments on "What theory is not". Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391-397. [UNC libraries]
  • These three articles are a conversation among the authors, about what theory is and what theory is not. Sutton and Staw provide examples of abstractions that some might consider to be theory, but they do not. Weick sees these as "approximations" of theory, and urges us to focus on the process of theorizing. Dimaggio goes on to identify three things to consider when theorizing. While from the field of information systems (in business), these authors' ideas apply equally well to information science theory.
• Truex, D., Holmstrom, J., & Keil, M. (2006). Theorizing in information systems research: A reflexive analysis of the adaptation of theory in information systems research. Journal of the AIS, 7(12), 797-821. [UNC libraries]
  • This article moves us directly into this first section of the course, where we'll focus on applying existing theories in new empirical studies. They propose some best practices for this type of endeavor.
• Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd edition. Free Press. [Davis Library - HM101 .R57 1983]
  • Chapter 5, The innovation-decision process [copy in Sakai resources]
  • Chapter 10, Innovation in organizations [copy in Sakai resources]
  • We'll spend the second half of this session on an example of a theory that has often been applied in information and library science studies: diffusion theory, originally developed by Everett Rogers. To get a general sense of the theory itself, skim these two chapters of his book, paying special attention to Figure 5-1 and Table 10-1.
• Chatman, E.A. (1986). Diffusion theory: A review and test of a conceptual model in information diffusion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(6), 377-386. [UNC libraries]
• Marshall, J.G. (1990). Diffusion of innovation theory and end-user searching. Library & Information Science Research, 12(1), 55-69. [SILS Library; copy in Sakai resources]
• Wildemuth, B.M. (1992). An empirically grounded model of the adoption of intellectual technologies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(3), 210-224. [UNC libraries]
  • Quickly skim these three studies. They all drew/built on diffusion theory in some way. Look at each study's findings. Consider what the study contributed to the development of diffusion theory.
• Additional readings of interest
• Examples of information science theories
• Examples of theories from other disciplines

• Assignment: Brief description of theory of interest due

Session 4, February 2: Applying existing theories

• Guest speaker: Melanie Feinberg, Mestiza consciousness and information organization
  • Anzaldua, G. (2012). La conciencia de la mestiza: Towards a new consciousness (Chapter 7) [and] To live in the Borderlands means you. In Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 99-113, 216-217. [Sakai resources]
  • Feinberg, M., Carter, D., & Bullard, J. (2014). Always somewhere, never there: Using critical design to understand database interactions. ACM SIGCHI Proceedings, 1941-1950. [UNC libraries]
• Distributed Cognition (Charlene)
  • Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174-196. [UNC libraries]
  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Introduction. In Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Davis - BF311 .H88 1995; draft online]
• Diffusion theory (Megan)
  • Chang, H. C. (2010). A new perspective on Twitter hashtag use: Diffusion of innovation theory. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), n.p. [Online]
  • Kelly, J. A. (2004). Popular opinion leaders and HIV prevention peer education: resolving discrepant findings, and implications for the development of effective community programmes. AIDS Care, 16(2), 139-150. [UNC libraries]
  • Mozafari, N., & Hamzeh, A. (2015). An enriched social behavioural information diffusion model in social networks. Journal of Information Science, 41(3), 273-283. [UNC libraries]

Session 5, February 9: Applying existing theories, continued; Discussion of plans for paper

• Guest speaker: Arcot Rajasekar, Fixpoint theory
  • Minker, J., & Rajasekar, A. (1990). A fixpoint semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 9, 45-74. [Sakai resources]
    • Read through sections 1-2, to get some idea of fixpoint theory.
• Possible Selves Theory (Kimberly)
  • Oyserman, D., & Fryberg, S. (2006). The possible selves of diverse adolescents: Content and function across gender, race and national origin. In C. Dunkel & J. Kerpelman (Eds.), Possible Selves: Theory, Research and Applications (pp. 17–39). New York: Nova Science Publishers. [UNC libraries]
• Mental Models (Yuan)
  • Norman, D.A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In Gentner, D., & Stevens, A.L. (eds.), Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 7-14. [Davis - BF311 .M446 1983; copy in Sakai resources]
    • In this book chapter, Norman provides a brief introduction to the meaning of user’s mental model and a concise empirical study. It describes some features of mental models and discusses some other concepts that could easily be confused with mental models.
  • Kiesler, S., & Goetz, J. (2002). Mental models of robotic assistants. CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 576-577. [UNC libraries]
    • This short paper reports on two experiments intended to measure the content and the richness of humans’ mental models of robotic assistants. 
• Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Reading and writing about theories (Chapter 12). In Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford Press, 331-346. [Davis - H62 .J29 2010; copy in Sakai resources].
  • Read only pages 337-345. It will provide some guidance in how to develop your review/analysis of the theory you're working with.

• Assignment: Annotated bibliography due

Session 6, February 16: Testing/validating a theory

• Vakkari, P., & Kuokkanen, M. (1997). Theory growth in information science: Applications of the theory of science to a theory of information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 53(5), 497-519. [UNC libraries]
  • Using an example theory of information seeking, Vakkari and Kuokkanen show how the theory can be refuted, expanded, or enriched: three different ways to contribute to its development.
• Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 173-177. Reprinted in Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (eds.), Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 78-80. [SILS Library - H61.15 .P48 2003; copy in Sakai resources]
• Two examples of theory validation (Read ONE; we'll briefly discuss both)
  • Fisher, K. E., Durrance, J. C., & Hinton, M. B. (2004). Information grounds and the use of need-based services by immigrants in Queens, New York: A context based, outcome evaluation approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(8), 754-766. [UNC libraries]
  • Hyldegard, J. (2006). Collaborative information behaviour -- Exploring Kuhlthau's Information Search Process model in a group-based educational setting. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 276-298. [UNC libraries]
• Two examples of experimental theory testing (Read ONE; we'll briefly discuss both)
  • Harrison, A.W., Rainer, R.K., Jr., Hochwarter, W.A., & Thompson, K.R. (1997). Testing the self-efficacy - performance linkage of social-cognitive theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 79-87. [UNC libraries]
  • Sundar, S.S., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Hastall, M.R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(3), 366-378. [UNC libraries]
• Additional readings of interest

• Assignment: Paper outline due

Development of Grounded Theory

Session 7, February 23: Inducing theory from observation

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications. [Textbook]
  • Chapter 1, An invitation to grounded theory, p1-21
    • Charmaz provides a general overview of grounded theory methods, and also tells you what will be covered in the book.
• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). What kind of theory is grounded theory? In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 32-42. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014; copy in Sakai resources]
  • These authors attempt to cut through the many variations/changes to grounded theory that have been developed over the past several decades. Focus your reading of this chapter on pages 32-43, the core aspects of grounded theory. Here, they propose a small number of core concepts (not specific methods) associated with grounded theory.
• Creswell, J.W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. In Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 53-84. [copy in Sakai resources]
  • All five of these approaches have been used in ILS research. This chapter provides a useful comparison between them, to help you distinguish grounded theory approaches from the others.
• Additional readings of interest
• Examples of grounded theory studies in LIS

• 3:30-4:45, Attend faculty candidate job talk

Session 8, March 2: Data collection

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications. [Textbook]
  • Chapter 2, Gathering rich data, p22-54
  • Chapter 3, Crafting and conducting intensive interviews, p55-82
  • Chapter 4, Interviewing in grounded theory studies, p83-108
    • Charmaz covers several different data gathering methods (e.g., ethnographic methods, textual analysis) in Chapter 2, then goes on to discuss interviewing in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4 since interviews are so commonly used in grounded theory studies. The data set we'll be working with in class relies primarily on interviews, with a few observation notes sprinkled in.
• Pezalla, A.E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M. (2012). Researching the researcher-as-instrument: An exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 165-185. [UNC libraries]
  • These three researchers collaborated on a project in which they each conducted interviews. They analyzed a subset of the interview transcripts reflexively, i.e., in terms of their interviewing styles. Their results allow us to see the many ways in which interviews can be effective.
• Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). The rhythms of interpretive research I: Getting going. In Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. Routledge, 54-77. [SILS Reserves - Q175 .S4144 2012; copy in Sakai resources]
  • This chapter addresses some of the issues associated with beginning an interpretive research project: access to a site and participants within the site, the researcher's role in the setting, differences in power, and the skills needed to be a good interpretive researcher.
• Additional readings of interest

• 3:30-4:45, Attend faculty candidate job talk

• Assignment: Description of phenomenon of interest and setting due

March 9, CHIIR 2017: No class meeting

• 3:30-4:45, Attend faculty candidate job talk

March 16, Spring Break: No class meeting

Session 9, March 23: Coding and constant comparative methods

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications. [Textbook]
  • Chapter 5, The logic of grounded theory coding practices and initial coding, p109-137
  • Chapter 6, Focused coding and beyond, p138-161
    • Chapters 5-6 are a really nice overview of coding practices. She first discusses and gives advice on how to do initial coding, focused coding, axial coding, and theoretical coding. Then she goes on to discuss some of the problems you may encounter with coding. She provides a few paragraphs on the logic of transforming data into codes, but read the Kelle chapter, cited on the additional readings page, for a fuller discussion of how to move from your data to your theoretical concepts.
• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Disentangling concepts and categories in grounded theory. In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 65-79. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014; copy in Sakai resources]
  • These authors attempt to cut through the many variations/changes to grounded theory that have been developed over the past several decades. In this chapter, they consider the meanings applied to the terms, concepts and categories, in the context of grounded theory development. Read it with the goal of applying their perspective to your own data analysis.
• Seidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013). On emergence and forcing in information systems grounded theory studies: The case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information Technology, 28, 237-260. [UNC libraries]
  • By examing the way that axial coding is applied in information systems research, the authors developed some guidelines about how such coding can be applied while still allowing the findings to emerge from the data.
• Additional readings of interest

• 3:30-4:45, Attend faculty candidate job talk

• Assignment: Final paper due for analysis of existing theory (if secondary work)

Session 10, March 30:Memo writing

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications. [Textbook]
  • Chapter 7, Memo-writing, p162-191
    • Chapter 7 provides a number of examples of memos that Charmaz and others have written in their work, as well as tips on the memo-writing process. Very practical.
• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Theoretical pacing and the process of doing grounded theory. In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 136-152. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014; copy in Sakai resources]
  • With this chapter, we turn from the specific methods for developing grounded theory, to some project management issues. In particular, review the figures used in this chapter to illustrate the process of grounded theory development.
• Additional readings of interest

Session 11, April 6: Theoretical sampling

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications. [Textbook]
  • Chapter 8, Theoretical sampling, saturation, and sorting, p192-224
  • This chapter covers three topics, as its title indicates. Theoretical sampling is concerned with the augmentation of your initial sample, and is motivated by your data analysis. At some point, you need to stop collecting data; theoretical saturation is the guiding principle for that stopping decision. Throughout your analysis, you will need to sort and integrate your memos and data.
• Coyne, I.T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research; Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623-630. [UNC libraries]
  • You read this article three weeks ago, but review it with special attention to the role and process of theoretical sampling.
• Additional readings of interest

• Assignment: Draft introduction and literature review due

Session 12, April 13: Constructing grounded theory

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications. [Textbook]
  • Chapter 9, Reconstructing theorizing in grounded theory studies, p225-260
  • Chapter 11, Writing the draft, p285-318
  • Chapter 12, Reflecting on the research process, p319-340
    • Charmaz sees the writing of your draft as an extension of your data analysis activities. In this chapter (on writing), she includes discussions of the construction of your argument, re-examining your conceptual categories, incorporation of the "disputed" literature review, and actually writing the theoretical framework.
• Quinlan, K.M. (2013). Writing the first person singular. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(5), 405. [UNC libraries]
  • This short poem explores the boundaries of the ways in which we can express important concepts, if we "start with 'I'".
• Crang, M. (2003). Telling materials. In Pryke, M., Rose, G., & Shatmore, S. (eds.), Using Social Theory. London: Sage, 127-144. [copy in Sakai resources]
  • Crang takes a very down-to-earth approach to analyzing qualitative data, seeing it as building theory (of most interest for us), disciplining the material, assemblage (ideas as montage), or as making narratives and coherent stories.
• Additional readings of interest

• Assignment: Final paper due for analysis of existing theory (if primary work)
• Assignment: Preliminary plan for data collection and analysis due

Session 13, April 20: Ensuring the trustworthiness of your findings

• Schwandt, T.A., Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2007(114), 11-25. [UNC libraries]
  • Schwandt is commenting on Guba and Lincoln's (1986) article on rigor in naturalistic research. Schwandt argues that Gubal and Lincoln'sauthenticity criteria for evaluating research quality are complementary to their original formulation of trustworthiness as analogous to research rigor.
• Houghton, C., Casey, D.., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12-17. [UNC libraries]
  • Specific methods for improving trustworthiness are discussed, illustrated by an example of case study research.
• Additional readings of interest

Session 14, April 27: Presentations

• Assignment: Brief oral presentations for seminar participants' study proposals

Final exam date, May 8, 8am

• Assignment: Proposal due

Syllabus / Schedule / Assignments / Sakai class site

The INLS 887 website, UNC-CH, 2017, 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 wildemuth@unc.edu. This page was last modified on March 21, 2017, by Barbara M. Wildemuth.