School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
INLS 881 – Research Issues and Questions
[Last Updated: 2018-08-26]

Fall 2018
Meeting Time: 2:00-4:45
Location: Manning 303
Credits: 3
Instructor: Cal Lee
Office: Manning 212
Phone: 919-962-7024
E-Mail: callee [at][ils - DOT - unc DOT - edu]
Office Hours: By appointment
Course Web Site: http://sakai.unc.edu/

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Overview. Intensive and systematic investigation of the fundamental ideas in information and library science. Exploration and discussion in seminar format.

The goal of this year-long course is to prepare students to become productive scholars. Students will be introduced to the range of research questions and issues that arise in the field of information and library science, with particular emphasis on the research interests of the current SILS faculty and doctoral students. The role of both theory and prior empirical research in generating research questions will be discussed. The variety of methods available to conduct ILS research will be reviewed.

The class members will participate in reading, reviewing, analyzing, and discussing, in some detail, relevant research literature in six particular facets of information and library science:

As we explore each of these areas, you will be asked to consider how your own research interests interact with them. Is your research interest fully included in one of these areas? Is it a combination of two or more of the areas? Is it related to one or more of these areas, but also brings in the perspectives of other disciplines? Through our discussion and the assignments, you will have the opportunity to further develop your own interests in relation to the larger field of information and library science.

A second goal of this seminar is to assist the participants in being successful as doctoral students at SILS and as future scholars. This goal will be addressed by providing opportunities for you to develop particular research-related knowledge and skills, particularly in the following areas:

Rationale and relationship to the current curriculum. It is required that students take INLS 881 and INLS 882 in consecutive semesters at or near the beginning of their doctoral studies. The discussions in this seminar will help students identify research questions of particular interest to them and will provide a context within which initial explorations of those questions can be conducted.

Special Needs: If you feel that you may need an accommodation for a disability or have any other special need, please make an appointment to discuss this with me. I will best be able to address special circumstances if I know about them early in the semester. My office hours and contact information are listed at the beginning of this syllabus.

Diversity Statement
"In support of the University’s diversity goals and the mission of the School of Information and Library Science, SILS embraces diversity as an ethical and societal value. We broadly define diversity to include race, gender, national origin, ethnicity, religion, social class, age, sexual orientation and physical and learning ability. As an academic community committed to preparing our graduates to be leaders in an increasingly multicultural and global society we strive to:

The statement represents a commitment of resources to the development and maintenance of an academic environment that is open, representative, reflective and committed to the concepts of equity and fairness."

~The faculty of the School of Information and Library Science (http://sils.unc.edu/about/diversity)

NOTE ON WRITING IN YOUR OWN WORDS

It is very important that you both attribute your sources and avoid excessive use of quotes (see separate document called "In Your Own Words"). Be aware of the University of North Carolina policy on plagiarism. Your written work must be original. Ask if you have any doubts about what this means.

All cases of plagiarism (unattributed quotation or paraphrasing) of anyone else's work, whether from someone else's answers to homework or from published materials, will be officially reported and dealt with according to UNC policies (Instrument of Student Judicial Governance, Section II.B.1. and III.D.2, http://instrument.unc.edu).

EVALUATION AND ASSIGNMENTS

The assignments for the two-semester seminar aim to foster your growth as a scholar and researcher in information and library science, through participation in discussions, reviews of current issues and the relevant literature, and development of research questions and proposals. They include:

Seminar participation and contributions (15%)

You are expected to complete reading assignments prior to the class in which they will be discussed. I will be expecting you to be an active participant in class, remembering that the quality of your comments and questions is as important as the quantity.  Other contributions to the seminar are also important, such as sharing interesting articles you have read, things you have learned, or questions to which you do not know the answer. As a researcher, you are expected to express opinions, as well as the reasons and evidence for them.

Seminal works; inspirational works/events (5%)

As we read and discuss important topics in information and library science this year, we will have the task of exploring each area’s underlying theories, the methods used, and current work in the area. We’ll increase our exposure to these research areas through your contributions. Each semester, each student will be expected to select, read, and report on (a) one seminal work and (b) one inspirational work or event, in the context of a class discussion.

Seminal works

A seminal work is one that initiates a new area of research – it might propose a different way of understanding some phenomenon and/or be a ground-breaking empirical study. In all cases, it was work that later scholars built upon fruitfully. For the purposes of this assignment, any article that was published prior to 1998, that has been cited more than 50 times, and that you believe was important to the development of the field is eligible.

Read a seminal article of your choosing. Are there issues or questions from the literature we discussed that built on this work or were informed by it? In what way is this article still important for current research?

Be prepared to give a brief, informal summary of the selected article and your thoughts and ideas about it (5 minutes, no slides). You should report on the seminar work during the section of the course to which it is pertinent. Send the article citation to the class list before the class session in which you will present it, as well as posting the full text in the Resources section of our Sakai site.

Inspirational works/events

An inspirational article or event may help you develop or understand a research question, make you think about something you thought you understood in a new way, serve as the basis for a line of research, model a particular research method, drive you to demonstrate that the author/speaker is wrong, or be an example of excellent research.

Select your inspirational work or event (it could be an article, a book chapter, a web site, a lecture, a video, or a conference presentation). As soon as possible after you’ve identified the inspirational work or event, you will share it with us in class.

Please notify me when you’re ready to tell us about this work or event — why you find this work or event inspirational, and how it is helping you or will help you with your work. (Note that I am not asking you to summarize it.) Send the work’s citation or a link to the event’s website to the class list before the class session in which you will present it, as well as posting the full text (if applicable) in the Resources section of our Sakai site.

Evaluation criteria

This assignment will be evaluated in terms of the selection of the works/event (i.e., it was important for the field and relevant to the topic at hand), the clarity of your summation and analysis, and the originality of your ideas about it. This assignment (seminal work and inspirational work/event combined) will account for 5% of your grade each semester.

Looking outward: Understanding the field in relation to your own research interests (60%)

Throughout the course, we will examine current research questions (including current studies, relevant theories, and applicable methods) in six areas:

You will be asked to conduct an analytical literature review in each of these areas (three in the fall and three in the spring), with a focus on how your own research interests are related to the area.  In each review, you should focus on the literature in a particular area that connects with your own research interests.

Milestones

You will write a brief description (about 1 paragraph) focused on the particular facet of our field that the review will cover, along with how your own research interests connect with that facet of the field.  You will then informally discuss your work with your classmates.

Schedule of due dates

    Describing and organizing information
        Brief description - October 2 at 2pm
        Informal discussion in class - October 2
        Final product - October 23 at 2pm
    Curation, data management, and preservation
        Brief description - November 6 at 2pm
        Informal discussion in class - November 6
        Final product - November 13 at 2pm
    Information services and the organizations that provide them
        Brief description - November 20
        Informal discussion in class - November 20
        Final product - December 4 at 2pm

Evaluation criteria

Each review should be approximately 8-12 pages (single-spaced). While the number of citations included in each will vary, each review should incorporate at least 20 references. (You’ll likely read/examine more than 50 works for each review, in preparation for writing it.)

The criteria used to evaluate each of your analytical reviews will be similar to the criteria routinely applied to scholarly literature reviews. These include the significance of the question/problem to the field, the adequacy of the citations to previous work, the validity and logic of your analysis of that literature, the originality of your perspective on past work and its relationship to your own interests, and the organization, clarity, and style of your presentation.

Looking inward: Developing your own research interests in relation to specific aspects of the field (20%) [Due: December 11 at 5pm]

In each of the reviews just described, you are considering a particular aspect of the field of information and library science, and how your research interests are positioned in relation to that aspect of the field. In other words, you’re taking the broad view and positioning your interests within it. In this assignment, you’ll focus on your own research interests and try to specify them more clearly, still keeping in mind their position within the field. In other words, you’ll take the specific view based on your own interests, and discuss them in relation to what you’ve learned about the broader field.  As you consider the various things that you’ve learned about these three areas in the first semester, your own interests will likely evolve.

For this assignment, you will write an analytical literature review focused very specifically on your own research interests. In addition, you will include a brief prospectus for a study that you’d like to conduct as a preliminary look at your research area. The introduction and literature review of the paper should provide a rationale for conducting the study; the prospectus should provide a brief explanation of how the study will be carried out.

Evaluation criteria

The final paper should be approximately 10-12 pages, single-spaced, plus references; the prospectus portion should be approximately 1-2 pages of the 12.

The criteria used to evaluate your final product will be similar to the criteria routinely applied to research proposals. These include the significance of the question/problem to the field, the adequacy of the citations to previous work, the feasibility, validity and logic of your plans for a study, and the organization, clarity, and style of your presentation.



Note: (S) = Skills, (T) = Topic

Week 1 (August 21) - Course Introduction

(S) - Being a doctoral student and beyond

Week 2 (August 28) - Scope of Library and Information Science (T)

Assigned Readings:

  • Bates, Marcia. "The Invisible Substrate of Information Science." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, no. 12 (1999): 1043-50. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1043::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-X

  • Buckland, Michael. "What Kind of Science Can Information Science Be?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, no. 1 (2012): 1-7.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/asi.21656

  • Saracevic, Tefko. "Information Science." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, no. 12 (1999): 1051-63.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1051::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Z

  • Tuomaala, Otto, Kalervo Järvelin, and Pertti Vakkari. "Evolution of Library and Information Science, 1965–2005: Content Analysis of Journal Articles." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, no. 7 (2014): 1446-62.https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/asi.23034 (Focus on the results reported in Tables 2, 4, 5, 11 (or Appendix C), and 14, and the discussions of them. Skim the rest.)
  • Week 3 (September 4) - Anatomy of a Research Question (S)

    Assigned Readings:

  • Alter, Steven, and Alan R. Dennis. "Selecting Research Topics: Personal Experiences and Speculations for the Future." Communications of the Association for Information Systems 8 (2002). [Sakai] Read the first sections, through the presentation of the framework; skim the two authors’ personal stories as you wish; you can skip section V.

  • Leek, Jeffery T., and Roger D. Peng. "What Is the Question?" Science 347, no. 6228 (2015): 1314-15. http://science.sciencemag.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/content/347/6228/1314 This brief article demonstrates that not only information and library science struggles with formulating research questions. Consider it in relation to questions you might pursue in your research.

  • Wildemuth, Barbara M. Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2017. [SILS Reserves – Z669.7 .W55 2017] Read Chapter 2 (p.11-20) [available in Sakai along with table of contents] and at least one of the other chapters in Part II of the book. Consider possible sources for research questions in your area of interest.
  • Week 4 (September 11)  - Work-Life Balance, Health and Wellness (S)

    Assigned Readings:

    Aguilar, Stephen. "We are not impostors." Inside Higher Ed. April 13, 2015. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/04/13/essay-how-graduate-students-can-fight-impostor-syndrome

    Levy, David M. "No Time to Think: Reflections on Information Technology and Contemplative Scholarship." Ethics and Information Technology 9, no. 4 (2007): 237-49. 
    https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1007/s10676-007-9142-6

    Week 5 (September 18) - No Class

    Week 6 (September 25) - Representing/describing knowledge objects (T); Conducting a Literature Review Search (S)

    Assigned Readings:

    Blair, David C. "Information Retrieval and the Philosophy of Language." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37, no. 1 (2003): 3-50.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/aris.1440370102 This review provides an introduction to and overview of description as a problem of language and meaning. It also connects description with information retrieval concerns.

    Furner, Jonathan. "Frsad and the Ontology of Subjects of Works." Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 50, no. 5-7 (2012): 494-516.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1080/01639374.2012.681269 This article concentrates on representing the subject of a work. Focus your reading on pages 494-501 and 510-513. consider your own position on the ontology of aboutness.

    Krathwohl, David R., and Smith, Nick L. "The description of the problem." In How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45-74. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005. [SILS reserves – LB2369 .K723 2005; Sakai].Read pages 45-52, focusing on the problem description. We’ll be working on search strategies during class, so you don’t need to read beyond page 52.

    Locke, Lawrence F., Spirduso, Waneen W., and Silverman, Stephen J. "Content of the Proposal: Important Considerations." In Proposals that Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals, 63-90. Los Angeles: Sage, 2014. [SILS reserves – Q180.55 .P7 L814p 2014; Sakai]

    Olson, Hope A. "The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs." Signs 26, no. 3 (2001): 639–668. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/3175535

    Wilson, Patrick. Two Kinds of Power: An Essay on Bibliographic Control. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. [SILS reserves - Z674 .C3 v. 5 v.5; Sakai] Chapter 1: The bibliographic universe; Chapter 2: Describing and exploiting.

    Week 7 (October 2) - Organizing knowledge objects (T); Reading Literature Reviews (S)

    Assigned Readings:

  • Boote, David N., and Penny Belle. "Scholars before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation." Educational Researcher 34, no. 6 (2005): 3-15. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.3102/0013189X034006003 This article is based in education research, but almost all of it also applies directly to research in ILS. Read the first sections carefully, through the first column of page 9. Then you can skip to the section, Refining our conception of literature reviewing. You can skip the final section, Looking forward.

  • Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. [SILS Reserves – BD175 .B68 1999; Sakai]
  • Clifford, James. "Four Northwest Coast Museums: Travel Reflections." In Exhibiting Cultures: The Politics and Poetics of Museum Display, edited by Ivan Karp and Steven Lavine, 212-54. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press, 1991.  [SILS reserves - AM151 .E94 1991 c. 3; Sakai]
  • Cvetkovich, Ann. An Archive of Feelings: Trauma, Sexuality, and Lesbian Public Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Ch. 7, 239-271. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1215/9780822384434

  • Mai, Jens-Erik. "The Modernity of Classification." Journal of Documentation 67, no. 4 (2011): 710-730. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1108/00220411111145061

  • Wilson, Patrick. Two Kinds of Power: An Essay on Bibliographic Control. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. [SILS reserves - Z674 .C3 v. 5 v.5; Sakai] Chapter 5, Subjects and the sense of position
  • Week 8 (October 9) - Personal Information Management (T); Scientific Data Management (T); Managing the Literature you Find (S)

    Assigned Readings:

    Ailamaki, Anastasia, Verena Kantere, and Debabrata Dash. "Managing Scientific Data." Communications of the ACM 53, no. 6 (2010): 68-78. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1145/1743546.1743568

  • Ekbia, Hamid, Michael Mattioli, Inna Kouper, G. Arave, Ali Ghazinejad, Timothy Bowman, Venkata Ratandeep Suri, et al. "Big Data, Bigger Dilemmas: A Critical Review." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, no. 8 (2015): 1523-45.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/asi.23294

  • Good, Katie Day. "From Scrapbook to Facebook: A History of Personal Media Assemblage and Archives." New Media & Society 15, no. 4 (2013): 557-73.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1177/1461444812458432

  • Jones, William. The Future of Personal Information Management, Part I: Our Information, Always and Forever. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services, Lecture #21. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool, 2012. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.2200/S00411ED1V01Y201203ICR021 Read Chapter 2, The Basics of PIM. Jones examines the basic concepts of information, personal, and managing/management.
  • Jones, William. Transforming Technologies to Manage Our Information: The Future of Personal Information Management, Part 2. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services, Lecture #28. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool, 2014. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.2200/S00532ED1V01Y201308ICR028 Read Chapter 9, PIM transformed and transforming.
  • Marshall, Catherine.C. "Rethinking Personal Digital Archiving, Part 1: Four Challenges from the Field." D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 3/4 (2008). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march08/marshall/03marshall-pt1.html

  • Marshall, Catherine.C. "Rethinking Personal Digital Archiving, Part 2: Implications for Services, Applications, and Institutions.." D-Lib Magazine 14, no. 3/4 (2008). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march08/marshall/03marshall-pt2.html
  • Week 9 (October 16) - Locating your Research Interests within this Area; Two Critical Aspects of Scholarly Work: Theory and Methods (S)

    Assigned Readings:

  • Case, Donald O. "Metatheories, perspectives and paradigms" (section 8.1), and "Theories" (section 8.2). In Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior. 4th ed., 178-186. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2016. [SILS reserves – ZA3075 .C36 2016; Sakai] Case provides an introduction to theories and their role in information and library science.

  • Halverson, Christine A. "Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition: Or What Does CSCW Need to DO with Theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 11, no. 1-2 (2002): 243–267. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015298005381 [Sakai] (Read through the end of section 2 – “Why Theory?”)

  • Truex, Duane, Jonny Holmström, and Mark Keil. "Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7, no. 12 (2006): 797-821.  https://auth.lib.unc.edu/ezproxy_auth.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=24979089&site=ehost-live&scope=site This article focuses on the challenges of importing a theory from another discipline into your own work. Since this practice is fairly common within information and library science, we’ll want to become familiar with the possible pitfalls of this approach. 
  • Week 10 (October 23) - Current Research in Archives and Curation (T); Writing a Literature Review (S)

    Assigned Readings:

  • DCC Curation LIfecycle Model. Digital Curation Centre. 2014-2015. http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/curation-lifecycle-model. Review the components of this model, with an eye toward identifying research questions related to each component.

  • Flinn, Andrew, Mary Stevens, and Elizabeth Shepherd. "Whose Memories, Whose Archives? Independent Community Archives, Autonomy and the Mainstream." Archival Science 9, no. 1-2 (2009): 71-86. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1007/s10502-009-9105-2

  • Lee, Christopher A. "A Framework for Contextual Information in Digital Collections." Journal of Documentation 67, no. 1 (2011): 95-143.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1108/00220411111105470 Read the first five sections (p95-115).

  • Lunenburg, Fred C., and Irby, Beverly J. "Writing the literature Review Chapter." In Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 137-164. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. [SILS reserves – LB2369 .L814 2008; Sakai]

  • Sutherland, Tonia. “Making A Killing’: On Race, Ritual, and (Re)Membering in Digital Culture.” Preservation, Digital Technology and Culture 46, no. 1 (2017): 32-40. [Sakai]

  • Todd-Diaz, Ashley, and Sheila O'Hare. "If You Build It, Will They Come? A Review of Digital Collection User Studies." In Annual Review of Cultural Heritage Informatics, 2012-2013, edited by Samantha K. Hastings, 257-275. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014.  [SILS Reserves – CC135 .A56 2014; Sakai]

  • Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. "Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review." MIS Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2002): xiii-xxiii. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/4132319

  • Yakel, Elizabeth, Ixchel Faniel, Adam Kriesberg, and Ayoung Yoon. "Trust in Digital Repositories." International Journal of Digital Curation 8, no. 1 (2013): 143-156. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.251
  • Week 11 (October 30) - Information and Health (T); Peer Reviewing (S)

    Assigned Readings:

  • Costello, Kaitlin Light. "Social Relevance Assessments for Virtual Worlds: Interpersonal Source Selection in the Context of Chronic Illness." Journal of Documentation 73, no. 6 (2017): 1209-27.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1108/JD-07-2016-0096

  • Donovan, Stephen K. "How to be an Effective Peer Reviewer: Some Personal Thoughts." Journal of Scholarly Publishing 46, no. 1 (2014): 89-95. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.46.1.005 [Sakai] Donovan provides concrete advice for those asked to review a research paper for a journal.

  • Greyson, Devon L., and Joy L. Johnson. "The Role of Information in Health Behavior: A Scoping Study and Discussion of Major Public Health Models." Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, no. 12 (2016): 2831-41. 
    https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/asi.23392

  • Kellermann, Arthur L., and Jones, Spencer S. "What it will Take to Achieve the As-Yet-Unfulfilled Promises of Health Information Technology." Health Affairs 32, no. 1 (2013): 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0693

  • Lee, Carole J., Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, and Blaise Cronin. "Bias in Peer Review." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 1 (2013), 2-17. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/asi.22784 The introductory and concluding sections of this article will give you an overview of how peer reviewing fits into the scholarly publishing process. Read p. 2-4 and 10-13; quickly skim the section on bias, the main focus of the article.

  • Romanelli, Elaine. "Becoming a Reviewer: Lessons Somewhat Painfully Learned." In Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia, edited by Peter J. Frost and M. Susan Taylor, 263-73. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996.  http://sk.sagepub.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/books/rhythms-of-academic-life/n26.xml [SILS reserves – LB1778.2 .R59 1996; Sakai]
  • Week 12 (November 6) - Information Technology Services (T); Information Professions and the Workforce (T) 

    Assigned Readings:

    Gallagher, Kevin P., Kate M. Kaiser, Judith C. Simon, Cynthia M. Beath, and Tim Goles. "The Requisite Variety of Skills for IT Professionals." Communications of the ACM 53, no. 6 (2010): 144-148. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1145/1743546.1743584

    Maglio, Paul P., and Jim Spohrer. "Fundamentals of Service Science." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, no. 1 (2008): 18-20. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9

    Moore, Reagan, and Barbara Wildemuth. "Information Trends: Summary of the Symposium Discussion." In Information Professionals 2050: Educational Possibilities and Pathways, edited by Gary Marchionini and Barbara M. Moran, 145-54. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Information & Library Science,, 2012.  http://sils.unc.edu/sites/default/files/news/Information-Professionals-2050.pdf

  • Saracevic, Tefko, and Paul B. Kantor. "Studying the Value of Library and Information Services. Part I. Establishing a Theoretical Framework." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48, no. 6 (1997): 527-542. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199706)48:6<527::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-W
  • Week 13 (November 13) - Locating your Research Interests within this Area (T); Project Management (S)

    Assigned Readings:

  • Gosling, Patricia, and Lambertus D. Noordam. Mastering Your PhD: Survival and Success in the Doctoral Years and Beyond. Berlin: Springer, 2006. https://link-springer-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-15847-6 [Sakai]
  • Lauriol, Jacques. "Proposals for Designing and Controlling a DoctoRral esearch Project in Management Sciences." Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 4, no. 1 (2006): 31-38. http://www.ejbrm.com/volume4/issue1

    Week 14 (November 20) - Information organizations and their management (T); Information behaviors within organizational contexts (T); Diversity, inclusion, and cultural competency (S)

    Assigned Readings:

  • Cooke, Nicole A., Miriam E. Sweeney, and Safiya Umoja Noble. "Social Justice as Topic and Tool: An Attempt to Transform an LIS Curriculum and Culture." Library Quarterly 86, no. 1 (2016): 107-124. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1086/684147 Models in LIS research and teaching that continue to perpetuate white privilege, but that also have potential for positive transformation.

  • Gilstrap, Donald L. "A Complex Systems Framework for Research on Leadership and Organizational Dynamics in Academic Libraries." portal: Libraries and the Academy 9, no. 1 (2009): 57-77. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/256655/pdf

  • Hudson, David James. "On 'Diversity' as Anti-Racism in Library and Information Studies: A Critique." Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies 1, no. 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.24242/jclis.v1i1.6

  • Jones, Matthew R., and Helena Karsten. "Giddens’s Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research." MIS Quarterly 32, no. 1 (2008): 127-157. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/25148831 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.
  • Overall, Patricia Montiel. "Cultural Competence: A Conceptual Framework for Library and Information Science Professionals." Library Quarterly 79, no. 2 (2009), 175-204. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1086/597080 Skim as much of this article as you can. Focus your reading on the framework itself, pages 190-198.

  • Weick, Karl.E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking." Organization Science 16, no. 4 (2005): 409-421. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/25145979 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.

  • Winter, Susan, Nicholas Berente, James Howison, and Brian Butler. "Beyond the Organizational ‘Container’: Conceptualizing 21st-Century Sociotechnical Work." Information and Organization 24, no. 4 (2014): 250-269. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.003 The sociotechnical systems (STS) approach is often used to conceptualize information system design and implementation. Read sections 1-2 (p.251-258) and more if you have a chance.
  • Week 15 (November 27) - Professional ethics (T); Information policy (T); Locating your research interests within the areas of information services and the organizations that provide them

    Assigned Readings:

  • Gorman, Michael. "History and philosophy." In Our Enduring Values Revisited: Librarianship in an Ever-Changing World, 23-38. Chicago: ALA Editions, 2015. [SILS Reserves – Z716.4 .G673 2015]

  • Holt, Jennifer., and Steven Malčić. "The Privacy Ecosystem: Regulating Digital Identity in the United States and European Union." Journal of Information Policy 5 (2015): 155-178. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.5.2015.0155  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.

  • Jaeger, Paul T., and John Carlo Bertot. "Transparency and Technological Change: Ensuring Equal and Sustained Public Access to Government Information." Government Information Quarterly 27, no. 4 (2010): 371-76.  https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.003 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.

  • Richards, N. M., & King, J. H. (2014). Big data ethics. Wake Forest Law Review. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2384174
  • Choose 2 of the 3:
  • Week 16 (December 4) - Research ethics, including research with human subjects (S); Reflections on what we’ve learned so far

    Assigned Readings:

  • Allen, Gove N., Nicholas L. Ball, and H. Jeff Smith. "Information Systems Research Behaviors: What Are the Normative Standards?". MIS Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2011): 533-51.  https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/23042795 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.

  • 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.

  • Locke, Lawrence F., Spirduso, Waneen W., and Silverman, Stephen J.  "Doing the right thing: 'The habit of truth.'" In Proposals that Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals, 25-40. Los Angeles: Sage, 2014. [SILS reserves – Q180.55 .P7 L814p 2014; Sakai] 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.

  • A guide to the IRB process. http://ohre.unc.edu/guide_to_irb.php.


  • I would like to express my gratitude to Barbara Wildemuth and Amelia Gibson for sharing materials from earlier iterations of this course.  This syllabus builds directly from theirs.