User:Cpikas/comps

This is my reading list from my comprehensive exams, completed July 2009. The degree is Information Studies. bracketed things are cross listed.

Communication Models and Theories
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1993). Grounding in communication. In R. M. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work: Assisting human-human collaboration (pp. 222-233). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.[Computer Supported Work]

Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 259-294. [Communication]

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39. DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7[Communication]

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). The Convergence Model of Communication and Network Analysis. In E. M. Rogers, & D. L. Kincaid (Eds.), Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research (pp. 31-78). New York: Free Press.

Tracy, K., & Naughton, J. (1994). The identity work of questioning in intellectual discussion. Communication Monographs, 61(4), 281-302.

Schramm, W. (1971). The nature of communication between humans. In W. Schramm & D. F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (Revised ed., pp. 3-53). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Information Behavior Models and Theories
Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5, 133-143.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Information Behavior and Culture. Information Ecology: mastering the Information and Knowledge Environment (pp. 83-107). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind’s eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In J. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361-.

Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E., & Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling the Information Seeking of Professionals: A General Model Derived from Research on Engineers, Health Care Professionals, and Lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193.

Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information behavior. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 35 (pp. 43-78). Medford,NJ: Information Today.

Taylor, R. S. (1991). Information Use Environments. In B. Dervin (Ed.), Progress in Communication Sciences (pp. 217-255). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Williamson, K. (1998). Discovered by chance. The role of incidental information acquisition in an ecological model of information use. Library & Information Science Research, 20, 23-40.

Wilson, T. D. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. Information Processing & Management, 33(4), 551-572.

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

Diffusion of Innovations
Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1999). The illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps. Information Systems Research, 10(3), 255.

Ilie, V., Van Slyke, C., Green, G., & Lou, H. (2005). Gender Differences in Perceptions and Use of Communication Technologies: A Diffusion of Innovation Approach. Information Resources Management Journal, 18(3), 13.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425.

Scholarly Communication
Barjak, F. (2006). The Role of the Internet in Informal Scholarly Communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350-1367. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20454

Bohlin, I. (2004). Communication Regimes in Competition: The Current Transition in Scholarly Communication Seen through the Lens of the Sociology of Technology. Social Studies of Science, 34(3), 365-391.[STS]

Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) (pp. 2-72). Medford,NJ: Information Today. doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102 [Research Methods]

Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569. doi:10.1002/asi.1097 [Social Studies of Science and Information Policy]

Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines - empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(3), 123-136.

Kling, R., & Callahan, E. (2003). Scholarly communication via the internet. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST) (pp. 127-177). Medford,NJ: Information Today.

Kling, R., McKim, G., & King, A. (2003). A bit more to it: Scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 47-67.

Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1047>3.0.CO;2-T

Rowlands, I. (2007). Electronic journals and user behavior: A review of recent research. Library & Information Science Research, 29(3), 369-396. DOI:10.1016/j.lisr.2007.03.005

Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

Walsh, J. P., & Maloney, N. G. (2002). Computer Network Use, Collaboration Structures, and Productivity. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp. 433-458). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Information Behavior of Scientists and Engineers
Abels, E. G., Liebscher, P., & Denman, D. W. (1996). Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions. Part I. Queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(2), 146-158.

Anderson, C. J., Glassman, M., McAfee, R. B., & Pinelli, T. (2001). An investigation of factors affecting how engineers and scientists seek information. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(2), 131-155.

Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12-19.

Blake, C., & Pratt, W. (2006). Collaborative information synthesis I: A model of information behaviors of scientists in medicine and public health. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol.57, no.13, pp.1740-1749, 57(13), 1740-1749. DOI:10.1002/asi.20487

Brown, C. M. (1999). Information seeking behavior of scientists in the electronic information age: Astronomers, chemists, mathematicians, and physicists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 929-943.

Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63, 469.[Research Methods]

Ellis, D., & Haugan, M. (1997). Modeling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation, 53., 384-403.

Fidel, R., & Green, M. (2004). The many faces of accessibility: engineers' perception of information sources. Information Processing & Management, 40(3), 563-581.

Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon Press.

Hine, C. (2006). Databases as scientific instruments and their role in the ordering of scientific work. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 269-298. DOI:10.1177/0306312706054047

Hertzum, M. (2002). The importance of trust in software engineers’ assessment and choice of information sources. Information and Organization, 12(1), 1-18.

Kennedy, J. M., Pinelli, T. E., Barclay, R. O., & Bishop, A. P. (1997). Distinguishing engineers from scientists- The case for an engineering knowledge community. Knowledge diffusion in the U.S.aerospace industry- Managing knowledge for competitive advantage (pp. 177-213). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Latour, B. & Woolgar,S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Originally published in 1979. (Introduction and Chapter 2). [Social studies of science, Research Methods]

Liebscher, P., Abels, E. G., & Denman, D. W. (1997). Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions. Part II. Preliminary use indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 496-507.

Pinelli, T. E. (1991). The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers. Science & Technology Libraries, 11(3), 5-25.

Wang, P., & Soergel, D. (1998). A Cognitive Model of Document Use during a Research Project. Study I. Document Selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115-133.

Zimmerman, A. S. (2008). New knowledge from old data - the role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data. Science Technology & Human Values, 33(5), 631-652.

General
Hess, D. J. (1997). Critical and Cultural Studies of Science and Technology (pp. 112-147). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.

MacKenzie, D. A., & Wajcman, J. (1999). Introductory essay: The social shaping of technology. In D. A. MacKenzie, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (2nd ed., pp. 3-27). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems :New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Price, D.J.D. (1986). Little science, big science…and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sclove, R. (1995). Technological politics as if democracy mattered. Democracy and technology (pp. 197-238). New York: Guilford Press.

Van House, N. A. (2004). Science and technology studies and information studies. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) (pp. 1-86). Medford,NJ: Information Today.

Winner, L. (1999). Do artifacts have politics? In D. A. MacKenzie, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (2nd ed., pp. 28-40). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Scientific Norms
Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267-278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942).

Merton, R. K. (1973). Science and the social order. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 254-266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1938).

Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: a case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579-595.

Mulkay, M. J. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15(4-5), 637-656. DOI:10.1177/053901847601500406

Polanyi, M. (2000). The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy, 38(1), 1-21. Originally published in 1962.

Social Studies of Scientific Knowledge
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Information retrieval]

Collins, H. M. (1985). The scientist in the network. In Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice (pp. 129-157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 289-321.

Groups of Scientists
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact [Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache] (F. Bradley, T. J. Trenn Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published in 1935.

Fujimura, J.H. (1992). Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translations.’ In A. Pickering, ed. Science as Practice and Culture (168-214). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

The Laboratory
Downey, G. L. (1998). The machine in me: An anthropologist sits among computer engineers. New York: Routledge.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 140-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Latour, B (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (pp.141-170). London: Sage.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). An anthropologist visits the laboratory. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts (pp. 43-88). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1979).

Inscription, Authorship, and the Dissemination of Scientific Work
Bohlin, I. (2004). Communication Regimes in Competition: The Current Transition in Scholarly Communication Seen through the Lens of the Sociology of Technology. Social Studies of Science, 34(3), 365-391. [Communication]

Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569. DOI:10.1002/asi.1097 [Communication]

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Cycles of credit. In Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts (pp. 187-230). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1979). [Communication, Research Methods]

Shankar, K. (2007). Order from Chaos: the Poetics and Pragmatics of Scientific Recordkeeping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1457-1466. [Research Methods]

Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66-100.

Science and Technology Policy
Jasanoff, S. S. (1987). Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195-230.

Kleinman, D. L.(1998). Untangling Context: Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World. Science, Technology, & Human Values 23(3), 285-314.

Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And other laws of cyberspace. Version 2.0. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. Retrieved November 9, 2008 from http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf. (1999 edition assigned).

Shapiro, A. L. (1999). The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. New York: PublicAffairs. Wolek, F. W., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). Policy and informal communications in applied science and technology. Science Studies, 4(4), 411-420.

Public Understanding of Science
Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265-279. DOI:10.1177/1461445603005002006

Paul, D. (2004). Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of scientific ideas. Written Communication, 21(1), 32-68. DOI:10.1177/0741088303261035

Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CMC - General Aspects
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1993). Grounding in communication. In R. M. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work: Assisting human-human collaboration (pp. 222-233). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. [Communication]

Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256-274.

Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828-846. DOI:10.1093/joc/55.4.828

Herring, S. C. (2002). Computer-Mediated Communication on the Internet. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 36, 109-168.

Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Usability Testing and Field Studies. In Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (pp. 645-683). Chichester; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

CMC - Norms and Behaviors
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 139-178.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The Formation of Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341.

Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2005). Local Virtuality in an Organization: Implications for Community of Practice. In P. v. d. Besselaar, G. d. Michelis, J. Preece & C. Simone (Eds.), Communities and Technologies 2005: Proceedings of the Second Communities and Technologies Conference, Milano 2005 (pp. 215-238). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: the role of social identity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(2), 151-158.

Social Computing Technologies
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. LinkKDD '05: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery, Chicago. 36-43.

Birnholtz, J. P., Finholt, T. A., Horn, D. B., & Bae, S. J. (2005). Grounding needs: achieving common ground via lightweight chat in large, distributed, ad-hoc groups. CHI '05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Portland, Oregon, USA. 21-30.

Blanchard, A. L. (2004). Blogs as Virtual Communities: Identifying a Sense of Community in the Julie/Julia Project. Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs, Retrieved from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogs_as_virtual.html

Efimova, L., Hendrick, S., & Anjewierden, A. (2005). Finding 'the life between buildings': An approach for defining a weblog community. Paper presented at Internet Research 6.0, Chicago. Retrieved from https://doc.freeband.nl/dsweb/Get/Document-55092/AOIR_blog_communities.pdf

Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2005). Why do people write for Wikipedia? Incentives to contribute to open-content systems. Proceedings of GROUP 05 Workshop: Sustaining Community: The Role and Design of Incentive Mechanisms in Online Systems. Retrieved October 24, 2008 from http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanWhyPeopleWrite.pdf

Matzat, U. (2004). Academic communication and Internet Discussion Groups: transfer of information or creation of social contacts? Social Networks, 26(3), 221-255.

Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41-46.

Quan-Haase, A., Cothrel, J., & Wellman, B. (2005). Instant messaging for collaboration: A case study of a high-tech firm. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4)

Schmidt, J. (2007). Blogging practices: An analytical framework. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), Article 13. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/schmidt.html

Talja, S., Savolainen, R., & Maula, H. (2004). Field differences in the use and perceived usefulness of scholarly mailing lists. Information Research-an International Electronic Journal, 10(1), paper 200.

Wagner, C., & Bolloju, N. (2005). Supporting knowledge management in organizations with conversational technologies: Discussion forums, weblogs, and wikis. Journal of Database Management, 16(2), i-viii.

Social Networks and Online Communities – Structural Aspects
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.

Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics), 69(2), 26113-21.

Reichardt, J., & Bornholdt, S. (2007). Clustering of sparse data via network communities-a prototype study of a large online market. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment,, P06016. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2007/06/P06016

Watts, D. J. (2004). The new science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 243-270. DOI:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.020404.104342

Social Networks and Online Communities – General Aspects
Barley, S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 61-103.

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Legitimate peripheral participation. In Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 27-44). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press. [Research Methods]

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, U.K. ; New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 213-238.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 4: Boundary and Chapter 7: Participation and Non-Participation

Social Networks and Online Communities –Norms, and Behaviors
Blanchard, A. L. (2007). Developing a Sense of Virtual Community Measure. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 827-830.

Blanchard, A. L., & Horan, T. (1998). Virtual Communities and Social Capital. Social Science Computer Review, 16(3), 293-307.

People Working Together Online -- Data, Information, and Knowledge Sharing
Birnholtz, J.P., & Bietz, M.J. (2003). Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Groupwork (pp. 339-348). NY: ACM Press

Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432.

Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Knowledge sharing in online environments: A qualitative case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2310-2324.

Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across Boundaries: Work, Structure, and Use of Communication Technologies in a Large Organization. Organization Science, 6(4), 373-393.

Van House, N. A. (2002). Trust and epistemic communities in biodiversity data sharing. JCDL '02: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Portland, Oregon, USA. 231-239.

Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35.

People Working Together Online -- Collaboration and Cooperation
Birnholtz, J. P. (2007). When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2226-2239. DOI:10.1002/asi.20684

Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703-722.

Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S., & Sonnenwald, D.H. (2003) An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.

Kraut, R. E., Egido, C., & Galegher, J. (1990). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 149-171). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702.

Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific Collaboration: A Synthesis of Challenges and Strategies. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (pp. 643-681). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Examples of Computer-Supported Communication in Science
Lamb, R., & Davidson, E. (2005). Information and communication technology challenges to scientific professional identity. Information Society, 21(1), 1-24.

Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2007). The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 115-133. DOI:10.1177/0165551506068153

Walsh, J. P., & Maloney, N. G. (2002). Computer Network Use, Collaboration Structures, and Productivity. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp. 433-458). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Information Seeking Process
Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5, 133-143. [Communication]

Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind’s eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In J. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. [Communication]

Ingwersen, P., & Jarvelin, K. (2005). Cognitive and user-oriented information retrieval In The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. (pp 191-256). Dordrecht: Springer.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361[Communication]

Williamson, K. (1998). Discovered by chance. The role of incidental information acquisition in an ecological model of information use. Library & Information Science Research, 20, 23-40. [Communication]

Wilson, T. D. (1997). Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. Information Processing & Management, 33(4), 551-572. [Communication]

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

Types of Searches
Bates, M. (1989) The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review. 13:5, 407-423.

Buckland, M. K. (1979). On Types of Search and the Allocation of Library Resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30, 143-147.

Chang, S., & Rice, R. E. (1993). Browsing: A Multidimensional Framework. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) (pp. 231-276). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Kim, S., & Soergel, D. (2005). Selecting and measuring task characteristics as independent variables. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Charlotte, NC., 42 doi:10.1002/meet.14504201111

Lee, J. H., Renear, A., & Smith, L. C. (2006). Known-Item Search: Variations on a Concept. Proceedings 69th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST), Austin, TX., 43

Wolfram, D. (2008). Search characteristics in different types of Web-based IR environments: are they the same? Information Processing & Management, 44(3), 1279-1292.

Query Formulation
Allen, B. (1996). An introduction to user-centered information-system design. Information tasks: toward a user-centered approach to information systems (pp. 24-51). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bates, M. J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing & Management, 26(5), 575-591.

Bishop, A. P. (1999). Document structure and digital libraries: how researchers mobilize information in journal articles. Information Processing & Management, 35(3), 255-279.

Hearst, M. A. (2006). Design Recommendations for Hierarchical Faceted Search Interfaces. Paper presented at the ACM SIGIR Workshop on Faceted Search, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://flamenco.berkeley.edu/papers/faceted-workshop06.pdf

Joho, H., & Jose, J. M. (2006). Slicing and dicing the information space using local contexts. IIiX: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Information interaction in context, Copenhagen, Denmark. 66-74.

Kelly, D., & Fu, X. (2007). Eliciting better information need descriptions from users of information search systems. Information Processing & Management, 43(1), 30-46.

Wacholder, N., & Liu, L. (2008). Assessing term effectiveness in the interactive information access process. Information Processing & Management, 44(3), 1022-1031.

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

White, M. D. (1998). Questions in reference interviews. Journal of Documentation, 54, 443-465.

Information Organization
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Science and Technology Studies]

Kwasnik, B. H. (1999). The Role of Classification in Knowledge Representation and Discovery. Library Trends, 48(1), 22.

Soergel, D. (in press). Digital Libraries and Knowledge Organization. In Kruk, S.R. and McDaniel, B, eds. Semantic Digital Libraries. New York: Springer.

Soergel, D. (1985). Organizing information: Principles of data base and retrieval systems. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Matching
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schutze, H. (2008). Scoring, term weighting & the vector space model. In Introduction to information retrieval (pp. 100-123). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schutze, H. (2008). Language models for information retrieval. In Introduction to information retrieval (pp. 218-233). New York: Cambridge University Press

Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schutze, H. (2008). Link Analysis. In Introduction to information retrieval (pp. 421-440). New York: Cambridge University Press

Relevance
Barry, C. L., & Schamber, L. (1998). User's criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3), 219-236.

Cooper, W. S. (1971). A Definition of Relevance for Information Retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7(1), 19-37.

Green, R. (1995). Topical Relevance Relationships I. Why Topic Matching Fails. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(9), 646-653.

Huang, X. (2008). Conceptual Framework and Literature Review. Unpublished Manuscript. (Chapter 2 of her dissertation)

Huang, X., & Soergel, D. (2006). An evidence perspective on topical relevance types and its implications for exploratory and task-based retrieval. Information Research, 12(1), 8-8.

Kemp, D. A. (1974). Relevance, Pertinence and Information System Development. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(2), 37-47.

Wang, P., & Soergel, D. (1998). A Cognitive Model of Document Use during a Research Project. Study I. Document Selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115-133.

Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9, 457-471.

Evaluation
Qu, Y., & Furnas, G. W. (2008). Model-driven formative evaluation of exploratory search: A study under a sensemaking framework. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 534-555. DOI:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.09.006

Soergel, D. (2006). Review of TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval (Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing) Voorhees E., Harman D., The MIT Press, 2005. 368 pp. Computing Reviews. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.reviews.com/review/Review_review.cfm?review_id=133676

Soergel, D. (1994). Indexing and retrieval performance: The logical evidence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(8), 589-599.

White, R.W., Marchionini, G. & Muresan G (2008). Evaluating Exploratory Search Systems: Introduction to Special Topic Issue of Information Processing & Management. Information Processing & Management 44(2), 433-436.

Cases and Contexts
Bruce, H., Jones, W., & Dumais, S. (2004). Information behaviour that keeps found things found. Information Research-an International Electronic Journal, 10(1), 207. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://informationr.net/ir/10-1/paper207.html

Jones, W. (2007). Personal Information Management. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 453-504). Medford, N.J.: Information Today.

Mishne, G., & de Rijke, M. (2006). A study of blog search. Advances in information retrieval (LNCS 3936) (pp. 289-301). New York: Springer.

Thelwall, M. (2007). Blog searching: The first general-purpose source of retrospective public opinion in the social sciences? Online Information Review, 31(3), 277-289.

Research Methods Overview Textbooks
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. (Chapters 1-9)

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L.L., Nizam, A., Muller, K.E.(2008). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press. (Chapters 1-12, 14, 16)

Lancaster, F. W. (1993). If You Want to Evaluate Your Library (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Individual Interviews
Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2003). The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 61-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Group Interviews
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Groups. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (2nd ed., pp. 5-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 79-97.

Morgan, D. (1988). Planning for Focus Groups. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (pp. 38-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Participant Observation
Angrosino, M.V. & Mays de Pérez, K.A. (2003). Rethinking Observation: From Method to Context. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 107-154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Qualitative Content Analysis
Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic Content Analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1), 65-77.

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), December 9, 2004. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.htm.

White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content Analysis: a Flexible Methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22-45.

Analysis Tools and Methods
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Ryan, G.W. & Bernard, H.R. (2003). Data Management and Analysis Methods. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 259-309). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Evaluating Qualitative Research
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 29(2), 75-91.

Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 19-40.

Example Studies
Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63, 469-486. [Communication]

Kleinman, D.L. (1998). Untangling Context: Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World. Science, Technology, & Human Values 23(3), 285-314. [Science and Technology Studies]

Latour, B. & Woolgar,S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Originally published in 1979. (Introduction and Chapter 2). [Social studies of science, Communication]

Paul, D. (2004). Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of scientific ideas. Written Communication, 21(1), 32-68. DOI:10.1177/0741088303261035 [Science and Technology Studies]

Shankar, K. (2007). Order from Chaos: the Poetics and Pragmatics of Scientific Recordkeeping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1457-1466. [Science and Technology Studies]

Mixed Methods and Case Studies
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Social Network Analysis
Borgatti, S. P., & Molina, J. L. (2003). Ethical and Strategic Issues in Organizational Social Network Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 337.

Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411-1454.

Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press. [Computer Supported Communication]

Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics), 69(2), 26113-21.

Reichardt, J., & Bornholdt, S. (2006). When are networks truly modular? Physica D, 224(1-2), 20-26.

Bibliometrics
Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) (pp. 2-72). Medford,NJ: Information Today. doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102 [Communication]

Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155-205. DOI:10.1007/BF02019280

Glanzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193.

Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the web environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1616-1628. DOI:10.1002/asi.20335

McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433-443.

Morris, S. A., & Van Der Veer Martens,B. (2008). Mapping research specialties. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 42, 213-295. White, H.D. & McCain, K.W. (1989) Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 24, 119-186.