4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2007 This study examines how social scientists arrive at and utilize information in the course of their research. Results are drawn about the use of information resources and channels to address information inquiry, the strategies for information seeking, and the difficulties encoun- tered in information seeking for academic research in today’s information environment. These findings refine the understanding of the dynamic relationship between information systems and services and their users within social-scientific research practice and provide implica- tions for scholarly information-system development. T he information needs and information­seeking behavior of social scientists have been the focus of inquiry within library and information science (LIS) research for decades. Folster reviewed the major studies that have been conducted in this area over the past three decades.1 She found that research methods had developed through several stages. Research prior to the 1960s usually consisted of questionnaire­based user studies that gathered basic demographic data and quan­ titative data on the type of information used. Following that were citation studies in the mid­1960s, and then the combination of questionnaire and interview techniques to develop profiles of users and their needs in the 1970s. The information environment of the 1980s witnessed a major transition in research design. The former practice of studying large groups via questionnaires or struc­ tured interviews gave way to the use of unstructured interviews or observation of smaller groups, resulting in a more holistic picture of social scientists’ research practices. More fully developed techniques for behavioral models emerged in the 1990s. Folster summarized these studies done over decades and concluded that (1) social scientists place a high importance on journals; (2) most of their citation identification comes from journals; (3) infor­ mal channels, such as consulting colleagues and attend­ ing conferences, are an important source of information; (4) library resources, such as catalogs, indexes, and librar­ ians, are not very heavily utilized; and (5) computerized services are ranked very low in their importance to the research process. There are many examples of studies about the infor­ mation­seeking behavior of social scientists. For example, the INFROSS project (Investigation into Information Requirements of the Social Scientist) studied the informa­ tion needs of British social scientists in the late 1960s and early 1970s and found that they preferred to use journal citations instead of traditional bibliographic tools, and that they tended to consult with colleagues and subject experts, rather than library catalogs or librarians in order to locate information.2 Other social­scientist studies reinforced the findings of the INFROSS project.3 Several studies indicated that computerized literature searching was ranked low as a source of information among social scientists and suggested the promotion of electronic information services by librarians to enhance their roles as information providers.4 In an influential study on social scientists’ informa­ tion­seeking patterns, Ellis developed a behavioral model with six features based on the stages they went through in gathering information: ■ Starting—includes activities characteristic of the ini­ tial search for information, such as asking colleagues or consulting literature reviews, online catalogs, and indexes and abstracts; ■ Chaining—following chains of citations and other forms of referential connection between materials; ■ Browsing—semi­directed searching in an area of potential interest, such as scanning published jour­ nals, tables of contents, references, and abstracts; ■ Differentiating—using differences (authors or jour­ nal hierarchies) between sources as a filter on the nature and quality of the material examined; ■ Monitoring—maintaining awareness of develop­ ments in an area through the monitoring of particular sources such as core journals, newspapers, confer­ ences, magazines, books, and catalogs; and ■ Extracting—systematically working through a par­ ticular source to locate material of interest, for exam­ ple, sets of journals, collections of indexes, abstracts, or bibliographies.5 Meho and Tibbo revised Ellis’s information­seeking model by studying the information­seeking behavior of social­science faculty who study stateless nations.6 They confirmed Ellis’s model and derived four additional fea­ tures—accessing, networking, verifying, and information managing. Accessing is getting hold of the materials or sources of information once they have been identified and located. Networking includes communicating and maintaining a close relationship with a broad range of people such as friends, colleagues, and intellectu­ als. Verifying is checking the accuracy of the informa­ tion found, and information managing includes filing, archiving, and organizing the collected information to facilitate research. Yi Shen Yi Shen (yishen@wisc.edu) is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin- Madison. Her article is the winner of the 2006 LITA/Endeavor Student Writing Award. Information Seeking in Academic Research: A Study of the Sociology Faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison ARTICLE TITLE | AUTHOR 5INFORMATION SEEkING IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH | SHEN 5 With the exception of Ellis’s work in 1987–1990 and the follow­up study by Meho and Tibbo, studies inves­ tigating academic social scientists have been in steady decline since the mid­1970s.7 According to Line, in an information world radically changed by the Internet, it is essential to carry out new studies of information uses and needs.8 Most of the studies discussed in this paper were conducted before the development of the Internet. The present study focuses on the information­seeking behav­ ior of social scientists in a new information environment featuring the Internet and other dramatic technological advances. Kling and McKim pointed out the growing importance of information technology and the resulting major shifts in scientific practice.9 Costa and Meadows studied the impact of computer usage on scholarly com­ munication among social scientists and found that major changes in their communication habits were occurring.10 The most significant impacts of information technology were greater interactivity, widened community boundar­ ies, extended access to information, and an increasing democratization of the international research community. They suggested that the developments were influenced by new pressures (social, economic, political) from the research community and the institutional environment, and by newly available resources (infrastructure, ser­ vices, sources) being introduced into the academic envi­ ronment by information technology. It could be expected that social scientists’ information­seeking behavior would change within a new social­technical environment. The purpose of this study is to extend the findings of the pre­ vious studies by examining social scientists’ information needs and their activities and perceptions in relation to today’s information systems and services. This paper provides a theoretical framework for the study, discusses the methods for data collection and data analysis, and summarizes findings. Finally, it discusses results, reflects on the theoretical and practical implica­ tions that ensue, and notes the limitations imposed by the study design. ■ Theoretical framework The theoretical frame for this study is the idea of “com­ munities of practice.” Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder define a community of practice as “a group of people who share a common concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.”11 Within communities of practice, people share common values, observe and interact with each other, exchange views and ideas, and contribute to the knowl­ edge­creation process.12 According to Wenger, communities of practice are combinations of three elements: a domain of knowledge, which defines the key issues in the community; a com­ munity of people who care about the domain; and the shared practice that they create.13 Communities of prac­ tice are loosely connected, informal, and self­managed. They are about knowledge sharing, and the best way to share knowledge is through social interaction and infor­ mal relationship networks. Effective communication and mutual understanding are important factors in fostering communities of practice. This form of social construction is highly situated and highly improvised.14 It essentially suggests that researching some thing is inseparable from its own historical and social locations of practice and should be carried out in the process of actually doing that thing.15 A process organizes knowledge in a way that is especially useful to practitioners whose shared learning brings value to a community.16 Pragmatically, the exami­ nation of context­based research processes draws “atten­ tion away from abstract knowledge and cranial processes and situates it in the practice and communities in which knowledge takes on significance.”17 What is learned is highly dependent in the context on which the learning takes place, as it is central to the transfer and consump­ tion of information. This requires “looking at the actual practice of work, which consists of a myriad of fine­ grained improvisations that are unnoticed in any formal mapping of work tasks.”18 Such beliefs are utilized in this present study to approach and explain information­seek­ ing behavior among social scientists. Researchers used communities of practice in orga­ nization and business studies to investigate knowledge sharing and knowledge­creation processes within orga­ nizational settings to cultivate the building of knowl­ edge­management systems. Researchers also used this approach in the field of computer­supported cooperative work (CSCW) to study the social interactions of group­ ware systems and community computing and support systems. This study selected communities of practice as the theoretical frame because it has been widely applied in the study of knowledge sharing and has been tested and verified through empirical research. This study rep­ resents an exploration of the usefulness of communities of practice for research on information­seeking behavior within a knowledge­intensive scholarly community. The primary purpose of the present study is to pro­ vide empirical evidence on social scientists’ information seeking in scientific research. The main research ques­ tions are: (1) how do social scientists make use of different information sources and channels to satisfy their infor­ mation needs? (2) what strategies do they apply when seeking information for academic research? and, (3) what difficulties are encountered in searching for supporting 6 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 20076 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2007 information? Information service providers should find the results of this study interesting because identifying users’ perceptions of the information environment pro­ vides guidance for information­system development that will closely reflect or accommodate the information­seek­ ing activities of social scientists. ■ Methods The research questions described in the preceding section were tested in the context of information use in scientific inquiry by faculty in the department of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin­Madison during March and April 2003. The participants were selected from the faculty list on the department Web page and then contacted by e­mail to arrange face­to­face interviews. Four people were interviewed based on their willingness to par­ ticipate. Three of them are full­time professors and have teaching experience of more than twenty years (one of them has been teaching for more than thirty years). The fourth is an assistant professor with four years of teaching experience. All of the participants are female. Each inter­ view lasted from forty­five minutes to an hour. All participants were interviewed in their campus offices to allow for easy access to supporting materials as examples of how they go about their work. After explain­ ing her identity, the purpose of the research, and assuring the confidentiality of the interview, the researcher asked initial questions in a relatively structured way to glean background­related information and research context. The second part of the interview dealt with informa­ tion­related behavior, such as information sources and channels used to address research inquiry, and the major strategies for selecting needed information. The third part focused on problems the participants encountered in information seeking. The researcher took field notes and tape­recorded all interviews. As a consistency check, the participants were sometimes asked to comment on disciplinary work prac­ tices gleaned from other interviews. The selection of four participants reflected the practicalities of collecting data with limited time and resources. ■ Findings Based on the idea of communities of practice that what is learned is highly dependent on the context in which the learning takes place because it is central to the trans­ fer and consumption of information, the present study provides a holistic picture of information use situated in actual research practice and academic context among these social scientists.19 These findings can be summarized into several interrelated stages as shown in figure 1. The figure shows that the social scientists’ information seeking moves from academic information needs, choice of information sources, searching for information, to use of the information. The researchers move back and forth between stages until the information inquiry is satisfied. Searching for information involves the implementation of strategies, confrontation of difficulties, and continuous decision making. Choice of information channels goes through the whole information­seeking process based on researchers’ momentary or changing information activi­ ties and information needs. This figure is intended to provide a general view of the information seeking behav­ ior in this specific case, but is not intended to generate a model or pattern of information seeking. The findings are organized into the use of information resources and channels to address information inquiry, the strategies for information seeking, and the difficulties encountered in searching for information, which together constitute the major information­seeking practice of the participants. Figure 1. Stages of the social scientists’ information seeking ARTICLE TITLE | AUTHOR 7INFORMATION SEEkING IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH | SHEN 7 ■ Use of information resources and channels to address information needs Information needs The respondents reported their research­oriented infor­ mation needs in the context of their research activities. Those information needs can be grouped into seven cat­ egories. Examples of responses follow. 1. General academic issues and current research dis­ courses in the field. “I find conferences are more useful for seeing what kinds of general things are going on. I guess some of these are research, some are academic politics kinds of things, and what’s happening in the disci­ pline as a whole.” “In conferences, you find out what other people are doing research on. The most current research is not published yet, so you know what’s happening now.” 2. Feedback from colleagues on personal research. “The best thing about conferences is that when I present my own research, I get comments about it.” “You show your paper to people and ask them for comments, and they show you their papers and ask you for comments. This is kind of the normal part of academic life.” “I usually send a copy of a paper or something and get actual comments through e­mail.” 3. Current research topics and activities of specific authors. “I’ll look for key people, and see what they’ve done. . . .” “Knowing who is doing what where. . . .” “You sort of inevitably talk about your research with other people doing comparable research and find out what they are doing to keep current to what the different research projects are.” 4. Existing datasets (existing survey research data­ bases) and statistics for secondary data analysis. “There are online statistical sources that I get to put in the papers.” “I use the Internet to download all the . . . data that we analyze. . . .” “I do a lot of data research, so I use government sites on the Internet, like the Science’s Bureau, or the National Center for Health Statistics. We also have a little Center for Demography and Ecology Library. I use our in­house databases too.” “In social science, there are many existing sets of data. We have something called Data and Program Library Service here. They have all kinds of data­ bases that will tell you where there are data sources that have certain variables in them. . . . So you can go and do your own statistical analysis on those data.” 5. Information needed for management purposes, such as the cooperation and coordination of research activities. “In this department, we conduct community busi­ ness by e­mail. We pass messages around. . . . A decision is usually made through this dialogue.” “I am constantly in interaction with people by e­ mail to cooperate on research projects.” 6. Community recognition and inspirational support from colleagues. For example, one respondent commented, “In conferences, I feel invigorated when sitting and talking to field colleagues who are interested in my research. The whole conversa­ tion makes me feel excited and inspired.” Another respondent indicated, “To see people face­to­face that you respect and they think your work is good, that’s good.” It is echoed by a third respondent: “You just talk about your work, and people act like what you are doing is very interesting, then it makes you more inspired.” Those needs for information constitute a major research practice of the participants and thus determine how they go about seeking information. ■ Information resources Supporting information resources could be divided into internally built university resources and external resources. Moreover, these internal and external resources could be further subdivided into human resources and nonhuman resources based on their physical forms. Internal, nonhuman resources The participants identified two major categories of internal nonhuman information resources for academic research based on their intended use. The first of these categories is books and journals that are available in the university libraries for literature reviews and to provide awareness of current research. However, because of phys­ ical inconvenience, campus libraries are not often used. One participant indicated, “The library is down the hill, so even before there were lots of good Internet resources, I wasn’t going down to the library a lot.” On the other hand, the participants reported that they frequently used the library online public access catalog (OPAC) to order 8 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 20078 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2007 document delivery from the libraries. “I find Madcat (the library online catalog system) very useful for a whole variety of specific searches for journals, books, and differ­ ent online information.” Another participant remarked, “I can request a book online through the document deliv­ ery services.” Another internal nonhuman resource consists of exist­ ing survey datasets that are collected by the Center for Demography and Ecology Library for secondary data analysis and research. It was indicated that in social sci­ ence, as more and more survey research databases were available, there was an increasing amount of research conducted on secondary data. The Data and Program Library Service provides all kinds of databases informing researchers of the location of data sources and the vari­ ables contained in certain datasets. External, nonhuman resources The participants identified three types of external non­ human resources based on their medium. Some of these resources are purchased and managed internally by the campus libraries but developed and maintained exter­ nally by outside library and information professionals. One type is electronic resources, such as electronic news­ papers, external OPACs, electronic full­text databases, online statistical reports, survey databases, and govern­ ment or personal Web sites. Some named examples include Sociological Abstracts, Lexis­Nexis, Science Bureau’s Web site, the National Center for Health Statistics Web site, Web of Science, and online British newspapers. The second type is printed resources, such as books, newspapers and magazines, archives, and newspaper indexes that are available from outside of the campus. Named examples include the paper indexes for the New York Times and Los Angeles Times back in the 1960s. The third type is audio­ video resources, such as radio broadcasts, tapes, video­ tapes, and television. One major finding was that the participants depended primarily on electronic information resources. All looked for information on both literature and research data via the Internet. Literally, each participant had her own fre­ quent visit to search engines or OPACs for information on specific research topics and general research subjects. Examples of responses include: “I start with Internet Explorer and go to Google.” “I work a lot online. . . . I just do Internet searches. “Both these journal and newspaper databases, I use a lot for various purposes.” “I want to find out if there is work on this specific topic or concept. I would almost always start with Sociological Abstracts.” “The citation index is terrific for finding contempo­ rary work building on something important.” Moreover, the respondents also conducted research on the Internet to study Web behavior or social networks on the Internet. “There are more and more people actually doing research on the Internet, studying Web sites or connec­ tions between Web sites. . . . They collect data online. . . .” “In social­movement research, more and more researchers study how people coordinate transactional movements, protest movements, various ethnic move­ ments, and political movements through the Internet.” “Online is a big way of doing cooperation as well as doing research. It is one of the reasons that we are inter­ ested in studying what kind of connections there are on the electronic network.” “A current research project that I am doing is looking at network of . . . Web sites. So we are gathering primary data from the Web sites.” Thus, the electronic mechanism for information sys­ tems and services dominates the manner in which the participants carry out their research. Internal, human resources The faculty participants were not only electronic­informa­ tion consumers, but also electronic­information producers. For example, one described, “I maintain my own Web page, on which I post my research and add links to outside resources that I collected for years. I have my own gateway to organize the link pages, which can be used for my future reference and by my students. The library links to my Web page as well.” Moreover, this participant advocated the creation and collection of electronic materials by her col­ leagues as well. “It’s an evolving process. The more people put their information on the Internet, the more useful it is to be on the Internet. We are right in that transition.” The department can easily take a step further to build a shared pool of information and information resources in its internal system. A second type of internal human resources comes from the technical staff who provided announcements of technical developments and product information, as well as technical assistance for social­science research. Working as the Social Science Computing Cooperative (SSCC), the technical staff provides the faculty with detailed instruc­ tions and useful tips for creating electronic materials as well as with directions for publishing them. Librarians, as a third type of human resource, provided reference services and collected necessary information resources for their academic research. External, human resources The external human resources that the respondents gathered and contacted are of two types: people shar­ ARTICLE TITLE | AUTHOR �INFORMATION SEEkING IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH | SHEN � ing similar research interests and concerns, and people having different fields of interest. The former types were valued for supporting suggestive and creative commu­ nication and interaction as well as potential cooperation. For example, “when it comes to really think[ing] about things, sit down in one place and talk, and then stuff comes out. You don’t even know what you are thinking until you sit down and talk to people. It’s idea generating.” “Knowing who is doing what where in the field is important. . . . I am working on a . . . research topic, which requires the awareness of other people with similar inter­ est around the world. . . . I cooperate with the scholars from different countries and with different knowledge background.” The latter types are used for current awareness of research works in other fields and general disciplinary activities and academic trends. For example, “I need to know people who know what’s going on in other fields, and they tell me what’s going on.” “I get a lot in terms of contemporary research at con­ ferences, which are useful for things that haven’t been published in journals.” “[A conference] will generate a lot of interesting inter­ change.” “[At conferences], I think about how what other people are doing is related to what I would want to do, or how they can do it differently. A lot of times, I think about whether the methods they are using would be useful for my work at all.” ■ Channels The major information channels through which the par­ ticipants delivered and exchanged information included e­mail, telephone, face­to­face communication, and proj­ ect reports or other documents. E­mail was a domi­ nant communication and information­acquisition tool in research. Face­to­face or oral communication channels in this case were often used as a supplementary means. “Mostly, e­mail is how I communicate with people, occasionally telephone, but not very often. Even with people here and we can walk right next door, mostly we just e­mail each other. It’s nice, because you have a record.” “I get hundreds of e­mails a week. . . . I live on e­mail. My colleagues know I am easier to reach by e­mail than in person.” “[Face­to face] it’s just the more personal and emo­ tional mode [of communication] . . . you can see the person’s expression, and figure out what they are really thinking.” E­mail communication helped accomplish several scientists’ tasks, including quick exchange of timely infor­ mation, teamwork coordination, non­work­oriented mes­ sage exchange, field discussion, field information seeking and finding communities of interest. For example, one participant indicated the coordination of community activities through e­mail. In this department, we conduct community business by e­mail. Community members rarely meet face to face. The chairperson finds out what the research task is, and sends out messages. People exchange opinions through e­mail messages. And a decision is usually made through this dialogue, instead of talking face to face. When scholars are going to have a face­to­face meet­ ing, they deliver the data, records, and reports before­ hand, and share their initial viewpoints with supporting information through e­mail. The following factors affected a scholar’s choice of channels for information delivery and exchange: the char­ acteristics of the information receiver, the characteristics of the information, the task or purpose of delivering or sharing information, and the immediacy of response. For example, one respondent mentioned that she usu­ ally delivered data, records, and research documents via e­mail for formal announcement and record keeping by the receivers. When there was no stress of immediate response, she preferred e­mail communication for the thoughtful input and feedback allowed by the asynchro­ nous­exchange feature of e­mail. “Intellectual questions are more easily handled by e­mail because I have the time to think about it and formulate my responses.” She con­ tinued, “I usually e­mail a copy of my paper to colleagues for detailed feedback.” In another case, a participant indicated, “Some of us are well aware that e­mail is archived, it’s not anonymous and not private. If you are concerned about something and want to say something that you don’t want to have an e­mail record of, you may want to go to talk to some­ body about it, instead of writing it in an e­mail.” Another participant explained that because of her research topics, she usually adopted the face­to­face method of communication and attended all kinds of international academic conferences. In other circum­ stances, when collecting opinions for resolving certain questions, she chose to use e­mail. ■ Strategies for information seeking The participants indicated certain strategies applied to gathering information and tracking resources to address 10 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 200710 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2007 their information needs. Those strategies with response examples are: 1. Extracting abstracts: “I use abstracts to get the parameters of what’s happening and then know more narrowly where to focus.” 2. Tracking citations: “The citation index is terrific for finding contemporary work” that builds on previ­ ous major work in a subject area. 3. Restricting the search to a limited set of sources or types of sources to achieve satisfactory results within an acceptable timeline. 4. Constantly filtering and interpreting the search results by referring to the summary description of Web sites: “In most searches that I do, the first ten hits are book dealers. I don’t bother with them. I go to the next page and try. . . . I look at the summary of what the site is and try to figure out what the worthy things are.” 5. Avoiding search terms prone to commercial infor­ mation: “When searching for something without a lot of commercial stuff, you are more likely to get what you want on the top.” 6. Setting the default for the number of search results with consideration of information completeness, information usefulness, importance of research, and timeliness: For example, one participant stated, “I usually set my least default to a hundred cita­ tions. Five hundred is too many, but it depends on what you’re looking for, how much you care about your findings, how much faith you have for the existence of useful information. If you think it’s not worth a minute of your time, you just forget it. But if you are sure it’s there, you just have to keep looking for and work[ing] harder at it.” As shown in the findings, the participants employed certain criteria for evaluation of the information they gathered. Those judgment criteria were: importance of research, usefulness, accuracy, completeness, and timeli­ ness. The results imply that to accomplish the research tasks on hand in a fast­paced and distributed digital­ information environment, the practicalities of time and human effort have come into play in the ways in which the participants sought information. ■ Difficulties in seeking supporting information The problems encountered by the participants when col­ lecting information through various resources were iden­ tified and are grouped into categories, including: ■ Information is scattered in different places and with different qualities; it is difficult to have a complete and valuable picture of a research phenomenon. The participants described this difficulty as “how tricky computerized search is.” ■ There is too much information on the Internet to filter, and the current search techniques and ranking tools are not intelligent enough to capture the most relevant information of interest. The participants described trying alternative search strategies as a “game­playing” and “brainstorming” process. ■ No sources of information or mechanisms assist in the identification of people with similar research interests and their activities in the broad virtual space. For example, one participant described: I am trying to find what’s in public debate on con­ troversial topics. And it’s very common to have trouble finding both sides of the debate. I started with diffuse searches on the Internet trying to see if I can find the potential academic community and tag into their debate. I basically searched on [the search term] on the whole Internet because I had no idea where it would be, who got involved, and how it was formed. When doing [the research] issue, it’s easy to find the people in favor of [a topic], but difficult to find anybody who was an opponent. Eventually, I got hundreds of hits [search results], and I had to wade through a lot of proponents to find the opponents. Sometimes, it’s an issue to find [an] ethnic minority perspective of a topic. ■ Technology upgrades and system integration arouse another concern. As one participant expressed it, “technology is changing [so] fast that lots of com­ puter files from the 1970s are no longer readable. The danger of an information system lies in the tradeoff between the accessibility provided by digitization and the long­term survival of intellectual proper­ ties.” ■ There are no digital sources of information for some historical documents and no retrievable data­ bases for book chapters. One participant noted, “The online strategy is very good for really current stuff, but not for older stuff. The people who started the . . . research were actually writing before the online revolution, so they are not turning up so much in keyword searches online.” Another participant also mentioned the inconvenience of using hard­copy indexes for newspapers from the 1960s and archival data that go back to the 1970s and 1980s. ■ Discussion This study shows how the ‘communities of practice’ perspective situates the process of using information in the actual practice of scientific research. It provides an information context in which knowledge takes on sig­ ARTICLE TITLE | AUTHOR 11INFORMATION SEEkING IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH | SHEN 11 nificance. The results provide empirical evidence of the participants’ activities as well as insights into the ways they seek information. In his discussion of user­oriented evaluation and qualitative analysis of information use, Ellis emphasized a small­scale qualitative analysis of users’ perceptions of system performance to construct insights into the complex reality of the information environment.20 He argued that a detailed understanding of the complexity and interaction of information systems and services and their users can be used to explain problems and provide guidance on the development of information systems. The present study is in accord with Ellis’s idea by focus­ ing on a specific sample of academic social scientists working in a university setting. The choice of University of Wisconsin­Madison is based on the grounds of conve­ nience and ease of access. The restriction to one specific sample also avoids the added complexity and compound problems of information use situated in different practice and contexts. Ellis also considered the feasibility of interviews to “provide enough information for a detailed and accurate account of the perceptions of the social scientists of their information­seeking activities to be made, and to enable an authentic picture to be constructed of those activi­ ties.”21 He thought the information­seeking activities of social scientists were too diffuse to carry out triangulation of methods. By applying the interview method, this cur­ rent study complies with Ellis’s suggestion. On the other hand, Ellis’s information­seeking behav­ ior­model of social scientists presented six generic fea­ tures. These conclusions are far too general for specific application. From the perspective of communities of practice, the current study examines the way social sci­ entists use information in their research practices and specific circumstances; it also presents specific informa­ tion­related behavior, strategies, and difficulties. This study also extends the understanding of the way infor­ mation is used by social scientists in a new information environment with dramatic technical advances. The findings of this study support the conclusions of Kling and McKim and Costa and Meadows by showing the growing importance of information technology and the resulting major shifts in information­seeking practice among social scientists.22 Unlike research findings prior to the 1990s, the social scientists in this study make exten­ sive use of a variety of information sources and channels, primarily electronic­information systems and services, in seeking information. In the new information environ­ ment, these new information mechanisms also presented limitations and difficulties. Moreover, many LIS researchers have examined users’ relevance criteria in information seeking.23 Great emphasis is given to the “situational dynamism of user­ centered relevance estimation.”24 Situated in their research practices, the present study also identified the social sci­ entists’ applications of certain criteria for evaluation of information. Although the small­scale study has limitations for research generalization, the rich description of social sci­ entists’ perspective on the information environment has some practical implications for information­system­and­ service design for academic social scientists. ■ Plan for system-to-system integration This study identified technology upgrades and sys­ tem­integration problems existing in current academic information systems. Technology was developed and applied without the capability of intergenerational com­ munications and transactions at the cost of intellectual properties. Kling and Star addressed the same issue that “computerized systems appear like the layers of an archaeological dig, with newer systems built upon older systems with various workplace surveillance capa­ bilities.”25 They stated that such “legacy systems” are fragile and inflexible for information use and knowledge management. Therefore, planning for system integration should be underway. ■ Enhance the Web resource-retrieval system The study identified the difficulties encountered by fac­ ulty in locating relevant, complete, and valuable informa­ tion effectively and efficiently on the large and dynamic Web. An advanced Web resource system thus is required that allows Web content to be indexed and retrieved more intelligently. Moreover, the findings of information­seek­ ing strategies in this case study suggest a one­way user­ system interaction process. There is no interactive query refinement between the user and the system. Thus, the users have to brainstorm and play with alternative search strategies in the hope of significant results. To enhance system effectiveness, a relevance­feedback mechanism that takes into account the users’ relevance judgment is thus needed. This mechanism should have a two­way user­system interaction component. ■ Construct an internal information system The findings of the study point to a need for a shared pool of information resources in the University of Wisconsin– Madison Department of Sociology. Through the leverage and reuse of existing internal knowledge assets in the 12 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 200712 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | MARCH 2007 Department, this system could help collectively create or gather information resources for cross­reference by colleagues. ■ Construct a collaborative information mechanism for the social-scientific community According to the findings, there are no sources of infor­ mation or mechanisms that assist the identification of people with similar research interests and their activi­ ties on the broad virtual space. However, awareness of shared interests and experiences constitutes an important external human resource that is valued for suggestive and creative interaction and for potential cooperation. Thus, a collaborative information mechanism for identification with personal academic interests will be helpful. ■ Limitations Certain limitations inherent in the study need to be acknowledged. Due to the time and resource constraints, the study sample includes only four scholars. Given this small sample, results cannot be generalized. Although Ellis mentioned the feasibility of interviews in a user­ oriented study of information use, dependence on a single method has the disadvantages of the restriction of views. For example, interviewer characteristics, expecta­ tions, and verbal idiosyncrasies, and participants’ socially desirable responses are recognized in many studies as potential sources of method biases (Podsakoff et al.).26 If time and resources permit, triangulation of methods—for example, combining interviews with observations and diaries—would increase the level of specificity and justify the validity and reliability of the research results. ■ Conclusion Drawing upon the idea of communities of practice that what is learned: (1) is dependant on the context in which the learning takes place, and (2) is central to the transfer and consumption of information, this study examined the information­seeking behavior of four social scien­ tists. Results were drawn about their use of information resources and information channels to meet their infor­ mation inquiries, their strategies for information seeking, and the difficulties encountered in searching for relevant information, situated in the course of their actual scien­ tific research. This work has two primary contributions. First, it provides a rich description of social scientists’ per­ spectives on their research­oriented information­seeking behavior in the context of today’s information environ­ ment. Second, it situates information seeking behavior in a socially constructed practice and presents specific features of information seeking. These results will help refine the understanding of the dynamic relationship between information systems and services and their users within scientific research. Several areas remain for future research. Researchers could make a comparative study of academics in differ­ ent institutional settings. Future research could also study the dynamic interaction of information systems and ser­ vices and their users within each stage of Ellis’s model of information­seeking patterns among social scientists to get insights into the specific features of their information seeking behaviors and to enrich their general patterns of information inquiry with specific details. Research on information­seeking behaviors of social scientists could also focus on specific research tasks or certain research stages to decide differences or similarities of informa­ tion­seeking behaviors across academic practice. Similar research could also be done on faculty in other disci­ plines. References 1. M. B. Folster, “Information­Seeking Patterns: Social Scien­ tists,” The Reference Librarian 23, no. 49/50 (1995): 83–93. 2. M. B. Line, “Information Requirements in the Social Sci­ ences: Some Preliminary Considerations,” Journal of Librarianship 1, (1969): 1–19; M. B. Line, “The Information Uses and Needs of Social Scientists: An Overview of INFROSS,” Aslib Proceedings 23, (1971): 412–34. 3. P. Stenstrom and R. B. McBride, “Serial Use by Social Sci­ ence Faculty: A Survey,” College and Research Libraries 40 (1979): 426–31; R. H. Epp and J. S. Segal, “The ACLS Survey and Aca­ demic Library Service,” College and Research Libraries News 48, (1987): 63–69; M. Slater, “Social Scientists’ Information Needs in the 1980s,” Journal of Documentation 44, no. 3 (1988): 226–37; M. B. Folster, “A Study of the Use of Information Sources by Social Science Researchers,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 15, no. 1 (1989): 7–11; C. C. Gould and M. J. Handler, Information Needs in the Social Sciences: An Assessment (Mountain View, Calif.: Research Libraries Group, 1989). 4. Folster, “A Study of the Use of Information Sources by Social Science Researchers”; Epp and Segal, “The ACLS Survey and Academic Library Service.” 5. D. Ellis, “The Derivation of a Behavioral Model for Infor­ mation Retrieval System Design” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Sheffield, 1987); D. Ellis, “A Behavioral Approach to Information Retrieval System Design,” Journal of Documentation 45, no. 3 (1989): 171– 212. 6. L. I. Meho and H. R. Tibbo, “Modeling the Information­ Seeking Behavior of Social Scientists: Ellis’s Study Revisited,” ARTICLE TITLE | AUTHOR 13INFORMATION SEEkING IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH | SHEN 13 Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technol- ogy 54, no. 6 (2003): 570–87. 7. H. C. Hobohm, “Social Science Information and Docu­ mentation: Time for a State of the Art?” Inspel 33, no. 3 (1999): 123–30. 8. M. B. Line, “Social Science Information: The Poor Rela­ tion,” IFLA Journal 26, no. 3 (2000): 177–79. 9. R. Kling and G. McKim, “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, no. 14 (2000): 1306–20. 10. S. Costa and J. Meadows, “The Impact of Computer Usage on Scholarly Communication Among Social Scientists,” Journal of Information Science 26, no. 4 (2000): 255–62. 11. E. Wenger, R. McDermott, and W. M. Snyder, Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge (Boston: Harvard Business Sch. Pr., 2002), 4. 12. S. Al­Hawamdeh, Knowledge Management: Cultivating Knowledge Professionals (Oxford: Chandos Pubs., 2003). 13. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1998). 14. J. S. Brown and P. Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation,” Organization Science 2, no.1 (1991): 40–57. 15. J. S. Brown, “Internet Technology in Support of the Con­ cept of ‘Communities of Practice’: The Case of Xerox,” Account- ing, Management, and Information Technologies 8, no. 4 (1998): 227–36; Brown and Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Com­ munities of Practice; F. Blackler, “Knowledge, Knowledge Work, and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation,” Organi- zation Studies 16, no. 6 (1995): 1021–46; J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1991); N. Hayes and G. Walsham, “Par­ ticipation in Groupware­Mediated Communities of Practice: A Socio­Political Analysis of Knowledge Working,” Information and Organization 11, no. 4 (2001): 263–88. 16. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, “Cultivating Communi­ ties of Practice.” 17. Brown and Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Com­ munities of Practice,” 48. 18. Hayes and Walsham, “Participation in Groupware­Medi­ ated Communities of Practice,” 264. 19. K. Grosser, “Human Networks in Organizational Informa­ tion Processing,” in M. E. Williams, ed., Annual Review of Informa- tion Science and Technology (Medford, N.J.: Learned Information, 1991), 349–402; Brown, “Internet Technology in Support of the Concept of ‘Communities of Practice’”; Brown and Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice”; Black­ ler, “Knowledge, Knowledge Work, and Organizations”; Lave and Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Hayes and Walsham, “Participation in Groupware­Mediated Communities of Practice.” 20. D. Ellis, “User­Oriented Evaluation and Qualitative Anal­ ysis of Patterns of Information Use,” in D. Bawden, User-Ori- ented Evaluation of Information Systems and Services (Brookfield, Vt.: Gower, 1990), 172–79. 21. Ibid., 177. 22. Kling and McKim, “Not Just a Matter of Time”; Costa and Meadows, “The Impact of Computer Usage on Scholarly Com­ munication Among Social Scientists.” 23. C. L. Barry, “User­Defined Relevance Criteria: An Explor­ atory Study,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45, no. 3 (1994): 149–59; H. W. Bruce, “A Cognitive View of the Situational Dynamism of User­Centered Relevance Estimation,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45, no. 3 (1994): 142–48; S. Mizzaro, “Relevance: The Whole Story,” Jour- nal of the American Society for Information Science 48, no. 9 (1997): 810–32; X.­J. Yuan, N. J. Belkin, and J.­Y. Kim, “The Relation­ ship between ASK and Relevance Criteria,” in Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (New York: ACM Pr., 2002), 359–60; S. Y. Rieh, “Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority in the Web,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 2 (2002): 145–61; C. N. Wathen and J. Burkell, “Believe It or Not: Factors Influencing Credibility on the Web,” Journal of the American Society for Infor- mation Science and Technology 53, no. 2 (2002): 134–44; A. Tombros, I. Ruthven, and J. M. Jose, “Searchers’ Criteria for Assessing Web Pages,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Toronto: ACM Pr., 2003), 385–86. 24. Bruce, “A Cognitive View of the Situational Dynamism of User­Centered Relevance Estimation,” 142. 25. R. Kling and L. Star, “Human­Centered Systems in the Perspective of Organizational and Social Informatics,” Comput- ers and Society 28, no. 1 (1998): 22–29. 26. P. M. Podsakoff et al., “Common Method Biases in Behav­ ioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recom­ mended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5 (2003): 879–903.