College and Research Libraries Interdisciplinary Work and the Inform.ation Search Process: A Com.parison of Manual and Online Searching Laura M. Bartolo and Timothy D. Smith Library users' research interests and needs are becoming increasingly inter- disciplinary. This type of research presents searchers with obstacles that differ from disciplinary research. Using the information search process (ISP) developed by Carol C. Kuhlthau as a theoretical model, this study compares the impact of manual and online search methods on the interdisciplinary search task in terms of the relevance of retrieved items, user effort, user satisfaction, user confidence and future use. This comparative investigation examines two senior-level journalism classes researching judicial decisions related to the mass media. One class used printed legal reference sources; the other class used LEXIS, a full-text legal database. The results of this study indicate that online search methods are more effective than manual search methods when users are working outside their areas of specialization. orne of the most provocative topics of debate within the .academy today concern the notions of disciplinary boun- dary lines and interdisciplinarity.1 These piscussions are not totally new, nor are the challenges facing researchers em- barking on these new or blurred fron- tiers. In 1972 M. E. Freeman noted, "For half a century scientific progress has developed toward interdisciplinary and broad scope technologies. At the same time the information resources neces- sary for orderly scientific development have become increasingly fragmented and specialized. The multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary scientist has found it more and more difficult to locate pre- cisely the information he needs." 2 Freeman's comments highlight two im- portant and conflicting factors in inter- disciplinary work: the broad research interests of scholars and the develop- ment of highly specialized information resources. Today academic librarians frequently encounter these features when they help library users investigate such broad topics as international politi- Laura M. Bartolo is Reference Librarian, and Timothy D. Smith is Professor and Acting Director of Journalism and Mass Communication at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242-0001. Research for this article was jointly sponsored by the Council on Library Resources (Grant No. 860) and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at Kent State University. The authors thank Stanley Fish, Chairman of the department of English and Professor of Law at Duke University, for permission to cite his talk delivered at the Folger Institute on November 30, 1990; Roy S. Lilly, Professor of Psychology at Kent State University, for his assistance in the design and statistical analysis of this study; and the referee for College & Research Libraries for helpful suggestions reflected in the conclusion of this article. 344 cal economy as well as search such specialized resources as Thesaurus Lin- guae Graecae (TLG). Though there have been many articles in library journals addressing interdisci- plinary topics, most have focused on selecting materials for these areas.3 Other articles have addressed such is- sues as subject overlap in online databases, the impact of new trends in higher education, citation analysis, and bibliographic instruction for interdisci- plinary courses.4-7 However there has been no direct study of users researching interdisciplinary projects and the chal- lenges they encounter. While the prob- lems of interdisciplinary work are not entirely new, advances in technologies have altered their impact on researchers. This paper describes a comparative study of two senior-level journalism classes. One class employed manual search methods to identify and evaluate judicial decisions relating to the mass media; the other class used online search methods for the assignment. Following the information search process (ISP) developed by Kuhlthau as the theoreti- cal model, the authors investigate effec- tive search methods for library users, particularly novice users, when working on interdisciplinary subjects outside their area of specialization.8 Specifically, this study addresses how the search method affects the relevance of retrieved items, user effort, user satisfaction, user confidence, and future use. However, before describing this investigation, it is necessary to define interdisciplinary work as it is used in this study and to highlight the theoretical principles of ISP as it re- lates to the challenges of interdiscipli- nary work. INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK As numerous articles have argued and as Julie Klein thoroughly documents in her recent book, Interdisciplinarity, inter- disciplinary work is not limited to scien- tific fields but is found across all disciplines of knowledge.9 Academic librarians are increasingly seeing the proliferation of interdisciplinary work - when assisting researchers who con- Interdisciplinary Works 345 duct literature reviews across discipli- nary lines, in selecting new monographs and journals to support interdisciplinary research, and in preparing BI for inter- disciplinary curriculum. Considerable discussion as well as misunderstanding exists about the pre- cise meaning of the term interdisciplinary work. Julie Klein defines interdisciplinar- ity as "the ideas of a unified science, general knowledge, synthesis, and the integration of knowledge,"(the authors').10 Yet inter- disciplinarity has also been used to con- vey the awareness of disciplinary differences. Stanley Fish has stated, "It is in the name of difference- of the recog- nition of perspectives, materials and in- terests excluded from the disciplinary focus - that one calls for interdiscipli- nary work, for work that insists on look- ing into the other fellow's back yard.'' 11 In his discussion about the nature of interdisciplinary work, Fish further notes that researchers ''borrow" from other fields in order to meet their immediate research needs and relate that work to their own discipline. This study adopts Fish's definition of interdisciplinary work and examines the searcher's effectiveness in disciplinary backyard borrowing. In his discussion about the nature of interdisciplinary work, Fish further notes that researchers "borrow" from other fields in order to meet their immediate research needs and relate that work to their own discip- line. "One begins with a 'sense of task' derived from some enterprise, some rec- ognizable project, and within that sense one makes use of the materials that come to hand, including materials generated by other enterprises, but materials that will be received (and perceived) in the form appropriate to the job of work you are nowdoing." 12 Librarians working one- on-one with individual library users or with a class through BI must take into account these disciplinary differences. For example, it is equally important for the librarian instructing journalism students 346 College & Research Libraries in legal research methods to relate legal research to the field of journalism as well as it is to outline the principles of legal research. Interdisciplinary work presents li- brary users with challenges different from those of disciplinary research. When researchers from one discipline borrow materials from another disci- pline, they must borrow intelligently to ensure the success of their project. First, users embarking outside their territorial lines must be aware of current develop- ments in other disciplines. Second, this awareness of new developments en- courages a sensitivity to where different but related disciplines can converge. Fi- nally, in interdisciplinary work the user must identify the appropriate terms and principles to borrow from another dis- cipline. Once the user assesses the per- spectives and materials that are needed and from what disciplines they can be borrowed, then the searcher stands on firm ground ready to embark on the en- terprise.13 To best understand how one addresses the challenges of interdiscipli- nary research-awareness of new developments, understanding of common ground, and determination of relevant concepts and findings-it is necessary to investigate information seeking behavior from the user's perspective. INFORMATION SEARCH PROCESS As Carol C. Kuhlthau defines it, the "information search process (ISP) is the user's constructive activity of finding meaning from information in order to extend his or her state of knowledge on a particular topic or problem. It incor- porates a series of encounters with infor- mation within a space of time rather than a single reference incident. Uncertainty and anxiety are an integral part of the process, particularly in the beginning stages." 14 ISP primarily analyzes the li- brary user's quest for information. People synthesize new information based upon what they know or have experienced, and they construct mean- ing from the information they come upon. Kuhlthau identifies six stages in the information search process: July1993 1. The initiation stage when users rec- ognize the need for information and, conversely, their lack of knowledge. 2. The selection stage when · users identify and select a general topic or approach. 3. The exploration stage when users orient themselves to the topic in order to form a stand or point of view. 4. The formulation stage when users select a focus or perspective for the topic. 5. The collection stage when users gather information related to the focused topic. 6. The presentation stage when users complete the research and prepare the finalized work. ISP recognizes the psychological as well as intellectual activity involved in the endeavor of seeking and gathering information. In the first four stages of ISP, confusion increases as inconsisten- cies and incompatibilities of new infor- mation relative to what was previously known are encountered. If searchers ex- perience difficulty locating information about their topic, they begin to doubt the relevance of the newly found informa- tion and may abandon their project en- tirely. Reference librarians working with in- dividual library users or with an entire class frequently encounter searchers with undefined projects who express frustration and confusion about their work. Relatively minor problems, such as what periodical indexes to use, how to search them, and where to find journal articles, can appear insurmountable to the library user at that stage. Kuhlthau observes that two competing elements foster this sense of anxiety. The in- dividual is engaged in seeking informa- tion while at the same time formulating the research project. This dilemma is heightened by the searcher's lack of fa- miliarity with the organization of infor- mation.15 Reference librarians must recognize that until the user begins to identify the needed resources success- fully and to focus the project, the entire work can be in jeopardy. While Kuhlthau contends that all searchers undergo some degree of anxiety, those involved with interdisci- plinary projects risk experiencing an even greater sense of frustration and anxiety than those involved with disci- plinary work. The duality of the inter- disciplinary search task-the need to find information and the lack of knowl- edge of another discipline-potentially heightens the level of uncertainty and anxiety for the researcher. Interdisciplinary work, then, presents different challenges for researchers from disciplinary work. Individuals working in another discipline need to be aware of new developments in the other field. In addition, they need to understand the common ground between the two dis- ciplines and to determine relevant con- cepts and findings to borrow from the other discipline. Given the challenges of interdisciplinary work and in light of ISP, how do manual or online search methods affect the succ~ssful comple- tion of interdisciplinary projects? RESEARCH QUESTIONS In general, this study examines how the search method used to find relevant information affects the user's search process when working on interdiscipli- nary projects. It was the authors' hy- pothesis that searchers working on interdisciplinary projects who conduct online information searches meet the challenges of interdisciplinary work more successfully and develop better re- searched projects than those who em- ploy manual information search methods. To test this hypothesis, we an- alyzed the results of student bibliogra- phies of judicial decisions relating to mass media (faculty evaluated) from two senior-level journalism classes and questionnaires completed by the same students at the end of the course. Specifically, our research addressed the following questions: 1. Is there a difference between manual and online search methods in terms of relevant material retrieved for interdisciplinary topics (faculty evaluated)? Interdisciplinary Works 347 2. Are there differences between manual and online search methods for interdisciplinary topics in terms of the following indicators of anxiety: user effort (time required and ease of use), user satisfaction, user confidence (need for help), and future use. RESEARCH METHOD The subjects for this two-semester study were students enrolled in spring (manual group, N= 34) and fall (online group, N= 35) senior-level journalism classes, "Law of Mass Communication." These classes were chosen because stu- dents who generally enroll are journal- ism majors with little or no background in legal research. The research assignment for both groups was a two-part project that re- quired students to submit two bibliogra- phies which located and evaluated judicial decisions pertaining to a partic- ular topic on the mass media. The first part of the class assignment (preliminary bibliography) followed Kuhlthau's first four stages of ISP-initiation, selection, exploration, and formulation-where the students selected their topic, gathered in- formation and focused their research pro- ject. For the preliminary bibliography, both the manual and online groups were required to find between twenty to twenty-five judicial decisions that the students perceived to be relevant to their research topic. A judicial decision was considered relevant by the faculty mem- ber if it was closely related to the legal issues involved in the research topic. This assignment focused on the stu- dents' ability to locate court cases on a particular topic using print materials or online databases. The second part of the class assign- ment (final bibliography) involved Kuhlthau' s last two stages of ISP-col- lection and presentation-where the stu- dents read the material listed on ·the preliminary bibliography and, based upon their reading, selected the material to be listed on the final annotated bibliography. For the final bibliography both the manual and online groups were required 348 College & Research Libraries to select from the preliminary bibliogra- phy between four to ten judicial deci- sions they considered to be landmark cases in that area of law. The students were also asked to write detailed abstracts about each of the court cases they had selected. The purpose of this assignment was to go beyond the students' ability to find court cases. The preliminary biblio- graphy measured the students' under- standing of basic legal research. The final bibliography examined the students' un- derstanding of legal principles by assess- ing the students' evaluation and description of judicial decisions. INSTRUCfiON AND TREATMENT Instruction and treatment for the two groups--manual and online--were as similar as possible. Both groups had two one-hour legal research sessions and a one-hour tutorial session. On the second week of class the librarian conducted the first one-hour session and discussed the elements of legal research and the specif- ics about either manual or online research methods. The manual group was trained to conduct manual legal research-that is, to use print legal secondary sources, such as the American Law Reports series (ALR), legal digests, law review articles, and legal encyclopedias-in order to compile the bibliographies. The online group was shown how to conduct online searches using LEXIS, a full-text online database, in order to complete the bibliographies. During the third and fourth weeks of classes each student had a one-hour tu- torial session with the librarian to learn individually how to use either manual or online research methods in relation to his or her specific topic. After the stu- dents handed in the preliminary bibliog- raphy, the librarian conducted the second one-hour session focusing on how to evaluate and abstract the judicial decisions.16 After the students handed in the final bibliography, they completed a questionnaire which assessed user ef- fort, user satisfaction, user confidence, and future use in relation to the search method and search product. The following variables were ex- amined in the study: July 1993 • Retrieval Size: The number of judicial decisions listed on each of the bibliog- raphies. • Precision: The number of judicial deci- sions that the faculty member judges to be relevant to the research topic. Precision is reported as a percentage of retrieval size. • User Effort: The amount of time the students' projects involved and the degree of difficulty they perceived the project to be (on a six-point scale). • User Satisfaction: The students' satis- faction with the results of their re- search project (on a six-point scale). • User Confidence: The students' level of confidence in using either manual or online research methods (on a three-point scale). • Future Use: The students' expected use of the research method in the fu- ture (on a four-point scale). RESULTS Preliminary and Final Bibliographies • Retrieval Size: On average, the manual group found slightly more court cases than the online group. In the prelimi- nary bibliography the manual group re- trieved twenty-five cases and the online group identified twenty-two. In the final bibliography, the manual group listed five court cases; the online group cited four court opinions. • Precision: In the preliminary and final bibliographies the faculty member evaluated the number of relevant court cases. For the preliminary as- signment the faculty member judged a court case to be relevant if it discussed all or most of the legal issues involved with the student's topic. In the final bib- liography the faculty member deter- mined the number of landmark decisions listed and abstracted by the students. A judicial decision was con- sidered a landmark case if it represented an important event or turning point in legal reasoning. The precision rate of relevant decisions is reported as a per- centage of the retrieval size. T-tests, which compare the mean scores of two distinct groups, were used to analyze the results of the bibliographies. Interdisciplinary Works 349 TABLEt STUDENT MANUAL SEARCHING VERSUS STUDENT ONLINE SEARCHING: A COMPARISON OF OUTPUT VARIABLES Student Manual (N = 34) Variable Mean so Bibliography 1: Identify 20-25 cases on your topic Retrieval size 24.76 1.06 Precision 18.38% .16 Bibliography 2: After reading the cases, select 5-10 most relevant Retrieval size 4.32 3.19 Precision 20.59% .41 • Significance is p < .05 NS = No Significance In the preliminary bibliography, the mean number of relevant decisions for the manual group was 18 percent; the result for the online group was 94 per- cent. This difference is highly significant (T = -17.08, p .0001). The statistically sig- nificant difference between the scores of the online and manual groups on the pre- liminary bibliography verifies the success rate of online searches as a method of identifying relevant court cases on a par- ticular topic by individuals with little or no background in a subject area (see table 1). In the final bibliography, the mean score for the manual group was 20 percent; the mean score for the online group was 49 percent. The difference between the groups on the final bibliography was sig- nificant (T = -2.52, p .05). Individuals with little or no background in legal re- search who use online research methods do a better job of understanding the legal principles involved with a court case and evaluating the importance of these legal decisions than those using printed methods (see table 1 ). Questionnaires: Indicators of Anxiety The responses in the questionnaires of the manual and online groups were com- pared in relation to the following varia- bles: amount of time spent on the search, ease of using the search method, satisfac- Student Online (N = 35) Mean so TValue Significance• 21.94 12.04 1.38 NS 94.46% .20 -17.08 p < .00001 3.54 3.6 .95 NS 48.57% .51 -2.52 p < .014 tion with the results found by using the search method, confidence of using the search method alone or with the help of a librarian and expected future use of the search method. • Time spent: Of the manual group, 46 percent (N= 15) reported spending six hours preparing and conducting their search; 34 percent of that group (N= 13) spent over ten hours. Of the online group, 88 percent (N= 31) spent three hours or less searching. A number of students from the manual group noted on their questionnaire that looking in printed materials took too long (see table 2). • Ease of use: Thirty-five percent of the manual group (N= 12) found printed materials somewhat easy to use; 35 percent (N= 12) described them as somewhat difficult to use. Only 11 per- cent (N = 4) of the manual group found printed materials easy to use. In the online group, 34 percent (N= 12) found online searching easy to use; 40 percent (N= 14) found it somewhat easy and only 14 percent (N= 5) found it somewhat difficult (see table 2). • Satisfaction: On the whole, both manual and online groups reported being satisfied or moderately satisfied with the results of their searching. From the manual group, 44 percent (N= 15) and 35 350 College & Research Libraries July 1993 TABLE2 FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT TIME, EASE OF USE, SATISFACTION, LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE, AND FUTURE USE OF SEARCH METHOD Student Student Manual Online Group Group Variable (N= 34) (N =35) Variable 1. Time Spent 6hrs. Manual Online 1 hr. Time Spent N "" N 'lo 2. Ease of Use Ease of Use 0 Very Easy (VE) 3 1~~ ~ 3 9% 0 Very Easy (VE) 0 Easy(E) 4 12 34% 0 Easy (E) 0 Somewhat Easy 12 35% SE E 14 40% 0 Somewhat Easy (SE) VE (SE) 0 Somewhat Difficult 12 35o/o D 5 14% 0 Somewhat Difficult (SO) so (SO) 0 Difficult (D) 3 9% 3% 0 Difficult (D) 3. Satisfaction Satisfaction 0 Very Satisfied (VS) 2 6% @ ®1~ 14% 0 Very Satisfied (VS) 0 Satisfied (S) 15 44% 40% 0 Satisfied (S) 0 Somewhat Satisfied 12 35% 10 29% 0 Somewhat Satisfied (SS) (SS) 0 Somewhat 3 9% 4 11o/o 0 Somewhat Disappointed (SO) Disappointed (SO) 0 Disappointed (D) 2 6o/o 2 5o/o 0 Disappointed (D) "' 4. Confidence: Confidence: Do search with help @ Do search with help 0 Very Confident (VC) 12 35% @14 40% 0 Very Confident (VC) 0 Moderately 17 50o/o 19 54% 0 Moderately Confident (MC) Confident (MC) 0 No Confidence (NC) 5 15% 2 6% 0 No Confidence (NC) c 5. Confidence: Confidence: Do search alone Do search alone 0 No Help (NH) 5 15% 7 20% 0 No Help (NH) 0 With Help (W/Help) 26 n% 23 66% 0 With Help (W/Help) 0 No Confidence (NC) 3 9o/o 5 14% 0 No Confidence (NC) 6. Future Use Future Use 0 All 6 18% 11 31% OAII 0 Many 20 59o/o 17 49% 0 Many 0 Rarely 7 21% 7 20% 0 Rarely 0 Never 1 3% 0 Oo/o 0 Never percent (N= 12) reported being satisfied and somewhat satisfied, respectively. In the online group, 40 percent (N= 14) and 29 percent (N= 10) selected satisfied and somewhat satisfied, respectively. Fourteen percent (N= 5) from the manual group selected somewhat dis- appointed and disappointed while 14 percent (N= 5) from the online group selected very satisfied. A number of stu- dents from the online group further commented that their search method contributed to finding court cases quickly and helping to focus their re- search topic (see table 2). • Confidence-alone and with help: Both groups were confident to mod- erately confident in using manual or online search methods alone or with the help of a librarian. In the manual group, 85 percent (N= 29) rated them- selves as very confident or moderately confident to do the search with help; 15 percent (N= 5) reported no confi- dence. In terms of confidence to search alone, 15 percent (N= 5) selected no help. In the online group 94 percent (N = 33) described themselves as very confident or moderately confident to search with help while 6 percent (N= 2) expressed no confidence. Twenty percent (N = 7) selected confidence to search alone (see table 2). • Future Use: Both groups of students were asked whether they would use their search methods in the future. Of the manual group, 18 percent (N= 6) reported that they would always use printed legal materials while 32 percent (N= 11) of the online group responded that they would always use LEXIS (see table 2). DISCUSSION This study is unique in its comparison of manual and online searching. Pre- vious studies have concentrated on users searching in their areas of special- ization; such searchers produce higher precision rates using manual searching over online searching.17 However, in this study, where searchers are working out- side of their discipline, precision rates are higher for online searching. In terms '· Interdisciplinary Works 351 of the duality of the interdisciplinary search task, the results of the study af- firm that searchers without a back- ground in legal research are more successful at finding cases and evaluat- ing their importance by using online methods than by using print methods. To complete the two bibliographies successfully, the students needed to find and evaluate court cases, even though they had no prior knowledge oflaw. This dual search task was further heightened ~a use of the interdisciplinary nature of the project. The students needed to un- derstand where the two disciplines- law and journalism--converged, what were the current developments in law that affected journalism, and what were the appropriate terms or principles. In light of the ISP, the superior performance of the online group over the manual group supports the authors' hypothesis that online search methods are more ef- fective than manual search methods in helping researchers handle the chal- lenges of interdisciplinary work to successfully complete their projects. On average, the manual group found slightly more court cases than the online group. Other research has recognized the pres- ence of anxiety in users when seeking information. 18 ISP recognizes that uncer- tainty and anxiety are fundamental ele- ments of the search process and that users encounter inconsistencies and difficulties when seeking information. If the incon- sistencies and difficulties are too threaten- ing, the researcher may abandon a project entirely. This study's indicators of anxiety suggest that interdisciplinary researchers using online searching methods un- dergo lower levels of anxiety than those using print methods. Comparing the two groups of search- ers, this study found that online search- ers expended less effort in terms of searching time and found online search- ing easier to use. These factors would help reduce frustration with the assignment. In 352 College & Research Libraries addition, this group was more satisfied with the results of its project. The online group cited court cases that were not available in the local library, and con- sulted law review articles for this re- search project; the availability of full-text secondary materials on LEXIS en- couraged the online group to consult more sources. This would se~m to support other research that indicates that the best ap- proach for novice users is to conduct an online search and then use print materi- als.19 Searchers using online searching had greater confidence in their searching skills and were more apt to use online searching in the future. The study suggests that there is a relationship between the superior per- formance of interdisciplinary researchers using online searching methods and low levels of anxiety. Comparing the two groups of search- This study on the effectiveness of online and manual research methods in inter- disciplinary projects indicates further ways to investigate the relationship of in- terdisciplinary work and the library user. The research presented here focused upon novice users and interdisciplinary work. Further investigation needs to be made of expert users; do scholars involved with interdisciplinary projects perform better using online or manual searching methods? Also, this study should be rep- licated in other fields. Law is built upon a complicated, hierarchical information system. Other fields may not pose the same problems for the interdisciplinary researcher. An extension of this study, July 1993 for example, might compare the results of philosophy scholars investigating the philosophy of science by using the on- line and print versions of Chemical Ab- stracts. In addition, closer examination of the perception of the task at the begin- ning of the process may reveal greater understanding as to the relationship of anxiety and the final product. Lastly, a more detailed study of the elements of online searching may illuminate how this type of searching relates to the chal- lenges of interdisciplinary work. CONCLUSIONS Miriam Drake observed that "inter- disciplinary teaching and research teams can benefit from the input of a librarian who acts as an organizer, inte- grator, and interpreter in helping to bridge language and literature gaps." 20 In order for librarians to play a more active role in the process of interdiscipli- nary work, librarians must investigate this type of research as it relates to the theoretical and methodological ap- proaches in library science. The pro- liferation of information and avenues for retrieving information have contributed to blurred boundary lines for all subject areas and it is becoming increasingly common for all library users to venture into subject areas outside their speciali- zations. Further research by librarians into the nature of interdisciplinary work will add to the discussion within the academy and will help foster self-reliant and successful searchers. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Two recent examples of the discussion are John J. Gardiner, "Excellence in Research: Restructuring Higher Education for the 1990s," Educational Record 71(Spring 1990): 51; and Barbara Herrnstein Smith et al., "Presidential Forum: Breaking Up/Out/Down- The Boundaries of Literary Study" (Papers presented at the 1988 MLA convention), Profession 89(1989): 1. 2. M. E. Freeman, "Multidisciplinary Information Sources," Journal of Chemical Documen- tation 12(1972):94. 3. Martha J. Bailey, "Selecting Materials for Interdisciplinary Programs," Special Libraries 69Quly 1978): 468; and Beth J. Shapiro and John Whaley, eds., Selection of Library Materials in Applied and Interdisciplinary Fields (Chicago: ALA, 1987). 4. Linda C. Smith, "Systematic Searching of Abstracts and Indexes in Interdisciplinary Areas," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 25:(Nov./Dec. 1974): 343; Carol Tenop~, "Distribution of Citations in Databases in a Multidisciplinary Field," Online Review 6(0ct. 1982):399; and Geraldine Walker, "Searching the Humanities: Interdisciplinary Works 353 Subject Overlap and Search Vocabularies," Database 13(0ct. 1990): 37. 5. Ann Allan, ''A Method for Delineating Interdisciplinary Activities within a Univer- sity," Library Research 2(Spring 1980/81):83; John J. Berthel, "Twentieth Century Scholarship and the Research Library: A Marriage of Convenience," in Robert J. Bassett, ed., University of Tennessee Library Lectures no. 20, 15 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1969); James F. Govan "Community Analysis in an Academic Environ- ment," Library Trends 240uly 1975):541; and Richard W. Lyman, "New Trends in Higher Education: The Impact on the University Library," College & Research Libraries 330uly 1972):298. 6. Daryl E. Chubin, Alan L. Porter and Frederick A. Rossini, '11Citation Classics': An Approach to Characterize Interdisciplinary Research," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 350an. 1984):360; and Julie M. Hurd, "Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences: Implications for Library Organization," College & Research Libraries 530uly 1992):283. 7. Edmund F. SantaVicca "Teaching Research Skills in Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Model for the Humanities and the Social Sciences," Research Strategies 4(Fall1986):168; and Mark Tierno and Joann H. Lee, "Developing and Evaluating Library Research Skills in Education: A Model for Course-Integrated Bibliographic Instruction," Research Strategies 22(Spring 1983):284. 8. Carol C. Kuhlthau, "Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User's Perspective," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 420une 1991):361; and "Developing a Model of the Library Search Process: Cognitive and Affective Aspects," RQ 28(Winter 1988):232. 9. Peter T. Marsh, Contesting the Boundaries of Liberal and Professional Education: The Syracuse Experience (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1988); Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1972); and Julie Klein, Interdisciplinarity (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1990). 10. Ibid., 19. 11. Stanley Fish, ''The Argument against Interdisciplinarity (Not Against Interdisciplinary Work, for That Makes No Sense)" (Paper given at the Folger Institute, Washington D.C., November 30, 1990). · 12. Ibid. 13. Joseph J. Kockelmans, "Why Interdisciplinarity'' in Interdisciplinarity and Higher Edu- cation, ed. Joseph J. Kockelmans (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979), 135. 14. Kuhlthau, "Inside the Search Process," 361. 15. Carol C. Kuhlthau, "Longitudinal Case Studies of the Information Search Process of Users in Libraries," Library and Information Science Research 100uly /Sept. 1988): 258. 16. For further discussion of the content of the sessions on conducting and evaluating legal research, see Laura M. Bartolo "A Conceptual Framework for Teaching Legal Research to Undergraduates," Research Strategies 9(Winter 1991): 16. 17. Susan H. Gray, C. Bradford Barber, and Dennis Shasha, "Information Search with Dynamic Text vs. Paper Text: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(1991):575; Manfred Kochen, Victoria Reich, and Lee Cohen, "Influence of Online Bibliographic Services on Student Behavior," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 32(Nov. 1981):412; and Sara J. Penhale and Nancy Taylor "Integrat- ing End-User Searching into a Bibliographic Instruction Program," RQ 27(1986): 212. 18. Constance Mellon, "Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development," College & Research Libraries 47(March 1986): 160. 19. Kci.thleen A. Hansen, ''The Effect of Presearch Experience on the Success of Naive (End-User) Searches," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 37(Sept. 1986): 315. 20. Miriam Drake, "The Librarian's Role in Interdisciplinary Studies," Special Libraries 66(March 1975): 120.