Università di Firenze | 24 October 2016

Connecting methods to methodology: Addressing the needs of digital humanities scholars

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, PhDSenior Research Scientist and Director of User ResearchOCLC Research

DEFINING INFORMATION SCIENCE

What is information science?

“the study of the gathering, organizing, storing, retrieving, and dissemination of information”

(Bates, 1999, p. 1043)

Screenshot of The Walt Whitman Archive: http://whitmanarchive.org/

Differences between information science and library and information science (Saracevic, 1999, p. 6)

Differences between information science and computer science (Saracevic, 1999, p. 7-8)

Differences between information science and documentation (Borko, 1968, p. 5)

Three key information science questions:1. “What are the features and

laws of the recorded information universe?

2. How do people relate to, seek, and use information?

3. How can access to recorded information be made most rapid and effective?”

(Bates, 1999, p. 1048)

DIGITAL HUMANITIES

“digital engagement with cultural materials” & “a broad spectrum of academic approaches, loosely bound together with a shared interest in technology and humanistic research, in all its guises”

(Robinson, Priego, & Bawden, 2016)(Terras, 2013, 266)

Who wrote the Federalist papers?

• Searching and retrieval• Digital libraries and archives• Metadata and resource

description• Ontology• Classification and taxonomy• Publishing and

dissemination• Open access• Linked data• Collection management and

curation

• Portals and repositories• Bibliography• Digitization• Preservation• Interactivity and user

experience• Interfaces and browsing• Cultural heritage• Information visualization• Big data and data mining• Bibliometrics

(Robinson, Priego, & Bawden, 2016, 46-47)

Overlaps between LIS and DH:

V&R MAPPING DATA

#vandr

Our traditional model was one in which we thought of the user in the life of the library

… but we are now increasingly thinking about the library in the life of the user

(Connaway, 2015)(Dempsey, 2015)

#vandr

(Connaway and White for OCLC Research 2012)

1ST YEAR UNDERGRADUATE

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

UPPER LEVEL UNDERGRADUATE

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

GRADUATE STUDENTS

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

FACULTY

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

LIBRARIANS

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

#vandr

Why?

oWe can learn about how we engage

o personally, o professionally, o individually, & o collectively

oWe can better understand our identity & dynamics

#vandr

Why?

o Identify users’ expectations of services & systemso Position the role of the library within the individuals’ workflows &

information-seeking patterns o Influence library’s design & delivery of physical spaces & digital

platforms & serviceso Investigate & describe user-owned digital literacies

#vandr

So What?

oIdentify how target audiences o Engage with technologyo Discover & access information

oModify & develop services & systems

#vandr

#vandr

Play

#vandr

http://oc.lc/vrmap

CONCLUSION

Digital residents leave traces…

DH methods examine traces…

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ai0ZO3lDR4.

ReferencesBates, M. J. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 50(12), 1043-1050.

Borko, H. (1968). Information science: what is it?. American documentation,19(1), 3-5.

Chu, H. (2015). Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 37(1), 36-41.

Connaway, L.S., White, D., and Lanclos, D. (2011). Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment? Proceedings of the 74th ASIS&T Annual Meeting 48, 1-7.

Connaway, L. S., Dickey, T. J., & Radford, M. L. (2011). “If it is too inconvenient I'm not going after it:” Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors. Library & Information Science Research,33(3), 179-190.

Connaway, L. S., Lanclos, D., White, D. S., Le Cornu, A., & Hood, E. M. (2012). User-centered decision making: A new model for developing academic library services and systems. IFLA 2012 Conference Proceedings, August 11-17, Helsinki, Finland.

Connaway, L.S., White D., Lanclos D., and Le Cornu, A. (2013). Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment? Information Research 18(1), http://informationr.net/ir/18-1/infres181.html.

Connaway, L.S, comp. (2015). The Library in the Life of the User: Engaging with People Where They Live and Learn . Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2015/oclcresearch-library-in-life-of-user.pdf .

ReferencesConnaway, L. S., Lanclos, D. M., & Hood, E. M. (2015). “I always stick with the first thing that comes up on Google...” Where people go for information, what they use, and why (pp. 173-200). In The Library in the Life of the User, Dublin, OH: OCLC.

Connaway, L.S. (2015). "Research challenges: The pathway to engagement and progress," BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació 35 (desembre), Retrieved September 19, 2016 from: http://bid.ub.edu/en/35/connaway.htm.

Connaway, L.S., & Radford, M.R. (forthcoming). Research methods in library and information science (6th ed.) Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Cresswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Dempsey, L. 2015. “Environmental Trends and OCLC Research.” Presented at the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, September 28. http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/presentations/dempsey/dempsey-notre-dame-oclc-research-2015.pptx .

Greifeneder, E. (2014). Trends in information behaviour research. Proceedings of ISIC: The Information Behaviour Conference, 19(4), Retrieved September 19, 2016 from: http://www.informationr.net/ir/19-4/isic/isic13.html#.V-A8FpMrLHc.

Hahn, T.B. & Jaeger, P.T. (2013). From practice to publication. College & Research Libraries News, 74(5), 238–242.

ReferencesKonrad, A. (2007). On inquiry: Human concept formation and construction of meaning through library and information science intermediation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.

Luo, L. & McKinney, M. (2015). JAL in the past decade: A comprehensive analysis of academic library research. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(2), 123-129.

Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D. (1964). Inference in an authorship problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(302), 275-309.

Mouly, G.J. (1978). Educational research: The art and science of investigation. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

OCLC Research. 2016. Using the Digital Visitors and Residents App. YouTube video. May 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ai0ZO3lDR4.

Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Powell, R.R. (1999). Recent trends in research: A methodological essay. Library & Information Science Research, 21(1), 91-119.

ReferencesResearch [Def 2]. (n.d.). In Merriam- Webster Online. Retrieved September 19, 2016 from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research.

Robinson L, Priego E and Bawden D (2015). Library and information science and digital humanities: two disciplines, joint future? (pp. 44-54). In F. Pehar C. Schlögl & C. Wolff (Eds.) Re-inventing information science in the networked society. Glückstadt: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.

Runes, D.D. (Ed.). (2001). The dictionary of philosophy. New York, NY: Citadel Press.

Saracevic, T. (1992). Information science: origin, evolution and relations. In P. Vakkari, & B. Cronin (Eds.) Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. Los Angeles, CA: Taylor Graham.

Saracevic, T. (1995). Interdisciplinary nature of information science. Ciência da informação, 24(1), 36-41.

Terras, M. (2013). Peering Inside the Big Tent. Defining the Digital Humanities–A Reader, 263-270.

Vandegrift, M., & Varner, S. (2013). Evolving in common: Creating mutually supportive relationships between libraries and the digital humanities. Journal of Library Administration, 53(1), 67-78.

ReferencesWhite, D.S., and Connaway, L.S. (2011-2014). Visitors & Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment. Funded by JISC, OCLC, and Oxford University. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/vandr/.

White, D.S., & Connaway, L.S. (2011). Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment. Funded by JISC, OCLC, and Oxford University. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/vandr/.

White, D.S., Connaway L.S., Lanclos D., Hood E.M., and Vass, C. (2014). Evaluating Digital Services: A Visitors and Residents Approach. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/evaluating-digital-services.

Dr. Lynn Silipigni ConnawaySenior Research Scientist and Director of User Research

connawal@oclc.org@lynnconnaway

©2015 OCLC [list any external authors here]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Suggested attribution: This work uses content from [list presentation title] © OCLC, [list any external authors here] used under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.