Information Work at the Boundaries of Science: Linking Library Services to Research Practices

BEFORE INFORMATION PROFESSIONALS CAN BEGIN to improve existing services in research libraries, they need to understand the information work involved in the research processes of contemporary researchers. In the sciences, research is becoming more broadly based and collaborative and, increasingly, information, techniques, and tools are being imported and exported across disciplinary boundaries. This article examines the information practices and strategies used by interdisciplinary scientists as they perform boundary work. As researchers gather and disseminate information outside their core knowledge domains through personal networks, conferences, and the literature, they interact with objects, methods, people, and words. Much of their information work is devoted to probing and learning in new subject areas, and they often rely on intermediaries to help collect and translate material from unfamiliar territories. Libraries that wish to facilitate cross-disciplinary inquiry will need to design information environments that support learning, provide tools that function as boundary objects, and offer intermediary services that assist in the transfer and translation of information across scientific communities.

[1]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[2]  Barbara Skelton,et al.  Scientists and Social Scientists as Information Users: a comparison of results of science user studies with the investigation into information requirements of the social sciences , 1973 .

[3]  D. Chubin State of the Field The Conceptualization of Scientific Specialties , 1976 .

[4]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Profiling the professors , 1989, J. Inf. Sci..

[5]  P. Bourdieu The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason , 1975 .

[6]  T. Gieryn Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[7]  Marta Fehér,et al.  The essential tension , 1990 .

[8]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Variations in Decision Makers' Use of Information Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information. , 1980 .

[9]  Ann Allan A Method for Determining Interdisciplinary Activities within a University. , 1980 .

[10]  D. Crane SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN A GROUP OF SCIENTISTS: A TEST OF THE “INVISIBLE COLLEGE” HYPOTHESIS* , 1977 .

[11]  Julie Thompson Klein,et al.  Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities , 1996 .

[12]  R. Pahre Positivist discourse and social scientific communities: Towards an epistemological sociology of science , 1995 .

[13]  C. Geertz Local Knowledge: Further Essays In Interpretive Anthropology , 1983 .

[14]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Automatic Thesaurus Generation for an Electronic Community System , 1995, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[15]  J. M. Choi,et al.  Citation Analysis of Intra- and Interdisciplinary Communication Patterns of Anthropology in the U.S.A. , 1988 .

[16]  George Cybenko,et al.  Knowledge as Commodity , 1998 .

[17]  W. Paisley,et al.  Scientific Information Exchange at an Interdisciplinary Behavioral Science Convention. , 1967 .

[18]  Shan-Ju L. Chang,et al.  Browsing: a multidimensional framework , 1993 .

[19]  B. Compton A look at conventions and what they accomplish. , 1966 .

[20]  Julie M. Hurd,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences: Implications for Library Organization , 1992 .

[21]  R. Oseman Conferences and Their Literature: A Question of Value , 1989 .

[22]  Pablo Kreimer Handbook of science mad Technology Studies, Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J. y Pinch, T. (comps.), London, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1995, 820 páginas , 1995 .

[23]  Howard D. White,et al.  SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION AND LITERATURE RETRIEVAL , 2019, The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis.

[24]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Automatic Thesaurus Generation for an Electronic Community System , 1995, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[25]  S. Shapin Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts , 1981, Medical History.

[26]  E. von Hippel,et al.  Sources of Innovation , 2016 .

[27]  J. Laponce Political Science: An Import-Export Analysis of Journals and Footnotes , 1980 .

[28]  Trevor Pinch,et al.  The Culture of Scientists and Disciplinary Rhetoric , 1990 .

[29]  C. Palmer Practices and conditions of boundary crossing research work : a study of scientists at an interdisciplinary institute , 1996 .

[30]  M. Dogan,et al.  Creative Marginality: Innovation at the Intersections of Social Sciences. , 1992 .

[31]  K. Knorr-Cetina The Manufacture of Knowledge , 1981 .

[32]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[33]  F. Long Interdisciplinary problem-oriented research in the university. , 1971, Science.

[34]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  On user studies and information needs , 2006, J. Documentation.

[35]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Invisible Colleges and Information Transfer a Review and Commentary with particular Reference to the Social Sciences , 1982, J. Documentation.

[36]  Belver C. Griffith,et al.  Informal channels of communication in the behavioral sciences: Their relevance in the structuring of formal or bibliographic communication , 1968 .

[37]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[38]  Harris Cooper,et al.  Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews , 1989 .