1. Julien’s survey in Canadian academic libraries showed that librarians’ preferred instructional objectives were:
to teach general research strategies
to teach how to find information in various sources
to teach how to critically evaluate the quality and usefulness of information
to teach how to locate materials in the library to teach how databases in general are structured
to teach awareness of technological innovations (Julien, 2005).
2. ‘‘Literature use’’ and ‘‘literature evaluation’’ are preferred here to ‘‘information use’’ and ‘‘information evaluation.’’ As observed byDavenport and Cronin (1998), use of the term ‘‘information’’ seems to alienate professionals from the texts they use at work and that to a large extent also constitute their work. Scholars do not literally search for ‘‘information’’ but for scholarly literature, books, and journal articles that are read, disassembled, and reassembled, as a part of the scholar’s own contribution to knowledge (Bishop, 1999).
3. Becher’s (1989)original intention was to conduct case studies within individual disciplines, but during the course of interviews, it was the differences between disciplines that emerged as more interesting and important.
4. Faculty informants are identified by interview number and letter referring to discipline (P¼Physics). Students are discerned from faculty by the letter ‘‘S.’’ ‘‘PS’’
refers to a physics student.
REFERENCES
American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy (January 1989).
Available athttp://www.infolit.org/documents/89Report.htm(accessed May 18, 2004).
Association of College and Research Libraries (2000).Information competency standards for higher education. Available athttp://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html(accessed May 18, 2004).
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University.
Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992).Process and structure in higher education. London: Routledge.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001).Academic tribes and territories(2nd ed.). London: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in scientific areas.Journal of Applied Psychology,57, 195–203.
Bishop, A. P. (1999). Document structure and digital libraries: How researchers mobilize information in journal articles.Information Processing and Management,35, 255–279.
Cheuk, B. W. (2002).Information literacy in the workplace context: Issues, best practices and challenges. White Paper prepared for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic (July 2002). Available at http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconfandmeet/papers/
cheuk-fullpaper.pdf(accessed May 18, 2004).
Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (1998). Texts at work: Some thoughts on ‘‘just for you’’ service in the context of domain expertise. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,39, 264–274.
Eco, U. (1990).Oppineisuuden osoittaminen eli miten tutkielma tehda¨a¨n(2nd ed.). [Translated fromCome si fa una tesi di laurea.]. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Disciplinary Socialization 57
Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2004). The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: Explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields. In:ASIST 2004: Proceedings of the 67th ASIST Annual Meeting, Medford, NJ: Information Today (Vol. 41, pp. 120–130).
Halttunen, K. (2004). Two information retrieval environments: Their design and evaluation.
Doctoral dissertation, Tampere, University of Tampere. Available athttp://acta.uta.fi/
pdf/951-44-6009-X.pdf
Holmberg-Marttila, D., Hakkarainen, K., Viljo, I., & Nikkari, S. (2005). A tutorial script in medical education – the PBL-model designed for local needs. In: E. Poikela & S. Poikela (Eds),PBL in context – Bridging work and education(pp. 135–144). Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Information Literacy Meeting of Experts (2003).The Prague declaration: Towards an infor- mation literate society. National Commission on Library and Information Science;
National Forum on Information Literacy & UNESCO. Available at:http://www.nclis.
gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/post-infolitconf&meet/post-infolitconf&meet.html Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case
study.Studies in Higher Education,28, 335–352.
Julien, H. (2005). A longitudinal analysis of information literacy instruction in Canadian ac- ademic libraries. In: L. Vaughan (Ed.),Data, information, and knowledge in a networked world. Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science, London, Ontario, June 2–4, 2005.
Julien, H., & Given, L. (2003). Faculty-librarian relationships in the information literacy con- text: Faculty attitudes and pedagogical practices.Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science,27, 65–87.
Kapitzke, C., & Bruce, B. C. (2005). Libr@ries: Changing information space and practice.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kautto, V. (2004).Tieteellisen kirjallisuuden arvioinnin ohjaus yliopisto-opetuksessa. Nelja¨n tie- teenalan tarkastelu. [Teaching research literature evaluation in higher education: An analysis of four disciplines.] Doctoral dissertation, University of Oulu, Oulu. Available at:http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514274725/
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Klijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003).Systematic reviews to support evidence- based medicine. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
Kling, R., & Covi, L. (1997).Digital libraries and the practices of scholarly communication:
Report of a project.Available at:http://www.slis.indiana.edu/kling/SCIT/SCIT97.htm (accessed September 13, 2000).
Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,51, 1306–1320.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In: A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college(pp. 232–255). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Leckie, G., & Fullerton, A. (1999). Information literacy in science and engineering under- graduate education: Faculty attitudes and pedagogical practices.College and Research Libraries,60, 9–29.
Rader, H. (2002). Information literacy 1973–2002: A selected literature review.Library Trends, 51, 242–259.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Society of College, National and University Libraries (1999). Information skills in higher education: A SCONUL position paper. Available at:http://www.sconul.ac.uk/pubs_stats/
pubs/99104Rev1.doc(accessed May 18, 2004).
Sundin, O. (2004). Anva¨ndarundervisning info¨r informationsso¨kning i yrkeslivet: en kunskapso¨versikt [User information seeking education in professional life: A review].
Human IT,7, 265–321.
Sundin, O. (2005). Conflicting approaches to user information seeking education in Scandin- avian web-based tutorials. In: ASIST 2005: Proceedings of the 68th ASIST Annual Meeting. Medford, NJ: Information Today (Vol. 42).
Talja, S. (2003). Information sharing in academic communities: Types and levels of collabo- ration in information seeking and use.New Review of Information Behavior Research,3, 143–159.
Talja, S. (2005a). The social and discursive construction of computing skills. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,56, 13–22.
Talja, S. (2005b). The domain analytic approach to scholars’ information practices. In:
K. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. McKechnie (Eds), Theories of information behavior:
A researcher’s guide(pp. 123–127). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Talja, S., & Hansen, P. (2005). Information sharing. In: A. Spink & C. Cole (Eds), New directions in human information behavior. Dordrecht: Springer.
Talja, S., & Maula, H. (2003). Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and databases: A domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines.Journal of Documen- tation,59, 673–691.
Talja, S., Savolainen, R., & Maula, H. (2004). Field differences in the use and perceived usefulness of scholarly mailing lists.Information Research, 10.http://informationr.net/ir/
10-1/paper200.html
Tuominen, K., Savolainen, R., & Talja, S. (2005). Information literacy as a socio-technical practice.Library Quarterly,73, 329–345.
Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2004). Information literacy in the curriculum: Selected findings from a phenomenographic study of UK conceptions of, and pedagogy for, information literacy. In: C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Diversity and inclusivity.
Proceedings of the 11th ISL symposium, Birmingham, 6–8 September 2004. Oxford:
Oxford Brookes University.
Whitley, R. (1984).The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Whitmire, E. (2002). Disciplinary differences and undergraduates’ information seeking behavior.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53, 631–638.
Disciplinary Socialization 59