A Comparison of The Information Seeking Patterns of Researchers Ellis PDF

Journal of Documentation
A COMPARISON OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING PATTERNS OF RESEARCHERS IN THE

PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
DAVID ELLIS, DEBORAH COX, KATHERINE HALL,
Article information:
To cite this document:
DAVID ELLIS, DEBORAH COX, KATHERINE HALL, (1993) "A COMPARISON OF THE
INFORMATION SEEKING PATTERNS OF RESEARCHERS IN THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 49 Issue: 4, pp.356-369, https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026919
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026919
Downloaded by Rennes School of Business At 12:46 22 May 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 22 May 2018, At: 12:46 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1829 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1989),"A BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH TO INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM DESIGN", Journal
of Documentation, Vol. 45 Iss 3 pp. 171-212 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026843">https://
doi.org/10.1108/eb026843</a>
(1993),"A PRINCIPLE OF UNCERTAINTY FOR INFORMATION SEEKING", Journal of Documentation,
Vol. 49 Iss 4 pp. 339-355 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026918">https://doi.org/10.1108/
eb026918</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:446033 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
A COMPARISON OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING PATTERNS
OF RESEARCHERS IN THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
DAVID ELLIS, DEBORAH COX and KATHERINE HALL
Department of Information Studies

University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 211 Portobello, Sheffield SI 4DP
The information seeking patterns of a group of research physicists and

research chemists were analysed and the key features of those patterns
identified. The aim was to use a similar methodology to that employed
in a previous study of the information seeking activities of a group of
social scientists and to effect a comparison between the information
seeking patterns of the scientists and the social scientists. The
information seeking patterns were derived from interviews with

physicists at Manchester University and chemists at the University of
Sheffield. The methodology adopted for the interviews and analysis was
qualitative and based on the grounded theory approach. The results
were then compared with the findings of the previous study of the
social scientists to try and identify similarities and differences between
the two groups. Certain minor variations concerned with awareness
levels of facilities, the extent of usage of a source and the research stage
at which a strategy may be employed were identified. Nonetheless,
fundamental differences in information seeking behaviour could not be
determined. Finally, the extent to which developments in electronic
communication have had any impact on the information or com-
munication patterns of the scientists and social scientists is considered.
INTRODUCTION
THE STUDY OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOUR of

scientists can be dated back to the late 1940s [1-. Since that time, a large
number of studies have been carried out on various aspects of the information
seeking behaviour of scientists and this literature has been extensively
reviewed. There is also a considerable literature on the information seeking
behaviour of social scientists which also has been comprehensively reviewed.
However, there has been far less in the way of comparison of the information
seeking activities of these two groups and only a small number of studies have
addressed this issue [2-6-. Part of the reason for the paucity of comparative
studies of the two groups may be that the various studies of information
seeking behaviour differ so widely in aims, objectives and methods that
genuine comparison of the results is virtually impossible. As Skelton noted:
The literature of science user studies is composed of a large body of data
that cannot be correlated, due to differing objectives, methodologies,
samples, scales and definitions used by the studies. Each study stands in
Journal of Documentation, vol. 49, no. 4, December 1993, pp. 356-369
356
December 1993 INFORMATION SEEKING
isolation, with no obvious links that enable it to be compared with other

studies [6, p. 139].
Furthermore, many of the studies display a rather shallow
conceptualisation as Mole [7] commented in his review of Slater's [8] study of
the information needs of social scientists:
[The study] lacks any explicit theoretical framework which might guide
the research or enable one to interpret the findings in a meaningful
fashion. More useful would be detailed case studies of information use in
specific organisations or specific professions, especially if it showed
awareness not only of social science methods (including textual analysis)
but of social science theories [7, p. 40].
The main aim of the research described here was to attempt to rectify these
defects. On a small scale it was hoped to demonstrate that it is possible to apply
a method of investigation in user studies which can be employed to obtain
comparable results across a range of different subject groups and which does
connect with a well established approach to theoretical model building in the
social sciences. Firstly, this was done by studying the information seeking
patterns of scientists employing the same approach and methodology as that
used in an investigation of the information seeking patterns of social scientists,
and secondly, by employing the grounded theory approach [9] in the study of
the information seeking activities of the two groups. The objective was to
derive behavioural models of the information seeking patterns of academic
physicists [10] and academic chemists [11] employing a method similar to that
used by Ellis [12-14] in deriving a behavioural model of the information
seeking patterns of academic social scientists.
Information on the information seeking activities of the scientists was
collected by means of personal interviews with eighteen physicists and
fourteen chemists. The interviews adopted the interview guide approach [15]
employing an interview guide based on that used by Ellis. The interviews
themselves lasted forty-five minutes to an hour. The analysis of the results of
the interviews employed the constant comparative method of analysis
outlined by Glaser and Strauss [9].
The sample of physicists was drawn from the Manchester University and
University of Manchester Institute for Science and Technology (UMIST)
Physics Departments. Initial contact was made with the laser group at
Manchester University and respondents were drawn from the subject area of
atomic, molecular and polymer physics which incorporated the majority of
the sample. Further smaller samples drew upon physicists in the low
temperature group and the nuclear physics group. All of the researchers were
experimentalists - with the exception of the last one interviewed who was a
theoretician in astronomy. The inclusion of a theoretician was considered
relevant to ensure that a possible difference between experimentalist and
theoretician was not completely excluded; this consideration only emerged as
the project progressed and it was not possible in the time frame of the project
to explore this more fully.
357
JOURNAL O F DOCUMENTATION vol. 49, no. 4
The first group to be interviewed were all members of the atomic, molecular
and polymer physics group. This large group allowed for the comparison of
emergent data from the members of other groups within the field. The
sampling aimed to ensure variation in substantive topic within the field
(Appendix 1) and to include researchers with different levels of experience. The
sample was made up of ten full-time PhD research students - four first year,
five second year, and one third year- one part-time PhD research student, six
post-doctoral researchers, and the head of the laser group. In terms of research
experience just over half of the sample were full-time PhD research students,
while all eight of the other physicists had over four years' research experience,
with one subject having twenty five years' experience in research. In terms of
teaching experience three of the sample were lecturers and seven were
postgraduate teachers.
The interviews covered both the information gathering and information
diffusion activities of the researchers. However, as the principal focus of this
project was the information seeking behaviour of the physicists, the in-
formation diffusing activity was not included in the emergent core categories.
Other concepts which were identified in the initial analysis were absorbed into
the core categories as the analysis proceeded. These subsumed concepts were
treated as sub-patterns of the core categories. In all five core categories were
derived to explain the information gathering activities of the physicists: initial
familiarisation; chasing; source prioritisation; maintaining awareness; and
locating.
Initial familiarisation encompasses activities undertaken in the earliest
stages of the information seeking process. Chasing covers the activities
engaged in when following up citation links between material and identifies
the criteria of selection employed for both backward and forward chasing.
Source prioritisation refers to the physicists' views of the importance of the
various sources available. Maintaining awareness explores the activity of
keeping up-to-date in the researcher's own area and in the field as a whole.
Finally, locating encompasses the activities engaged in when actually finding
the information.
The sample of academic chemists was selected from the Department of
Chemistry at the University of Sheffield. An initial group of twenty non-
professorial academic chemists, selected from the Departmental staff list were
contacted and invited to take part in the study. The candidates were selected
from the four branches of chemistry represented at Sheffield: organic,
inorganic, physical and theoretical chemistry (Appendix 2). The small size of
the sample means that it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons
between the information seeking behaviour in the various branches of
chemistry. However, the different natures of the different branches of
chemistry represented at Sheffield helped to overcome the risk of a pattern of
behaviour being omitted. Of the twenty chemists contacted fourteen interviews
were arranged. Five chemists declined to be interviewed, four on the grounds
of pressure of work and one on the grounds of his semi-retired status. It proved
impossible to contact one chemist - it later transpired that he had retired.
358
Eight categories seemed sufficient to describe the information seeking

activities of the chemists: starting; chaining; browsing; differentiating; mon-
itoring; extracting; verifying; ending. Since the nomenclature and definition of
the categories were standardised with those of Ellis, the first six categories,
which are also found in Ellis's model, can be defined using the following
definitions:
starting: activities characteristic of the initial search for information;
chaining: following chains of citations or other forms of referential connection
between material;
browsing: semi-directed searching in an area of potential interest;
differentiating: using differences between sources as filters on the nature and
quality of the material examined;
monitoring: maintaining awareness of developments in a field through the

monitoring of particular sources;
extracting: systematically working through a particular source to locate
material of interest.
The categories verifying and ending are novel and can be defined as:
verifying: activities associated with checking the accuracy of information;
ending: activities characteristic of information seeking at the end of a topic or
project, for example, during the preparation of papers for publication.
As with Ellis's model of the information seeking patterns of the social
scientists, the models of the information seeking patterns of the physicists and
the chemists can be used to describe any individual pattern of information
seeking behaviour. However, the models do not attempt to define the
interactions and interrelationships between the categories or the order in
which they are carried out. The nature of the relationship between the features
of the models can only be described in relation to specific information seeking
patterns. Therefore, although it is possible to describe relationships between
the features at a general level, the exact relationship of the features of the
models depends upon the circumstances associated with the information
seeking behaviour of a particular individual at a particular time.
COMPARISON OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING PATTERNS OF THE PHYSICISTS,

CHEMISTS AND SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
The model of the information seeking patterns of the physicists employed

categories which differed in terminology from those of the original study of the
social scientists, while the nomenclature used for the categories in the study of
the chemists was standardised with that of the study of the social scientists to
facilitate the easier comparison of the two models. In the comparison of the
information seeking patterns of the physicists, chemists and social scientists
359
JOURNAL O F DOCUMENTATION vol. 49, no. 4
outlined here it is intended to employ the terms for the categories used in the
study of the chemists - which were derived, in the main, from the study of the
social scientists - and to cross reference the activities described to the
categories employed in the study of the physicists. This represents a form of
validity check on the empirical soundness of the models, as the terms
employed in the models may differ while the underlying pattern of activities is
the same.
Starting
The core category of initial familiarisation, from the study of the physicists,
displayed a basic similarity with Ellis's category of starting. Ellis described
starting as encompassing activities characteristic of the initial search for
information. The study of the physicists employed the category initial
familiarisation to refer to the starting points adopted when the researcher
begins seeking information for a new or unfamiliar project. The definitions of
these two categories are, therefore, similar and, in consequence, a direct close
comparison between the two can be made.
All of the physicists interviewed had employed personal contact as a
starting point for approaching a new topic. Several of the physicists who were
in the process of PhD research mentioned that they had been provided with
their initial references by their supervisors and explicit reference to the
provision of starter references was made as part of the role of supervision. The
physicists, like the social scientists, were often already aware of key references
or key people in a new area and their natural tendency was to begin with
material with which they were already familiar. Although there seemed to be
variations between the physicists and the social scientists in terms of the level
of awareness of computer based information services and opinion of the utility
of the output, and the use of formal literature searching tools appeared to be
higher amongst the physicists, for the most part initial familiarisation or
starting behaviour was similar for the two groups.
In a similar way, the resources used by academic chemists for starting -
starter references; informal contacts; reviews or review type material; and
secondary services - were identical to those used by the social scientists.
However, while the same resources were used, and while both groups seemed
to rely equally heavily on starter references, reviews and informal contact
when starting, the chemists seemed, on the whole, to make more use of
secondary services when starting than the social scientists.
Chaining
The second generic characteristic identified by Ellis as a key feature of the
information seeking patterns of the social scientists was that of chaining -
following citation connections between material. This activity was also
recognised as a feature of the information seeking activities of the physicists
and was given a similar label - chasing. Backward chaining, with the physicists
as with the social scientists, was identified as the principal means employed to
chase references. All the physicists interviewed stated that they followed up
360
references cited in material consulted. The physicists also used backward

chaining as part of the maintaining awareness activity. As with the social
scientists, forward chaining was less widely used and understood, but of the
physicists who were aware of the existence of citation indexes, most had
employed the technique of forward chaining.
The main difference between the physicists and the social scientists was the
higher level of awareness amongst the physicists of the existence of the Science
Citation Index, compared to that of the social scientists of the Social Science
Citation Index. Most of the social scientists were unaware of the existence of
citation indexes. In contrast, only a minority of the physicists did not know
what a citation index was, and use of Science Citation Index was mentioned by
half of the physicists, although those that did use it did not do so on a regular
basis. This also contrasts with the chemists, all of whom were familiar with the
existence of the Science Citation Index; five made regular use of it, half used it
occasionally, and only two never used it. Some remarked that it was
particularly useful in that it allowed the search to proceed in the opposite

direction to Chemical Abstracts, that is, to forward chain.
Browsing
Browsing, in the sense of semi-directed or semi-structured searching in an area
of potential interest, was an activity which most of the social scientists had
engaged in at some time. Evidence that browsing, understood in the same
sense, was an activity of the physicists can be drawn from several of the core
categories. In the initial familiarisation process several of the physicists stated
that they would start looking for information on a new topic by doing a
literature search. The aim of the literature search would be to obtain abstracts
and to browse those abstracts in the hope of finding relevant papers which
could then be used as a basis for chasing references, and the browsing of
computer abstracts was mentioned by several of the researchers. This type of
browsing was mainly engaged in by the physicists in the initial familiarisation
stage, but browsing was not confined solely to this stage. Browsing to maintain
awareness was also mentioned in a description of scanning journals as a
preferred method of keeping up-to-date and one of the physicists mentioned
having an ongoing update from a computer search which he then browsed.
Various methods of browsing were used by the chemists. These included
browsing in journals or Current Contents, in abstracts, along the shelves in the
library or in bookshops, and the book and poster displays at conferences. The
methods described by the chemists are similar to those mentioned by Ellis for
the social scientists. Ellis noted that for browsing to be effective some limits
have to be placed on the area to be searched and related material should be
grouped together; similarly for browsing the chemists relied on the related
material being grouped together: as one of the chemists remarked: 'You know
roughly where the subject areas are through classification - that does break
down - but you know roughly where and you just go and have a look'.
As with the social scientists browsing was also used for current awareness.
The two main approaches for this mentioned by the chemists were browsing
361
JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION vol. 49, no. 4
Current Contents and browsing in bookshops to see what was new, especially
in the way of textbooks. However, although many of the chemists used
browsing, this did not appear to be a major feature of their information
gathering activities.
Differentiating
Ellisd e f i n e ddifferentiating as an activity which uses differences between
sources as a filter on the nature and quality of the material examined. A
comparison between the activities of the physicists and the social scientists in
this respect can be drawn from the category of source prioritisation, which was
concerned with the factors influencing the choice of source selected by the
physicists. Ellis found that the criteria used by the social scientists for the
selection of their core journals centred around three main factors - the
substantive topic of study, the perspective or approach adopted, and the
quality, level or type of treatment.
The physicists, like the social scientists, differentiated between sources on

the basis of their substantive topic, and they clearly identified those sources
which focussed particularly on their own subject and those which regularly
carried material on a topic of interest. Core journals represent for the
physicists, as for the social scientists, a means of identifying relevant material.
Several of the physicists clearly identified their section of a particular journal
set. The credibility of quality of published material was judged in part by the
journal source; an additional measure of credibility involved respondent
confidence in the author. On the basis of this comparison between the
activities of the physicists and the social scientists it seemed that the concept of
differentiating between sources to filter material on the basis of quality, level
and type of source was appropriate to both groups.
The criteria used by the chemists for differentiating were: the topic of the
material; author; quality; level and type of source, and language. All the
chemists were able to name the journals which were of particular importance
in their fields. Some pointed out that the list of relevant journals was not static
but changed with factors such as time and editorial policy. Similarly, in
chemistry, as in social science, there is an unwritten pecking order of journals,
with some journals being perceived as of a higher quality than others. Several
chemists used the perceived quality of the source to differentiate material, with
some mentioning the degree of stringency of refereeing of a journal as being an
important factor in whether they would follow up material in that journal.
Several mentioned that they followed the work of particular authors and one
used his opinion of the quality of an author quite aggressively to filter
material.
Monitoring
Ellis defined monitoring as the activity of maintaining awareness of
developments in an area through regularly following particular sources.
Comparative material for the physicists has, therefore, been derived from the
maintaining awareness category as the definitions are considered to be similar.
362
There were some differences in the principal sources used for monitoring
though both groups used personal contact and journals as important sources.
The physicists, like the social scientists, were usually aware of the core sources
and monitored a small number carefully - in the case of the physicists these
were mainly journals, Current Contents, and printout from online searches. As
was the case with the social scientists, only a minority of the physicists had a
wide ranging approach and monitored a large number of sources.
Unlike the social scientists, the physicists made no mention of the use of
books for maintaining awareness. Standard texts and introductory textbooks
were employed by a majority of the physicists in the initial familiarisation
process, but for monitoring developments in the field, books, as a whole, were
considered too out of date. Similarly, newspapers and publishers' catalogues,
which featured amongst the social scientists' responses, were not evident in
those of the physicists. The physicists preferred to employ conferences,
conference proceedings, magazines and computer search updates. Books
which were mentioned for maintaining awareness by the social scientists did
not feature in the physicists' responses. This comparison, therefore, revealed
some differences between the social scientists and the physicists in the principal
sources used to keep up to date but not in the overall nature and form of the
activity.
In relation to monitoring, the chemists were principally interested in
keeping up to date in their own topics and fields, although, as with the social
scientists, they also had a more general interest in keeping up with
developments in chemistry and science as a whole. For both groups informal
contacts were identified as an important source for keeping up to date. The
chemists monitored various published sources - journals, abstracts, books,
newspapers and television - similar sources to those monitored by the social
scientists. However, a difference does emerge in relation to the monitoring of
published material in that the chemists mainly monitored journals while,
taken as a whole, the social scientists monitored journals and books
approximately equally. These findings agree well with previous work by
Skelton [6] who found that while scientists tended to rely on journals, social
scientist used monographs and journals equally. Another difference was that,
while some of the social scientists made some use of the quality press to alert
them to information, most of the chemists mentioned only minor use of the
quality press, particularly The Independent, and television as a source of
information, and that for only general information on chemistry and science
as a whole.
Current Contents provides an alternative to scanning the journals them-
selves and might be expected to be particularly useful for journals not
available locally. However, use of Current Contents was not found to be a
regular part of the monitoring activities of most of the chemists. Two had
never used it, others used it only occasionally, some indicating that their use of
it was reduced because it was only available on another site. One chemist made
use of the Bi-weekly List of Papers on Radiation Chemistry and
Photochemistry produced by the University of Notre Dame rather than
363
Current Contents or other secondary services. There were mixed opinions on

the usefulness of Current Contents - where it was perceived as being valuable
was for monitoring journals to which the library had cancelled subscriptions.
None of the chemists used Chemical Abstracts for monitoring; however, some
did make use of the Chemical Abstracts Selects relevant to their area in this
role. Another secondary source used occasionally in this role by one chemist
was Dissertation Abstracts. In addition to monitoring journals relevant to
their topics many chemists mentioned reading general journals for general
scientific information. Journals mentioned as suitable for this included
Chemistry in Britain, New Scientist and Nature.
Extracting
Evidence for the activity of extracting amongst the physicists interviewed was
minimal. Extracting as a focussed behaviour of going through a particular
source and selectively identifying material from that source only really
occurred at the initial familiarisation stage. This involved working through a

variety of sources to identify material in those sources. These included
working through sets ofjournals, series of monographs, collections of indexes,
abstracts or bibliographies and computer databases. Large scale retrospective
searching did not seem to be a characteristic of the information seeking
activities of the physicists except for the retrospective searching at the initial
familiarisation stage. The concept of the physicist searching an archive for
new material once immersed in a project did not really arise, as once the
physicist is familiar with the work retrospective searching is an activity which
rarely occurs. The circumstances under which it might were falling behind in
the monitoring of a chosen journal, or, possibly, for gaining a broader
information or knowledge base than is necessary for the task or project in
hand.
Extracting was not found to be a particularly significant activity for the
chemists. The major use seemed to be for writing review articles. However, as
with the social scientists and physicists it was mentioned as a means of
updating if monitoring had lapsed. Several chemists indicated that they found
it difficult to maintain regular monitoring of journals but that writing review
articles forced them to go through the literature bringing themselves up to
date. For one chemist extracting to write an annual review had almost
completely replaced monitoring. The sources used by the chemists for
extracting were principally journals and abstracts.
Verifying
Verifying is a category of behaviour which was not identified as a discrete
category in Ellis's study. Although similar activities were mentioned by some
social scientists it was a very minor part of those activities and would have
been subsumed under chaining. In contrast, most of the chemists indicated
that they were aware of the possibility of errors, particularly typographical
errors, occurring in their information. Errors in numerical data were the most
commonly cited - although other errors, for example in citations, nuclear
364
magnetic resonance (NMR) assignments and equations were also mentioned.

Several indicated that they either did not check their information or only
checked obvious errors. However, one chemist did a spot check on everything,
as well as checking obvious errors and material from sources he regarded as
unreliable; another did a spot check on new textbooks. Some attempted to
verify all their information, if possible, while one stressed verifying in-
formation from sources he perceived to be unreliable, for example, in
textbooks or reviews.
Ending
Another activity which was not identified as a discrete category in Ellis's study
was that of ending, although again similar activities were mentioned by some
social scientists - particularly in relation to starting. Most of the chemists did
their major information gathering at the start of or during the lifetime of a
project; however, several mentioned returning to the literature at the writing
up stage when they needed to discuss their work in the light of other published
work. Two chemists indicated that they performed major literature searching
at the end of a project. In both these cases information gathering at the start of
the project was minimal. One of these two indicated that he would go to the
literature as necessary during the lifetime of the project; the other, however,
did not return to the literature until the completion of the work, although they
both used monitoring during the lifetime of the project. Both were aware of
dangers with this type of approach in finding material at the end which would
have led them to modify the work they had carried out or in finding that the
work had already been undertaken.
CONCLUSION
The comparison of the information seeking patterns of the physicists and the
social scientists shows no overriding differences between the two groups. The
groups undertake similar activities and the sources employed are also similar.
Although the extent of usage of a source and the stage at which a particular
characteristic may be employed may differ, the characteristics of the
information seeking patterns of the physicists and the social scientists are
fundamentally the same. The main difference between the models of the
information seeking patterns of the chemists and the social scientists is the
existence of two extra categories of behaviour - verifying and ending - which
were not identified as discrete categories for the social scientists, although
some social scientists did report similar activities which were subsumed under
the categories of starting and chaining. Of the two, verifying was used
regularly by a majority of the chemists interviewed, and, in that respect, seems
to indicate a generic difference. Some social scientists did report similar
activities but these were treated as a sub-aspect of chaining. As only two of the
chemists made significant use of ending this can be seen as a rather minor
category, and in the case of the social scientists similar activities were
subsumed under other categories, in particular, that of starting. Overall, the
365
differences between the information seeking activities of the chemists and

social scientists seemed more a difference of emphasis than of a fundamental
difference in behaviour.
The studies reveal a remarkable degree of homogeneity between the
information seeking patterns of the physicists, chemists and the social
scientists, both in terms of the information seeking activities reported and and
the researchers' perceptions of those activities. The findings confirm the broad
conclusions of previous studies by Garvey et al. [2-4] and Skelton [6] that there
are not major differences in the information seeking activities of social
scientists and scientists although there are differences of emphasis. It is
interesting to note that neither are there major differences in the perceptions of
those activities between the three groups. The comments on personal contacts,
reviews, chaining, differentiating and monitoring sources, and the perceptions
of the different values of books, journals and conferences are virtually
interchangeable between the physicists, the chemists and the social scientists.
The comments on the value of secondary services such as abstracts and

indexes are almost so, although here a noticeable difference in the perception
of the value of secondary services by the scientists compared to the social
scientists does become apparent - particularly in relation to sources such as
Chemical Abstracts.
It is also interesting to note the relatively minor impact which developments
in information technology have had on the information seeking and
communication activities of the three groups. While some researchers have
employed electronic means of identifying references, this has usually only
constituted a small part of their information seeking activities. In relation to
the communication of research, the employment of electronic communication
as a complement to or substitute for the traditional forms is, as far as can be
discerned, virtually non-existent. This confirms the observation of Meadows
and Buckle [16] that although the potential for electronic communication of
research in the form of electronic conferences and journals has been widely
discussed (see for example papers in Feeny and Merry [17], in particular those
of Richardson [18] and Van Halm [19]) and despite the technical feasibility of
this form of communication as demonstrated in projects such as BLEND [20]
and Quartet [21], the impact on the scientific communication of academic
research, at least in the UK, has remained negligible.
There does appear to be increasing interest in the USA in electronic
communication of research results in the form of electronic conferences [22-
25] and journals but it seems unlikely that this form of communication will
displace traditional conference and journal publication - at least in the near
future - partly because of the role of conferences in creating and maintaining
personal contact but also because of the lack of formal recognition of
electronic media as representing legitimate outlets for publication. The
explanation for this is connected to the professional norms of academic
publication by which the refereeing process is employed to legitimate
contributions to knowledge [26-27]. This is strongly the case for academic
journals and operates in a similar fashion, if rather more loosely, in the
366
selection of papers for conferences. In this respect it will be interesting to see

whether the appearance of peer reviewed electronic journals such as EJoumal,
Electronic Journal of Communication, Journal of the International Academy of
Hospitality Research, New Horizons in Adult Education, Postmodern Culture,
or Psycoloquy [28] will do anything to alter the dominance of the traditional
forms of scientific publication and communication or whether these sources
will simply be marginalised and be perceived as representing lower division
outlets for minor league research.
APPENDIX 1
Research interests of physicists

Laser gyroscopes
Ring lasers
Fibre lasers
All aspects of laser physics

Experimental research in laser physics
Molecular physics
Non-linear optics
Medical lasers
Liquid crystal displays
Liquid crystals
Medical application of lasers
Nuclear physics
Patterns in helium 3
Convection in liquid helium and mixtures at cryogenic temperatures
Low temperature physics
Low temperature helium
Charge transfer processes in clouds leading to thunder-storm electrification
Theoretical astronomy - variable winds around Wolf Ray stars
APPENDIX 2
Research interests of chemists

Liquid crystals, especially metal containing liquid crystals; non-linear optics
Investigation of structure, especially the dynamic mechanisms of inorganic
and organometallic compounds, using nuclear magnetic resonance
X-ray diffraction determination of crystal structures, especially oxide systems,
distortions in high symmetry systems and peroscites
Organometallic chemistry, catalysis, chirality, new materials and their
applications
Bio-inorganic chemistry, modelling biologically active sites using small
molecules, chemistry of macrocyclic ligands and metal complexes
Organometallic chemistry, particularly carbine complexes
Biological organic chemistry, nucleic acids, enzymes, drug development,
catalytic antibodies
367
Radiation chemistry, photochemistry

Computer simulation and theoretical investigation of the properties of bulk
fluids
Biophysical chemistry, protein stability, interaction of primary metabolites
with secondary metabolites
Thermodynamics and surface behaviours of liquids and liquid mixtures
Structure, spectra and properties of molecules
Theoretician studying breakdown of normal models of molecular structure in
large molecules, especially organometallics
Quantum chemistry, theoretical aspects of non-linear optics
REFERENCES
1. ROYAL SOCIETY. Report on the Royal Society scientific information conference.
London: Royal Society, 1948.
2. GARVEY, W.D., LIN, N. and NELSON, C.E. Communication in the physical and
social sciences. Science, 170, 1970, 1166-1173.
3. GARVEY, W.D., LIN, N and NELSON, C.E. A comparison of scientific
communication behaviour of social and physical scientists. International Social
Science Journal, 23, 1971, 256-272.
4. GARVEY, W.D., LIN, N. and NELSON, C.E. Communication in the physical and
social sciences. In: GARVEY, W.D., ed. Communication: the essence of science.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979, 280-299.
5. HURYCH, J. After Bath: scientists, social scientists and humanists in the context
of online searching. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 12, 1986, 158-165.
6. SKELTON, B. Scientists and social scientists as information users: a comparison of
the results of science user studies with the investigation into information
requirements of the social sciences. Journal of Librarianship, 5, 1973, 138-156.
7. MOLE, A.L. Review of: SLATER, M. Information needs of social scientists.
Assignation, 6, 1989, 38-40.
8. SLATER, M. Information needs of social scientists: a study by desk research and
interview. Boston Spa: British Library Research and Development Department,
1989. (British Library Research Paper No. 60)
9. GLASER, B G. and STRAUSS, A.L. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
10. COX, D. An investigation into the information seeking behaviour and needs of a
group of research physicists. MSc thesis, University of Sheffield, 1991.
11. HALL, A.K.A. A behavioural model of the information seeking behaviour of
academic chemists at the University of Sheffield. MScthesis, University of Sheffield,
1991.
12. ELLIS, D. The derivation of a behavioural model for information retrieval system
design. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 1987.
13. ELLIS, D. A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal
of Documentation, 45, 1989, 171-212.
14. ELLIS, D. Database design and the generation, communication and utilization of
information by academic social scientists. In: FEENEY, M. and MERRY, K., eds.
Information technology and the research process. Proceedings of a Conference held
at the Cranfield Institute of Technology, UK, July 1989. London: Bowker-Saur,
1990, 252-272.
15. PATTON, M.Q. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. California: Sage
Publications, 1990.
368
16. MEADOWS, A.J. and BUCKLE, P. A preliminary study of the scientific information
system in the United Kingdom. Loughborough: Loughborough University, 1991.
17. FEENEY, M. and MERRY, K., eds. Information technology and the research process.
Proceedings of a Conference held at the Cranfield Institute of Technology, UK, July
1989. London: Bowker-Saur, 1990.
18. RICHARDSON, J. The limitations to electronic communication in the research
community. In: FEENEY, M. and MERRY, K., eds. Information technology and the
research process. Proceedings of a Conference held at the Cranfield Institute of
Technology, UK, July 1989. London: Bowker-Saur, 1990, 190-191.
19. VAN HALM, J. Impacts of information technology on the information flow from
author to end user in the research community. In: FEENEY, M. and MERRY, K.,
eds. Information technology and the research process. Proceedings of a Conference
held at the Cranfield Institute of Technology, UK, July 1989. London: Bowker-
Saur, 1990, 45-51.
20. SHACKEL, B. and PULLINGER, D J. BLEND-1: background and developments.
Boston Spa: British Library, 1984. (Library and Information Research Report
No. 29)
21. TUCK, W., MCKNIGHT, C., HAYET, M. and ARCHER, D. Project Quartet. Boston
Spa: British Library, 1990. (Library and Information Research Report No. 76)
22. CARLEY, K. and WENDT, K. Electronic mail and scientific communication.
Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12, 1991, 406-440.
23. GARDNER, W. The electronic archive: scientific publishing for the 1990s.
Psychological Science, 1, 1990, 333-341.
24. HARNAD, S. Scholarly sky-writing and the prepublication continuum of scientific
inquiry. Psychological Science, 1, 1990, 342-344.
25. PITERNICK, A.B. Attempts to find alternatives to the scientific journal: a brief
review. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 15, 1989, 260-266.
26. ELLIS, D. The refereeing process. In: HILLS, P. J , ed. Publish or perish. Soham Ely:
Peter Francis Publishers, 1987, 47-63.
27. LOCK, S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London: Nuffield
Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1985.
28. GARFIELD, E. Electronic journals and sky-writing: a complementary medium for
scientific communication? Current Contents, 45, 1991, 5-8.
(Revised version received 16 July 1993)
369
This article has been cited by:
1. WillsonRebekah, Rebekah Willson. 2018. “Systemic Managerial Constraints”. Journal of

Documentation 74:4, 862-879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Reijo Savolainen. 2018. Information-Seeking Processes as Temporal Developments: Comparison of
Stage-based and Cyclic Approaches. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
69:6, 787-797. [Crossref]
3. Qiu Ting Chie, Cai Lian Tam, Gregory Bonn. 2018. Malaysians' Preferences and Concerns
Regarding Seeking Information About Illegal Drugs. Frontiers in Public Health 6. . [Crossref]
4. Yu-Jung Chen, Hui-Min Chien, Chia-Pin Kao. 2018. Online searching behaviours of preschool
teachers: a comparison of pre-service and in-service teachers’ evaluation standards and searching
strategies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 1. [Crossref]
5. Federico Caria, Brigitte Mathiak. Minimal Functionality for Digital Scholarly Editions 350-363.
[Crossref]
6. AlazemiHuwayah M., Huwayah M. Alazemi, AlharbiAwadh, Awadh Alharbi. 2017. The impact of
mentoring and pedagogy on mitigation of library stress of undergraduate students. Library Review
66:8/9, 628-654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. LiGuihua, Guihua Li, WuLonglong, Longlong Wu. 2017. New service system as an information-
seeking context. Journal of Documentation 73:5, 1082-1098. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Cristian Moral, Angelica De Antonio, Xavier Ferre. 2017. A visual UML-based conceptual model of
information-seeking by computer science researchers. Information Processing & Management 53:4,
963-988. [Crossref]
9. David M. Weigl, Kevin R. Page, Peter Organisciak, J. Stephen Downie. Information-Seeking in
Large-Scale Digital Libraries: Strategies for Scholarly Workset Creation 1-4. [Crossref]
10. Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar, Schubert Foo, Natalie Pang. 2017. Using author-specified keywords
in building an initial reading list of research papers in scientific paper retrieval and recommender
systems. Information Processing & Management 53:3, 577-594. [Crossref]
11. Wei Jeng, Spencer DesAutels, Daqing He, Lei Li. 2017. Information exchange on an academic social
networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on researchgate Q&A. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology 68:3, 638-652. [Crossref]
12. Reijo Savolainen. 2017. Contributions to conceptual growth: The elaboration of Ellis's model for
information-seeking behavior. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:3,
594-608. [Crossref]
13. Younghee Noh. 2017. A study on the effect of digital literacy on information use behavior. Journal
of Librarianship and Information Science 49:1, 26-56. [Crossref]
14. Sheila Pontis, Ann Blandford, Elke Greifeneder, Hesham Attalla, David Neal. 2017. Keeping up to
date: An academic researcher's information journey. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology 68:1, 22-35. [Crossref]
15. Dominic Stange, Michael Kotzyba, Andreas N?rnberger. Professional Collaborative Information
Seeking: Towards Traceable Search and Creative Sensemaking 1-25. [Crossref]
16. Chirag Shah. Information Seeking 13-27. [Crossref]
17. Dagmar Kern, Maria Lusky, Dirk Wacker. Evaluating the Usefulness of Visual Features for
Supporting Document Triage 446-458. [Crossref]
18. Michael Kotzyba, Tatiana Gossen, Sebastian Stober, Andreas Nürnberger. Model-Based Frameworks
for User Adapted Information Exploration: An Overview 37-56. [Crossref]
19. Dan Albertson, Melissa P. Johnston. 2017. Not reinventing the “Reel:” Adaptation and evaluation of
an existing model for digital video information seeking. Proceedings of the Association for Information
Science and Technology 54:1, 10-17. [Crossref]
20. Rachel D. Williams, Catherine Arnott Smith. 2016. Constructing the information ground of the
campus disability center. Library & Information Science Research 38:4, 285-291. [Crossref]
21. HamidSuraya, Suraya Hamid, BukhariSarah, Sarah Bukhari, RavanaSri Devi, Sri Devi Ravana,
NormanAzah Anir, Azah Anir Norman, IjabMohamad Taha, Mohamad Taha Ijab. 2016. Role of
social media in information-seeking behaviour of international students. Aslib Journal of Information
Management 68:5, 643-666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Hamilton Rodrigues Tabosa, Virgínia Bentes Pinto, José Mauro Matheus Loureiro. 2016. Análise
de regularidades metodológicas em pesquisas brasileiras sobre comportamentos de uso e usuários da
informação. Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información 30:70, 249-267.
[Crossref]
23. Weidan Cao, Xinyao Zhang, Kaibin Xu, Yuanxin Wang. 2016. Modeling Online Health Information-
Seeking Behavior in China: The Roles of Source Characteristics, Reward Assessment, and Internet
Self-Efficacy. Health Communication 31:9, 1105-1114. [Crossref]
24. MaCuichang, Cuichang Ma, CaoShujin, Shujin Cao, GuTinghua, Tinghua Gu. 2016. Usability
evaluation with tasks characterized by the information search process. The Electronic Library 34:4,
572-587. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Sarah Bukhari, Suraya Hamid, Sri Devi Ravana. Merging the models of information seeking
behaviour to generate the generic phases 125-130. [Crossref]
26. Reijo Savolainen. 2016. Conceptual growth in integrated models for information behaviour. Journal
of Documentation 72:4, 648-673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. . Research by Roles and Contexts 277-347. [Crossref]
28. . The History and Focus of Information Behavior Research 41-51. [Crossref]
29. . Metatheories, Theories, and Paradigms 177-214. [Crossref]
30. . The Concept of Information 55-78. [Crossref]
31. . Models of Information Behavior 141-175. [Crossref]
32. . Related Concepts 97-137. [Crossref]
33. . Reviewing, Critiquing, Concluding 349-366. [Crossref]
34. . Research Design, Methodology, and Methods 217-273. [Crossref]
35. . Information Behavior: An Introduction 3-18. [Crossref]
36. . Information Needs, Motivations, and Use 79-96. [Crossref]
37. . The Complex Nature of Information Behavior 19-39. [Crossref]
38. . Appendix A: Glossary 367-375. [Crossref]
39. . References 389-473. [Crossref]
40. Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, Stephann Makri. 2016. Qualitative HCI Research: Going Behind
the Scenes. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 9:1, 1-115. [Crossref]
41. DONUS WORLANYO BUADI, PATIENCE EMEFA DZANDZA. 2015. Information seeking
behaviour of traditional leaders in the Shai Osudoku District of Ghana. Library Review 64:8/9,
42. Jiyoung Shim, Ji-Hong Park. 2015. Scholarly uses of TV content: bibliometric and content analysis
of the information use environment. Journal of Documentation 71:4, 667-690. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
43. Patrick Cheong-Iao Pang, Karin Verspoor, Shanton Chang, Jon Pearce. 2015. Conceptualising health
information seeking behaviours and exploratory search: result of a qualitative study. Health and
Technology 5:1, 45-55. [Crossref]
44. Denise A. D. Bedford. 2015. The Knowledge Management Information Landscape — Awareness,
Access, Use and Value of Sources. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 14:02, 1550002.
[Crossref]
45. Polona Vilar. 2015. Information behaviour of scholars. Libellarium: journal for the research of writing,
books, and cultural heritage institutions 7:1, 17. [Crossref]
46. Michael J. Cole, Chathra Hendahewa, Nicholas J. Belkin, Chirag Shah. 2015. User Activity Patterns
During Information Search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 33:1, 1-39. [Crossref]
47. Minsoo Park. 2015. Human multiple information task behavior on the web. Aslib Journal of
Information Management 67:2, 118-135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

48. Hamilton Rodrigues Tabosa, Virginia Bentes Pinto. 2015. Análise dos modelos de comportamento
de busca e uso de informação nas dissertações e teses dos PPGCI: Uma proposta de ampliação
ao modelo de Ellis. Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información 29:65,
101-114. [Crossref]
49. Andreas Nürnberger, Dominic Stange, Michael Kotzyba. Professional Collaborative Information
Seeking: On Traceability and Creative Sensemaking 1-16. [Crossref]
50. Peggy Alexopoulou, Anne Morris, Mark Hepworth. 2014. A New Integrated Model for Multitasking
during Web Searching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 147, 16-25. [Crossref]
51. Stephanie Ellis, Stephann Makri, Simon Attfield. 2014. Keeping up with the law: investigating
lawyers’ monitoring behaviour. New Library World 115:7/8, 292-313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. C. Sean Burns. Academic libraries and open access strategies 147-211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF]
53. Alison J. Pickard, Andrew K. Shenton, Andrew Johnson. 2014. Young people and the evaluation of
information on the World Wide Web: Principles, practice and beliefs. Journal of Librarianship and
Information Science 46:1, 3-20. [Crossref]
54. . References 237-264. [Crossref]
55. Kapseon Kim. 2013. Increasing Sense of Self-Control over Pregnancy: Information Seeking Patterns
of Pregnant Women's. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society 44:3, 125-152.
[Crossref]
56. Richmond Davies, Dorothy Williams. 2013. Towards a conceptual framework for provider
information behaviour. Journal of Documentation 69:4, 545-566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Barbara Mirel, Jennifer Steiner Tonks, Jean Song, Fan Meng, Weijian Xuan, Rafiqa Ameziane. 2013.
Studying PubMed usages in the field for complex problem solving: Implications for tool design.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64:5, 874-892. [Crossref]
58. Xiaofang Yuan, Ji-Hyun Lee, Sun-Joong Kim, Yoon-Hyun Kim. 2013. Toward a user-oriented
recommendation system for real estate websites. Information Systems 38:2, 231-243. [Crossref]
59. Andrew Robson, Lyn Robinson. 2013. Building on models of information behaviour: linking
information seeking and communication. Journal of Documentation 69:2, 169-193. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
60. Hemant Kumar Sahu, Surya Nath Singh. 2013. Information seeking behaviour of astronomy/
astrophysics scientists. Aslib Proceedings 65:2, 109-142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Sheila Webber. 2013. Blended information behaviour in Second Life. Journal of Information Science
39:1, 85-100. [Crossref]
62. Katriina Byström, Mary Cavanagh, Jannica Heinström, Barbara M. Wildemuth, Sanda Erdelez.
2013. What difference does a theoretical lens make in conducting a study of human information
interactions? Panel presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the association for information science
& technology (ASIS&T). Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
50:1, 1-5. [Crossref]
63. Elaine G. Toms. User-Oriented Information Retrieval 76-85. [Crossref]
64. Hye-Ju Jung, Jungsun Yoon. 2012. Study on the Science ＆ Technology Information Service
Needs Corresponding to the Scientists and Engineers Group Characteristics. Journal of Information
Management 43:4, 143-167. [Crossref]
65. Maryam Salarian, Roliana Ibrahim, Kourosh Nemati. 2012. The Relationship between Users
Cognitive Style and Information Seeking Behavior among Postgraduate Engineering Students.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 56, 461-465. [Crossref]
66. Andrew K. Shenton, Naomi V. Hay-Gibson. 2012. Evolving Tools for Information Literacy from
Models of Information Behavior. New Review of Children's Literature and Librarianship 18:1, 27-46.
[Crossref]
67. Myeong-Hee Lee, Hye-Lyun Jung. 2012. Information Use Behaviors of Professors in Design Field.
Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science 23:1, 299-316. [Crossref]
68. Andrew K. Shenton, Naomi V. Hay‐Gibson. 2012. Information behaviour meta‐models. Library
Review 61:2, 92-109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Manorama Tripathi*, Sunil Kumar, V. K. J. Jeevan. 2012. Understanding Utilization of E-Journals
through Usage Reports from Aggregators in a Distance Education University. Journal of Electronic
Resources Librarianship 24:1, 22-42. [Crossref]
70. Bill Kules, Robert Capra. 2012. Influence of training and stage of search on gaze behavior in a library
catalog faceted search interface. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
63:1, 114-138. [Crossref]
71. Dirlene Santos Barros, Dulce Amélia de Brito Neves. 2011. Estudo de usuários no arquivo público
do estado do Maranhão (APEM): analisando as estratégias metacognitivas no processo de busca de
informação. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação 16:4, 228-242. [Crossref]
72. Daniel A. Reboussin. 2011. Information Literacy: 21st Century Library Research Methods for
African Studies. Africa Bibliography 2010, vii-xxxiv. [Crossref]
73. Anwar Alhenshiri, Hoda Badesh. The effect of user search behaviour on web information gathering
tasks 61-66. [Crossref]
74. Günter Krampen, Clemens Fell, Gabriel Schui. 2011. Psychologists’ research activities and
professional information-seeking behaviour: Empirical analyses with reference to the theory of the
Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Journal of Information Science 37:4, 439-450.
[Crossref]
75. Jia Tina Du, Nina Evans. 2011. Academic Users' Information Searching on Research Topics:
Characteristics of Research Tasks and Search Strategies. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 37:4,
299-306. [Crossref]
76. Stephann Makri, Ann Blandford, Anna L. Cox, Simon Attfield, Claire Warwick. 2011. Evaluating
the Information Behaviour methods: Formative evaluations of two methods for assessing the
functionality and usability of electronic information resources. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 69:7-8, 455-482. [Crossref]
77. Afrodite Malliari, Stella Korobili, Sofia Zapounidou. 2011. Exploring the information seeking
behavior of Greek graduate students: A case study set in the University of Macedonia. The
International Information & Library Review 43:2, 79-91. [Crossref]
78. Afrodite Malliari, Stella Korobili, Sofia Zapounidou. 2011. Exploring the information seeking
behavior of Greek graduate students: A case study set in the University of Macedonia. International
Information & Library Review 43:2, 79-91. [Crossref]
79. Stephann Makri, Ann Blandford, Anna L. Cox. 2011. This is what I’m doing and why:
Methodological reflections on a naturalistic think-aloud study of interactive information behaviour.
Information Processing & Management 47:3, 336-348. [Crossref]
80. Yang Gong, Jiajie Zhang. 2011. Toward A Human-Centered Hyperlipidemia Management System:
The Interaction between Internal and External Information on Relational Data Search. Journal of
Medical Systems 35:2, 169-177. [Crossref]
81. Simon Attfield, Ann Blandford. 2011. Conceptual misfits in e‐mail‐based current‐awareness
interaction. Journal of Documentation 67:1, 33-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Sei-Ching Joanna Sin. Chapter 8 Towards Agency–Structure Integration: A Person-in-
Environment (PIE) Framework for Modelling Individual-Level Information Behaviours and
Outcomes 181-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
83. Elaheh Mozaffari, Sudhir Mudur. A Classification Scheme for Characterizing Visual Mining 46-54.
[Crossref]
84. Simon Attfield, Ann Blandford, Stephann Makri. 2010. Social and interactional practices for
disseminating current awareness information in an organisational setting. Information Processing &
Management 46:6, 632-645. [Crossref]
85. Olugbade Oladokun. 2010. Information Seeking Behavior of the Off-Campus Students at the
University of Botswana: A Case of Two Satellite Centers. Journal of Library Administration 50:7-8,
883-898. [Crossref]
86. Stephann Makri, Claire Warwick. 2010. Information for inspiration: Understanding architects'
information seeking and use behaviors to inform design. Journal of the American Society for
87. N.K. Sheeja. 2010. Science vs social science. Library Review 59:7, 522-531. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
88. Laila Marouf, Mumtaz A. Anwar. 2010. Information‐seeking behavior of the social sciences faculty
at Kuwait University. Library Review 59:7, 532-547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. Luciana Ferreira da Costa, Francisca Arruda Ramalho. 2010. Religare: comportamento informacional
à luz do modelo de Ellis. Transinformação 22:2, 169-186. [Crossref]
90. Kyung-Jae Bae. 2010. The Analysis of the Differences of Information Needs and Usages among
Academic Users in the Field of Science and Technology. Journal of the Korean Society for Library
and Information Science 44:2, 157-176. [Crossref]
91. Jennifer E. Nutefall, Phyllis Mentzell Ryder. 2010. The Serendipitous Research Process. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship 36:3, 228-234. [Crossref]
92. Luciana Ferreira da Costa, Francisca Arruda Ramalho. 2010. A usabilidade nos estudos de uso
da informação: em cena usuários e sistemas interativos de informação. Perspectivas em Ciência da
Informação 15:1, 92-117. [Crossref]
93. Ágústa Pálsdóttir. 2010. The connection between purposive information seeking and information
encountering. Journal of Documentation 66:2, 224-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Caroline F. Timmers, Cees A.W. Glas. 2010. Developing scales for information‐seeking behaviour.
Journal of Documentation 66:1, 46-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Xiaojun Yuan, Nicholas J. Belkin. 2010. Investigating information retrieval support techniques for
different information-seeking strategies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
96. Ann Blandford, Simon Attfield. 2010. Interacting with Information. Synthesis Lectures on Human-
Centered Informatics 3:1, 1-99. [Crossref]
97. David Ellis. Social Science Literatures and Their Users 4848-4856. [Crossref]
98. Ricardo B. Duque, Wesley M. Shrum, Omar Barriga, Guillermo Henríquez. 2009. Internet practice
and professional networks in Chilean science: Dependency or progress?. Scientometrics 81:1, 239-263.
[Crossref]
99. Alica C. White, Yunshan Ye, Margaret Guccione. 2009. Study Abroad Students: Designing Library
Services to Meet Their Needs. Journal of Library Administration 49:1-2, 187-196. [Crossref]
100. Charalampos Z. Patrikakis, Maria Koukouli, George K. Papadopoulos, Alexander B. Sideridis. 2009.
Evaluating Behavioral Change in Multigroup Collaboration for Content Publishing Over the Web.
Social Science Computer Review 27:1, 59-75. [Crossref]
101. Yedendra B. Shrinivasan, David Gotzy, Jie Lu. Connecting the dots in visual analysis 123-130.
[Crossref]
102. Dania Bilal, Sonia Sarangthem. 2009. Meditating differences in children's interaction with digital
libraries through modeling their tasks. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
103. Ryen W. White, Resa A. Roth. 2009. Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query-Response Paradigm.
Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 1:1, 1-98. [Crossref]
104. Alesia Zuccala. 2009. The lay person and Open Access. Annual Review of Information Science and
105. Mozhdeh Salajegheh, Zouhayr Hayati. 2009. Modelling Information-Seeking Behaviour Patterns of
Iranian Medical School Academic Staff. Libri 59:4. . [Crossref]
106. Yang Gong, Jiajie Zhang. Effects of Information Displays for Hyperlipidemia 503-512. [Crossref]
107. Marco Antonio Carvalho Brum, Ricardo Rodrigues Barbos. 2009. Comportamento de busca e uso
da informação: um estudo com alunos participantes de empresas juniores. Perspectivas em Ciência
da Informação 14:2, 52-75. [Crossref]
108. Stephann Makri, Ann Blandford, Anna L. Cox. 2008. Using information behaviors to evaluate the
functionality and usability of electronic resources: From Ellis's model to evaluation. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:14, 2244-2267. [Crossref]
109. Hamid R. Jamali, David Nicholas. 2008. Information‐seeking behaviour of physicists and
astronomers. Aslib Proceedings 60:5, 444-462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. Terry L. von Thaden. 2008. Distributed information behavior: A study of dynamic practice in a
safety critical environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
59:10, 1555-1569. [Crossref]
111. Stephann Makri, Ann Blandford, Anna L. Cox. 2008. Investigating the information-seeking
behaviour of academic lawyers: From Ellis’s model to design. Information Processing & Management
44:2, 613-634. [Crossref]
112. Sarit Barzilai, Anat Zohar. 2008. Is information acquisition still important in the information age?.
Education and Information Technologies 13:1, 35-53. [Crossref]
113. Samuel K. Nikoi. 2008. Information Needs of NGOs: a case study of NGO development workers in
the northern region of Ghana. Information Development 24:1, 44-52. [Crossref]
114. Don Turnbull, Laura F. Bright. 2008. Advertising academia with sponsored search: an exploratory
study examining the effectiveness of Google AdWords at the local and global level. International
Journal of Electronic Business 6:2, 149. [Crossref]
115. Carole L. Palmer, Melissa H. Cragin. 2008. Scholarship and disciplinary practices. Annual Review
of Information Science and Technology 42:1, 163-212. [Crossref]
116. Ian Ruthven. 2008. Interactive information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and
117. Sabah S. Al-Fedaghi. Integration of information needs and seeking 473-478. [Crossref]
118. Bradley M. Hemminger, Dihui Lu, K.T.L. Vaughan, Stephanie J. Adams. 2007. Information seeking
behavior of academic scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
58:14, 2205-2225. [Crossref]

119. Maria E. Burke. 2007. Cultural issues, organizational hierarchy and information fulfilment. Library
120. Yazdan Mansourian, Nigel Ford. 2007. Web searchers' attributions of success and failure: an empirical
study. Journal of Documentation 63:5, 659-679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
121. John E. Leide, Charles Cole, Jamshid Beheshti, Andrew Large, Yang Lin. 2007. Task-based
information retrieval: Structuring undergraduate history essays for better course evaluation using
essay-type visualizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58:9,
1227-1241. [Crossref]
122. Shu‐Shing Lee, Yin‐Leng Theng, Dion Hoe‐Lian Goh. 2007. Creative information seeking. Aslib
Proceedings 59:3, 205-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
123. Pat Gannon-Leary, Moira Bent, Jo Webb. 2007. RESEARCHERS AND THEIR
INFORMATION NEEDS: A LITERATURE REVIEW. New Review of Academic Librarianship
13:1-2, 51-69. [Crossref]
124. C.A. Beverley, P.A. Bath, R. Barber. 2007. Can two established information models explain the
information behaviour of visually impaired people seeking health and social care information?.
125. Peiling Wang, Dimitris A. Dervos, Yan Zhang, Lei Wu. 2007. Information-seeking behaviors of
academic researchers in the internet age: A user study in the United States, China and Greece.
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 44:1, 1-29. [Crossref]
126. Qing Gu, David Mendonca. Group Information Foraging in Emergency Response: An Illustration
Incorporating Discrete-Event Simulation 554-561. [Crossref]
127. Isabel Merlo Crespo, Sônia Elisa Caregnato. 2006. Padrões de comportamento de busca e uso de
informação por pesquisadores de biologia molecular e biotecnologia. Ciência da Informação 35:3,
30-38. [Crossref]
128. Andrew D. Madden, Nigel J. Ford, David Miller, Philippa Levy. 2006. Children's use of the internet
for information‐seeking. Journal of Documentation 62:6, 744-761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. Sarit Barzilai, Anat Zohar. 2006. How does information technology shape thinking?. Thinking Skills
and Creativity 1:2, 130-145. [Crossref]
130. Pali U. Kuruppu, Anne Marie Gruber. 2006. Understanding the Information Needs of Academic
Scholars in Agricultural and Biological Sciences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32:6,
609-623. [Crossref]
131. Jannica Heinström. 2006. Broad exploration or precise specificity: Two basic information seeking
patterns among students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57:11,
1440-1450. [Crossref]
132. Ina Fourie. 2006. Learning from web information seeking studies: some suggestions for LIS
practitioners. The Electronic Library 24:1, 20-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Brenda Dervin, CarrieLynn D. Reinhard, Zack Y. Kerr. The Burden of Being Special: Adding
Clarity about Communicating to Researching and Serving Users, Special and Otherwise 233-269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
134. Hamid R. Jamali, David Nicholas. 2006. Communication and information-seeking behavior of PhD
students in physicists and astronomy. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
135. Melanie Kellar, Carolyn Watters, Michael Shepherd. 2006. A Goal-based Classification of Web
Information Tasks. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 43:1,
1-22. [Crossref]
136. Agneta Lantz, Christina Brage. 2006. Towards a Learning Society — Exploring the Challenge of
Applied Information Literacy through Reality-Based Scenarios. Innovation in Teaching and Learning
in Information and Computer Sciences 5:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
137. 2005. Incorporating Users into System Design Processes: Overview and a Proposed User Model.
Journal of the Korean Society for information Management 22:4, 23-38. [Crossref]
138. 2005. Review of Research Trend in Models of Information Seeking Behavior. Journal of the Korean
Society for information Management 22:4, 235-254. [Crossref]
139. Shu‐Shing Lee, Yin‐Leng Theng, Dion Hoe‐Lian Goh. 2005. Creative information seeking Part
I: a conceptual framework. Aslib Proceedings 57:5, 460-475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
140. Ann Lind, Bertil Lind. 2005. The practice of information system development and use: a dialectical
approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 22:5, 453-464. [Crossref]
141. Amanda Spink, Minsoo Park. 2005. Information and non‐information multitasking interplay.
142. Dion Hoe‐Lian Goh, Lin Fu, Schubert Shou‐Boon Foo. 2005. Collaborative querying using the
Query Graph Visualizer. Online Information Review 29:3, 266-282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
143. Saskia Brand-Gruwel, Iwan Wopereis, Yvonne Vermetten. 2005. Information problem solving by
experts and novices: analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior 21:3,
487-508. [Crossref]
144. Xiangmin Zhang, Hui Han. 2005. An empirical testing of user stereotypes of information retrieval
systems. Information Processing & Management 41:3, 651-664. [Crossref]
145. Jannica Heinström. 2005. Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving. Journal of Documentation
61:2, 228-247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
146. Hae-young Rieh, Soo Young Rieh. 2005. Web searching across languages: Preference and behavior of
bilingual academic users in Korea. Library & Information Science Research 27:2, 249-263. [Crossref]
147. Joan C. Bartlett, Elaine G. Toms. 2005. Developing a protocol for bioinformatics analysis: An
integrated information behavior and task analysis approach. Journal of the American Society for
148. Joanne E. Callinan. 2005. Information‐seeking behaviour of undergraduate biology students. Library
149. Hur‐Li Lee. 2005. The Concept of Collection from the User’s Perspective. The Library Quarterly
75:1, 67-85. [Crossref]
150. Lin Fu, Dion Hoe-Lian Goh, Schubert Shou-Boon Foo. 2004. The effect of similarity measures on
the quality of query clusters. Journal of Information Science 30:5, 396-407. [Crossref]
151. Amanda Spink. 2004. Multitasking information behavior and information task switching: an
exploratory study. Journal of Documentation 60:4, 336-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
152. K.M. Sim, P.T. Wong. 2004. Toward Agency and Ontology for Web-Based Information Retrieval.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 34:3, 257-269.
[Crossref]
153. Nigel Ford. 2004. Modeling cognitive processes in information seeking: From Popper to Pask.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55:9, 769-782. [Crossref]
154. Wooseob Jeong. 2004. Unbreakable ethnic bonds: information-seeking behavior of Korean graduate
students in the United States. Library & Information Science Research 26:3, 384-400. [Crossref]
155. Nigel Ford. 2004. Towards a model of learning for educational informatics. Journal of Documentation
60:2, 183-225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
156. Sanna Talja, Hanni Maula. 2003. Reasons for the use and non‐use of electronic journals and
databases. Journal of Documentation 59:6, 673-691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
157. Eric Thivant. 2003. Information seeking and use behaviour for the design of financial products. The
New Review of Information Behaviour Research 4:1, 45-61. [Crossref]
158. Hur-Li Lee. 2003. Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization. Library &
Information Science Research 25:4, 419-436. [Crossref]
159. Chun Wei Choo, Christine Marton. 2003. Information seeking on the Web by women in IT
professions. Internet Research 13:4, 267-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
160. Jannica Heinström. 2003. Fast surfers, broad scanners and deep divers as users of information
technology - Relating information preferences to personality traits. Proceedings of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology 40:1, 247-254. [Crossref]
161. Micheline Beaulieu. 2003. Approaches to User-Based Studies in Information Seeking and Retrieval:
A Sheffield Perspective. Journal of Information Science 29:4, 239-248. [Crossref]
162. Rita Marcella, Graeme Baxter, Nick Moore. 2003. Data collection using electronically assisted
interviews in a roadshow. Journal of Documentation 59:2, 143-167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
163. Brian Detlor. 2003. Internet-based information systems use in organizations: an information studies
perspective. Information Systems Journal 13:2, 113-132. [Crossref]
164. Lokman I. Meho, Helen R. Tibbo. 2003. Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social
scientists: Ellis's study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
54:6, 570-587. [Crossref]
165. 2003. A Comparative Study on Models of Information Seeking Behavior. Journal of the Korean
Society for information Management 20:1, 93-119. [Crossref]
166. Pamela J. McKenzie. 2003. A model of information practices in accounts of everyday‐life information
seeking. Journal of Documentation 59:1, 19-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
167. Helen Belefant-Miller, Donald W. King. 2003. A profile of faculty reading and information-use
behaviors on the cusp of the electronic age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology 54:2, 179-181. [Crossref]
168. Pertti Vakkari. 2003. Task-based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and
169. Dania Bilal, Joe Kirby. 2002. Differences and similarities in information seeking: children and adults
as Web users. Information Processing & Management 38:5, 649-670. [Crossref]
170. Crystal Fulton. 2002. Information control in the virtual office: preparing intermediaries to facilitate
information exchange in the home work environment. New Library World 103:6, 209-215.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
171. Rita Marcella, Graeme Baxter, Nick Moore. 2002. Theoretical and methodological approaches to
the study of information need in the context of the impact of new information and communications
technologies on the communication of parliamentary information. Journal of Documentation 58:2,
172. Ethelene Whitmire. 2002. Disciplinary differences and undergraduates' information-seeking
behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53:8, 631-638.
[Crossref]
173. Giorgio Brajnik, Stefano Mizzaro, Carlo Tasso, Fabio Venuti. 2002. Strategic help in user interfaces
for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53:5,
343-358. [Crossref]
174. Byeong-Min Yu, Seak-Zoon Roh. 2002. The effects of menu design on information-seeking
performance and user's attitude on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Society for
175. David Ellis, T.D. Wilson, Nigel Ford, Allen Foster, H.M. Lam, R. Burton, Amanda Spink. 2002.
Information seeking and mediated searching. Part 5. User-intermediary interaction. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 53:11, 883-893. [Crossref]
176. Julie Hallmark. 2001. Information-Seeking Behavior of Academic Meteorologists and the Role of
Information Specialists. Science & Technology Libraries 21:1-2, 53-64. [Crossref]
177. Amanda Spink, Charles Cole. 2001. Information and poverty: information-seeking channels used
by African American low-income households. Library & Information Science Research 23:1, 45-65.
[Crossref]
178. Lokman I. Meho, Stephanie W. Haas. 2001. Information-seeking behavior and use of social science
faculty studying stateless nations: a case study. Library & Information Science Research 23:1, 5-25.
[Crossref]
179. Helen Belefant-Miller, Donald W. King. 2000. How, What, and Why Science Faculty Read. Science
& Technology Libraries 19:2, 91-112. [Crossref]
180. Nancy Fjällbrant. 2000. Information literacy for scientists and engineers: experiences of EDUCATE
and DEDICATE. Program 34:3, 257-268. [Abstract] [PDF]
181. Tim Wales. 2000. Practice makes perfect? Vets’ information seeking behaviour and information use
explored. Aslib Proceedings 52:7, 235-246. [Abstract] [PDF]
182. Nancy Fjällbrant. 2000. Networked information literacy ‐ the European EDUCATE and
DEDICATE projects. New Review of Information Networking 6:1, 53-60. [Crossref]
183. Tom Wilson. 1999. Exploring models of information behaviour: the ‘uncertainty’ project.
Information Processing & Management 35:6, 839-849. [Crossref]
184. Maureen Jackson, Craig Bartle, Graham Walton. 1999. Effective Use of Electronic Resources.
Innovations in Education & Training International 36:4, 320-326. [Crossref]
185. T.D. Wilson. 1999. Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation 55:3,
249-270. [Abstract] [PDF]
186. James B. Carroll. 1999. Expert Internet Information Access. Journal of Educational Computing
Research 20:3, 209-222. [Crossref]
187. SHAHEEN MAJID, TAMARA S. EISENSCHITZ, MUMTAZ ALI ANWAR. 1999. Library Use
Pattern of Malaysian Agricultural Scientists. Libri 49:4. . [Crossref]
188. Claire R. McInerney. 1999. Working in the virtual office: Providing information and knowledge to
remote workers. Library & Information Science Research 21:1, 69-89. [Crossref]
189. Mary Davies. 1998. Impact of information technology developments on the information handling
techniques of research scientists: Implications of selected results. New Review of Information
Networking 4:1, 53-70. [Crossref]
190. David Ellis, Merete Haugan. 1997. Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and
research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of Documentation 53:4, 384-403. [Abstract]
[PDF]
191. Francis Jawahar Devadason, Pandala Pratap Lingam. 1997. A Methodology for the Identification of
Information Needs of Users. IFLA Journal 23:1, 41-51. [Crossref]
192. . References 243-255. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF]

193. Anne Bell. 1997. The impact of electronic information on the academic research community. New
Review of Academic Librarianship 3:1, 1-24. [Crossref]
194. Carolyn Eager, Charles Oppenheim. 1996. An observational method for undertaking user needs
studies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 28:1, 15-23. [Crossref]
195. ELISABETH DAVENPORT. 1994. INFORMATION SCIENCE OBSERVED: NEW MEDIA
AND PRODUCTIVITY IN A GROUP OF UK PRACTITIONERS. Journal of Documentation
50:4, 291-315. [Abstract] [PDF]
196. M.P. O'Brien, J. Buckley. Modelling the Information-Seeking Behaviour of Programmers - An
Empirical Approach 125-134. [Crossref]
197. Kwang Mong Sim. Towards holistic Web-based information retrieval: an agent-based approach
39-46. [Crossref]
198. Chun Wei Choo, B. Detlor, D. Turnbull. Working the Web: an empirical model of Web use 9.
[Crossref]
199. Zeinab Zaremohzzabieh, Seyedali Ahrari, Bahaman Abu Samah, Jusang Bolong. Researching
Information Seeking in Digital Libraries Through Information-Seeking Models 264-287.
[Crossref]
200. E.M. Ondari-Okemwa. Information-Seeking Behaviour of Users in the Digital Libraries'
Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa 1366-1396. [Crossref]
201. E.M. Ondari-Okemwa. Information-Seeking Behaviour of Users in the Digital Libraries'
Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa 26-56. [Crossref]
Information Seeking in Digital Libraries through Information-Seeking Models 84-107. [Crossref]
203. Femi Titus Akande, Akinade Adebowale Adewojo. Information Need and Seeking Behavior of
Farmers in Laduba Community of Kwara State, Nigeria 238-271. [Crossref]
204. Mohammed Nasser Al-Suqri. Contextual Factors Influencing Information Seeking Behavior of
Social Scientists 37-57. [Crossref]
205. Devendra Potnis. Wilson's Information-Seeking Behavior Models (1981, 1996, 1999) 94-112.
[Crossref]
206. Miriam Matteson. The Research Habits of Graduate Students and Faculty 46-60. [Crossref]
207. Mohammed Nasser Al-Suqri. Contextual Factors Influencing Information Seeking Behavior of
Social Scientists 190-210. [Crossref]
Information Seeking in Digital Libraries Through Information-Seeking Models 2157-2180.
[Crossref]
209. Eric Thivant. Les pratiques d’accès à l’information professionnelle : le cas des chargés d’études
économiques et des analystes 249-261. [Crossref]

A Comparison of The Information Seeking Patterns of Researchers Ellis PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Comparison of The Information Seeking Patterns of Researchers Ellis PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Documentation

A COMPARISON OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING PATTERNS OF RESEARCHERS IN THE

Downloaded on: 22 May 2018, At: 12:46 (PT)

DAVID ELLIS, DEBORAH COX and KATHERINE HALL

Department of Information Studies

The information seeking patterns of a group of research physicists and

information seeking patterns were derived from interviews with

THE STUDY OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOUR of

Journal of Documentation, vol. 49, no. 4, December 1993, pp. 356-369

isolation, with no obvious links that enable it to be compared with other

Eight categories seemed sufficient to describe the information seeking

monitoring: maintaining awareness of developments in a field through the

COMPARISON OF THE INFORMATION SEEKING PATTERNS OF THE PHYSICISTS,

The model of the information seeking patterns of the physicists employed

references cited in material consulted. The physicists also used backward

particularly useful in that it allowed the search to proceed in the opposite

The physicists, like the social scientists, differentiated between sources on

Current Contents or other secondary services. There were mixed opinions on

occurred at the initial familiarisation stage. This involved working through a

magnetic resonance (NMR) assignments and equations were also mentioned.

differences between the information seeking activities of the chemists and

The comments on the value of secondary services such as abstracts and

selection of papers for conferences. In this respect it will be interesting to see

Research interests of physicists

All aspects of laser physics

Research interests of chemists

Radiation chemistry, photochemistry

(Revised version received 16 July 1993)

1. WillsonRebekah, Rebekah Willson. 2018. “Systemic Managerial Constraints”. Journal of

Information Management 67:2, 118-135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

58:14, 2205-2225. [Crossref]

192. . References 243-255. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF]

Anda mungkin juga menyukai