How human information behaviour researchers use each other's work: A basic citation analysis study

Information Research

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2005, Pages

  McKechnie, Lynne ^a   Goodall, George R ^a   Lajoie Paquette, Darian ^a   Julien, Heidi ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14744292221     PISSN: 13681613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Allen, B., & Reser, D. (1990). Content analysis in library and information science research. Library and Information Science Research, 12(3), 251-262.
2. Attfield, S., Blandford, A., & Dowell, J. (2003). Information seeking in the context of writing: a design psychology interpretation of the 'problematic situation.' Journal of Documentation, 59(4), 430-453.
3. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
4. Borner, K., Chen, C.M., & Boyack, K.W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179-255.
5. Case, D.O. (2002). Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
6. Chen, H.L. (2001). An analysis of image retrieval tasks in the field of art history. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 701-720.
7. Choi, Y., & Rasmussen, E.M. (2002). Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history. Information Processing & Management, 38(5), 695-726.
8. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9. Cronin, B. (2000). Semiotics and evaluative bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 56(4), 440-445.
10. Egghe, L. & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
11. Hersberger, J. (2003). Are the economically poor information poor? Does the digital divide affect the homeless and access to information? Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(3), 45-63.
12. Järvelin, K. & Vakkari, P. (1993). The evolution of library and information sciences 1965-1985: a content analysis of journal articles. Information Processing and Management, 29(1), 129-144.
13. Julien, H. (1996). A content analysis of recent information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science Research, 18(1), 53-65.
14. Julien, H., & Duggan, L.A. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of the information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science Research, 22(3), 291-309.
15. Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. McKechnie, L., Baker, L., Greenwood, M., & Julien, H. (2003). Methodological trends in human information behaviour research. New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3, 113-125.
17. McKechnie, L., Pettigrew, K.E., & Joyce, S.L. (2001). The origins and contextual use of theory in human information behaviour research. New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 2, 47-63.
18. McKenzie, P.J. (2002). Communication barriers and information-seeking counterstrategies in accounts of practitioner-patient encounters. Library and Information Science Research, 24(1), 31-47.
19. Pettigrew, K.E., & McKechnie, L. (2001). The use of theory in information science research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 62-73.
20. Powell, R. (1999). Recent trends in research: a methodological essay. Library and Information Science Research, 21(1), 91-119.
21. Price, D.J. de S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
22. Rousseau, R. (1987). The nuclear zone of a Leimkuhler curve. Journal of Documentation, 43(4), 322-333.
23. Sonnewald, D., & Iivonen, M. (1999). An integrated human information behavior research framework for information studies. Library and Information Science Research, 21(4), 429-457.
24. Stefl-Mabry, J. (2003). A social judgement analysis of information source preference profiles: an exploratory study to empirically represent media selection patterns. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9) 879-904.
25. Sugar, W. (1995). User-centered perspective of information retrieval research and analysis methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 30, 77-109.
26. van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335-346.
27. Wang, P. (1999). Methodologies and methods for user behavioral research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 53-99.
28. White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1989). Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24, 119-186.
29. White, H.D., & McCain, K.W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355.
30. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2003). Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 259-282.