root/other-projects/nightly-tasks/diffcol/trunk/model-collect/DSpace-To-GS/archives/HASHd6b7.dir/doc.xml @ 32161

Revision 32161, 112.1 KB (checked in by ak19, 20 months ago)

Regenerating model collections after <meta-file> entry in archiveinf-src.db has become compulsory

1<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
2<!DOCTYPE Archive SYSTEM "">
5  <Description>
6    <Metadata name="gsdldoctype">indexed_doc</Metadata>
7    <Metadata name="Language">en</Metadata>
8    <Metadata name="Encoding">utf8</Metadata>
9    <Metadata name="Author">Kristine Turner</Metadata>
10    <Metadata name="Title">Information Seeking, Retrieving, Reading, and Storing Behaviour of Library Users.</Metadata>
11    <Metadata name="URL">http://Scratch/ak19/gs2-diffcol-26Mar2018/collect/DSpace-To-GS/tmp/1522032971_2/5.html</Metadata>
12    <Metadata name="UTF8URL">http://Scratch/ak19/gs2-diffcol-26Mar2018/collect/DSpace-To-GS/tmp/1522032971_2/5.html</Metadata>
13    <Metadata name="gsdlsourcefilename">import/5/5.pdf</Metadata>
14    <Metadata name="gsdlconvertedfilename">tmp/1522032971_2/5.html</Metadata>
15    <Metadata name="OrigSource">5.html</Metadata>
16    <Metadata name="Source">5.pdf</Metadata>
17    <Metadata name="SourceFile">5.pdf</Metadata>
18    <Metadata name="Plugin">PDFPlugin</Metadata>
19    <Metadata name="FileSize">220303</Metadata>
20    <Metadata name="FilenameRoot">5</Metadata>
21    <Metadata name="FileFormat">PDF</Metadata>
22    <Metadata name="srcicon">_iconpdf_</Metadata>
23    <Metadata name="srclink_file">doc.pdf</Metadata>
24    <Metadata name="srclinkFile">doc.pdf</Metadata>
25    <Metadata name="NumPages">28</Metadata>
26    <Metadata name="ex.ExifTool.ExifToolVersion">8.57</Metadata>
27    <Metadata name="ex.File.Directory">/Scratch/ak19/gs2-diffcol-26Mar2018/collect/DSpace-To-GS/import/5</Metadata>
28    <Metadata name="ex.File.FileModifyDate">2018:03:26 15:55:32+13:00</Metadata>
29    <Metadata name="ex.File.FileName">5.pdf</Metadata>
30    <Metadata name="ex.File.FilePermissions">775</Metadata>
31    <Metadata name="ex.File.FileSize">220303</Metadata>
32    <Metadata name="ex.File.FileType">PDF</Metadata>
33    <Metadata name="ex.File.MIMEType">application/pdf</Metadata>
34    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.Author">mdewsnip</Metadata>
35    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.CreateDate">2006:05:30 14:50:53+12:00</Metadata>
36    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.Creator">PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2</Metadata>
37    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.Linearized">false</Metadata>
38    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.ModifyDate">2006:05:30 14:50:53+12:00</Metadata>
39    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.PDFVersion">1.4</Metadata>
40    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.PageCount">28</Metadata>
41    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.Producer">Acrobat Distiller 7.0.5 &amp;#40;Windows&amp;#41;</Metadata>
42    <Metadata name="ex.PDF.Title">Information Seeking&amp;#44; Retrieving&amp;#44; Reading&amp;#44; and Storing Behaviour of LIbrary-Users.</Metadata>
43    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.CreateDate">2006:05:30 14:50:53+12:00</Metadata>
44    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.Creator">PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2</Metadata>
45    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.CreatorTool">PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2</Metadata>
46    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.DocumentID">uuid:5bfa2f58-a06e-4ba1-97a7-89f2153cd2af</Metadata>
47    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.Format">application/pdf</Metadata>
48    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.InstanceID">uuid:9179f25d-0de5-4e72-a113-e79857787e94</Metadata>
49    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.MetadataDate">2006:05:30 14:58:55+12:00</Metadata>
50    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.ModifyDate">2006:05:30 14:50:53+12:00</Metadata>
51    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.Producer">Acrobat Distiller 7.0.5 &amp;#40;Windows&amp;#41;</Metadata>
52    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.Title">Information Seeking&amp;#44; Retrieving&amp;#44; Reading&amp;#44; and Storing Behaviour of LIbrary-Users.</Metadata>
53    <Metadata name="ex.XMP.XMPToolkit">3.1-702</Metadata>
54    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Contributor">Kristine Turner</Metadata>
55    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Date^accessioned">2005-01-10T02:46:14Z</Metadata>
56    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Date^available">2005-01-10T02:46:14Z</Metadata>
57    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Date^issued">2005-01-10T02:46:14Z</Metadata>
58    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Language^iso">en</Metadata>
59    <Metadata name="ex.dc.Title">Information Seeking, Retrieving, Reading, and Storing Behaviour of Library Users</Metadata>
60    <Metadata name="doc.assoclink">&lt;a href=&quot;_httpprefix_/collect/[collection]/index/assoc/{Or}{[parent(Top):assocfilepath],[assocfilepath]}/5.doc&quot;&gt;{If}{_icondoc_,_icondoc_,doc}&lt;/a&gt;</Metadata>
61    <Metadata name="equivDocLink">&lt;a href='_httpprefix_/collect/[collection]/index/assoc/[assocfilepath]/5.doc'&gt;</Metadata>
62    <Metadata name="equivDocIcon">_icondoc_</Metadata>
63    <Metadata name="/equivDocLink">&lt;/a&gt;</Metadata>
64    <Metadata name="equivlink"> &lt;a href=&quot;_httpprefix_/collect/[collection]/index/assoc/{Or}{[parent(Top):assocfilepath],[assocfilepath]}/5.doc&quot;&gt;{If}{_icondoc_,_icondoc_,doc}&lt;/a&gt;</Metadata>
65    <Metadata name="Identifier">HASHd6b757362e763ba6d6b757</Metadata>
66    <Metadata name="lastmodified">1522032932</Metadata>
67    <Metadata name="lastmodifieddate">20180326</Metadata>
68    <Metadata name="oailastmodified">1522032972</Metadata>
69    <Metadata name="oailastmodifieddate">20180326</Metadata>
70    <Metadata name="assocfilepath">HASHd6b7.dir</Metadata>
71    <Metadata name="gsdlassocfile">doc.pdf:application/pdf:</Metadata>
72    <Metadata name="gsdlassocfile">5.doc:application/msword:</Metadata>
73  </Description>
74  <Content>
75&lt;A name=1&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;Information Seeking, Retrieving, Reading, and Storing Behaviour of &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;
76&lt;b&gt;Library-Users. &lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;
77 &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
78Kristine Turner &lt;br&gt;
79email: &lt;br&gt;
80 &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Abstract &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;In the interest of digital libraries, it is advisable that designers be aware of the &lt;br&gt;potential behaviour of the users of such a system.  There are two distinct parts under &lt;br&gt;investigation, the interaction between traditional libraries involving the seeking and &lt;br&gt;retrieval of relevant material, and the reading and storage behaviours ensuing.  &lt;br&gt;Through this analysis, the findings could be incorporated into digital library facilities.  &lt;br&gt;There has been copious amounts of research on information seeking leading to the &lt;br&gt;development of behavioural models to describe the process.  Often research on the &lt;br&gt;information seeking practices of individuals is based on the task and field of study.  &lt;br&gt;The information seeking model, presented by Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993), characterises the &lt;br&gt;format of this study where it is used to compare various research on the information &lt;br&gt;seeking practices of groups of people (from academics to professionals).  It is found &lt;br&gt;that, although researchers do make use of library facilities, they tend to rely heavily &lt;br&gt;on their own collections and primarily use the library as a source for previously &lt;br&gt;identified information, browsing and interloan.  It was found that there are significant &lt;br&gt;differences in user behaviour between the groups analysed.  When looking at the &lt;br&gt;reading and storage of material it was hard to draw conclusions, due to the lack of &lt;br&gt;substantial research and information on the topic.  However, through the use of &lt;br&gt;reading strategies, a general idea on how readers behave can be developed.  Designers &lt;br&gt;of digital libraries can benefit from the guidelines presented here to better understand &lt;br&gt;their audience. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Introduction &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;“The migration of information from paper to electronic media promises to change the &lt;br&gt;whole nature of research” (Witten &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1995).  Through the advent of office &lt;br&gt;computers and the transformation of media, the popularity and usage of digital &lt;br&gt;libraries has increased.  Researchers can benefit from the search, retrieval, reading &lt;br&gt;and storage facilities available to them from the comfort and convenience of their own &lt;br&gt;chair.  An important issue in this day of human-computer interaction is that not only &lt;br&gt;the information needs of these researchers are meet, but user requirements also. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;To cater for researchers, it is in the interest of digital library designers to investigate &lt;br&gt;and understand user behaviour.  Ignorance in understanding how human behaviours &lt;br&gt;influence digital libraries can lead to a potential risk of design inadequacies.  A &lt;br&gt;consequence is that digital libraries may not satisfy the requirements of users.  To &lt;br&gt;rectify this problem, an investigation and summary of the main research surrounding &lt;br&gt;user behaviour of traditional libraries is presented here.  By studying the user &lt;br&gt;behaviour in traditional libraries and how they seek, retrieve, read and store selected &lt;br&gt;materials, one can begin to understand how these attributes can be used to enhance the &lt;br&gt;search and delivery facilities of a digital library.   &lt;br&gt;
82&lt;A name=2&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;There are specifically two components that are addressed which are distinct in nature &lt;br&gt;and shed light on the behaviour of library users:  library-user interaction, and &lt;br&gt;information use and storage.  Library-user behaviour covers the information seeking &lt;br&gt;process — from acknowledging a need of specific information to the delivery of the &lt;br&gt;relevant material required to resolve the need.  This paper looks at this process and the &lt;br&gt;activities involved in relation to traditional libraries.  When looking into the usage and &lt;br&gt;storage of information, the reading behaviours involved in extracting information &lt;br&gt;from retrieved material was investigated.  This focussed primarily on conventional &lt;br&gt;reading environments and methods, and document presentation and storage.  The goal &lt;br&gt;is to begin to understand how researchers find and use information based on the &lt;br&gt;findings of previous studies. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Library-User Interaction &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Information Seeking and Retrieval &lt;br&gt;&lt;/i&gt;Different search techniques are undertaken by library users to search and locate &lt;br&gt;relevant information.  To understand how users of libraries search and locate relevant &lt;br&gt;documents we need to understand the search techniques and what resources and &lt;br&gt;sources of information they generally use. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;There are many ways of looking at the information seeking process.  Of the research &lt;br&gt;viewed, each one had its own ideals and factors that shed new light on the activities &lt;br&gt;conducted.  Ford (1973) offers a conceptual model for researching information needs &lt;br&gt;and uses on the basis of information communication.  The model has six components &lt;br&gt;— sources or originators, methods or activities, messages, channels or media, &lt;br&gt;recipients, and information.  It is presented as: &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; (SOURCE)  (METHOD) &lt;br&gt;
83(MESSAGES) &lt;br&gt;
84“The source / writes or speaks / ideas, research results, etc. / which are trans- &lt;br&gt;
85   (CHANNEL)  (RECIPIENT) (METHOD) &lt;br&gt;mitted by / journal, meeting, etc, etc. / to the recipient, who reads or hears /  &lt;br&gt;the message and is thus informed.  At this point the message is converted  &lt;br&gt;into INFORMATION” (Ford 1973, p. 85). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;This view of information flow can aid in researching information seeking and &lt;br&gt;retrieval practices by providing a basis to analyse interactions. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;In contrast, Kuhlthau (1993) offers an uncertainty principle as a framework for &lt;br&gt;understanding how individuals conduct information seeking.  The article looks at the &lt;br&gt;feelings, thoughts and actions associated with information seeking as a person &lt;br&gt;“move[s] from ambiguity to specificity, or ... uncertainty to understanding” (Kuhlthau &lt;br&gt;1993, p. 340), and argues that information seeking cannot be based on certainty and &lt;br&gt;order as these are variables which fluctuate and need to be considered.  The &lt;br&gt;information seeking tasks identified by Kuhlthau (1993) are:  initiation, an awareness &lt;br&gt;of an information need; selection, the identification or selection of an approach or &lt;br&gt;subject to explore; exploration, the investigation of information to gain understanding; &lt;br&gt;formulation, where the person gains a perspective or point of view on the problem; &lt;br&gt;collection, the gathering of the relevant information; and presentation, to fulfil the &lt;br&gt;
87&lt;A name=3&gt;&lt;/a&gt;information need and  conclude the search.  Through these stages of information &lt;br&gt;seeking, the individual is subject to feelings of uncertainty, optimism, confusion, &lt;br&gt;frustration, doubt, clarity, sense of direction, confidence, and satisfaction or &lt;br&gt;disappointment.  Actions move from exploration to the documentation stage; thoughts &lt;br&gt;move from being vague in the earlier stages to being focussed as interest increases &lt;br&gt;(Kuhlthau 1993, p. 343, figure 1). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Often research on information seeking practices is characterised by an individual’s &lt;br&gt;task or problem (Mick &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1980; Belkin &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1982; Ingwersen 1992 found in &lt;br&gt;Bystrom and Jarvelin 1995).  These studies investigate the relationship between a &lt;br&gt;person’s task (for example, in sciences, social sciences, humanities) and their &lt;br&gt;information seeking behaviour.  Bystrom and Jarvelin (1995) acknowledges that &lt;br&gt;people’s information seeking depends on their task and it looks at how task &lt;br&gt;complexity can be used to model information needs, seeking, channels and sources.  &lt;br&gt;However, other research shows that task alone may not be specific enough to analyse &lt;br&gt;the behaviour of information seekers and users.  They argue that other factors other &lt;br&gt;then tasks may contribute to information seeking behaviours (Kuhlthau 1993). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Those papers that characterise information seeking practices based on tasks, surveyed &lt;br&gt;scholars and professionals in particular fields to determine similarities and &lt;br&gt;generalisations within and between these groups of people.  These determine an &lt;br&gt;overall way in which certain groups of people search for information and their needs &lt;br&gt;and uses of it. Studies reviewed looked at the scientific community (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993; &lt;br&gt;Hallmark 1994; Seggern 1995), computer sciences (Cunningham and Connaway), &lt;br&gt;social sciences (Folster 1995), humanities (Broadbent 1986; Wiberley and Jones &lt;br&gt;1989), and professionals (Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1996).  There are other more specific studies, &lt;br&gt;such as anthropology (Hartmann 1995), philosophy (Sievert and Sievert 1989), and &lt;br&gt;engineering (Pinelli 1991; Holland and Powell 1995).  This classification of people &lt;br&gt;means that in general it is easy to determine the type of behaviour expected from an &lt;br&gt;individual based on their task or field of interest. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;This paper makes utilises these communities of people to describe information &lt;br&gt;seeking and retrieval activities.  However, it has to be noted that, although &lt;br&gt;categorising provides good generalisations of information seeking behaviour there are &lt;br&gt;often conflicts.  This is demonstrated in the study by Pinelli (1991), where the &lt;br&gt;information seeking practices of scientists and engineers are compared.  In the past &lt;br&gt;these two groups of people have been studied synonymously.  It has now been &lt;br&gt;determined that the differences in their behaviour is quite distinct.  For instance, &lt;br&gt;engineers make more use of unpublished technical material than their academic &lt;br&gt;counterparts.  This shows that even with similar or related communities, there may be &lt;br&gt;considerable differences in information seeking behaviour (Pinelli 1991). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Research generally agrees on how people go about searching for information.  Ellis &lt;i&gt;et &lt;br&gt;al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) discusses interviews conducted on information and diffusion activities, &lt;br&gt;focussing specifically on the information seeking habits of physicists and chemists.  It &lt;br&gt;offers characteristics of the information gathering activities for these scientists, in &lt;br&gt;comparison to social scientists, and presents a behaviour model.  While these &lt;br&gt;activities are associated with a particular group of people, they can be generalised to &lt;br&gt;encompass scholars, researchers and professionals.  Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) realises that &lt;br&gt;information seeking behaviour is comparable and is very similar in different fields, &lt;br&gt;
89&lt;A name=4&gt;&lt;/a&gt;the difference generally comes in the emphasis.  There are six main activities &lt;br&gt;identified by Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) — starting, chaining, browsing, differentiating, &lt;br&gt;monitoring and extracting. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Starting&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;In the starting stage of the information seeking process the researcher is beginning a &lt;br&gt;new or unfamiliar project.  This initial familiarisation involves “... activities &lt;br&gt;characteristic of the initial search for information” (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993, p. 359) and &lt;br&gt;includes obtaining starting references and information.  The idea is to identify the &lt;br&gt;topic and begin a search for relevant information.  In starting a research project there &lt;br&gt;are many informal and formal resources one could use.  Informal resources can &lt;br&gt;include personal contacts or colleagues, browsing through catalogue systems or the &lt;br&gt;Internet.  Formal resources are such things as printed indexes, formal bibliographies, &lt;br&gt;research guides, and abstracts.  &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;In the field of Science, the most common way of gaining the initial information &lt;br&gt;needed to begin a project is through personal contacts (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993; Hallmark &lt;br&gt;1994; Seggern 1995).  Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) explains that is because there are usually &lt;br&gt;contactable fellow scientists who are familiar with information regarding this new &lt;br&gt;topic, or for those scientists who are doing PhD research, the initial references are &lt;br&gt;usually provided by their supervisors.  Another source of starting information for &lt;br&gt;scientists comes from keeping up to date with reviews, prominent authors and articles &lt;br&gt;in fields of interest and knowing where to locate these introductory references (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et &lt;br&gt;al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993; Hallmark 1994).  Computer scientists also rely heavily on the above &lt;br&gt;informal sources and less on the formal sources.  However, computer scientists also &lt;br&gt;include the use of the Internet to view authors’ sites and the World Wide Web (in &lt;br&gt;conjunction with search engines) to locate initial information (Cunningham and &lt;br&gt;Connaway).  In the same flavour, social scientists also rely on personal contacts (Ellis &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993).  However, social scientists also use such formal sources as abstracts and &lt;br&gt;indexes, bibliographies, catalogues and book reviews (Folster 1995; Hartmann 1995).  &lt;br&gt;In contrast to scientists, people in the field of humanities tend to use formal resources &lt;br&gt;more.  They mainly use printed primary sources, abstracting and indexing sources, &lt;br&gt;catalogues, research guides, and formal bibliographies (Broadbent 1986; Sievert and &lt;br&gt;Sievert 1989; Wiberley and Jones 1989).  Non-academic professionals, on the other &lt;br&gt;hand, have a different outlook on the initial resources used.  They generally use &lt;br&gt;informal sources, including colleagues, trade publications and unpublished reports &lt;br&gt;(Pinelli 1991; Holland and Powell 1995; Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1996).  Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1996) &lt;br&gt;notes that professionals rely more heavily on their personal files, knowledge and &lt;br&gt;experience.  “Shuchman (1981) reports that engineers first consult their personal store &lt;br&gt;of technical information, followed in order by informal discussions with colleagues, &lt;br&gt;discussions with supervisors, use of internal technical reports, and contact with a &lt;br&gt;“key” person in the organization who usually knows where the needed information &lt;br&gt;may be located” (Pinelli 1991, p. 19). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Nearly all researchers use personal contacts or colleagues for initial information &lt;br&gt;sources, but there is a noticeable difference in the use of formal resources between &lt;br&gt;fields of study.  There are two principle factors which determine the use of particular &lt;br&gt;sources for information:  accessibility and quality (Ford 1973).  Accessibility is based &lt;br&gt;on the perceived cost of attaining the source of information.  For example, it could be &lt;br&gt;based on the distance to travel or the time delay waiting to retrieve the resource.  &lt;br&gt;
91&lt;A name=5&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Accessibility is seen as one of the strongest predictors of use.  Quality “governs the &lt;br&gt;acceptability of the information retrieved” (Ford 1973, p. 88).  Studies note that &lt;br&gt;researchers generally do not rely on libraries for providing the information required in &lt;br&gt;the starting phase of the information gathering process (Folster 1995).  Libraries or &lt;br&gt;librarians are seen as sources for acquiring material previously identified as relevant, &lt;br&gt;rather than as a primary source for identifying relevant information.  They do not play &lt;br&gt;an important part in the initial search process for sources (Folster 1995).  However, &lt;br&gt;academics in humanities read, on average, more than people in other fields of study.  &lt;br&gt;A consequence of this is that they tend to know where to find information required to &lt;br&gt;start a new project, and generally make more use of the library and its facilities &lt;br&gt;(Wiberley and Jones 1989). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Chaining&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;The chaining or chasing stage is “...following chains of citations or other forms of &lt;br&gt;referential connection between material” (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993, p. 359).  Chaining involves &lt;br&gt;locating references to further work by using relevant material already retrieved.  Ellis &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) categorises chaining as being either forward or backward chaining.  &lt;br&gt;Backward chaining looks at the references within an article to locate other relevant &lt;br&gt;printed articles written in the past.  Forward chaining makes use of citation indexes to &lt;br&gt;find out which articles have cited the relevant article you possess (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993).  &lt;br&gt;Another method of chaining is using catalogue systems to locate work with the same &lt;br&gt;author, subject, topic or classification. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Most studies regarding information seeking did not state the way in which &lt;br&gt;information is located once the initial relevant references were found.  However, &lt;br&gt;Hallmark (1994) remarks that most scientists use references from their literature to &lt;br&gt;chain both backwards and forwards.  It is also seen that they make use of the online &lt;br&gt;databases and library facilities.  Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) finds that for scientists and social &lt;br&gt;scientists “Backward chaining [is] ... identified as the principle means employed to &lt;br&gt;chase references” and that forward chaining is less widely used and understood.  Most &lt;br&gt;scientists know about and utilise citation indexes (generally the &lt;i&gt;Science Citation &lt;br&gt;Index&lt;/i&gt;).  This is unlike the social scientists Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) studied who had very &lt;br&gt;little or no knowledge of citation indexes and did not know of the existence of the &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Social Science Citation Index&lt;/i&gt;.  Social scientists are more likely to use reference lists &lt;br&gt;in books and journals to locate information sources.  They also use CD-ROM and &lt;br&gt;online databases (Hartmann 1995).  Computer scientists use reference lists to initiate &lt;br&gt;trials (Cunningham and Connaway).  They also make use of on-line keyword search &lt;br&gt;techniques.  Individuals in the humanities use bibliographical tracings and subject and &lt;br&gt;publisher’s catalogues (Broadbent 1986; Sievert and Sievert 1989; Wiberley and &lt;br&gt;Jones 1989).  In the research on information seeking behaviour of professionals, &lt;br&gt;Pinelli (1991), Holland and Powell (1995) and Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1996), did not indicate &lt;br&gt;how people in professional situations locate further information after gaining initial &lt;br&gt;references. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;The library services used in the chaining stage of information seeking is limited &lt;br&gt;mainly to online bibliographic and catalogue services.  Even then, most of those that &lt;br&gt;acknowledge the use of these facilities prefer, when possible, to use these facilities &lt;br&gt;from the comfort of their own personal computers (Cunningham and Connaway). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
93&lt;A name=6&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;i&gt;Browsing &lt;br&gt;&lt;/i&gt;Browsing is a “... planned or unplanned examination of sources, journals, books, or &lt;br&gt;other media in the hope of discovering unspecified new, but useful information” &lt;br&gt;(Apted and Choo 1971, p. 228).  It is concerned with searching from where to what &lt;br&gt;rather than from what to where (Chang and Rice 1993).  However, is must be noted &lt;br&gt;that there are two main types of browsing, across-document browsing and within-&lt;br&gt;document browsing (Marchionini 1995).  Across-document browsing is often &lt;br&gt;identified with card catalogue systems or bookshelves and it is when records or books &lt;br&gt;are surveyed to find items to examine more closely.  These items could be on a &lt;br&gt;specific topic or to keep up to date.  Within-document browsing is mainly used during &lt;br&gt;the differentiation stage of the search process to determine if the material retrieved is &lt;br&gt;relevant or to gain an overview (this is explored further below).  Browsing can be &lt;br&gt;seen as either a specific stage in the information seeking process or an activity carried &lt;br&gt;out during phases of the process; for example, during the starting stage one may &lt;br&gt;browse library bookshelves for initial sources of information. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Research into different types, the meaning, and evaluation of browsing is discussed by &lt;br&gt;Apted and Choo (1971).  This research also finds that there seems to be a contrast &lt;br&gt;between browsing methods used by people in different disciplines.  Scientists, for &lt;br&gt;example, tend to browse current material and make a deliberate attempt to include this &lt;br&gt;activity in their information seeking behaviour.  It is usually conducted haphazardly &lt;br&gt;and is mainly for maintaining awareness in the current literature.  This point is &lt;br&gt;emphasised by Hallmark (1994) who states that “[m]ost scientists argue that browsing &lt;br&gt;in library and personal journal issues is of critical importance in keeping up with the &lt;br&gt;literature” (Hallmark 1994, p. 203-204).  The methods of browsing for scientists &lt;br&gt;include browsing in journals, &lt;i&gt;Current Contents&lt;/i&gt;, abstracts, along shelves in the library &lt;br&gt;or in bookshops, and displays at conferences (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993).  Most computer &lt;br&gt;scientists know the primary journals in their field and browsing them is an activity &lt;br&gt;that is performed regularly.  It is also recognised that computer scientists browse their &lt;br&gt;personal bookshelves and use the Internet when looking for information sources &lt;br&gt;(Cunningham and Connaway).  In contrast, social scientists rank browsing low down &lt;br&gt;in their information seeking tasks, after reference lists, bibliographies, and reviews for &lt;br&gt;use in locating sources of information (Hartmann 1995).  This may be due to the &lt;br&gt;structure of the library for providing a useful browsing environment for social &lt;br&gt;scientists.  “[Browsing] ... is an approach to information seeking that is informal and &lt;br&gt;opportunistic and depends heavily on the information environment” (Marchionini &lt;br&gt;1995, p. 100).  Because of the many topic areas studied by social scientists the books &lt;br&gt;and journals used are vast and wide spread through out the library, making it difficult &lt;br&gt;to browse all the relevant publications.  Thus, since the environment is not ideal for a &lt;br&gt;social scientist, browsing can often be unrewarding.  For humanities scholars, as in &lt;br&gt;social sciences, browsing is not ranked highly as an information seeking activity.  &lt;br&gt;Sievert and Sievert (1989) remarks that browsing for humanists is not a regular habit &lt;br&gt;and that “only a few, a very few had any pattern of browsing anywhere” (Sievert and &lt;br&gt;Sievert 1989, p. 92).  When they do browse, however, it is usually a wider base, using &lt;br&gt;both old and new material and material on almost any topic.  It also is seen as a less &lt;br&gt;deliberate act, than that of the sciences.  In the studies perused, there is little mention &lt;br&gt;on the browsing behaviour of non-academic professionals.  Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (1996) say &lt;br&gt;that engineers monitor or browse journals.  This is perhaps a characteristic of all non-&lt;br&gt;academic professionals. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
95&lt;A name=7&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Browsing can be a rewarding task because  “Browsing is a natural and effective &lt;br&gt;approach to many types of information-seeking problems.  It is natural because it &lt;br&gt;coordinates human physical, emotive, and cognitive resources in the same way that &lt;br&gt;humans monitor the physical world and search for physical objects.  It can be &lt;br&gt;effective because the environment and particularly human-created environments are &lt;br&gt;generally organised and highly redundant” (Marchionini 1995, p. 100).  The library is &lt;br&gt;an organised environment classified to invite browsing by topic area, yet there are &lt;br&gt;some disciplines in which their subject can include many topics scattered through out &lt;br&gt;the classification scheme.  This may be a reason why most individuals prefer to &lt;br&gt;browse their own collections rather than browse library bookshelves for relevant &lt;br&gt;information.  Apted and Choo (1971) lists a few ideas that could improve library &lt;br&gt;browsing, one being the use of small sections of material, continually refreshed with &lt;br&gt;information of high interest and potential.  However, there are arguments for and &lt;br&gt;against such structuring (Apted and Choo 1971; Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Differentiating&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;Ellis  &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) define differentiating as “... an activity which uses differences &lt;br&gt;between sources as a filter on the nature and quality of the material examined” (Ellis &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993, p. 362).  Differentiating is based on human judgement to determine the &lt;br&gt;relevance of the information retrieved.  Schamber (1994) addresses relevance and the &lt;br&gt;problems surrounding an accurate definition.  The term ‘relevance’, when discussed &lt;br&gt;here, pertains to the situational view where it “refers to a relationship between &lt;br&gt;information and the user’s information problem situation” (Schamber 1994, p. 8).  &lt;br&gt;The selection of material based on some predefined criteria defines the usefulness or &lt;br&gt;satisfaction of the information retrieved.  This criteria can be based on the actual &lt;br&gt;information contained in the publication, or guidelines such as cost saving, precision, &lt;br&gt;completeness, credibility, and convenience of location (Gluck 1996), or it could be &lt;br&gt;based on the perceived relevance of specific authors, journals, institutions, etc.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;To determine relevance on the basis of subject, individuals often read the material &lt;br&gt;specifically to gain an overview to form an opinion on its content.  Browsing can be &lt;br&gt;used to ascertain this.  “For example, by scanning the title page, table of contents, &lt;br&gt;section headings, index, and reference list of a book, we gain a sense of the content’s &lt;br&gt;scope, depth of coverage, and the author’s organizational perspective and thereby can &lt;br&gt;decide quickly whether to invest time reading it.  It is important to note that in the &lt;br&gt;case of books, those attributes that we browse first are well-established standards to &lt;br&gt;aid browsing” (Marchionini 1995, p. 102).  Marchionini (1995) calls this within-&lt;br&gt;document browsing.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;It was found that research did not specifically comment on selection behaviours of &lt;br&gt;specific disciplines.  But the research did reveal that most scholars differentiate &lt;br&gt;between sources of information on the basis of the material’s subject.  Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;(1993) state that scientists and social scientists tend to use factors such as topic, &lt;br&gt;author, and journal source.  The source of information was also analysed for the &lt;br&gt;quality, level and type to decide relevance.  From these factors, a list of core journals &lt;br&gt;is often determined which can also be used to identify material.  Researchers in &lt;br&gt;humanities also have a high regard for authors and also works (Sievert and Sievert &lt;br&gt;1989).  As with the other disciplines, studies on professionals did not cover how they &lt;br&gt;determine information relevance. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
97&lt;A name=8&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Determining the relevance of a document or source is solely an individual’s &lt;br&gt;perspective, so the library or librarian is not a determining factor in differentiating &lt;br&gt;sources.  It would, however, be advantageous for a library to know and have the &lt;br&gt;relevant material available for use.  Traditionally, librarians have sort to provide &lt;br&gt;relevant material.  However, due to the rising cost of documents, they have had to be &lt;br&gt;more selective in their acquisitions.  In response, positions such as special librarians &lt;br&gt;were created.  A special librarian is usually engaged to determine and purchase &lt;br&gt;relevant material for an associated subject area (Folster 1995).  This service is &lt;br&gt;advantageous to both novices and experts in a particular subject area.  These librarians &lt;br&gt;can direct novices to their area of interest, knowing where relevant material might be &lt;br&gt;located.  Experts benefit from this system because their subject area has been &lt;br&gt;investigated so that relevant and frequently used information is easily accessed. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Monitoring&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;Monitoring “is the activity of maintaining awareness of developments in an area &lt;br&gt;through regularly following particular sources” (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993, p. 362).  As &lt;br&gt;previously noted, a large part of monitoring is conducted using browsing techniques.  &lt;br&gt;However, browsing is also a major information gathering technique in its own right.  &lt;br&gt;In monitoring the individual must determine a select range of sources to look at so as &lt;br&gt;not to get overwhelmed.  These sources are usually the predominant sources used in &lt;br&gt;the particular field.  There may be different sources of information used in each &lt;br&gt;discipline for monitoring, but the overall nature and form of the activity is the same &lt;br&gt;(Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;For scientists, monitoring often means constantly surveying their small number of &lt;br&gt;core sources, mainly personal contacts and journals.  Other sources can include &lt;br&gt;conferences, conference proceedings, magazines, abstracts, books, newspapers, &lt;br&gt;television and computer search updates (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993).  Scientists also maintain an &lt;br&gt;often concise personal collection of information which is used for monitoring their &lt;br&gt;fields of interest.  Seggern (1995) notes that this behaviour is due to the convenience &lt;br&gt;of having the journals on-hand.  In comparison, where scientists place a lot of &lt;br&gt;emphasis on journals for maintaining awareness, social scientists use core books and &lt;br&gt;journals equally.  They also use newspapers and published catalogues (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;1993; Hartmann 1995).  Studies on humanists and professionals had no direct &lt;br&gt;references to their monitoring behaviours.  Sievert and Sievert (1989) did say that in &lt;br&gt;the humanities they do a lot of reading but they are not concerned with keeping up to &lt;br&gt;date with the most recent publications.  Also, Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1996) does say that &lt;br&gt;engineers monitor journals for opportunities and threats and to see “what’s out there”.  &lt;br&gt;This may be generalisable to all professionals, but more formal study is required.  In &lt;br&gt;an ever changing environment (especially areas like health care and law) professional &lt;br&gt;individuals must keep up with what is happening.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;From the information gathered on the topic of information seeking patterns of &lt;br&gt;academic disciplines, Folster (1995) concludes that high on the list of priorities for &lt;br&gt;services implemented by libraries should be current awareness services.  One such &lt;br&gt;service is &lt;i&gt;Current Contents&lt;/i&gt;.  &lt;i&gt;Current Contents&lt;/i&gt; provides an alternative to scanning &lt;br&gt;journals, but it is not frequently used by academics.  Other facilities include printed &lt;br&gt;and electronic abstracts and indexes such as OCLC FirstSearch, UNCOVER, reviews, &lt;br&gt;guides, and citation indexes.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
99&lt;A name=9&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;i&gt;Extracting&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;Extracting is defined by Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) as the behaviour involved in systematically &lt;br&gt;going through a specific source and identifying material to locate or follow up on.  &lt;br&gt;Formal sources are more frequently used for systematic analysis, although informal &lt;br&gt;sources may also be used in extracting.  This is a task which is primarily carried out &lt;br&gt;during the starting or initial familiarisation phase of the information seeking process &lt;br&gt;to produce a concise list of references to begin searching with.  Folster (1995) also &lt;br&gt;includes the reading of material to decide what information will be a part of a final &lt;br&gt;report as an extracting activity.  This will be discussed further in a following section &lt;br&gt;on the reading behaviours of people and how they go about extracting information &lt;br&gt;from publications. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Research into extracting generally only reveals the sources used.  Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) is &lt;br&gt;the only study found that discloses the actual use of sources.  However, Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;(1993) only discusses the significance of the activity and reveals the stages of the &lt;br&gt;information seeking process in which extraction of source material is most likely to &lt;br&gt;happen.  For most scientists, extracting for further information is a minimal activity &lt;br&gt;that generally only happens in the starting and monitoring stages.  In the case of &lt;br&gt;physicists, after initially familiarising oneself with a project, they tend not to seek &lt;br&gt;further.  Physicists also tend to use extraction during current awareness activities.  &lt;br&gt;Likewise, chemists are inclined to use this activity in writing reviews, forcing them to &lt;br&gt;maintain awareness.  The sources used in extracting for scientists are usually journals, &lt;br&gt;monographs, indexes, abstracts, bibliographies and computer databases (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;1993).  Sources of information that are mainly used by computer scientists are &lt;br&gt;journals and computer databases, specifically the Internet.  Online catalogues and CD-&lt;br&gt;ROMs are used infrequently.  Computer scientists locate information via the World &lt;br&gt;Wide Web and investigate the home pages of researchers and research institutions.  &lt;br&gt;This sort of activity is not an extensive one for computer scientists and they tend to &lt;br&gt;base their own contributions on only one or a few documents.  One computer scientist &lt;br&gt;who was surveyed said that “I know people who know the literature too well and &lt;br&gt;never get any research done ... [t]he referees will tell me if I have missed some &lt;br&gt;important reference (Cunningham and Connaway).  In a comparison between &lt;br&gt;scientists and social scientists, Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) remarks that social scientists use &lt;br&gt;extracting mainly during monitoring.  For this group of people, books, journals, book &lt;br&gt;reviews, and bibliographies are the main sources used (Hartmann 1995).  Humanities &lt;br&gt;use these sources and also include subject catalogues, printed indexes and research &lt;br&gt;guides (Broadbent 1986; Sievert and Sievert 1989).  In studies discussing the &lt;br&gt;information seeking activities of professionals, sources are generally not mentioned.  &lt;br&gt;Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1996) notes that professionals make use of trade journals, books, printed &lt;br&gt;catalogues and internal sources. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;For most users, the library is seen as a reservoir of information, so it is expected to &lt;br&gt;provide easy access to formal sources used to extract information.  When extracting is &lt;br&gt;used to maintain current awareness, access is particularly important for browsing and &lt;br&gt;reading the most recent core journals in the respective fields.  The material must also &lt;br&gt;be current and relevant.  An ideal is again the use of special librarians who know the &lt;br&gt;particular sources which are reliable and applicable for specific fields of study. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
101&lt;A name=10&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;i&gt;Verification and Ending&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;Verification and ending are information gathering activities used during the verifying &lt;br&gt;and ending phases of researching.  In verifying, the information and sources used to &lt;br&gt;produce their own material are checked for information accuracy and errors.  The &lt;br&gt;sorts of problems that come to light include typographical, numerical, equation, and &lt;br&gt;citation errors.  Verification for most only involves knowing and using reliable &lt;br&gt;sources.  To take it further, “one chemist did a spot check on everything, as well as &lt;br&gt;checking obvious errors and material from sources he regarded as unreliable; another &lt;br&gt;did a spot check on new textbooks” (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993, p. 365).  This sort of activity is &lt;br&gt;seen as minor and is usually subsumed under other activities; for example, social &lt;br&gt;scientists tend to include it under chaining (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Ending is the assembly and dissemination of information or the actual drawing &lt;br&gt;together of material for publication.  It covers the information seeking activities &lt;br&gt;concerned with finishing a topic or project (Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993; Folster 1995).  Most &lt;br&gt;scholars do their major information gathering activities at the start of a project for &lt;br&gt;initial familiarisation, and some also perform literature and information searches &lt;br&gt;during the lifetime of the project.  However, Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) notes that some &lt;br&gt;chemists returned to the literature at the writing up stage of the project to discuss their &lt;br&gt;contribution in light of the reviewed literature.  Two of these chemists minimally &lt;br&gt;collated information in the starting stage of the project and performed a thorough &lt;br&gt;information search at the end.  “Both were aware of dangers with this type of &lt;br&gt;approach in finding material at the end which would have led them to modify the &lt;br&gt;work they carried out or in finding that the work had already been undertaken” (Ellis &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1993, p. 365).   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Location and Delivery of Material&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;In regard to researching behaviour, there are other aspects that need to be considered &lt;br&gt;that are not discussed by Ellis &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993).  These are the location and delivery of &lt;br&gt;material and the implications of the decisions made in these areas.  Locating a known &lt;br&gt;document or publication reference is often by using an individual’s own collection, &lt;br&gt;the library, or the interlibrary loan system (interloan). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;The majority of the people surveyed in the articles examined stated that they &lt;br&gt;maintained and extensively used personal collections of journals, documents and/or &lt;br&gt;books.  It is not surprising that a personal collection is kept, as the core material &lt;br&gt;related to their field of interest is often known by researchers.  Sievert and Sievert &lt;br&gt;(1989) had respondents who “commented that once they [humanists] knew an item &lt;br&gt;was likely to be of importance to them, they tended to purchase it” (Sievert and &lt;br&gt;Sievert 1989, p. 85).  A preference for their own collections is mainly due to &lt;br&gt;convenience.  For scientists, this reason was mentioned most often by the researchers &lt;br&gt;surveyed (Seggern 1995).  This is because they preferred their own classification &lt;br&gt;systems and their own environments.  They did not like the barrier experienced in &lt;br&gt;libraries such as temporary unavailability due to binding or use by others.  Other &lt;br&gt;reasons for having a personal collection are:  researchers can annotate the text for &lt;br&gt;their own purposes (Sievert and Sievert 1989); local libraries no longer carried the &lt;br&gt;essential journals for the researcher’s discipline; the problems with obtaining journals &lt;br&gt;that are now stored in storage due of lack of shelf space; loss, theft, negligence of &lt;br&gt;material; missing and mutilated journals; and general accessibility (Hallmark 1994).  &lt;br&gt;
103&lt;A name=11&gt;&lt;/a&gt;It has been found that researchers rely more on the items they have on hand rather &lt;br&gt;than relying on library services (Folster 1995). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;If researchers do not have the required reference or information in their own &lt;br&gt;collection, they will often resort to using their local library collections.  The library is &lt;br&gt;seen as a repository for information and a mechanism for document delivery for those &lt;br&gt;items not owned.  Librarians are rarely consulted by researchers when looking for &lt;br&gt;information.  Some researchers surveyed commented that the library is a &lt;br&gt;supplementary source rather than a primary source of information.  It is seen as a &lt;br&gt;place to get information from once a reference has been found, or a place that &lt;br&gt;provides document delivery services (Ford 1973; Sievert and Sievert 1989; Folster &lt;br&gt;1995).  Some find that the library system is pleasing and easy to obtain the necessary &lt;br&gt;material from the shelves, but others lack an appreciation for the library classification &lt;br&gt;system, believing it to be difficult to navigate (Hallmark 1994). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Researchers can generally agree on two things, that their local library services are &lt;br&gt;usually adequate for locating material and that they make extensive use of interloan &lt;br&gt;facilities.  The material that is not readily available elsewhere can be retrieved via &lt;br&gt;interloan, which is usually done through the local library.  The unavailability of &lt;br&gt;material at the local library most often results in an interloan request (Hallmark 1994; &lt;br&gt;Hartmann 1995).  However, for computer scientists, interloan was found to be only &lt;br&gt;used when the material could not be located at the library or on the World Wide Web &lt;br&gt;(Cunningham and Connaway).  The only problem with interloan is the time delay &lt;br&gt;from the request for information to actually receiving it.  Hallmark (1994) concludes &lt;br&gt;that “They [researchers] do expect and need fast, efficient, and inexpensive document &lt;br&gt;delivery for material not owned and not available electronically” (Hallmark 1994, p. &lt;br&gt;208) and says that at present there is an unacceptable wait.  It points out that requests &lt;br&gt;that have taken too long are no longer of interest.  For professionals, at least, it seems &lt;br&gt;that accessibility is a major issue when requiring information.  Pinelli (1991) and &lt;br&gt;Leckie  &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1996) state that accessibility appears to be a criteria used most often &lt;br&gt;when selecting an information source even if that source proved to be the least useful &lt;br&gt;or not of high quality.  Another issue that is stipulated is timeliness.  Information that &lt;br&gt;can be obtained immediately or in a reasonable amount of time is more likely to be &lt;br&gt;used.  The usefulness and impact of the retrieved information will decrease as time &lt;br&gt;proceeds (Leckie &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1996).  So, the relevance of a document is often based on &lt;br&gt;accessibility and timeliness, two of the down sides to using interloan.  “[The biggest &lt;br&gt;problem] is being able to obtain the article easily and such cases &lt;br&gt;interlibrary loan can be too slow and require too much time and effort to be &lt;br&gt;worthwhile” (Hallmark 1994, p. 206). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Summary&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;From looking at how researchers in the academic and professional roles conduct &lt;br&gt;information seeking and retrieval, it is interesting to note that the library is mostly &lt;br&gt;used as a source for previously identified material, to browse bookshelves (mainly for &lt;br&gt;current awareness), and for the interloan facilities.  This definition of library usage is &lt;br&gt;very different from what libraries provide and researchers are recommended to use.  &lt;br&gt;To further strengthen the argument, Folster (1995) suggests that improvements to &lt;br&gt;services mean that libraries must focus on document delivery services, current &lt;br&gt;awareness services, and customised search services, as these are the most utilised &lt;br&gt;facilities.  The article also advises training in new technologies. &lt;br&gt;
105&lt;A name=12&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;In most cases, the way in which researchers of different disciplines conduct &lt;br&gt;information seeking and retrieval is very similar.  Often the difference between &lt;br&gt;disciplines is in the sources used and the importance attached to the activity.  The &lt;br&gt;actual act is the same across the fields.  When looking at the differences in the use of &lt;br&gt;libraries by researchers, they are significant.  Humanists and social scientists boast &lt;br&gt;that they use the library a lot more frequently than scientists and computer scientists.  &lt;br&gt;Professionals, on the other hand, use the library rarely.  Most people overall may use &lt;br&gt;the library to retrieve information at some time, but a lot do not know about or use &lt;br&gt;other facilities offered by the library.  Holland and Powell (1995) describes a survey &lt;br&gt;performed on a sample of engineers who took a specific course at university.  This &lt;br&gt;course involved formal training on conducting information research.  The responses to &lt;br&gt;that survey and to a survey conducted on another sample engineers, who did not take &lt;br&gt;this course, were compared.  A result of the comparison was that both groups of &lt;br&gt;people showed similar information gathering preferences, but those that took the &lt;br&gt;above course showed more awareness of library services.  Increasing the exposure of &lt;br&gt;the library leads to an increase in the use of materials and services (Ford 1973).  &lt;br&gt;These trends discussed here are replicated in Broadbent (1986), where it is noted that &lt;br&gt;inexperience is the cause of the limited knowledge of library services.  This lack of &lt;br&gt;formal training among researchers is not uncommon; for example, all the computer &lt;br&gt;scientists in Cunningham and Connaway had received no instruction in conducting a &lt;br&gt;literature search or in using the common indices.  The result of this is that users of the &lt;br&gt;library do not make the most of services available to them, and the library is not seen &lt;br&gt;as anything more than an information repository.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Information Use and Storage &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;Once relevant material has been located and retrieved, information is then extracted &lt;br&gt;for use.  How individuals read can be analysed for insight into their behaviour during &lt;br&gt;this activity.  Most research into reading concentrates on either identifying letters, &lt;br&gt;words, and sentences when learning to read, or on the cognitive processes involved, or &lt;br&gt;on strategies for reading better or more efficiently.  There is very little documented &lt;br&gt;research found on how readers actually behave when confronted with material — &lt;br&gt;where and when reading occurs, what is read, and how information is extracted from &lt;br&gt;relevant material.  Research on the utilisation of materials — the what-where-when-&lt;br&gt;how-and-why of material use — in the library yields similar results due to the &lt;br&gt;difficulty to record such activities (Ford 1973).  &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Reading Environment&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;An integral part of reading behaviour is the effect of the environment on the reader.  &lt;br&gt;The environment can influence concentration and reading ability.  Preferences for &lt;br&gt;reading environments are subject to the self-defined factors of users.  Factors for &lt;br&gt;choosing a particular reading area can include noise or distractions (or the lack there &lt;br&gt;of), the presence of other people, privacy, seating arrangements, and the availability &lt;br&gt;of other materials (Sommer 1966; Gifford and Sommer 1968; Sommer 1968; Fishman &lt;br&gt;and Walitt 1972).  An assumption cannot be made that there is one optimal reading &lt;br&gt;environment that will meet the needs of all individuals (Gifford and Sommer 1968; &lt;br&gt;Sommer 1968) so it is recommended that in designing reading areas, there needs to be &lt;br&gt;a variety of reading spaces for everyone.  In this way individuals can choose the most &lt;br&gt;suitable place according to their reading preferences. &lt;br&gt;
107&lt;A name=13&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;Reading, primarily for research, can be done in such places as the library, in study &lt;br&gt;rooms, offices, etc.  Most research is inclined to look at the library when discussing &lt;br&gt;reading environments.  Contradicting this, most studies reviewed indicated that &lt;br&gt;researcher do not spend much time in the library.  Thus, there is a requirement to &lt;br&gt;know what researchers do and need in the place that they actually read.  However, &lt;br&gt;Ford (1973) looks at the study environment in the library.  The requirements of library &lt;br&gt;patrons include personal needs such as “[c]onditions of work — heating, lighting, &lt;br&gt;draughts, sound-proofing, ease of entry/exit — turnstiles, porters etc. ... [a]menities — &lt;br&gt;location of lavatories, smoking rooms, food, drink” (Ford 1973, p. 88).  It is also &lt;br&gt;noted that these and other needs of people are variable and that it is important for the &lt;br&gt;library to cater for all.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;The reading environment also includes how material is presented.  This affects not &lt;br&gt;only the readability but can also influence the processing of information.  Duchastel &lt;br&gt;(1982) investigates text processing and finds that the presentation of material is &lt;br&gt;particular to its purpose.  For example, “[d]ictionaries ... are used for looking up the &lt;br&gt;meaning of words, reference books for finding out specific information about a &lt;br&gt;subject, novels for entertainment [and] ... [t]extbooks are used primarily for learning” &lt;br&gt;(Duchastel 1982, p. 170).  The use of these materials are considerably different and so &lt;br&gt;the display techniques to aid information processing is therefore specific to the &lt;br&gt;material’s purpose.  Such techniques include labelling, highlighting and illustrating.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;The presentation medium of reading material is generally either printed or electronic.  &lt;br&gt;There is a lot of research into the effects of reading from a screen and comparing this &lt;br&gt;to reading from a paper copy (Askwall 1985; Mills and Weldon 1987; Oborne and &lt;br&gt;Holton 1988; Muter and Maurutto 1991; De Bruijn &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1992).  It has been found &lt;br&gt;that today, due to computers being more advanced, comparatively faster, and more &lt;br&gt;reliable, and owing to increased exposure to the computing environment, there is little &lt;br&gt;evidence that there is a difference in reading speed or comprehension when material is &lt;br&gt;presented on a screen or hard copy (Askwall 1985; Oborne and Holton 1988; Muter &lt;br&gt;and Maurutto 1991).  Therefore, if these are the only two factors considered of &lt;br&gt;significance when determining readability, then the reading medium is dependent on &lt;br&gt;the readers preference.  However, reading and comprehension are only two of many &lt;br&gt;factors which dictate the use of paper versus computers when reading (Oborne and &lt;br&gt;Holton 1988).   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Paper copies are widely used because paper is permanent; it can be recalled without &lt;br&gt;recourse to high technology; it is convenient; and easily transportable (Showstack &lt;br&gt;1982; Oborne and Holton 1988).  “Paper ... is still the most popular method of &lt;br&gt;communications and is likely to remain so” (Plume 1988 quoted in Muter 1991, p. &lt;br&gt;257).  In comparison to computer screens, paper appears to be easier and faster to &lt;br&gt;read, but the size of the effect depends on the quality of both the paper and the screen &lt;br&gt;presentation (Mills and Weldon 1987).  Use of computer screens for reading &lt;br&gt;electronic copies is often dependent on the textual display.  Advances in technology &lt;br&gt;have increased the legibility of computer screens through better resolution, clearer and &lt;br&gt;more varied fonts, negative contrast capability (dark characters on a light background) &lt;br&gt;and a higher refresh rate, to name a few.  This provides flexibility in textual &lt;br&gt;presentation of information (Muter and Maurutto 1991).  Merrill (1982), Mills and &lt;br&gt;Weldon (1987), and Muter and Maurutto (1991) list several factors concerning how to &lt;br&gt;
109&lt;A name=14&gt;&lt;/a&gt;display information on computer screens to get optimum readability.  Readers may &lt;br&gt;prefer computer screens, even though users’ performance may not be as good with &lt;br&gt;computer screens as with paper (Mills and Weldon 1987).  Both paper and electronic &lt;br&gt;copies have their advantages and disadvantages.  Perhaps readability is dependent on &lt;br&gt;reader preference where the reader determines which of the mediums disadvantages &lt;br&gt;them the least. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;When looking at researchers who were surveyed, there are mixed responses to their &lt;br&gt;preference for reading medium.  Computer scientists preferred to use paper copies.  &lt;br&gt;Documents that were retrieved in electronic format were printed and in most cases &lt;br&gt;only the printed documents were retained.  The electronic copy might be kept while it &lt;br&gt;was of immediate use (Cunningham and Connaway).  In contrast, Holland and Powell &lt;br&gt;(1995) found that engineers preferred to receive information in electronic form and &lt;br&gt;would prefer to receive less paper in the future.  Scientists also expressed the &lt;br&gt;usefulness of the retrieval of full text online documents, then “files could then be &lt;br&gt;viewed on the scientist’s screen and printed on the local laser printed if desired &lt;br&gt;(Hallmark 1994, p. 206).  These preferences for electronic documents were mainly &lt;br&gt;due to the convenience of retrieval.  Research was not found to confirm that these &lt;br&gt;electronic documents were then read online. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Reading for Information Use &lt;br&gt;&lt;/i&gt;“In simple terms, information has only one use — ie. the assistance of problem &lt;br&gt;solving” (Ford 1973, p. 88).  One main technique for extracting information is by &lt;br&gt;reading.  Alternative techniques are listening and viewing an oral discussion, &lt;br&gt;presentation, demonstration, etc.  When looking at reading as an activity for &lt;br&gt;extracting information to use, there are positives and negatives associated with &lt;br&gt;reading as an activity for extracting (Norman 1993).  Positive aspects of reading are &lt;br&gt;that the individual has control over which portion of text is read, which is skipped, &lt;br&gt;which is repeated, and at any moment they can stop reading.  Moreover, it gives them &lt;br&gt;the chance to reflect on what has been read, so that they can contemplate, question, &lt;br&gt;ponder and agree or disagree.  On the other side, reading can be comparatively slow &lt;br&gt;and difficult in comparison to other mediums of information.  It takes training and &lt;br&gt;practice and “[r]eading ... requires relatively greater effort and thought” (Showstack &lt;br&gt;1982,  p371).  Reading takes mental effort, mental demands, concentration, and &lt;br&gt;requires a focus of attention on the material.  “Written material tends to be &lt;br&gt;information-rich, so that considerable mental activity is needed to decode the author’s &lt;br&gt;message” (Norman 1993, p. 244).   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;There are many research and study guides that instruct readers on the benefits of using &lt;br&gt;reading methods to increase reading speed and comprehension.  One such strategy for &lt;br&gt;scanning documents to determine the material of relevance is recorded in Booth &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; &lt;br&gt;(1995) where speedier reading is achieved through five steps.  Booth &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1995) &lt;br&gt;acknowledges that this is only used to identify and understand the work and states that &lt;br&gt;the important sources require careful reading.  More thorough strategies for critical &lt;br&gt;reading was developed by Hardcastle (1996) from a variety of sources.  This proposes &lt;br&gt;that these strategies can make reading more satisfying and productive.  The seven &lt;br&gt;strategies include:  previewing, learning about a text before actually reading it; &lt;br&gt;contextualising, placing a text in its historical, biographical, and cultural context; &lt;br&gt;questioning to understand and remember, asking questions about the content; &lt;br&gt;reflecting on challenges to your beliefs and values, examining you personal responses; &lt;br&gt;
111&lt;A name=15&gt;&lt;/a&gt;outlining and summarising, identifying the main ideas and restating them in your own &lt;br&gt;words; evaluating an argument; testing the logic of a text as well as its credibility and &lt;br&gt;emotional impact; and comparing and contrasting related readings, exploring &lt;br&gt;likenesses and differences between texts to understand them better (Hardcastle 1996).  &lt;br&gt;Another reading method is examined in Sweet &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (1993) for use within a teaching &lt;br&gt;and learning environment. These reading strategies can be used to extract information, &lt;br&gt;but in doing so ideas, arguments and conclusions are also formed. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Strategic reading usually insists on the use of annotations and notes to guide &lt;br&gt;information extraction.  Hardcastle’s (1996) critical reading strategies, reviewed &lt;br&gt;above, state that annotating directly on the page is fundamental to these techniques.  &lt;br&gt;Annotations can include, “underlining key words, phrases, or sentences; writing &lt;br&gt;comments or questions in the margins; bracketing important sections of the text; &lt;br&gt;constructing ideas with lines or arrows; numbering related points in sequence; and &lt;br&gt;making note of anything that strikes you as interesting, important, or questionable” &lt;br&gt;(Hardcastle 1996).  Annotations are usually written directly on a paper copy to refer &lt;br&gt;directly to specific parts of the text for reading clarity, proof-reading, or refereeing.  &lt;br&gt;“[U]sers often show a strong preference for the “hard-copy” medium of document &lt;br&gt;presentation when it comes to reading activities such as those that involve proof-&lt;br&gt;reading or refereeing the document” (Tucker and Jones 1993), even though the use of &lt;br&gt;computers for displaying documents is increasing.  When using electronic copies of &lt;br&gt;documents, some editors provide annotating facilities.  These can be awkward to use, &lt;br&gt;often requiring specific file formats and dictating how the user must annotate.  This is &lt;br&gt;discussed further by Tucker and Jones (1993) with respect to the use of written, typed &lt;br&gt;or spoken annotations.  Annotating is an individual task that enhances and establishes &lt;br&gt;the author’s message as the reader interprets it.  Differences in annotation marks when &lt;br&gt;comparing the same document that has been annotated by two people are linked to &lt;br&gt;personal understanding and preferences (Showstack 1982) and it has been found that &lt;br&gt;“[m]ost readers annotate in layers, adding further annotations on second and third &lt;br&gt;readings.  Annotations can be light or heavy, depending on the reader’s purpose and &lt;br&gt;the difficulty of the material” (Hardcastle 1996). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;It is recommended that in addition to annotating that the reader should take notes to &lt;br&gt;reflect the “quality of thinking” at the time (Booth &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 1995).   Specific information &lt;br&gt;that should be recorded include, bibliographical data, key words, summaries and &lt;br&gt;thoughts, and a call number (if applicable).  Making notes can enhance reading by &lt;br&gt;focussing the reader’s concentration, increasing the reader’s understanding of the text, &lt;br&gt;and enforcing an evaluation of the quality of the source document.  It is used to gather &lt;br&gt;information and create links between what you know and what you have read from &lt;br&gt;different sources.  This gives you a broader perspective and the ability to draw &lt;br&gt;conclusions.  It also records information that can be stored for later use (LDC 1996). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Although the strategies above dictate how one &lt;i&gt;should&lt;/i&gt; read, it is not known how &lt;br&gt;individuals  &lt;i&gt;actually&lt;/i&gt; read.  In particular, frequency and quality are characteristics of &lt;br&gt;reading which are often unknown and hard to measure.  Reading for information can &lt;br&gt;be a specific, casual or a subliminal activity.  With the amount of information &lt;br&gt;propelled upon individuals, how much does a person read and process?  One way of &lt;br&gt;measuring reading frequency for researchers is by determining the utilisation of &lt;br&gt;library materials.  It has been found that even though the materials that are on loan are &lt;br&gt;often retained until the due date, the use made of the materials is small relative to the &lt;br&gt;
113&lt;A name=16&gt;&lt;/a&gt;length of time they are on loan (Ford 1973).  The quality of use during this period is &lt;br&gt;not known.  By looking at the time allocation of researchers to the activity of reading, &lt;br&gt;one may be able to determine not only how often reading occurs, but the quality and &lt;br&gt;quantity of information read. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Information Storage &lt;br&gt;&lt;/i&gt;During the research period and afterwards it would be of interest to know what &lt;br&gt;happens to the material, information, and notes collected?  Also, what sort of format &lt;br&gt;are they kept in?  These questions may be answered by looking at the preferences for &lt;br&gt;reading environments.  Examples include, a partiality for paper or electronic copy, the &lt;br&gt;original or a photocopy, borrowed or own copy of material.  In general, from the &lt;br&gt;research seen, most scholars prefer to have their own hard copy (be it the original or a &lt;br&gt;photocopy).  Most, if not all, information is retained and filed for possible use the &lt;br&gt;future.  It has already been noted that researchers prefer their own collections; one &lt;br&gt;reason given by scientists is that they then can apply their own classification systems &lt;br&gt;when filing materials (Seggern 1995).  Such schemes are personalised and can be &lt;br&gt;quite elaborate.  Sievert and Sievert (1989) describes the organisation of research &lt;br&gt;materials by the humanists surveyed.  Most scholars have some sort of informal &lt;br&gt;classification scheme for filing which may include index cards, notebooks or some &lt;br&gt;combination of books, photocopied articles or a log of some sort.  Documents can be &lt;br&gt;arranged by the traditional Dewy Decimal, alphanumeric, or Library of Congress &lt;br&gt;classification numbers, or more likely grouped by author or subject.  Cunningham and &lt;br&gt;Connaway captures the essence of scholarly filing:  “piles, generally not by project ... &lt;br&gt;boxes of reprints, folders of notes, folders in the filing cabinet, pigeonholes with &lt;br&gt;papers and drafts for recent papers ... basically it’s chaos.  Usually I manage to find &lt;br&gt;the most important stuff” (Cunningham and Connaway). &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Summary &lt;br&gt;&lt;/i&gt;Ford (1973) gives a good summation of reading behaviour in libraries in that there is a &lt;br&gt;large gap in our knowledge when it comes to the utilisation of materials.  One can &lt;br&gt;only assume that the accuracy of the reading strategies available has been investigated &lt;br&gt;as to their worth and practicality and that they are characteristic of reading behaviour.  &lt;br&gt;These strategies and directions for reading give an overall impression on how readers &lt;br&gt;should read.  Most readers obviously apply some or all of the guidelines.  &lt;br&gt;Consequently, all of these strategies can be included as reader behaviour, although &lt;br&gt;some are more characteristic than others.   &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Conclusion &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;By gaining a fuller understanding of how users of traditional libraries behave and the &lt;br&gt;reading styles of individuals, the knowledge can be applied to enhance a digital &lt;br&gt;library environment.  It can be used to create an inviting and familiar surrounding that &lt;br&gt;caters for the majority of users.  Research into library-user interaction is quite &lt;br&gt;thorough in contrast to the research on the behaviour involved in information use and &lt;br&gt;storage.  Ford (1973) discovered a gap in knowledge on the what-where-when-how-&lt;br&gt;and-why of material use in libraries.  There is also a lack of information on the actual &lt;br&gt;reading methods used, the frequency and quality of material use, and the storage of &lt;br&gt;documents.  Further research is required to extend our knowledge on these &lt;br&gt;behaviours.  In light of the research found on traditional library interactions, it would &lt;br&gt;be interesting to know if the patrons of this library environment have the same &lt;br&gt;
115&lt;A name=17&gt;&lt;/a&gt;requirements as the digital library patrons.  It would be beneficial for designers of &lt;br&gt;digital libraries to understand the behaviours of the people they are intended for.  &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;Apted, E., and Choo, C. W. (1971). General purposive browsing. &lt;i&gt;Library Association &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
116&lt;i&gt;Record&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;73&lt;/b&gt;, 228-230. &lt;br&gt;
117 &lt;br&gt;Askwall, S. (1985). Computer supported reading vs reading text on paper: a &lt;br&gt;
118comparison of two reading situations. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Man-Machine &lt;br&gt;Studies&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;22&lt;/b&gt;, 425-439. &lt;br&gt;
119 &lt;br&gt;Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., and Williams, J. M., (1995). &lt;i&gt;The craft of research&lt;/i&gt;. &lt;br&gt;
120University of Chicago. &lt;br&gt;
121 &lt;br&gt;Broadbent, E. (1986). A study of humanities faculty library information seeking &lt;br&gt;
122behaviour. &lt;i&gt;Cataloging  &amp;amp; Classification Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;6&lt;/b&gt;, 23-37. &lt;br&gt;
123 &lt;br&gt;Bystrom, K., and Jarvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking &lt;br&gt;
124and use. &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;13&lt;/b&gt;, 191-213. &lt;br&gt;
125 &lt;br&gt;Chang, S. J., and Rice R. E. (1993). Browsing: a multi-dimensional framework. &lt;br&gt;
126&lt;i&gt;Annual Review of Information Science and Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;28&lt;/b&gt;, 231-276. &lt;br&gt;
127 &lt;br&gt;Cunningham, S. J., and Connaway, L. S. (). Information searching preferences and &lt;br&gt;
128practices of computer science researchers. Working paper. &lt;br&gt;
129 &lt;br&gt;De Bruijn, D., De Mul, S., and Van Oostendorp, H. (1992). The influence of screen &lt;br&gt;
130size and text layout on the study of text. &lt;i&gt;Behaviour &amp;amp; Information Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;11&lt;/b&gt;, 71-78. &lt;br&gt;
131 &lt;br&gt;Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Textual display techniques. In &lt;i&gt;The technology of text&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. D. &lt;br&gt;
132H. Jonassen), pp. 167-192. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey. &lt;br&gt;
133 &lt;br&gt;Ellis, D., Cox, D., and Hall, K. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking &lt;br&gt;
134patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. &lt;i&gt;Journal of &lt;br&gt;Documentation&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;49&lt;/b&gt;, 356-369. &lt;br&gt;
135 &lt;br&gt;Fishman, D., and Walitt, R. (1972). Seating and area preferences in a college reserve &lt;br&gt;
136room. &lt;i&gt;College &amp;amp; Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt; 33&lt;/b&gt;, 284-297. &lt;br&gt;
137 &lt;br&gt;Folster, M. B. (1995). Information seeking patterns: social sciences. In &lt;i&gt;Library users &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
138&lt;i&gt;and reference services&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. J. B. Whitlatch), pp. 83-93. &lt;br&gt;
139 &lt;br&gt;Ford, G. (1973). Progress in documentation: research in user behaviour in university &lt;br&gt;
140libraries. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Documentation&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;29&lt;/b&gt;, 85-106. &lt;br&gt;
141 &lt;br&gt;Gifford, R., and Sommer, R. (1968). The desk or the bed? &lt;i&gt;Personnel &amp;amp; Guidance &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
142&lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;46&lt;/b&gt;, 876-878. &lt;br&gt;
143 &lt;br&gt;
145&lt;A name=18&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Gluck, M. (1996). Exploring the relationship between user satisfaction and relevance &lt;br&gt;
146in information systems. &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;32&lt;/b&gt;, 89-104. &lt;br&gt;
147 &lt;br&gt;Hallmark, J. (1994). Scientists’ access and retrieval of references cited in their recent &lt;br&gt;
148journal articles. &lt;i&gt;College &amp;amp; Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;55&lt;/b&gt;, 199-209. &lt;br&gt;
149 &lt;br&gt;Hardcastle, V. (1996). &lt;i&gt;Critical reading strategies&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;
150, on 6 December 1996. &lt;br&gt;
151 &lt;br&gt;Hartmann, J. (1995). Information needs of anthropologists. &lt;i&gt;Behavioural &amp;amp; Social &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
152&lt;i&gt;Sciences Librarian&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;13&lt;/b&gt;, 13-24. &lt;br&gt;
153 &lt;br&gt;Holland, M. P., and Powell, C. K. (1995). A longitudinal survey of the information &lt;br&gt;
154seeking and use habits of some engineers. &lt;i&gt;College and Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;56&lt;/b&gt;, 7-&lt;br&gt;15. &lt;br&gt;
155 &lt;br&gt;Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. &lt;i&gt;Journal of &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
156&lt;i&gt;Documentation&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;49&lt;/b&gt;, 339-355. &lt;br&gt;
157 &lt;br&gt;LDC (Learning and Development Centre). (1996). &lt;i&gt;Reading and Notemaking&lt;/i&gt;. Found &lt;br&gt;
158at, on 21 January 1997. &lt;br&gt;
159 &lt;br&gt;Leckie, G. L., Pettigrew, K. E., and Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling the information &lt;br&gt;
160seeking of professionals: a general model derived from research on engineers, &lt;br&gt;health professionals, and lawyers. &lt;i&gt;The Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;66&lt;/b&gt;, 161-193. &lt;br&gt;
161 &lt;br&gt;Marchionini, G. (1995). &lt;i&gt;Information seeking in electronic environments&lt;/i&gt;. Cambridge &lt;br&gt;
162University Press, New York. &lt;br&gt;
163 &lt;br&gt;Merrill, P. F. (1982). Displaying text on microcomputers. In &lt;i&gt;The technology of text&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;
164(ed. D. H. Jonassen), pp. 401-414. Educational Technology Publications, New &lt;br&gt;Jersey. &lt;br&gt;
165 &lt;br&gt;Mills, C. B., and Weldon L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. &lt;i&gt;ACM &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
166&lt;i&gt;Computing Surveys&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;19&lt;/b&gt;, 329-358. &lt;br&gt;
167 &lt;br&gt;Muter, P., and Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens &lt;br&gt;
168and books: the paperless office revisited? &lt;i&gt;Behaviour &amp;amp; Information Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;10&lt;/b&gt;, 257-266. &lt;br&gt;
169 &lt;br&gt;Norman, D. A. (1993). &lt;i&gt;Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
170&lt;i&gt;age of the machine&lt;/i&gt;. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts. &lt;br&gt;
171 &lt;br&gt;Oborne, D. J., and Holton, D. (1988). Reading from screen versus paper: there is no &lt;br&gt;
172difference. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Man-Machine Studies&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;28&lt;/b&gt;, 1-9. &lt;br&gt;
173 &lt;br&gt;Pinelli, T. E. (1991). The information-seeking habits and practices of engineers. &lt;br&gt;
174&lt;i&gt;Science and Technology Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;12&lt;/b&gt;, 5-16. &lt;br&gt;
175 &lt;br&gt;
177&lt;A name=19&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Schamber,  L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. &lt;i&gt;Annual Review of &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
178&lt;i&gt;Information Science and Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;29&lt;/b&gt;, 3-48. &lt;br&gt;
179 &lt;br&gt;Seggern, M. V. (1995). Scientists, information seeking and reference services. In &lt;br&gt;
180&lt;i&gt;Library users and reference services&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. J. B. Whitlatch), pp. 95-104. &lt;br&gt;
181 &lt;br&gt;Showstack, R. (1982). Printing: the next stage: discourse punctuation. In &lt;i&gt;The &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
182&lt;i&gt;technology of text&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. D. H. Jonassen), pp. 369-376. Educational Technology &lt;br&gt;Publications, New Jersey. &lt;br&gt;
183 &lt;br&gt;Sievert, D., and Sievert, M. E. (1989). Philosophical research: report from the field. &lt;br&gt;
184&lt;i&gt;Proceedings of the Humanists at Work symposium&lt;/i&gt; (April, Chicago), pp. 79-94. &lt;br&gt;University of Illinois at Chicago. &lt;br&gt;
185 &lt;br&gt;Sommer, R. (1966). The ecology of privacy. &lt;i&gt;Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;36&lt;/b&gt;, 234-248. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Sommer, R. (1968). Reading ares in college libraries. &lt;i&gt;Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;38&lt;/b&gt;, 249-260. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Sweet, A. P., Riley, R. W., Robinson, S. P., and Conaty, J. C. (1993). &lt;i&gt;State of the art: &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
186&lt;i&gt;transforming ideas for teaching and learning to read&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;, on 21 January 1997.&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
187 &lt;br&gt;Tucker, P., and Jones, D. M. (1993). Document annotation: to write, type or speak? &lt;br&gt;
188&lt;i&gt;International Journal of Man-Machine Studies&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;39&lt;/b&gt;, 885-900. &lt;br&gt;
189 &lt;br&gt;Wiberley, S., and Jones, W. G. (1989). Patterns of information seeking in the &lt;br&gt;
190humanities. &lt;i&gt;College &amp;amp; Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;50&lt;/b&gt;, 638-645. &lt;br&gt;
191 &lt;br&gt;Witten, I. H., Cunningham, S. J., Vallabh, M., and Bell, T. C. (1995). A New Zealand &lt;br&gt;
192digital library for computer science research. &lt;i&gt;Proc Digital Libraries ’95&lt;/i&gt; (April, &lt;br&gt;Texas), pp. 25-30. &lt;br&gt;
193 &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
195&lt;A name=20&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;Bibliography &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt;Apted, E., and Choo, C. W. (1971). General purposive browsing. &lt;i&gt;Library Association &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
196&lt;i&gt;Record&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;73&lt;/b&gt;, 228-230.    &lt;br&gt;A good overall article on across-document browsing. It researches different types, &lt;br&gt;the meaning of, and evaluating browsing.  It also looks at general browsing in the &lt;br&gt;library environment.  Light and easy reading. &lt;br&gt;
197 &lt;br&gt;Arnold, K. (1994). &lt;i&gt;The electronic librarian is a verb / the electronic library is not a &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
198&lt;i&gt;sentence&lt;/i&gt;. Found at, on &lt;br&gt;9 December 1996. &lt;br&gt;A presentation to a conference on the place of libraries and librarians in today’s &lt;br&gt;information society.  The author also discusses the challenges of the library in an &lt;br&gt;electronic, user-pays system.  Light conversational reading. &lt;br&gt;
199 &lt;br&gt;Askwall, S. (1985). Computer supported reading vs reading text on paper: a &lt;br&gt;
200comparison of two reading situations. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Man-Machine &lt;br&gt;Studies&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;22&lt;/b&gt;, 425-439. &lt;br&gt;Compares the use of computers and paper for reading, skimming and &lt;br&gt;comprehension.  Contains a good set of references. &lt;br&gt;
201 &lt;br&gt;Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., and Williams, J. M., (1995). &lt;i&gt;The craft of research&lt;/i&gt;. &lt;br&gt;
202University of Chicago. &lt;br&gt;Contains strategies that can be used when reading for information.  The methods &lt;br&gt;of research discussed are practical and realistic.  A very good book to use for &lt;br&gt;researching and writing papers. &lt;br&gt;
203 &lt;br&gt;Broadbent, E. (1986). A study of humanities faculty library information seeking &lt;br&gt;
204behaviour. &lt;i&gt;Cataloging  &amp;amp; Classification Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;6&lt;/b&gt;, 23-37. &lt;br&gt;An insight into what library sources humanities faculty use.  It has views on the &lt;br&gt;kind of information catalogue facilities they would prefer.  It also looks at how &lt;br&gt;faculty prefer to search, indicating electronic services required to cater for this. &lt;br&gt;
205 &lt;br&gt;Bystrom, K., and Jarvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking &lt;br&gt;
206and use. &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;13&lt;/b&gt;, 191-213. &lt;br&gt;The article argues that task alone is not specific enough to analyse information &lt;br&gt;seeking and use behaviour.  It provides an information seeking model and a &lt;br&gt;method to look at how the level of task complexity affects the information needs, &lt;br&gt;seeking, channels, and sources. &lt;br&gt;
207 &lt;br&gt;Chang, S. J., and Rice R. E. (1993). Browsing: a multi-dimensional framework. &lt;br&gt;
208&lt;i&gt;Annual Review of Information Science and Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;28&lt;/b&gt;, 231-276. &lt;br&gt;A good review of the literature published on browsing.  This article has a specific &lt;br&gt;section on browsing in a library.  Easy to understand. &lt;br&gt;
209 &lt;br&gt;Cunningham, S. J., and Connaway, L. S. (). Information searching preferences and &lt;br&gt;
210practices of computer science researchers. Working paper. &lt;br&gt;Looks at how and where, under research situations, computer scientists locate &lt;br&gt;information.  It covers the information seeking process from seeking to the &lt;br&gt;storage of relevant documents. &lt;br&gt;
212&lt;A name=21&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;De Bruijn, D., De Mul, S., and Van Oostendorp, H. (1992). The influence of screen &lt;br&gt;
213size and text layout on the study of text. &lt;i&gt;Behaviour &amp;amp; Information Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;11&lt;/b&gt;, 71-78. &lt;br&gt;This article looks at how changes to the presentation of text on a screen can &lt;br&gt;influence the readability.  Two factors discussed is the screen size and text layout.  &lt;br&gt;It does not directly look at the reading behaviours of the computer users. &lt;br&gt;
214 &lt;br&gt;Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Textual display techniques. In &lt;i&gt;The technology of text&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. D. &lt;br&gt;
215H. Jonassen), pp. 167-192. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey. &lt;br&gt;Looks at the display of text in books and how this affects or enhances readability.  &lt;br&gt;It offers techniques that can be used to create a more attractive product.  This &lt;br&gt;chapter of the book includes a section on how humans process text. &lt;br&gt;
216 &lt;br&gt;Ellis, D., Cox, D., and Hall, K. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking &lt;br&gt;
217patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. &lt;i&gt;Journal of &lt;br&gt;Documentation&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;49&lt;/b&gt;, 356-369. &lt;br&gt;Presents a comparison between physical, chemical and social scientists in the way &lt;br&gt;they go about searching for information.  The article develops a very good &lt;br&gt;general model for the information seeking process (it does not specifically relate &lt;br&gt;the activities to the library environment).  Thorough and worth while reading. &lt;br&gt;
218 &lt;br&gt;England, M., Shaffer, M. (1995). &lt;i&gt;Librarians in the digital library&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;
219, on 9 December 1996. &lt;br&gt;This article discusses the roles that a librarian has an opportunity to fulfil in an &lt;br&gt;electronic library environment.  It discusses the librarians role as a researcher, &lt;br&gt;organiser and publisher, member of the digital library design team, and as a &lt;br&gt;teacher and consultant. &lt;br&gt;
220 &lt;br&gt;Fishman, D., and Walitt, R. (1972). Seating and area preferences in a college reserve &lt;br&gt;
221room. &lt;i&gt;College &amp;amp; Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt; 33&lt;/b&gt;, 284-297. &lt;br&gt;A study into a specific reading area of one library.  It discusses factors of seating &lt;br&gt;preferences (front versus back, the seating position, etc.) and their relevance to &lt;br&gt;users of a college reserve room.  The research does not extend to the reading &lt;br&gt;behaviours during the users stay. &lt;br&gt;
222 &lt;br&gt;Folster, M. B. (1995). Information seeking patterns: social sciences. In &lt;i&gt;Library users &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
223&lt;i&gt;and reference services&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. J. B. Whitlatch), pp. 83-93. &lt;br&gt;A look at the information seeking behaviour of social scientists over the last three &lt;br&gt;decades determining trends that library services can be based on.  Not very &lt;br&gt;thorough; it covered everything briefly and did not draw many conclusions from &lt;br&gt;the findings. &lt;br&gt;
224 &lt;br&gt;Ford, G. (1973). Progress in documentation: research in user behaviour in university &lt;br&gt;
225libraries. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Documentation&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;29&lt;/b&gt;, 85-106. &lt;br&gt;A practical look into understanding the interaction between the library and its &lt;br&gt;users and how these findings can be applied to increase library usage.  Very &lt;br&gt;relevant and worth while reading. &lt;br&gt;
226 &lt;br&gt;
228&lt;A name=22&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Furuta, K. (1995). &lt;i&gt;Librarianship in the digital library&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;
229, on 9 December 1996. &lt;br&gt;Looks at the role of the librarian in the traditional library and what they can offer &lt;br&gt;a digital library.  Also what experience the librarian has that can be used in &lt;br&gt;designing digital libraries. &lt;br&gt;
230 &lt;br&gt;Gessesse, K. (1994). Science communication, electronic access and documentation &lt;br&gt;
231delivery: the new challenge to the science/engineering reference librarian. &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;International Information &amp;amp;Library Review&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;26&lt;/b&gt;, 341-349. &lt;br&gt;Describes the relevance of technology in the information seeking and retrieval &lt;br&gt;process and is a call to reference librarians to embrace it.  It looks briefly at the &lt;br&gt;information needs and seeking behaviour of scientists then describes how the &lt;br&gt;reference librarian can assist the scientist in obtaining the material. &lt;br&gt;
232 &lt;br&gt;Gifford, R., and Sommer, R. (1968). The desk or the bed? &lt;i&gt;Personnel &amp;amp; Guidance &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
233&lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;46&lt;/b&gt;, 876-878. &lt;br&gt;Looks at the preferences of study environments for students and whether there is &lt;br&gt;any substantial evidence confirming students study better at a desk.  Does not &lt;br&gt;discuss reading behaviour, but does look at environment preferences. &lt;br&gt;
234 &lt;br&gt;Gluck, M. (1996). Exploring the relationship between user satisfaction and relevance &lt;br&gt;
235in information systems. &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;32&lt;/b&gt;, 89-104. &lt;br&gt;Discusses the relevance and user-satisfaction in regard to determining and &lt;br&gt;comparing qualities for information systems.  Good definitions and reference to &lt;br&gt;other material regarding relevance and information behaviour. &lt;br&gt;
236 &lt;br&gt;Grogan, D. (1992). &lt;i&gt;Practical reference work&lt;/i&gt;. Library Association Publishing, &lt;br&gt;
237London. &lt;br&gt;Looks at the role of reference librarians in answering library-user enquires &lt;br&gt;sufficiently and accurately.  It gives examples of the sort of queries that might be &lt;br&gt;asked by library users. &lt;br&gt;
238 &lt;br&gt;Hallmark, J. (1994). Scientists’ access and retrieval of references cited in their recent &lt;br&gt;
239journal articles. &lt;i&gt;College &amp;amp; Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;55&lt;/b&gt;, 199-209. &lt;br&gt;A good concise article which discusses how scientists from different fields of &lt;br&gt;interest become aware of relevant information and how they eventually retrieve &lt;br&gt;it.  It is opinionated as it draws on the views of the scientists studied indicating &lt;br&gt;their positive and negative perspectives on literature seeking and retrieval.  The &lt;br&gt;article discusses the pitfalls of library interaction. &lt;br&gt;
240 &lt;br&gt;Hardcastle, V. (1996). &lt;i&gt;Critical reading strategies&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;
241, on 6 December 1996. &lt;br&gt;Introduces reading strategies to better understand the material being read.  It is a &lt;br&gt;concoction of ideas “culled over the years from various and sundry sources”.  &lt;br&gt;Worthwhile looking at when considering reading behaviours. &lt;br&gt;
242 &lt;br&gt;Hartmann, J. (1995). Information needs of anthropologists. &lt;i&gt;Behavioural &amp;amp; Social &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
243&lt;i&gt;Sciences Librarian&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;13&lt;/b&gt;, 13-24. &lt;br&gt;Covers the information sources and resources of anthropologists in comparison &lt;br&gt;
245&lt;A name=23&gt;&lt;/a&gt;with other social scientists.  It looks at the library use and attitudes of &lt;br&gt;anthropologists. &lt;br&gt;
246 &lt;br&gt;Holland, M. P., and Powell, C. K. (1995). A longitudinal survey of the information &lt;br&gt;
247seeking and use habits of some engineers. &lt;i&gt;College and Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;56&lt;/b&gt;, 7-&lt;br&gt;15. &lt;br&gt;A comparison of graduated engineers who had and had not taken a paper which &lt;br&gt;included formal training on conducting information research.  This study shows &lt;br&gt;that those who had done the paper were more aware of library resources. &lt;br&gt;
248 &lt;br&gt;Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: information seeking from the user’s &lt;br&gt;
249perspective. &lt;i&gt;Journal of the American Society for Information Science&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;42&lt;/b&gt;, 361-&lt;br&gt;371. &lt;br&gt;A theoretical approach to information seeking practices.  It discusses the &lt;br&gt;behaviour involved in information seeking and builds a model based on past &lt;br&gt;research and a survey conducted. &lt;br&gt;
250 &lt;br&gt;Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. &lt;i&gt;Journal of &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
251&lt;i&gt;Documentation&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;49&lt;/b&gt;, 339-355. &lt;br&gt;Develops a high level model of feelings, thoughts, and actions associated with &lt;br&gt;information seeking.  Does not look at the physical activities involved or the &lt;br&gt;library. &lt;br&gt;
252 &lt;br&gt;LDC (Learning and Development Centre). (1996). &lt;i&gt;Reading and Notemaking&lt;/i&gt;. Found &lt;br&gt;
253at, on 21 January 1997. &lt;br&gt;Strategies on how to read to gain a better understanding of the material and how &lt;br&gt;making notes can assist this process.  A good practical article that is aimed at &lt;br&gt;students. &lt;br&gt;
254 &lt;br&gt;Leckie, G. L., Pettigrew, K. E., and Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling the information &lt;br&gt;
255seeking of professionals: a general model derived from research on engineers, &lt;br&gt;health professionals, and lawyers. &lt;i&gt;The Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;66&lt;/b&gt;, 161-193. &lt;br&gt;A literature review of the needs, uses, location and relevance of information for &lt;br&gt;professions in the fields of engineering, health services and law.  An overall &lt;br&gt;model for all professionals, based on this review, is developed and justified.  Not &lt;br&gt;a lot of information on the actual search process undertaken by professionals is &lt;br&gt;conveyed.  Quite vague. &lt;br&gt;
256 &lt;br&gt;Marchionini, G. (1992). Interfaces for end-user information seeking. &lt;i&gt;Journal of the &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
257&lt;i&gt;American Society for Information Science&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;43&lt;/b&gt;, 156-163. &lt;br&gt;The process for information seeking is explained and then the best way to solve it &lt;br&gt;via electronic medium is discussed.  It covers from defining a problem through to &lt;br&gt;the extraction of information. &lt;br&gt;
258 &lt;br&gt;Marchionini, G. (1995). &lt;i&gt;Information seeking in electronic environments&lt;/i&gt;. Cambridge &lt;br&gt;
259University Press, New York. &lt;br&gt;Looks at the information seeking process in conventional and electronic &lt;br&gt;environments.  It includes a very good section on browsing and has a complete &lt;br&gt;set of references. &lt;br&gt;
260 &lt;br&gt;
262&lt;A name=24&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Marchionini, G. (1996). &lt;i&gt;ASIS presentation on browsing&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;
263, on 7 January 1996. &lt;br&gt;Slides used by the author to present information on browsing to a conference.  &lt;br&gt;The information presented is also found in Marchionini (1995).&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
264 &lt;br&gt;Marchionini, G., Dwiggins, S. S., and Katz, A. (1993). Information seeking in full-&lt;br&gt;
265text end-user-oriented search systems: the roles of domain and search expertise. &lt;i&gt; &lt;br&gt;Library and Information Science Research&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;15&lt;/b&gt;, 35-69. &lt;br&gt;A look at electronic settings for information searching and compares experts in &lt;br&gt;the domain (for example, scholars) and experts in searching (for example, &lt;br&gt;librarians).  Does not discuss the library interaction. &lt;br&gt;
266 &lt;br&gt;Merrill, P. F. (1982). Displaying text on microcomputers. In &lt;i&gt;The technology of text&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;
267(ed. D. H. Jonassen), pp. 401-414. Educational Technology Publications, New &lt;br&gt;Jersey. &lt;br&gt;This chapter of the book looks at how text can be displayed on a computer screen &lt;br&gt;that will benefit the reader.  It includes a good summary section on the principle &lt;br&gt;of displaying text on a computer. &lt;br&gt;
268 &lt;br&gt;Mills, C. B., and Weldon L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. &lt;i&gt;ACM &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
269&lt;i&gt;Computing Surveys&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;19&lt;/b&gt;, 329-358. &lt;br&gt;Looks at the characteristics of reading from a screen and how, by altering them, &lt;br&gt;readability can increase or decrease.  It has a good section that compares reading &lt;br&gt;from a paper copy versus reading from a screen. &lt;br&gt;
270 &lt;br&gt;Morse, P. M. (1970). Search theory and browsing. &lt;i&gt;The Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;40&lt;/b&gt;, 391-&lt;br&gt;
271408. &lt;br&gt;Discusses and evaluates an optimal procedure for browsing using previously &lt;br&gt;developed search theories.  It then looks at how this can be implemented in a &lt;br&gt;library situation so as to produce high interest browsing.  The article includes a &lt;br&gt;lot of numerical analysis and use of theoretical equations to evaluate browsing. &lt;br&gt;
272 &lt;br&gt;Muter, P., and Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens &lt;br&gt;
273and books: the paperless office revisited? &lt;i&gt;Behaviour &amp;amp; Information Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;10&lt;/b&gt;, 257-266. &lt;br&gt;An article that is not directly related to reading behaviour although it does give an &lt;br&gt;insight into the implications on online reading and skimming of documents. &lt;br&gt;
274 &lt;br&gt;Norman, D. A. (1993). &lt;i&gt;Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
275&lt;i&gt;age of the machine&lt;/i&gt;. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts. &lt;br&gt;This book reassures readers that the computer is not as intelligent as them.  A fun &lt;br&gt;and easy book to read but only mildly relevant to the topic.  It does include a &lt;br&gt;small bit on the positives and negatives of reading medium. &lt;br&gt;
276 &lt;br&gt;Oborne, D. J., and Holton, D. (1988). Reading from screen versus paper: there is no &lt;br&gt;
277difference. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Man-Machine Studies&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;28&lt;/b&gt;, 1-9. &lt;br&gt;Uses reading and comprehension to compare reading from a computer screen to &lt;br&gt;reading off a paper copy.  It indicates that these two factors are not the only &lt;br&gt;factors that need to be considered.  Includes a good set of references on this topic. &lt;br&gt;
278 &lt;br&gt;
280&lt;A name=25&gt;&lt;/a&gt;PITCR (Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research). (1989). &lt;br&gt;
281&lt;i&gt;Information technology and the conduct of research: the users view&lt;/i&gt;. National &lt;br&gt;Academy Press, Washington D.C. &lt;br&gt;Discusses the conduct of research under electronic media.  It gives an insight into &lt;br&gt;the opportunities and problems that are associated with each area of research &lt;br&gt;when it is conducted electronically.  An enlightening book which includes small &lt;br&gt;anecdotes throughout.&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
282 &lt;br&gt;Pinelli, T. E. (1991). The information-seeking habits and practices of engineers. &lt;br&gt;
283&lt;i&gt;Science and Technology Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;12&lt;/b&gt;, 5-16. &lt;br&gt;Distinguishes scientists and engineers by their information needs and then &lt;br&gt;proceeds to describe the information needs of engineers in more depth.  It is a &lt;br&gt;concise literature review that includes more information about the practices of &lt;br&gt;engineers than their behaviour. &lt;br&gt;
284 &lt;br&gt;Reneker, M. H. (1993). A qualitative study of information seeking among members of &lt;br&gt;
285an academic community: methodology issues and problems. &lt;i&gt;The Library &lt;br&gt;Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;63&lt;/b&gt;, 487-507. &lt;br&gt;Outlines the advantages of doing a qualitative study into information seeking &lt;br&gt;behaviours.  It compares the benefits of qualitative and quantitative studies.  &lt;br&gt;Unfortunately, no results were concluded that relate to the topic under &lt;br&gt;consideration. &lt;br&gt;
286 &lt;br&gt;Sandstrom, P. E. (1994). An optimal foraging approach to information seeking and &lt;br&gt;
287use. &lt;i&gt;The Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;64&lt;/b&gt;, 414-449. &lt;br&gt;An argument putting forward the theory of the optimal forging approach to model &lt;br&gt;information seeking behaviour.  Difficult reading with a lot of deductions. &lt;br&gt;
288 &lt;br&gt;Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: approaching information &lt;br&gt;
289seeking in the context of “way of life”. &lt;i&gt;Library &amp;amp; Information Science Research&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;17&lt;/b&gt;, 259-294. &lt;br&gt;Indicates that it discusses the information seeking practices of individuals, &lt;br&gt;however, it includes a lot of definitions and theories that needs to be waded &lt;br&gt;through.  It delves into a whole lot of theory on “the way of life” (order of things) &lt;br&gt;and “mastery of life” (keeping things in order). &lt;br&gt;
290 &lt;br&gt;Schamber,  L. (1994). Relevance and information behaviour. &lt;i&gt;Annual Review of &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
291&lt;i&gt;Information Science and Technology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;29&lt;/b&gt;, 3-48. &lt;br&gt;A long article on how individuals determine relevance of retrieved material.  It &lt;br&gt;defines relevance and the problems with its use in research.  Has a good &lt;br&gt;background section on past research into human information behaviour.   &lt;br&gt;
292 &lt;br&gt;Seggern, M. V. (1995). Scientists, information seeking and reference services. In &lt;br&gt;
293&lt;i&gt;Library users and reference services&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. J. B. Whitlatch), pp. 95-104. &lt;br&gt;Discusses the information needs and sources for scientists and the implications it &lt;br&gt;has towards library reference services.  It includes a summary of works on &lt;br&gt;scientists’ information seeking habits and conclusions and recommendations &lt;br&gt;drawn from them in relation to the library. &lt;br&gt;
294 &lt;br&gt;
296&lt;A name=26&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Showstack, R. (1982). Printing: the next stage: discourse punctuation. In &lt;i&gt;The &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
297&lt;i&gt;technology of text&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. D. H. Jonassen), pp. 369-376. Educational Technology &lt;br&gt;Publications, New Jersey. &lt;br&gt;It compares the two-dimensional structure of text compared to ideas which are &lt;br&gt;multi-dimensional.  The article calls to publishers to use discourse punctuation to &lt;br&gt;improve reader understandability, speed, and efficiency.  Also it can be used to &lt;br&gt;convey the author’s message more clearly. &lt;br&gt;
298 &lt;br&gt;Sievert, D., and Sievert, M. E. (1989). Philosophical research: report from the field. &lt;br&gt;
299&lt;i&gt;Proceedings of the Humanists at Work symposium&lt;/i&gt; (April, Chicago), pp. 79-94. &lt;br&gt;University of Illinois at Chicago. &lt;br&gt;A commentary about the work “currently” undertaken to determine now &lt;br&gt;philosophers go about researching - the seeking, retrieval and use of relevant &lt;br&gt;information.  Easy, light reading, filled with small anecdotes. &lt;br&gt;
300 &lt;br&gt;Snavley, L, and Clark, K. (1996). What users really think: how they see and find &lt;br&gt;
301serials in the arts and sciences. &lt;i&gt;Library Resources &amp;amp; Technical Services&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;40&lt;/b&gt;, 49-&lt;br&gt;58. &lt;br&gt;The experience of the two authors is presented on how people find and locate &lt;br&gt;serials.  It discusses some solutions to problems identified through working as &lt;br&gt;reference librarians.  The article calls to librarians to be aware of these problems. &lt;br&gt;
302 &lt;br&gt;Sommer, R. (1966). The ecology of privacy. &lt;i&gt;Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;36&lt;/b&gt;, 234-248. &lt;br&gt;
303Discusses the connection between privacy of readers in the library and the &lt;br&gt;physical environment.  It covers now people choose their seating position in a &lt;br&gt;library with regard to the current seating arrangement.  Interesting reading about &lt;br&gt;reader behaviour in the library, not the behaviour when reading. &lt;br&gt;
304 &lt;br&gt;Sommer, R. (1968). Reading ares in college libraries. &lt;i&gt;Library Quarterly&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;38&lt;/b&gt;, 249-260. &lt;br&gt;
305Examines the adequacy of reading areas in college libraries as study places.  The &lt;br&gt;article looks at the environmental needs and preferences of studiers in libraries &lt;br&gt;and the implications. &lt;br&gt;
306 &lt;br&gt;Sweet, A. P., Riley, R. W., Robinson, S. P., and Conaty, J. C. (1993). &lt;i&gt;State of the art: &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
307&lt;i&gt;transforming ideas for teaching and learning to read&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;, on 21 January 1997. &lt;br&gt;A series of ten ideas on how to teach and learn to read.  Based in an educational &lt;br&gt;environment, this article offers strategies for reading.  Idea eight looks at how &lt;br&gt;expert readers have strategies that they use to construct meaning and is helpful &lt;br&gt;when looking at reading behaviour.&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
308 &lt;br&gt;Tucker, P., and Jones, D. M. (1993). Document annotation: to write, type or speak? &lt;br&gt;
309&lt;i&gt;International Journal of Man-Machine Studies&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;39&lt;/b&gt;, 885-900. &lt;br&gt;It tries to decide on an acceptable medium for annotating documents online.  The &lt;br&gt;article compares written, typed and spoken annotations when proof-reading and &lt;br&gt;refereeing. &lt;br&gt;
310 &lt;br&gt;Wiberley, S., and Jones, W. G. (1989). Patterns of information seeking in the &lt;br&gt;
311humanities. &lt;i&gt;College &amp;amp; Research Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;50&lt;/b&gt;, 638-645. &lt;br&gt;An in depth discussion into how humanities scholars go about locating &lt;br&gt;
313&lt;A name=27&gt;&lt;/a&gt;information.  It mainly looks at the resources that the scholars use and the &lt;br&gt;implications it has for librarians and libraries.  The article does not discuss library &lt;br&gt;behaviour but does have how humanities see libraries. &lt;br&gt;
314 &lt;br&gt;Wilson, T. (1995). &lt;i&gt;Information-seeking behaviour: designing information systems to &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
315&lt;i&gt;meet out clients’ needs&lt;/i&gt;. Found at &lt;br&gt;;br&gt;, on 6 December 1996. &lt;br&gt;Defines information needs with respect to information seeking behaviour and &lt;br&gt;how this can be implemented in services.  A good article that is easy to read. &lt;br&gt;
316 &lt;br&gt;Witten, I. H., Cunningham, S. J., Vallabh, M., and Bell, T. C. (1995). A New Zealand &lt;br&gt;
317digital library for computer science research. &lt;i&gt;Proc Digital Libraries ’95&lt;/i&gt; (April, &lt;br&gt;Texas), pp. 25-30. &lt;br&gt;Gives an overview to the New Zealand Digital Library.  Relevant to look at when &lt;br&gt;discussing research behaviour with respect to implications for digital libraries. &lt;br&gt;
318 &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;References to material not sighted&lt;/b&gt; &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Barzun, J., and Graff, H. F. (1977). &lt;i&gt;The modern researcher&lt;/i&gt;, (3rd edn). Harcourt Brace &lt;br&gt;
319Jovanocich, New York. &lt;br&gt;
320 &lt;br&gt;Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online &lt;br&gt;
321search interface. &lt;i&gt;Online Review&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;13&lt;/b&gt;, 220-228. &lt;br&gt;
322 &lt;br&gt;Bell, W. J. (1991). &lt;i&gt;Searching behaviour: the behavioural ecology of finding &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
323&lt;i&gt;resources&lt;/i&gt;. Chapman and Hall, London. &lt;br&gt;
324 &lt;br&gt;Cooper, W. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. &lt;i&gt;Information &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
325&lt;i&gt;storage and retrieval&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;7&lt;/b&gt;, 19-37. &lt;br&gt;
326 &lt;br&gt;De Mul, S., and Oostendorp, H. (1990). Het bestuderen van teksten en het maken van &lt;br&gt;
327aantekeningen op do computer (studying texts and making notes on the &lt;br&gt;computer). &lt;i&gt;Onderwijsresearchaagen&lt;/i&gt;. Technologie en Methodologie, ITS, &lt;br&gt;Nijmegen. &lt;br&gt;
328 &lt;br&gt;Dillon, A. (1994). &lt;i&gt;Designing usable electronic text; ergonomic aspects of human &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
329&lt;i&gt;information usage&lt;/i&gt;. Taylor and Francis, Bristol, PA. &lt;br&gt;
330 &lt;br&gt;Gorman, G. E. (1989). Patterns of information seeking and library use by theologians &lt;br&gt;
331in seven Adelaide theological colleges. &lt;i&gt;Australian Academic &amp;amp; Research &lt;br&gt;Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;50&lt;/b&gt;, 638-645. &lt;br&gt;
332 &lt;br&gt;Gould, C. C., Pearce, K. (1991). &lt;i&gt;Information needs in the sciences: an assessment&lt;/i&gt;. &lt;br&gt;
333Research Libraries Group, Mountain View California. &lt;br&gt;
334 &lt;br&gt;Hurd, J. M., Weller A. C., and Karen, L. (1992). Information seeking behaviour of &lt;br&gt;
335faculty: use of indexes and abstracts by scientists and engineers. &lt;i&gt;American &lt;br&gt;Society of Information Science 55th Annual Meeting&lt;/i&gt;, (Pittsburgh). &lt;br&gt;
336 &lt;br&gt;
338&lt;A name=28&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Hyman, R. J. (1972). &lt;i&gt;Access to library collections: an inquiry into the validity of the &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
339&lt;i&gt;direct shelf approach, with special reference to browsing&lt;/i&gt;. Scarecrow Press, New &lt;br&gt;Jersey. &lt;br&gt;
340 &lt;br&gt;Lancester, F. W., and Warner, A. (1985). Electronic publication and its impact on the &lt;br&gt;
341presentation of information. In &lt;i&gt;The technology of text: principles for structuring, &lt;br&gt;designing, and displaying text&lt;/i&gt;, Vol. 2, (ed. D. H. Jonasssen), pp. 292-309. &lt;br&gt;Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. &lt;br&gt;
342 &lt;br&gt;Markey, K. (1984). &lt;i&gt;Subject searching in library catalogues before and after the &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
343&lt;i&gt;introduction of online catalogues&lt;/i&gt;. OCLC, Online Computer Library Centre, &lt;br&gt;Dublin, Ohio. &lt;br&gt;
344 &lt;br&gt;McGregor, J. H. (1994). Information seeking and use: students’ thinking and their &lt;br&gt;
345mental models. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Youth Services in Libraries&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;8&lt;/b&gt;, 69-76. &lt;br&gt;
346 &lt;br&gt;Mosenthal, P. B. (1996). Understanding the strategies of document literacy and their &lt;br&gt;
347conditions of use. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Educational psychology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;88&lt;/b&gt;, 314-332. &lt;br&gt;
348 &lt;br&gt;Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., and Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of reading &lt;br&gt;
349strategies. In &lt;i&gt;Handbook of research in the english language arts&lt;/i&gt;, (ed. J. Flood, J. &lt;br&gt;M. Jensen, D. Lapp, and J Squire), pp. 609-635, Macmillan, New York. &lt;br&gt;
350 &lt;br&gt;Odini, C. (1993). Trends in information needs and use research. &lt;i&gt;Library Review&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;42&lt;/b&gt;, &lt;br&gt;
35129-37. &lt;br&gt;
352 &lt;br&gt;Radecki, T. (1988). Trends in research on information retrieval - the potential for &lt;br&gt;
353improvements in conventional boolean retrieval systems. &lt;i&gt;Information Processing &lt;br&gt;&amp;amp; Management&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;24&lt;/b&gt;, 219-227. &lt;br&gt;
354 &lt;br&gt;Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: a review of a framework for thinking on the notion &lt;br&gt;
355of information science. &lt;i&gt;Journal of the American Society for Information Science&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;26&lt;/b&gt;, 178-194. &lt;br&gt;
356 &lt;br&gt;Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Chamis, A. Y., and Trivison, D. (1988). A study of &lt;br&gt;
357information seeking and retrieving. &lt;i&gt;Journal of the American Society for &lt;br&gt;Information Science&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;39&lt;/b&gt;, 161-216. &lt;br&gt;
358 &lt;br&gt;Steinke, C. A. (ed.) (1991). &lt;i&gt;Information seeking and communicating behaviour of &lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
359&lt;i&gt;scientists and engineers&lt;/i&gt;. Haworth Press, United States. &lt;br&gt;
360 &lt;br&gt;Van Leunen, M. (1986). &lt;i&gt;A Handbook for scholars&lt;/i&gt;. Alfred A Knopf, New York. &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Wettler, M. (1996). Information processing in information retrieval from the &lt;br&gt;
361viewpoint of associanist and cognitive psychology. &lt;i&gt;Review of Information &lt;br&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;b&gt;1&lt;/b&gt;. &lt;br&gt;
362 &lt;br&gt;
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the browser.