In sixth grade, I did an art project where I painted a self-portrait. I decided to paint myself looking in a mirror. On the right-hand side of the canvas was the back of my head. On the left-hand side was a reflection of my face looking back at me in the mirror. During one session with my art teacher, she looked at my painting and paused before asking, “what happened?” She paused again before continuing that at one point the painting was on the right track, implying since that point, something had gone terribly wrong. I mean what was looking back at me in the mirror was quite scary. It was a girl with sharp, angry brows who was grimacing like that emoji with clenched teeth. By the end of the project the painting only got uglier and unfortunately lived in my family’s home for years to come. My mom once told me that “interesting” isn’t necessarily a good thing. It was said right after I proudly shared with her that I received a certificate that read, “Most Interesting Art Project” for a paper doll I made to look like myself in eighth grade. Since that subtle comment, I’ve always been careful about how I choose and use words. I didn’t dare challenge my mom’s comment. Instead, I recall being mad at my art teacher. How could she call my paper doll interesting! What did she mean by that? I’ve always been better with paper than paint and I knew that unlike my self-portrait that I had painted two years prior, this doll I constructed, complete with my ponytail and 空手着 (karate uniform) actually looked like me! It’s been over a decade since these two “art incidents” but oddly enough these stories are quite telling about my current self-perception. This is the power of storytelling. Not only does it help me to connect with people beyond small talk but writing and reflecting on my past has helped me understand who I am now. Today I am an educator, supervisor of students, and a young professional in higher education. More than titles or positions I hold, I find meaning in the relationships I build with my colleagues, students, mentors, and community. What I have learned and hope to share to all educators, staff, students, and leaders by way of writing this thesis is the value and necessity of exploring, unlearning, and challenging yourself to understand who you are, how you are who you are, and why you are who you are. While recognizing that I have changed and will continue to change through growth, learning, and time, I find security at this intersection of past and future where I am present in this self. As someone who is empathetic, I am sensitive to other people’s feelings and emotions. With context, I attempt to understand how someone else may feel still while recognizing I may never truly know their experience. On the contrary, I’ve discovered that to be empathetic with my own self is quite challenging! This insight has created inner chaos and has helped me understand how I do and don’t process my own feelings and emotions regularly. As someone who has made it a priority to serve others, I am fueled by keeping busy as a way to have a purpose in all of my actions. I want to be useful. Through this grind, I’ve lost a sense of who I am and valuing myself beyond my work and what I am capable of. I don’t believe this is a unique experience. I have taken responsibility for burning out and running on empty. I am shifting gears. I have taken this opportunity to write my own experiences in hopes that there is something to be learned from it for anyone who has ever taken on too much, has run away from themselves, or been uncomfortable with who they are.

This thesis uses an action research methodology to develop a framework for improving independent scholarly reporting about interventions addressing social or environmental conflict. As there are often contradictory interpretations about the causes and strategic responses to conflict, the problem confronting scholar-reporters is how to address perceptions of bias and reflexively specify the purpose of reporting. It is proposed that scholar-reporters require grounding in conventional realist-based social theory but equally ability to incorporate theoretical ideas generated in more idealist-based peace research and applied conflict resolution studies. To do this scholar-reporters can take a comparative approach systematically developed through an integrated framework as described in this thesis. Conceptual and theoretical considerations that support both conventional and more radical constructions are comparatively analysed and then tested in relation to a case study. In 2000 Aboriginal people throughout South Australia deliberated whether their native title claims could be better accorded recognition through conservative court processes or a negotiation process to allay deep-seated conflict. The author, in a scholar-reporter capacity, formulated a report attributing meaning to this consultative process. As such a report could have been formulated according to alternative paradigms, methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks, the analysis of the adopted framework highlights how different approaches can bias the interpretation of the process and prospects for change. Realist-based conservative interpretations emphasise 'official' decision-making processes where legitimacy is expressed through political and legal frameworks based on precedent. Idealist-based interpretations emphasise that circumstances entailing significant conflict warrant equal consideration being given to 'non-official' 'resolutionary' problem-solving processes where conflict is treated as a catalyst for learning and outcomes are articulated as understanding generated about conflict and how different strategies can transform it. The developed integrated framework approach establishes the independence of scholarly reporting. Its purpose goes beyond perpetuating scholarly debate about alternative 'objective' understandings of conflict; it focuses primarily on communicating a more inclusive understanding of the contradictions inherent in a particular conflict. It increases the capacity to understand when, where, why and how conflict precipitates social change, and articulates possibilities for reconceptualising what might be the more sustainable direction of change.

Cette dissertation présente un problème réel et sujet à contreverse. C'est une compilation et une discussion bien étayée des principales analyses concernant la crise des journaux, surtout en ce qui concerne l'édition électronique, aussi bien que des initiatives d'accès ouvert, d'auto-archivage et des serveurs de prétirage. Ses sources sont les contributions des différents acteurs sur le marché pour l'information savante électronique comme les éditeurs commerciaux ou non, les sociétés savantes, les bibliothèques, etc...

<p>The background of the project is partly found in a long tradition within library and information science (LIS) of meta-analyses on the field, partly in a science studies discussion on research fields and their contextual relation to wider academia, fields of professional</p><p>practices and professionalization processes. The general purpose of the project is to analyze the social and intellectual development and organization of LIS; and to investigate the impact of the close relation to the practice field, as well as the relation to the academic world in general. Based on the general purpose of the project and results and interpretations of the four articles attached to the thesis, three questions were stated for discussion in the thesis proper, concerning: the effects of a dual origin and LIS as a discipline, a field of research and a field of practice, the purpose of meta-studies and implications in terms of identity and perception of LIS; and competition and cooperation with other fields of research. Because of the heterogeneous nature of LIS, a variety of methods and materials was used in the different articles; and methodological issues on limits and bias in bibliographic databases – and the implications on the perception of research areas with varying publication and citation behaviour – were discussed. The analyses were performed against a theoretical framework, providing key organizational characteristics of scientific fields, relating to social, intellectual and contextual aspects, in combination with theories on scientific and disciplinary development, professionalization and interdisciplinarity; but also, for analytical contrast: alternate theories on the development of the sciences since 1945. LIS shows two distinct paths of development: research areas developing out of other fields of research; and a disciplinary development originating out of the field of practice and institutions for educating practitioners. Analyzing meta-studies of LIS, the picture of a field with a vague identity and a diverse self-understanding, even in terms of core characteristics, emerges. The relation to the wider academic community is characterized by diffuse boundaries towards, and competition from, other fields of research. In general, LIS is a fragmented field with a multitude of wildly varying research areas; and with large variations in terms of organizational setting; which together with a vague identity and diffuse boundaries, as well as the close connections to the field of practice, might contribute towards explaining problems LIS have been experiencing, establishing itself in academia. However, there are also signs towards an integration of a number of LIS research areas, as well as an increase in interdisciplinary cooperation, contradicting theories suggesting a further fragmentation; and supporting ideas on the sciences developing towards e.g. interdisciplinarity and applicability of results.</p>

Thesis (M.S.)--Mississippi State University. Department of Psychology. / Bibliography: leaves 68-72. Also available via the World Wide Web.

Information is one the essential elements of science. It is an imperative condition that researchers review antecedent works as they advance and create new knowledge. Knowledge creation in science is a process of adding and refining new pieces of data, information, and knowledge to what has already been accomplished by others. Few scientific communities have unlimited access to scientific information sources. Most communities’ access to information is limited by economic, social, cultural, and technological conditions. This study investigates information seeking behavior and information dissemination practices of the Venezuelan scientific community. A model of scholarly communication in a context of dependency emerges from the following major themes: persisting interpersonal communication with the international scientific community; publication in international journals; prestige and name recognition; and contacting the authors to access full-text journal articles. A qualitative approach is used to illuminate the information seeking behavior of scientists in Venezuela, to discover the barriers experienced by the Venezuelan scientific community when accessing scientific information, and to explore their scientific information dissemination practices. Interviews were conducted in July 2009 with thirteen Venezuelan scientists from the fields of biology, chemistry, or physics. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in Spanish. Coding, categories, data analysis, and theory building followed a general inductive approach.

This study explored the relationship between how students are taught to write in first-year English composition classes and what they are expected to read as part of the general education requirements at a publically-funded large university in the southeast (PLUS), and then to determine whether a gap exists. If a gap is found to exist between the preparation of students and their ability to read material that has been assigned by the teaching faculty, these students are less likely to be considered information literate by any rubric. This study uses a mixed-methods approach. Content analysis is employed to examine the assigned readings students encounter, and interviews are conducted to explore how students make sense of the academic writings assigned in general education classes. Research questions included (1) What are the overall structures of both (a) instruction composition and (b) scholarly journal articles assigned for reading in subsequent general education classes in the disciplines of psychology and history at PLUS? (2) How can these structures be identified? (3) What are the top-level structural patterns of composition within these two academic disciplines and how do they differ? and (4) Do these differences create contradictions in how students are taught to write in freshmen composition courses and the composition of the journal articles they are expected to read in their required general education classes? Thirty-one texts taken from general education syllabi were analyzed for incidence and placement of specific structural elements such as topic sentences and signal words. This study also explored perceptions of these differences from the standpoint of college students. Interviews of twenty-two students were conducted using Dervin’s Sense Making Methodology. These interviews were analyzed in terms of situations, gaps, bridges, outcomes, as well as thematic concepts that consistently arose during the interviews. Significant differences existed between readings from English Composition classes and assigned scholarly journal articles in history and psychology in incidence and placement of topic sentences, use of signal words or phrases, and readability. In addition, thematic analysis of the interviews of students found that they experienced gaps between their expectations of text composition and their experience reading assigned journal articles.

When students write research papers they use a variety of sources in their paper. These sources range from web pages to research articles. The purpose of this study was to decide whether or not undergraduate students would choose to use scholarly or non-scholarly sources when presented with both types of sources in a set of search results. Twenty Duke University students were recruited for the study. They were given a research topic and asked to perform a search. Both the search results and interface were fabricated by the researcher in order to control the experimental environment. The students were asked to rate the sources found in the results, choose four sources to use for their research scenario, and finally, were asked to explain reasoning behind their choices. The findings concluded that the students in this study were more likely to choose scholarly sources over non-scholarly sources and give these scholarly sources higher ratings.

This thesis provides an in-depth study of the possibilities of applying bibliometric methods to the research field of literary studies. The four articles that constitute the backbone of this thesis focus on different aspects of references and citations in literary studies: from the use of references in the text to citation patterns among 34 literature journals. The analysis covers both an Anglo-Saxon context as well as research in Swedish literary studies, and the materials used include Web of Science data, references in the Swedish literature journal TFL (Tidskrift för Litteraturvetenskap) and applications to the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet). A study is also made of the influence of one single publication—Walter Benjamin’s Illuminations—and its impact in literary studies and in wider academia. The results from the four articles are elaborated upon using a theoretical framework that focuses on differences in the social and intellectual organization of research fields. According to these theories literary studies can be described as a fragmented, heterogenic, interdisciplinary and ‘rural’ field with a diverse audience. The fragmented and rural organization of the field is reflected in low citation frequencies as well as in the difficulties in discerning research specialities in co-citation mappings, while the analysis of the intellectual base (highly cited authors) is an example of the heterogenic and interdisciplinary character of the field, as it includes authors from many fields across the humanities and the social sciences. The thesis emphasizes that bibliometric studies of research fields in the humanities need to incorporate non-English and non-journal publications in order to produce valid and fair results. Moreover, bibliometric methods must be modified in accordance with the organization of research in a particular field, and differences in referencing practices and citation patterns ought to be considered. Consequently, it is advised that bibliometric measures for evaluating research in these fields should, if used at all, be applied with great caution. / © Björn Hammarfelt 2012

The background of the project is partly found in a long tradition within library and information science (LIS) of meta-analyses on the field, partly in a science studies discussion on research fields and their contextual relation to wider academia, fields of professional practices and professionalization processes. The general purpose of the project is to analyze the social and intellectual development and organization of LIS; and to investigate the impact of the close relation to the practice field, as well as the relation to the academic world in general. Based on the general purpose of the project and results and interpretations of the four articles attached to the thesis, three questions were stated for discussion in the thesis proper, concerning: the effects of a dual origin and LIS as a discipline, a field of research and a field of practice, the purpose of meta-studies and implications in terms of identity and perception of LIS; and competition and cooperation with other fields of research. Because of the heterogeneous nature of LIS, a variety of methods and materials was used in the different articles; and methodological issues on limits and bias in bibliographic databases – and the implications on the perception of research areas with varying publication and citation behaviour – were discussed. The analyses were performed against a theoretical framework, providing key organizational characteristics of scientific fields, relating to social, intellectual and contextual aspects, in combination with theories on scientific and disciplinary development, professionalization and interdisciplinarity; but also, for analytical contrast: alternate theories on the development of the sciences since 1945. LIS shows two distinct paths of development: research areas developing out of other fields of research; and a disciplinary development originating out of the field of practice and institutions for educating practitioners. Analyzing meta-studies of LIS, the picture of a field with a vague identity and a diverse self-understanding, even in terms of core characteristics, emerges. The relation to the wider academic community is characterized by diffuse boundaries towards, and competition from, other fields of research. In general, LIS is a fragmented field with a multitude of wildly varying research areas; and with large variations in terms of organizational setting; which together with a vague identity and diffuse boundaries, as well as the close connections to the field of practice, might contribute towards explaining problems LIS have been experiencing, establishing itself in academia. However, there are also signs towards an integration of a number of LIS research areas, as well as an increase in interdisciplinary cooperation, contradicting theories suggesting a further fragmentation; and supporting ideas on the sciences developing towards e.g. interdisciplinarity and applicability of results.