Domain Analysis PDF

7 Domain Analysis Domain analysis suggests that the specific competencies that information specialists have, or should have, are information about information infrastructures and information retrieval... Domain analysis further suggests...

7 Domain Analysis Domain analysis suggests that the specific competencies that information specialists have, or should have, are information about information infrastructures and information retrieval... Domain analysis further suggests that subject qualifications and LIS qualifications are not independent of each other. Birger Hjørland (2017, 452) Introduction The nature of information and knowledge, and the ways in which information services are provided, differ considerably in different contexts. This is an important theoretical and practical issue for the information sciences. In this chapter we consider what is meant by an information context or domain, and how domains may be characterised or understood, with a note on the importance of terminology in defining and representing domains. We then examine domain analysis, the approach developed for this topic. Some brief examples of particular domains are given to show the distinctions which may be made between them, and their effects in practice. Finally, we consider the changing nature of information work in specific domains. Information domains The contexts of information communication and use may be described in various ways: by geographic area, e.g. Europe; by type of institution, e.g. universities; or by the demographics of the information users, e.g. children and young people. The most helpful distinction, particularly for understanding information resources and information practices, is the https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  114 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE information domain, which often aligns with an academic discipline, e.g. mathematics or history; a professional or vocational activity, e.g. healthcare or finance; or a leisure interest, e.g. book collecting; or with a more loosely defined area, e.g. everyday information. Hjørland (2010, 1650) suggests that a domain may be a scientific discipline or a scholarly field. It may also be a discourse community connected to a political party, a religion, a trade, or a hobby. Domains are defined and explained by three dimensions: ontological, epistemological and sociological. The ontological dimension defines the domain by its main object of interest: botany by plants, history by the past, theology by the divine, etc.; this is the most usual way of defining a domain. The epistemological dimension relates to the kind of knowledge in the domain, or perhaps different kinds of knowledge associated with different paradigms or ways of understanding. The sociological dimension relates to the kind of people and groups involved in the domain. It is clear that there are distinct differences in the way information is regarded and used in different domains, affecting information literacy, searching behaviour and information-sharing behaviour, among other things; see, for example, Pinto and Sales (2015), Tamine and Chouquet (2017), Fry et al. (2016), Madden et al. (2018), Russell-Rose, Chamberlain and Azzopardi (2018), Gregory et al. (2019), and Dreisiebner and Schlögl (2019). Hence the need for an awareness of domain and for approaches like domain analysis. A framework to give a clear idea of what a domain is, and how domains differ one from another, will be helpful in understanding their information aspects. Categorising the domain with which one is dealing in this way helps to show what its ‘informational nature’ may be, and also helps to identify similarities and analogies with other domains which may be matched by similarities in the most appropriate kind of information provision. There are several models and frameworks for understanding subjects and domains. Three of these have been found useful for the information sciences: those of Hirst, Becher and Whitley, discussed below. Domain analysis has also been used in conjunction with the social theories of Pierre Bourdieu (Morado Nascimento and Marteleto, 2008). Other understandings of ‘domain’ are noted by Hjørland (2017) and, under the heading of ‘disciplinarity’, by Sugimoto and Weingart (2015). The educational philosopher Paul Hirst (1946–2003) argued that, since disciplines are closely associated with their knowledge base, we can understand a discipline by understanding its ‘form of knowledge’ (Hirst, 1974; Walsh, 1993). There are seven main domains or forms of knowledge, https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 115 defined by the fundamental nature of the knowledge and concepts with which they deal: mathematics; physical sciences; human sciences; literature and the fine arts; morality; religion; and philosophy. Where a discipline equates to one of these forms, it is what would be regarded as a ‘pure’ academic subject. Hirst also recognises ‘practical disciplines’, based on one of the forms but oriented toward solving practical problems. Engineering, for example would be a practical discipline based on the form of the physical sciences. Some academic subjects, however, do not align neatly with any form. Rather, they are focused on a topic or subject of interest, using any of the forms which are useful in studying and understanding it. Hirst refers to these as fields of study; they are typically, though not necessarily, multidisciplinary. Examples are peace studies, women’s studies and media studies; it was suggested in Chapter 1 that the information disciplines might also be of this nature. Tony Becher (1930–2009), a British higher education researcher, analysed the social and cognitive nature of academic disciplines along two rather traditional dimensions: pure/applied and hard/soft (Becher and Trowler, 2001). Clearly, these have strong implications for information practices (Fry, 2006); for example, contrasting disciplines whose knowledge structures are hard/pure (e.g. physics) with soft/pure (e.g. anthropology) or hard/applied (e.g. mechanical engineering). Richard Whitley, a sociologist from Manchester Business School, analysed sciences as systems for the production of different kinds of knowledge by focusing on their internal structure, and identified seven different kinds of scientific disciplines (Whitley, 2000). Examples are ‘professional adhocracies’ (e.g. biomedical sciences) and ‘conceptually integrated bureaucracies’ (e.g. physics). In his model, disciplines are distinguished primarily by the degree of mutual dependence between researchers in creating new knowledge and the degree of task uncertainty in agreeing on research problems, methods and validity of knowledge acquired. Whitley’s model has been used by Fry (2006) and Roos and Hedlund (2016) to contrast the differences in information practices between different disciplines. Domain terminologies Terminology, the structured naming of things, is one of the most basic and familiar tools for organising information and communicating it accurately and unambiguously. Many domains, particularly in scientific, medical and technical areas, have their own specialised terminologies, which define and shape the domain and are vital to the communication of information within https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  116 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE it. All domains have their own terminology; the terminology of everyday information, for example, is the dictionary; the standard dictionary of the language, and perhaps dictionaries of regional accents and of slang terms. An understanding of the terminology of a domain is a necessity for effective information provision. Terminology resources encompass a number of overlapping categories: general dictionaries, which may be multilingual; dictionaries and glossaries for specific subjects; special-purpose dictionaries (e.g. rhyming, quotations, crossword clues); dictionaries of the proper names of persons (biographical dictionaries) and of places (gazetteers); thesauri (in the sense of Roget’s word finder); lists of specific names (for products, medicines, chemicals, etc.); and tools intended primarily for retrieval but which may function as terminologies (classifications, taxonomies, ontologies, subject headings and retrieval thesauri). For the nature and history of some terminology tools, see Hitchens (2005), Hüllen (2004), Muggleston (2011), Tackabery (2005) and Stirling (2007). There are also special and detailed terminologies within the sciences for chemical structures and reactions, for living things, and for many aspects of biomedicine and healthcare. The notations of subjects such as mathematics, chemistry, music, and dance may also be regarded as forms of terminology, or at least as things which must be understood to make sense of terminology. Domain analysis Providing a theoretical basis for the study of information domains is the concept of domain analysis, derived by the Danish academic Birger Hjørland (2002; 2010; 2017). It is an approach within the socio-cognitive paradigm of information science (discussed in Chapter 4). As Hartel (2019, 5) summarises it, ‘domain analysis refutes the notion of universal information phenomena, and focuses upon informational patterns within social worlds. [It] directs the [information worker] towards mastery of their subject by producing literature guides, special classifications, and user studies, and to a strategic understanding of the history, culture, epidemiology, and institutional dynamics of their fields’. Domain analysis is a realist approach in philosophical terms; it seeks a basis for information science in factors external to the individual which are objective rather than subjective, and which may be located in the expertise and practices of subject specialists. Hjørland sees domain analysis as central to the work of the information scientist and as comprising eleven distinct ways in which information science may approach a domain. These approaches are: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 117 the production of literature guides and subject gateways the production of special classifications and thesauri researching indexing and retrieval in specialist subjects empirical user studies bibliometric studies historical studies studies of documents and ‘genres’ epistemological and critical studies studies of terminology and special languages, and discourse analysis studies of structures and organisations in the communication of information studies in cognition, computing and artificial intelligence. Some alternative ways have been suggested, including discourse analysis, database semantics, and archival provenance (Hjørland, 2017). For an example, see Robinson (2010) for an analysis of the healthcare domain, which has a particularly rich and diverse set of resources and users, using all eleven aspects. Domain analysis is an approach for both research and practice, and provides a bridge between the two. An information professional working in a particular subject area need not carry out such domain analysis studies, though they might well do so, but they would certainly need to be aware of the results of such studies. For example, a healthcare information specialist would need to be aware of special terminologies used in collections of healthcare information (for example, the International Classification of Diseases), though they need not themselves have carried out comparative studies. Similarly, a law librarian should be aware of what is known about the information behaviour of lawyers, law students, etc., though they might not carry out such studies themselves. Examples of domains In order to illustrate the ideas of information domains more fully, we will discuss aspects of information in three domains: chemistry, as an example of a scientific discipline; history, a humanities and social science discipline; and serious leisure, a domain outside the academic realm. Briefer remarks will be made about some other domains. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  118 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE Chemistry Chemistry is the study of substances, their properties and reactions, is, in Hirst’s terms, an academic discipline, with the form of knowledge of physical science, although its theories are often conceptual or semi- qualitative. It is the basis of numerous practical disciplines. It has no popular or public dimension as an activity in its own right, but there is a strong interest in chemically related information, for example to do with the environment or with foods. Chemistry is traditionally divided into three branches: organic, dealing with carbon compounds; inorganic, dealing with all other elements and compounds; and physical, the application of the concepts and methods of physics to chemical problems. There are many subfields and crossover disciplines, such as biochemistry, polymer chemistry, medicinal chemistry, forensic chemistry, and environmental chemistry. This natural subdivision strongly influences information resources. Chemistry is important scientifically, socially and economically; is fundamental to the life sciences and to many engineering and technology areas; and underlies the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Its information base is extensive. It is a ‘lending science’, hence the prevalence of resources in ‘chemistry for...’. The subject has often led the development of information products and services: learned journals, textbooks and monographs, and abstracting and indexing services in the 19th century; and applications of bibliometrics, mechanised documentation, online databases, and use of the web in the 20th century (Willett, 2008). Major resources, in addition to textbooks, monographs and journals, include bibliographic databases and property databanks. The best-known examples are the information sources of the Chemical Abstracts Service, part of the American Chemical Society, founded in 1907, and the Beilstein data compilations, dating from 1881. Older chemical information is often of value. Chemical information systems are used not only for information retrieval but also for molecular modelling and property estimation, and for correlation of structures with properties, for example for drug design. This links chemical information with the related subject of chemoinformatics. These resources, organised by structure and reaction type, are unique to chemistry and define it as an information domain (Solla, Currano and Roth, 2013). Chemistry has a wide range of knowledge organisation tools: nomenclatures, terminologies, classifications and taxonomies, and chemistry-specific ways of organising information, based on the unique attributes of the main entities within chemical information – chemical substances and chemical reactions (Bawden, 2015). For inorganic chemistry, https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 119 the periodic table of the elements (Figure 7.1) has been a vital tool for information organisation, with many variants over time and for particular purposes, showing different information and relations for the elements, e.g. for geology or metallurgy (Hjørland, 2011; Scerri, 2019); as an example of its use, see the Royal Society of Chemistry’s interactive periodic table (www.rsc.org/periodic-table, as of July 2021). Special classifications have also been developed for bulk forms of substances, such as minerals, and for special purposes such as the hazardous nature of substances. Figure 7.1 The periodic table of the elements (Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA) Chemical substances may be represented in a variety of ways: trivial names; systematic names; registry numbers; alphanumeric notations; and 2D and 3D structure diagrams and their computer representations. The structure diagram, devised around 1860, has been a very powerful tool for representing chemical information and facilitating written communication. Reactions may similarly be represented in a variety of ways: by trivial names; by originators’ names, giving an insight into the history of the subject; by systematic names; by classification of structural change; and by diagrammatic representation of structural change and its computer representation. Figure 7.2 on the next page shows the variety of repre- sentations for the anti-leprosy drug dapsone, from the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Chemspider software. Chemistry has always been known as an information-intensive science, and chemists as particularly information-conscious users, as has been borne https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  120 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE out by numerous studies of information behaviour in the domain; see, for example, Gordon et al. (2018) and Rose-Wiles and Marzabadi (2018). There has always been a strong emphasis on contest-specific information literacy in the domain (Bawden and Robinson, 2017). Figure 7.2 Chemical structure representations (Royal Society of Chemistry, CSID:2849, www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.2849.html) History History is one of the longest-established and accepted academic disciplines, with a literature extending over thousands of years (Burrows, 2009). It is an academic subject, but without a practical discipline directly associated with https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 121 it. Professional historians tend to be teachers, researchers, museum and archive professionals, or authors/presenters of popular history. There is a great public interest in the subject, as attested by the many books, magazines, TV and radio programmes and web resources devoted to it. Users of history information therefore span the spectrum from a relatively small group of academics and professionals to the much larger number of the interested general public. There has always been debate as to what kind of a subject it is; this has significance for what kind of information resources will be regarded as most important. Those who see it as located within the social sciences will look for general trends and explanations of events from social data compilations, seeking to establish general historical ‘laws’. Those who locate it in the humanities, seeing history as the interpretation of unique events, will focus more on individual accounts. The discipline is traditionally divided into sub-disciplines: social history, economic history, political history, military history and so on. Another common division is history by country or region: English history, European history, etc., and a third by time period. This gives a natural structuring to the discipline’s information resources. Most, if not all, other subjects have a historical dimension, and several of these have formed interdisciplinary subjects in their own right, e.g. history of science, history of medicine and history of art. All of these sub-disciplines and overlap areas have their own information resources. History has a particularly wide range of information sources. As noted in Chapter 6, their categorisation is different from the usual; historians regard journal articles and research reports as secondary, primary documents being original archival materials. History’s primary resources include archival documents of many kinds, but also include physical (museum) artefacts of almost unlimited nature. Digitisation of all these materials is making them available to a wider audience. In the academic sector, the traditional journal, scholarly monograph and monograph series and textbook are still predom- inant. Older material of this kind is still valued. In the popular sphere, books, magazines, radio and TV programmes (even whole channels devoted to history programming), and a variety of multimedia and web sources are all widely used. There are a limited number of subject-specific abstracting and indexing services, while many general sources include historical material. There is an increasing number of historically focused digital libraries, which include documents of very varied kinds. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  122 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE The very diverse nature of historical materials, and the particular needs of museum documentation, have led to the development of a variety of information organisation tools, thesauri in particular. Examples are those maintained by Historic England, including thesauri for maritime place names, maritime cargoes, building materials, archaeological sciences and historic aircraft types, and by the British Museum, including thesauri for objects and for materials. Dissemination of history information involves a range of institutions, notably universities, learned societies, publishers, broadcasters and central and local government. Academic libraries, public libraries (particularly local studies centres), special libraries (particularly those of learned societies and research institutions), archives and record centres, and museum libraries and documentation centres are all important contributors. Studies of the information practices of historians, both amateur and professional, suggest that the traditional behaviours associated with humanities and social science scholars predominate. There has been an emphasis on printed materials, browsing as a means of identifying information and enthusiasm for sources such as book reviews, though digital systems are having an increasing impact; see, for example, Vilar et al. (2016), Martin and Quan-Haase (2016), Dalton and Charnigo (2004), Rhee (2012) and Sinn and Soares (2014). Amateurs, particularly genealogists and family historians, often have sophisticated information practices; see, for example, Darby and Clough (2013). Serious leisure Serious leisure is an area which, though not academic or professional, may certainly be regarded as an information domain. Since about 2010 there has been an increased interest in the information practices and information resources associated with serious leisure. Before that, the focus of information for the general public was on education, employment and (to a lesser extent) citizenship. However, it has been realised that the information resources and behaviours for leisure pursuits – where the emphasis is on play, pleasure and enjoyment, rather than on solving problems and carrying out tasks – are just as sophisticated and significant as those for work and study. The idea of ‘serious leisure’ was devised by the Canada-based sociologist Robert Stebbins (2009; 2020). One of the main contentions is that those involved develop a very deep and rich knowledge of their leisure topic and develop sophisticated practices in creating, organising, sharing and using information. The study of the information dimension of serious leisure was https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 123 pioneered by Jenna Hartel (2010) and has generated a considerable literature of its own. There are various categorisations of serious leisure activities. A typical one divides the area into four (often overlapping) aspects: hobbyist (e.g. collecting things, crafts) volunteer amateur (e.g. music or athletics) fandom (sports, music, cult media... ). All of these aspects have been studied from the information point of view, typically using ethnographic study methods (although a wide variety of methods have been applied), and applying a number of information behaviour models, including the everyday life information models of Savolainen and of Hektor, and the small-world model of Chatman. They have found extensive, sophisticated and sometimes idiosyncratic information resources and practices, including creating, sharing, organising, tagging and archiving (Hartel, Cox and Griggin, 2016; Case and Given, 2016, 330–3; de Kosnik, 2016; Mansourian, 2020). These are now becoming of increasing interest to library and information services, most obviously with an interest in providing access to materials produced by serious leisure protagonists, such as fanworks (Price and Robinson, 2017), and in programming and providing facilities such as makerspaces (VanScoy, Thomson and Hartel, 2020). There is also the question of whether some of the methods devised in the serious leisure domain, such as tagging methods, may be more generally applicable. Other domains Other domains have informational features of interest; we briefly mention four here. Mathematics Mathematics is a ubiquitous subject, studied by every person during their formal education, and applied in some ways by most people in their everyday life. It has a uniquely wide set of users, from professional mathe- maticians and students of all levels, through workers in the many occupations which use mathematics, to the enthusiasts for recreational mathematics. It therefore has a particularly wide range of types of resources. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  124 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE The information practices of those using mathematical information lie between those of scientific research and of applied science and engineering, reflecting the nature of mathematics as both a discipline in its own right and a tool for application in many other contexts, with the relatively slow and incremental process of mathematical research having a particular influence on information behaviour (Sapa, Krakowska and Janiak, 2014; Barsky, 2012; Gordon et al., 2020). Mathematical knowledge is one of Paul Hirst’s unique forms of knowledge, and the subject has a uniquely abstract knowledge base, with a variety of classifications (Fraser, 2020) and an extensive and sophisticated language with a variety of notations developed over hundreds of years (Mazur, 2014). For this reason, it has an unusually wide range of ‘logic and language’ resources, including guides to how to read and write mathematics, as well as how to understand its terminology and notation. Law Law is an example of a subject which might be thought to form a homogeneous academic and professional domain, but which is very diverse geographically, including in informational terms. Not merely are laws different in different countries, but in those jurisdictions, typically in Anglophone countries, which have a common law system, legislation is interpreted and nuanced by judicial decisions in a way that does not happen in systems of civil law, as in many continental European countries. The consequence is that in countries such as the UK and the USA there is a wide range of legal resources providing information on case reports, precedents and citations to cases, which has no equivalent elsewhere. Terminology may pose problems, with legal use of words and phrases differing from the usual dictionary definition. In the UK there is much use of Latin terms and obscure abbreviations, with texts and resources known by the proper names of their original authors or editors. Art, design and fashion These comprise a domain which has perhaps the widest range of document forms, and correspondingly diverse collections, including images of all kinds, architectural models, materials and fashion pieces (Glassman and Dyki, 2017; Peirson-Smith and Peirson-Smith, 2020). Information practices are focused on assisting inspiration and creativity, and include a need for printed materials as well as digital, and a preference for browsing and informal access. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 125 Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals, although rooted in the academic disciplines of pharmacology, medicinal chemistry and pharmacy, is a domain closely involved with one of the most information-intensive industries and with the equally information-intensive clinical use of medicines. Because of this background, and because of its economic and social importance, this area has perhaps the widest range of resources of any domain, from chemistry and biology to pharmaceutical technologies to medicine, from pure science to commercial and patent information, and from highly specialised resources to those aimed at the general public (Bawden and Robinson, 2011). Domain-specialist information work One of the main origins of information science is domain-specific information work, in special libraries, information services and documentation centres. The traditional roles of the subject librarian and the subject-specialist information officer have changed, particularly as users are now well able to do much of their own searching online, doing away to an extent with the intermediary role. Nonetheless, subject-specialist roles remain of considerable importance, particularly in areas such as law and medicine. What kind of subject knowledge, if any, is needed for such roles is a very long-standing question. It is generally agreed that a domain-specialist information professional does not need the same degree of subject knowledge as their users: medical librarians are not usually qualified doctors or nurses. What is needed is some subject knowledge, plus knowledge of subject-specific sources, user needs, etc.: the subject background necessary to allow insight into needs and domain-specific sources, and to enable the interpretation and evaluation of information. This is often described as an understanding of the logic and language of a subject area; an appreciation that, for example, Phyllostachys aurea is a plant rather than a Greek philosopher (Morris-Knower, 2001). How such domain understanding is best gained, and whether information skills or subject knowledge are more important, are questions which recur frequently. Moreau (2019) gives a detailed account of how a librarian new to the health science area gained such understanding, and the surveys of Sterner (2020) and Koos and Scheinfeld (2020) show that, while a subject background is valuable to science and health librarians, subject expertise can be acquired in a variety of ways. A variety of activities have been noted as appropriate for the subject specialist information worker, most commonly: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  126 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE creating user guides creating terminologies and taxonomies carrying out ‘difficult’ searches and reference queries assisting, or leading, systematic reviewing evaluating and interpreting information providing current awareness suggesting new resources and aiding collection development promoting specialist resources cataloguing and resource description research data management coordinating expertise and facilitating knowledge communities acting as instructor, trainer, consultant and advisor. There is a clear resonance here with aspects of domain analysis. As examples, see an article on the building of a collection of material on the composer Debussy, requiring strong subject knowledge (Glaeser, 2013), and on new roles for medical reference librarians (Sullo and Gomes, 2016) and agricultural librarians (Bracke, 2017). Kranich et al. (2020) give an account of the changing role of the liaison librarian, with emphasis on building relationships and partnerships; Kallaher et al. (2020) describe the role of the library in supporting systematic reviewing; and Darch et al. (2020) describe library involvement in the curation of datasets, in their case astronomy data. Day and Novak (2019) point out new roles for the subject specialist in the ‘inside out’ collection model (discussed in Chapter 10). Summary Much of information science can be understood only in a disciplinary, or similar, context. This includes: the nature of documents and resources; terminology and information organisation; information behaviour, practices and literacies; bibliometric patterns; and the role of institutions in the communication chain. The concept of domain, and the approach of domain analysis, allows us to understand and deal with these differences, in both research and practice. The linking of domain analysis with the communication chain of recorded information provides a unique character for information science (Robinson, 2009). The subject-specialist role, dealing with information within a particular domain, is of importance, particularly in areas such as law, business, healthcare and the sciences. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 127 Domain analysis is a framework for studying information communication within subject areas and user groups, and for the provision of information services to such groups. It is a socio-cognitive approach, based on examining the nature of knowledge within social groups and implications for information provision. It provides a basis for the work of the subject-specialist information practitioner. It provides a bridge between research and practice in the information sciences. Key readings Hjørland, B. (2002) Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches – traditional as well as innovative, Journal of Documentation, 58 (2), 422–62. Hjørland, B. (2017) Domain analysis, Knowledge Organization, 44 (6), 436–64. Robinson, L. (2009) Information science: communication chain and domain analysis, Journal of Documentation, 65 (4), 578–91. References Barsky, E. (2012) Four decades of materials are used by researchers in mathematics: evaluating citations’ age and publication types in mathematical research, Science and Technology Libraries, 31 (3), 315–19. Bawden, D. (2015) Storing the wisdom: chemical concepts and chemoinformatics, Informatics, 2, 50–67. Available at www.mdpi.com/2227–9709/2/4/50. Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2011) Pharmaceutical information; a 30-year perspective on the literature, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 63–119. Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2017) ‘An intensity around information’: the changing face of chemical information literacy, Journal of Information Science, 43 (1), 17–24. Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd edn), Buckingham: Open University Press. Bracke, M. S. (2017) Agricultural librarians becoming informationists: a paradigm shift, Library Trends, 65 (3), 448–66. Burrows, J. (2009) A history of histories: epics, chronicles, romances and inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the twentieth century, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Case, D. O. and Given, L. M. (2016) Looking for information (4th edn), Bingley: Emerald. Dalton, M. S. and Charnigo, L. (2004) Historians and their information sources, College and Research Libraries, 65 (5), 400–25. Darby, P. and Clough, P. (2013) Investigating the information seeking behaviour of genealogists and family historians, Journal of Information Science, 39 (1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  128 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE Darch, P. T., Ashley, A. E., Borgman, C. L. and Golshan, M. S. (2020) Library cultures of data curation: adventures in astronomy, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71 (12), 1470–83. Day, A. and Novak, J. (2019) The subject specialist is dead. Long live the subject specialist! Collection Management, 44 (2–4), 117–30. de Kosnik, A. (2016) Rogue archives: digital cultural memory and media fandom, Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Dreisiebner, S. and Schlögl, C. (2019) Assessing disciplinary differences in information literacy teaching materials, Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71 (3), 392–414. Fraser, C. (2020) Mathematics in library and review classification systems: an historical overview, Knowledge Organization, 47 (4), 334–56. Fry, J. (2006) Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analysis approach, Information Processing and Management, 42 (1), 299–316. Fry, J., Spezi, V., Probets, S. and Creaser, C. (2016) Towards an understanding of the relationship between disciplinary research cultures and open access repository behaviors, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (11), 2710–24. Glaeser, L. K. (2013) Intermedialists: Debussy and the influences of Whistler and Baudelaire, Collection Building, 33 (1), 21–4. Glassman, P. and Dyki, J. (2017) The handbook of art and design librarianship, London: Facet Publishing. Gordon, D., Cameron, B. D., Chaves, D. and Hutchinson, R. (2020) Information seeking behaviors, attitudes, and choices of academic mathematicians, Science and Technology Libraries, 39 (3), 253–80. Gordon, I. D., Meindl, P., White, M. and Szigeti, K. (2018) Information seeking behaviors, attitudes, and choices of academic chemists, Science and Technology Libraries, 37 (2), 130–51. Gregory, K., Groth, P., Cousijn, H., Scharnhorst, A. and Wyatt, S. (2019) Searching data: a review of observational data retrieval practices in selected disciplines, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70 (5), 419–32. Hartel, J. (2010) Managing documents at home for serious leisure: a case study of the hobby of gourmet cooking, Journal of Documentation, 66 (6), 847–74. Hartel, J. (2019) Turn, turn, turn, Information Research, 24 (3), paper colis1901. Available at www.informationr.net/ir/24–4/colis/colis1901.html. Hartel, J., Cox, A. M. and Griggin, B. L. (2016) Information activity in serious leisure, Information Research, 21 (4), paper 728. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/21–4/paper728.html. Hirst, P. (1974) Knowledge and the curriculum, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 129 Hitchens, H. (2005) Dr. Johnson’s dictionary – the extraordinary story of the book that defined the world, London: John Murray. Hjørland, B. (2002) Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches – traditional as well as innovative, Journal of Documentation, 58 (2), 422–62. Hjørland, B. (2010) Domain analysis in information science. In Bates, M. J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (3rd edn), 1:1, Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, 1648–54. Hjørland, B. (2011) The periodic table and the philosophy of classification, Knowledge Organization, 38 (1), 9–21. Hjørland, B. (2017) Domain analysis, Knowledge Organization, 44 (6), 436–64. Hüllen, W. (2004) A history of Roget’s Thesaurus: origins, development and design, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kallaher, A. et al. (2020) Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside medicine, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46 (6), 102222. DOI: 10.1016/j.acadlib.2020.102222. Koos, J. A. and Scheinfeld, L. (2020) An investigation of the backgrounds of health sciences librarians, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 39 (1), 35–49. Kranich, N., Lotts, M., Nielsen, J. and Ward, J. H. (2020) Moving from collecting to connecting: articulating and communicating the work of liaison librarians, portal: Libraries and the Academy, 20 (2), 285–304. Madden, A. D., Webber, S., Ford, N. and Crowder, M. (2018) The relationship between students’ subject preferences and their information behaviour, Journal of Documentation, 74 (4), 692–721. Mansourian, Y. (2020) How passionate people seek and share various forms of information in their serious leisure, Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 69 (1), 17–30. Martin, K. and Quan-Haase, A. (2016) The role of agency in historians’ experiences of serendipity in physical and digital information environments, Journal of Documentation, 72 (6), 1008–26. Mazur, J. (2014) Enlightening symbols: a short history of mathematical notation and its hidden powers, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Morado Nascimento, D. and Marteleto, R. M. (2008) Social field, domains of knowledge and informational practice, Journal of Documentation, 64 (3), 397–412. Moreau, E. (2019) Learning instruction: how an academic librarian transitioned to a health sciences environment, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 38 (2), 197–201. Morris-Knower, J. (2001) Phyllostachys Aurea: didn’t he work with Socrates? Reference work in science libraries by librarians who are not scientists, Reference Librarian, 72, 155–69. Muggleston, L. (2011) Dictionaries: a very short introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  130 INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION SCIENCE Peirson-Smith, A. and Peirson-Smith, B. (2020) Fashion archive fever: the critical role of fashion archives in preserving, curating, and narrating fashion, Archives and Records, 41 (3), 274–98. Pinto, M. and Sales, D. (2015) Uncovering information literacy’s disciplinary differences through students’ attitudes: an empirical study, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 47 (3), 204–15. Price, L. and Robinson, L. (2017) Fan fiction in the library, Journal of Transformative Works, 25. DOI: 10.3983/twc.2017.1090. Rhee, H. L. (2012) Modelling historians’ information-seeking behaviour with an interdisciplinary and comparative approach, Information Research, 17 (4), paper 544. Available at http://informationr.net/ir/17–4/paper544.html. Robinson, L. (2009) Information science: communication chain and domain analysis, Journal of Documentation, 65 (4), 578–91. Robinson, L. (2010) Understanding healthcare information, London: Facet Publishing. Roos, A. and Hedlund, T. (2016) Using the domain analytical approach in the study of information practices in biomedicine, Journal of Documentation, 72 (5), 961–86. Rose-Wiles, L. M. and Marzabadi, C. (2018) What do chemists cite? A 5-year analysis of references cited in American Chemical Society journal articles, Science and Technology Libraries, 2018, 37 (3), 246–73. Russell-Rose, T., Chamberlain, J. and Azzopardi, L. (2018) Information in the workplace: a comparison of professional search practices, Information Processing and Management, 54 (6), 1042–57. Sapa, R., Krakowska, M. and Janiak, M. (2014) Information seeking behaviour of mathematicians: scientists and students, Information Research, 19 (4), paper 644. Available at www.informationr.net/ir/19–4/paper644.html. Scerri, E. R. (2019) The periodic table: its story and significance (2nd edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinn, D. and Soares, N. (2014) Historians’ use of digital archival collections: the web, historical scholarship and archival research, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65 (9), 1794–1809. Solla, A., Currano, J. and Roth, D. (eds) (2013) Chemical information for chemists: a primer, London: Royal Society of Chemistry. Stebbins, R. A. (2009) Leisure and its relationship to library and information science: bridging the gap, Library Trends, 57 (4), 618–31. Stebbins, R. A. (2020) The serious leisure perspective: a synthesis, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Sterner, E. (2020) STEM librarianship in 2020: opportunities and insight, Science and Technology Libraries, 39 (4), 432–49. Stirling, D. A. (2007) EPA glossaries: the struggle to define environmental terms, Government Information Quarterly, 24 (2), 414–28. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press  DOMAIN ANALYSIS 131 Sugimoto, C. R. and Weingart, S. (2015) The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity, Journal of Documentation, 71 (4), 775–94. Sullo, E. and Gomes, A. W. (2016) A profession without limits: the changing role of reference librarians, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 35 (2), 145–57. Tackabery, M. K. (2005) Defining glossaries. Technical Communication, 52 (4), 427–33. Tamine, L. and Chouquet, C. (2017) On the impact of domain expertise on query formulation, relevance assessment and retrieval performance in clinical setting, Information Processing and Management, 53 (2), 332–50. VanScoy, A., Thomson, L. and Hartel, J. (2020) Applying theory in practice: the serious leisure perspective and public library programming, Library and Information Science Research, 42 (3), article 101034. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101034. Vilar, P., Šauperl, A., Semlič Rajh, Z., Robinson, L. and Bawden, D. (2016) Information competencies of historians as archive users: A Slovenia/UK comparison. Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Literacy, Prague, 12 October 2016. Open access text available at http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/15492. Walsh, P. (1993) Education and meaning: philosophy in practice, London: Cassell Educational. Whitley, R. (2000) The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd edn), Oxford: Clarendon Press. Willett, P. (2008) From chemical documentation to chemoinformatics: 50 years of chemical information science, Journal of Information Science, 34 (4), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304967.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press