Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Technology Studies
Author(s): Kenneth R. Fleischmann
Source: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 77, No. 4 (October 2007), pp. 409-427
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/520997 .
Accessed: 26/09/2013 22:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Library Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Kenneth R. Fleischmann2
In the digital age, libraries are increasingly being augmented or even replaced by
information technology (IT), which is often accompanied by implicit assumptions
of objectivity and neutrality, yet the field of science and technology studies (STS)
has a long history of studying what values are embedded in IT and how they are
embedded. This article seeks to unite the strengths of STS and LIS. First, the
relevant literature on the values embedded in technologies, IT, physical libraries,
and digital libraries is reviewed. Next, empirical and theoretical approaches for
studying the values embedded in digital libraries are proposed. Finally, the bound-
ary objects with agency framework is applied to digital libraries as a possible way
to address the need for comparative empirical research about what values are
embedded in digital libraries, how these values are embedded in digital libraries,
and the implications of these embedded values.
Introduction
There is much that the field of LIS can learn from its sister field of science
and technology studies (STS), an interdisciplinary field that focuses on
the social, cultural, ethical, and political dimensions of science and tech-
nology [1]. For example, as LIS moves its emphasis toward information
technology, especially from physical libraries to digital libraries, it is useful
to consult the existing STS literature on how values can be embedded in
1. The theoretical framework presented in this article is built upon research conducted by
the author as a result of funding from NSF awards SES-0217996 and SES-0521117. Portions
of this article were presented as a juried paper at the Association for Library and Infor-
mation Science Education (ALISE) Annual Conference on January 18, 2006, in San An-
tonio. The author would like to thank Al Wallace, David Hess, Ron Eglash, and Nancy
Campbell for reading and commenting on portions of this article and Bo Xie for her
careful and constructive comments on multiple drafts of this article.
2. Assistant professor, College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742-4345. E-mail kfleisch@umd.edu.
409
3. As such, values can be contrasted with ethics, which are shared frameworks that govern
behavior and are codified as laws or norms [3].
4. While the field of LIS does not, strictly speaking, fit entirely within the label of a “social
science,” there are aspects of the field of LIS that bear a striking resemblance to the social
sciences.
5. While this section focuses on the technology studies literature, science studies scholars
such as Robert Proctor [5] similarly argue that science is also value laden.
ogies have values because they have social meaning. She argues that these
four means of embedding values are not mutually exclusive, but rather they
can all simultaneously apply to the same technology.
According to David J. Hess, “all research is ultimately guided by values”
[16, p. 15]. Hess [17] introduces the concept of “technototemism” to
explain how value differences are coconstituted with technical differences.
Technototemism explains how race-, gender-, and class-related differences
and technoscientific differences mutually construct each other, allowing
technologies to influence our dynamic understanding of social difference
and simultaneously embedding values related to social difference within
different technoscientific artifacts. Thus, Hess’s framework provides a nu-
anced approach to studying technologies with embedded values.6
Applying Sclove’s [14] work to IT, Douglas Schuler [18] provides the ex-
ample of community networks as an IT with embedded values. The Seattle
Community Network (SCN), which he was involved in founding, was de-
signed using several explicitly stated principles that involve commitment to
access, service, democracy, the world community, and the future. Writing
about the development of the SCN, he recalls, “Fortunately, it was realized
early on that the technology, policy, and processes should be driven by a set
of principles rather than the reverse” [18, p. 336]. He lists six core values
of new communities (including community networks): “conviviality and cul-
ture; education; strong democracy; health and well-being; economic equity,
opportunity, and sustainability; and information and communication” [18,
p. 12]. These core values serve as the organizing structure for SCN and for
his beliefs about the need for and requirements of community networks in
general. Values are at the core of Schuler’s view of the design of community
networks, since these values should, according to Schuler, determine the
technical and administrative aspects of a community network.
Schuler [18] and David Silver [19] argue that online communities should
be designed in a participatory manner that involves all users or at least a
broad cross section of users. Schuler argues that “developing a community
network is by definition a community project” [18, p. 335]. He argues that
all potential users of the community network should be involved in the
design of the network and that this participation should be facilitated and
encouraged. In his analysis of a less than fully participatory online com-
6. The emphasis on democratizing technology shared by STS scholars such as Winner, Sclove,
Johnson, and Hess is consistent with the user-centered design approach advocated by many
LIS and IT scholars, which is discussed below.
munity, the Blacksburg Electronic Village (BEV), Silver [19] argues that
the combination of the lack of user participation in the development of
the BEV and the nonrepresentative group of designers and administrators
involved in developing the BEV led to the omission of important issues
such as race, gender, and sexuality as discussion topics within the BEV.
Silver argues that this shortcoming in the design of the BEV limits the
participation of users by restricting the range of issues that can be discussed
on the BEV, and that participation in use is limited largely because of
shortcomings in access to and participation in the design process. Thus,
participation in design and use can often be interrelated, such that more
egalitarian use is often a product of more participatory design approaches.
Schuler and Silver thus work to construct new strong counterpublics [20]
through the participatory design of digital spaces that in turn encourage
participation by users.
In her collaborations with Helen Nissenbaum, Batya Friedman [21] has
found that values play an important role in the design of IT. Specifically,
Friedman and Nissenbaum have identified freedom from bias [22] and
user autonomy [23] as values that can be embedded in IT by designers.
Friedman [24] argues that additional study is necessary to explore in more
detail how values are embedded in IT. Philip Brey [25] emphasizes the
importance of the embedded values of justice, autonomy, democracy, and
privacy. Amy Pearl and colleagues [26] make a similar argument for ed-
ucational simulations and computer games, focusing on values related to
gender and age. Chuck Huff and C. Dianne Martin [27–30] argue that
the ethical implications of IT are so significant that “it is unethical to ignore
the values embedded in technological artifacts” [29, p. 80]. Thus, there is
compelling evidence that values are embedded in technologies in general
and IT in particular.
Libraries are typically assumed to be objective and neutral, yet since the
information provision carried out by libraries occurs in a cultural context
and culture is never value neutral, libraries are indeed shaped by values
[31]. Thus, like other technological systems, libraries contain embedded
values. This section explores examples of values that are embedded in
libraries. The following section will explore the relevance of these values
to digital libraries.
In his article, “To Reposition a Research Agenda: What American Studies
Can Teach the LIS Community about the Library in the Life of the User,”
Wayne Wiegand [32] focuses on two particular values embedded in li-
braries: the library as a place and the library as a source and site for reading.
7. References to specific values attributed to various LIS scholars in this section and the
following section are in some cases the result of a reading of particular works with a
particular emphasis on the concept of values, broadly defined.
The emerging literature on digital libraries has already paid some attention
to the issue of values. For example, Bonnie A. Nardi and Vicki L. O’Day
[46] see values as one component of larger information ecologies—which
interact with people, technologies, and practices—and they relate this per-
spective directly to digital libraries [47]. Similarly, in the case of one digital
library, the Afya Project, Ann Peterson Bishop and colleagues [48] consider
social values along with practice and consequences. Scholars have already
focused on some particular values of digital libraries, including usability
[49] and transparency [50]. The overall user-centered focus of many digital
library projects [e.g., 49, 51–53] is also indicative of attention to the values
of the users of digital libraries.
As Ross Atkinson [54] explains, “Information services are defined and
distinguished not only by their operations but also by their social goals
and motivating values” [54, p. 245]. Atkinson relates this argument to the
design of digital libraries, emphasizing that the selection of materials to
be included in physical and especially digital libraries is a key service func-
tion of a library. Peter Morville [55] argues that libraries and the Internet
share common values, including privacy, intellectual freedom, free ex-
pression, free and equal access to ideas and information, and resistance
to censorship. Similarly, Brewster Kahle, Rick Prelinger, and Mary E. Jack-
son [56] argue that libraries, including digital libraries, serve the values
of democracy, education, and the advancement of the underprivileged.
Jeffrey T. Penka [57] argues that digital libraries should endeavor to adopt
the same values as physical libraries, building on Gorman’s [35] writings
about the values of librarianship. Finally, Lorna Peterson [58] argues that
values are an often-overlooked yet important underlying consideration in
digital library design and use.
8. Here, the umbrella term “social, cultural, ethical, and political” is artificially introduced
in an attempt to focus on a particular type of digital library scholarship. As the emphasis
on designing and using digital libraries continues to increase, the scholarly studies of digital
libraries are also beginning to proliferate. Yet, because this literature currently appears to
There are two major limitations of the literature on the values embedded
in digital libraries. The first limitation is that there is a lack of comparative
empirical research. Most of the studies reviewed above examine values
either in an abstract way or in relation to one specific digital library project.
Certainly this work is important at this early stage of research on digital
libraries and, when carefully put together, can yield some valuable insights,
such as the range of values that can be embedded in digital libraries, as
shown in this article. Yet, there is also a need for broader empirically
oriented comparative research that focuses on a broad spectrum of digital
library projects rather than a single digital library, while taking care to
incorporate the perspectives of the relevant stakeholders. Trying to com-
pare the values embedded in different digital libraries by reading various
studies using different frameworks, concepts, and methods has severe lim-
itations in terms of how comparable the data are in practice. Certainly, it
would be a valuable contribution to this literature to do a broader com-
parative study that incorporates a variety of digital library projects as re-
search subjects while incorporating as many of the relevant stakeholders
for each of these projects as possible.
A related limitation of the current literature on values embedded in
digital libraries is the lack of a broad, robust, and inclusive theoretical
framework that can simultaneously consider issues related to the design,
use, and maintenance of digital libraries as well as, once again, the varying
perspectives of the relevant stakeholders. Here, it is important to consider
how people and IT (in this specific case digital libraries) mutually shape
each other. The STS literature can prove useful, given its emphasis on the
mutual shaping of technology and society. This article adapts a theoretical
framework from the STS literature as a starting point for developing a
theoretical framework for understanding the values of digital libraries, how
they come into being, and what their implications are for digital library
design and use.
be held together only by a common subject matter, digital libraries, it seems useful to
develop other ways to hold this literature together, such as the emphasis on values stressed
in this article.
agency framework for studying the design and use of digital libraries. The
following section will then demonstrate how this theoretical framework
can be applied to address the former limitation by proposing a comparative
study of values embedded in digital libraries.
The boundary objects with agency framework builds on three concepts
from the social sciences and especially the STS literature. The first concept
is the social world. The social world concept [59–61] is related to the
Chicago School of Sociology’s symbolic interactionist theory [62]. As de-
fined by Anselm Strauss [60], social worlds are characterized by their com-
mon activities, sites, technologies, and organizations.
The next important concept is the boundary object. Boundary objects
[63, 64] are hybrid entities that bridge multiple social worlds. As such, they
allow for communication and interaction across the social worlds. They are
a product of these overlapping social worlds and could not come into being
without preexisting intersections among the social worlds, caused in part by
hybrid individuals who simultaneously belong to multiple social worlds.
The third concept for this framework is nonhuman agency. Nonhuman
agency can be linked to multiple theoretical camps, but it is perhaps most
directly descended from actor-network theory [65, 66], which holds that
nonhuman actants can be enrolled by different sides within a conflict and
thus can exhibit agency in determining the outcome of the conflict.9 In
the boundary objects with agency framework, boundary objects exhibit
agency by reshaping the relationships among the constituent social worlds.
That is, once a boundary object is created at the intersection of multiple
social worlds, it does not passively sit at the intersection of the social worlds
but, rather, plays an active role in reshaping the relationships within and
among the constituent social worlds. Thus, just as social worlds influence
the development of boundary objects, boundary objects influence the de-
velopment of social worlds.
Thus, the boundary objects with agency framework involves three stages
of analysis. First, it is important to study the social worlds that predate the
creation of the boundary object. In doing so, it is possible to map out the
value conflicts that existed prior to the development of a new technology.
Next, it is important to study how the boundary object emerges at the
intersection of the social worlds. This allows for a better understanding of
how value conflicts shape the development of a technology. Finally, it is
important to study the agency exhibited by the boundary object in re-
shaping the relationships among the constituent social worlds. In this last
stage, the goal is to learn how the technology reshapes and reconfigures
value conflicts. The boundary objects with agency framework, including
9. Prominent theorists of nonhuman agency who do not necessary fit within the umbrella
of actor-network theory include Haraway [67] and Pickering [68].
10. This earlier study was funded by two awards from the National Science Foundation, a
Graduate Research Fellowship, and a Dissertation Research Improvement grant.
To better understand the role that values play in the design and use of
digital libraries, it is useful to apply the boundary objects with agency
framework [73]. As demonstrated by Van House [53], social worlds, bound-
ary objects, and actor-network theory can be fruitfully applied to studying
digital library design and use. The application of this framework to the
issue of the values embedded in digital libraries allows for a better un-
derstanding of the social worlds that come together to create digital li-
braries, the stages of development of the digital libraries themselves, and
finally how digital libraries reshape the relationships within and among
the constituent social worlds.
To achieve this, it is important to identify the major stakeholders within
a given digital library project. Based on the literature to date, it appears
that there are three major stakeholder groups. First, there are the designers
who create the digital libraries. Next, there are the librarians who maintain
the digital libraries. Finally, there are the patrons who use digital libraries.
To understand how values influence the design and use of digital libraries,
it is useful to consider the different perspectives and values of each of
these groups as well as the interactions and relationships among these
groups.
Specific digital libraries are created by members of these social worlds.
One research question would be: how do the power relations among the
social worlds vary from one digital library to another, and what are the
implications of these power relations for conceptualizing each digital li-
brary? Certainly, it seems likely that there are some differences, for ex-
ample, between the user-centered digital library projects cited above and
digital libraries designed using a more traditional top-down approach to
information technology design. Yet, to explore this issue in more detail,
empirical research is necessary.
Digital libraries emerge at the intersection of these constituent social
worlds. For this stage, a second research question would be: how do dif-
ferent digital libraries come into being, and in what ways are digital libraries
shaped by the different values of the constituent social worlds? Here, the
literature cited above points at some starting points for the analysis, as
discussed above, yet there is still a need for systematic investigation of the
values embedded in digital libraries and how they are connected to the
constituent social worlds.
Following the boundary objects with agency framework, digital libraries
also have agency, in that they have the ability to reshape the relationships
among designers, librarians, and patrons. Here, a third research question
would be: how do digital libraries transform the relationships among de-
signers, librarians, and patrons, and how does this reshape the values of
these respective social worlds? An earlier study of frog dissection simulation
[69, 70] found that technological boundary objects have the ability to cause
social worlds to latch onto new peripheral values. Presumably, digital li-
braries have some unintended consequences and unexpected societal im-
pacts, yet once again empirical research is required to answer this question.
To answer these three research questions, it would be useful to undertake
a comparative study that applies the boundary objects with agency theo-
retical framework to understanding how values are embedded in digital
libraries and the implications of these embedded values. First, it would be
useful to apply the same ethnographic approach, primarily including in-
terviews and participant observation, employed in the earlier study of values
embedded in educational simulations. In addition, it would also be fruitful
to apply research methods from the field of human-computer interaction,
such as contextual inquiry and think-aloud. Finally, online quantitative
methods can also be beneficial, including online surveys and online mon-
itoring. Applying these research methods to study how digital libraries
emerge as boundary objects at the intersection of the relevant social worlds
as well as the agency that they exhibit in reshaping the relationships among
these social worlds can lead to theoretically and empirically rich compar-
ative studies that address both of the major limitations of the existing
literature on the values embedded in digital libraries.
Thus, it seems useful to apply the boundary objects with agency frame-
work to digital libraries, as illustrated in figure 2. This research would
provide insights into the stakeholders of digital libraries, how digital li-
braries come into being, and the broader implications of digital libraries.
This research would also be of benefit to both the STS and LIS literatures,
as a conceptual framework adopted from the former can be fruitfully ap-
plied to the latter. Overall, the goal of an emphasis on the values of digital
libraries is to ensure that digital libraries are built and maintained to meet
the needs of all stakeholders, especially the diverse and dynamic population
of digital library patrons.
Some modifications of the boundary objects with agency framework will
be necessary to ensure the success of the proposed study. For example,
the earlier application of the boundary objects with agency framework
focused on educational simulations, which were found to be one specific
type of boundary object, using Susan Leigh Star’s [63] typology, namely,
a terrain with coincident boundaries. As Van House [53] argues, digital
libraries belong to a different type of boundary object: repositories. In
addition, the constituent social worlds are obviously different, and indeed,
it may not be possible to know with certainty that these are the only three
relevant social worlds, since data may contradict the hypothesized social
worlds. Until data have been collected and analyzed, the hypotheses stated
here will remain open questions, although they do seem to be supported
by the literature, especially the work of Van House [53].
The proposed application of the boundary objects with agency frame-
work to digital libraries diverges from and goes beyond in important ways
the earlier application of the boundary objects with agency framework to
educational simulations as well as an earlier study of digital libraries that
used similar concepts. For example, Van House’s [53] study, as is the norm
in the digital library literature to date, focused on one particular digital
library. In contrast, this article proposes research that would instead com-
pare many different digital library projects, in order to gain a broader
perspective on digital libraries. Thus, this study would provide data that
could be used for a fruitful comparative analysis of the values embedded
in different digital libraries.
This study would also go beyond earlier applications of the boundary
objects with agency framework. Specifically, the previous study of the values
embedded in educational simulations [69–74] concentrated almost exclu-
sively on technologies that were already built and in wide release. In con-
trast, I am currently undertaking a collaborative study of the values em-
bedded in computational models, which focuses on studying technologies
as they are being built.11 The proposed research would unite the strengths
of each of these two projects by studying digital libraries at various stages
in the design process, so that it can be possible to study the same technology
both as it is being built and after it has been built. Data from the proposed
study will thus provide a more complete understanding of the values em-
bedded in digital libraries.
Both of these points speak to the potentially broad applicability of the
11. This ongoing study [75] is being conducted in collaboration with William A. Wallace of
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and is funded by two grants for collaborative research
from the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
1. Van House, Nancy A. “Science and Technology Studies and Information Studies.” Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology 38 (2003): 3–86.
2. Marini, Margaret Mooney. “Social Values and Norms.” In Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited
by Edgar F. Borgatta and Marie L. Borgatta, pp. 2828–40. New York: Macmillan, 2000.
3. Russell, Bertrand. Outline of Philosophy. London: Unwin, 1979.
4. Hitlin, Steven, and Piliavin, Jane Allyn. “Values: Reviving a Dormant Concept.” Annual
Review of Sociology 30 (2004): 359–93.
5. Proctor, Robert N. Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
6. Winner, Langdon. Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political
Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
7. Winner, Langdon. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
8. Winner, Langdon. “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Construc-
tivism and the Philosophy of Technology.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 18, no.
3 (1993): 362–78.
9. Mumford, Lewis. Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1934.
10. Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York: Vintage, 1964.
11. Plato. The Republic, edited by G. R. F. Ferrari, translated by Tom Griffith. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
12. Engels, Friedrich. “On Authority.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker,
2nd ed., pp. 730–33. New York: Norton, 1978.
13. Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.
14. Sclove, Richard. Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford, 1995.
15. Johnson, Deborah G. “Is the Global Information Infrastructure a Democratic Technol-
ogy?” Computers and Society 27, no. 3 (1997): 20–26.
16. Hess, David J. Selecting Technology, Science, and Medicine: Alternative Pathways in Globalization.
Vol. 1. Niskayuna, NY: Letters & Sciences, 2001.
17. Hess, David J. Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts
and Artifacts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
18. Schuler, Douglas. New Community Networks: Wired for Change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1996.
19. Silver, David. “Margins in the Wires: Looking for Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the
Blacksburg Electronic Village.” In Race in Cyberspace, edited by Beth E. Kolko, Lisa Nak-
amura, and Gilbert B. Rodman, pp. 133–50. New York: Routledge, 2000.
20. Frazer, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, pp.
109–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
21. Friedman, Batya. “Value-Sensitive Design.” Interactions 3, no. 6 (1996): 16–23.
22. Friedman, Batya, and Nissenbaum, Helen. “Bias in Computer Systems.” ACM Transactions
on Information Systems 14, no. 3 (1996): 1–18.
23. Friedman, Batya, and Nissenbaum, Helen. “User Autonomy: Who Should Control What
and When?” In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’96
Association for Computing Machinery, edited by Michael J. Tauber, pp. 26–29. New York:
ACM, 1996.
24. Friedman, Batya. “Value Sensitive Design.” In Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer
Interaction, edited by William Bainbridge, pp. 769–74. Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire,
2004.
25. Brey, Philip. “Method in Computer Ethics: Towards a Multi-Level Interdisciplinary Ap-
proach.” Ethics and Information Technology 2, no. 2 (2000): 125–29.
26. Pearl, Amy; Pollack, Martha E.; Riskin, Eve; Wolf, Elizabeth; Thomas, Becky; and Wu,
Alice. “Becoming a Computer Scientist.” Communications of the ACM 33, no. 2 (1990):
47–57.
27. Huff, Chuck, and Martin, C. Dianne. “Computing Consequences: A Framework for Teach-
ing Ethical Computing.” Communications of the ACM 38, no. 12 (1995): 75–84.
28. Martin, C. Dianne. “Teaching Practices.” Computers and Society 26, no. 1 (1996): 3–6.
29. Martin, C. Dianne. “From Awareness to Responsible Action (Part 1): Defining Learning
Objectives and Necessary Skills.” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 31, no. 2 (1999): 8–10.
30. Martin, C. Dianne; Huff, Chuck; Gotterbarn, Donald; and Miller, Keith. “Implementing
a Tenth Strand in the CS Curriculum.” Communications of the ACM 39, no. 12 (1996):
75–84.
31. Sukovic, Suzana. “Beyond the Scriptorum: The Role of the Library in Text Encoding.”
D-Lib Magazine 8, no. 1 (2002), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january02/sukovic/01sukovic
.html.
32. Wiegand, Wayne. “To Reposition a Research Agenda: What American Studies Can Teach
the LIS Community about the Library in the Life of the User.” Library Quarterly 73, no.
4 (2003): 369–82.
33. Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category
of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
34. Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2000.
35. Gorman, Michael. Our Enduring Values: Librarianship in the 21st Century. Chicago: ALA,
2000.
36. Gorman, Michael. Our Singular Strengths: Meditations for Librarians. Chicago: ALA, 1997.
37. Gorman, Michael. Our Own Selves: More Meditations for Librarians. Chicago: ALA. 2005.
38. Pawley, Christine. “Hegemony’s Handmaid? The Library and Information Studies Cur-
riculum from a Class Perspective.” Library Quarterly 68, no. 2 (1998): 123–44.
39. Merton, Robert. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
40. Tuominen, Kimmo; Savolainen, Reijo; and Talja, Sanna. “Information Literacy as Socio-
technical Practice.” Library Quarterly 75, no. 3 (2005): 329–45.
41. Olson, Hope. “The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs.” Signs: Journal
of Women in Culture and Society 26, no. 3 (2001): 639–68.
42. Cornell, Drucilla. The Philosophy of the Limit. New York: Routledge, 1992.
43. Haraway, Donna. “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d
Others.” In Cultural Studies, edited by Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A.
Treichler, pp. 295–337. New York: Routledge, 1992.
44. hooks, bell. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Toronto: Between the Lines,
1989.
45. Trinh T. Minh-Ha. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1989.
46. Nardi, Bonnie A., and O’Day, Vicki L. Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
47. O’Day, Vicki L., and Nardi, Bonnie A. “An Ecological Perspective on Digital Libraries.”
In Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by Ann Peterson Bishop,
Nancy A. Van House, and Barbara P. Buttenfield, pp. 65–84. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2003.
48. Bishop, Ann Peterson; Mehra, Bharat; Bazzell, Imani; and Smith, Cynthia. “Participatory
Action Research and Digital Libraries: Reframing Evaluation.” In Digital Library Use: Social
Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy A. Van House,
and Barbara P. Buttenfield, pp. 161–89. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
49. Borgman, Christine L. “Designing Digital Libraries for Usability.” In Digital Library Use:
Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy A. Van
House, and Barbara P. Buttenfield, pp. 85–118. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
50. Star, Susan Leigh; Bowker, Geoffrey C.; and Neumann, Laura J. “Transparency beyond
the Individual Level of Scale: Convergence between Information Artifacts and Commu-
nities of Practice.” In Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by
Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy A. Van House, and Barbara P. Buttenfield, pp. 241–69.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
51. Druin, Allison. “What Children Can Teach Us: Developing Digital Libraries for Children.”
Library Quarterly 75, no. 1 (2005): 20–41.
52. Marchionini, Gary; Plaisant, Catherine; and Komlodi, Anita. “The People in Digital Li-
braries: Multifaceted Approaches to Assessing Needs and Impact.” In Digital Library Use:
Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy A. Van
House, and Barbara P. Buttenfield, pp. 119–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
53. Van House, Nancy A. “Digital Libraries and Collaborative Knowledge Construction.” In
Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, edited by Ann Peterson Bishop,
Nancy A. Van House, and Barbara P. Buttenfield, pp. 271–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2003.
54. Atkinson, Ross. “Library Functions, Scholarly Communication, and the Foundation of the
Digital Library: Laying Claim to the Control Zone.” Library Quarterly 66, no. 3 (1996):
239–65.
55. Morville, Peter. “Ambient Findability: Libraries at the Crossroads of Ubiquitous Com-
puting and the Internet.” Online 29, no. 6 (2005), http://www.infotoday.com/online/
nov05/morville.shtml.
56. Kahle, Brewster; Prelinger, Rick; and Jackson, Mary E. “Public Access to Digital Materials.”