College and Research Libraries Humanists Revisited: A Longitudinal Look at the Adoption of Information Techno,logy Stephen E. Wiberley Jr. and William G. Jones Developments in information technology have had a major impact on the conduct of research and scholarship. In general, humanists have been slower than scientists and social scientists to adopt new technologies in their work. This paper, a longitudinal study of eleven humanists, corroborates the general pattern and provides insight into why humanists use technology as they do. It relates its findings to a definition of the humanities: those fields of scholarship that strive to reconstruct, describe, and interpret the activities and accomplish- ments of men and women by establishing and studying documents and artifacts created by those men and women. The discussion emphasizes that the primary evidence that humanists use differentiates them from scientists and social scientists. t has become a platitude that information technology is transforming the way schol- ars work. Discussions of this transformation usually stress both the speed and the scope of change. Certainly in less than a decade almost all scholars have adopted the basic technology of word processing. And scientists and so- cial scientists use technology to store, send, retrieve, and analyze their primary data or evidence. At the same time, the technological resources available to hu- manists have grown tremendously.1 But the behavior of eleven humanists studied over a five-year period suggests that scholars in the humanities are adopting new technologies relatively slowly. We first interviewed and observed the eleven in 1987-88 when all of us were fellows in our campus Institute for the Humanities. In initial interviews we asked the fellows how they did their work. We not only focused on their fel- lowship year projects and raised ques- tions about the use of information and libraries, but also encouraged the schol- ars to discuss topics outside our focus. In addition, we participated in a series of group discussions on methodology and raised questions about scholarly practices in forums that followed the public lectures fellows gave about their fellowship year projects. Whether with individuals or in groups, we spent at least fifty hours with each fellow. In the 1992-93 academic year, we revisited each fellow with an interview of one to two hours. The interviews followed a written list of questions. These ques- tions asked about changes during the past five years in important aspects of Stephen E. Wiberley Jr. is Bibliographer for the Social Sciences and Associate Professor, and William G. Jones is Assistant University Librarian and Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The authors are grateful to Donald 0. Case, Joan Fiscella, Julie Hurd, Robert W. Karrow Jr., Gene Ruoff, John Walsh, and E. Paige Weston for comments on drafts of this paper. 499 500 College & Research Libraries their scholarship with special emphasis on the use of information technology. In this report, we first discuss how representative the fellows are of other humanists. We then describe their use of information technology in five areas: word processing, use of online public ac- cess catalogs (OPACs), bibliographic data- base searching, electronic mail, and other applications. Finally, we offer a definition of the humanities that serves as a basis for explaining the relatively slow adoption of new technologies by humanists. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE HUMANISTS STUDIED Any study based on eleven persons must ask how representative is that group. Certainly eleven individuals can- not encompass all the varieties of schol- arship within the humanities in the proportions in which they are found in the larger population. And since the en- tire group comes from the same aca- demic institution-a research university in a major metropolitan area in the United States, to name just the principal distinctive characteristics of their envi- ronment-their representativeness is further limited. Yet among them, the fel- lows cover many important aspects of humanistic scholarship. One way to view the diversity among the fellows is by their departments: anthropology (two), English (three), history (two), history of art (one), phi- losophy (one), political science (one), and women's studies (one). Some histo- rians see themselves as social scientists, but neither of the historians in the semi- nar does; nor does the women's studies professor who is conducting historical research. The three seminar members who come from fields usually classified in the social sciences-anthropology and political science-are conducting re- search that exemplifies the current trend for social scientists to return to the hu- manistic roots of their disciplines. One of the historians said he did "plain old history"; · the other described himself as traditional, not using trendy or novel methods. Two other fellows pursue con- ventional topics and methods largely November 1994 within their home disciplines. At the same time, seven fellows do interdisci- plinary work: one fellow from English incorporates social science information in her study of film; a literary critic draws on psychoanalysis and philoso- phy; a historian of art considers his work to be part of American Studies; and the anthropologists, political scientist, and women's studies scholar bring the in- sights and methods of their disciplines to humanistic sources. There are two important ways in which the fellows distinguish them- selves among humanities scholars. First, they are older than many; the median number of years since obtaining the doc- torate was twenty-two, the average twenty, with a range of ten to twenty- nine years. Harriet Lonnqvist and ldrisa Pandit, among others, have found that less experienced humanists behave somewhat differently from seasoned, scholars.2 The fellows fall in the latter category. Second, the fellows are unusu- ally successful in research. Among them are winners of national fellow- ships and grants as well as authors of prize-winning books. They have sus- tained through their careers rates of publication well above average. · Despite these distinctive charac- teristics, the findings about the fellows' use of information technology are prob- ably typical of many other humanists, especially those who are mature and do research. An earlier study of the fellows' information seeking behavior showed that they were consistent with prior findings about humanists: (a) most were the sole authors-of their publications; (b) they relied heavily or partially on library collections for their research; (c) they rarely consulted general reference li- brarians; (d) their use of formal bibliog- raphy (as opposed to bibliography in the scholarly literature) was limited.3 In addition, as we shall see below, their current use of information technology fits what several other studies of humanists have found. In short, the present re- port offers insight into the use of informa- tion technology for research by mature, successful humanists through 1992. Humanists Revisited 501 TABLEt INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USED BY HUMANISTS INTERVIEWED Year of Ph. D./Rank Word Processing OPAC Use Database Search Electronic Other Computers Mail Applications Used• 1963/ Professor Yes In-library remote None Yes None Mainframe Home 1965/ Professor No In-library Mediated None None None '87-'89; '89+ 1968/ Professor Yes In-library Mediated None None Home 1969/ Professor No In-library '87-'89 None None None None 1970/ Yes/ ln-library 1 as end Yes Statistical Home and ......... ~!.?..f.~~~?.~ ......... ~.~.t.~.!.~~~-~~---······· · ····~~-~-~-t.~ ......................... ~.~-~~---·· · ·· ··· ··· ··· · ···-·····-··········· · ·············-··~-~~!.r..~.~-~---········-·········?.~~~-~-~-- -·· ·· ·· ····· 1970/ Yes/ In-library Mediated None Relational Notebook, Professor Notetaking '87-'89; '89+ database home and 1975/ Yes/ In-library .~!.?..£.~~~?..~ .... ·--~-~.t.~.t.~~~-~-~ ············-~-~-~?..~.~-- 1975/ Yes/ Associate Notetaking Professor 1976/ Professor 1978/ Associate Yes In-library In-library Mediated '87-'89 Mediated '87-'89; '89+ None Yes None None office ···················~········ · ··· · ··· Bibliographic Home and database office None None Home and office Laptop and office ......... ~!.?.f.~~~~-~---···················~~~---····-··············~::.~~!.~ .. -...... _ ... -.. -~?.~~---·· ·· ·············· · ·~~~-=-· · ······· · ··········~-~~~ ....................... ~?..~~---···-·-· 1982/ Associate Professor Yes In-library Mediated '87-'89 3 times Spreadsheet Home Note: Bold denotes first use after 1988. •Home and office designates desktop computers at those locations. FINDINGS FROM THE INTERVIEWS Technologies Used Our recent interviews revealed that all of the fellows continue to have as their principal goal writing a book. True, they disseminate the results of their work in other ways as do other humanists.4 But their emphasis on their books fits with bibliometric studies that show the cen- trality of the monograph in the humani- ties.5 John Cullars' research has found that the typical humanities monograph has between 250 and 300 pages.6 Given the length of their books, humanists have great need for mechanisms that enable them to write and revise with ease. The technological innovation that makes this possible is word-processing. Word processing is a regular and esse~- tial part of all but two fellows' lives. Most fellows had adopted it readily, usu- ally at their own expense, on the recom- mendation of family, friends, or colleagues. Seven of the eleven used word processing in 1987; nine of eleven in 1992 (see table 1). We gain a sense of how much word processing has captured humanists from the comments of one fellow who adopted it reluctantly. At our first inter- view, he reported his continued use of a manual typewriter and referred to the computer revolution as a capitalist plot. Revisited, he reported he had been writ- ing with a computer for over four years. Besides word processing, the only widely shared use of computers by the fellows was searching library online pub- lic access catalogs (OPACs). Two aspects 502 College & Research Libraries of OPAC use deserve mention. First, as residents of a metropolitan area with many academic libraries, some fellows use more than one OPAC. Second, like most OPACs, their campus catalog has changed features from time to time. Most of the eleven took those changes in stride, but four volunteered that they had experienced trouble as a result. Hav- ing trouble does not necessarily equate with inability to use. One fellow who reported frustration also said that since 1987 she had downloaded OPAC records to create bibliographies. The Getty Online Searching Project re- ports its participants clearly understood that an OPAC was better for finding known citations than were online data- bases.7 Similarly, the fellows told us they largely used OPACs to find known items. While the fellows did not have the extraordinary opportunity to search on- line databases afforded scholars in the Getty project, a librarian had been as- signed to them from 1987 through 1989 to do without charge any kind of search- ing they wanted. She kept a log of what she did and reported spending slightly more time on subject s~arches than seek- ing known items.8 Only three of .the eleven reported having had searches done for them since 1989, and one had done a search for herself on a locally loaded database provided at no fee by her campus library. She stressed she did this for her teaching, not her research. In re- sponse to a follow-up question, she said she strongly doubted she would ever do a database search for her research. Electronic mail has had a major impact on the lives of many academics and overall at the fellows' home campus use of electronic mail is widespread.9 Yet only two of the fellows had used e-mail in 1987-88 and only two more used it in the following five years. One of the latter had sent "only about three messages." Use of electronic mail among the fel- lows, while limited, is in line with use by other groups of humanists. Survey re- sponses in 1990-91 from over 6,700 members of the Modern Language Asso- ciation revealed roughly one-fifth used e-mail.10 In interviews during the same November 1994 time with twenty-one humanists, Idrisa Pandit found two users.11 Besides word processing, searching OPACs, and electronic mail, what other uses have the fellows tried with their computers? One person has developed a large database that describes the art works he is studying. A second kept . separate bibliographies for her two ma- jor research interests using a bibliog- raphic software package. A third did statistical analyses of demographic data she had gathered. These three and one other fellow take notes on their comput- ers using their word-processing soft- ware. A fifth fellow searches OCLC to locate copies of titles that he later ob- tains through visit or interlibrary loan. A sixth fellow uses a spreadsheet to keep track of family finances. Expansion of Use of Technology The range of use of computers by some of the fellows suggests, just as the Getty Online Searching Project did, that humanists have potential for using in- formation technology. But despite their potential, the group has been slow to expand its use of information technol- ogy. Only six have gone beyond word processing and OPACs, and each of these is limited to one or two regularly used new applications. Their slowness might be attributed to lack of funds. And certainly the fellows are not as well funded as scientists and social scientists of comparable achievement. But while limited funding may be a factor, it made no difference in the adoption of word processing for almost all of the fellows. Noteworthy in this regard is one fellow who had been granted several thousand dollars as a university scholar to support his work in any way he chose. He was still using a computer whose normal storage capacity he described as thirty- five pages. He wanted to buy a new machine and planned to do so, but he had been a university scholar for two years at the time of our second interview and still had not purchased it. Money was not a factor in his case. While lack of money may be only a minor factor in slow adoption of infor- mation technology, frustrating experi- ences with computers and hearing re- ports of such experiences may play a greater role. A common feature of our interviews was what we call" computer horror stories." These are tal~s of long hours of frustration or failure or both. One fellow reported spending so much time inputting and trying to print a da- tabase of bibliographic references that she concluded she could have typewrit- ten it as quickly. She compiled a second bibliography with the same software, but repeatedly failed to print out the second in the same format as the first. Another fellow characterized the amount of time she had spent learning to use a computer as "ridiculous." A third fellow described how he had composed a letter of recommendation on his computer at home, brought a disk to campus to print on a printer better than his at home, failed because of software incompatibil- ity, and ended having the departmental secretary rekey and print it. A fourth fellow was repeatedly frustrated in early attempts to print out her writing. She continued to do word processing, but delegated all other computer work to assistants. A fifth fellow did her first book on the mainframe. She found the mainframe consultants very friendly as they helped her learn the system. But because it worked so poorly, the experi- ence made her hesitant to spend time learning new applications.12 Of course, all users of computers or any other technology have similar sto- ries to tell. The question is why these might inhibit adoption in the humanities more than in other fields. And the differ- ences in use of technology are clear, once the nearly universal word processing and searching OPACs are set aside. Hu- manists use information technology less than scientists and social scientists· for communication (e-mail), bibliographic searching, and storage, transmittal, and analysis of primary evidence. In most fields in the sciences and social sciences, at least a majority and in some fields virtually all use electronic mail, not the roughly 10 percent to 30 percent found by the large-scale MLA survey, Pandit, Humanists Revisited 503 or this studyP Comparative data on on- line bibliographic database searching by scholars are limited, but what exists sug- gests far greater use by scientists and social scientists than humanists.14 As for data storage, transmittal, and analysis, most laboratory equipment in the sci- ences has computer components and many scientific fields, such as oceanog- raphy, rely heavily on data shared over networks.15 Indicative of the difference between the social sciences and the hu- manities in use of information technol- ogy for data storage, transmittal, and analysis is a comparison of the founding dates of the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research- 1962-and the Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities-1991. DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE HUMANITIES In reflecting on the differences among the sciences, social sciences, and hu- manities, we have been trying to identify the characteristics of the humanities that differentiate them from the sciences and the social sciences and that might ex- plain at a basic level the distinctiveness of humanists' behavior. This reflection has brought us to the following defini- tion of the humanities: those fields of scholarship that strive to reconstruct, describe, and interpret the activities and accomplishments of men and women by establishing and studying documents and artifacts created by those men and women. Crucial to this definition and to the distinctiveness of the humanities is the primary evidence or sources human- ists use: documents and artifacts created by persons whose activities and accom- plishments the humanist seeks to recon- struct, describe, and interpret. To better understand this definition, it is useful to look at all scholarship as a continuum from the physical sciences to the quantitative social sciences to the qualitative social sciences to the hu- manities. Moving along this continuum from the physical sciences to the humani- ties, one can say roughly that the scholar exercises decreasing control over the primary evidence that is analyzed. We 504 College & Research Libraries suggest the proposition that the less con- trol over primary evidence the scholar has, the harder it is to utilize information technology. The rest of this article at- tempts to develop this proposition by discussing the humanities and contrast- ing them at places to the social sciences, especially survey research. The Humanities and the Social Sciences Like the humanities, the social sciences also attempt to describe and explain the activities and accomplishments of men and women. The overlap between the practice of the humanities and the social sciences is great enough that it can be difficult to separate the two. Yet there is a difference. Comparison of the work of humanists with that of social scientists shows that fundamentally humanists use sources created by the subjects of their research, while social scientists in- itiate and, much more than humanists, participate in the creation of their sources.16 This is a fundamental differ- ence, not because there are no exceptions to it (there are many), but because it points to what predominates in each area of scholarship. Emphasizing that humanists use documents and artifacts created by per- sons whose activities and accomplish- ments the humanist studies is not to say that humanists never have a hand in shaping the evidence they use. When humanists edit primary sources, their judgment and imagination may deter- mine the content of parts of the source. But in the humanities the primary source is there first, and ultimately, humanists measure their success and condemn each other's failures in editing by how well the edited version measures up to the original and its variants. At the same time, we cannot say that social scientists invent their evidence as a novelist writes fiction. When social scientists conduct a survey, the responses of those surveyed are the evidence. But in the social sci- ences, no source exists until social scien- tists begin work. Through their survey instruments, social scientists limit the range or specify the particulars of their subjects' responses. November 1994 Because the subjects of humanistic re- search create the primary evidence of the humanities, these sources are the products of a specific place and time and shaped by the distinctive personalities of their creators. Since these sources are not products of social scientific method, they are multifarious, often incongruous and diffuse, and harder to coordinate and manipulate than survey research data. For example, in discussing histori- cal evidence about location, age, and value of currency_J.phenomena that can be described quantitatively-Manfred Thaler shows how primary sources can confound efforts to pin down specifics by latitude and longitude, date, and a standard exchange rate. Regarding ex- change rates he writes: We suggest the proposition that the less control over primary evidence the scholar has, the harder it is to utilize information technology. When comparing the temporal and spatial frames derived from the source with the entries in the currency data- base, check whether these frames are close to a point where different ones would apply (i.e. whether the ex- change rate changed shortly before or after our information was fixed in writing, or the place where it was re- corded lies very close to a border be- tween two territories with different coinage) .... It should be emphasized again and again that considerations like these are just the beginning.17 Given that phenomena described quan- titatively can be this hard to handle, one recognizes there will be even greater dif- ficulty treating literary, artistic, or other sources that have primarily qualitative and aesthetic dimensions. Primary Evidence, Secondary Literature, and Technology The nature of the humanist's evidence affects how a humanist analyzes it and writes it up. Current information tech- nology is less useful for analysis of the humanist's primary evidence than for the social scientist's primary evidence. Humanistic evidence is not easily cate- gorized and entered into a relational database and not readily subjected to quantitative measure or statistical analy- sis. Regarding categorization of evidence, Donald Case's research has revealed that because historians find categorization dif- ficult, they tend to change their categories during the course of a project, particularly during the write-up. Sometimes histori- ans place a single piece of evidence in two or three categories.18 Case's research helps us understand why historians who have great interest in using computers to analyze primary evidence emphasize the difficulty of creating machine-read- able databases from the original sources.19 True, humanists can subject some evi- dence, like demographic records, to com- puter analysis. Also, humanists can take any text file and subject it to quantitative linguistic analysis. But evidence like demographic records that derive from a social science tradition is only a small portion of the surviving documentary record. And quantitative linguistic analysis is just one method and some humanists argue against it, even when a strong case can be made for its use.20 It is instructive to contrast the human- ist to a social scientist who has quantita- tive data needing analysis, for example, a thirty-item questionnaire returned by more than three hundred respondents. Even if it takes the social scientist many hours to get the hardware and software running, the results will appear in sec- onds, and, perhaps most important, far more accurately than with calculations done by hand. In contrast, humanists, whose sources are nineteenth-century English literature or proceedings of 1890s state political conventions or American films, have no generally ac- cepted software package that can ana- lyze such evidence according to the interpretive viewpoints that are evolv- ing in their minds. Given the humanist's evidence, it is more difficult for humanists to collabo- rate than social scientists. Because their evidence is not created according to a set Humanists Revisited 505 of rules that yield data falling into crisply differentiated categories that welcome quantitative analysis, their work cannot easily be divided into discrete tasks that different members of a research team can perform separately and later assem- ble. Likewise, the uniqueness and scatter of humanistic data invite individual, not collaborative, interpretation. Conse- quently, humanists normally take sole responsibility for their projects. True, as Pandit has shown, they consult other scholars. 21 But consultation for human- ists is more limited than for social sci- entists who share responsibility for projects. Since humanists write alone, we would expect that they would begin to communicate electronically later than social scientists and that their use would be more limited. Interestingly, in a con- versation in fall 1993, the fellow who had earlier reported about three uses of electronic mail, stated he had been using it much more since that earlier report. He added that in general he did not like it, but that he had found it very benefi- cial for exchanging drafts and comments with the second author of the first coauthored publication of his career. Since humanists write alone, we would expect that they would begin to communicate electronically later than social scientists and that their use would be more limited. Finally, given that the primary evi- dence humanists use is the product of a specific place and time, shaped by the distinctive personality of its creator and not easily categorized, ordered, and ma- nipulated, we would expect that human- ists must write at greater length than social scientists to describe and explain their topics. First, since little of what they find is quantitative, they cannot summarize results in a few tables. Sec- ond, and more important, the unique features of the evidence must be made known and differentiated from analo- gous evidence. Helen Tibbo's research on abstracting for the humanities shows 506 College & Research Libraries how historians want abstracts above all to contain specific dates, time span indi- cators, and names of geopolitical units, individuals, and groups that are found in the work being abstracted. Such elements are unknown in scientific and social scien- tific abstracts she studied.22 Description and explanation of such phenomena fill the pages of humanities monographs. In providing service, practitioners need to be sensitive to the preferences of those who those who eagerly adopt new applications of technology, those who want to use as little technology as possible, and those who fall in between. Thus, the standard report of research in the humanities is a 250- to 300-page monograph. Clara Chu found literary scholars reported taking between four and nine years to complete a book.23 The fellows fall within that range. This al- lows the humanists few significant breaks in their workflow. Lacking these breaks, humanists are reluctant to take time from their projects to buy, install, and learn to use new hardware or soft- ware. One fellow, who in 1992 was fin- ishing the book he had started in 1985, told us that he had purchased his first computer after he completed a book and before he began working on his present project. He now used his computer for all his writing. He stated that once he completed his current book, he would buy a new machine and explore adopt- ing new uses such as taking notes. Here, it is worth pointing out the tre- mendous reading load the monographic literature places on humanists. Several fellows remarked about not having time to read the journals to which they sub- scribed. The librarian who did searching for the fellows suspected they some- times did not want her to. supply them with more references because they al- ready had enough to read. 24 Human- ists' limited use of comprehensive bibliographic sources like Historical Ab- stracts and the MLA Bibliography is well November 1994 documented in the literature. 25 Even in- vestigators in the Getty project con- cluded that the humanists they studied "took less advantage of the opportunity [to search DIALOG] than might have been expected. "26 Perhaps one reason for humanists' limited use of bibliographic databases is the numerous bibliographic references they encounter in the mono- graphs they read. Unlike those found in bibliographic databases, these refer- ences appear in the context of scholarly writing which helps the humanist assess their relevance. In summary, given the difficulty of analyzing their evidence with readily available software, the rarity of coauthor- ship, and the abundance of references to the secondary literature in the mono- graphs they read, it is understandable that humanists have not employed in- formation technology to the extent that other scholars have. We have suggested that this difference can ultimately be at- tributed to the primary evidence that humanists use. CONCLUSION In the future more and more of the documents and artifacts that people cre- ate will be products of information tech- nology. Also, many sources from the precomputer era are being converted into machine-readable form. Given that humanists establish and study docu- ments and artifacts, the growth in those that are technologically based argues strongly that humanists will have greater involvement with information technol- ogy. Furthermore, as the percentage of hu- manists communicating electronically grows, those who do not use e-mail will have increasing reason to do so or lose contact with their peers. But it is not cer- tain how much technology humanists will demand. Developments in scholarly methods and individual preferences will play major roles in the outcome. Histori- cally, particular scholarly methods and approaches wax and wane. Examples are numerous. The philological ap- proach to literature-one seemingly suited to computerization-gave way to criticism. Today' s critics show little in- terest in computers.27 Around 1970 his- torical demography was a central con- cern in early American history; today it is on the margins of the field. 28 Phyllis Franklin has noted that at the same time that literary scholars' use of electronic communication is increasing, their pre- occupation with print is intensifying. For large numbers of scholars, digitized copies cannot replace originals.29 On an individual level, the experience of the fellows suggests that mature hu- manists will expand their use of technol- ogy slowly. While scholars with ten to thirty years' experience will eventually give way to younger persons, they will still be a substantial proportion of hu- manists for the next twenty-five years. Responsive library service will not ig- nore their preferences. Furthermore, ta- ble 1 shows that the heaviest users of technology were not the youngest fel- lows, but two who received their Ph.D.'s in 1970 and fall in the middle of the age distribution. Interestingly, one of these two did not use word processing in 1987. Also, a fellow who received her Ph.D. in Humanists Revisited 507 1975 had assistants search bibliographic databases and run statistical software for her, but restricted herself to word proc- essing. These case histories suggest there is no guarantee that youth and increased use of technology walk in lockstep. In all, the fellows' behavior reminds us some humanists will use technology much more heavily than others. Findings of the Getty online searching project cor- roborate this observation.30 The field of library and information science has been so stimulated by de- velopments in information technology that it is easy for librarians to lose sight of users who have limited interest or need for technology. In providing serv- ice, practitioners need to be sensitive to the preferences of those who eagerly adopt new applications of technol- ogy, those who want to use as little technology as possible, and those who fall in between. This is a difficult assign- ment. Continued research to monitor changes in the disciplines and in pat- terns of individual behavior is essen- tial for success at this task. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Helen R. Tibbo, "Information Systems, Services, and Technology for the Humanities," Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 26 (1991): 287-346. 2. Harriet Lonnqvist, "Scholars Seek Information: Information- Seeking Behaviour and Informa- tion Needs of Humanities Scholars" (paper presented at the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) 56th General Conference, Joint Workshop Papers, Booklet 7 [ERIC Docu- ment ED 329 288]); Idrisa Pandit, "Informal Communication in the Humanities: A Qualitative Inquiry" (Ph.D. diss., University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992): 170-72, 224-25. 3. Stephen E. Wiberley Jr. and William G. Jones, "Patterns of Information Seeking in the Humanities," College & Research Libraries 50 (Nov. 1989): 638-45. 4. Clara M. Chu, "The Scholarly Process and the Nature of the Information Needs of the Literary Critic: A Descriptive Model" (Ph.D. diss., University of Western Ontario, 1992): 82; Pandit, "Informal Communication in the Humanities," 223. 5. John Cullars, "Characteristics of the Monographic Scholarship of Foreign Literary Studies by Native Speakers of English," College & Research Libraries 49 (Mar. 1988): 162--63; John Cullars, "Citation Characteristics of Monographs in the Fine Arts," Library Quarterly 62 Guly 1992): 334. 6. Cullars, "Characteristics of Foreign Literary Studies," 161; Cullars, "Characteristics of Monographs in Fine Arts," 331. 7. Marcia J. Bates, Deborah N. Wilde, and Susan Siegfried," An Analysis of Search Terminology Used by Humanities Scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report Number 1," Library Quarterly 63 Gan. 1993): 14. 8. Memorandum, E. Paige Weston to Beverly P. Lynch, July 4, 1988; Memorandum, E. Paige Weston to Carolyn A. Sheehy, June 7, 1989. 9. George Yanos and others, "Perceptions of the Academic Computer Center: Improving Client Satisfaction," draft report, University oflllinois at Chicago, August 6, 1993, 11. 508 College & Research Libraries November 1994 10. Bettina J. Huber, "Computer Use among MLA Members: Selected Findings from the 1990 Membership Survey" (New York: Modem Language Association of America, Feb. 1993 (revised Mar. 1993), table 4. 11. Pandit, "Informal Communication in the Humanities," 65, 196. 12. For bibliographic computer horror stories see Betty S. Travitsky, "The Online Database: A Use.ft¥ Tool for Interdisciplinary Study?" ACLS Newsletter 2d ser. 4 (Summer/Fall1993}: 7-10f Oleg Grabar, "The Intellectual Implications of Electronic Information" (paper given at Techhology, Scholarship, and the Humanities: The Implications of Electronic Information, Irvine, Calif., Sept. 30/0ct. 2, 1992 currently available by FTP from cni.org.) 13. John P. Walsh and Todd Bayma, "Social Structure and Technology: Computer Networks and Scien_tific Work" (unpublished ms., University of Illinois at Chicago, Sept. 1993}: 12, 23~ 27-2o/ :nn P. Bishop, "Electronic Networking for Engineers: Research from a User Perspec- tive,'t Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 25 (1992): 347. We know of no data published for the social sciences, but a sample of twenty-five social scientists at the fellows' campus showed twenty-one had active computer accounts (normally the prerequisite for sending electronic mail at the campus). 14. The most detailed comparative study is Jan Homer and David Thirwall, "Online Searching and the University Researcher," Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (Sept. 1988): 225-30/ see also Karen L. Curtis, Ann C. Weller, and Julie M. Hurd, "Information- seeking Behavior: A Survey of Health Sciences Faculty Use of Indexes and Databases," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 81 (Oct. 1993): 3865 Joan B. Fiscella and Edward Proctor, "Faculty Use of Locally Loaded ERIC and Social Science Databases" (unpub. ms., University of Illinois at Chicago, Dec. 1993}. 15. StephenS. Hall, Mapping the Next Millenium: The Discovery of New Geographies (New York: Random House, 1992), 12-14; Bradford W. Hesse, LeeS. Sproull, Sara B. Kiesler, and John P. Walsh, "Returns to Science: Computer Networks in Oceanography," Communications of the ACM 36 (Aug. 1993): 90-101. 16. Social scientists who do secondary and meta-analysis do not participate in the creation of sources they use. But other social scientists participate in the creation of these sources. Creation of such evidence under social science rules and conventions makes it far different from evidence used by humanists. 17. Manfred Thaller, "The Need for a Theory of Historical Computing," in History and Comput- ing II ed. Peter Denley and others (Manchester and New York: Manchester Univ. Press, 1989), 7-8. 18. Donald Owen Case, "Conceptual Organization and Retrieval of Text by Historians: The Role of Memory and Metaphor," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42 (Oct. 1991): 664. 19. Evan Mawdsley and Thomas Munck, Computing for Historians: An Introductory Guide (Manchester and New York: Manchester Univ. Pr., 1993), 102, 158-65, 178-79, 182. 20. Mark Olsen and Louis-Georges Harvey, "Contested Methods: Daniel T. Rodgers's Contested Truths," Journal of the History of Ideas 49 (Oct./Dec. 1988}: 653-68; Daniel T. Rodgers, "Keywords: A Reply," Journal of the History of Ideas 49 (Oct. /Dec. 1988): 669-76. 21. Pandit, "Informal Communication in the Humanities," 200-202. 22. Helen R. Tibbo, Abstracting, Information Retrieval and the Humanities: Providing Access to Historical Literature, ACRL Publicatipns in Librarianship no. 48 (Chicago and London: American Library Assoc., 1993). 23. Chu, "Scholarly Process of Literary Critics," 85. 24. E. Paige Weston, personal communication. 25. Sue Stone, "CRUS Humanities Research Programme," in Humanities Inform{ltion Research: Proceedings of a Seminar, CRUS Occasional Paper no. 4, British Library Research and Development Department, report~ n. 88 (Sheffield, Eng.: Centre for Research in User Studies, Univ. of Sheffield, 1980), 15-16, Deidre Corcoran Starn, "The Information-Seeking Practices of Art Historians in Muse and Colleges in the United States, 1982-83" (D.L.S. diss., Columbia Univ., 1984), 189-92/ Susan S. Guest, "The Use of Bibliographic Tools by Humanities Faculty at the State Uni~ersity of New York at Albany," Reference Librarian 18 (Summer 1987): 157-72 Margaret F. Stieg, "The Information Needs of Historians," College & Research Libraries 4Z (Nov. 1981}: 549~0. I Humanists Revisited 509 26. Susan Siegfried, Marcia J. Bates, and Deborah N. Wilde, "A Profile of End-User Searching Behavior by Humanities Scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No.2," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 44 Gune 1993): 277. 27. Introduction to Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures ed. Joseph Gibaldi (New York: Modern Language Assoc., 1992); Pandit, "Informal Communication in the Humani- ties," 126, discusses changes in literary theory. 28. Russell R. Menard, "Whatever Happened to Early American Population History?" William and Mary Quarterly 3d ser. 50 (Apr.1993): 356-66. 29. Phyllis Franklin, "Scholars, Librarians, and the Future of Primary Records," College & Research Libraries 54 (Sept. 1993): 397-406. 30. Siegfried, Bates, and Wilde, "Profile of End-User Searching Behavior," 274,277. • Join your colleague• In Plttahurgh • Learn the late at In academic lihrary reaearch and ~ractlce • See exhihlta of ~roducta and aer.,icet for lihrarlea • March 29- A~rll t, t995 • Regilter nowl Call (800) 545-24JJ, ext. 252t "Continuity and Transformation ••• • • • TltE PRoMisE oF CoN FluE NeE" The State of the Art ... working smart READMORE, INC. 22 Cortlandt Street New York, NY 10007-3194