The invisible college has been shown to be an important part of the information environment in several scientific specialties, but humanists have been thought to work in comparative isolation. This study of 123 scholars of children's literature found an invisible college within a specialty in the humanities. Members were more highly connected than others in the field, more senior, had published more, and were more likely to have their written work listed as influential. More than 50% of all respondents indicated that at least 50% of the time they discussed their work in its early stages, discussed the specific primary sources about which they were planning to write, and found ideas for their scholarship arising out of informal communication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beaubien, A. K.
, Hogan, S. A., & George, M. (1982). Learning the library. New York: Bowker.
2.
Blau, J. R.
(1978). Sociometric structure of a scientific discipline. Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art, 1, 191-206.
3.
Coser, L. A.
(1965). Men of ideas: A sociologist's view. New York: Free Press.
4.
Crane, D.
(1969). Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the “invisible college.” In B. C. Griffith (Ed.), Key papers in information science (pp. 10-27). White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.
5.
Crane, D.
(1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Crawford, S.
(1971). Informal communication among scientists in sleep research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 22, 301-310.
7.
Cronin, B.
(1982). Invisible colleges and information transfer: A review and commentary with particular reference to the social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 38, 212-236.
8.
Fish, S.
(1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Fish, S.
(1989). Doing what comes naturally: Change, rhetoric, and the practice of theory in literary and legal studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
Frost, C. O.
(1979). The use of citations in literary research: A preliminary classification of citation functions. Library Quarterly, 49, 399-414.
11.
Garvey, W. D.
, & Griffith, B. C. (1968). Informal channels of communication in the behavioral sciences: Their relevance in the structuring of formal or bibliographic communication. In E. B. Montgomery (Ed.), The foundations of access to knowledge: A symposium (pp. 129-146). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
12.
Gillis, C.
(1990). The humanist in the library. Doreen B. Townsend Center for the Humanities Newsletter, pp. 1-4.
13.
Granovetter, M.
(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
14.
Granovetter, M.
(1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Griffith, B. C.
(1989). Understanding science: Studies of communication and information. Communication Research, 16, 600-614.
16.
Griffith, B. C.
, & Mullins, N. C. (1972). Coherent social groups in scientific change. Science, 177, 959-964.
17.
Hagstrom, W. O.
(1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Heinzkill, R.
(1980). Characteristics of references selected in scholarly English literary journals. Library Quarterly, 50, 352-365.
19.
Kermode, F.
(1979). Institutional control of interpretation. Salmagundi, 43, 72-86.
20.
Knoke, D.
, & Kuklinski, J. H. (1982). Network analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Lancaster, F. W.
, & Smith, L. (1978). Science, scholarship and the communication of knowledge. Library Trends, 27, 367-388.
22.
Lievrouw, L. A.
(1988). Four programs of research in scientific communication. Knowledge in Society, 1, 6-22.
23.
Lievrouw, L. A.
(1990). Reconciling structure and process in the study of scholarly communication. In C. L. Borgman (Ed.), Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (pp. 59-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Lougee, W. P.
, Sandler, M., & Parker, L. L. (1990). The humanistic scholars project: A study of attitudes and behavior concerning collection storage and technology. College and Research Libraries, 51, 231-240.
25.
McCain, K. W.
(1986). Cross-disciplinary citation patterns in the history of technology. Proceedings of the 49th ASIS Annual Meeting, 23, 194-201.
26.
Menzel, H.
(1966). Informal communication in science: Its advantages and its formal analogues. In E. B. Montgomery (Ed.), The foundations of access to knowledge: A symposium (pp. 153-163). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
27.
Nodelman, P.
(1993). Never going to be persuaded: A response to “Never going home.”Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 18, 40-44.
28.
Pandit, I. (1992). Informal communication in the humanities: A qualitative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
29.
Pao, M. L.
(1981). Co-authorship as communication measure. Library Research, 2, 327-338.
30.
Pao, M. L.
(1982). Collaboration in computational musicology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33, 38-43.
31.
Price, D. J.
(1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
Price, D. J.
(1965). The scientific foundations of science policy. Nature, 206, 233-238.
33.
Price, D. J.
(1971). Some remarks on elitism in information and the invisible college phenomenon in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 22, 74-75.
34.
Price, D. J.
, & Beaver, D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011-1018.
35.
Rogers, E. M.
, & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.
36.
Sievert, D. E.
, & Sievert, M. E. (1989). Philosophical research: Report from the field. In Humanists at work: Disciplinary perspectives and personal reflections. Chicago: University Library, University of Illinois.
37.
Small, H.
(1982). Citation context analysis. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences III (pp. 288-310). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38.
Steig, M.
(1993a). Never going home: Reflections on reading, adulthood, and the possibility of children's literature. Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 18, 36-39.
39.
Steig, M.
(1993b). A reply to Perry Nodelman, in the form of a letter. Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 18, 45-46.
40.
Stone, S.
(1982). Humanities scholars: Information needs and uses. Journal of Documentation, 38, 292-313.
41.
Wasserman, S.
, & Faust, K. (in press). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Weedman, J.
(1992). Informal and formal channels in boundary-spanning communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 257-267.
43.
Wiberley, S. E.
, & Jones, W. G. (1989). Patterns of information seeking in the humanities. College and Research Libraries, 50, 638-645.
44.
Zaltman, G.
(1974). A note on an international invisible college for information exchange. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 25, 113-117.
45.
Ziman, J.
(1978). Public knowledge: The social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
