In recent years, many studies have highlighted the changing nature of scholarly research, reflecting the new digital tools and techniques that have been developed. But researcher uptake of these tools is strongly influenced by existing information behaviour, itself affected by a number of factors, particularly discipline. This article outlines findings from a recent study which used six case studies to look at the information behaviours of researchers working in different disciplinary fields or academic departments, or using specific tools. The study suggested that researchers’ uses of, and attitudes towards, digital technologies are affected by existing disciplinary habits and preconceptions. Furthermore, it found that the computational and collaborative complexity of the tools that researchers used was linked to their disciplinary backgrounds.
BennettD.BuhlerA. (2010) ‘Browsing of e-journals by engineering faculty’, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship(Spring). Available at: http://www.istl.org/10-spring/refereed2.html (accessed September 2011).
HarleyD.AcordS. K.Earl-NovellS.LawrenceS.KingC. J. (2010). ‘Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines’. Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g/ (accessed March 2011).
8.
HeyT.TansleyS.TolleK. (2009) ‘Jim Gray on eScience: A transformed scientific method’, in HeyT.TansleyS.TolleK. (eds) The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Research. Available at: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/fourthparadigm/ (accessed August 2011).
MeyerE.EcclesK.MadsenC. (2009) ‘Digitisation as E-research infrastructure: Access to materials and research capabilities in the humanities’. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on e-Social Science, Cologne, Germany, June 2009. Available at: http://www.ncess.ac.uk/resources/content/papers/Meyer(2).pdf (accessed April 2011).
NicholasD.RowlandsI.WamaeD. (2010) ‘Charleston Observatory 2010: Are social media impacting on research?’ Paper presented at the Annual Charleston Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, November 2010. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/social-media-report.pdf (accessed August 2011).
ProctorR.WilliamsR.StewartJ.PoschenM.VossA.SneeH.Asgari-TraghiM.ChenM.CombsR.ElveyR.HarriesB.PechurinaA.BrownH. (2010) ‘If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use Web 2.0’. Research Information Network, London. Available at: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/web_2.0_screen.pdf (accessed August 2011).
Research Information Network (forthcoming) ‘Data centres: their use, value and impact’. Research Information Network, London.
18.
TenopirC.KingD.BushA. (2004) Medical faculty’s use of print and electronic journals: Changes over time and comparison with other scientists, Journal of the Medical Library Association92(2): 233–41. Available at: http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/eprints/tenopir_jmla_article_042203.pdf (accessed July 2011).
19.
WarwickC.TerrasM.HuntingtonP.PappaN. (2008) ‘If you build it, will they come? The LARIAH study: Quantifying the use of online resources in the humanities through statistical analysis of user log data’, Literary & Linguistic Computing23(1): 85–102. Available at: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/13808/1/13808.pdf (accessed April 2011).
