Conference Agenda (All times are shown in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) unless otherwise noted)

The roles and values of theory, theoretical frameworks, and theory building in library and information science (LIS) research have been the focus of attention of many scholars for decades. However, current practices in scholarly publishing have undermined these roles and values, creating a paradox in scholarly publishing and raising questions regarding a. whether research should be theoretically grounded, b. the impact of these practices on theory use and theory building; c. the roles of scholarly journals in encouraging the use of theory, d. the adequate preparation of LIS doctoral graduates to use and develop theory, and e. the roles theory play in the master’s level of LIS curricula. This panel of researchers and experts will share their work and map out their perspectives on the roles of theory, theorizing, theory building, and theoretical frameworks in scholarly publications. Attendees will share insights with the panelists about their experiences in using theory in research.

Uncivil behaviors like rude or hate speech have been a persistent problem on social media, which could lead to negative user experience or even affect the psychological well-being of users. Automatic detection and moderation of such behaviors are critical to creating a supportive online community for effective user communication and positive user experience. In this tutorial, we propose methods to study online incivility, which includes data collection from a social media platform, i.e., Reddit, automatic detection of incivility with pretrained deep learning classifiers, and statistical and visual analytical methods to investigate the combination of community characteristics and users’ interactive patterns that relate to the occurrences of incivility. Similar methods can be applied to understand other information misbehaviors online, such as misinformation, dissemination of rumors, and cyberstalking. Hosted by SIG-SM.

Tertiary students, as future citizens, require new attributes to function ethically in the challenging world of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and the emerging Society 5.0. How can students be prepared to handle ethical challenges, particularly presented by the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)? Educators need to re-evaluate their current praxis and be proactive in redesigning the current Information Ethics (IE) curricula. The purpose of this panel is to stimulate discussion on these burning issues. This panel will consist of six themes to unpack the role of Society 5.0 in teaching and learning of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (EAI). It is essential to achieve an understanding of key concepts and definitions. The relation between IE and EAI needs to be considered. Not only do we need to interrogate the North-South IE dynamics, we must deliberate the positioning of EAI in tertiary LIS education

Information horizons is a theory and method that embraces behavioral, cognitive and social aspects of information seeking, sharing, and use. As the first method originating in information science that uses a graphical data collection technique (Hartel, 2016), it has served as the underpinning methodology for numerous investigations for over 20 years. The method is often applied in studies of diverse communities not traditionally included in research, such as lower socio-economic populations. Information horizons is also valuable in teaching master’s and doctoral students about information behavior and importance of theoretical constructs. For example, over 700 master’s students at the University of Toronto have completed exploratory, empirical studies using the method. A strength of the method is its extensibility; researchers have extended and adapted the method for use with different populations and to investigate different types of information behavior. This panel will explore the varied applications of the information horizon method, engage the audience in open discussion about the information horizons method for research and teaching, and explore how theoretical and methodological approaches can be more effectively shared across the information science and related communities.

With the development of technologies in big data and AI, data has become more and more central to users for various tasks in different contexts. Yet the concept of data behavior, an emerging concept that captures the actions and interactions of individuals with data in various contexts and situations is not explicitly defined and framed. Data behavior focuses on the observable actions and reactions of users when they encounter, discover, seek, use, or create data for individual or collaborative tasks, while data practice encompasses the entire spectrum of how people work with data, from creating and managing to sharing and reusing data, as well as the intentional and strategic decisions and actions involved in these processes. This panel proposes a conversation and discussion about the concepts of data practice and data behavior by drawing on literature in data practice, data curation, and information behavior. This panel aims to discuss, compare, and bridge data-centric and user-centric approaches to conceptualizing data behavior. It will also present some examples of data behavior research in different domains and scenarios. The panel will highlight the challenges and opportunities of data behavior research for information science and practice.

In a 2012 ASIS&T panel titled “Humanistic Information Science,” Melanie Feinberg, Jens-Erik Mai, Jonathan Furner, and Joseph Tennis argued that information science as a field “could be richer” if it were to embrace “humanistic approaches to information science” (Feinberg, Furner, Mai, Tennis, 2012). Approximately a decade later, this panel returns to foundational questions about science, the humanities, and information as a field of study to consider the relationship between the digital humanities and information science. How are information science and the digital humanities different? How are they similar? How might work done in one field make a difference in the another? What might digital humanists and information scientists have to say about translation and the transposition of disciplinary knowledge to and from each respective field? How might the translation and transposition of disciplinary knowledge in the humanities and information science inform practice, policy, and action in both and beyond? This panel will provide a forum for attendees to debate answers with leading information scientists and digital humanists from around the world. Hosted by SIG-HFIS and SIG-AH.

This panel considers the bridge between research and practice in cataloging ethics. Cataloging ethics – including indexing and classification – is an important part of practice, yet cataloging ethics research and practice are not always clearly connected. The purpose of this panel is to build towards more evidence-based cataloging ethics practice. Two main areas will be considered. The Cataloging Code of Ethics (2021) is a vital part of these discussions: this major codification of cataloging ethics was the result of both practitioner input and much research. This panel will discuss ways in which the Code can lead to more research-informed practices. Teaching and training is a crucial – and under-discussed – aspect of cataloging ethics, both within library and information science education and workplace training. Therefore, the panel will contemplate how training and teaching can germinate research-based practices. The panel will be in three parts: a panel presentation about cataloging ethics, including each member’s perspectives and experiences on teaching and training in cataloging ethics; small group discussions about real world cataloging ethics scenarios, utilizing the Code to generate discussion; and feedback to the whole group with a closing discussion about strengthening the relationship between practice and research in cataloging ethics.

Translational research converts research knowledge into practical wisdom for a community (What is Translational Research, n.d.). Storytelling for translational research means that the researcher knows the audience; crafts a narrative; sticks to the plot; and imparts wisdom in a meaningful way – all elements of a good story from a good storyteller. In this hybrid panel and workshop, led by members of the ASIS&T Research Engagement Committee, our successful researchers/storytellers will illustrate how a good translational research impact story is structured. Then, our storytelling experts will help participants craft their own research narratives to put translational research storytelling into practice for their own research stories. Dr. Kate McDowell, panelist and storytelling expert, teaches both storytelling and data storytelling courses, and is the 2022 recipient of the ASIS&T Outstanding Information Science Teacher Award. She states: “When research successfully translates into legislative or policy changes, it always comes down to a shared narrative experience. The story emerges in the dynamic interaction between the teller and the audience.” The aim of this session is to create confident storytellers. Hosted by the Research and Engagement Committee.

Digital content management systems have enabled cultural heritage institutions and humanities researchers to create interactive, public-facing, and open-access scholarly work, including digital libraries, databases, archives, manuscripts, and collections. Exploratory tools have become a widely deployed feature of such digital projects that support in-depth, creative interaction with digital materials. However, producing and managing a digital project with such tools can be complex, time-consuming, and expensive, requiring significant financial investment, institutional support, and human capital. This has led to a critical need to evaluate the effectiveness of such embedded exploratory infrastructures across different stages of digital projects. This 90-minute panel discussion aims to explore the questions of how to evaluate the use and effect of such exploratory infrastructures, from diverse perspectives of researchers, developers, and downstream users. The panelists will draw from case studies to address questions such as: (1) the perceived value and impact of embedded exploratory tools, (2) the involvement of communities and stakeholders in the evaluation process, and when to conduct such evaluations, (3) the methods and approaches to evaluation, and (4) the interpretation of evaluation outcomes. The discussion will also delve into the challenges and opportunities associated with evaluating embedded exploratory tools in digital projects and scholarship.