Conference Agenda (All times are shown in Eastern Daylight Time)

While there has been research on the development of Indigenous subject headings and vocabularies, less research and development has focused on creating community-focused workflows to build in systems of community input and collaboration for vocabulary, working with communities to create policies, protocols, and digital tools to enable approval, usage details, and ongoing checks on vocabulary terms and technical infrastructure to create, store, and make vocabulary accessible, as well as the governance and protocols required for appropriate and respectful access at scale. This paper discusses preliminary research outlining initial methods of participatory research design and community collaborations for a platform for Indigenous structured vocabulary within Canada.

This study explores the distinct information needs of urban and rural populations by analyzing six months of Q&A posts on Naver’s Knowledge-iN in South Korea. Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), KoBERT, and Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), we compared major themes within urban and rural posts. Our findings show that both groups share interests and concerns regarding dental healthcare, transportation, education, and food. Urban posts emphasized daily life services and mobile technology, reflecting interests in convenience and connectivity. In contrast, rural posts focused on regional welfare, local spots, and family or emotional concerns, suggesting possible service gaps and unique social dynamics. Topic distributions varied across the three topic modeling methods: LDA revealed broader categories, NMF highlighted more specific segments, and KoBERT captured context-rich, nuanced themes. Overall, this comparative analysis underscores region-specific information needs and demonstrates the complementary benefits of multiple topic modeling techniques for understanding social and digital inequalities.

This study investigates the informational functions of queer spaces and how their spatial characteristics shape information access, flow, and sustainability. Using semi-structured interviews with 15 US queer adults who experienced the loss of a queer-focused information space, our analysis furthers information science theorizing by examining these spaces through the lenses of information grounds, small worlds, and boundary publics. Findings reveal that queer spaces are vital sites for identity work, community support, and information circulation. Information grounds serve as accessible, queer-adjacent entry points; small worlds foster queer information literacy but may reproduce exclusion; and boundary publics offer hybrid, adaptive alternatives when spaces become inaccessible. We find recurring patterns of spatial vulnerability, insider/outsider dynamics, and the centrality of information to queer visibility. We contend that designing sustainable queer information environments in the face of platform regulation, gentrification, and sociopolitical hostility, lends insight into the embodied and relational dimensions of queer spatial practice.

We examined qualitative methods reporting in information science research by analyzing ASIS&T conference papers (2018-2022) and comparing findings with journal publishing guidelines. Our study of 117 papers using exclusively qualitative methods revealed significant gaps in methodological documentation. While 78.6% of papers involved human subjects research (primarily interviews), only 28.3% mentioned IRB approval. Similarly, 66.7% failed to describe analytical tools used. Journal publishing guidelines across the field showed inconsistent requirements for qualitative research reporting, with some mandating IRB disclosure while others provided minimal direction. The prevalent use of passive voice in methods sections often obscured critical information about data producers and collection processes. These findings demonstrate a need for more standardized reporting guidelines for qualitative research in information science. We recommend that ASIS&T publishing venues require authors to provide, at minimum: data production year(s), clear identification of data producers, persistent identifiers when available, and IRB approval status for human subjects research. These measures could enhance transparency and facilitate better understanding of qualitative research practices in the field.