Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 42)

Citation

Bawden, D. (2008), "Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 42)", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 965-967. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810912497

ARIST, as it is generally known, has for many years been the only provider of any substantial number of critical reviews of the literature of the information sciences. We might regret this, on grounds of lack of choice and distaste for monopoly. However, we have to admit that the series usually does a very good job: the more so since Blaise Cronin's editorship has marked a welcome broadening of the scope of its coverage, in terms both of subject and of nationality of contributions. The 13 chapters in this latest volume continue this trend, being wide‐ranging, generally very well written and referenced, and supported by a very detailed index to the whole volume.

The volume is divided into four sections, dealing, respectively, with information seeking and retrieval; with the nature of academic disciplines; with information management and systems; and with issues in information science.

The first section includes four chapters, dealing with visual information retrieval, with interactive information retrieval, with multitasking behaviour and with activity theory and information seeking. All are thorough, detailed and heavily referenced. The “interactive” chapter, by Ian Ruthven, and Peter Enser's “visual” chapter are particularly comprehensive, detailing developments over wide areas. They both lead to reflection, however, on little the technology of browsing has developed, considering the important of “informal” information search. The chapter by Spink, Cole and Waller on multitasking has another nature; a relatively short text with copious references, it draws attention to the importance of the concept in cognitive science and suggests its potential importance for the information sciences. Tom Wlson's chapter on activity theory is different again, reviewing the development of the concept, and suggesting how it might find application in information science. These divergent approaches are an indication of a confident editor, allowing contributors to take very different approaches when needed, and adding greatly to the appeal of the volume.

The second section includes four chapters, dealing with scholarship and disciplinary practices, with the mapping of research specialities, with scientific writing and with the concept of genre in information studies. As Blaise Cronin notes in his introduction, this is a new topic for ARIST, and yet it brings the field back, arguably, to its starting point: the study of documents and documentation. The first two of these chapters, by Palmer and Cragin, and by Morris and Martens, respectively, are both in the comprehensive and detailed category, and would serve as ideal introductions to the topics, albeit at a high academic level. The chapter by Hyland and Salager‐Meyer on scientific writing is rich and detailed, but I would have at several points have appreciated some examples of the concepts they introduce. Jack Andersen's chapter on genre is relatively short and densely written, and would require detailed study by someone unfamiliar with the concepts at the outset.

The three chapters of section three deal with knowledge management, with syndromic surveillance systems, and with educational informatics. These all appear to have written for experts in their areas, and each provides a detailed account of recent developments, rather than an introduction for the “outsider”.

The final section, the fourth, has just two chapters, dealing with information commons, and with education for information science. The first suffers somewhat from a strong focus on the American situation, when more examples worldwide would have been helpful. By contrast, the wide‐ranging and thorough “education” chapter by Mezick and Koenig takes an genuine international perspective. It is unfortunate that the chapter must have been written too soon for inclusion of the major LIS‐EU curriculum project (Kajberg and Lorring, 2007), so that the authors so that the authors write that “[European] schools have been slow to become involved in cross‐country partnerships”. While the situation could always be improved, this is too pessimistic an assessment.

Overall, this is an excellent set of reviews, which will be of value for many years to come, and further emphasises ARIST's role as the only significant source of reviews of the information science literature.