1. From analog to digital psychology:
Results from surveys on information behavior
among German psychologists between 1997
and 2010
Hans Bauer, Gabriel Schui & Günter Krampen
Leibniz Instititute for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier
#cosci12 Aug 1, 2012

2. Outline
• Background & purpose of present work
• Methods & methodological issues
• Results
• Discussion & outlook
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 2

3. Digitalization in scholarship
• Electronic communication media by now virtually
universal in modern societies
• In scholarship, promise of increased quantity and
quality of research output
• However, scholarly disciplines differ in extent,
timeframe, and forms of digitalization (Kling & McKim,
2000)
• Social, epistemic, and material foundations (e.g., Becher &
Trowler, 2001)
 Discipline-specific developments must be considered!
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 3

4. Psychology as a special case
• Encompasses both mechanistic and subject oriented
theorizing
• As of today, strongly oriented towards natural sciences
paradigm, but no unifying framework
• Research-practice-gap
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 4

5. Information behavior in psychologists
• Information behavior (IB) impacts and is impacted by
digitalization
• IB in psychologists not investigated systematically
• To adapt ZPID services, IB (including information needs) in
psychology community needs to be considered
• Plans to conduct regular, prospective surveys
• What do we have so far?
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 5

6. Purpose of present work
• In the preceding years, several surveys carried out by
ZPID among German-speaking psychology community,
including IB-related items
• Compiled results of four surveys conducted between
1997 and 2010 in order to…
• Draw preliminary inferences about changes and continuities
in IB during digital transition
• Raise attention to methodological issues
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 6

7. Outline
• Background & purpose of present work
• Methods & methodological issues
• Results
• Discussion & outlook
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 7

8. Identical items
Survey sample features
Survey #1.1 Survey #1.2 Survey #1 Survey #2 Survey #3
Sampling date 1997 1999 – 2003-2004 2010
Target population Senior members in Junior members in – Members of Members of
German university German, Austrian German German
psychology depts. and Swiss psychology psychology
university practitioners' researchers'
psychology depts. association (BDP) association (DGPs)
Valid responses 265 (48 %) 221 (36 %) 486 (41 %) 324 (22 %) 298 (17 %)
(response rate)
Academic titles / 18 % PD, 82 % FP 45 % Postgrad, 48 21 % Postgrad, 22 Not inquired 12 % Postgrad, 26
a
positions % Postdoc, 7 % PD % Postdoc, 13 % % Postdoc, 17 %
PD, 44 % FP PD, 38 % FP, 7 %
missing
b
% female 16 32 23 67 38
Mean age missing 36 missing 44,0 42,9
a
Notes. Abbreviations used: PD – Privatdozent (roughly comparable to assistant professor); FP – Full Professor;
b
Gender missing < 3 % in all samples.
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 8

9. Publications referring to samples
• #1.1: Montada, Krampen & Burkard (1999); Krampen
& Montada (2000)
• #1.2: Neppl, Wiesenhütter, Krampen & Montada
(2001)
• #2: Becker (2004); Krampen, Becker, Labouvie &
Montada (2004)
• #3: Krampen, Fell & Schui (2011, 2012a, 2012b)
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 9

10. Comparable survey items
• Surveys #1, #2, and #3: set of items on frequency of
use of different information sources
• Only partially overlapping! Mainly „analog“ sources in #1,
mainly „digital“ sources in #3, #2 in between
• Surveys #2 and #3: set of items on subjective
importance of „information service“ (i.e., literature
database) properties
• Surveys #1.2 and #3: open-ended question about
problems / desired improvements in information
search
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 10

11. Overview of comparison categories
• Use of information sources
• Libraries, Literature databases, Publication contents, WWW
• Importance of database properties
• Up-to-dateness, Quality assurance, Internationality, Cost,
Ease of use, Search speed, Workflow integration, Full text
access
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 11

12. Outline
• Background & purpose of present work
• Methods & methodological issues
• Results
• Discussion & outlook
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 12

13. Use of information sources – Libraries
• #1: for unspecified „libraries“, mean of 71 % on
percentile scale, 2nd rank among all 25 sources
inquired
• #3: 61 % for library OPAC use, ranking 3rd among 32
sources
• Also, score of 84 % on item „importance of
direct access to libraries“
#1: Composite researcher
• #2: 40 % each for OPAC and local library survey, end-nineties
#2: Practitioner survey,
use (14th / 15th rank among 31 sources) 2003-2004
#3: Researcher survey, 2010
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 13

14. Use of information sources – Lit. Databases
• #1: 63 % (7th) for PSYNDEX, 67 % (4th) for PsycINFO,
38 % (15th) for unspecified „other“ DBs
• Refers to CD-ROM format; means are only 33 % each for
online versions of PSYNDEX and PsycINFO
• #3: 57 % (6th) for PSYNDEX, 73 % (2nd) for PsycINFO,
45 % (12th) for „other“ DBs
• #2: 25 % (17th) for PSYNDEX, 11 % (21st) #1: Composite researcher
survey, end-nineties
for PsycINFO
#2: Practitioner survey,
2003-2004
#3: Researcher survey, 2010
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 14

15. Use of information sources – Publications
• #1: 75 % and 1st rank for „browsing of top journals in
field“, 58 % (9th) for „browsing of many books“
• #3: 88 % (1st) for unspecified use of „online journals“
as information source, 49 % (10th) for „print journals“,
56 % (7th) for „open access online journals“
• #2: 79 % (6th) for unspecified journal use,
88 % (1st) for unspecified book use #1: Composite researcher
survey, end-nineties
#2: Practitioner survey,
2003-2004
#3: Researcher survey, 2010
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 15

16. Use of information sources – WWW
• #1: 48 % (10th) for unspecified „search on the WWW“
• #3: Host of items
• „Conventional search engine“: 59 % (5th)
• Google Scholar: 56 % (7th); Google Books: 41 % (15th)
• Author homepages: 44 % (13th)
• Discipline-specialized websites: 38 % (16th)
• Document- / Preprint-Servers: 25 % (24th)
• Researcher social networking sites: 8 % (30th)
#1: Composite researcher
• #2: 73 % (7th) for unspecified „search survey, end-nineties
engines“, 82 % (4th) for Google, 56 % (8th) #2: Practitioner survey,
2003-2004
for profession-specific websites #3: Researcher survey, 2010
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 16

17. Importance of database properties - Similarities
• Up-to-dateness: 92 % in #2 (2nd rank among 12 inquired
properties) vs. 97 % in #3 (2nd among 31)
• Quality assurance: 95 % (1st) for „service professionalism“ and
87 % (4th) for „certified information“ in #2 vs. 94 % (6th) for
„correctness“ and 85 % (10th) for „professional quality assurance“
in #3
• Interdisciplinarity: 70 % (9th) in #2 vs. 67 % (18th) in #3
• Search speed: 78 % (6th) in #2 vs. 80 % (12th) in #3
• Workflow integration: 67 % (10th) for possibility
of „subsequent processing“ in #2 vs. 72 % (15th) #2: Practitioner survey,
for „seamless connections of resources“ and 2003-2004
68 % (17th) for „dataset exporting“ in #3 #3: Researcher survey, 2010
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 17

18. Importance of database properties - Differences
• Cost: 79 % (5th) for „low user fees“ in #2 vs. 88 % (7th) for „open
access (no charge)“ in #3
• Internationality: 71 % (8th) in #2 vs. 96 % (4th) in #3
• Ease of use: 91 % (3rd) for „straightforward, uncomplicated
search technology“ in #2 vs. 52 % (20th) for „‘intelligent‘ search
engines“, 38 % (26th) for „recommender systems“, 71 % (15th) for
„powerful search syntax“, and 75 % (13th) for „many searchable
database fields“ in #3
• Full text access: ranked 1st (98 %) in #3; in #2, mean
of 68 % regarding „how important“ full text services
#2: Practitioner survey,
would be in the future, and 25 % regarding current 2003-2004
frequency of use of online full text services #3: Researcher survey, 2010
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 18

19. Open questions on information search problems
• #1.2: „Desired improvements in PSYNDEX“
• Online access (most often); integration into literature
management workflow; linking to full texts; integration with
other literature databases; improved up-to-dateness and
search features
• #3: „Typical difficulties encountered while searching
for information“
• Access to full texts (most often, by far); search
strategy (choosing keywords, identifying all
pertinent literature); literature coverage in DBs #1.2: Junior research survey,
(discipline, language, publication type re- 1999
strictions); usability flaws in DBs #3: Researcher survey, 2010
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 19

20. Outline
• Background & purpose of present work
• Methods & methodological issues
• Results
• Discussion & outlook
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 20

21. IB changes in psychology researchers?
• No fundamental change in IB in psychology
researchers in the course of digitalization
• Main concern in information search: efficiently
identifying and accessing all pertinent literature
• Now and then, journals and literature databases most
important sources
• Google-style searching increasing, but databases still used
more often
• Library search somewhat declining, but still frequently
used and considered important
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 21

22. 40 +6,9
35
% english-language
Possible trends
+2,4
30 +1,4 +0,6
+2,8
25 +1,3
+1,3
+0,5 -0,2 -0,9 +0,8 +1,2
20
15
• Ongoing „internationalization“ 10
5
of German psychology research 0
• Increased use of PsycINFO Year of publication
• Increasing quota of English-language publications (Krampen,
Schui & Bauer, 2012)
• Need for integration of national-level databases like
PSYNDEX
• PubPsych (www.pubpsych.eu)
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 22

23. Possible trends
• Open access publishing so far not commonplace in
German psychology (lower use of open access
journals, low use of preprint servers)
• But: In 2010, 4,4 % of English-language articles published in
open access journals, vs. only 2,4 % in 2009 (Krampen, Schui
& Bauer, 2011, 2012)
• More high quality open access journals need to be
established
• PsychOpen (www.psychopen.eu)
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 23

24. Practitioners‘ perspective
• More use of general-purpose search engines and
books, less use of libraries and literature databases
• More emphasis on ease of use, less emphasis on
international contents in databases
• Differences most likely due to differences in available
resources and work context (more localized)
• If psychological practice is to be grounded in empirical
foundations, information providers should not only
take researchers‘ perspective into account!
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 24

25. Thanks for your
attention!
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 25

26. References
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Becker, R. (2004). Informationsbedarf und Informationsverhalten in der psychologischen Praxis.
Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications
Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of
electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 51, 1306–1320. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-
ASI1047>3.0.CO;2-T
Krampen, G., Becker, R., Labouvie, Y., & Montada, L. (2004). Internet-Ressourcen für die Psychologie
sowie Informationsbedarf und Informationsverhalten von BDP-Mitgliedern. Report Psychologie, 29,
588–600.
Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2011). Psychologists' research activities and professional
information-seeking behaviour. Journal of Information Science, 37, 439–450.
doi:10.1177/0165551511412148
Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2012a). Professionelles Informationsverhalten von Psychologen im
Arbeitsfeld "Forschung und Lehre". B.I.T.online, 15, 117–126.
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 26

27. References
Krampen, G., Fell, C. B., & Schui, G. (2012b). Professionelle Publikationspräferenzen von Mitgliedern
der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs). Psychologische Rundschau, 63, 175–178.
doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000129
Krampen, G., & Montada, L. (2000). Nutzung alter und neuer Medien bei Literaturrecherchen von
Experten. In G. Krampen & H. Zayer (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation II (pp. 89–99). Bonn:
Dt. Psychologen-Verlag.
Krampen, G., Schui, G., & Bauer, H. (2011). ZPID-Monitor 2009 zur Internationalität der Psychologie
aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der ausführliche Bericht. ZPID Science Information Online,
11(2). Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications
Krampen, G., Schui, G., & Bauer, H. (2012). ZPID-Monitor 2010 zur Internationalität der Psychologie
aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der ausführliche Bericht. ZPID Science Information Online,
12(1). Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications
Montada, L., Krampen, G., & Burkard, P. (1999). Persönliche und soziale Orientierungslagen von
Hochschullehrern/innen der Psychologie zu Evaluationskriterien über eigene berufliche Leistungen.
Psychologische Rundschau, 50, 69–89. doi:10.1026//0033-3042.50.2.69
Neppl, R., Wiesenhütter, J., Krampen, G., & Montada, L. (2001). Literaturrecherche-Strategien
wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter/innen in psychologischen Instituten. In G. Krampen & H. Zayer
(Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation III (pp. 125–134). Bonn: Dt. Psychologen-Verlag.
#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 27