1. A Scoping Review of
PhD-candidates’ Information Use
in Knowledge Creation
by
Gunhild Austrheim, Hege
Folkestad, Susanne Mikki, and
Therese Skagen

2. Background:
• The scoping review was undertaken as part of the project
Information Management for Knowledge Creation
• The project is a collaboration between five Nordic
libraries:
▫ Bergen University Library
▫ Oslo University Library
▫ Aalborg University Library
▫ Norwegian School of Economics and Business
Administration
▫ Bergen University College Library
• The project has received funding from the Norwegian
Archive, Library and Museum Authority

3. Aims:
• The literature review was undertaken to improve
our understanding of PhD students’ information
behaviour and their information use
• We chose to do a scoping review as this is a
broad field of enquiry and with a varied corpus
of literature
• A scoping review can be used to determine core
issues and research gaps

4. Research question
• What are the information needs of PhD
students, what information behaviour do they
display, and are there variations between
disciplines?
• How do PhD students publish and cite?
• What services and training do libraries offer
PhD students?
• Is plagiarism a problem at this level?

5. Methods:
• Search strategy
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria
▫ PhD students
▫ Published later than 1990
▫ In English or the Scandinavian languages
• Data extraction
▫ Topics
▫ Research methods
▫ Quality and relevancy

6. b1
Topic Searches
PhD student (phd* OR doctora* OR postdoc* OR ”post#doc*)
Library instruction (”information literacy” OR ”user education” OR ”user
training” OR ”bibliographic instruc*”)
Information behaviour, (”information need” OR ”information behavio*r” OR ”user
user studies and behavio*r” OR ”information seeking” OR ”information
searching search*” OR ”database search*” OR ”search* strateg*” OR
”user stud*” OR ”information retrieval” OR ”reference
chasing”)
Library services (”information service*” OR (reference AND (service* OR
interview* OR encount*)) OR ”library service*” OR
”academic librar*”)
Publishing / citing (Scientometr* OR Bibliometr* OR "Citation analysis" OR
"H-index" OR "performance indicator*" OR "research
impact" OR "research evaluation" OR "research
assessment")
Plagiarism (plagiar* or "scientific dishonesty" or "scientific honesty" or
"academic integrity" or "academic honesty" or "academic
dishonesty" or self#plagiar*)

7. Slide 6
b1 Her burde vi vel ha teksten på engelsk?
bubhf, 11/04/2011

8. Search results
• Initially our searces retrieved 5066 references
• 1525 references were considered for inclusion by
reading abstracts
▫ 201 references were included for further reading
▫ 28 references were included from reference lists
and serendipitious findings
• 55 references were included in this review
▫ Information behaviour – 35
▫ Publishing and bibliometrics – 21
▫ Library instructional services – 21

9. General results:
• PhD studens are often grouped with others, ie
researchers or MA students
• Studies are conducted within sciences and social
sciences more often than in the humanities
• User surveys was the dominant form of enquiry
▫ Case studies
▫ Statistical analysis
▫ Interviews
▫ Literature reviews

10. Publication and bibliometric analysis
• Bibliometry measures researcher visibility
through publications and citations
• The status of a research field, collaborators and
publication channels influece the choices of PhD
students
• Impact or visibility increases through
▫ Participation in research networks
▫ Collaboration and co-authorship
▫ Publishing in open access sources

11. Publication and bibliometric analysis 2
• A conscious attitude towards ethical behaviour
and copyright issues is important in co-
authorship and citation practice
• Improved knowledge of databases and the use of
analytical functions would improve information
handling
• Better understanding of how to evaluate
information would contribute to better quality,
especially in the PhD students’ literature review

12. Information behaviour
• Disciplinary differences in information
searching
• Research questions decide the number of
sources needed
• Multi-disciplinary research questions require
better information skills
• PhD students feel confident in information
searching
▫ Difficult to display lack of confidence

13. Information behaviour 2
• Citation practice show preference for digital
material and reduced use of print sources
▫ Inaccuracies in citations and reference lists
• The use of digital sources leads to a wider array
of sources being used
• PhD students obtain an overview of their field by
reference chasing

14. Library instructional services
• The library must have an understanding of the
research process, research methods, and
research tools
• A common attitude among librarians is that
everyone needs guidance from the library to
become information literate
• PhD students’ literature review
▫ suitable for library interventions

15. Library instructional services
• PhD students are independent information users
and rarely ask for help
▫ should be available when and where they need it
• PhD students are not aware of the services
offered by the library
• Services must be relevant and tailored
▫ Timing
▫ Content
▫ Disciplin specific

16. Conclusions
• Our scoping review has given us an overview and
will help us in developing our project
• 55 studies in a broad field of enquiry – too few?
• Our research questions in the literature
▫ Information behaviour 
▫ Publishing and citing 
▫ Instructional services 
• Research gaps
▫ Plagiarism
▫ Copyright issues

17. Please visit us at http://inma.b.uib.no