This document summarizes a scoping review on PhD candidates' information use in knowledge creation. The review aimed to understand PhD students' information behavior and use. It searched multiple databases and included 55 sources published after 1990 in English or Scandinavian languages. The review found that PhD students display disciplinary differences in information searching and citation practices. It also found that while PhD students feel confident searching, they could benefit from training on evaluating information and understanding publishing/citation metrics. The review concluded that libraries should tailor instruction to PhD students' independent nature and the literature review process. It identified gaps around plagiarism and copyright issues.

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