The design of library space is undergoing significant changes in layout and focus. Knowing that understanding a specific library's user needs is essential to effective planning, many academic institutions have undertaken user studies to establish user needs prior to embarking on redesign, or update of library physical space. Librarians at Whitworth University, a small liberal arts college, conducted an online questionnaire of currently enrolled students to appraise current library use and determine potential areas for improvement based on user needs. The survey revealed some unique characteristics of this user group: use of technology for study, and resource discovery was balanced by preferences for non-digital methods of resource access and use.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the appropriateness of gatekeeping theory, particularly its recent elaboration in journalism and communication studies for the investigation of information flows in academic libraries. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses the methods of conceptual analysis and thought experiment. Findings This paper finds that current elaborations of gatekeeping theory are useful for modeling library information flows, particularly identifying and evaluating influences on those flows. It is able to reframe intransigent issues around library neutrality and open access so that more nuanced approaches can be constructed. Originality/value Gatekeeping theory as elaborated by Shoemaker and Vos for journalism and communication studies, while occasionally referenced the library and information science (LIS) literature, has not been previously evaluated as a framework for library information flows. This is the first paper to assess the potential of aspects of the theory such as levels of analysis and multiplicity of channels to reframe issues in LIS.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework, based on contemporary philosophical aesthetics, from which principled assessments of the aesthetic value of information organization frameworks may be conducted. Design/methodology/approach -This paper identifies appropriate discourses within the field of philosophical aesthetics, constructs from them a framework for assessing aesthetic properties of information organization frameworks. This framework is then applied in two case studies examining the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and Sexual Nomenclature: A Thesaurus. Findings -In both information organization frameworks studied, the aesthetic analysis was useful in identifying judgments of the frameworks as aesthetic judgments, in promoting discovery of further areas of aesthetic judgments, and in prompting reflection on the nature of these aesthetic judgments.Research limitations/implications -This study provides proof-of-concept for the aesthetic evaluation of information organization frameworks. Areas of future research are identified as the role of cultural relativism in such aesthetic evaluation and identification of appropriate aesthetic properties of information organization frameworks. Practical implications -By identifying a subset of judgments of information organization frameworks as aesthetic judgments, aesthetic evaluation of such frameworks can be made explicit and principled. Aesthetic judgments can be separated from questions of economic feasibility, functional requirements, and user-orientation. Design and maintenance of information organization frameworks can be based on these principles. Originality/value -This study introduces a new evaluative axis for information organization frameworks based on philosophical aesthetics. By improving the evaluation of such novel frameworks, design and maintenance can be guided by these principles.In part 1, sections 1-2 (appearing earlier in this journal) we reviewed the background of IOFs, identified the appropriate discourses in philosophic aesthetics and formulated propositions appropriate to IOFs from them, and addressed incipient criticism. In part 2, sections 1-3, we develop an evaluative rubric, apply the rubric in two case studies, and discuss the results.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Since the earliest pressures to develop open access (OA) options for journal literature were in the fields of science and medicine, the predominant models reflect those origins and fit those disciplines. These models are less applicable to humanities publishing models, which have been slower to embrace open access. Current literature on OA in the humanities focuses on theoretical frameworks and end-user perceptions. This study complements those perspectives by examining current practices in the humanities, specifically, the OA options offered by journals serving the discipline of the classics.