





































62  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Dimorphism as a Metaphor 
for Information-Seeking 
Behavior
By David E. Schmersal, Bridwell Library, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist 
University

ABSTR ACT Our increasingly hybridized information environment, 
in which both print and electronic resources are available and offer 
certain advantages, may be described as “dimorphic,” alluding to 
the dual modes of sustenance evident among certain semi-nomadic 
peoples in the Ancient Near East. In this session, Reference and Digi-
tal Services Librarian David Schmersal will draw upon amateur inter-
est in the Ancient Near East to explain how dimorphic social structure 
may provide a useful heuristic device or metaphor for understand-
ing the information-seeking behavior of students, faculty, and other 
researchers. Such insight into user behavior may be applied to collec-
tion development, instruction sessions, reference interviews, and other 
crossroads between libraries and our patrons’ information needs.

INTRODUCTION

Pastoral nomads might seem a most unlikely source of comparison 
with the information-seeking behavior of students in theological 
libraries.1 Nomadic pastoralists typically inhabit an environment 
characterized by scarcity; indeed, this lack of resources is one of 
the driving forces behind their nomadic existence. They must move 
from place to place in order to exploit the limited resources of their 
environment. In contrast, the information environment in which 
our students are pursuing theological education is characterized by 
super-abundance. Any student with internet access can obtain within 
seconds a quantity (if not quality) of information that vastly exceeds 
the collections of even the most robustly-funded theological library. 
Further consideration, however, suggests that the comparison is not 



Papers and Presentations  63

entirely without merit. In both cases, the “inhabitants” of the environ-
ment must adapt to the environment, and the strategies necessary 
to adapt to and thrive in an environment of scarcity are remarkably 
similar to those necessary to adapt to an environment of overabun-
dance: maintaining a healthy diet in the midst of a cruise ship’s 24/7 
all-you-can-eat buffet can be just as challenging as ensuring adequate 
sustenance on a wilderness backpacking trip. Both require care-
ful planning, flexibility, and discipline. Adopting multiple modes of 
existence has enabled nomadic peoples to most fully and efficiently 
exploit the limited resources of their environment. Similarly, theologi-
cal students may choose to use both print and electronic resources 
available in their information environment for various tasks, adapt-
ing their mode of research accordingly. This allows them to most 
fully and efficiently exploit an overabundance of resources within 
the confines of limited time and attention. Thus, comparing agro-
pastoral dimorphic nomadism with the information-seeking behav-
iors observed among researchers in theological libraries will enable 
theological librarians to better understand how students, faculty, and 
other researchers adapt to our dimorphic information environment 
and suggest ways we might assist them in doing so. 

 I.   Brief overview of agro-pastoral dimorphic nomadism as a 
strategic response to the physical environment of the Near 
East/Western Asia 
The way of life of any group of people is largely determined by 
their environment.2 This was especially true for the people of 
the Ancient Near East.3 The Near East, or Western Asia, may be 
regarded as an environment of extremes, comprising deserts, 
mountains, and the irrigated valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates 
Rivers. These latter represent “thin strips of green in an other-
wise brown landscape,” though as one scholar notes, “the more 
arid lands around them are no less significant in subsistence, 
demographic, or cultural terms.”4 Interspersed between and 
among the deserts and the irrigated fields was a liminal space 
which, like an estuary, facilitated a rich intermingling of two 
ways of life, inhabited by peoples who adopted multiple modes of 
existence in order to take full advantage of the limited resources 
available to them.5 Their environment was characterized by 
“sharp variation in the amount of yearly precipitation” so that “an 



64  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

economy which relied on agriculture alone would entail unac-
ceptable risk,” forcing “close symbiosis between pastoralism and 
agriculture.”6 Some scholars have used the term “dimorphic” or 
dimorphic structure to describe this symbiosis between seden-
tary agriculture and nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism 
whereby “the two ways of life were combined in a system of polit-
ical economy.”7 Two intertwined factors combined to create this 
dimorphic mode of existence: topology, “the effect of the physical 
environment” on the history of the region, and the effects of the 
seasonal migration necessitated by sustaining herds in marginal 
environments.8 These two factors brought nomadic pastoralists 
and sedentary populations into close proximity, creating “dimor-
phic zones”9 and leading to a kind of “enclosed” or “enclos-
ing” nomadism characterized by a “high degree of symbiotic, 
economic, and political relationship between the nomadic pasto-
ralists and the sedentary population.”10

Such proximity created possibilities not only for exchange 
(both cultural and economic) but also for conflict.11 This likely 
is familiar to theological librarians, from the biblical story of 
Cain and Abel. This story reflects the tensions between seden-
tary farmers like Cain and nomadic pastoralists like Abel, which 
could sometimes lead to violence.12 At the same time, many 
biblical stories depict pastoral and sedentary peoples not only 
in close proximity but as members of the same group or family: 
Cain and Abel are brothers. Lot lives in a city while his cousin 
Abraham is dwelling in a tent. Indeed, despite presuppositions to 
the contrary, when Ancient Near Eastern sources are allowed to 
speak for themselves, “it soon emerges that pastoralism is in no 
way separate from the urbanized, sedentary world”, but rather 
the two exist side by side.13 This has led one scholar to assert that 
rather than thinking of pastoralists and agriculturalists as two 
distinct groups that came together on occasion due to economic 
necessity, “we should envisage one entity splitting apart from 
time to time; or better as a series of single entities diverging and 
merging in a myriad of combinations over time.”14 Indeed, “the 
nomad-sedentary continuum is much more complex,” than  
the typical division into nomad and sedentary, “composed of 
diverse (and changeable) socioeconomic situations, such as 
sedentary elements, agro-pastoralists, pastoralists who engage 



Papers and Presentations  65

in occasional dry farming, ‘pure’ pastoral nomads, etc.”15

Even those groups that might be placed toward the “pure 
nomadism” end of the spectrum would have required some 
contact with sedentary populations as outlets for the prod-
ucts of their flocks and herds, and this interdependence would 
have been more, not less, acute in times of economic crisis.16 
Thus, maximizing the economic potential of the region required 
adopting both modes of existence, which may explain the stabil-
ity and persistence of symbiotic nomadism in the region—
the social structure of the region was (and in some quarters 
remains) dimorphic because the environment itself is dimor-
phic.17 In some cases, this meant that the entirety of a given 
social group (“tribe”) would spend part of the year engaged in 
sedentary agriculture and part of the year engaged in mobile 
pastoralism. In other cases, part of a group would engage in 
sedentary agriculture or even small-scale industry while part of 
the same group engaged in mobile pastoralism.18 Yet, beyond the 
economic value, there was also “the social value of herds, which 
corresponds to the potential for converting animals and pastoral 
resources into other cultural forms, including symbols, mate-
rials, information, relationships, and capacities—each having 
importance to herders and often for their neighbors as well.”19 
Within such contexts, the expertise of those who knew how to 
maintain livestock in the midst of drought, “managing animal 
communities, environment, and spatial and temporal change,” 
was highly valued, even though the tribal group would also 
engage in agriculture as conditions allowed, for such “knowl-
edge, skills, and cultural traditions compensate for, or even 
profit from, productive variability.”20

Agro-pastoral dimorphism may thus be seen as an economic 
strategy in which a community or society adapted itself to its 
environment, diversifying its population to take full advantage 
of every means of communal survival offered by a context with 
limited resources.21 However, rather than a passive strategy deter-
mined by the need to find sufficient fodder for herds of animals, 
mobile pastoralism may be considered an active strategy. The 
desire to maintain mobility and autonomy led to the decision to 
maintain herds as part of an overall strategic response to an envi-
ronment characterized by uncertainty, both in natural resources 



66  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

and politically.22 Retaining “alternative modes of organization” 
that could be “enacted” under appropriate circumstances offered 
groups the degree of flexibility necessary to respond to dynamic 
circumstances, whether climatic or political.23

 II.   Brief overview of information-seeking behavior in the 
dimorphic environment of theological libraries
To a large extent, the research practices of students, faculty, 
staff, and other scholars who use theological libraries are a 
product of their information environment or “epistemological 
ecology.” In the context of libraries, this information environ-
ment may be thought of as “an integrative interface compris-
ing all [points of] contact between users and available library 
resources” whether “human, physical or digital.”24 The library’s 
information environment is also part of the wider cultural 
milieu created by society’s adoption of various technologies 
to create, preserve, use, and gain access to information. On 
the one hand, religion and theology, like other humanities-
related disciplines, continue to place greater emphasis on print. 
Not only theology faculty, but also students who are “digital 
natives”, have indicated a preference for reading some kinds of 
resources, particularly books and textbooks, in print, even if a 
digital version is available.25 On the other hand, our information 
environment in theological libraries reflects the wider cultural 
shift in emphasis toward digital information accessible through 
information technology and communications networks. Most 
scholars, including those looking for physical books in our 
physical libraries, begin their searches for information on the 
internet, using search engines, databases, the library’s online 
catalog, or a combination thereof.26 And while many theological 
students and faculty may express a preference for print books, 
the same students and faculty prefer to gain access to journal 
articles electronically.27 The fault line between preference for 
digital over print lies less along differences in age or genera-
tion (though these have been and will continue to be a factor) 
than along different types of sources employed for different 
purposes within the overall research process. This suggests that 
theological libraries will likely continue to comprise both print 
and electronic resources for some time.28 In other words, our 



Papers and Presentations  67

information environment, like that inhabited by agro-pastoral 
nomads, is dimorphic, which means that the scholars, faculty, 
staff, students who inhabit and adapt to our information envi-
ronment are also dimorphic, employing different formats for 
different purposes or to meet different needs. Thus, the central 
question is not whether students, faculty, staff, and scholars, etc. 
prefer digital or print, but rather how they use the various types 
of tools and formats available within their research environ-
ment. To discern this, it will be helpful to consider the informa-
tion-seeking behavior of students, faculty, and other scholars in 
theological libraries.29 

As in other humanities disciplines, the information-seek-
ing behavior of researchers in religion and theology may be 
described as “an idiosyncratic process of constant reading, 
‘digging,’ searching, and following leads,” with “citation chas-
ing” a commonly used strategy.30 Many have noted that conve-
nience plays a significant role in the information-seeking 
behavior of students.31 While this is a cause of concern to some 
faculty members, theological faculty members have also cited 
the convenience of electronic sources as a significant factor in 
choosing digital over print sources.32 As one faculty member 
notes, “Journal articles are great to access in pdf-files. I love to 
simply download them into my research folder without running 
around in the stacks trying to identity the right volume and 
then scan or copy them.”33 This suggests that rather than symp-
toms of laziness or lack of commitment, behaviors based on 
convenience or “satisficing” may be means of adapting to an 
information environment characterized by overabundance 
and information overload.34 For example, making online avail-
ability a criterion when selecting sources may be a strategic 
way of helping students choose a topic when so many options 
are available. Information is not scarce; what is scare is time 
and attention.35 When using the physical or digital library to 
find sources, patrons are not only “seeking information on X,” 
but also are evaluating the relative advantages of using a given 
electronic book or journal article or reference work, versus 
the print version of the same, versus the fifteen million hits on 
Google. This may explain, in part, why library patrons some-
times seem to be flittering about. As Björneborn observes in his 



68  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

article on serendipity and user information-seeking behavior, 
“When users move through an information space they may thus 
change direction and behaviour several times as their informa-
tion needs and interests may develop or get triggered depending 
on options and affordances encountered on their way through 
an information space.”36 Within the dimorphic information 
environment of theological libraries, print and digital spaces 
and sources offer different “affordances,” or properties, aspects, 
and “potential utility.”37 Discerning the affordances of print and 
digital contexts and sources will thus contribute to better under-
standing the information-seeking behavior we perceive among 
students, faculty, and scholars. 

One notable affordance of the physical library space, and 
of physical objects housed, used, and made accessible in this 
space, is their tangibility or tactility. The physical library space 
also facilitates direct, unmediated, face-to-face interactions 
between scholars and librarians.38 Moreover, the design of the 
physical library itself, the “aura” of a formal, quiet space with 
minimal distractions, is itself an important part of the service 
we provide.39 There is much to be said for “the beauty, as well 
as solemnity and sacredness” of the physical books our physi-
cal library spaces hold.40 Tactility and presence resonate with 
deeply-ingrained human needs and have profound theologi-
cal associations. This is not to suggest that theological libraries 
cannot meet the information needs of scholars through digi-
tal mediation (as enabled through networked information and 
communications technologies), but it is important to recognize 
that there are aspects of the physical library, many with deep 
spiritual and psychological connections, that cannot be fully 
replicated in a digital space.41 Browsing, or “semi-directed or 
semi-structured searching in an area of potential interest,” and 
serendipity are also widely regarded as advantages that print 
sources have over digital.42 Or, perhaps a more precise way to say 
this is that the design features of the physical library that facili-
tate browsing and serendipitous discovery are more intuitive, or 
the habit of using them has thus far been more successfully and 
deliberately inculcated, than the design features that facilitate 
browsing and serendipitous discovery in the digital library.43 
User education, and improvements in user interfaces such as 



Papers and Presentations  69

a virtual browse feature, may mitigate this discrepancy, but we 
must nonetheless “be aware that there is a part of the reading 
world, which relies upon (not just prefers) the ability to orient 
themselves in the spatial dimensions of books, and specifically 
libraries.”44 

At the same time, digital information spaces and electronic 
resources clearly provide their own affordances or advantages. 
One commonly cited advantage of digital resources such as 
e-books is their portability and accessibility. Even those who 
prefer print appreciate the ubiquitous availability of e-books 
when a print copy is unavailable, or when they are traveling.45 
Thus, one of the strengths of print resources, their tactility and 
physicality, also highlights some of the advantages of digital and 
electronic sources, their ubiquity and portability. Digital/elec-
tronic resources also have, or at least are perceived to have, the 
advantages of convenience, ease, and efficiency.46 As one student 
noted, “Through the digital form, it is easier to search through 
the several articles to pull out a main thought from a single arti-
cle you want to use for your own writing. Searching through the 
print version of several articles would be more difficult than the 
ATLA system breaking down the articles by subject.”47 Unlike 
print texts, digital sources also offer the significant affordance of 
enabling scholars to copy and paste text from a source into their 
own documents, facilitating notetaking and accurate quotations, 
which is especially useful when working with primary sources.48 

On the other hand, one common concern/complaint about 
e-resources is that those lacking page numbers can be chal-
lenging to cite.49 Others note the inability to easily highlight and 
annotate digital texts as a disadvantage. However, both have 
more to do with flaws in a particular interface than with the 
medium itself. Many digital texts do include page numbers, and 
OCR-enabled PDFs allow users to search them, take notes, and 
highlight them “as if they were printed.”50 Indeed, some schol-
ars prefer electronic formats and will scan print books to have 
in PDF format to facilitate searching and reading on a tablet.51 
Moreover, as Lincoln observes, limited highlighting and anno-
tating functions should not really be regarded as a liability in 
library e-books, since these are not encouraged behaviors when 
working with library print books.52



70  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

The foregoing suggests that “different kinds of tasks will 
drive different types of behaviors.”53 In other words, the use of a 
print or digital resource is determined less by an overall prefer-
ence for one format over the other than by the utility of one or 
the other for specific tasks. Electronic sources seem to be more 
conducive to searching, quick reference, and utilizing greater 
quantities of shorter sources such as essays, journal articles, 
articles in subject dictionaries and encyclopedias, and rele-
vant portions of commentaries on books of the Bible and other 
texts.54 Print tools, and the physical library infrastructure built 
around them, seem preferable for in-depth study, reading longer 
portions of text, and browsing. Some researchers have noted a 
correlation between the type of reading and the type of sources. 
They link “deep reading,” or “reading with the goal of long-
term retention of the material” and “perspective-transforming” 
comprehension, with print media, which “supports navigation, 
creates a sense of control, and provides tactile experiences.” 
Conversely, some have suggested that digital texts, which allow 
for scanning and searching for keywords, are more conducive 
to “surface reading,” which “seeks task-completion over reten-
tion of comprehension.”55 In light of this, one might even suggest 
that researchers may choose to limit themselves to a print text 
in order to facilitate deeper, more concentrated reading. Thus, 
using a print text, rather than gaining access to a digital text on 
the same device that dings whenever a friend has posted yet 
another cat video, may itself be thought of as strategy.56  This 
may be reflected in the fact that researchers seem to prefer 
print when they seek to ingest the contents of a book (or journal 
article) for greater understanding. When asked whether he/she 
is more likely to use the print or digital version of a given source, 
one student observed:

It depends on if I want to make notes in the book or not. 
If I am likely to read the book in depth for a paper and 
reference it, I would most likely want the book to add my 
tabs and take notes from the book. If I am just reading the 
book for an overview of an argument, I am more likely to 
use an e-book. I think for books, as opposed to articles 
from journals, the print copy is more valuable than just 



Papers and Presentations  71

an e-book. I have found myself printing out e-books, so I 
can take my own notes. If I had the print book, I could skip 
printing out the work and just add my tabs for important 
points in the book.57

Information-seeking behavior also seems to be influenced by 
the stage, quality, and duration of a research project. Students 
seem to prefer digital resources in the initial stages of a project 
and when under time constraints, whereas students engaged in 
long-term or more in-depth projects seem to prefer print.58 As 
one graduate student related: “I find it most advantageous to use 
a print version instead of a digital version when I need to utilize 
the whole scope of the print version in my research. I find it 
much easier to flip between sections, compare different portions 
of a text, and take themes or patterns in the text when using the 
print version.”59

With changes and improvements in the interfaces, includ-
ing the ability to highlight and annotate digital texts, research-
ers are becoming more comfortable in using digital sources for 
deep reading.60 Nonetheless, it is unlikely that digital sources 
will replace print sources anytime soon. In their 2016 study 
of students’ information-seeking behavior, Lopatovska and 
Regalado observed that students use electronic devices not for 
reading but “for writing, searching, watching videos, making 
calls, and making photographs of print texts.”61 Thus it would 
seem that students have adapted to using both print and digital 
sources for various tasks and information-seeking strategies. 
As one Perkins graduate student noted, “At times, I have been 
known to utilize the ebook alongside the print book in order to 
find information quickly through the search function available 
on an ebook. This happens most when the print version does not 
have a very thorough index.”62 Ultimately, we see that physical 
and digital library spaces, and the physical and digital materials 
to which they provide access, complement each other.63 We also 
see that the researchers who use them employ “a variety of deep 
and surface reading strategies” while “using both print and elec-
tronic resources.”64 Thus, “the question is not whether we read 
better from the print page or screen, but which form of reading 
is most suitable for the task and text at hand.”65



72  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

 III. Dimorphism as a heuristic image 
It should now be apparent that, despite obvious differences, 
agro-pastoral dimorphic nomadism offers a compelling meta-
phor or heuristic image for shedding light on information-
seeking behaviors evident among researchers in theological 
libraries. As we have seen, dimorphic nomadism is a means of 
adapting to a physical environment of scarcity, conducive to 
both limited agriculture and pastoralism, in order to exploit the 
limited resources thereof. Nomadism is also a strategy to retain 
a degree of autonomy and flexibility in the midst of dynamic 
social and political circumstances. Likewise, the information-
seeking behavior of researchers in theological libraries is a way 
of adapting to a “dimorphic” information environment of over-
abundance in which print and digital spaces and resources offer 
certain affordances, as well as a strategy for dealing with infor-
mation overload.66

Agro-pastoral dimorphic nomads of the Ancient Near East 
adopted strategies based on “geographic expanse, a prefer-
ence for maintaining options (i.e., flexibility), and the articu-
lation of movement, scheduling, information gathering, and 
communication” to adapt to their environment. So our students 
employ similar strategies—flexibility, “satisficing,” restrict-
ing themselves to print or digital for certain tasks or certain 
points in their research—to adapt to their environment.67 And 
just as Ancient Near Eastern nomads chose to engage in animal 
husbandry because it facilitated a more flexible strategic 
response to their environment, so our students’ information-
seeking behavior may be driven less by a preference for print 
or digital resources than by an overall strategic response to an 
environment of information overabundance given their scarcity 
of time and attention. 

 IV.  Experts in adapting to changing environment and behavior: 
the role of theological librarians
What role might theological librarians play in our dimorphic 
information environment? Again, our metaphor may prove 
useful. In his article on alternative complexities among nomads, 
Honeychurch describes experts among African nomadic tribes 



Papers and Presentations  73

who retain and possess necessary “skills in a range of produc-
tive pursuits and the expertise to contextually adjust the degree 
of investment according to conditions,” making pastoral nomad-
ism “an ideal tether for grounding diverse capabilities, skills, 
and knowledge that make possible multiple options.”68 In our 
dimorphic information environment, theological librarians 
similarly offer “skills” and “expertise” in using a variety of print 
and electronic tools to help researchers “contextually adjust” 
their research strategies “according to conditions.”69 Our voca-
tion offers a unique perspective to discern how certain types 
of information sources are more conducive to certain informa-
tion-seeking behaviors. Thus, the role of theological librarians 
is less a matter of determining whether students prefer print or 
digital and acquiring and providing access to such sources than 
it is discerning which types of resources may be more advanta-
geous for which types of tasks and helping students strategically 
adopt sources accordingly.70 Electronic texts offer the advan-
tages of searching and extracting sentences and phrases for the 
sake of quoting sources, but print books are more conducive for 
browsing and referring back and forth between sections. Elec-
tronic commentaries and journal articles are more convenient, 
since one can select only the content that is immediately rele-
vant, but this comes at the cost of serendipity and context. Print 
sources are more conducive to tasks that require deep reading 
and concentration, while electronic sources may be more conve-
nient for rapid searching, skimming, and portability. Recogniz-
ing the relative strengths and advantages of print and digital 
sources, and helping the students and scholars who use our 
libraries recognize how these advantages can facilitate accom-
plishing certain tasks, is an essential skill and vital service theo-
logical librarians offer as we seek to help our patrons adapt to 
our dimorphic information environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alizadeb, Abbas. “The Rise of the Highland Elamite State in South-
western Iran: ‘Enclosed’ or Enclosing Nomadism?” Current 
Anthropology 51, no. 3 (June 2010): 353-383.



74  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Barrett, Andy. “The Information-Seeking Habits of Graduate 
Student Researchers in the Humanities.” Journal of Academic 
Librarianship 31, no. 4 (2005): 324-331.

Barth, Fredrik. “A General Perspective on the Nomad-Sedentary 
Relations in the Middle East.” In The Desert and the Sown: Nomads 
in the Wider Society, edited by Cynthia Nelson, 11-21. Berkeley, 
CA: Institute of International Studies, 1973.

Björneborn, Lennart. “Serendipity Dimensions and Users’ Infor-
mation Behaviour in the Physical Library Interface.” Informa-
tion Research 13, no. 4 (December 2008), http://InformationR.net/
ir/13-4/paper370.html.

Buccellati, Giorgio, “Apirū and Munnabtūtu-The Stateless of the 
First Cosmopolitan Age.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36, no. 2 
(April 1977): 145-147.

Catalano, Amy. “Patterns of Graduate Students’ Information Seek-
ing Behavior: A Meta-Synthesis of the Literature.” Journal of Docu-
mentation 69, no. 2 (2013): 243-274.

Connaway, Lynn Sillipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. 
“‘If It Is Too Inconvenient I’m Not Going After It’: Convenience 
as a Critical Factor in Information-Seeking Behaviors.” Library & 
Information Science Research 33 (2011): 179–190.

Cribb, Roger. Nomads in Archaeology. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1991.

Elia, Anthony. “Beyond Barthes and Chartier: The Theology of 
Books in the Digital Age.” ATLA 2008 Proceedings: 104-116.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Avi Perevolotsky. “Process of Sedentariza-
tion and Nomadization in the History of Sinai and the Negev.” 
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279 (August 
1990): 67-88.

Ge, Xuemei. “Information-Seeking Behavior in the Digital Age: A 
Multidisciplinary Study of Academic Researchers.” College & 
Research Libraries 34, no. 2 (September 2010): 435-455.

Gellner, Ernest. “Introduction: Approaches to Nomadism.” In The 
Desert and the Sown: Nomads in the Wider Society, edited by Cynthia 
Nelson, 1-9. Berkeley, CA: Institute of International Studies, 
1973.

http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html
http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html


Papers and Presentations  75

Honeychurch, William. “Alternative Complexities: The Archaeology 
of Pastoral Nomadic States.” Journal of Archaeological Research 22, 
No. 4 (December 2014): 277-326.

Lincoln, Timothy D. “Reading and E-reading for Academic Work: 
Patterns and Preferences in Theological Studies and Religion.” 
Theological Librarianship 6, no. 2 (July 2013): 34-52.

Liverani, Mario. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. 
Trans. Soraia Tabatabai. London: Routledge, 2014.

——— . “‘Half-Nomads’ on the Middle Euphrates and the Concept of 
Dimorphic Society.” Altorientalische Forschungen 24 (1997): 44-48.

Liyana, S. and A. Noorhidawati. “How Graduate Students Seek for 
Information: Convenience or Guaranteed Result?” Malaysian 
Journal of Library and Information Science 19, no. 2 (2014): 1-15.

Lopatovska, Irene, and Deanna Sessions. “Understanding Academic 
Reading in the Context of Information-seeking.” Library Review 
65, no. 8/9 (2016): 502-518.

Lopatovska, Irene, and Mariana Regalado. “How Students Use Their 
Libraries: A Case Study of Four Academic Libraries.” College and 
Undergraduate Libraries 23, no. 4 (2016): 381-399.

Mann, Thomas. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. New York: 
Oxford, 2005.

Martin, Kim and Anabel Quan-Haase. “Are E-Books Replacing Print 
Books? Tradition, Serendipity, and Opportunity in the Adoption 
and Use of E-Books for Historical Research and Teaching.” Jour-
nal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, 
no. 5 (2013): 1016–1028.

Nichols, John. “Amorite Agro-Pastoralism and the Early- to Middle 
Bronze Age Transition in Syria.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Johns 
Hopkins University, 2004. ProQuest (3130750). 

Porter, Anne. Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civi-
lizations: Weaving Society Together. New York: Cambridge, 2012.

Robinson, Tami Echavarria. “Unanticipated Fortuitous Information 
Discoveries: Serendipity in Research.” Alki (March 2014): 13-15.

Rowton, Michael B. “Autonomy and Nomadism in Western Asia.” 
Orientalia, Nova Series 42 (1973): 247-258.

——— . “Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element.” Journal of 
Near Eastern Studies 36, no. 3 (July 1977): 181-198.



76  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

——— . “Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the ‘apirû-‘ibrîm.” 
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, no. 1 (January 1976): 13-20.

——— . “Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite.” Al-bahit (1976): 
219-257.

——— . “Dimorphic Structure and Topology.” Oriens Antiquus 15 
(1976): 17-31.

Stefanut, Romulus D. “Survey on Information Needs/Information 
Seeking Behavior of Seminary Students.” Paper presented to 
the 2017 American Theological Library Association conference, 
Atlanta, Georgia, June 17, 2017.

Sukovic, Suzana. “Transliterate Reading.” Scholarly and Research 
Communication 6, no. 4 (2015): 1-11.

Swidler, W.W. “Adaptive Processes Regulating Nomad-Sedentary 
Interaction in the Middle East.” In The Desert and the Sown: Nomads 
in the Wider Society, edited by Cynthia Nelson, 23-41. Berkeley, 
CA: Institute of International Studies, 1973.

Vinyard, Marc, Colleen Mullally, and Jaimie Beh Colvin, “Why 
Do Students Seek Help in an Age of DIY?: Using a Qualitative 
Approach to Look Beyond Statistics.” Reference & User Services 
Quarterly 56, no. 4 (2017): 257–267.

Wilson, T.D. “Models in Information Behaviour Research.” Journal of 
Documentation 55, no. 3 (June 1999): 249-270. 

Wolff-Eisenberg, Christine, Alisa B. Rod, and Roger C. Schonfeld. 
Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18665/
sr.277685

NOTES

1 Wilson defines “information seeking behavior” as “Those activi-
ties a person may engage in when identifying their own need 
for information, searching for information and using or trans-
ferring that information.” T.D. Wilson, “Models in Information 
Behaviour Research,” Journal of Documentation 55, no. 3 (June 
1999): 249.

2 Israel Finkelstein and Avi Perevolotsky, “Process of Sedentariza-
tion and Nomadization in the History of Sinai and the Negev,” 
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279 (August 
1990): 68, 73.

https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.277685
https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.277685


Papers and Presentations  77

3 Focusing attention on the Ancient Near East provides limit-
ing parameters for the topic at hand, though because similar 
dynamics have prevailed in more recent times, this overview 
will also incorporate analyses of “modern” nomads. As Rowton 
rightly observes, given a “physical environment [that] is condu-
cive to nomadism” and continuity in social structure, “one might 
expect rather similar conditions in diachronic perspective, even 
at considerable intervals of time.” Michael B. Rowton, “Dimor-
phic Structure and the Tribal Elite,” Al-bahit (1976): 230.

4 Anne Porter, Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civi-
lizations: Weaving Society Together (New York: Cambridge, 2012), 87.

5 Cribb observes that one of the “implications” of the environment 
of the region is that the main access routes through the moun-
tains of the region are also (necessarily) the migration routes of 
nomads, “bringing them into continual contact with sedentary 
society.” He notes that while pastoral and agricultural produc-
tion may be integrated at various levels, from family, to commu-
nity, to society, this need not suggest the two modes of existence 
are meant to “ensure a balanced diet” or “even out ecological 
imbalances.” Nonetheless, the need for adequate sustenance 
amidst ecological variations has been a significant factor in the 
modes of existence evident among people in the region. Roger 
Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology (New York: Cambridge University 
Press, 1991), 8, 24-25. See also Michael B. Rowton, “Dimorphic 
Structure and Topology,” Oriens Antiquus 15 (1976): 23.

6 Michael B. Rowton, “Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial 
Element,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36, no. 3 (Jul., 1977): 196. 
“This form of integration is conditioned by the physical envi-
ronment.” Rowton, “Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite,” 
220. Barth notes that this symbiosis is evident in the similar diet 
common among nomads and villagers. He also lists factors that 
contribute to the balance between the pasture and the sown in 
a given region. Frederik Barth, “A General Perspective on the 
Nomad-Sedentary Relations in the Middle East,” in The Desert and 
the Sown: Nomads in the Wider Society, ed. Cynthia Nelson (Berke-
ley, CA: Institute of International Studies, 1973), 18-19.

7 Abbas Alizadeb, “The Rise of the Highland Elamite State in 
Southwestern Iran: ‘Enclosed’ or Enclosing Nomadism?” Current 



78  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Anthropology 51, no. 3 (June 2010): 354; Porter, Mobile Pastoral-
ism, 24; Mario Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society and 
Economy, trans. Soraia Tabatabai (London: Routledge, 2014), 
222; John Nichols, “Amorite Agro -Pastoralism and the Early- to 
Middle Bronze Age Transition in Syria,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, The 
Johns Hopkins University, 2004, ProQuest Order No. 3130750), 
12-14, 45-47; Rowton, “Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial 
Element,” 181.

8 On topology see, Michael B. Rowton, “Autonomy and Nomadism 
in Western Asia,” Orientalia, Nova Series 42 (1973): 248; Rowton 
“Dimorphic Structure and Topology,” 17, 20-21; on migration, 
see, Finkelstein and Perevolotsky, “Process of Sedentarization,” 
68; Rowton “Autonomy and Nomadism,” 250; Rowton, “Dimor-
phic Structure and Topology,” 18.

9 Rowton, “Autonomy and Nomadism,” 247-248; see also the map 
in Rowton, “Dimorphic Structure and Topology,” 31. Liverani 
notes that although the phrase “dimorphic zone” is commonly 
used “to define an area characterized by a mixed economy,” 
as originally introduced by Marcel Mauss, the term referred to 
seasonal dimorphism, wherein “the same area of population 
takes on different behavioral patterns at different times of the 
year.” He thus observes that, in this sense, the Ancient Near East 
was “not ‘dimorphic’ because pastoral groups coexisted with 
cites and agricultural villages” but because “the agro-pasto-
ral population concentrated in the irrigated lands during the 
dry summers, and was much more dispersed in the pastures 
and steppes during the wetter winters and springs. It therefore 
followed those transhumant patterns that seasonally separated 
and reunited families and larger kin groups alike.” Liverani, The 
Ancient Near East, 176. I am using the term to refer both to the 
dimorphic patterns of behavior and to the environments that 
made such patterns possible and necessary. See also Nichols, 
“Amorite Agro -Pastoralism,” 13-14, 20-21, 42; Mario Liverani, 
“‘Half-Nomads’ on the Middle Euphrates and the Concept of 
Dimorphic Society,” Altorientalische Forschungen 24 (1997): 44, 45.

10 Alizadeb, “Rise of Highland Elamite State,” 353, note 1; Finkel-
stein and Perevolotsky, “Process of Sedentarization,” 80; Rowton 
“Autonomy and Nomadism,” 249; Rowton, “Dimorphic Structure 



Papers and Presentations  79

and the Parasocial Element,” 196; Rowton, “Dimorphic Structure 
and Topology,” 18, 19, 21.

11 Rowton, Michael B. “Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the 
‘apirû-‘ibrîm.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, no. 1 (Jan., 1976): 14.

12 Modern Western readers, who can trace to the urban centers 
of the Ancient Near East the origins of many innovations that 
characterize our own civilization—cities, government, writ-
ing, law, and art—may thus find it surprising that in the case of 
the Hebrew Bible authorial sympathies seem to lie not with the 
sedentary populations, but with the pastoralists. It is Cain, the 
farmer, who is responsible for the violence and murder. It is the 
Philistines and Canaanites, the enemies of God’s people, who 
occupy the cities and confront the Israelites with the innovations 
of civilization such as bronze and iron weapons and chariots. 
It is the Egyptians who oppress the children of Israel. Abraham 
may have come out of Ur, but he lived as a pastoral nomad in the 
land of Canaan, a apiru whose descendants declared without 
shame, “a wondering Aramean was my father.” See, Porter, Mobile 
Pastoralism, 1; Giorgio Buccellati, “Apirū and Munnabtūtu-The 
Stateless of the First Cosmopolitan Age,” Journal of Near East-
ern Studies 36, no. 2 (April 1977): 145-147; Rowton, “Dimorphic 
Structure and the Parasocial Element,” 195.

13 Porter, Mobile Pastoralism, 11. Nichols cites the Mari letters as 
evidence of the “social dimorphism of Amorite groups.” Nichols, 
“Amorite Agro –Pastoralism,” 307.

14 Porter, Mobile Pastoralism, 13, 36-37.
15 Finkelstein and Perevolotsky, “Process of Sedentarization,” 

68; Honeychurch similarly observes that “the role of farm-
ing and domestic grain in pastoral nomadic economies is quite 
diverse.” William Honeychurch, “Alternative Complexities: The 
Archaeology of Pastoral Nomadic States,” Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Research 22, no. 4 (December 2014): 286-287, 288. Swidler 
similarly notes the “ease with which a nomadic group can move 
along the nomadic-sedentary continuum.” W.W. Swidler, “Adap-
tive Processes Regulating Nomad-Sedentary Interaction in the 
Middle East,” in The Desert and the Sown, 31.

16 Porter, Mobile Pastoralism, 22.



80  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

17 Finkelstein and Perevolotsky, “Process of Sedentarization,” 
70-71; Ernest Gellner, “Introduction: Approaches to Nomad-
ism,” in The Desert and the Sown, 2. Note that this understanding 
differs considerably from that with which Liverani takes issue, 
which sees dimorphic nomadism as a kind of evolutionary stage 
between “pure” nomadism and sedentary existence, noting that 
the persistence of “the dimorphic model” in the same area since 
at least the Bronze Age suggests that it is a means of adapting to 
the environment rather than a stage in social evolution. Liver-
ani, “‘Half-Nomads,’” 47-48.

18 Finkelstein and Perevolotsky, “Process of Sedentarization,” 75; 
Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology, 23-27; Rowton “Autonomy and 
Nomadism,” 254-256.

19 Honeychurch, “Alternative Complexities,” 287. Honeychurch 
observes that nomads became adept at “sustaining a system 
of conversions that makes animals, goods, services, skills, and 
information interchangeable, so that underlying value might be 
preserved or even enhanced in multiple forms despite variation 
over space and time” (296).

20 Honeychurch, 288-289.
21 Honeychurch notes that “Herodotus’ theory of nomadism was 

one of positive emphasis on strategy: a mobile strategy that both 
grew out of and imposed a different way of life (Herodotus 2003, 
p. 282).” Honeychurch, 278, 309. This is not to suggest that such 
conflicts between distinct groups of “socially dimorphic” agro-
pastoralists and sedentary populations did not occur. See Nich-
ols, “Amorite Agro –Pastoralism,” 314-315; Rowton, “Dimorphic 
Structure and the Parasocial Element,” 196.

22 Honeychurch, “Alternative Complexities,” 279, 288, 290, 294, 
298. He notes that “when it comes to politics within a mobile 
society, mobility related techniques for negotiating political 
relationships were likely as much about contesting, asserting, or 
consenting to authority as about evading it” (291). See also Aliza-
deb, “Rise of Highland Elamite State,” 355.

23 Honeychurch, “Alternative Complexities,” 295. In this light, 
the story of Cain and Abel may take on deeper significance. If 
nomadism was a strategy, not merely a means of adapting to 
needs of herding animals, then it is possible that this story bears 



Papers and Presentations  81

political undertones. Thus, it is not merely an expression of pref-
erence for animal vs. grain offerings, or of a nomadic vs. seden-
tary lifestyle, but a subtle critique of the established hegemonic 
states in the form of divine sanction for nomadic strategies used 
to adapt to and subvert the established states represented by 
Cain’s offering.

24 Lennart Björneborn, “Serendipity Dimensions and Users’ Infor-
mation Behaviour in the Physical Library Interface,” Informa-
tion Research 13, no. 4 (December 2008), http://InformationR.net/
ir/13-4/paper370.html.

25 On theology faculty, see Timothy D. Lincoln, “Reading and 
E-reading for Academic Work: Patterns and Preferences in 
Theological Studies and Religion,” Theological Librarianship 6, no. 
2 (July 2013): 42; Christine Wolff-Eisenberg, Alisa B. Rod, and 
Roger C. Schonfeld, Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey 2015 (Ithaka S+R, 
April 4, 2016), 6, 20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.277685. 
Lincoln discusses the distinction between “digital natives” and 
“digital immigrants,” though he notes that some have challenged 
the correlation between facility with technology and the year in 
which one was born (45, note 23). On preferences for print, see 
Lincoln, “Reading and E-Reading,” 42; Jonah Arellano, “Print 
vs. Digital Textbooks,” Rural Telecommunications (Jan/Feb 2011): 
8; Irene Lopatovska and Mariana Regalado, “How Students 
use Their Libraries: A Case Study of Four Academic Librar-
ies,” College and Undergraduate Libraries 23, no. 4 (2016): 382-383; 
Kelsey Spinnato, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.

26 Catalano, “Patterns of Graduate Students’ Information Seeking 
Behavior: A Meta-Synthesis of the Literature,” Journal of Docu-
mentation 69, no. 2 (2013): 260; Wolff-Eisenberg, Rod, and Schon-
feld, Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey 2015, 11; Liyana and Noorhidawati. 
“How Graduate Students Seek for Information: Convenience or 
Guaranteed Result?” Malaysian Journal of Library and Information 
Science 19, no. 2 (2014): 10, 12.

27 Indeed, the 2015 Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey found that “Nearly 
three-quarters of faculty members overall strongly agreed that 
if their library cancelled the current issues of a print version of 
a journal but continued to make them available electronically, it 
would be fine with them.” Wolff-Eisenberg, Rod, and Schonfeld, 

http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html
http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html
https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.277685


82  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey, 17. However, in his paper presented 
to the 2017 ATLA annual conference, Stefanut suggests this 
preference is not universal. Romulus D. Stefanunt, “Survey on 
Information Needs/Information Seeking Behavior of Seminary 
Students,” (paper presented to the 2017 American Theological 
Library Association annual conference, Atlanta, Georgia, June 
17, 2017).

28 Anthony Elia, “Beyond Barthes and Chartier: The Theology of 
Books in the Digital Age,” ATLA 2008 Proceedings: 104.

29 S. Liyana, and A. Noorhidawati. “How Graduate Students Seek 
for Information,” 2. For a compilation of definitions of “infor-
mation-seeking behavior,” see Irene Lopatovska and Deanna 
Sessions, “Understanding Academic Reading in the Context of 
Information-seeking.” Library Review 65, no. 8/9 (2016): 503.

30 Andy Barrett, “The Information-Seeking Habits of Graduate 
Student Researchers in the Humanities,” Journal of Academic 
Librarianship 31, no. 4 (2005): 327.

31 “Convenience is a situational criterion in people’s choices and 
actions during the information-seeking process. The concept 
can include their choice of an information source, their satisfac-
tion with the source and its ease of use, and their time horizon 
in information seeking.” Lynn Sillipigni Connaway, Timothy J. 
Dickey, and Marie L. Radford, “‘If It Is Too Inconvenient I’m Not 
Going after It’: Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-
Seeking Behaviors,” Library & Information Science Research 33 
(2011): 180. See also Catalano, “Patterns of Graduate Students’ 
Information Seeking Behavior,” 265; Liyana and Noorhidawati, 
“How Graduate Students Seek for Information,” 3.

32 Martin and Quan-Haase note that the history faculty members 
they interviewed “were concerned about students only going 
so far to seek for specific source material” and “were worried 
that students would potentially switch their topic of interest 
if it was too difficult to find the relevant text.” Kim Martin and 
Anabel Quan-Haase, “Are E-Books Replacing Print Books? Tradi-
tion, Serendipity, and Opportunity in the Adoption and Use of 
E-Books for Historical Research and Teaching,” Journal of the 
American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 5 
(2013):1023.



Papers and Presentations  83

33 Suzanne Scholz, personal communication, March 14, 2018; 
Connaway et al. note similar observations regarding students’ 
preference for electronic journal articles. Connaway, Dickey, 
Radford, “If it is too inconvenient,” 180.

34 “Satisficing is a combination of the words satisfy and suffice, and 
reflects upon the user’s behaviour to choose what is satisfactory 
(or good enough) rather than what is best (Byron 2004).” Liyana 
and Noorhidawati, “How Graduate Students Seek for Informa-
tion,” 3. This of course does not rule out laziness as a contribut-
ing factor. See Marc Vinyard, Colleen Mullally, and Jaimie Beh 
Colvin, “Why Do Students Seek Help in an Age of DIY?: Using a 
Qualitative Approach to Look Beyond Statistics,” Reference & User 
Services Quarterly 56, no. 4 (2017): 259.

35 Connaway, Dickey, and Radford, “If It Is Too Inconvenient,” 179.
36 Björneborn, “Serendipity Dimensions and Users’ Informa-

tion Behavior,” http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html; 
Lopatovska and Regalado likewise found students simultane-
ously using and switching between multiple print and electronic 
media, “How Students use Their Libraries,” 388.

37 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v., “Affordance.”
38 Björneborn, “Serendipity Dimensions and Users’ Information 

Behavior,” http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html; Amy 
Catalano, “Patterns of Graduate Students’ Information Seeking 
Behavior,”260.

39 See Lopatovska and Regalado, “How Students Use Their Librar-
ies,” 382.

40 Elia, “Beyond Barthes and Chartier,” 105.
41 Elia, “Beyond Barthes and Chartier,” 105-106, 107, 108.
42 On browsing, see Xuemei Ge, “Information-Seeking Behavior in 

the Digital Age: A Multidisciplinary Study of Academic Research-
ers,” College & Research Libraries 34, no. 2 (September 2010): 437. 
On serendipity, see Tami Echavarria Robinson, “Unanticipated 
Fortuitous Information Discoveries: Serendipity in Research,” Alki 
(March 2014): 13-15. On the advantages of print, see Martin and 
Quan-Haase, “Are E-Books Replacing Print Books?” 1024, 1027.

43 Björneborn, “Serendipity Dimensions and Users’ Informa-
tion Behavior,” http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html; 

http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html
http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html
http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html


84  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

Catalano, “Patterns of Graduate Students’ Information Seeking 
Behavior,” 266. Thomas Mann rightly observes that the seren-
dipitous discoveries that occur in the library are not the result of 
luck, but of systems carefully designed to facilitate such discov-
eries. Thomas Mann, The Oxford Guide to Library Research (New 
York: Oxford, 2005), 61.

44 Elia, “Beyond Barthes and Chartier,” 109.
45 Kelsey Spinnato, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018; 

Suzanne Scholz, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.
46 The history faculty interviewed by Martin and Quan-Haase indi-

cated they “were likely to use the e-book when it was convenient 
to them,” thus suggesting that faculty members’ preference for 
print is a qualified preference. Martin and Quan-Haase, “Are 
E-Books Replacing Print Books?” 1025.

47 Andrew Nelson, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.
48 Lincoln, “Reading and E-Reading,” 45; Mitchell Kennard, 

personal correspondence, March 15, 2018.
49 Scholz, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018; Kennard, 

personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.
50 Spinnato, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.
51 Kennard, personal correspondence, March 15, 2018.
52 Lincoln, “Reading and E-Reading,” 44.
53 Catalano, “Patterns of Graduate Students’ Information Seeking 

Behavior,” 267.
54 Roy Heller, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.
55 Lopatovska and Sessions, “Understanding Academic Reading,” 

505-507; Suzana Sukovic, “Transliterate Reading,” Scholarly and 
Research Communication 6, no. 4 (2015): 2, 4.

56 The same internet that allows students to instantly find infor-
mation on almost anything, and download twenty journal arti-
cles from a library database in ten minutes or less, also allows 
the constant bombardment of updates from social media that 
our cultural context expects us to respond to instantly. Lines 
between work and leisure are increasingly blurred when the 
same devices that distract me with cat videos when I am trying 
to write an exegesis paper also reminds me that said paper is 
due when I am trying to have some downtime.



Papers and Presentations  85

57 Andrew Nelson, personal communication, March 15, 2018. 
Lopatovska and Regalado similarly observed “several students 
printing electronic texts for easier reading,” “How Students Use 
Their Libraries,” 389-390.

58 Lopatovska and Regalado, “How Students Use Their Libraries,” 
391.

59 Lisa Hancock, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.
60 Lopatovska and Sessions, “Understanding Academic Reading,” 

512.
61 Lopatovska and Regalado, “How Students Use Their Libraries,” 

393.
62 Hancock, personal correspondence, March 14, 2018.
63 Björneborn, “Serendipity Dimensions and Users’ Informa-

tion Behavior,” http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html; 
Sukovic, “Transliterate Reading,” 4, 5.

64 Lopatovska and Sessions, “Understanding Academic Reading,” 
511.

65 Sukovic, “Transliterate Reading,” 10.
66 Honeychurch’s observation regarding the functioning of a state 

across distance through symbolic representation, ideology, 
and partial and episodic participation may perhaps suggest a 
further analogy with distance students. Honeychurch, “Alterna-
tive Complexities,” 284-285. Nomadism also raises questions of 
ownership vs. access. See Swidler, “Adaptive Processes,” 25.

67 Honeychurch, “Alternative Complexities,” 294.
68 Honeychurch, 293-294; Vinyard, Mullally, and Colvin, “Why Do 

Students Seek Help,” 263-264.
69 Honeychurch, “Alternative Complexities,” 293-294.
70 Catalano (citing Barry 1997) notes that many doctoral super-

visors themselves employ a limited range of search strategies 
and tend to continue to use those they themselves learned in 
graduate school. This suggests that as “experts” librarians can 
play a vital role in fostering more sophisticated search strate-
gies among graduate students and in introducing students and 
faculty to resources that may enable them to perform certain 
research-related tasks more efficiently. Catalano, “Patterns of 
Graduate Students’ Information Seeking Behavior,” 264.

http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html

