Repository Thinking

Repository Thinking: Building Professional Memory in the Age of Digital Abundance

Michael V. Miller and Anna S. CohenMiller

Abstract

Digital abundance has greatly expanded instructor access to valuable professional knowledge while making sustained attention to useful sources increasingly difficult. This article introduces Repository Thinking, an orientation that shifts attention upstream from individual resources to the continuing sources that produce them. We situate Repository Thinking within the broader problem of Professional Memory: how professional knowledge, judgments, relationships, and pathways remain recoverable and reconsiderable across time. We operationalize Repository Thinking through three recurring functions—Discovery, Monitoring, and Organization (DMO)—and examine online video repositories as a case in which potentially valuable continuing sources remain unevenly visible within sociology’s professional information environment. We show how repository-level attention can support selective professional continuity while adapting to changing technologies. Repository Thinking can help instructors move from episodic resource discovery toward cumulative professional development while suggesting how disciplinary institutions might make valuable continuing sources more professionally visible.

Keywords: Repository Thinking; Professional Memory; online video repositories; RSS; social bookmarking

 

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, digital technologies have transformed how professionals produce, distribute, and encounter knowledge. Instructors now have access to an extraordinary range of teaching resources, often almost immediately. Yet expanded access has created its own problem: valuable resources across a wide range of media are produced and circulated at a scale that makes sustained professional attention increasingly difficult.

This abundance developed through several overlapping technological changes. Digitization sharply reduced the costs of reproducing, storing, and distributing information, while the Web enabled material to circulate far beyond its original institutional and geographic boundaries. As publishing tools became easier to use and broadband, smartphones, streaming, online video, podcasts, and social media expanded, individuals and organizations could produce and distribute material directly and continuously. The result is not simply more information, but a much larger and more heterogeneous population of continuing sources producing potentially valuable professional knowledge.

The challenge, then, is no longer simply gaining access to useful professional knowledge, but ensuring that valuable encounters accumulate across time. An instructor may discover an excellent article while preparing a class, encounter an informative resource through a colleague, or unexpectedly come across something valuable while pursuing an entirely different need. Such encounters may serve an immediate purpose. Their longer-term value also depends on whether the knowledge gained remains available after the immediate need has passed.

We use the term Professional Memory to describe the recoverable continuity of professional knowledge, judgments, relationships, and pathways across time. It extends beyond unaided recall to include knowledge of what has proved useful, which sources have produced worthwhile work, how resources and sources relate to professional interests, and how that knowledge can later be recovered. Its purposes range from the immediate—recovering the name of a resource considered during an earlier semester—to the developmental: reconsidering previous judgments, recognizing patterns across years, and refining intellectual perspective.

The underlying problem is not new. In his appendix “On Intellectual Craftsmanship” to The Sociological Imagination, Mills (1959) emphasized maintaining a “file” that brought experience, reading, ideas, and developing work into a continuing relationship. Professional Memory extends this concern to an information environment in which valuable knowledge is encountered across a much larger and more heterogeneous range of sources. It does not arise automatically from experience; it depends upon whether enough of that experience remains recoverable to inform later work.

The growing abundance and diversity of available material make this problem more consequential. By allowing people and organizations outside academia to reach large audiences directly, online platforms have greatly broadened the range of sources potentially useful for teaching sociology.

At the same time, contemporary search systems can locate useful resources rapidly. But ease of discovery does not ensure that either the resource or knowledge of its source remains available for later work. A valuable resource may be lost; even when it is saved, its source may disappear from professional awareness, along with other useful work that source has produced or may produce in the future.

This resource/source distinction provides the starting point for Repository Thinking. When instructors encounter a useful resource, Repository Thinking also asks them to consider its source: Who produced this—and what else have they produced, or might they produce? It directs attention beyond individual resources to potentially valuable continuing sources and asks what would keep knowledge of those sources part of professional awareness over time.

Our larger argument is that digital abundance requires more than the typically employed means of finding professional knowledge. It also requires continuity among valuable resources, their sources, and the professional judgments that recognize their value. Repository Thinking provides an orientation toward this problem; the sections that follow develop that orientation and the practices through which selected source relationships can become part of Professional Memory.

2. Repository Thinking and the Functions of Professional Memory

Repository Thinking begins with a simple shift in attention: from a valuable resource to the source from which it emerged. An article may reveal a journal, organization, or scholar with a substantial body of relevant work, just as a useful video, podcast, or other resource may provide entry into a larger body of related material. An individual resource can therefore function not only as an endpoint of discovery but as a gateway to a continuing source of professional knowledge.

This movement can be understood as looking upstream from the encountered resource to the continuing source behind it. A useful item provides evidence not only of its own value but potentially of the value of its producer, collection, or repository. The two judgments are distinct: deciding that an individual resource is worth preserving does not necessarily entail recognizing that its source may merit continuing attention. When that second judgment is made, however, a successful past discovery can become infrastructure for future discovery. Once identified and preserved, a continuing source can be revisited or, where appropriate, monitored for subsequent contributions. Discovery is therefore potentially recursive: an item discovered today may lead to a source that generates discoveries tomorrow.

At first glance, this may seem self-evident. Scholars routinely notice authors, journals, organizations, and other sources whose work they value. Repository Thinking does not claim to introduce this familiar movement from resource to source. Rather, it makes explicit something that can easily be taken for granted: recognizing a source does not ensure that it will be investigated as a continuing source, remain visible after the immediate encounter, or become part of recoverable professional knowledge. Recognizing a source is commonplace; sustaining a professional relationship with it requires additional practices and supports.

The distinction may be difficult to see because established scholarly environments already provide many of these supports. Journals, for example, have recognizable identities, archives, indexing systems, citation networks, subscription mechanisms, and disciplinary reputations that facilitate discovery, recognition, continuing awareness, and recovery. Continuing attention to journals can therefore appear to occur naturally when, in fact, an institutional infrastructure sustains it to a great extent. Many digital sources lack this infrastructure, leaving more of the work of discovering, monitoring, and organizing them to individual professionals.

We use repository broadly for identifiable sources through which related bodies of professional knowledge have accumulated or continue to emerge. Repository boundaries need not coincide with a platform. A creator or project encountered through a YouTube video, for example, may maintain a larger body of work across media and platforms. Repositories need not remain active; dormant or archival sources may retain substantial professional value.

Repository Thinking therefore concerns more than identifying who produced something. When a resource proves valuable, its source may warrant investigation and potentially a continuing place within Professional Memory. This does not require maintaining awareness of every source encountered. Repository Thinking is necessarily selective: it calls attention to sources judged sufficiently valuable to carry forward.

In this sense, Repository Thinking is best understood as a sensitizing concept rather than a technology or organizational system. In Blumer's (1954) sense, sensitizing concepts provide general guidance in approaching empirical instances rather than prescribing fixed attributes through which every instance must be defined. Repository Thinking operates in this spirit by making source-level attention explicit and directing attention toward a feature of the knowledge environment that may otherwise go unnoticed: the larger source behind an encountered resource and the possibility of a continuing professional relationship with it.

DMO within a Larger Functional Environment

Professional Memory depends upon multiple information practices and conditions through which professional knowledge becomes visible, remains accessible, and can later be brought to bear on teaching and research. Within that larger environment, we give particular attention to three recurring functions: Discovery, Monitoring, and Organization (DMO). Discovery concerns locating or encountering potentially valuable resources and sources; Monitoring maintains awareness of selected active sources; and Organization preserves accumulated knowledge in forms that support later retrieval and use.

These functions are interdependent rather than necessarily sequential, and evaluation operates throughout them as a continuing exercise of professional judgment. When attention shifts from individual resources to repositories, DMO can bring potentially valuable sources into awareness, maintain visibility of selected active repositories, and preserve accumulated knowledge. DMO thereby supports Professional Memory, whose value ultimately depends upon whether preserved knowledge can later be retrieved, reconsidered, and applied, as well as upon the persistence of the external resources and repositories to which that knowledge refers. Section 4 develops the operational significance of DMO.

Established Antecedents

The functions represented within DMO are well established within information-practice traditions. Research on scholarly information behavior and personal information management has examined searching, monitoring, keeping, organizing, retrieving, and using information across time, including the distinction between finding information for an immediate need and keeping encountered information for anticipated future use (Ellis 1989; Meho and Tibbo 2003; Jones 2007). Related work on personal knowledge management and educational curation has examined continuing processes of interpreting, organizing, connecting, and reusing professional knowledge and educational resources (Jarche 2020; Leighton and Griffioen 2023; Leighton, Griffioen, and Elen 2026).

Repository Thinking directs these familiar information functions not only toward individual resources but also toward the continuing sources from which professionally valuable resources emerge.

From Functions to Practice

Identifying these functions does not mean that they are systematically integrated into professional practice. Meho and Tibbo's (2003) study of social scientists found substantial monitoring through listservs, journal subscriptions, conferences, colleagues, Web sources, and current-awareness tools. Their findings show that the social scientists studied maintained awareness of valued sources within familiar scholarly networks, but do not establish how far such monitoring extends across the more heterogeneous range of digital repositories considered here.

Research on Organization points more directly to fragmented practice. Studies of faculty digital information management have found varied and often semi-systematic organizational strategies, limited familiarity with personal information-management tools, information fragmentation, and a continuing burden of remembering where information has been stored (Sedghi et al. 2015; Jacques et al. 2021). Although these studies are small and drawn from various disciplinary and institutional settings, they caution against assuming that the availability of digital tools produces an integrated environment for preserving and recovering professional knowledge.

Surveys of students provide a different window onto the problem. Since 2010, the first author has asked undergraduate students from varied backgrounds and majors how they preserve valuable Web content for later recovery and how they remain aware of new content from sources they judge useful. Students commonly report preserving resources through varied combinations of device bookmarks, tabs, screenshots, in-app saves, notes, folders, and later re-searching. The contrast is considerably sharper for Monitoring. Very few students report even basic practices for maintaining awareness of continuing sources, such as subscribing to them or enabling alerts or notifications.

These responses cannot establish faculty practice and are not treated as a proxy for it. Their broader significance is that extensive experience with digital environments does not, by itself, appear to provide students with systematic and durable information-management practices. Taken together with the faculty literature, the evidence suggests an important imbalance: although there are numerous ways to preserve encountered resources, comparatively little attention may be given to maintaining awareness of the continuing sources from which those resources emerge.

The contrast is important for Repository Thinking. The issue is not whether professionals ever recognize sources; clearly they do. The question is whether source recognition develops into sufficiently durable practices of investigation, Monitoring, and Organization to support continuity across otherwise separate encounters.

Uneven Support for Repository Attention

Scholars have long recognized journals, authors, organizations, archives, and other continuing sources as worthy of sustained attention. What changes under conditions of digital abundance is the scale and heterogeneity of the environment within which such judgments must be made. Potentially valuable repositories now come from many disciplines, institutions, countries, media, and platforms. Their visibility often depends on search, recommendation, and other systems that are not organized around professional value.

This helps explain why Repository Thinking can initially appear unnecessary. In information environments where continuing sources are already highly visible and where mechanisms exist to monitor and retrieve them, much of the work required for repository-level attention is embedded in the surrounding infrastructure. Where such supports are less developed or less systematic, individual professionals must assume more of the work of discovering, monitoring, and organizing continuing sources.

These differences become clearer when we compare three prominent types of continuing sources by their production structures, principal filters, and resulting demands on DMO (Table 1).

Table 1. Repository Types, Filtering Structures, and Implications for DMO

Repository type	Entry/production structure	Principal filters	Implications for DMO
Journal	High barriers; formal institutional production	Editors, reviewers, organizations, indexing systems	DMO supported by disciplinary infrastructures
Podcast	Moderate barriers; hosts, producers, institutions, or networks	Production teams, networks, sponsorship, platforms	Greater need for individual discovery and monitoring
Video (OVR)	Low and declining barriers; decentralized individual production	Creators, platforms, algorithms, user metrics	Greater need for individual DMO

The comparison highlights an important asymmetry. Demands on professional attention vary with the institutional infrastructures that support discovery, filtering, recognition, continuing awareness, and preservation. Scholarly journals typically benefit from well-established infrastructures, whereas podcasts and OVRs occupy more heterogeneous and usually less institutionally supported positions. With less support, more responsibility falls to instructors for discovery, evaluation, ongoing awareness, and preservation.

Repository Thinking therefore extends the initial movement from resource to source into a longer-term professional practice. Looking upstream is only the beginning. Once a source has been judged valuable, the further question is whether—and how—that judgment will be carried forward. Discovery can lead to Organization, Organization can make subsequent Monitoring possible, and Monitoring can generate further Discovery. Through this recursive movement, an isolated encounter can become part of a continuing source relationship preserved within Professional Memory.

3. From Resource Curation to Repository Attention

A Tradition of Resource Curation

The preceding section noted that source-level attention can appear largely nonproblematical where established infrastructures make continuing sources recognizable and easy to follow. Sociology has a well-established tradition of locating8 and evaluating teaching resources. Online video therefore offers a particularly revealing case for examining whether attention to valuable resources extends to the continuing sources from which they emerge.

From its first issue, Teaching Sociology treated film and video as legitimate instructional resources (Smith 1973; Stoll 1973). Subsequent scholarship examined their contributions to sociological thinking and learning (Dowd 1999; Hoffmann 2006; Belet 2017; Besek and Pandey 2022) and their application across substantive areas (Fails 1988; Leblanc 1998; Dagaz and Harger 2011; Pelton 2013; Khanna and Harris 2014; Stout, Earnhart, and Nagi 2020). The journal also reviewed documentaries and instructional collections devoted to specific subfields (Grauerholz and Covert 1997; Baker-Sperry, Behringer, and Grauerholz 1999), eventually formalizing film reviews as a recurring feature.

Curated online collections extended this tradition. Sociological Images (SI), founded by Lisa Wade and Gwen Sharp in 2007, developed an extensive repository of visual materials, including video (Mayeda 2010; Wade and Sharp 2013). From 2010 through 2017, The Sociological Cinema (TSC), created by Lester Andrist, Valerie Chepp, and Paul Dean, built a searchable collection in which videos were sociologically interpreted, classified, and connected to teaching applications (Caldeira and Ferrante 2012; Andrist et al. 2014). Its contribution to teaching was recognized with MERLOT's 2012 Classics Award for Sociology. Matt Reid's Popular Sociology (PS) has continued this curatorial tradition since 2017 through an extensive collection of videos organized around sociological topics and accompanied by commentary identifying their relevance to sociology teaching.

SI, TSC, and PS warrant particular attention because they operate as curatorial repositories rather than simply collections of unrelated resources. They discover material produced elsewhere, identify its sociological significance, and organize it in ways that make dispersed resources more useful and recoverable for teaching. Their value lies substantially in the curatorial layer they place over a much larger media environment. In DMO terms, they perform important Discovery and Organization functions for instructors, primarily at the resource level.

Such curation can also direct attention toward the sources behind individual resources by identifying creators and connecting their productions to larger websites, channels, series, and projects. Its principal organizing unit, however, remains the selected resource. This distinction matters for Repository Thinking: a curated resource can become highly visible without its producer becoming equally visible as a continuing source.

TSC clearly illustrates the distinction. Videos were organized there through sociological concepts and related to others useful for teaching the same subjects, creating value by bringing together resources from unrelated producers. Sometimes TSC identified a creator's broader work; sometimes it did not. Sam Richards, for example, entered the collection through a TED talk rather than through SOC 119, the extensive video repository associated with his teaching. Recognition of the sociologist and the individual resource therefore did not necessarily make the larger repository visible.

Finally, SI, TSC, and PS also demonstrate how sustained curation can generate professional knowledge. As resources accumulate, they can be recovered, compared, and reconsidered for new teaching purposes. TSC's experience with hundreds of videos, for example, contributed to a six-part typology connecting forms of video to pedagogical functions and learning goals (Andrist et al. 2014). Such benefits, however, depend on continuing curatorial labor. Editorial stewardship at TSC remained concentrated among its founders, and by 2017 curation had slowed as academic responsibilities constrained available time (Miller and CohenMiller 2019). The case thus illustrates both the professional knowledge that can emerge from sustained curation and the difficulty of sustaining a repository dependent on continuing curatorial labor.

Other initiatives provide more institutionalized forms of resource-level support. MERLOT maintains disciplinary collections of online teaching materials and uses faculty editorial boards and peer review to evaluate selected resources for content quality, potential effectiveness as teaching tools, and ease of use. The American Sociological Association's TRAILS, launched in 2010, similarly provides a searchable, peer-reviewed collection containing thousands of sociology teaching resources, including syllabi, assignments, class activities, lectures, presentations, and assessments.

MERLOT and TRAILS differ from SI, TSC, and PS in scope and review structure, but they perform related professional functions: making instructional resources discoverable, evaluable, organized, and recoverable. Their existence further demonstrates sociology's substantial infrastructure for resource-level attention. Comparable infrastructure for recognizing and sustaining attention to the continuing sources from which many individual resources emerge remains less developed.

The Uneven Visibility of Continuing Sources

The contrast developed in Section 2 is especially useful here. Sociology instructors rarely need to “discover” journals as continuing sources. Established institutional systems make journals recognizable and discoverable, sustain awareness, and facilitate organization and retrieval. Journals thus operate within an ecology that already supports substantial elements of Discovery, Monitoring, and Organization.

When such disciplinary sources begin producing new types of media, these materials benefit from the professional visibility those sources already possess. The American Sociological Association, for example, produces videos, webinars, and other digital media that are embedded within an established institutional presence and readily surfaced through conventional search. Such materials need not attract large audiences to remain professionally visible. Independent sociology OVRs face a different problem: individual videos may attract substantial audiences without the continuing sources that produce them becoming similarly salient within the discipline's information environment.

This asymmetry helps explain why the movement from resource to source can seem self-evident in one environment and prove much less reliable in another. Digital curation involves decisions about what to attend to and from whom, increasingly mediated by human curators and platform systems (Davis 2017, 2020). SI, TSC, and PS demonstrate the value of human curation, while MERLOT and TRAILS demonstrate the contribution of more institutionalized systems of evaluation and organization. Yet without comparable mechanisms operating at the source level, a producer can repeatedly generate valuable material while remaining outside disciplinary view.

The Online Video Repository Gap

Miller and CohenMiller (2019), writing in Online Learning, used commonly employed search procedures to identify OVRs across the social sciences. These procedures located numerous OVRs in economics but only a handful in sociology. Subsequent, more intensive searching, supplemented by the broader Discovery methods described in Section 4 and Appendix A, produced a very different outcome. By August 2026, they had identified approximately 200 sociology-focused OVRs, mostly YouTube channels. The contrast suggests that the earlier finding reflected not simply the number of sociology OVRs available but how difficult they were to discover through conventional search. Although the shift to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic might explain much of the difference, inspection of channel histories suggests that relatively few of the identified OVRs originated during that period.

The collection is highly heterogeneous. Many OVRs contain videos created by sociology instructors for their students; others are associated with university programs or educational organizations. Many based outside the United States, particularly in the United Kingdom and India, provide tutorials oriented toward college sociology examinations.

To examine the disciplinary visibility of sociology OVRs more directly, we searched Teaching Sociology and selected general sociology journals—American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, Contexts, Social Forces, Social Problems, and others—using “video” and “YouTube,” along with searches for prominent repositories. We inspected apparent hits to determine whether they referred to the named repository. Rather than attempting an exhaustive content analysis, this illustrative examination asked if sociology-relevant OVRs were visible as continuing sources.

The searches revealed some attention to the general topic of online video in a few journals but very little to specific OVRs. Targeted searches for several prominent sociology OVRs located no substantive recognition of them in the sociology journals examined. Thus, although online video itself is clearly visible in the literature, continuing sources producing sociology-relevant video tend to remain outside disciplinary view.

Crash Course Sociology presents one variation on this pattern. The 44-episode series, hosted by Nicole Sweeney and organized around an introductory sociology curriculum, has accumulated tens of millions of views, with its introductory episode alone approaching five million. Its educational visibility extends beyond YouTube: the series is cataloged in numerous educational-resource collections and teacher-created guides. Within sociology, Medley-Rath (2022), writing in Socius, identified Crash Course Sociology as a popular supplementary resource and called for scholars to analyze its content. Yet we found no comparable substantive examination of the series as a continuing source in the sociology journals searched.

The absence of such attention is not inherent to online video or even to Crash Course itself. Miles, Compton, and Herold (2024), writing outside sociology, examined the larger Crash Course collection as a continuing instructional source rather than treating its videos as isolated resources. The contrast is instructive. Crash Course Sociology has achieved substantial educational visibility and some recognition within the discipline, while the larger source relationship—the series as part of a continuing body of production—has received little attention in sociology. The issue, then, is not whether OVRs can become objects of scholarly attention, but whether sociology's professional information environment makes them salient as continuing sources.

SOC 119 makes the distinction between public and disciplinary visibility especially clear. This public-facing extension of a Penn State sociology course addresses race, culture, inequality, identity, and other central sociological subjects. Its YouTube channel contains more than 2,600 videos and approaches half a million subscribers; SOC 119 reports more than 500 million views across platforms in more than 200 countries. Penn State and other media have repeatedly documented the course, its pedagogy, and its online video presence. Yet our searches located no substantive treatment of SOC 119 as a continuing online video source in the sociology journals examined or in broader academic-literature searches. SOC 119 thus demonstrates substantial public, institutional, and media visibility without corresponding recognition as a continuing source in scholarly literature.

Podcasts provide a useful comparison. Prince (2020) documented their limited attention in Teaching Sociology, after which the journal established podcast reviews as a recurring feature. Subsequent scholarship examined their use in sociology teaching (Oslawski-Lopez and Kordsmeier 2021, 2025), and Kordsmeier and Oslawski-Lopez (2026) synthesized this literature into four modes of incorporating podcasts into sociology courses. Together, these developments show growing disciplinary visibility of podcasts. 

For sociology instructors seeking video for substantive courses and topics, the relevant source universe extends far beyond repositories explicitly identified with the discipline. The approximately 200 sociology OVRs constitute a useful and relatively bounded subset, but instructors teaching social stratification, for example, may find valuable continuing sources maintained by research centers, public agencies, universities, news organizations, educational organizations, media organizations, and independent producers. Unequal Scenes, with its continuing visual documentation of spatial inequality, is one example of a source whose value for teaching stratification does not depend on identifying itself as sociological. The RSS dashboard provided in the online appendix illustrates this broader source environment by bringing together continuing sources relevant to social stratification that fall outside the sociology OVR collection. Comparable source environments surround such subjects as population, race and ethnicity, work, education, health, family, and organizations.

Because substantive relevance crosses disciplinary and institutional boundaries, the challenge is not to monitor some 200 sociology OVRs, but to identify, from a much larger and more heterogeneous source environment, a selective set worth carrying forward into Professional Memory.

Institutional Support and Repository Attention

The evidence helps clarify the apparently obvious character of Repository Thinking. The issue is not that sociologists fail to understand that resources have sources. Rather, the visibility of continuing sources depends partly on the environment through which professional knowledge is encountered.

Scholarly journals operate through editorial selection, peer review, disciplinary specialization, indexing, and reputational systems that create recognizable source-level units around which professional attention can be organized. Podcasts are more heterogeneous, although continuing series commonly have recognizable producers, archives, and subscription mechanisms, sometimes reinforced by institutional affiliations.

OVRs frequently operate with less disciplinary filtering and institutional support. Low-cost production and direct distribution let creators reach audiences without established disciplinary or publishing systems. Platform recommendations, professional networks, social media, newsletters, colleagues, and AI-assisted systems can all support Discovery. These pathways can bring repositories into view without providing disciplinary evaluation or mechanisms to sustain professional attention to them. Encountering a repository, therefore, does not mean that it will become a continuing source of professional attention.

The sociology OVR case consequently illustrates the distinction developed in Section 2 between source recognition and source continuity. A resource can be highly visible, its producer identifiable, and even its larger body of work publicly accessible without that source acquiring a durable place within disciplinary awareness. Discovery can be episodic; Professional Memory requires continuity.

Without systematic attention, valuable repositories may never enter professional view; previously encountered sources may disappear from awareness; and knowledge about them may become difficult to recover. Discovery, Monitoring, and Organization address these vulnerabilities.

4. Operationalizing Repository Thinking: The DMO Framework

Repository Thinking can be operationalized through three recurring functions: Discovery, Monitoring, and Organization. DMO is not a prescribed sequence or a particular set of technologies. It identifies functions through which potentially valuable repositories enter professional awareness, selected sources remain visible across time, and accumulated knowledge about sources and resources remains recoverable.

Evaluation runs through all three functions but is not a fourth function or separate stage. Discovery involves judgments about whether an encountered resource or source warrants further attention; Monitoring requires decisions about which sources merit continuing awareness; and Organization preserves judgments about relevance, quality, relationships, and possible use. Evaluation is the professional judgment animating DMO.

Discovery

At the repository level, Discovery begins when attention extends from an encountered resource toward its source. A useful video, article, podcast episode, visualization, interview, or other resource can prompt investigation of its producer and larger body of work. The question is not simply whether more material exists, but whether the source appears likely to constitute a continuing repository of professional value.

Discovery can begin through many pathways. Search engines, scholarly citations, colleagues, professional associations, journalism, social media, newsletters, platform recommendations, classroom preparation, and AI-assisted systems may all expose instructors to useful resources whose producers were previously unknown to them. Repository Thinking treats such encounters as potential starting points rather than endpoints. A resource discovered for one immediate purpose may reveal a source whose broader production bears on multiple courses, topics, or professional interests.

Discovery effort varies with the institutional visibility already surrounding a source. Established journals and other professionally recognized repositories generally enter instructors' awareness through disciplinary infrastructures. Less institutionally visible repositories may require greater initiative to identify and evaluate, particularly when professionally valuable sources lie outside familiar disciplinary environments.

Repository-level Discovery therefore involves a movement from resource → source → repository assessment. The discovery of a useful resource does not itself establish that its producer warrants continuing attention. It creates an occasion for that judgment.

Monitoring

Once a source has been judged worthy of continuing attention, Monitoring maintains awareness of its subsequent production. The distinction between resource and repository is especially important here: repositories are monitored; individual resources are curated. Monitoring concerns the continuing source, while evaluation and selection determine which of its particular resources warrant further attention, preservation, or use.

Monitoring is necessarily selective. Repository Thinking does not imply subscribing to every source encountered or attempting to follow everything produced by a selected repository. An instructor may discover many potentially relevant sources but monitor only those whose continuing production appears sufficiently valuable to justify sustained awareness. Even within monitored repositories, most new resources may require no further action.

This distinction helps separate Monitoring from consumption. Maintaining awareness that a repository has produced something new does not require watching, reading, listening to, saving, or using everything it produces. Monitoring instead creates an opportunity for selective evaluation. You may ignore a new item, examine it briefly, save it for later, incorporate it into teaching, connect it to an existing topic, or use it to reassess the repository itself. Often, no further action is appropriate.

A variety of mechanisms can perform this function, including email alerts, newsletters, platform subscriptions and notifications, RSS feeds, and other current-awareness systems. RSS provides a particularly clear illustration because updates from multiple selected sources can be brought into a common awareness environment without requiring repeated visits to individual websites or dependence upon platform recommendations.

Figure 1 illustrates such an environment through an RSS dashboard that brings recent production from selected journals, podcasts, and online video repositories into a common awareness environment. Its significance lies not in the software used, but in the function it performs: it makes ongoing production from dispersed repositories visible in one place, where new resources can be selectively evaluated.

Organization

Organization preserves accumulated knowledge in forms that can support later recovery, reconsideration, and use. At the repository level, this involves more than retaining individual URLs or files. It can preserve relationships among resources, their producers, the repositories through which they appear, the topics to which they relate, prior evaluations of their value, and possible professional applications.

This distinction separates resource storage from relational Organization. Saving a useful resource may allow it to be found again. Preserving information about why it was useful, who produced it, what larger repository it revealed, how that source relates to other professional interests, and how it might later be used preserves a richer portion of the professional judgment generated through the original encounter. Organization can therefore retain relationships such as:

Resource ↔ Producer ↔ Repository ↔ Topic ↔ Evaluation ↔ Use

Many technologies can support this function. Reference managers, bookmarking systems, databases, spreadsheets, notes, and other information-management environments can preserve metadata, annotations, tags, classifications, and relationships. Social bookmarking illustrates this because a saved resource can be associated with its repository, relevant sociological topics, pedagogical uses, and evaluative annotations rather than being confined to a single folder or location.

Figure 2 illustrates this form of Organization through a social-bookmarking environment in which resources, repositories, topics, and prior judgments connect through tags and annotations. Again, the particular tool is incidental to the framework. What matters is the capacity to preserve enough context and prior judgment that a later encounter does not have to begin again from an unidentified link or an unaided recollection that something useful was once found.

 

DMO as an Integrated and Recursive Practice

Discovery, Monitoring, and Organization are analytically distinguishable functions, but professional practice does not ordinarily proceed through them in a fixed sequence. The acronym DMO names functions rather than a required workflow.

Indeed, an initial encounter may commonly proceed Discovery → Organization → Monitoring. An instructor discovers a valuable resource, preserves the resource and knowledge of its source, and then decides that the source warrants continuing awareness. Monitoring subsequently produces new discoveries as additional resources appear. Those resources may be organized, related to earlier materials, or used to revise prior judgments about the source. Organization, in turn, can support later Discovery by making accumulated relationships visible and can influence Monitoring decisions as professional interests change.

DMO is therefore recursive. Discovery can lead to Organization and Monitoring; Monitoring produces further opportunities for Discovery; and Organization preserves knowledge that shapes subsequent Discovery and Monitoring. Evaluation operates throughout as professional judgment is exercised and revised.

The framework is also technology-neutral. Particular tools for Discovery, Monitoring, and Organization will change, and the same function may be performed through different technologies and professional practices. DMO identifies the functions rather than prescribing the systems through which they must be performed.

Finally, DMO is necessarily selective. Repository Thinking does not ask instructors to discover, monitor, organize, or preserve everything they encounter. Its purpose is nearly the opposite: to make it possible to sustain relationships with a comparatively small set of sources that professional judgment identifies as worth carrying forward. Through repeated cycles of Discovery, Monitoring, Organization, and evaluation, knowledge of those sources and their associated resources can become part of Professional Memory rather than remaining a succession of disconnected encounters.

5. Professional Memory and Cumulative Professional Development

Professional Memory extends beyond storage or unaided recall. Its value lies in allowing earlier knowledge, judgments, relationships, and pathways to be recovered, reconsidered, recombined with new knowledge, and applied to later work. It also lets relationships with ongoing sources persist, making future knowledge from those sources easier to recognize and use.

The value of carrying professional knowledge forward is especially evident in teaching. Goldsmid and Wilson (1980) described sociology teaching as the work of “passing on sociology.” Repository Thinking extends that concern to continuity across the instructor's professional life: how can knowledge gained in one period of teaching inform another? Across years, instructors accumulate judgments about which sources prove dependable, which resources work in particular settings, how examples illuminate concepts, how materials can be adapted, and which earlier choices merit reconsideration. Preserving these accumulated judgments keeps earlier professional knowledge available for later use, adaptation, and reconsideration.

The episodic character of teaching is not primarily an individual failure of commitment or personal organization. It is reinforced by institutional conditions. Research is expected to accumulate through publication, indexing, citation, archiving, and connection to subsequent scholarship. Teaching, by contrast, is often treated as recurrent labor to be completed one course and semester at a time. Although instructors may learn substantially through teaching, the resulting discoveries, adaptations, and judgments are less consistently documented, preserved, circulated, or rewarded. They may remain scattered across learning-management systems, personal files, and unaided memory. Heavy teaching loads, administrative demands, publication expectations, and technological change further encourage attention to immediate completion. Under such conditions, “getting through the semester” can become a rational mode of work rather than evidence of indifference to teaching. Courses can therefore accumulate without the knowledge produced through teaching accumulating with equal force.

Professional Memory helps counter this institutional tendency toward episodic teaching. By preserving selected sources, resources, relationships, pathways, and judgments, it allows one semester's learning to remain available to the next. The objective is not comprehensive documentation of everything an instructor encounters or does. It provides enough continuity for experience to become cumulative rather than repeatedly starting anew.

Professional Memory can be supported individually and collectively. Instructors can preserve knowledge accumulated through their own experience, but its benefits may remain largely personal. When journals, libraries, professional associations, repositories, and networks preserve and circulate professional knowledge, the benefits can extend across many instructors and generations of teaching. The institutional differences examined in Section 3 therefore shape not only what remains visible, but how widely Professional Memory can be shared and carried forward.

Updating Mills's Professional File

Mills's (1959) conception of the file remains useful precisely because its central principle is not tied to a particular storage technology. The file provided a way to maintain continuity across experience, reading, idea development, and intellectual work. Subsequent scholarship has emphasized both its pedagogical importance (Kaufman and Schoepflin 2009) and the continuing relevance of intellectual craftsmanship under changing conditions of sociological practice (Gane and Back 2012; Carrigan 2021). What has changed substantially is the information environment within which such craftsmanship occurs.

The contemporary professional file operates in an information environment substantially different from Mills's. Professional materials now arrive through more pathways, from a far larger and more heterogeneous population of sources, and across environments that may themselves change or disappear. Carrigan (2021), in reconsidering sociological practice under conditions of digitalization, returns to Mills's file as the continuing intellectual activity underlying more formal scholarly outputs. The contemporary problem is therefore not simply how to maintain a file, but how to preserve continuity across an increasingly distributed and changing information environment.

Repository Thinking adds a further dimension to this updated file. Mills's file was already prospective in an important sense: accumulated observations, readings, experiences, and ideas were retained partly because they might later acquire new significance or enter into new intellectual combinations. Contemporary technologies make a different kind of prospective relationship possible. Professionals can preserve not only accumulated materials and judgments but also ongoing connections to external sources whose future production may prove valuable. A journal, podcast, OVR, research center, or other repository judged valuable today can remain connected to professional awareness through Monitoring rather than depending upon the scholar to remember to return to it.

The contemporary professional file can therefore function both as a record of accumulated intellectual experience and as an infrastructure connecting earlier professional judgments to future encounters. This prospective capacity does not require anticipating what particular resources a source will produce. It means carrying prior judgments forward so sources already found valuable can continue contributing to later work.

From Episodic Search to Professional Continuity

Digital abundance encourages an episodic pattern of professional information use. A need arises; a search is conducted; a useful resource is located and applied; attention then moves elsewhere. Contemporary search systems make this process extraordinarily effective for immediate needs. What they do not necessarily provide is continuity between episodes.

Repository Thinking lets an encounter leave behind more than the resource used in that moment. Knowledge of its producer, larger repository, prior evaluation, relationships to other materials, and possible future applications can remain available for later work. Through DMO, selected encounters can therefore contribute to a cumulative professional environment rather than remaining isolated episodes.

This distinction matters because professional value changes over time. A resource rejected for one course may later become useful in another. A source discovered for a narrow purpose may begin producing material relevant to additional interests. New events may make older materials newly useful, while accumulated experience may alter an instructor's assessment of a source or resource. Professional Memory therefore depends not simply on recoverability but on reconsiderability: prior judgments must remain available without becoming permanently fixed.

The movement is from a succession of isolated searches toward continuity among encounters. DMO does not eliminate episodic searching; rather, it allows selected encounters to become part of a cumulative professional environment in which previous discoveries and judgments can contribute to later ones.

Professional Memory Across Temporal Horizons

At the shortest temporal horizon, Professional Memory supports practical recovery: locating a half-remembered video, article, example, or source when an immediate need arises. Yet recovering the item is only the beginning. Professional continuity is richer when the instructor can also recover why the item appeared useful, where it came from, how it related to a course or concept, whether it was used, and what was learned from using or rejecting it. The movement is from recovering an object toward recovering a pathway of professional thought.

Across semesters, Professional Memory allows instructional experience to inform subsequent decisions. A resource that clarified an idea, confused students, required adaptation, failed under particular conditions, or worked repeatedly can remain connected to those judgments. Across multiple years, accumulated encounters can reveal patterns: which repositories consistently produce worthwhile material, which explanations work for which purposes, how substantive interests have changed, and which earlier evaluations require revision.

These are not separate outcomes but cumulative layers. Reliable recovery supports reconnection and reconsideration; reconsideration supports more discriminating judgment; and judgment refined across repeated encounters can contribute to broader knowledge and historical perspective. The same capacity that helps an instructor find a forgotten resource can, when sustained across decades, support continuing intellectual development.

Repository Life Cycles and Persistence

Continuity becomes more complicated because repositories themselves change. Continuing sources may remain active, become dormant, migrate between platforms, alter their purposes, lose portions of their archives, or disappear altogether. Repository Thinking therefore concerns relationships with sources across time even when the sources themselves do not remain stable.

This makes it useful to distinguish Organization from Persistence. Organization concerns whether meaningful pathways to accumulated professional knowledge have been preserved. Persistence concerns whether the external resources and repositories those pathways refer to continue to exist. An instructor may have organized a resource carefully only to find that the video, website, or repository later disappears. Conversely, an external resource may persist while the instructor loses the pathway, context, or prior judgment that once made it professionally meaningful.

Lampe's (2023) discussion of TikTok illustrates the vulnerability of platform-dependent pathways. Resources embedded in changing commercial environments may become difficult to recover as accounts, links, platform policies, or access conditions change. A saved citation or URL does not by itself guarantee continuing practical access.

Other cases show the importance of institutional preservation. Following Michael Kearl's death, his influential early sociology website, A Sociological Tour Through Cyberspace, went offline. Trinity University, where Kearl had taught, subsequently restored the site, preserving access to a substantial body of material that might otherwise have disappeared. The case shows that repository persistence depends not only on individual creators but also on institutions willing to preserve accumulated work after those individuals can no longer maintain it.

Even when the external object itself disappears, Professional Memory need not disappear with it. Preserved metadata, provenance, annotations, evaluations, and pedagogical context can document what existed, why it mattered, how it was used, and what kind of replacement may later be needed. Preserving the digital object and preserving professional memory about that object are related but distinct accomplishments.

Persistence can therefore be understood as one condition affecting Professional Memory rather than something DMO can guarantee. DMO can preserve knowledge and pathways; it cannot ensure that external repositories, platforms, or resources will remain available indefinitely. Recognizing that limitation makes professional continuity partial and revisable, not permanent.

External systems can reduce the burden that continuity would otherwise place on unaided memory. Alerts, subscriptions, feeds, search systems, and other tools can support recovery and continuing awareness, but they do not determine what deserves a place within Professional Memory. Decisions about which sources warrant attention, which relationships matter, and how accumulated knowledge should be interpreted remain matters of professional judgment.

Professional Memory as a Generative Capacity

The value of Professional Memory extends beyond recovering what was previously known. When accumulated resources, source relationships, and professional judgments remain available across time, they can be recombined in ways that generate new professional knowledge.

The history of The Sociological Cinema provides one example. Repeated curation and classification of hundreds of videos did not merely produce a larger collection. Accumulated experience with those resources contributed to a typology connecting forms of online video with pedagogical functions and learning goals (Andrist et al. 2014). The professional value emerged partly from relationships that became visible only through accumulation.

The same generative possibility operates at smaller scales. Resources encountered years apart may reveal a pattern when brought together. A repository first valued for one topic may become relevant to another. Earlier pedagogical judgments can be reconsidered in light of new students, new events, or new theoretical concerns. Knowledge of several continuing sources may suggest comparisons, assignments, course structures, or research questions that no individual resource would have generated by itself.

Professional Memory is therefore not simply retrospective storage. Its prospective value lies in making earlier professional experience available to participate in later judgment and creation. The aim is not to preserve everything, but to sustain enough continuity so selected knowledge, relationships, and judgments remain professionally productive.

Career-Long Intellectual Development

Over a professional lifetime, Professional Memory does more than make earlier materials retrievable. By preserving continuity among sources, knowledge, applications, and judgments, it allows experience to accumulate rather than disappear into successive episodes of work. Earlier interpretations can be revisited in light of new evidence, patterns can be recognized across years, and judgments can be refined through repeated use, failure, and reconsideration. In this sense, Professional Memory can support broader knowledge, more discriminating judgment, greater historical perspective, and potentially professional wisdom.

Professional Memory does not guarantee such development. A repository can retain information without producing insight, and repetition alone does not create wisdom. Professional growth becomes more possible when earlier knowledge and judgments remain recoverable, can be compared with later experience, and can be revised rather than merely repeated. Professional Memory provides a recoverable past from which professionals can keep learning.

Repository Thinking provides the orientation toward valuable continuing sources, while DMO provides functions through which selected source relationships can be sustained. Professional Memory is the larger developmental capacity they support: accumulated professional knowledge, judgments, relationships, and pathways remaining sufficiently recoverable and reconsiderable to contribute to later thought and action.

6. Conclusion

The most consequential implication of Repository Thinking is not that instructors need better tools for managing information. It is that professional visibility is unevenly organized. Journals enter professional life through established systems of evaluation, indexing, monitoring, citation, and preservation; other potentially valuable sources may depend more heavily on platforms, informal circulation, or individual initiative. Digital abundance therefore creates not only an information problem but a problem of professional recognition: how do valuable continuing sources enter disciplinary view, and how can worthwhile attention to them be sustained?

The sociology OVR case makes this asymmetry visible. A substantial and heterogeneous population of sociology OVRs exists alongside a much larger environment of continuing video sources relevant to sociology teaching, yet OVRs have received relatively little attention as continuing sources in the sociology literature examined here. SOC 119 makes the distinction especially clear: extensive public and institutional visibility does not necessarily produce comparable recognition as a continuing source in disciplinary literature.

This suggests a role for disciplinary institutions as well as individual instructors. Teaching Sociology, for example, might extend its review tradition through an OVR Review feature evaluating continuing repositories rather than individual videos. Such reviews could consider producers, authority, scope, pedagogical relevance, and continuing value. The journal's incorporation of podcast reviews, together with subsequent scholarship on podcasts in sociology teaching, demonstrates how disciplinary attention can make newer forms of instructional media more professionally visible. Comparable attention to OVRs could distribute some of the Discovery and evaluation now left largely to individual instructors.

The implications of such recognition extend beyond helping instructors locate useful repositories. Professional visibility also shapes the relationships surrounding knowledge production. When creators become recognizable as continuing sources rather than remaining visible primarily through isolated resources, instructors, scholars, curators, and other audiences can follow their work across time, connect it to related sources, and bring it into continuing professional conversation. Recognition does not guarantee sustained production, better work, or intellectual community, but it creates conditions under which continuing relationships among producers and audiences can develop.

Professional attention does not merely discover an intellectual environment; sustained attention can help constitute one. When continuing sources become recognizable and remain visible across time, relationships can develop among producers, instructors, scholars, curators, and institutions that would be less likely to emerge from isolated encounters with individual resources. Repository-level attention may therefore contribute not only to Professional Memory among knowledge users but also to a more connected intellectual ecology among those who produce, circulate, evaluate, and use it.

The implication extends beyond OVRs and beyond any particular medium. Repository Thinking directs attention toward the conditions under which continuing sources enter professional awareness, acquire recognition, and remain connected to professional audiences. It therefore raises a broader question: What kinds of intellectual environments make worthwhile continuing sources visible, recognizable, memorable, and connected to audiences across time?

The same orientation has implications for students. Information literacy commonly emphasizes evaluating individual resources and credible evidence. Repository Thinking adds a complementary question: when students encounter something valuable, do they recognize who produced it, the larger body of work surrounding it, and whether that source warrants continuing attention? Amid fragmented and rapidly changing digital content, recognizing and maintaining knowledge of valuable continuing sources may itself be an important form of information literacy.

Future research might examine how instructors discover, monitor, organize, and reconsider continuing digital sources; how judgments about repository value change across time; and how emerging repositories acquire—or fail to acquire—disciplinary visibility. Research might also examine the reciprocal side of repository recognition: whether and under what conditions continuing professional attention affects relationships among creators, curators, institutions, and audiences. Such work could clarify the individual and institutional conditions through which Professional Memory and continuing intellectual relationships develop and are sustained. Although developed through sociology teaching, these questions extend to other knowledge-intensive professions, where the particular repositories and professional infrastructures vary but the challenge of sustaining worthwhile source relationships across time remains.

Repository Thinking does not promise complete or permanent Professional Memory, nor should every useful resource lead to continuing attention to its source. Its aim is selective: preserving enough continuity so sources already judged valuable can still contribute to later work.

Its central question is intentionally simple: Who produced this—and what else have they produced or might they produce? Asked consistently, it can turn an isolated encounter into recognition of a continuing source. Discovery brings that source into view; Organization preserves knowledge of the resource, source, and prior judgment; Monitoring can keep selected continuing sources visible. These functions are recursive rather than sequential, but together they allow professional experience to accumulate across otherwise separate episodes of immediate need.

The task is not to remember everything. It is to build sufficient continuity that what has proved worth knowing does not have to be discovered anew.

APPENDIX A: DISCOVERY

Discovery concerns the ways potentially valuable resources and continuing sources enter professional attention. Within the Discovery–Monitoring–Organization (DMO) framework, it includes both purposeful efforts to locate material and the construction of information environments through which useful but unanticipated resources and sources can become visible. Repository Thinking adds a further concern: an encounter with a valuable resource can become an occasion for identifying and evaluating the continuing source from which it emerged.

This appendix illustrates several pathways through which Discovery can occur. They include purposeful search, human and institutional curation, aggregated and networked information environments, platform recommendations, and AI-assisted systems. These pathways are neither exhaustive nor prescriptions for particular technologies. Their value lies in exposing instructors to differently selected portions of a much larger information environment and in providing multiple routes through which potentially valuable sources can enter professional awareness.

The Discovery page of the accompanying Protopage provides one practical illustration (https://www.protopage.com/repositorythinking#Discovery_). It brings recurring Discovery sources into a common environment under three headings: Disciplinary Discovery, Curated Discovery, and Media & Collections. The objective is not comprehensive coverage but exposure to differently constituted selection environments. Together with purposeful search and other forms of Discovery, such an environment can increase the likelihood that useful resources and previously unfamiliar continuing sources enter professional attention.

Purposeful Search

Search engines, library databases, scholarly indexes, platform-specific search tools, and AI-assisted search provide familiar means of locating resources in response to recognized needs. Searches may be broad (“social class inequality”), directed toward a particular medium (“social mobility documentary”), or focused on a specific teaching problem (“video illustrating role conflict”). Search is especially effective when the desired topic or type of material can be specified beforehand.

Repository Thinking adds another step to this familiar process. A useful search result can be evaluated not only as an individual resource but also as evidence of a potentially valuable continuing source. An article may lead to examination of the journal that published it; a video to the channel or organization that produced it; a podcast episode to the larger series; or a useful web resource to the site, project, or creator from which it originated.

Curated Discovery

Curators can substantially expand Discovery by identifying, evaluating, and circulating material produced elsewhere. Blogs, newsletters, disciplinary websites, professional organizations, media-curation projects, and individual scholars may function as intermediaries between large bodies of available material and potential users. Open Culture, for example, regularly identifies educational and cultural materials available across the Web. A reader encountering a useful resource through such a curator gains not only the resource itself but potentially two sources for further investigation: the producer of the resource and the curator through which it was discovered.

Curatorial filters can themselves be deliberately diversified. Individual expert curators such as Larry Ferlazzo and Jason Kottke scan quite different information environments; Open Culture and The Kid Should See This select educational, cultural, or video materials; Public Books and Aeon provide routes into public scholarship and intellectual work; Data Vis Dispatch and FlowingData surface noteworthy data visualizations; and archival or primary-source collections such as the Library of Congress expose materials that might otherwise remain outside an instructor's normal information environment. Juried selections such as the Peabody and Webby Awards provide still another filter, surfacing work through institutional processes of nomination and evaluation rather than through an individual curator.

Curated Discovery is particularly useful under conditions of digital abundance because it incorporates another layer of selection before material reaches the instructor. Its limitations are equally important: the interests and selection criteria of the curator shape what becomes visible. No single curator or selection mechanism therefore provides a neutral window onto what is available. Combining differently constituted filters can broaden both the kinds of resources encountered and the producers or repositories that subsequently become visible.

Aggregated and Networked Discovery

Aggregators, professional networks, social media, colleagues, disciplinary communities, and other recurring information environments can expose instructors to materials originating well beyond sources they already know. Rather than beginning with a specific query, the instructor encounters a continuing flow from which potentially useful items occasionally emerge.

These environments can be deliberately diversified. Following scholars working in different specialties, subscribing to newsletters with different editorial orientations, scanning aggregators covering several kinds of media, or maintaining connections with colleagues who use different teaching materials can increase the range of possible encounters. Such practices do not eliminate serendipity; they increase the number and diversity of circumstances in which serendipitous Discovery can occur.

Algorithmic Discovery

Digital platforms increasingly recommend resources on the basis of previous viewing, searching, subscriptions, and other activity. YouTube recommendations, suggested videos, related channels, podcast recommendations, and comparable systems can expose instructors to resources and producers they would not otherwise have encountered. These recommendations can therefore perform a genuine Discovery function even though their selection processes are controlled by platforms rather than instructors.

Algorithmic recommendations warrant particular caution because recommendation criteria need not correspond to scholarly quality, pedagogical usefulness, or an instructor's professional objectives. Their value for Repository Thinking lies primarily in their capacity to surface candidates for subsequent evaluation. A recommended video that proves useful, for example, can prompt examination of the channel that produced it and assessment of whether that channel constitutes a continuing source worth further attention.

AI-Assisted Discovery and Repository Examination

Generative AI and AI-enhanced search provide another route to Discovery. An instructor can ask for possible sources related to a substantive topic, identify creators or repositories associated with a resource, request alternatives to a known source, or broaden an initial search into adjacent areas that might otherwise remain unexplored.

AI can also assist after a continuing source has been identified. Rather than examining a large repository item by item, an instructor can ask an AI system to characterize the repository as a body of work. For an OVR, useful questions might include:

• What is the repository's principal purpose and intended audience?

• What major themes or areas of content recur across its output?

• What analytical, pedagogical, or evidentiary approach characterizes its work?

• How has the repository changed over time?

• What important limitations, gaps, or perspectives should be considered?

• Which resources provide useful entry points or appear particularly valuable for teaching?

• How might the repository and selected resources be classified or connected to existing professional interests?

Such a corpus overview can make a large repository more readily intelligible and reduce the effort required for preliminary evaluation. It can also suggest particular resources for closer examination. The resulting analysis should not be treated as authoritative. AI systems may omit material, mischaracterize content, cross repository boundaries, attribute resources incorrectly, or generate unsupported conclusions. Claims important to repository-level judgment should therefore be checked against the repository and, where appropriate, independent information about its producer, institutional setting, history, and output.

AI-assisted corpus examination is thus best understood as an aid to professional evaluation rather than a replacement for it. Its value lies in helping an instructor move more efficiently from discovering that a repository exists to understanding enough about its body of work to decide whether closer examination, Organization, or continuing Monitoring is warranted.

Maximizing Serendipity

Not all valuable professional discoveries begin with recognized information needs. An instructor may encounter a useful video while looking for something else, notice an unfamiliar scholar in a newsletter, follow a citation or hyperlink into an unexpected body of work, or receive a recommendation from a colleague. Such encounters are serendipitous, but their likelihood is partly shaped by the information environments an instructor constructs.

Discovery can therefore include what might be called serendipity maximization: deliberately increasing the diversity of pathways through which potentially useful material can enter awareness without attempting to specify beforehand what will be found. Human curators, disciplinary institutions, professional networks, media collections, algorithms, and AI systems select or surface different things for different reasons. Bringing differently constituted Discovery sources into a common environment, as on the Protopage Discovery page, increases the opportunity for useful material to arrive through more than one pathway.

The objective is not to consume everything that becomes visible. It is to create sufficient peripheral awareness that worthwhile material has multiple routes into professional attention.

From Resource Discovery to Repository Discovery

Across these pathways, Repository Thinking introduces a common additional move. Encountering a valuable resource prompts the question:

Who produced this—and what else have they produced or might they produce?

The answer may reveal a continuing repository whose accumulated or future output warrants attention. It may also reveal that the resource was exceptional and that its source offers little additional professional value. Discovery therefore creates an opportunity for repository-level evaluation rather than automatically committing the instructor to further attention.

A useful representation of the process is:

Resource encountered → Resource evaluated → Producer/source identified → Repository examined → Repository-level judgment

For large or heterogeneous repositories, the “Repository examined” step may include corpus-level examination, whether conducted directly, assisted by AI, or through some combination of the two.

The possible outcomes differ. A repository may warrant continuing Monitoring; it may contain an accumulated body of work worth Organizing without requiring ongoing Monitoring; an individual resource may be worth preserving even though its source is not; or neither resource nor repository may warrant further attention. Discovery thus expands the field of professional visibility while leaving subsequent decisions selective.

APPENDIX B: MONITORING

Monitoring concerns how already-discovered repositories remain within professional awareness over time. Whereas Discovery asks how a potentially valuable source becomes visible, Monitoring asks how an instructor can remain aware of its continuing output without repeatedly remembering to search for or revisit it. Monitoring therefore shifts attention from episodic checking toward arrangements in which new production becomes visible as it occurs.

Not every discovered repository warrants Monitoring. Some are primarily valuable as archives; others produce too much material, too little relevant material, or new material too infrequently to justify continuing attention. Monitoring follows an evaluative judgment that a repository's future output has sufficient potential value to warrant continuing awareness.

Email, Newsletters, and Publication Alerts

Among the simplest Monitoring mechanisms are email newsletters and alerts. Journals may provide tables-of-contents alerts when new issues appear; databases and search services may notify users when new materials match specified criteria; organizations and individual creators may distribute newsletters announcing new work; and publishers may provide notifications of newly released content.

These mechanisms require little additional infrastructure. Once established, new material comes to the instructor rather than requiring repeated visits to the source. Their principal limitation is fragmentation: information from many repositories enters an email environment designed for numerous other purposes, where potentially useful items can become mixed with correspondence, announcements, and other demands on attention.

Platform Subscriptions and Notifications

Many digital platforms contain their own Monitoring mechanisms. YouTube users can subscribe to channels and select notification options; podcast applications permit users to follow series; social-media platforms allow accounts to be followed; and other services provide comparable subscription or notification functions.

Such mechanisms can be convenient when relevant repositories reside on the same platform. They also have limitations for Repository Thinking. Monitoring remains distributed across separate platforms, notification settings may vary, and what becomes visible can be affected by interface design and recommendation systems. Following a repository within a platform therefore does not necessarily ensure systematic awareness of everything it produces.

Saved Searches and Topic Alerts

Monitoring need not be limited to known repositories. Saved searches, keyword alerts, citation alerts, and related services can monitor an information environment for the appearance of material matching specified criteria. These mechanisms occupy an interesting position between Discovery and Monitoring: they monitor a continuing query rather than a previously identified source.

An instructor might establish an alert for a substantive topic, an author's name, a developing social issue, or a combination of terms relevant to a course. New results can lead to resources from already-known repositories or become occasions for discovering new ones. Topic Monitoring can therefore generate subsequent Discovery.

RSS and Repository-Level Monitoring

RSS provides a particularly useful mechanism for Repository Thinking because it can separate Monitoring from the websites and platforms on which repositories reside. When a repository provides an RSS feed—or when a feed can otherwise be generated—new items can be delivered to a feed reader or aggregator without requiring the instructor to revisit the repository itself.

This makes it possible to monitor heterogeneous sources within a common environment. A new journal article, online video, podcast episode, blog post, or other resource can appear alongside material from repositories hosted on entirely different platforms. The instructor need not remember where each repository resides or repeatedly check whether anything has changed.

RSS does not evaluate the resources that appear. Its function is more modest: to make change visible. Appearance in a feed does not imply that an item should be read, viewed, saved, or used. Most monitored items may require no further action.

Aggregating Monitoring Streams

The value of RSS becomes especially apparent when feeds from multiple repositories are assembled into a common Monitoring environment. Feed readers and dashboard services can organize repositories by substantive interest, course, medium, or other categories while presenting their newest output in one location.

One implementation developed in conjunction with this article uses the Monitoring page of a Protopage dashboard to aggregate RSS feeds from sociology journals, podcasts, and online video repositories (https://www.protopage.com/repositorythinking#Monitoring). Individual panels display recent additions from selected repositories, allowing continuing production across different media and platforms to be scanned within a common environment. 

The example demonstrates an affordance rather than prescribing a particular service. Other RSS readers, aggregators, dashboards, email systems, or combinations of tools can perform the same Monitoring function. What matters is the capacity to maintain selective awareness of repositories judged worthy of continuing attention.

The same RSS infrastructure can serve different DMO functions depending on how it is used. Appendix A describes a Discovery page that aggregates heterogeneous curators and selection mechanisms in order to expose instructors to resources and sources they may not already know. The Monitoring page instead follows repositories already judged worthy of continuing attention. In the first case RSS supports Discovery; in the second it supports Monitoring. The technology has not changed; the professional function it serves has.

Monitoring as Selective Peripheral Awareness

Monitoring should not be confused with attempting to consume everything a repository produces. Such an expectation would make systematic Monitoring increasingly impractical as the number and output of repositories increase. A Monitoring environment instead provides selective peripheral awareness: new material becomes available for inspection without demanding immediate engagement.

This distinction is particularly important for high-volume repositories. An instructor may monitor a source even when only a small proportion of its output is likely to prove professionally useful. The value of Monitoring lies in making that small proportion encounterable without requiring repeated search, repeated visits to the repository, or reliance on chance.

Monitoring can therefore be represented simply as:

Repository discovered → continuing value judged plausible → Monitoring mechanism established → new output becomes visible → instructor evaluates → no action or further DMO activity

The final step is deliberately open. A new resource may be ignored, examined, used immediately, Organized for later recovery, or prompt reconsideration of the repository itself. Monitoring does not require that every new resource enter accumulated Professional Memory. It preserves the opportunity to notice.

APPENDIX C: ORGANIZATION

Organization concerns how selected resources, repositories, relationships, and professional judgments remain recoverable after they have been encountered. Whereas Discovery increases the likelihood that useful material will enter attention and Monitoring helps selected repositories remain visible over time, Organization addresses a different problem: what from those encounters should be retained, and in what form should it be preserved so that it can be found and understood later?

Organization can be extremely simple. An instructor may bookmark a website, save a video to a playlist, place an article in a reference manager, add a resource to a reading list, or record a URL in a document or spreadsheet. Each practice increases the likelihood that something encountered today can be recovered tomorrow. Organizational systems differ, however, in what they preserve beyond the location of the resource itself.

Browser Bookmarks and Reading Lists

Browser bookmarks provide perhaps the most familiar form of digital Organization. They preserve a pathway back to a resource or repository and can be arranged in folders or collections. Reading-list and save-for-later services add related capabilities, sometimes including status information such as unread, archived, or favorited.

Their simplicity is an important advantage. A useful item can be preserved with little interruption to the activity through which it was encountered. The same simplicity can become a limitation as collections grow. A title and URL may preserve where something was found without preserving why it mattered, how it relates to other materials, or what the instructor anticipated doing with it.

Platform-Based Organization

Platforms frequently provide their own organizational mechanisms. YouTube playlists, podcast queues, saved social-media posts, browser collections, and comparable features allow resources to be grouped without leaving the environment in which they were encountered.

These mechanisms can work well for organizing materials of a single type. Their limitations become more apparent when professional materials are distributed across platforms. A video saved in a YouTube playlist, an article retained in a reference manager, a podcast episode saved in an app, and a website stored in browser bookmarks may all concern the same teaching problem while remaining organizationally separated from one another.

Reference Managers, Spreadsheets, Databases, and Note Systems

More structured tools permit additional information to be retained. Reference managers can preserve bibliographic metadata, files, keywords, annotations, and notes. Spreadsheets and databases allow instructors to construct fields suited to particular purposes. Note and knowledge-management systems can connect resources to observations, concepts, projects, courses, or other materials.

These systems differ substantially in complexity and purpose, but they share an important affordance: the instructor can preserve information about a resource rather than merely its location. A record might indicate, for example, that an article is useful for teaching occupational closure, that a video contains a particularly effective example beginning at 6:40, or that a website is produced by an organization whose continuing output may merit attention.

Tag-Based and Social Bookmarking

Tag-based bookmarking provides another means of preserving such information while allowing resources to belong simultaneously to multiple categories. Rather than placing an item in a single hierarchical folder, an instructor can attach several descriptors representing its subject, medium, source, pedagogical function, course relevance, or other characteristics.

A video about housing inequality, for example, might simultaneously be tagged for stratification, race, housing, urban sociology, SOC 1013, and video. Additional tags or notes might identify the producer, indicate whether the resource has been used previously, record an assessment of its pedagogical value, or specify a segment worth showing.

This capacity becomes particularly useful when Organization includes both resources and the repositories from which they emerge. A repository can be retained as an organizational object in its own right, while individual resources from that repository can be separately preserved and connected through common tags, descriptions, or notes. Organization can thereby preserve both valuable things already found and valuable places to look again.

Organizing Relationships, Not Only Items

Repository Thinking places particular emphasis on this relational capacity. An individual resource may be connected to its producer; the producer to a continuing repository; the repository to substantive interests or courses; and selected resources to prior evaluations, teaching uses, or anticipated applications.

Consider an instructor who encounters a useful video while browsing a curated site. The instructor might save only the video. If examination of its producer reveals a substantial body of potentially relevant work, the instructor might also preserve the repository. Notes or tags could then retain the relationship between the resource, its source, the topic for which it appeared useful, and the reason the repository itself seemed worth retaining.

Organization can therefore range from:

Resource → saved location

to a richer record such as:

Resource ↔ Producer ↔ Repository ↔ Topic/Course ↔ Evaluation ↔ Possible Use

Not every item warrants this richer treatment. The additional organizational effort is most useful when an encounter generates judgments or relationships likely to matter later.

The corpus-level examination described in Appendix A can also contribute to such records. If examination of a repository identifies its recurring themes, characteristic approach, strengths, limitations, or particularly useful resources, selected portions of that evaluation can be retained with the repository record. The purpose is not to preserve an entire analysis, but to retain enough of the professional judgment surrounding the source that later encounters need not begin again from the repository's name or URL alone.

A Worked Organization Environment

One implementation used in developing this article employs social bookmarking to organize both individual resources and continuing repositories. Records can include URLs, titles, descriptive notes, and multiple tags. Tags distinguish, among other things, substantive topics, repository types, teaching functions, courses, and characteristics relevant to later evaluation and use.

A public example of this organizational environment is available here: https://pinboard.in/u:repositorythinking.

The particular technology is illustrative rather than necessary to the framework. Browser bookmarks, reference managers, spreadsheets, databases, note systems, or combinations of these can perform comparable functions if they preserve the information and relationships important to the user.

From Saving an Item to Preserving a Relationship

The difference between simple and relationship-rich Organization can be illustrated by two records for the same resource.

The first preserves enough information to find it again:

Resource → Title + URL

A richer record might preserve:

Resource ↔ Producer ↔ Repository ↔ Related Resources ↔ Topic/Course ↔ Evaluation ↔ Prior or Possible Use

Both constitute Organization. The difference lies in what can be recovered later. The first answers, “Where is that item?” The second can also help answer, “Why did I save it, where did it come from, what else is connected to it, and why might those relationships matter?”

The additional information represents judgments made during earlier encounters. Preserving selected judgments reduces the need to reconstruct them repeatedly and allows subsequent encounters to build upon earlier ones.

The George Motz example provides a simple illustration. In a 2024 Sociological Images post, “Cheeseburger Culture,” Evan Stewart recommended Motz’s documentary Hamburger America for teaching such subjects as culture, social construction, McDonaldization, and regional and local cultures. An instructor encountering the documentary through this kind of resource curation might have no reason initially to regard Motz himself as professionally relevant. Repository Thinking prompts an additional question: Who produced this—and what else has that producer created? Following the resource upstream reveals a much larger body of work, including Motz’s Hamburger America books, The Great American Burger Book, the television series Burger Land, and the continuing video series Burger Scholar Sessions. What began as the discovery of a single useful documentary thus becomes recognition of a continuing source whose work may be worth returning to for teaching about food, culture, place, regional identity, and social change. Organization can preserve both the original resource and that broader source-level knowledge.

The source need not subsequently be Monitored. It may produce too infrequently, lack a convenient Monitoring mechanism, or be more valuable as an accumulated body of work than as a stream of new material. Organization can preserve knowledge of the source even when continuing Monitoring is unnecessary.

Selective Organization

Organization, like Monitoring, is necessarily selective. Discovery may expose hundreds of resources, and Monitoring may make thousands of new items visible over time; only a small proportion need to be Organized for future recovery. Nor does every retained item require extensive annotation.

The relevant question is therefore not simply, “Should I save this?” but:

What, if anything, about this encounter is worth being able to recover later?

Sometimes the answer is only the resource itself. Sometimes it is the repository. At other times it is the relationship between a resource and its producer, an instructor's evaluation of the material, a teaching possibility, or a pathway that may be useful in future work.

The more consequential distinction is therefore between merely retaining an object and preserving enough context for its professional significance to remain recoverable. Organization does not itself constitute Professional Memory, but it can preserve the resources, source relationships, evaluations, and pathways through which earlier professional experience becomes available to later work.

 

References

American Sociological Association. 2026. “TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology.” https://www.asanet.org/academic-professional-resources/trails/.

Andrist, Lester, Valerie Chepp, Paul Dean, and Michael V. Miller. 2014. “Toward a Video Pedagogy: A Teaching Typology with Learning Goals.” Teaching Sociology 42(3):196–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X14524962.

Baker-Sperry, Lori, Autumn Behringer, and Elizabeth Grauerholz. 1999. “Bringing Gender to Life in the Classroom: Recommended Videos That Teach about Gender.” Teaching Sociology 27(2):193–207. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318708.

Belet, Margot. 2017. “The Importance of Relevance to Student Lives: The Impact of Content and Media in Introduction to Sociology.” Teaching Sociology 46(3):208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X17730113.

Besek, Jordan Fox, and Anupriya Pandey. 2023. “Streaming Verstehen: Whither Feature Film in the Classroom?” Teaching Sociology 51(2):170–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X221123337.

Blumer, Herbert. 1954. “What Is Wrong with Social Theory?” American Sociological Review 19(1):3–10.

Caldeira, Chris, and Joan Ferrante. 2012. “The Sociological Cinema: Teaching and Learning Sociology through Video.” Teaching Sociology 40(2):191–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12439856.

Carrigan, Mark, and Lambros Fatsis. 2021. The Public and Their Platforms: Public Sociology in an Era of Social Media. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press. 

Dagaz, Mari, and Brent Harger. 2011. “Race, Gender, and Research.” Teaching Sociology 39(3):274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X11407348.

Davis, Jenny L. 2017. “Curation: A Theoretical Treatment.” Information, Communication & Society 20(5):770–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203972.

Davis, Jenny L. 2020. How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dowd, James J. 1999. “Waiting for Louis Prima: On the Possibility of a Sociology of Film.” Teaching Sociology 27(4):324–342. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319040.

Ellis, David. 1989. “A Behavioural Approach to Information Retrieval System Design.” Journal of Documentation 45(3):171–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026843.

Fails, Eleanor V. 1988. “Teaching Sociological Theory through Video: The Development of an Experimental Strategy.” Teaching Sociology 16(3):256–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317527.

Goldsmid, Charles A., and Everett K. Wilson. 1980. Passing on Sociology: The Teaching of a Discipline. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Grauerholz, Liz, and Catherine Covert. 1997. “Twenty-Five Exceptional Educational Videos for Sociology of Marriage and Family Courses.” Teaching Sociology 25(4):338–352. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319305.

Hoffmann, Elizabeth A. 2006. “The Importance of Place: Using Local-Focus Videos to Spark the Sociological Imagination.” Teaching Sociology 34(2):164–172.

Jacques, Jerry, Sabine Mas, Dominique Maurel, and Jonathan Dorey. 2021. “Organizing Personal Digital Information: An Analysis of Faculty Member Activities.” Journal of Documentation 77(2):401–419. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2020-0034.

Jarche, Harold. 2020. Working Smarter with Personal Knowledge Mastery. Jarche.com.

Jones, William. 2007. “Personal Information Management.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41(1):453–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410117.

Kaufman, Peter, and Todd Schoepflin. 2009. “Last But Not Least: The Pedagogical Insights of ‘Intellectual Craftsmanship.’” Teaching Sociology 37(1):20–30.

Khanna, Nikki, and Cherise A. Harris. 2015. “Discovering Race in a ‘Post-Racial’ World: Teaching Race through Primetime Television.” Teaching Sociology 43(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X14553710.

Kordsmeier, Gregory T., and Jamie Oslawski-Lopez. 2026. “‘A Great and Engaging Option’: Four Ways to Use Podcasts to Enhance Learning.” Teaching Sociology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X261469821.

Lampe, Nik M. 2023. “Teaching with TikTok in Online Sociology of Sex and Gender Courses.” Teaching Sociology 51(4):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X231159091.

Leblanc, Lauraine. 1998. “Observing Reel Life: Using Feature Films to Teach Ethnographic Methods.” Teaching Sociology 26(1):62–68.

Leighton, Rose H., and Didi M. E. Griffioen. 2023. “Lecturers’ Curational Behaviour in Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education 28(6):1207–1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1872530.

Leighton, Rose H., Didi M. E. Griffioen, and Jan Elen. 2026. “Approaches to Educational Curation: How Lecturers in Higher Education Incorporate Educational Resources in Course Designs.” Teaching in Higher Education 31(1):49–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2549944.

Mayeda, David T. 2010. “Film Review: Sociological Images: Inspiring Sociological Imaginations Everywhere.” Teaching Sociology 38(4):401–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X10380851.

Meho, Lokman I., and Helen R. Tibbo. 2003. “Modeling the Information-Seeking Behavior of Social Scientists: Ellis’s Study Revisited.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(6):570–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10244.

Miles, James, Allyson Compton, and Eve Herold. 2024. “Crash Course in the Classroom: Exploring How and Why Social Studies Teachers Use YouTube Videos.” The Journal of Social Studies Research 48(3):190–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/23522798241238666.

Miller, Michael V., and Anna S. CohenMiller. 2019. “Open Video Repositories for College Instruction: A Guide to the Social Sciences.” Online Learning 23(2):40–66. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1492.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oslawski-Lopez, Jamie, and Gregory T. Kordsmeier. 2021. “‘Being Able to Listen Makes Me Feel More Engaged’: Best Practices for Using Podcasts as Readings.” Teaching Sociology 49(4):335–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X211017197.

Oslawski-Lopez, Jamie, and Gregory T. Kordsmeier. 2025. “Examining Engagement, Note-Taking, and Multitasking in Podcast-Based Learning.” Teaching Sociology 53(3):191–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X251327956.

Pelton, Julie A. 2013. “‘Seeing the Theory Is Believing’: Writing about Film to Reduce Theory Anxiety.” Teaching Sociology 41(1):106–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12462142.

Prince, Barbara F. 2020. “Podcasts: The Potential and Possibilities.” Teaching Sociology 48(4):269–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X20959837.

Sedghi, Shahram, Nida Abdolahi, Ali Azimi, Iman Tahamtan, and Leila Abdollahi. 2015. “A Qualitative Study on Personal Information Management (PIM) in Clinical and Basic Sciences Faculty Members of a Medical University in Iran.” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 29:257.

Smith, David Horton. 1973. “Teaching Introductory Sociology by Film.” Teaching Sociology 1(1):48–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317333. 

SOC 119. 2026. “Class Info & Team.” Accessed August 17, 2026. https://www.soc119.org/about.

Stoll, Clarice S. 1973. “Videotape as an Aid in Sociology Instruction.” Teaching Sociology 1(1):38–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317332.

Stout, Christopher T., Daniel Earnhart, and Siobhan Nagi. 2020. “Teaching Race and Ethnicity in the Age of Trump: Using Popular Culture in a Polarized Classroom.” Teaching Sociology 48(3):220–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X20928469.

Wade, Lisa, and Gwen Sharp. 2013. “Sociological Images: Blogging as Public Sociology.” Social Science Computer Review 31(2):221–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312442356.