Academic Analysis: “Closing the Information Gap in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Studies” by Gretchen R. Stahlman (2024)
Full Citation Stahlman, Gretchen R. “Closing the Information Gap in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Studies.” In Wisdom, Well-Being, Win-Win: 19th International Conference, iConference 2024, Proceedings, Part III, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14597 (Springer, 2024), pp. 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57850-2_23 (Preprint: arXiv:2403.15368).
Abstract / Core Thesis (Summarized from Paper)
This scoping review examines the scholarly literature on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) from an information science perspective. Stahlman finds that Library and Information Studies (LIS) and related “iFields” (data curation, information behavior, data science, archival studies, etc.) are almost entirely absent from UAP research despite the phenomenon’s heavy dependence on information management, reporting systems, data quality, and epistemic issues. The paper argues that closing this “information gap” is essential for advancing rigorous, reproducible UAP studies and calls for greater interdisciplinary involvement from information professionals.
Summary of the Study
Using standard scoping review methodology, Stahlman analyzed 174 scholarly papers on UAP published between 1967 and 2023. Key findings include:
- Dominance of Other Disciplines: Psychology and religious studies account for the largest share of publications; hard sciences, engineering, and information science are severely underrepresented.
- Near-Zero LIS/iFields Presence: Only a tiny fraction of papers involve information science concepts such as data curation, information behavior, metadata standards, archival practices, or knowledge organization.
- Major Information Gaps Identified: Poor reporting infrastructure, stigma-driven underreporting, fragmented and low-quality datasets, lack of standardized ontologies, and inadequate long-term archiving all hinder scientific progress.
- Call to Action: Information professionals are uniquely positioned to address these gaps through better data collection systems, citizen-science platforms, ethical information behavior studies, and the development of trustworthy UAP information ecosystems.
The paper positions UAP studies as an ideal domain for applied information science, where issues of trust, stigma, data quality, and epistemic justice intersect directly with real-world policy and public safety concerns.
Strengths of the Paper
- Novel Interdisciplinary Lens Stahlman brings a fresh and much-needed perspective from information science to a field dominated by physics, psychology, and philosophy. This is one of the first formal attempts to quantify the “information gap” in UAP scholarship.
- Empirical Rigor The scoping review is systematic and transparent, providing clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and a quantifiable baseline (174 papers over 56 years) that future researchers can build upon.
- Practical and Actionable Rather than remaining purely theoretical, the paper offers concrete recommendations for iFields scholars (e.g., designing better reporting tools, developing UAP-specific metadata schemas, studying information-seeking behaviors of experiencers and skeptics).
- Timely Relevance Published in 2024 amid accelerating governmental interest in UAP, the paper directly addresses barriers to scientific legitimacy and public trust.
Limitations and Critiques
- Scope of Review The 174-paper corpus is relatively small and may underrepresent non-English literature or gray literature (government reports, technical memos). Expanding the review to include military/intelligence documents and citizen-science databases would strengthen it.
- Limited Depth on Epistemic Issues While the paper notes stigma and underreporting, it does not deeply engage philosophical work on epistemic injustice (e.g., Engels & Hauser, 2025) or personality factors in reporting (Stubbings et al., 2024).
- Calls for Involvement Without Pilot Studies The recommendations are compelling but remain high-level; the paper would be even stronger with a small proof-of-concept project (e.g., a prototype UAP reporting ontology or information behavior survey).
Relevance to the Face Value Approach (FVA) and the Experiencer–Scientist Bridge
This paper provides strong indirect support for FVA. By highlighting how poor information infrastructure and stigma suppress high-quality data, Stahlman underscores why literal acceptance of raw experiencer testimony (FVA Stage 1) is currently so difficult. Better data curation, standardized reporting, and reduced stigma are precisely the infrastructure needed to make rigorous pattern convergence analysis (FVA Stage 2) feasible at scale.
The paper also reinforces the grassroots rally point role of platforms like AlienAlerts.com: citizen-led, FVA-based information systems can help close the gap that formal academia and government have left open.
Conclusion
Gretchen R. Stahlman’s paper is a valuable and forward-looking contribution that reframes UAP studies as an information problem as much as a physical or psychological one. Its clear documentation of the near-absence of Library and Information Science from UAP scholarship, combined with practical calls for greater iFields involvement, makes it essential reading for anyone interested in making anomalous phenomena research more rigorous, reproducible, and epistemically just.
In combination with the philosophical papers by Lane (2025) and Engels & Hauser (2025), and the empirical work by Stubbings et al. (2024), this study helps complete a multidisciplinary picture: the ETH is philosophically defensible, witnesses are not psychologically anomalous, epistemic injustice is occurring, and the entire field desperately needs better information infrastructure.
Highly recommended for researchers, policymakers, and citizen-science initiatives working at the intersection of UAP, epistemology, and public information systems.
References
- Stahlman, G. R. (2024). Closing the Information Gap in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Studies. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 14597, pp. 310–320). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57850-2_23 (arXiv preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15368).
- Engels, K. S., & Hauser, E. (2025). Epistemic injustice and contact experiencers. PhilArchive. https://philarchive.org/archive/ENGEIA-5
- Lane, W. C. (2025). The extraterrestrial hypothesis: an epistemological case for removing the taboo. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 15, 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00634-8
- Stubbings, D. R., Ali, S., & Wong, A. (2024). Who sees UFOs? The relationship between unidentified anomalous phenomena sightings and personality factors. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 38(1), 11–27.
