Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 7364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=7364,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 7364, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

State of the art review of the concept and practice of information resources management (IRM), particularly during the period 1986 to 1995. Notes the emergence of 2 approaches: the technological view emphasizing the technical aspect of IRM; and the integrative view which considers IRM as a convergent approach to information problems. Identifies the perceived barriers to IRM implementation: lack of well defined IRM concepts, practices, guidelines and tools; failure of organizations to perceive information as a resource; lack of measurement of information costs and value; and resistance to organizational change, such as the modification of organizational structures, policies, procedures, and the new roles for information professionals. Concludes by suggesting that there is a trend toward an integrative approach to IRM in terms of value added processes and considers whether IRM is finding its way as a discipline or subdiscipline within information science

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 1613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=1613,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1613, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This research explores the link between information culture and information use in three organizations. We ask if there is a way to systematically identify information behaviors and values that can characterize the information culture of an organization, and whether this culture has an effect on information use outcomes. The primary method of data collection was a questionnaire survey that was applied to a national law firm, a public health agency, and an engineering company. Over 650 persons in the three organizations answered the survey. Data analysis suggests that the questionnaire instrument was able to elicit information behaviors and values that denote an organization's information culture. Moreover, the information behaviors and values of each organization were able to explain 30-50% of the variance in information use outcomes. We conclude that it is possible to identify behaviors and values that describe an organization's information culture, and that the sets of identified behaviors and values can account for significant proportions of the variance in information use outcomes.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=751,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article compares doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior through the analysis of a large corpus of scientific articles. It shows that doctoral students tend to cite more documents per article than faculty members, and that the literature they cite is, on average, more recent. It also demonstrates that doctoral students cite a larger proportion of conference proceedings and journal articles than faculty members and faculty members are more likely to self-cite and cite theses than doctoral students. Analysis of the impact of cited journals indicates that in health research, faculty members tend to cite journals with slightly lower impact factors whereas in social sciences and humanities, faculty members cite journals with higher impact factors. Finally, it provides evidence that, in every discipline, faculty members tend to cite a higher proportion of clinical/applied research journals than doctoral students. This study contributes to the understanding of referencing patterns and age stratification in academia. Implications for understanding the information-seeking behavior of academics are discussed.

Type

a