Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=4540,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Although much previous research has considered how we read, less attention has been paid to why we read, and the influence not only of individual or text-related factors on a reader's intention to read, but also of broader societal factors. This article presents a novel, empirically-based model of fiction reading in a public library context, taking into account the characteristics differentiating the readers of individual fiction genres. It begins with a literature review of factors motivating a reading choice or habit, and of the effects of reading different fiction genres, before introducing three previous studies by the first author into readers' attitudes towards, and engagement with, fiction and selected fiction genres. The methodologies are then summarized both for the three previous studies and the present study. The authors present a combined analysis that integrates the findings of the previous studies in order to generate a new, evidence-based model for the reading of fiction genres. Incorporating both demographic and motivational aspects, this model illustrates how the broad themes of the fiction reader profile interrelate, giving them a new causal ordering. Finally, there is a discussion of the implications of this work for library and information science research and practitioner communities.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.11, S.1291-1303

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=5652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose Neutrality is a much debated value in library and information science (LIS). The "neutrality debate" is characterised by opinionated discussions in contrasting contexts. The purpose of this paper is to fill a gap in the literature by bringing these conceptions together holistically, with potential to deepen understanding of LIS neutrality. Design/methodology/approach First, a literature review identified conceptions of neutrality reported in the LIS literature. Second, seven phenomenographic interviews with LIS professionals were conducted across three professional sectors. To maximise variation, each sector comprised at least one interview with a professional of five or fewer years' experience and one with ten or more years' experience. Third, conceptions from the literature and interviews were compared for similarities and disparities. Findings In four conceptions, each were found in the literature and interviews. In the literature, these were labelled: "favourable", "tacit value", "social institutions" and "value-laden profession", whilst in interviews they were labelled: "core value", "subservient", "ambivalent", and "hidden values". The study's main finding notes the "ambivalent" conception in interviews is not captured by a largely polarised literature, which oversimplifies neutrality's complexity. To accommodate this complexity, it is suggested that future research should look to reconcile perceptions from either side of the "neutral non-neutral divide" through an inclusive normative framework. Originality/value This study's value lies in its descriptive methodology, which brings LIS neutrality together in a holistic framework. This framework brings a contextual awareness to LIS neutrality lacking in previous research. This awareness has the potential to change the tone of the LIS neutrality debate.