Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Blandford, A."
  • × author_ss:"Pontis, S."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Pontis, S.; Blandford, A.; Greifeneder, E.; Attalla, H.; Neal, D.: Keeping up to date : an academic researcher's information journey (2017) 0.02 
    0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=3340,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Keeping up to date with research developments is a central activity of academic researchers, but researchers face difficulties in managing the rapid growth of available scientific information. This study examined how researchers stay up to date, using the information journey model as a framework for analysis and investigating which dimensions influence information behaviors. We designed a 2-round study involving semistructured interviews and prototype testing with 61 researchers with 3 levels of seniority (PhD student to professor). Data were analyzed following a semistructured qualitative approach. Five key dimensions that influence information behaviors were identified: level of seniority, information sources, state of the project, level of familiarity, and how well defined the relevant community is. These dimensions are interrelated and their values determine the flow of the information journey. Across all levels of professional expertise, researchers used similar hard (formal) sources to access content, while soft (interpersonal) sources were used to filter information. An important "pain point" that future information tools should address is helping researchers filter information at the point of need.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35
    Type
    a
  2. Pontis, S.; Blandford, A.: Understanding "influence" : an empirical test of the Data-Frame Theory of Sensemaking (2016) 0.00 
    0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=2847,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper reports findings from a study designed to gain broader understanding of sensemaking activities using the Data/Frame Theory as the analytical framework. Although this theory is one of the dominant models of sensemaking, it has not been extensively tested with a range of sensemaking tasks. The tasks discussed here focused on making sense of structures rather than processes or narratives. Eleven researchers were asked to construct understanding of how a scientific community in a particular domain is organized (e.g., people, relationships, contributions, factors) by exploring the concept of "influence" in academia. This topic was chosen because, although researchers frequently handle this type of task, it is unlikely that they have explicitly sought this type of information. We conducted a think-aloud study and semistructured interviews with junior and senior researchers from the human-computer interaction (HCI) domain, asking them to identify current leaders and rising stars in both HCI and chemistry. Data were coded and analyzed using the Data/Frame Model to both test and extend the model. Three themes emerged from the analysis: novices and experts' sensemaking activity chains, constructing frames through indicators, and characteristics of structure tasks. We propose extensions to the Data/Frame Model to accommodate structure sensemaking.
    Type
    a
  3. Pontis, S.; Kefalidou, G.; Blandford, A.; Forth, J.; Makri, S.; Sharples, S.; Wiggins, G.; Woods, M.: Academics' responses to encountered information : context matters (2016) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3049,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3049, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    An increasing number of tools are being developed to help academics interact with information, but little is known about the benefits of those tools for their users. This study evaluated academics' receptiveness to information proposed by a mobile app, the SerenA Notebook: information that is based in their inferred interests but does not relate directly to a prior recognized need. The evaluated app aimed at creating the experience of serendipitous encounters: generating ideas and inspiring thoughts, and potentially triggering follow-up actions, by providing users with suggestions related to their work and leisure interests. We studied how 20 academics interacted with messages sent by the mobile app (3 per day over 10 consecutive days). Collected data sets were analyzed using thematic analysis. We found that contextual factors (location, activity, and focus) strongly influenced their responses to messages. Academics described some unsolicited information as interesting but irrelevant when they could not make immediate use of it. They highlighted filtering information as their major struggle rather than finding information. Some messages that were positively received acted as reminders of activities participants were meant to be doing but were postponing, or were relevant to ongoing activities at the time the information was received.
    Type
    a
  4. Pontis, S.; Blandford, A.: Understanding "influence" : an exploratory study of academics' processes of knowledge construction through iterative and interactive information seeking (2015) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2126,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2126, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The motivation for this study was to better understand academics' searching and sensemaking processes when solving exploratory tasks for which they lack pre-existing frames. We focus on "influence" tasks because, although they appear to be unfamiliar, they arise in much academic discourse, at least tacitly. We report the processes of academics at different levels of seniority when completing exploratory search tasks that involved identifying influential members of their academic community and "rising stars," and similarly for an unfamiliar academic community. 11 think-aloud sessions followed by semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the roles of specific and general domain expertise in shaping information seeking and knowledge construction. Academics defined and completed the tasks through an iterative and interactive process of seeking and sensemaking, during which they constructed an understanding of their communities and determined qualities of "being influential". The Data/Frame Theory of Sensemaking was used to provide sensitising theoretical constructs. The study shows that both external and internal knowledge resources are essential to define a starting point or frame, make and support decisions, and experience satisfaction. Ill-defined or non-existent initial frames may cause unsubstantial or arbitrary decisions, and feelings of uncertainty and lack of confidence.
    Type
    a

Authors

Themes