Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006655503 = product of:
  0.03993302 = sum of:
    0.03993302 = product of:
      0.11979905 = sum of:
        0.11979905 = weight(_text_:themes in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11979905 = score(doc=2098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3373129 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05246716 = queryNorm
            0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Traditionally humanities scholars have worked in physical environments and with physical artefacts. Libraries are familiar places, built on cultural traditions over thousands of years, and books are comfortable research companions. Digital tools are a more recent addition to the resources available to a researcher. This paper explores both the physical and the digital qualities of modern humanities research, drawing on existing literature and presenting a study of humanities scholars' perceptions of the research resources they use. We highlight aspects of the physical and digital that can facilitate or hinder the researcher, focusing on three themes that emerge from the data: the working environment; the experience of finding resources; and the experience of working with documents. Rather than aiming to replace physical texts and libraries by digital surrogates, providers need to recognise the complementary roles they play: digital information environments have the potential to provide improved access and analysis features and the facility to exploit the library from any place, while the physical library and resources provide greater authenticity, trustworthiness and the demand to be in a particular place with important material properties.

0.006655503 = product of:
  0.03993302 = sum of:
    0.03993302 = product of:
      0.11979905 = sum of:
        0.11979905 = weight(_text_:themes in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11979905 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3373129 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05246716 = queryNorm
            0.35515702 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0029619066 = product of:
  0.01777144 = sum of:
    0.01777144 = product of:
      0.03554288 = sum of:
        0.03554288 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03554288 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18373105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05246716 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35