Search (45 results, page 3 of 3)

6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 5250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=5250,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5250, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5250)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Objectivity, in the form of the application of external scrutiny according to standards agreed within a research community, is an essential characteristic of information science research whether pursued from positivist, interpretative, or action research perspectives. Subjectivity may represent both a legitimate focus of research (e.g., people's perceptions and attitudes) and a legitimate component of methodology (e.g., enabling researchers to enter, experience, and share the perceived worlds of their subjects). However, subjectivity that both (a) is not open to external scrutiny and (b) gives rise to contingent dependencies is problematic for research. The issue of problematic types of subjectivity is considered, and the contributions to the debate concerning possible solutions of two key thinkers - the cybernetician Gordon Pask and the methodological philosopher Brenda Dervin - are discussed. The need identified by Dervin for researchers to be able to escape (expose and test) their own assumptions is explored in terms of a dynamic interplay between relatively subjective and objective forces, each requiring the liberating and constraining energies of the other. The extent to which meta-methodological awareness - a prerequisite for any such escape - can be fostered, for example, by the quality of research environments, is explored along with implications for those responsible for managing and funding research.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.13, S.1169-1182

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=5233,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.883-892

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 5242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=5242,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5242, 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=5242)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.716-727

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=4540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

4.076838E-4 = product of:
  0.005707573 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 4408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=4408,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4408, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4408)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between preferred choice of school subject and student information behaviour (IB). Design/methodology/approach Mixed methods were employed. In all, 152 students, teachers and librarians participated in interviews or focus groups. In total, 1,375 students, key stage 3 (11-14 years) to postgraduate, responded to a questionnaire. The research population was drawn from eight schools, two further education colleges and three universities. Insights from the literature review and the qualitative research phase led to a hypothesis which was investigated using the questionnaire: that students studying hard subjects are less likely to engage in deep IB than students studying soft subjects. Findings Results support the hypothesis that preferences for subjects at school affect choice of university degree. The hypothesis that a preference for hard or soft subjects affects IB is supported by results of an analysis in which like or dislike of maths/ICT is correlated with responses to the survey. Interviewees' comments led to the proposal that academic subjects can be classified according to whether a subject helps students to acquire a "tool of the Mind" or to apply such a tool. A model suggesting how IB may differ depending on whether intellectual tools are being acquired or applied is proposed. Practical implications The "inner logic" of certain subjects and their pedagogies appears closely linked to IB. This should be considered when developing teaching programmes. Originality/value The findings offer a new perspective on subject classification and its association with IB, and a new model of the association between IB and tool acquisition or application is proposed, incorporating the perspectives of both teacher and student.