Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=4693,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4693, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=579,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores an image-based retrieval interface for drug information, focusing on usability for a specific population - seniors. Qualitative, task-based interviews examined participants' health information behaviors and documented search strategies using an existing database (www.drugs.com) and a new prototype that uses similarity-based clustering of pill images for retrieval. Twelve participants (aged 65 and older), reflecting a diversity of backgrounds and experience with Web-based resources, located pill information using the interfaces and discussed navigational and other search preferences. Findings point to design features (e.g., image enlargement) that meet seniors' needs in the context of other health-related information-seeking strategies (e.g., contacting pharmacists).

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 464, 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=464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 5428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=5428,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5428, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Guest editorial to a special issue for research on people's engagement with technology.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 4255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=4255,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4255, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Digital tools offer new affordances and methodologies to humanities scholars' research. This study used a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine humanities scholars' research practices, including their use of a wide range of resources and digital technologies. Using in-depth study, several themes emerged from the research relating to the role of technology in shaping humanities scholars' research practices. The themes include: (a) humanities scholars' research approaches and technology tools; (b) the humanities scholar as tool developer; (c) the role of data preparation as a meta-level research practice; (d) data visualization versus numeric outputs-one size does not fit all; (e) the importance of flexibility and agency; (f) technology tools in support of the researcher as writer; and (g) working alone/working together-technology tools and collaborative practice. The heterogeneous nature of humanities scholars' research practices are explored and the resulting implications for digital tool design. Two new research practices-tool development and data preparation-are proposed. The diverse digital technologies humanities scholars use support the traditional ways of working within their discipline, as well as creating potential for new scholarly practices.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=355,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 355, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many researchers in library and information science have claimed that studies that are holistic are critical to understanding various phenomena. On closer examination, however, the term "holistic" is used mainly as a rhetorical device in the literature, rather than as one that embraces the epistemological tenets of a holistic paradigm, and applies these to research design. This paper examines this rhetorical use, and explores what it would mean, and why it would matter, to adopt substantively holistic approaches to research. We review relevant literature in library and information science to position past uses of holistic and compare these to the conceptual intentions of holism. We also outline the concept of holism, itself, with a focus on methodological and ontological holism, which can most deeply inform research design in our discipline. Greater methodological diversity, including much wider adoption of interpretivist and critical approaches, can address the concerns underlying the use of holistic rhetoric. We illustrate this central conceptual argument with a roadmap illustrating holistic considerations throughout the research process. The paper demonstrates that it is possible to shift away from predominantly rhetorical use of holistic, toward paradigmatically holistic research, which will provide for richer analyses of critical phenomena in the discipline.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=742,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 742, 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=742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This study seeks to apply ecological psychology's concept of "affordance" to graduate students' information behavior in the academic library, and to explore the extent to which the affordances experienced by graduate students differed from the affordances librarians were attempting to provide. Design/methodology/approach - In-depth, qualitative interviews with graduate students and academic librarians explored how the students perceived and used the library's various "opportunities for action" (e.g. books, databases, instructional sessions, librarians, physical space, etc.) and compared these perceptions and behavior with librarians' intentions and expectations. Findings - Findings indicate a disparity between expectations and experience and point to graduate students as an underserved population in this context, especially in terms of the library's outreach efforts. In addition, because graduate students are increasingly teaching introductory undergraduate courses, communication methods that bypass graduate students tend to miss undergraduate students as well. Practical implications - Practical implications discussed in this paper include possible methods of improving communication channels between graduate students and academic librarians, and considerations for information literacy instruction. Originality/value - This paper presents a unique perspective by using affordance theory to frame students and librarians' expectations about library services. The findings are particularly valuable for their implications for library-patron communication and information literacy.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4042,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4042, 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=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although technology can often correct spelling errors, the complex tasks of information searching and retrieval in an online public access catalog (OPAC) are made more difficult by these errors in users' input and bibliographic records. This study examines the search behaviors of 38 university students, divided into groups with either easy-to-spell or difficult-to-spell search terms, who were asked to find items in the OPAC with these search terms. Search behaviors and strategy use in the OPAC and on the World Wide Web (WWW) were examined. In general, students used familiar Web resources to check their spelling or discover more about the assigned topic. Students with difficult-to-spell search terms checked spelling more often, changed search strategies to look for the general topic and had fewer successful searches. Students unable to find the correct spelling of a search term were unable to complete their search. Students tended to search the OPAC as they would search a search engine, with few search terms or complex search strategies. The results of this study have implications for spell checking, user-focused OPAC design, and cataloging. Students' search behaviors are discussed by expanding Thatcher's (2006) Information-Seeking Process and Tactics for the WWW model to include OPACs.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5014,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5014, 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=5014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Agricultural research in developing countries often involves collaboration between dispersed multicultural teams of scientists from developed and developing countries. The teams use information and computing technologies (ICTs) to communicate between team members, who originate from different cultures using different languages. This paper investigates the usability and utility of a range of ICTs used for communication between team members from different cultures. The research used an intercultural heuristic evaluation tool, or I-CHET, to evaluate nine ICTs used by Australian and Lao scientists for team communication. The evaluation showed that asynchronous ICTs (e.g., e-mail) were preferred by non-native English speakers, while synchronous media (e.g., audio conferencing, instant messaging, Skype) presented considerable problems between team members from different cultures. Most ICTs evaluated in the study demonstrated little consideration for non-native English speakers and for inexperienced ICTs users. However, all evaluated ICTs demonstrated the ability to transmit information and encourage communication between information users in scientific collaborations. The I-CHET assessment tool highlights the ongoing need for a "toolbox" of communication ICTs for research collaborations that can be adapted to suit the cultural and professional needs of multinational teams, worldwide.

Type

a