Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07283175 = product of:
  0.1456635 = sum of:
    0.1456635 = product of:
      0.291327 = sum of:
        0.291327 = weight(_text_:q in 5812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.291327 = score(doc=5812,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.88624066 = fieldWeight in 5812, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5812)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More and more social Q&A platforms are launching a new business model to monetize online knowledge. This monetizing process introduces a more complicated cost and benefit tradeoff to users, especially for askers' concerns. Much of the previous research was conducted in the context of free-based Q&A platform, which hardly explains the triggers that motivate askers' pay intention. Based on the theories of social exchange and social capital, this study aims to identify and examine the antecedents of askers' pay intention from the perspective of benefit and cost. We empirically test our predictions based on survey data collected from 322 actual askers in a well-known trilateral payment-based social Q&A platform in China. The results by partial least squares (PLS) analysis indicate that besides noneconomic benefits including self-enhancement, social support, and entertainment, financial factors such as cost and benefit have significant influences on the perceived value of using trilateral payment-based Q&A platforms. More important, we further identify that the effect of financial benefit is moderated by perceived reciprocity belief, and the effect of perceived value is moderated by perceived trust in answerers. Our findings contribute to the previous literature by proposing a theoretical model that explains askers' behavioral intention, and the practical implications for payment-based Q&A service providers and participants.

0.0124760615 = product of:
  0.024952123 = sum of:
    0.024952123 = product of:
      0.09980849 = sum of:
        0.09980849 = weight(_text_:authors in 5028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09980849 = score(doc=5028,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22881259 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 5028, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5028)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Information seeking is often performed in collaborative contexts. The research into such collaborative information seeking (CIS) has been proceeding since the 1990s but lacks methodological discussions. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss methodological issues in existing CIS studies. Design/methodology/approach The authors systematically review 69 empirical CIS studies. Findings The review shows that the most common methods of data collection are lab experiments (43 percent), observation (19 percent) and surveys (16 percent), that the most common methods of data analysis are description (33 percent), statistical testing (29 percent) and content analysis (19 percent) and that CIS studies involve a fairly even mix of novice, intermediate and specialist participants. However, the authors also find that CIS research is dominated by exploratory studies, leaves it largely unexplored in what ways the findings of a study may be specific to the particular study setting, appears to assign primacy to precision at the expense of generalizability, struggles with investigating how CIS activities extend over time and provides data about behavior to a larger extent than about reasons, experiences and especially outcomes. Research limitations/implications The major implication of this review is its identification of the need for a shared model to which individual CIS studies can contribute in a cumulative manner. To support the development of such a model, the authors discuss a model of the core CIS process and a model of the factors that trigger CIS. Originality/value This study assesses the current state of CIS research, provides guidance for future CIS studies and aims to inspire further methodological discussion.