Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02600335 = product of:
  0.0520067 = sum of:
    0.0520067 = product of:
      0.1040134 = sum of:
        0.1040134 = weight(_text_:policy in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1040134 = score(doc=618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29263058 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054576594 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To argue that theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines can be of practical benefit to practitioner LIS research. In the area of digitisation collection development policy, such models highlight the importance of digital library preservation issues. Design/methodology/approach - An application of formal models from cultural theories derived from structuralism and semiotics to LIS problems. Findings - Theoretical models from non-LIS disciplines help illustrate and understand problems such as developing information literacy in the digital library environment or creating a balance between the need to develop new digital collections and the preservation of the digital collections which have already been created. Research limitations/implications - This is a theoretical argument that could be tested by practical case study investigation. Practical implications - The paper suggests that resourcing should be applied to digital preservation activity rather than a fresh round of digitisation of print originals, the preservation implications of which are uncertain. Originality/value - This paper gives some original perspectives on practical LIS challenges by applying abstract ideas from the area of cultural theory and applied linguistics.

0.021669459 = product of:
  0.043338917 = sum of:
    0.043338917 = product of:
      0.086677834 = sum of:
        0.086677834 = weight(_text_:policy in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086677834 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29263058 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.054576594 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.