Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05141192 = product of:
  0.10282384 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=457,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
    0.04527656 = product of:
      0.09055312 = sum of:
        0.09055312 = weight(_text_:aspects in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09055312 = score(doc=457,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.43247548 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Online question-answering (Q&A) services are becoming increasingly popular among information seekers. We divide them into two categories, social Q&A (SQA) and virtual reference (VR), and examine how experts (librarians) and end users (students) evaluate information within both categories. To accomplish this, we first performed an extensive literature review and compiled a list of the aspects found to contribute to a "good" answer. These aspects were divided among three high-level concepts: relevance, quality, and satisfaction. We then interviewed both experts and users, asking them first to reflect on their online Q&A experiences and then comment on our list of aspects. These interviews uncovered two main disparities. One disparity was found between users' expectations with these services and how information was actually delivered among them, and the other disparity between the perceptions of users and experts with regard to the aforementioned three characteristics of relevance, quality, and satisfaction. Using qualitative analyses of both the interviews and relevant literature, we suggest ways to create better hybrid solutions for online Q&A and to bridge the gap between experts' and users' understandings of relevance, quality, and satisfaction, as well as the perceived importance of each in contributing to a good answer.

0.022747558 = product of:
  0.09099023 = sum of:
    0.09099023 = weight(_text_:social in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099023 = score(doc=5983,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.49257156 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support. Design/methodology/approach Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman's (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management. Findings Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices. Social implications Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright. Originality/value This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 5355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=5355,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 5355, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5355)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article examines how search engines and social-networking sites enable and constrain the identity-related information practices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) millennials in the United States. I employ affordances as a process concept to understand the recursive relationship between individuals and technologies and envision information practices as an outcome of this relationship. Guided by this conceptual framework, I conducted 30 semistructured interviews with LGBTQ+ individuals between the ages of 18 and 38. Data analysis identified 3 key affordances that enable and constrain participants' information practices: visibility, anonymity, and association. The findings indicate that participants are highly skilled in appropriating technological features to engage in desired information practices, such as seeking and creating. However, they also must contend with significant sociocultural barriers encoded into these features, which reinforce hetero- and cisnormative identity discourses. Library practitioners and systems designers can use these findings to offer services and systems inclusive of LGBTQ+ populations.