Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006506373 = product of:
  0.022772305 = sum of:
    0.010503305 = product of:
      0.052516524 = sum of:
        0.052516524 = weight(_text_:system in 581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052516524 = score(doc=581,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46033388 = fieldWeight in 581, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=581)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The development of a facet analysis system to code and analyze data in a mixed-method study is discussed. The research goal was to identify the dimensions of interaction that contribute to student satisfaction in online Web-supported courses. The study was conducted between 2000 and 2002 at the Florida State University School of Information Studies. The researchers developed a facet analysis system that meets S. R. Ranganathan's ([1967]) requirements for articulation on three planes (idea, verbal, and notational). This system includes a codebook (verbal), coding procedures, and formulae (notational) for quantitative analysis of logs of chat sessions and postings to discussion boards for eight master's level courses taught online during the fall 2000 semester. Focus group interviews were subsequently held with student participants to confirm that results of the facet analysis reflected their experiences with the courses. The system was developed through a process of emergent coding. The researchers have been unable to identify any prior use of facet analysis for the analysis of research data as in this study. Identifying the facet analysis system was a major breakthrough in the research process, which, in turn, provided the researchers with a lens through which to analyze and interpret the data. In addition, identification of the faceted nature of the system opens up new possibilities for automation of the coding process.

Date

2.11.2007 10:22:40

0.0028043431 = product of:
  0.0196304 = sum of:
    0.0196304 = product of:
      0.0392608 = sum of:
        0.0392608 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0392608 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0010462549 = product of:
  0.007323784 = sum of:
    0.007323784 = product of:
      0.03661892 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=3945,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3945, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3945)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the initial relationship between the Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR) and how this relationship changed between 1952 and 1970. The theory of normative behavior and its concepts of worldviews, social norms, social types, and information behavior are used to characterize the relationship between the small worlds of the two groups with the intent of understanding the gap between early classification research and information retrieval (IR) research. Design/methodology/approach This is a mixed method analysis of two groups as evidenced in published artifacts by and about their work. A thorough review of historical literature about the groups as well as their own published works was employed and an author co-citation analysis was used to characterize the conceptual similarities and differences of the two groups of researchers. Findings The CRG focused on fundamental principles to aid classification and retrieval of information. The CDCR were more inclined to develop practical methods of retrieval without benefit of good theoretical foundations. The CRG began it work under the contention that the general classification schemes at the time were inadequate for the developing IR mechanisms. The CDCR rejected the classification schemes of the times and focused on developing punch card mechanisms and processes that were generously funded by both government and corporate funding. Originality/value This paper provides a unique historical analysis of two groups of influential researchers in the field of library and information science.