Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Pettigrew, K.E."
  1. Wilkinson, M.A.; Pettigrew, K.E.: Control of community information : an analysis of roles (1996) 0.00 
    0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 6953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=6953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 6953, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6953)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Explores the differences between information and referral agencies and online community networks from an information policy perspective and uses a framework proposed by Wilkinson (1992) to analyze the positioning of control within the 2 intermediaries under 6 facets: agency ownership and governance, funding, information flow, access, information ownership, and quality control. Existing community networks and information and referral agencies are used as examples to illustrate the arguments
  2. Pettigrew, K.E.: Agents of information : the role of community health nurses in linking the elderly with local resources by providing human services information (1999) 0.00 
    0.0038404856 = product of:
  0.011521457 = sum of:
    0.011521457 = product of:
      0.03456437 = sum of:
        0.03456437 = weight(_text_:22 in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456437 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 288, 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=288)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 3.2002 8:56:51
  3. McKechnie, L.(E.F.); Pettigrew, K.E.: Surveying the use of theory in library and information science research : a disciplinary perspective (2002) 0.00 
    0.0028656456 = product of:
  0.008596936 = sum of:
    0.008596936 = product of:
      0.025790809 = sum of:
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=815,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 815, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=815)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A content analysis of 1,160 Library and Information Science (LIS) articles published in six LIS journals between 1993 and 1998 was conducted to examine the use of theory in LIS research. Overall, 34.2 percent of articles incorporated theory in either the title, abstract, or text for a total of 1,083 theory incidents or an average of .93 incidents per article. Articles dealing with topics from the humanities (e.g., information policy, history) had the highest rate of theory use with 1.81 incidents per article, followed by social science papers (e.g., information behavior, management) with .98 incidents per article and science articles (e.g., bibliometrics, information retrieval) with .75 theory incidents per article. These findings imply that differences exist in the use of theory in LIS that are associated with the broad disciplinary content of the research. These differences may arise from variant conceptions of and approaches to the use of theory in the research traditions of the humanities, social sciences, and sciences. It is suggested that the multidisciplinary background of LIS researchers provides a rich but still under-utilized opportunity for the use and development of theory within LIS.

Authors

Years