Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05848532 = product of:
  0.11697064 = sum of:
    0.11697064 = product of:
      0.23394129 = sum of:
        0.23394129 = weight(_text_:q in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23394129 = score(doc=457,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.8090234 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.026155427 = product of:
  0.052310854 = sum of:
    0.052310854 = product of:
      0.10462171 = sum of:
        0.10462171 = weight(_text_:q in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10462171 = score(doc=3352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04415143 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 3352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This investigation of new approaches to improving collaboration, user/librarian experiences, and sustainability for virtual reference services (VRS) reports findings from a grant project titled "Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites" (Radford, Connaway, & Shah, 2011-2014). In-depth telephone interviews with 50 VRS librarians included questions on collaboration, referral practices, and attitudes toward Social Question and Answer (SQA) services using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). The Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998; Davies, 2005) framework was found to be a useful conceptualization for understanding VRS professionals' approaches to their work. Findings indicate that participants usually refer questions from outside of their area of expertise to other librarians, but occasionally refer them to nonlibrarian experts. These referrals are made possible because participants believe that other VRS librarians are qualified and willing collaborators. Barriers to collaboration include not knowing appropriate librarians/experts for referral, inability to verify credentials, and perceived unwillingness to collaborate. Facilitators to collaboration include knowledge of appropriate collaborators who are qualified and willingness to refer. Answers from SQA services were perceived as less objective and authoritative, but participants were open to collaborating with nonlibrarian experts with confirmation of professional expertise or extensive knowledge.