Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0083981585 = product of:
  0.016796317 = sum of:
    0.016796317 = product of:
      0.033592634 = sum of:
        0.033592634 = weight(_text_:i in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033592634 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16122356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04274526 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many scientific fields share common interests for research and education. Yet, very often, these fields do not communicate to each other and are unaware of the work in other fields. Understanding the commonalities and differences among related fields can broaden our understanding of the interested phenomena from various perspectives, better utilize resources, enhance collaboration, and eventually move the related fields forward together. In this article, we present a conceptual framework, namely the Information-Model or I-model, to describe various aspects of information related fields. We consider this a timely effort in light of the evolutions of several information related fields and a set of questions related to the identities of these fields. It is especially timely in defining the newly formed Information Field from a community of twenty some information schools. We posit that the information related fields are built on a number of other fields but with their own unique foci and concerns. That is, core components from other fundamental fields interact and integrate with each other to form dynamic and interesting information related fields that all have to do with information, technology, people, and organization/society. The conceptual framework can have a number of uses. Besides providing a unified view of these related fields, it can be used to examine old case studies, recent research projects, educational programs and curricula concerns, as well as to illustrate the commonalities and differences with the information related fields.

0.0083981585 = product of:
  0.016796317 = sum of:
    0.016796317 = product of:
      0.033592634 = sum of:
        0.033592634 = weight(_text_:i in 1132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033592634 = score(doc=1132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16122356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04274526 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 1132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As the information field (IField) becomes more recognized by different constituencies for education and research, the need to better understand its intellectual characteristics becomes more compelling. Although there are various conceptualizations of the IField, to date, in-depth studies based on empirical evidence are scarce. This article reports a study that fills this gap. We focus on the first five ISchools in the ICaucus as a proxy to represent the IField. The intellectual characteristics are depicted by two independent sets of data on tenure track faculty as knowledge contributors: their intellectual heritages and the intellectual substance in their journal publications. We use a critical analysis method to examine doctoral training areas and 3 years of journal publications. Our results indicate that (a) the IField can be better conceptualized with empirical support by a four-component model that includes People, Information, Technology, and Management, as predicted by the I-Model (Zhang & Benjamin, 2007); (b) the ISchools' faculty members are diverse, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary as shown by their intellectual heritages, by their research foci, by journals in which they publish, by the contexts within which they conduct research, and by the levels of analysis in research investigations; (c) the five ISchools share similarities while evincing differences in both faculty heritages and intellectual substances; (d) ISchool tenure track faculty members do not collaborate much with each other within or across schools although there is great potential; and (e) intellectual heritages are not good predictors of scholars' intellectual substance. We conclude by discussing the implications of the findings on IField identity, IField development, new ISchool formation and existing ISchool evolution, faculty career development, and collaboration within the IField.

0.007239241 = product of:
  0.014478482 = sum of:
    0.014478482 = product of:
      0.028956965 = sum of:
        0.028956965 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028956965 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14968662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04274526 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39