Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021716028 = product of:
  0.043432057 = sum of:
    0.043432057 = sum of:
      0.02599572 = weight(_text_:p in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02599572 = score(doc=91,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.017436337 = weight(_text_:22 in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017436337 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

DDC

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

Footnote

The editorial and peer review processes appear to be slightly spotty in application. All of the 55 papers are in English but a few of them are in such need of basic editing that they are almost incomprehensible in sections. Consider, for example, the following: "So, the meaning of region where we are studying on, should be discovered and then affect on the final plan" (p. 346). The collection shows a strong array of methodological approaches including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies; however, a few of the research efforts exhibit fundamental design flaws. Consider, for example, the study that "set[s] out to show that nurses as care-givers find it difficult to transfer any previously acquired technological skills into their work based on technology needs (p. 187). After studying 39 female and 6 male nurses, this study finds, not surprisingly, exactly what it "set out" to find. Rather than noting the limitations of sample size and data gathering techniques, the paper firmly concludes that nurses can be technologists "only in areas of technology that support their primary role as carers" (p. 188). Finally, some of the papers do not report on original research but are competent, if brief, summaries of theories or concepts that are covered in equal depth elsewhere. For example, a three-page summary of "the major personality and learning theories" (p. 3) is useful but lacks the intellectual depth or insight needed to contribute substantially to the field. These problems with composition, methodological rigor, and theoretical depth are not uncommon in papers designed for a broadly defined conference theme. The authors may have been writing for an in-person audience and anticipating thoughtful postpresentation discussions; they probably had no idea of the heavy price tag put on their work. The editors, however, might have kept that $256 in mind and exercised a heavier editorial hand. Perhaps the publisher could have paid for a careful subject indexing of the work as a substantive addition to the author index provided. The complexity of the subject domains included in the volume certainly merits careful indexing.