Search (201 results, page 2 of 11)

0.033475082 = product of:
  0.066950165 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 2968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=2968,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 2968, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2968)
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=2968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 2968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die Informationswissenschaft, die sich am klarsten über ihren Informationsbegriff von ihren Nachbardisziplinen absetzt, ist ausgehend von der Zeit ihrer fruchtbarsten Definitionsphase in den siebziger und achtziger Jahren eng mit den Sozialwissenschaften verbunden. Welches ihr Anteil an der Informationswissenschaft ist, und - umgekehrt - wie der Informationsbegriff und die damit verbundenen Problemstellungen sich in den heutigen Sozialwissenschaften-vor allem in der Soziologie -widerspiegeln, das soll im Folgenden geklärt werden. Wersig dient hierbei als Ausgangspunkt. Er behandelte mit seiner Informationssoziologie vor dreißig Jahren - wenn auch sehr zeitbezogen-bis heute gültige Weichenstellungen. Für eine Sicht aus dem Blickwinkel der Soziologie bietet sich die Diskussion um die Informationsgesellschaft an, die mit Castells den bisher klarsten theoretisch-methodischen Ausdruck fand. Im Kern geht es bei diesen Fragen immer um den "praktischsten" und ertragreichsten Blickwinkel auf die Gestaltung von Informationssystemen und deren Folgen für uns alle, die wir die Gesellschaft im soziologischen Sinn bilden. Es geht aber auch um wissenschaftsorganisatorische Ansprüche und Abgrenzungen. Gegenüber der technischen und informationstheoretischen Sicht auf Information verwenden Informationswissenschaftler kommunikative Vorgänge als Ausgangspunkt einer Begriffsklärung (von Daten, Information, Wissen) und definieren für Information einen "pragmatischen Primat", um für ihren zentralen Begriff einen eigenständigen Ansatz als Leitprinzip der Forschung zu gewinnen. Information im Sinne der Informationswissenschaft entsteht erst benutzerseitig in einer spezifischen Anwendungssituation (vgl. Kap. A 1). Kuhlen, auf den die programmatische Formel "Information ist Wissen in Aktion" zurückgeht, weist darauf hin, dass die Informationswissenschaft "claims to reflect upon the use of information in social environments". Er will "people make sensitive to the fact that information is, above and beyond its technical or computational aspects, a social phenomenon". Aber was genau soll das bedeuten, vor allem für die praktische Entwicklungs- und Forschungsarbeit? Wo hört die Informationswissenschaft auf und wo beginnen die Sozialwissenschaften, speziell die Soziologie? Wie lassen sich ihre fachspezifischen Sichtweisen der Informationsgesellschaft aufeinander beziehen?

0.033465162 = product of:
  0.13386065 = sum of:
    0.13386065 = sum of:
      0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083649375 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 3901, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3901)
      0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050211266 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3901, 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=3901)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Adopted and formatted in 1994 and reprinted with the permission of the American Association of School Librarians. Information literacy is the term being applied to the skills of information problem solving. Identifies the key elements of information literacy and presents a rationale for integrating information literacy into all aspects of the K-12 and post secondary curriculum

Date

11. 4.1996 14:22:40

0.03341625 = product of:
  0.0668325 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=3543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=3543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

What exactly are the Wellsian World Brain or World Encyclopedia ideas to which reference is so often made? What did they mean for Wells? What might they mean for us? This article examines closely what Wells says about them in his book, World Brain (1938), and in a number of works that elaborate what is expressed there. The article discusses aspects of the context within which Wells's conception of a new world encyclopedia organization was formulated and its role in the main trust of his thought. The article argues that Wells's ideas about a World Brain are embedded in a strucutre of thought that may be shown to entail on the one hand notions of social repression and control that must give us pause, and on the other a concept of the nature and organization of knowledge that may well be no longer acceptable. By examining Wells's ideas in some detail and attempting to articulate the systems of belief which shaped tham and which otherwise lie silent beneath them, the author hopes to provoke questions about current theorizing about the nature of global information systems and emergent intelligence

0.032553654 = product of:
  0.13021462 = sum of:
    0.13021462 = weight(_text_:social in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13021462 = score(doc=304,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents a study of information seeking behaviour and information use viewed from the social constructionist viewpoint. Introduces social constructionism and presents a social constructionist critique of previous research into information use. Reviews generally the nature of discursive action and its analysis and focuses on the principle issue of information use as a discursive action

0.0321699 = product of:
  0.1286796 = sum of:
    0.1286796 = weight(_text_:social in 2146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1286796 = score(doc=2146,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.69660133 = fieldWeight in 2146, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2146)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Vgl. Original unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627315005243: "Morais Tavares, R., A. Mendelsohn, Y.Grossman, C.H. Williams, M. Shapiro, Y. Trope u. D. Schiller: A Map for Social Navigation in the Human Brain" in. Neuron 87(2015) no.1, S,231-243. [Deciphering the neural mechanisms of social behavior has propelled the growth of social neuroscience. The exact computations of the social brain, however, remain elusive. Here we investigated how the human br ain tracks ongoing changes in social relationships using functional neuroimaging. Participants were lead characters in a role-playing game in which they were to find a new home and a job through interactions with virtual cartoon characters. We found that a two-dimensional geometric model of social relationships, a "social space" framed by power and affiliation, predicted hippocampal activity. Moreover, participants who reported better social skills showed stronger covariance between hippocampal activity and "movement" through "social space." The results suggest that the hippocampus is crucial for social cognition, and imply that beyond framing physical locations, the hippocampus computes a more general, inclusive, abstract, and multidimensional cognitive map consistent with its role in episodic memory.].

0.03051905 = product of:
  0.1220762 = sum of:
    0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1220762 = score(doc=354,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 354, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=354)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Alongside cognitive and social phenomena, many scholars have examined emotional and affective considerations in information science, but a potential emotional or affective paradigm has not coalesced to the extent of the social or cognitive paradigms. We argue information science research should integrate the social paradigm, as offered by social informatics, with affective and emotional considerations: a socio-emotional paradigm. A review of existing literature and findings from users' motivations to participate on the Academia section of the Stack Exchange social questioning-and-answering site make our case. We uncovered tensions between the intended information-centric focus of the community and users who believed social, emotional, and affective considerations needed to be foregrounded, speaking to online communities acting as boundary objects, with the "fit" for one user or community not always the same as for another. An integrated socio-emotional paradigm shows much strength for social informatics and information science research, including uncovering hidden concerns and differences in values, as in our study. Affective and emotional research, often bubbling under in information science, should rise to the surface is not so much a paradigm shift but an integration of social, emotional, and affective considerations into a socio-emotional paradigm.

0.028773637 = product of:
  0.11509455 = sum of:
    0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 4045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11509455 = score(doc=4045,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 4045, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4045)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Databases in the humanities and social sciences 4. Proceedings of the International Conference on Databases in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Auburn University, Montgomery, Alabama, July 1987. Ed. by Lawrence J. McCrank

0.028192293 = product of:
  0.11276917 = sum of:
    0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 5097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11276917 = score(doc=5097,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 5097, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5097)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Previous research investigated how to leverage the new type of social data available on the web, e.g., tags, ratings and reviews, in recommending and personalizing information. However, previous works mainly focused on predicting ratings using collaborative filtering or quantifying personalized ranking quality in simulations. As a consequence, the effect of social information in user's information search and information-selection behavior remains elusive. The objective of our research is to investigate the effects of social information on users' interactive search and information-selection behavior. We present a computational method and a system implementation combining different graph overlays: social, personal and search-time user input that are visualized for the user to support interactive information search. We report on a controlled laboratory experiment, in which 24 users performed search tasks using three system variants with different graphs as overlays composed from the largest publicly available social content and review data from Yelp: personal preferences, tags combined with personal preferences, and tags and social ratings combined with personal preferences. Data comprising search logs, questionnaires, simulations, and eye-tracking recordings show that: 1) the search effectiveness is improved by using and visualizing the social rating information and the personal preference information as compared to content-based ranking. 2) The need to consult external information before selecting information is reduced by the presentation of the effects of different overlays on the search results. Search effectiveness improvements can be attributed to the use of social rating and personal preference overlays, which was also confirmed in a follow-up simulation study. With the proposed method we demonstrate that social information can be incorporated to the interactive search process by overlaying graphs representing different information sources. We show that the combination of social rating information and personal preference information improves search effectiveness and reduce the need to consult external information. Our method and findings can inform the design of interactive search systems that leverage the information available on the social web.

0.026733 = product of:
  0.053466 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 2559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=2559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 2559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2559)
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=2559,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 2559, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die breiteste Definition stammt von Knowledge Ecology International: Dazu gehören "the social aspects of the creation, management and control of and access to knowledge resources", auch im Zusammenhang von intellectual "property rules" und "mechanisms to enhance access to knowledge, incentives and systems for the transfer of technology to developed countries", "efforts to protect privacy" und sogar "discourage nuclear proliferation", vor allem aber "issues as diverse as freedom of speech, authors' rights, access to public sector information, new models for publishing, organizing and sharing information", etc. etc. So breit angelegt, verschwimmt ein Begriff leicht ins Unverbindliche. Wissensökologie ist verwandt mit dem Begriff der Kommunikationsökologie, der schon Ende der 80er Jahre im Zusammenhang der Technikfolgenabschätzung entstanden ist. Angesichts weitgehender Eingriffe technisierter Kommunikation in alle individuellen und gesellschaftlichen Lebensbereiche/Umwelten sollen deren Auswirkungen auf Mensch, Natur und Gesellschaft untersucht und Vorschläge zur Entwicklung eines nachhaltigen und humanen Austauschs von technologieabhängiger Information entwickelt werden. Eine kommunikationsökologische Übertragung von Umweltverschmutzung in natürlichen Umgebungen auf solche in elektronischen Räumen (Spam, Datenmissbrauch, Orientierungslosigkeit, Verletzung von Privatheit) liegt nahe.

0.026140431 = product of:
  0.104561724 = sum of:
    0.104561724 = product of:
      0.20912345 = sum of:
        0.20912345 = weight(_text_:aspects in 6872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20912345 = score(doc=6872,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.9987592 = fieldWeight in 6872, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.02510631 = product of:
  0.05021262 = sum of:
    0.034528363 = weight(_text_:social in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034528363 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.18691775 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.015684258 = product of:
      0.031368516 = sum of:
        0.031368516 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031368516 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.14981388 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=829,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information science is currently dominated by 2 paradigms: one emphasises information retrieval as a technological process, based on natural sciences; the other derives from the social sciences, focusing on the information process as a communication act. The first is based on the structure of atoms, the second as people as collective actors. In Brazil the social science approach predominates, chiefly through the influence of 3 currents of thought: American liberalism; German social democracy and French post-structuralism. The ideas of the chief exponents of these theories have been developed by Brazilian researchers, introducing elements from political economy, quantum physics, linguistics, social science and epistemology. This interdisciplinarity is the key to unity in information science

0.02301891 = product of:
  0.09207564 = sum of:
    0.09207564 = weight(_text_:social in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09207564 = score(doc=7241,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.49844736 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Controversies in modern ideas in social work directly reflect controversies in attitudes toward computer applications. Fundamental to modern problems with technology is the persisting dispute between 2 philosophical traditions. On one side there is the formal and technically oriented thinking: on the other the reflexive, dialectical and hermeneutical approach. The reappearance of the conflict in actual discussion is described considering data storage, formal methodology and the social impact of computer use

0.02301891 = product of:
  0.09207564 = sum of:
    0.09207564 = weight(_text_:social in 5688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09207564 = score(doc=5688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.49844736 = fieldWeight in 5688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The social accumulation of knowledge: an interdisciplinary approach

0.022747558 = product of:
  0.09099023 = sum of:
    0.09099023 = weight(_text_:social in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099023 = score(doc=5589,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.49257156 = fieldWeight in 5589, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5589)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To develop a unified research framework that synthesizes similarities between cognitive science and information studies, particularly language. This framework is proposed and explored as useful for future information study research. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis is conducted of two contemporary developments in the distinct disciplines of information studies and cognitive science. The theories of extended cognition and social constructionism are explored, focusing on the issue of context in each of the arguments. The complementarity argument is presented as the strongest argument for extended cognition, while Sanna Talja's work is offered as representative of social constructionism in information studies. The philosophical similarities between extended cognition and social constructionism are then integrated at points of similarity. Findings - Cognitive science and information studies have a number of unexpected similarities both in broad and specific terms. The opportunity to develop a synchronized research framework is presented as both feasible and mutually beneficial. Additionally, cognitive science is suggested as useful tool in bridging the gap between the frameworks of cognitivism and social constructionism in information studies. Research limitations/implications - The philosophic discussion borders on technical at times possibly limiting it to those familiar with or interested in the philosophy or meta-theory within cognitive science and information studies. Practical implications - The conclusion points to future research between cognitive science and information studies that can be conducted in further research projects. The arguments also move toward continuing discussions of interdisciplinarity in information studies. Originality/value - Cognitive science is being frequently employed in information studies research and practice. This paper presents an alternative take on how the two can relate and possible benefits, while also exploring very particular movements within each discipline.

0.022553235 = product of:
  0.04510647 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The project Information Pricing was carried out during the summer semester 2004 by four students and two lecturers. Aim of the project was to develop a new product- and pricing concept for the research centre of the Public Library Cologne. The intention was to increase its competitiveness, especially in the business customer segment. The initiating factor for the project was the significant decrease in requests from 1997 to 2001. This paper describes the development of different attributes of information, analysing various pricing concepts of private and public information providers as well as the development of a pricing concept which is aligned to the requirements and performance of the research centre. The final result was an improved pricing system for an enhanced range of products. The first step was getting more familiar with the characteristics of information and the methods that can be used to measure the value of information. One of the key issues to consider is the value of information for a customer and the question how this value can be charged. In order to be capable of evaluating all issues of information pricing and to develop a solid pricing system, it was essential to analyse and assess pricing modules based on their intension of use. For example, the differentiation of the pricing concept with regard to certain user segments like business or private users as well as members and non-members. Another option is to define prices dependant on the requested response times for research tasks and thereby reflect the urgency of those tasks directly in the pricing concept. Furthermore, the qualitative and quantitative differentiation of information has to be taken into account. All described approaches - and also combinations of these - should be considered when developing a new pricing system. It is also important to recognize the special role of the research centre as a part of the public library. Libraries fulfil a public contract for their users. In this case it has to be ensured that people of all social backgrounds have the chance to gain access to all kind of information. While presenting results to the Public library Cologne some problems arose, mainly the gap between theoretical and practical feasibility. The final result was a practical pricing system, which is easy to implement for the research centre and which is described in the paper.

Date

22. 7.2009 9:24:59

0.022553235 = product of:
  0.04510647 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose In contrast to the interest of describing and managing the social processes of knowing, information science and information and knowledge management research have put less emphasis on discussing how particular information becomes usable and how it is used in different contexts and situations. The purpose of this paper is to address this major gap, and introduce and discuss the applicability of the notion of situational appropriation of information for shedding light on this particular process in the context of daily information work practices of professionals. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the analysis of 25 qualitative interviews of archives, library and museum professionals conducted in two Nordic countries. Findings The study presents examples of how individuals appropriate different tangible and intangible assets as information on the basis of the situation in hand. Research limitations/implications The study proposes a new conceptual tool for articulating and conducting research on the process how information becomes useful in the situation in hand. Practical implications The situational appropriation of information perspective redefines the role of information management to incorporate a comprehensive awareness of the situations when information is useful and is being used. A better understanding how information becomes useful in diverse situations helps to discern the active role of contextual and situational effects and to exploit and take them into account as a part of the management of information and knowledge processes. Originality/value In contrast to orthodoxies of information science and information and knowledge management research, the notion of situational appropriation of information represents an alternative approach to the conceptualisation of information utilisation. It helps to frame particular types of instances of information use that are not necessarily addressed within the objectivistic, information seeker or learning oriented paradigms of information and knowledge management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.020915726 = product of:
  0.083662905 = sum of:
    0.083662905 = sum of:
      0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052280862 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031382043 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify key countries and their focal research fields on the information divide. Design/methodology/approach Literature was retrieved to identify key countries and their primary focus. The literature research method was adopted to identify aspects of the primary focus in each key country. Findings The key countries with literature on the information divide are the USA, China, the UK and India. The problem of health is prominent in the USA, and solutions include providing information, distinguishing users' profiles and improving eHealth literacy. Economic and political factors led to the urban-rural information divide in China, and policy is the most powerful solution. Under the influence of humanism, research on the information divide in the UK focuses on all age groups, and solutions differ according to age. Deep-rooted patriarchal concepts and traditional marriage customs make the gender information divide prominent in India, and increasing women's information consciousness is a feasible way to reduce this divide. Originality/value This paper is an extensive review study on the information divide, which clarifies the key countries and their focal fields in research on this topic. More important, the paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes existing literature from a country perspective.

Date

13. 2.2020 18:22:13

0.020346032 = product of:
  0.08138413 = sum of:
    0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 8801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08138413 = score(doc=8801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 8801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8801)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Social science computer review. 12(1994) no.2, S.242-249

0.020346032 = product of:
  0.08138413 = sum of:
    0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08138413 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)