Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=3340,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Keeping up to date with research developments is a central activity of academic researchers, but researchers face difficulties in managing the rapid growth of available scientific information. This study examined how researchers stay up to date, using the information journey model as a framework for analysis and investigating which dimensions influence information behaviors. We designed a 2-round study involving semistructured interviews and prototype testing with 61 researchers with 3 levels of seniority (PhD student to professor). Data were analyzed following a semistructured qualitative approach. Five key dimensions that influence information behaviors were identified: level of seniority, information sources, state of the project, level of familiarity, and how well defined the relevant community is. These dimensions are interrelated and their values determine the flow of the information journey. Across all levels of professional expertise, researchers used similar hard (formal) sources to access content, while soft (interpersonal) sources were used to filter information. An important "pain point" that future information tools should address is helping researchers filter information at the point of need.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=3803,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 4th edition of this popular and well-cited text is now co-authored, and includes significant changes from earlier texts. Presenting a comprehensive review of over a century of research on information behavior (IB), this book is intended for students in information studies and disciplines interested in research on information activities. The initial two chapters introduce IB as a multi-disciplinary topic, the 3rd provides a brief history of research on information seeking. Chapter four discusses what is meant by the terms "information" and "knowledge. "Chapter five discusses "information needs," and how they are addressed. The 6th chapter identifies many related concepts. Twelve models of information behavior (expanded from earlier editions) are illustrated in chapter seven. Chapter eight reviews various paradigms and theories informing IB research. Chapter nine examines research methods invoked in IB studies and a discussion of qualitative and mixed approaches. The 10th chapter gives examples of IB studies by context. The final chapter looks at strengths and weaknesses, recent trends, and future development.

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4138,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4138, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous studies have found that both (a) the characteristics (e.g., quality and accessibility) and (b) the types of sources (e.g., relational and nonrelational sources) influence information source selection. Different from earlier studies that have prioritized one source attribute over the other, this research uses information need as a contingency factor to examine information seekers' simultaneous consideration of different attributes. An empirical test from 149 employees' evaluations of eight information sources revealed that (a) low-and high-information-need individuals favored information source quality over accessibility while medium-information-need individuals favored accessibility over quality; and (b) individuals are more likely to choose relational over nonrelational sources as information need increases.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4060,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4060, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the information-seeking behavior of science and social science research scholars, including service effectiveness, satisfaction level on different type of sources and various methods adopted by the scholars for keeping up to date. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using a questionnaire survey of 200, randomly selected, PhD students of science and social science departments of four universities in Kerala, India. Findings - Although similarities exist between social science and science PhD students with regard to information-seeking behavior, there are significant differences as well. There is a significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of print journals and database collection which are very relevant to the research purposes. There is no significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of e-journals, the most used source for keeping up to date. The study proved that scholars of both the fields are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the library in keeping them up to date with latest developments. Originality/value - The study is based on actual situation and the result can be used for library service redesign for different types of users.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3802,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3802, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3802)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)