Search (211 results, page 1 of 11)

0.16312116 = product of:
  0.32624233 = sum of:
    0.32624233 = sum of:
      0.285441 = weight(_text_:q in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.285441 = score(doc=1067,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050191253 = queryNorm
          0.86833495 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
      0.04080133 = weight(_text_:22 in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04080133 = score(doc=1067,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050191253 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social question-and-answer (Q&A) communities are becoming increasingly important for knowledge acquisition. However, some users withhold knowledge, which can hinder the effectiveness of these platforms. Based on social exchange theory, the study investigates how different types of questions influence knowledge withholding, with question difficulty and user anonymity as boundary conditions. Two experiments were conducted to test hypotheses. Results indicate that informational questions are more likely to lead to knowledge withholding than conversational ones, as they elicit more fear of negative evaluation and fear of exploitation. The study also examines the interplay of question difficulty and user anonymity with question type. Overall, this study significantly extends the existing literature on counterproductive knowledge behavior by exploring the antecedents of knowledge withholding in social Q&A communities.

Date

22. 9.2023 13:51:47

0.08739811 = product of:
  0.17479622 = sum of:
    0.17479622 = product of:
      0.34959245 = sum of:
        0.34959245 = weight(_text_:q in 3916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34959245 = score(doc=3916,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            1.0634888 = fieldWeight in 3916, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes an approach based on structuration theory (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Orlikowski, 1992, 2000) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) that can be used to guide investigation into the dynamics of online question and answer (Q&A) communities. This approach is useful because most research on Q&A sites has focused attention on information retrieval, information-seeking behavior, and information intermediation and has assumed uncritically that the online Q&A community plays an important role in these domains of study. Assuming instead that research on online communities should take into account social, technical, and contextual factors (Kling, Rosenbaum, & Sawyer, 2005), the utility of this approach is demonstrated with an analysis of three online Q&A communities seen as communities of practice. This article makes a theoretical contribution to the study of online Q&A communities and, more generally, to the domain of social reference.

0.07283175 = product of:
  0.1456635 = sum of:
    0.1456635 = product of:
      0.291327 = sum of:
        0.291327 = weight(_text_:q in 5812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.291327 = score(doc=5812,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.88624066 = fieldWeight in 5812, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5812)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More and more social Q&A platforms are launching a new business model to monetize online knowledge. This monetizing process introduces a more complicated cost and benefit tradeoff to users, especially for askers' concerns. Much of the previous research was conducted in the context of free-based Q&A platform, which hardly explains the triggers that motivate askers' pay intention. Based on the theories of social exchange and social capital, this study aims to identify and examine the antecedents of askers' pay intention from the perspective of benefit and cost. We empirically test our predictions based on survey data collected from 322 actual askers in a well-known trilateral payment-based social Q&A platform in China. The results by partial least squares (PLS) analysis indicate that besides noneconomic benefits including self-enhancement, social support, and entertainment, financial factors such as cost and benefit have significant influences on the perceived value of using trilateral payment-based Q&A platforms. More important, we further identify that the effect of financial benefit is moderated by perceived reciprocity belief, and the effect of perceived value is moderated by perceived trust in answerers. Our findings contribute to the previous literature by proposing a theoretical model that explains askers' behavioral intention, and the practical implications for payment-based Q&A service providers and participants.

0.06648599 = product of:
  0.13297199 = sum of:
    0.13297199 = product of:
      0.26594397 = sum of:
        0.26594397 = weight(_text_:q in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26594397 = score(doc=457,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = 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.

0.0617998 = product of:
  0.1235996 = sum of:
    0.1235996 = product of:
      0.2471992 = sum of:
        0.2471992 = weight(_text_:q in 3295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2471992 = score(doc=3295,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.7520002 = fieldWeight in 3295, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3295)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Prior research has shown that social interaction is important for continuation of question-and-answer (Q&A) activity online and that it also leads to monetary rewards. The present research focuses on the link between social interaction and the value of information. Expressions of self-presentation in the interaction between askers and answerers online are studied as antecedents for answer feedback which represents the value of the answer to the asker. This relationship is examined in a Q&A site, specifically, in Google Answers (GA). The results of content analysis performed on sets of questions and answers show that both explicit and implicit social cues are used by the site's participants; however, only implicit expressions of self-presentation are related to the provision of social and monetary feedback, ratings, and tips. This finding highlights the importance of implicit cues in textual communication and lends support to the notion of social capital where both monetary and social forms of feedback are the result of interaction online.

0.059466876 = product of:
  0.11893375 = sum of:
    0.11893375 = product of:
      0.2378675 = sum of:
        0.2378675 = weight(_text_:q in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2378675 = score(doc=6686,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In networked information environments, using server-browser architectures, nearly all information finding episodes become extended interactions between the user and the system. In this setting the system needs some way to "understand" what the user is seeking, as this goal adapts and is modified during a session or a series of sessions. We describe a formal model, in which the model of the user's quest is represented as a generalized abstract "response function" representing the user's response to the information delivered by the system. Representing this response as u(n) = Q(S(n - 1)) shows that the user's utterance u(n) at a time step n is determined according to the user's "response function" Q by the materials S(n - 1) that had been presented up through the previous time step n - 1. The entire history of materials presented thus plays a role in determining the user's response, providing a very rich probe into the precise nature of the user's information quest, here represented by the rule Q. We show how this gives rise naturally to a new model for assimilating relevance feedback information, and to the concept of itineraries in the information network. Finally the concept of an information quest Q, provides a natural framework for considering the time dependence of information about the user's needs, and for various models of information aging. The use and effectiveness of this concept are illustrated with data collected in the Ant World Project at Rutgers

0.059466876 = product of:
  0.11893375 = sum of:
    0.11893375 = product of:
      0.2378675 = sum of:
        0.2378675 = weight(_text_:q in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2378675 = score(doc=615,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.7236124 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates the motivational factors affecting the quantity and quality of voluntary knowledge contribution in online Q&A communities. Although previous studies focus on knowledge contribution quantity, this study regards quantity and quality as two important, yet distinct, aspects of knowledge contribution. Drawing on self-determination theory, this study proposes that five motivational factors, categorized along the extrinsic-intrinsic spectrum of motivation, have differential effects on knowledge contribution quantity versus quality in the context of online Q&A communities. An online survey with 367 participants was conducted in a leading online Q&A community to test the research model. Results show that rewards in the reputation system, learning, knowledge self-efficacy, and enjoy helping stand out as important motivations. Furthermore, rewards in the reputation system, as a manifestation of the external regulation, is more effective in facilitating the knowledge contribution quantity than quality. Knowledge self-efficacy, as a manifestation of intrinsic motivation, is more strongly related to knowledge contribution quality, whereas the other intrinsic motivation, enjoy helping, is more strongly associated with knowledge contribution quantity. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

0.042049434 = product of:
  0.08409887 = sum of:
    0.08409887 = product of:
      0.16819774 = sum of:
        0.16819774 = weight(_text_:q in 3617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16819774 = score(doc=3617,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.5116713 = fieldWeight in 3617, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the quality of answers on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and to compare it with library reference services. It aims to examine whether Wikipedia volunteers outperform expert reference librarians and exemplify the paradox of expertise. Design/methodology/approach - The study applied content analysis to a sample of 434 messages (77 questions and 357 responses) from the Wikipedia Reference Desk and focused on three SERVQUAL quality variables: reliability (accuracy, completeness, verifiability), responsiveness, and assurance. Findings - The study reports that on all three SERVQUAL measures quality of answers produced by the Wikipedia Reference Desk is comparable with that of library reference services. Research limitations/implications - The collaborative social reference model matched or outperformed the dyadic reference interview and should be further examined theoretically and empirically. The generalizability of the findings to other similar sites is questionable. Practical implications - Librarians and library science educators should examine the implications of the social reference on the future role of reference services. Originality/value - The study is the first to: examine the quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desk; extend research on Wikipedia quality; use SERVQUAL measures in evaluating Q&A sites; and compare Q&A sites with traditional reference services.

0.037688002 = sum of:
  0.017287336 = product of:
    0.069149345 = sum of:
      0.069149345 = weight(_text_:authors in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.069149345 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22881259 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050191253 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3049, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3049)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020400666 = product of:
    0.04080133 = sum of:
      0.04080133 = weight(_text_:22 in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04080133 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050191253 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3049, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3049)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors are students of librarianship in the faculty of philosophy at Ljubljana University, Slovenia. Users were asked to describe their library visits and summarise what was most helpful and least helpful about the service received. In the list of best practices, the most frequent feature was that the staff member really listened (58,9%). Other aspects of most helpful behaviour (e.g. using different body language, showing genuine interest, willingness to investigate further) occured in less than 40% of the interviews. 3 features of least helpful behaviour were listed in more than 30% of the cases; not asking the user anything about the question and making no effort to determine the specific need, not telling the user what he/she was doing, making no effort to determine whether the user had found the relevant information

Date

22. 2.1999 19:29:43

0.029733438 = product of:
  0.059466876 = sum of:
    0.059466876 = product of:
      0.11893375 = sum of:
        0.11893375 = weight(_text_:q in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11893375 = score(doc=3352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = 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.

0.029733438 = product of:
  0.059466876 = sum of:
    0.059466876 = product of:
      0.11893375 = sum of:
        0.11893375 = weight(_text_:q in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11893375 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32872224 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 4244, 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=4244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.027200889 = product of:
  0.054401778 = sum of:
    0.054401778 = product of:
      0.108803555 = sum of:
        0.108803555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108803555 = score(doc=5755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen. 57(1940), S.16-22

0.027200889 = product of:
  0.054401778 = sum of:
    0.054401778 = product of:
      0.108803555 = sum of:
        0.108803555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108803555 = score(doc=5761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bücherei und Bildung. 22(1970), S.63-71

0.027200889 = product of:
  0.054401778 = sum of:
    0.054401778 = product of:
      0.108803555 = sum of:
        0.108803555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108803555 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bibliothekar. 19(1965), S.15-22

0.027200889 = product of:
  0.054401778 = sum of:
    0.054401778 = product of:
      0.108803555 = sum of:
        0.108803555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108803555 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.027200889 = product of:
  0.054401778 = sum of:
    0.054401778 = product of:
      0.108803555 = sum of:
        0.108803555 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108803555 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Reference librarian; no.22

0.027200889 = product of:
  0.054401778 = sum of:
    0.054401778 = product of:
      0.108803555 = sum of:
        0.108803555 = weight(_text_:22 in 5649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108803555 = score(doc=5649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 4.2002 17:30:22

0.027200889 = product of:
  0.054401778 = sum of:
    0.054401778 = product of:
      0.108803555 = sum of:
        0.108803555 = weight(_text_:22 in 2504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108803555 = score(doc=2504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2504, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2015 18:22:38

0.025125336 = sum of:
  0.011524891 = product of:
    0.046099562 = sum of:
      0.046099562 = weight(_text_:authors in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046099562 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22881259 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050191253 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 2963, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2963)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.013600444 = product of:
    0.027200889 = sum of:
      0.027200889 = weight(_text_:22 in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027200889 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050191253 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2963, 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=2963)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Uncovering faculty members' conceptions of Information Literacy (IL), as well as exploring their perceptions with regard to the importance given to a previously defined set of core IL competences grouped into four categories: searching, evaluation, processing and communication and dissemination. Ascertaining the possible differences among the five knowledge branches (arts and humanities, sciences, social and legal sciences, health sciences, and technical disciplines); and understanding the importance granted to a set of learning improvement initiatives by the faculty. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The survey was completed by a set of faculty members from the University of Granada (Spain). Data were collected using the IL-HUMASS survey. The research is based on subjective data, first approached from a descriptive point of view. Later, data correlation, analysis and non-parametric tests were used with the goal of finding significant differences of faculty perceptions among the relevant academic areas. Findings - Results suggest that more than half of the surveyed faculty have what the authors define as an Academic Concept of IL. The IL categories of communica\tion and dissemination and searching were graded in significance by the staff as being "very important," while those of evaluation and processing were assigned a slightly lesser rating of "important." Results suggest that IL awareness falls into two broad groups differentiated by subject discipline: those from health sciences, social and legal sciences and arts and humanities representing the first group, and sciences and technical disciplines the other. Research limitations/implications - This approach address the subjective status of faculty concepts in a single university, but also in all knowledge branches. Future research is needed. Originality/value - This is one of the few papers regarding faculty perceptions of IL.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.023800777 = product of:
  0.047601555 = sum of:
    0.047601555 = product of:
      0.09520311 = sum of:
        0.09520311 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09520311 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576122 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050191253 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11