Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 5250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=5250,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 5250, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Objectivity, in the form of the application of external scrutiny according to standards agreed within a research community, is an essential characteristic of information science research whether pursued from positivist, interpretative, or action research perspectives. Subjectivity may represent both a legitimate focus of research (e.g., people's perceptions and attitudes) and a legitimate component of methodology (e.g., enabling researchers to enter, experience, and share the perceived worlds of their subjects). However, subjectivity that both (a) is not open to external scrutiny and (b) gives rise to contingent dependencies is problematic for research. The issue of problematic types of subjectivity is considered, and the contributions to the debate concerning possible solutions of two key thinkers - the cybernetician Gordon Pask and the methodological philosopher Brenda Dervin - are discussed. The need identified by Dervin for researchers to be able to escape (expose and test) their own assumptions is explored in terms of a dynamic interplay between relatively subjective and objective forces, each requiring the liberating and constraining energies of the other. The extent to which meta-methodological awareness - a prerequisite for any such escape - can be fostered, for example, by the quality of research environments, is explored along with implications for those responsible for managing and funding research.

0.023354271 = product of:
  0.046708543 = sum of:
    0.046708543 = product of:
      0.093417086 = sum of:
        0.093417086 = weight(_text_:e.g in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093417086 = score(doc=840,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.39933133 = fieldWeight in 840, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper reports the findings of a study designed to explore web searchers' perceptions of the causes of their search failure and success. In particular, it seeks to discover the extent to which the constructs locus of control and attribution theory might provide useful frameworks for understanding searchers' perceptions. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of inductive and deductive approaches were employed. Perceptions of failed and successful searches were derived from the inductive analysis of using open-ended qualitative interviews with a sample of 37 biologists at the University of Sheffield. These perceptions were classified into "internal" and "external" attributions, and the relationships between these categories and "successful" and "failed" searches were analysed deductively to test the extent to which they might be explainable using locus of control and attribution theory interpretive frameworks. Findings - All searchers were readily able to recall "successful" and "unsuccessful" searches. In a large majority of cases (82.4 per cent), they clearly attributed each search to either internal (e.g. ability or effort) or external (e.g. luck or information not being available) factors. The pattern of such relationships was analysed, and mapped onto those that would be predicted by locus of control and attribution theory. The authors conclude that the potential of these theoretical frameworks to illuminate one's understanding of web searching, and associated training, merits further systematic study. Research limitations/implications - The findings are based on a relatively small sample of academic and research staff in a particular subject area. Importantly, also, the study can at best provide a prima facie case for further systematic study since, although the patterns of attribution behaviour accord with those predictable by locus of control and attribution theory, data relating to the predictive elements of these theories (e.g. levels of confidence and achievement) were not available. This issue is discussed, and recommendations made for further work. Originality/value - The findings provide some empirical support for the notion that locus of control and attribution theory might - subject to the limitations noted above - be potentially useful theoretical frameworks for helping us better understand web-based information seeking. If so, they could have implications particularly for better understanding of searchers' motivations, and for the design and development of more effective search training programmes.

0.0151886875 = product of:
  0.030377375 = sum of:
    0.030377375 = product of:
      0.06075475 = sum of:
        0.06075475 = weight(_text_:22 in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06075475 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 1.2000 13:16:22

0.0151886875 = product of:
  0.030377375 = sum of:
    0.030377375 = product of:
      0.06075475 = sum of:
        0.06075475 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06075475 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:45:48

0.013483594 = product of:
  0.026967188 = sum of:
    0.026967188 = product of:
      0.053934377 = sum of:
        0.053934377 = weight(_text_:e.g in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053934377 = score(doc=641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.23055404 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This chapter explores cognitive issues relating not only to the use and effectiveness of information retrieval (IR) systems, but also to the generation of new research knowledge relevant to enhancing such use and to the development of improved systems. There is still much that we do not know about how effectively, or not as the case may be, current IR systems support different individuals and groups of people in effectively acquiring the knowledge they need to help them in the tasks in which they are engaged. We need greater levels of knowledge of how we might optimize the symbiotic interactions between IR systems and people working in different contexts, and of the directions we might most profitably take in the development of new systems. The chapter begins by establishing working definitions of "knowledge", "information", "understanding", and related concepts including "information retrieval" and "information behavior". Such definitions are necessary if we are to achieve any clear focus on what are important issues for the evaluation and development of IR systems and practices. Knowledge is defined here as a conceptual system that enables its possessor (whether human or machine) to act in the world (e.g. in the form of autonomous activity or response to stimuli). Information is defined here as potential knowledge, and understanding as the process of transforming information into knowledge. Perceiving an information need represents the realization that one is in a situation for which one's existing knowledge is not adequate. Information is needed to generate, via understanding, appropriate new knowledge. However, the need for knowledge is broader than the information need in that the former entails defining the nature of the sought-for knowledge, as opposed to the type and nature of the information which may be used to generate it. Importantly in this context, functionally the same knowledge may be generated via the processing of alternative items of information. The realization and specification of the knowledge need, along with the evaluation of information behavior in terms of its contribution to satisfying the knowledge need, are termed here knowledge behavior. Information behavior comprises those activities entailed in the acquisition of information that may be transformed into knowledge. It subsumes information encountering and information seeking, the latter subsuming searching and retrieval. Although information retrieval is often used narrowly to denote the latter activity taking place within information seeking, a broader definition is used here to include the development, use and evaluation of systems designed to support the range of activities denoted by the term information behavior.

0.009113212 = product of:
  0.018226424 = sum of:
    0.018226424 = product of:
      0.03645285 = sum of:
        0.03645285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03645285 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4341, 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=4341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92