Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Dewdney, P."
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsdienstleistungen"
  1. Dewdney, P.; Ross, C.S.: Flying a light aircraft : reference service evaluation from a user's viewpoint (1994) 0.00 
    0.002035109 = product of:
  0.004070218 = sum of:
    0.004070218 = product of:
      0.008140436 = sum of:
        0.008140436 = weight(_text_:a in 1037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008140436 = score(doc=1037,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1037, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports the experiences of 77 library students (MLIS), at the Graduate School of Library and Information SCience, Western Ontario University, who visited a library of their choice and asked a question of personal interest. When asked if they qould return to the same librarian with another question, only 59,7% expressed willingness. Both willingness to return and overall satisfaction were significantly related to the librarian's behaviour and quality of the reference answer. Detailed accounts of visits yielded contrasting lists of 'most helpful' and 'least helpful' features. 4 themes were identified: the lack of clues by which professional librarians could be identified; the choice of 55% of staff to accept the initial question at face value and not conduct a reference interview; search failure following unmonitored referrals; and the omission of follow up questions in two thirds of the transactions. Suggests remedies and notes that no differences were found between academic libraries and public libraries
    Type
    a
  2. Dewdney, P.; Michell, G.: Asking 'why' questions in the reference interview : a theoretical justification (1997) 0.00 
    0.001938603 = product of:
  0.003877206 = sum of:
    0.003877206 = product of:
      0.007754412 = sum of:
        0.007754412 = weight(_text_:a in 7607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007754412 = score(doc=7607,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7607, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the reference interview, the library user's information need can often be clarified by asking questions that elicit his or her reasons for presenting a reference query. However, librarians are often advised to avoid using the question. 'Why do you want this information?' This article draws on theory from linguistics (particularly speech act theory), philosophy, and cognitive science to show how the ambiguous nature of 'why' questions may lead to unproductive or even hostile responses. The key to using 'why' questions successfully in the reference interview lies in a theoretically based understanding of the form and function of these questions in their social context. 2 manin strategies, contextualization and the use of neutral questioning, are suggested for resolving this conflict in practice
    Type
    a
  3. Dewdney, P.; Michell, G.: Oranges and peaches : understanding communication accidents in the reference interview (1996) 0.00 
    0.0016788795 = product of:
  0.003357759 = sum of:
    0.003357759 = product of:
      0.006715518 = sum of:
        0.006715518 = weight(_text_:a in 6423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006715518 = score(doc=6423,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 6423, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Librarians often have brief communication accidents in attempting to understand reference questions as they are initially presented. Presents a linguistic analysis, based on examples obtained from self reports by librarians, of phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic anomalies. These 'ill formed queries' were classified into 4 main categories: no harm done examples (usually caused by acoustic failures); unrecognized librarian originated accidents (usually involving pronunciation variants or homophones); secondhand communication accidents (where the user reconstructs the meaning of a forgotten term). The aim was to assist librarians in understanding the linguistic reasons for common strategies designed to avert or repair such accidents. Recommends specific interview techniques, restatement, open or neutral questions, and follow up questions
    Type
    a

Authors