Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Floegel, D."
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Floegel, D.; Costello, K.L.: Methods for a feminist technoscience of information practice : design justice and speculative futurities (2022) 0.00 
    0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=541,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article builds on the argument that feminist technoscience will advance information practice scholarship beyond its current limitations. These limitations reflect neoliberalism in the field of information science and include a reliance on extractive logics in theories and models, monological individualism, binaries constructed between people and technologies, and techno-solutionism. Here, we address the question: what does it look like to apply technofeminism to the study of information practice at methodological and methods levels? We first outline our metatheoretical conception of feminist technoscience, which embraces intersectionality and assemblage theory in order to move past white and colonialist logics embedded in cyborg theory. We next offer design justice as a methodological framework and movement that provides a necessary overhaul of the neoliberal ways that information science approaches scholarship, particularly in terms of participatory research. We suggest that speculative futurities provide a promising method for advancing technofeminism in information practice research because they explicitly reject neoliberalism and its techno-solutionist bent. Overall, a feminist technoscience of information practice offers directions for our field that are rooted in liberatory epistemologies. We emphasize that in order to achieve liberation, a major overhaul in how our discipline approaches arrangements of information, people, and technologies is sorely needed.
    Type
    a
  2. Radford, M.L.; Kitzie, V.; Mikitish, S.; Floegel, D.; Radford, G.P.; Connaway, L.S.: "People are reading your work," : scholarly identity and social networking sites (2020) 0.00 
    0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=5983,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support. Design/methodology/approach Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman's (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management. Findings Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices. Social implications Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright. Originality/value This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.
    Type
    a
  3. Singh, V.K.; Chayko, M.; Inamdar, R.; Floegel, D.: Female librarians and male computer programmers? : gender bias in occupational images on digital media platforms (2020) 0.00 
    8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 6) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=6,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 6, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a

Authors