Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021716028 = product of:
  0.043432057 = sum of:
    0.043432057 = sum of:
      0.02599572 = weight(_text_:p in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02599572 = score(doc=91,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.017436337 = weight(_text_:22 in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017436337 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045500398 = queryNorm
          0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

DDC

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

Footnote

The editorial and peer review processes appear to be slightly spotty in application. All of the 55 papers are in English but a few of them are in such need of basic editing that they are almost incomprehensible in sections. Consider, for example, the following: "So, the meaning of region where we are studying on, should be discovered and then affect on the final plan" (p. 346). The collection shows a strong array of methodological approaches including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies; however, a few of the research efforts exhibit fundamental design flaws. Consider, for example, the study that "set[s] out to show that nurses as care-givers find it difficult to transfer any previously acquired technological skills into their work based on technology needs (p. 187). After studying 39 female and 6 male nurses, this study finds, not surprisingly, exactly what it "set out" to find. Rather than noting the limitations of sample size and data gathering techniques, the paper firmly concludes that nurses can be technologists "only in areas of technology that support their primary role as carers" (p. 188). Finally, some of the papers do not report on original research but are competent, if brief, summaries of theories or concepts that are covered in equal depth elsewhere. For example, a three-page summary of "the major personality and learning theories" (p. 3) is useful but lacks the intellectual depth or insight needed to contribute substantially to the field. These problems with composition, methodological rigor, and theoretical depth are not uncommon in papers designed for a broadly defined conference theme. The authors may have been writing for an in-person audience and anticipating thoughtful postpresentation discussions; they probably had no idea of the heavy price tag put on their work. The editors, however, might have kept that $256 in mind and exercised a heavier editorial hand. Perhaps the publisher could have paid for a careful subject indexing of the work as a substantive addition to the author index provided. The complexity of the subject domains included in the volume certainly merits careful indexing.

0.008123662 = product of:
  0.016247325 = sum of:
    0.016247325 = product of:
      0.03249465 = sum of:
        0.03249465 = weight(_text_:p in 4321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249465 = score(doc=4321,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4321, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Gendolla, P.

0.003249465 = product of:
  0.00649893 = sum of:
    0.00649893 = product of:
      0.01299786 = sum of:
        0.01299786 = weight(_text_:p in 442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01299786 = score(doc=442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.079450354 = fieldWeight in 442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.4, S.608-609 (K.D. Desouza): "Richard Rogers explores the distinctiveness of the World Wide Web as a politically contested space where information searchers may encounter multiple explanations of reality. Sources of information on the Web are in constant competition with each other for attention. The attention a source receives will determine its prominence, the ability to be a provider of leading information, and its inclusion in authoritative spaces. Rogers explores the politics behind evaluating sources that are collected and housed on authoritative spaces. Information politics on the Web can be looked at in terms of frontend or back-end politics. Front-end politics is concerned with whether sources on the Web pay attention to principles of inclusivity, fairness, and scope of representation in how information is presented, while back-end politics examines the logic behind how search engines or portals select and index information. Concerning front-end politics, Rogers questions the various versions of reality one can derive from examining information on the Web, especially when issues of information inclusivity and scope of representation are toiled with. In addition, Rogers is concerned with how back-end politics are being controlled by dominant forces of the market (i.e., the more an organization is willing to pay, the greater will be the site's visibility and prominence in authoritative spaces), regardless of whether the information presented on the site justifies such a placement. In the book, Rogers illustrates the issues involved in back-end and front-end politics (though heavily slanted on front-end politics) using vivid cases, all of which are derived from his own research. The main thrust is the exploration of how various "information instruments," defined as "a digital and analytical means of recording (capturing) and subsequently reading indications of states of defined information streams (p. 19)," help capture the politics of the Web. Rogers employs four specific instruments (Lay Decision Support System, Issue Barometer, Web Issue Index of Civil Society, and Election Issue Tracker), which are covered in detail in core chapters of the book (Chapter 2-Chapter 5). The book is comprised of six chapters, with Chapter 1 being the traditional introduction and Chapter 6 being a summary of the major concepts discussed.