Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=4412,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4412, 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=4412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Describes the basic premises of three metatheories that represent important or emerging perspectives on information seeking, retrieval and knowledge formation in information science: constructivism, collectivism, and constructionism. Design/methodology/approach - Presents a literature-based conceptual analysis. Pinpoints the differences between the positions in their conceptions of language and the nature and origin of knowledge. Findings - Each of the three metatheories addresses and solves specific types of research questions and design problems. The metatheories thus complement one another. Each of the three metatheories encourages and constitutes a distinctive type of research and learning. Originality/value - Outlines each metatheory's specific fields of application.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4467,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The author reflects the conceptual and practical questions of network competence in the context of information seeking. Network competence is seen as one of the information-related competences and is defined as the mastery of four major areas: knowledge of information resources available on the Internet, skilled use of the ICT tools to access information, judgment of the relevance of information, and communication. Drawing on the ideas of the social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura, a model of network competence is introduced in order to discuss network competence "in action". In the model, network competence is put in practical context by relating five major factors: network competence, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, affective factors such as anxiety, and experiences received from information seeking on the Internet. Particular attention is devoted to the connections between network competence and self-efficacy which denote a person's judgment of his or her ability to organize and execute action, such as finding information on the Web.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=614,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 614, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specify user-defined relevance criteria by which people select hyperlinks and pages in web searching. Design/methodology/approach - A quantitative and qualitative analysis was undertaken of talking aloud data from nine web searches conducted about self-generated topics. Findings - Altogether 18 different criteria for selecting hyperlinks and web pages were found. The selection is constituted, by two, intertwined processes: the relevance judgment of hyperlinks, and web pages by user-defined criteria, and decision-making concerning the acceptance or rejection of hyperlinks and web pages. The study focuses on the former process. Of the individual criteria, specificity, topicality, familiarity, and variety were used most frequently in relevance judgments. The study shows that despite the high number of individual criteria used in the judgments, a few criteria such as specificity and topicality tend to dominate. Searchers were less critical in the judgment of hyperlinks than deciding whether the activated web pages should be consulted in more detail. Research limitations/implications - The study is exploratory, drawing on a relatively low number of case searches. Originality/value - The paper gives a detailed picture of the criteria used in the relevance judgments of hyperlinks and web pages. The study also discusses the specific nature of criteria used in web searching, as compared to those used in traditional online searching environments.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3162,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article elaborates the picture of information use from the perspective of interpreting informational cues about the attributes of entities. It is assumed that such activity draws on cognitive mechanisms that are employed as the constituents of diverse interpretation approaches to informational cues. The empirical data of the study were gathered by means of think aloud method from 16 prospective homebuyers in 2008. The participants interpreted informational cues available in announcements published in a printed housing listing issue and a Web-based information system serving the needs of prospective homebuyers. The data were examined by means of qualitative content analysis. By drawing on the findings of Zhang and her associates, the study revealed 7 cognitive mechanisms: identification of key attributes, specification, evaluation, comparison by similarity, comparison by differentiation, explanation, and conclusion. Three major approaches employed in the interpetation of informational cues were identified. The descriptive-evaluative approach draws on the identification and evaluation of individual attributes of an entity. The comparative approach is more sophisticated because it is based on the evaluation of the attributes by their perceived similarity or differentiation. Finally, the explanatory approach draws on the identification of attributes with causal potential.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=5120,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The conceptual issues of information use are discussed by reviewing the major ideas of sense-making methodology developed by Brenda Dervin. Sense-making methodology approaches the phenomena of information use by drawing on the metaphor of gap-bridging. The nature of this metaphor is explored by utilizing the ideas of metaphor analysis suggested by Lakoff and Johnson. First, the source domain of the metaphor is characterized by utilizing the graphical illustrations of sense-making metaphors. Second, the target domain of the metaphor is analyzed by scrutinizing Dervin's key writings on information seeking and use. The metaphor of gap-bridging does not suggest a substantive conception of information use; the metaphor gives methodological and heuristic guidance to posit contextual questions as to how people interpret information to make sense of it. Specifically, these questions focus on the ways in which cognitive, affective, and other elements useful for the sense-making process are constructed and shaped to bridge the gap. Ultimately, the key question of information use studies is how people design information in context.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=564,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to elaborate the picture of the processes of information use by comparing conceptualizations provided by the constructivist approach and the human information processing approach. Design/methodology/approach - The article is a conceptual analysis of major articles characterizing information use and human information processing in the fields of information studies and consumer research. Findings - It is found that both research approaches share the assumption that interpreting, relating and comparing qualities of things is fundamental to the information use process. Research limitations/implications - The picture of information use processes is based on the comparison of two research approaches only. Originality/value - Compared to the numerous studies on information needs and seeking, the questions of information use have remained under-researched. The study elaborates the conceptual picture of information use processes by identifying similarities and differences between two major research approaches.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=595,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3780,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information seeking may be analyzed in two major contexts: job-related and nonwork. The present entry concentrates on nonwork information seeking, more properly called everyday life information seeking (ELIS). Typically, ELIS studies discuss the ways in which people access and use various information sources to meet information needs in areas such as health, consumption, and leisure. The entry specifies the concept of ELIS and characterizes the major ELIS models. They include the Sense-Making approach (Dervin), the Small world theory (Chatman), the ecological model of ELIS (Williamson), ELIS in the context of way of life (Savolainen), the model of information practices (McKenzie), and the concept of information grounds (Fisher). ELIS practices tend to draw on the habitualized use of a limited number of sources which have been found useful in previous use contexts. Since the late 1990s, the Internet has increasingly affected the ELIS practices by providing easily accessible sources. Even though the popularity of the networked sources has grown rapidly they will complement, rather than replace, more traditional sources and channels.

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=719,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2034, 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=2034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a