Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07350601 = product of:
  0.14701203 = sum of:
    0.098673634 = weight(_text_:communication in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098673634 = score(doc=1238,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.49577817 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
    0.048338383 = product of:
      0.09667677 = sum of:
        0.09667677 = weight(_text_:networks in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09667677 = score(doc=1238,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21802035 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.44343 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this article, we examine the conceptual models that help us understand the development and sustainability of scholarly and professional communication forums an the Internet, such as conferences, pre-print servers, field-wide data sets, and collaboratories. We first present and document the information processing model that is implicitly advanced in most discussions about scholarly communications-the "Standard Model." Then we present an alternative model, one that considers information technologies as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks (STINs). STIN models provide a richer understanding of human behavior with online scholarly communications forums. They also help to further a more complete understanding of the conditions and activities that support the sustainability of these forums within a field than does the Standard Model. We illustrate the significance of STIN models with examples of scholarly communication forums drawn from the fields of high-energy physics, molecular biology, and information systems. The article also includes a method for modeling electronic forums as STINs.

0.03785225 = product of:
  0.0757045 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 5149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=5149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 5149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5149)
    0.018735252 = product of:
      0.037470505 = sum of:
        0.037470505 = weight(_text_:22 in 5149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037470505 = score(doc=5149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5149, 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=5149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this issue we begin with Lamb, King and Kling who are interested in the effect of the industry environment on information gathering practices, particularly those involving information and communication technologies like online searching. They studied use of online services in 26 widely differing California firms operating in law, real estate, or biotechnology over a 17 month period. Data was gathered through semi-structured on-site interviews. Five influences on online usage were identified: interaction with regulatory agencies; demonstration of competence to clients; client expectations for timely, cost effective information; the possibility of shifting information responsibilities outside the organization; and the existence of industry wide infrastructures as information sources. The institutional and technical environment of a firm consistently circumscribes the domain in which choices of online resources are made by its employees. Firms the operate in highly technical and institutional environments have more incentive to gather information than do those in low tech unregulated industries.

Date

5. 7.2006 18:43:22

0.033232063 = product of:
  0.13292825 = sum of:
    0.13292825 = weight(_text_:communication in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13292825 = score(doc=4311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.66788787 = fieldWeight in 4311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4311)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.033232063 = product of:
  0.13292825 = sum of:
    0.13292825 = weight(_text_:communication in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13292825 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.66788787 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.023737187 = product of:
  0.094948746 = sum of:
    0.094948746 = weight(_text_:communication in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094948746 = score(doc=4336,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.47706276 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.020861547 = product of:
  0.041723095 = sum of:
    0.03289121 = weight(_text_:communication in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03289121 = score(doc=3312,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.16525939 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
    0.008831883 = product of:
      0.017663766 = sum of:
        0.017663766 = weight(_text_:22 in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017663766 = score(doc=3312,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 3312, 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=3312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Classification

303.48/33 22

DDC

303.48/33 22

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.1, S.151-152 (R. Gazan): "Anyone who has ever struggled to describe social informatics to a skeptical colleague or a room full of students will appreciate this clear and well-organized introduction to the field. It is at once a literature review, a teaching guide, and an outreach manifesto for integrating the social aspects of information and communication technologies (ICTs) into system design, analysis, and research. The context of this book is of particular importance. Rob Kling founded social informatics as a research field, and led the creation of the Center for Social Informatics at Indiana University. Kling pinpoints 1996 as the year when his long-simmering ideas coalesced into social informatics, though in the Foreword, William H. Dutton argues that the birth date of the field was actually more than a decade earlier. Kling, Howard Rosenbaum, and Steve Sawyer worked on this book intermittently for years, but upon Kling's death in May 2003, Rosenbaum and Sawyer completed the work. Under the circumstances, the book could easily have become a festschrift or celebration of Kling's career, but the authors maintain tight focus on the findings and applicability of social informatics research throughout. While much of Kling's work is cited, and very little of it critiqued, overall there is a good balance and synthesis of diverse approaches to social informatics research. Creating a conceptual critical mass around an idea like social informatics is only the first phase in its evolution. The initial working definition of social informatics-"the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of ICTs that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts" (p. 6)-was developed at a seminal 1997 workshop, and background information about the workshop's participants and process is summarized in two brief appendices. The results of this workshop yielded a raft of empirical studies, and at this point in the development of social informatics, the authors' focus on applying and extending the results of these initial studies is particularly well-timed. The authors identify a disconnect between popular, professional, and scholarly discourse on how ICTs coevolve with organizations, institutions, and society, and they aim to bridge this gap by providing a "pointer to the practical value of the scholarship on organizational and societal effects of computerization" (p. 3).
In the authors' view, the primary means to more widespread acceptance of social informatics is to integrate it with the more traditionally technical curricula of ICT oriented students in computer science and related fields, and this is the focus of Chapter 5. Here the book delivers on its promise of providing a clear framework for both understanding and teaching social informatics. The goal is not simply to learn how to build systems, but to learn how to build systems that account for the context in which they are used. The authors prescribe field experience problem-driven learning techniques embedded in the needs of particular organizations, and a critical, reflexive orientation toward ICT design and construction. In a chapter endnote, the authors mention that a socia informatics perspective would also be useful to students in other fields such as communication and education, but that space limitations required a focus on computer science. Though an understandable choice, if the goal is to convince those outside the field of the value of a social informatics perspective, it would seem natural to include management or economics curricula as fertile ground to analyze some of the tangible effects of a failure to account for the social context of system implementations. Chapter 6 is something of an outreach manifesto, a treatise on communicating social informatics research to professional and research communities, and an explicit call for social informatics researchers "to shoulder the responsibility for communicating the core of social informatics . . . to ICT professionals and other research communities" (pp. 106-107). The authors are not shy about framing social informatics less as a research field and more as an up-and-coming competitor in the marketplace of ICT-oriented ideas; achieving more widespread acceptance of social informatics is presented almost as a sales and marketing challenge, the goal being "getting to yes" in the minds of ICT professionals. It is an effective presentation strategy, but one that comes with a cost.

0.020141672 = product of:
  0.08056669 = sum of:
    0.08056669 = weight(_text_:communication in 4272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056669 = score(doc=4272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.4048012 = fieldWeight in 4272, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4272)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the early 1990s, much of the enthusiasm for the use of electronic media to enhance scholarly communication focused an electronic journals, especially electronic-only, (pure) e journals (see for example, Peek & Newby's [1996] anthology). Much of the systematic research an the use of electronic media to enhance scholarly communication also focused an electronic journals. However, by the late 1990s, numerous scientific publishers had transformed their paper journals (p journals) into paper and electronic journals (p-e journals) and sold them via subscription models that did not provide the significant costs savings, speed of access, or breadth of audience that pure e -journal advocates had expected (Okerson, 1996). In 2001, a group of senior life scientists led a campaign to have publishers make their journals freely available online six months after publication (Russo, 2001). The campaign leaders, using the name "Public Library of Science," asked scientists to boycott journals that did not comply with these demands for open access. Although the proposal was discussed in scientific magazines and conferences, it apparently did not persuade any journal publishers to comply (Young, 2002). Most productive scientists, who work for major universities and research institutes

0.011868593 = product of:
  0.047474373 = sum of:
    0.047474373 = weight(_text_:communication in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047474373 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In May 1999, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Harold Varmus proposed an electronic repository for biomedical research literature server called "E-biomed." E-biomed reflected the visions of scholarly electronic publishing advocates: It would be fully searchable, be free to readers, and contain full-text versions of both preprint and postpublication biomedical research articles. However, within 4 months, the E-biomed proposal was radically transformed: The preprint section was eliminated, delays were instituted between article publication and posting to the archive, and the narre was changed to "PubMed Central." This case study examines the remarkable transformation of the E-biomed proposal to PubMed Central by analyzing comments about the proposal that were posted to an online E-biomed forum created by the NIH, and discussions that took place in other face-to-face forums where E-biomed deliberations took place. We find that the transformation of the E-biomed proposal into PubMed Central was the result of highly visible and highly influential position statements made by scientific societies against the proposal. The literature about scholarly electronic publishing usually emphasizes a binary conflict between (trade) publishers and scholars/scientists. We conclude that: (1) scientific societies and the individual scientists they represent do not always have identical interests in regard to scientific e-publishing; (2) stakeholder politics and personal interests reign supreme in e-publishing debates, even in a supposedly status-free online forum; and (3) multiple communication forums must be considered in examinations of e-publishing deliberations.