Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025811084 = product of:
  0.051622167 = sum of:
    0.051622167 = product of:
      0.103244334 = sum of:
        0.103244334 = weight(_text_:2003 in 3014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103244334 = score(doc=3014,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.53071296 = fieldWeight in 3014, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 30(2003) nos.3/4, S.239-245

Year

2003

0.022123788 = product of:
  0.044247575 = sum of:
    0.044247575 = product of:
      0.08849515 = sum of:
        0.08849515 = weight(_text_:2003 in 3009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08849515 = score(doc=3009,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.45489684 = fieldWeight in 3009, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 30(2003) nos.3/4, S.228-238

Year

2003

0.013992311 = product of:
  0.027984623 = sum of:
    0.027984623 = product of:
      0.055969246 = sum of:
        0.055969246 = weight(_text_:2003 in 4923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055969246 = score(doc=4923,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.28770202 = fieldWeight in 4923, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4923)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This methods-oriented paper introduces visual methods and specifically photography to study immediate information space (Lee, 2003); that is, information-rich settings such as offices or homes. It draws upon the authors' firsthand ethnographic field experiences, a review of relevant theoretical and methodological literature, and an analysis of cases within information studies that have made use of visual and photographic techniques. To begin, the traditions of visual research within anthropology and sociology are traced and major epistemological, methodological, and disciplinary debates associated with visual scholarship are presented. Then, investigations of immediate information space that utilize photography are analyzed, including examples from the areas of personal information management, health informatics, information behavior, and computer-supported cooperative work. Moreover, a section entitled "Applying Photographic Techniques." supplies guidelines for employing photography in a research design, as well as a question-based research framework and tips for photographing information phenomena.

0.013672866 = product of:
  0.027345732 = sum of:
    0.027345732 = product of:
      0.054691464 = sum of:
        0.054691464 = weight(_text_:2003 in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054691464 = score(doc=3013,freq=11.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.28113377 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              3.3166249 = tf(freq=11.0), with freq of:
                11.0 = termFreq=11.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.

Source

Knowledge organization. 30(2003) nos.3/4, S.125-127

Year

2003

0.007591454 = product of:
  0.015182908 = sum of:
    0.015182908 = product of:
      0.030365815 = sum of:
        0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365815 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

0.00583013 = product of:
  0.01166026 = sum of:
    0.01166026 = product of:
      0.02332052 = sum of:
        0.02332052 = weight(_text_:2003 in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02332052 = score(doc=5523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.11987585 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2003 I was a doctoral student at the Department of Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and happily learning information behavior under Marcia Bates. I enrolled in a methodology seminar offered through the Sociology Department entitled Ethnography, Ethnomethodology, and Symbolic Interactionism, taught by the late Melvin Pollner. Our class read a book-length ethnography of one sociologist's experience as the paid caretaker of a teenage girl living with severe mental and motor impairments; the study reported the sexual way the child pressed her body against her older, male assistant during their daily routine and the inexorable sexual response of his body-two haptic forms of embodied information. The aspiring sociologists and anthropologists in the course found these microsocial physical dynamics to be riveting and discussed their meaning for two hours. The next week our enlightened professor assigned an article by Lucy Suchman about the coordinated flow of information via documents in a workplace-a brilliant paper. To my surprise, my classmates were dismissive of Suchman's study. One budding sociologist remarked, "Well, the research design is solid, but it's all about these [End Page 585] documents. I mean . who really cares?" This flippant criticism left me speechless, while everyone else in the class laughed in agreement (excepting the magnanimous Dr. Pollner).