Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016082233 = product of:
  0.048246697 = sum of:
    0.048246697 = product of:
      0.09649339 = sum of:
        0.09649339 = weight(_text_:librarians in 303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09649339 = score(doc=303,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.44266394 = fieldWeight in 303, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=303)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the question of whether modern digital information technologies damage their users' cognitive capacities in some way, and to speculate on how librarians should adapt their services as a consequence of the controversy surrounding this question. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews some recent literature on this subject, combined with an examination of the role played by technology, librarians and government in determining the nature of our society's response to problematic aspects of the use of digital, internet-based applications in education. Findings - The paper finds that highly differentiated and highly polemical attitudes to this subject mean that librarians have to acknowledge the existence of important challenges to the apparent consensus about the way information technologies should be used in education in Western societies. This has important consequences for the approach to collection building (the balance between digital versus print provision), for library building design, and for the value which should be placed on systematic information literacy teaching. The existence of such an important debate should also embolden information professionals to make their own insights into these issues more widely known. Research limitations/implications - Some of the findings in this paper are amenable to further development through practitioner-oriented research; however, the bulk of the content used for this paper is derived from the literature on this topic, so there is no original research data presented to back up the assertions made by the author. It is simply an account of a debate which has to be acknowledged by librarians. Practical implications - The implications of the issues under discussion in the paper are presented in clear practical terms, and the consequences for library management made explicit. Social implications - The clash between two different theories of learning and information provision is debated and the links with issues of government policy are explored. The social connections between education and wealth generation are brought into this debate. Originality/value - The paper provides a useful, up-to-date briefing on recent controversial issues in education, information management and socio-economic policy making.

0.008990241 = product of:
  0.026970722 = sum of:
    0.026970722 = product of:
      0.053941444 = sum of:
        0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053941444 = score(doc=4742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper takes forward strands from "Evaluating the quality of library portals" by the author and places them in the context of different approaches to teaching students about information use. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece which examines the impact on user behaviour of traditional mechanical library skills training (such as "library orientation", "bibliographic instruction", or "information skills training" rather than true information literacy-based teaching). The paper points out the similarity in the effects of such teaching to the effects of offering users a more powerful mechanical information retrieval tool (such as a library portal or internet search engine) without effective support on how the information retrieved should be used for significant educational outcomes. Findings - For librarians to be custodians of the highest standards of intelligent information use, they must demonstrate a meaningful, rather than a mechanical understanding and application of information literacy in their everyday practice. Without this, information users will rightly turn to new, non-mediated forms of information use such as internet search engines, which can deal with purely technical challenges of information retrieval superficially well. Both the users and the profession itself will be the poorer as a result. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the dangers of pedagogically underdeveloped user education on user behaviour. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical insights for the application of information literacy principles to library practice. Originality/value - This piece points out the ironic similarities in the effect of a mechanistic or tool-based approach to user education and unmediated user access to internet search engines or Library portals: above all, a "more is better" approach in the information user, marked by citing too much poorly digested, poorly evaluated data.

0.008990241 = product of:
  0.026970722 = sum of:
    0.026970722 = product of:
      0.053941444 = sum of:
        0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053941444 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to illustrate issues surrounding Web 2.0 technologies and their relevance to libraries by general discussion and examples from library practice. Design/methodology/approach - A broad narrative account of Web 2.0 developments combined with illustrations of how one library in particular reacted to these developments. Findings - It was found that all libraries need to evolve a Web 2.0 strategy to promote this aspect of their services, but that they will need to devise solutions to specific problems as part of this strategy. These include the range of Web 2.0 platforms that are on offer and the authentication and workload issues associated with this diversity. A single, unified library system-based approach to Web 2.0 is offered as a viable alternative to using disparate external services. Research limitations/implications - This paper does not resolve the difference between a multi-platform Web 2.0 strategy and the single, unified library system-based approach, although a preference for the systems-based approach is suggested. The relative strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches is worthy of further research. Practical implications - At the level of practice, this viewpoint article offers two alternative Web 2.0 strategies which can be applied quite readily in everyday library work. Originality/value - This paper tries to offer a clear range of options for librarians interested in pursuing Web 2.0 services, facilitating successful service enhancement in the working library.

0.008990241 = product of:
  0.026970722 = sum of:
    0.026970722 = product of:
      0.053941444 = sum of:
        0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053941444 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine recent thinking about reference services and library use of virtual reference (VR) software, in order to put into context the value of advanced social networking technologies such as Second Life to libraries and their users. Design/methodology/approach - A brief review of the main developments in the recent history of VR, combined with a comparison of the relevant features in common between generic VR packages and Second Life. Findings - That the key weaknesses of established VR services are also found in Second Life, but that these weaknesses should be readily overcome as technical advances are made and librarians clarify to software providers the type of functionality they require from their services. Research limitations/implications - The need for a higher level of complex authentication functionality, as necessitated when combining digital library subscription services with interactive virtual library environments, is outlined and defined. This is a fertile area for service provider research and development. Practical implications - The practical benefits of VR and Second Life services to libraries will be limited until the authentication issues summarised in this paper are addressed. Originality/value - The paper attempts to enlarge the literature on Second Life by discussing this recent innovation in terms of the broader historical context against which such digital library services have evolved. In particular, it points out the ironic similarity between digital reference environments and declining traditional reference services, which both are disadvantaged by their "distance" from core, authenticated digital library content.

0.008990241 = product of:
  0.026970722 = sum of:
    0.026970722 = product of:
      0.053941444 = sum of:
        0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 2969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053941444 = score(doc=2969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 2969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to illustrate issues surrounding the Google Book settlement in 2009, and its relevance to libraries by general discussion and examples from library practice. Design/methodology/approach - A set of projections and speculations that are both conceptual and practical in nature, based on early reactions and comments about this development. Findings - There are many philosophical and moral objections to the consequences of the Google Book settlement, and that the practical effects for academic libraries could be both positive and/or negative. The practical examples of such outcomes are designed to help clarify the implications for library and information practitioners and generate further debate. Research limitations/implications - The fact that the Book settlement is a legal arrangement between parties in a civil court makes in depth research analysis of a public nature very difficult - which is in itself one of the main themes of the paper. Practical implications - The teasing out of the real-life consequences of the settlement are intended be helpful to the library practitioner. Originality/value - This paper tries to offer an early insight into an important new development in information retrieval history from the point of view of academic librarians, in contrast to much contemporary comment, which has come from authors and rights holders.

0.008990241 = product of:
  0.026970722 = sum of:
    0.026970722 = product of:
      0.053941444 = sum of:
        0.053941444 = weight(_text_:librarians in 4201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053941444 = score(doc=4201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.24745665 = fieldWeight in 4201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to form one of a series which will give an overview of so-called "transformational" areas of digital library technology. The aim will be to assess how much real transformation these applications are bringing about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - An overview of the present state of development of the one-stop shop library search engine, with particular reference to its relationship with the underlying bibliographic databases to which it provides a simplified single interface. Findings - The paper finds that the success of federated searching has proved valuable but limited to date in creating a one-stop shop search engine to rival Google Scholar; but the persistent value of the bibliographic databases sitting underneath a federated search system means that a harvesting search engine could well answer the need for a true one-stop search engine for academic and scholarly information. Research limitations/implications - This paper is based on the hypothesis that Google's success in providing such an apparently high degree of access to electronic journal services is not what it seems, and that it does not render library discovery tools obsolete. It argues that Google has not diminished the pre-eminent role of library bibliographic databases in mediating access to e-journal text, although this hypothesis needs further research to validate or disprove it. Practical implications - The paper affirms the value of bibliographic databases to practitioner librarians and the potential of single interface discovery tools in library practice. Originality/value - The paper uses statistics from US LIS sources to shed light on UK discovery tool issues.

0.0071921926 = product of:
  0.021576578 = sum of:
    0.021576578 = product of:
      0.043153156 = sum of:
        0.043153156 = weight(_text_:librarians in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043153156 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.19796532 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to point out that past models of information ownership may not carry over to the age of digital information. The fact that public ownership of information (for example, by means of national and public library collections) created social benefits in the past does not mean that a greater degree of private sector involvement in information provision in the knowledge society of today is synonymous with an abandonment of past ideals of social information provision. Design/methodology/approach - A brief review of recent issues in digital preservation and national electronic heritage management, with an examination of the public-private sector characteristics of each issue. Findings - Private companies and philanthropic endeavours focussing on the business of digital information provision have done some things - which in the past we have associated with the public domain - remarkably well. It is probably fair to say that this has occurred against the pattern of expectation of the library profession. Research limitations/implications - The premise of this paper is that LIS research aimed at predicting future patterns of problem solving in information work should avoid the narrow use of patterns of public-private relationships inherited from a previous, print-based information order. Practical implications - This paper suggests practical ways in which the library and information profession can improve digital library services by looking to form creative partnerships with private sector problem solvers. Originality/value - This paper argues that the LIS profession should not take a doctrinaire approach to commercial company involvement in "our" information world. Librarians should facilitate collaboration between all parties, both public and private, to create original solutions to contemporary information provision problems. In this way we can help create pragmatic, non-doctrinaire solutions that really do work for the citizens of our contemporary information society.

0.0043954477 = product of:
  0.013186343 = sum of:
    0.013186343 = product of:
      0.026372686 = sum of:
        0.026372686 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026372686 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04