Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023530604 = product of:
  0.04706121 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=2098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Traditionally humanities scholars have worked in physical environments and with physical artefacts. Libraries are familiar places, built on cultural traditions over thousands of years, and books are comfortable research companions. Digital tools are a more recent addition to the resources available to a researcher. This paper explores both the physical and the digital qualities of modern humanities research, drawing on existing literature and presenting a study of humanities scholars' perceptions of the research resources they use. We highlight aspects of the physical and digital that can facilitate or hinder the researcher, focusing on three themes that emerge from the data: the working environment; the experience of finding resources; and the experience of working with documents. Rather than aiming to replace physical texts and libraries by digital surrogates, providers need to recognise the complementary roles they play: digital information environments have the potential to provide improved access and analysis features and the facility to exploit the library from any place, while the physical library and resources provide greater authenticity, trustworthiness and the demand to be in a particular place with important material properties.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1374-1392

0.020863095 = product of:
  0.04172619 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Keeping up to date with research developments is a central activity of academic researchers, but researchers face difficulties in managing the rapid growth of available scientific information. This study examined how researchers stay up to date, using the information journey model as a framework for analysis and investigating which dimensions influence information behaviors. We designed a 2-round study involving semistructured interviews and prototype testing with 61 researchers with 3 levels of seniority (PhD student to professor). Data were analyzed following a semistructured qualitative approach. Five key dimensions that influence information behaviors were identified: level of seniority, information sources, state of the project, level of familiarity, and how well defined the relevant community is. These dimensions are interrelated and their values determine the flow of the information journey. Across all levels of professional expertise, researchers used similar hard (formal) sources to access content, while soft (interpersonal) sources were used to filter information. An important "pain point" that future information tools should address is helping researchers filter information at the point of need.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

0.014458986 = product of:
  0.057835944 = sum of:
    0.057835944 = weight(_text_:data in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057835944 = score(doc=2847,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.39059696 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports findings from a study designed to gain broader understanding of sensemaking activities using the Data/Frame Theory as the analytical framework. Although this theory is one of the dominant models of sensemaking, it has not been extensively tested with a range of sensemaking tasks. The tasks discussed here focused on making sense of structures rather than processes or narratives. Eleven researchers were asked to construct understanding of how a scientific community in a particular domain is organized (e.g., people, relationships, contributions, factors) by exploring the concept of "influence" in academia. This topic was chosen because, although researchers frequently handle this type of task, it is unlikely that they have explicitly sought this type of information. We conducted a think-aloud study and semistructured interviews with junior and senior researchers from the human-computer interaction (HCI) domain, asking them to identify current leaders and rising stars in both HCI and chemistry. Data were coded and analyzed using the Data/Frame Model to both test and extend the model. Three themes emerged from the analysis: novices and experts' sensemaking activity chains, constructing frames through indicators, and characteristics of structure tasks. We propose extensions to the Data/Frame Model to accommodate structure sensemaking.

0.012717713 = product of:
  0.05087085 = sum of:
    0.05087085 = product of:
      0.1017417 = sum of:
        0.1017417 = weight(_text_:processing in 6060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1017417 = score(doc=6060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.53671354 = fieldWeight in 6060, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.556-557

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=4490,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This research aims to identify some requirements for supporting user interactions with electronic current-awareness alert systems based on data from a professional work environment. Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative data were gathered using contextual inquiry observations with 21 workers at the London office of an international law firm. The analysis uses CASSM ("Concept-based Analysis of Surface and Structural Misfits"), a usability evaluation method structured around identifying mismatches, or "misfits", between user-concepts and concepts represented within a system. Findings - Participants were frequently overwhelmed by e-mail alerts, and a key requirement is to support efficient interaction. Several misfits, which act as barriers to efficient reviewing and follow-on activities, are demonstrated. These relate to a lack of representation of key user-concepts at the interface and/or within the system, including alert items and their properties, source documents, "back-story", primary sources, content categorisations and user collections. Research limitations/implications - Given these misfits, a set of requirements is derived to improve the efficiency with which users can achieve key outcomes with current-awareness information as these occur within a professional work environment. Originality/value - The findings will be of interest to current-awareness providers. The approach is relevant to information interaction researchers interested in deriving design requirements from naturalistic studies.

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This research seeks to gain a detailed understanding of how researchers come across information serendipitously, grounded in real-world examples. This research was undertaken to enrich the theoretical understanding of this slippery phenomenon. Design/methodology/approach - Semi-structured critical incident interviews were conducted with 28 interdisciplinary researchers. Interviewees were asked to discuss memorable examples of coming across information serendipitously from their research or everyday life. The data collection and analysis process followed many of the core principles of grounded theory methodology. Findings - The examples provided were varied, but shared common elements (they involved a mix of unexpectedness and insight and led to a valuable, unanticipated outcome). These elements form part of an empirically grounded process model of serendipity. In this model, a new connection is made that involves a mix of unexpectedness and insight and has the potential to lead to a valuable outcome. Projections are made on the potential value of the outcome and actions are taken to exploit the connection, leading to an (unanticipated) valuable outcome. Originality/value - The model provides researchers across disciplines with a structured means of understanding and describing serendipitous experiences.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Current institutional repository software provides few tools to help metadata librarians understand and analyse their collections. In this paper, we compare and contrast metadata analysis tools that were developed simultaneously, but independently, at two New Zealand institutions during a period of national investment in research repositories: the Metadata Analysis Tool (MAT) at The University of Waikato, and the Kiwi Research Information Service (KRIS) at the National Library of New Zealand. The tools have many similarities: they are convenient, online, on-demand services that harvest metadata using OAI-PMH, they were developed in response to feedback from repository administrators, and they both help pinpoint specific metadata errors as well as generating summary statistics. They also have significant differences: one is a dedicated tool while the other is part of a wider access tool; one gives a holistic view of the metadata while the other looks for specific problems; one seeks patterns in the data values while the other checks that those values conform to metadata standards. Both tools work in a complementary manner to existing web-based administration tools. We have observed that discovery and correction of metadata errors can be quickly achieved by switching web browser views from the analysis tool to the repository interface, and back. We summarise the findings from both tools' deployment into a checklist of requirements for metadata analysis tools.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2126)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The motivation for this study was to better understand academics' searching and sensemaking processes when solving exploratory tasks for which they lack pre-existing frames. We focus on "influence" tasks because, although they appear to be unfamiliar, they arise in much academic discourse, at least tacitly. We report the processes of academics at different levels of seniority when completing exploratory search tasks that involved identifying influential members of their academic community and "rising stars," and similarly for an unfamiliar academic community. 11 think-aloud sessions followed by semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the roles of specific and general domain expertise in shaping information seeking and knowledge construction. Academics defined and completed the tasks through an iterative and interactive process of seeking and sensemaking, during which they constructed an understanding of their communities and determined qualities of "being influential". The Data/Frame Theory of Sensemaking was used to provide sensitising theoretical constructs. The study shows that both external and internal knowledge resources are essential to define a starting point or frame, make and support decisions, and experience satisfaction. Ill-defined or non-existent initial frames may cause unsubstantial or arbitrary decisions, and feelings of uncertainty and lack of confidence.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 3049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=3049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3049)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An increasing number of tools are being developed to help academics interact with information, but little is known about the benefits of those tools for their users. This study evaluated academics' receptiveness to information proposed by a mobile app, the SerenA Notebook: information that is based in their inferred interests but does not relate directly to a prior recognized need. The evaluated app aimed at creating the experience of serendipitous encounters: generating ideas and inspiring thoughts, and potentially triggering follow-up actions, by providing users with suggestions related to their work and leisure interests. We studied how 20 academics interacted with messages sent by the mobile app (3 per day over 10 consecutive days). Collected data sets were analyzed using thematic analysis. We found that contextual factors (location, activity, and focus) strongly influenced their responses to messages. Academics described some unsolicited information as interesting but irrelevant when they could not make immediate use of it. They highlighted filtering information as their major struggle rather than finding information. Some messages that were positively received acted as reminders of activities participants were meant to be doing but were postponing, or were relevant to ongoing activities at the time the information was received.

0.0063588563 = product of:
  0.025435425 = sum of:
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.4-21

0.005299047 = product of:
  0.021196188 = sum of:
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=2052,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2052, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2052)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.613-634