Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.039208744 = product of:
  0.15683497 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 2838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=2838,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 2838, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2838)
    0.09759717 = weight(_text_:studies in 2838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09759717 = score(doc=2838,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 2838, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2838)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Several prominent scholars suggest that investigations of human information behavior or "information needs, seeking, and uses" rarely measure how received information is applied or its effects on the recipient, that is, its outcomes. This article explores this assertion via systematic analysis of studies published in journals between 1950 and 2012. Five time periods and four journals were sampled, including 1,391 journal articles, 915 of which were empirical studies. Based on these samples, the percentage of studies of information outcomes climbed from zero in the 1950s and 1960s, to 8% in recent research reports. The barriers to studying information outcomes and possible future research on this topic are explored.

0.035292473 = product of:
  0.14116989 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=1270,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
    0.06936283 = weight(_text_:studies in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06936283 = score(doc=1270,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43865734 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.019973401 = product of:
  0.079893604 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=4346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
    0.03758089 = product of:
      0.07516178 = sum of:
        0.07516178 = weight(_text_:area in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07516178 = score(doc=4346,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38494104 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Why authors cite particular documents has been the subject of both speculation and empirical investigation for decades. This article provides a short history of attempts to understand citation motivations and reports a replication of earlier surveys measuring reasons for citations. Comparisons are made among various types of scholars. The present study identified six highly cited articles in the topic area of bibliometrics and surveyed all of the locatable authors who cited those works (n=112). It was thought that bibliometricians, given that this is their area of expertise, might have a heightened level of awareness of their own citation practices, and hence a different pattern of responses. Several reasons indicated by the 56% of the sample who identified themselves as bibliometricians differed in statistically significant ways from nonbibliometricians, and also from earlier samples of scholars in Communication and Psychology. By far the most common reason for citing a document is that it represents a genre. A factor analysis shows that 20 motivations, clustered in seven factors, can represent the most common motivations for citation. The implications of these findings are discussed in the light of recent debates about the role of social factors in citation. Alternative methods for investigating citation behavior are discussed.

0.016484251 = product of:
  0.065937005 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=2241,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The diffusion of the Internet has radically expanded the readily available sources for information of all types. Information that was once obtained second-hand from friends and acquaintances-the traditional "two-step flow"-is now found easily through the Internet. The authors make use of survey data to explore this thesis in regards to information sources about genetic testing and the influence of the Internet an the information seeking behaviors of the public. A telephone survey of a random sample of 882 adults asked them about their knowledge of, concerns about, and interest in genetic testing. Respondents were most likely to first turn to the Internet for information about cancer genetics, second to public libraries, and third to medical doctors. Overall, doctors were the most likely source to be consulted when second and third choices are considered. Age, income, and self-reported understanding of genetics are shown to be predictors of whether someone goes to medical professionals for advice, rather than to the Internet or public library. The results raise questions about the apparent tendency of the public to regard the Internet as the best source of information an complex topics like genetics, for which it may be ill-suited.

0.008462544 = product of:
  0.06770035 = sum of:
    0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06770035 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=813)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 7704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=7704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 7704, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7704)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=4775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 4775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4775)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)