Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013833099 = product of:
  0.11066479 = sum of:
    0.11066479 = weight(_text_:studies in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11066479 = score(doc=1075,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.699855 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The author reviews the major approaches and central findings of empirical research use studies. 6 major approaches were identified by cross-tabulating 2 criteria: the major context of network use (job-related vs. non-work) and the social level of variables (individual vs. group level). Examples of all types of studies are presented. Themajority of studies can be classified among the surveys focusing on frequencies of service use. From these studies, analyses of job-related are the most advanced both theoretically and methodologically while studies focused on non-work context of use are less established in this sense. The qualitative research settings seem to gain more popularity, thus making the use studies more balanced methodologically. The strengths and weaknesses of the research approaches are assessed and conclusions are drawn concerning the development of more context sensitive analyses of network uses

0.01206966 = product of:
  0.04827864 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3713)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, 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=3713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the picture of the motivators for information behaviour by examining the nature of information need as a trigger and driver of information seeking. Design/methodology/approach Conceptual analysis focusing on the ways in which the researchers have conceptualized information need in models for human information behaviour (HIB). The study draws on conceptual analysis of 26 key studies focusing on the above topic. Findings Researchers have employed two main approaches to conceptualize information needs in the HIB models. First, information need is approached as a root factor which motivates people to identify and access information sources. Second, information need is approached as a secondary trigger or driver determined by more fundamental factors, for example, the information requirements of task performance. The former approach conceptualizes information need as a trigger providing an initial impetus to information seeking, while the latter approach also depicts information need as a driver that keeps the information-seeking process in motion. The latter approach is particularly characteristic of models depicting information seeking as a cyclic process. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on information need, no attention is devoted to related constructs such as anomalous state of knowledge and uncertainty. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of information need as a trigger and driver of information seeking. The findings refine the picture of motivators for information behaviour.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.01206966 = product of:
  0.04827864 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5498, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5498)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5498, 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=5498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the creation of a holistic picture of information behavior by examining the connections between information seeking and sharing. Design/methodology/approach Conceptual analysis is used to focus on the ways in which the researchers have modeled the interplay of information seeking and sharing. The study draws on conceptual analysis of 27 key studies examining the above issue, with a focus on the scrutiny of six major models for information behavior. Findings Researchers have employed three main approaches to model the relationships between information seeking and sharing. The indirect approach conceptualizes information seeking and sharing as discrete activities connected by an intermediating factor, for example, information need. The sequential approach assumes that information seeking precedes information sharing. From the viewpoint of the interactive approach, information seeking and sharing appear as mutually related activities shaping each other iteratively or in a cyclical manner. The interactive approach provides the most sophisticated research perspective on the relationships of information seeking and sharing and contributes to holistic understanding of human information behavior. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on information seeking and sharing, no attention is devoted to other activities constitutive of information behavior, for example, information use. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the connections of information seeking and information sharing.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.010565204 = product of:
  0.08452163 = sum of:
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=3670,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Presents an overview of research on information use. The majority of use and user studies are surveys which focus on the consulting of different information sources and channels. In most studies, however, the substantial issues of information use are omitted. Discusses conceptual and terminological questions of information use and knowledge utilization. No consensus on the definition of these concepts exists among researchers because they can have no direct access to individual processes of information use. Examines the contributions made to information use theory by Brenda Dervin and Robert S. Taylor. Reviews the categories of uses specified in Dervin's sense making theory and discusses Taylor's concept of information use environments. Considers some methodological questions concerning the challenges of empirical research on information use

Footnote

Research on information use in the field of information studies

0.0073941024 = product of:
  0.05915282 = sum of:
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=564,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to elaborate the picture of the processes of information use by comparing conceptualizations provided by the constructivist approach and the human information processing approach. Design/methodology/approach - The article is a conceptual analysis of major articles characterizing information use and human information processing in the fields of information studies and consumer research. Findings - It is found that both research approaches share the assumption that interpreting, relating and comparing qualities of things is fundamental to the information use process. Research limitations/implications - The picture of information use processes is based on the comparison of two research approaches only. Originality/value - Compared to the numerous studies on information needs and seeking, the questions of information use have remained under-researched. The study elaborates the conceptual picture of information use processes by identifying similarities and differences between two major research approaches.

0.0073941024 = product of:
  0.05915282 = sum of:
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=3428,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Using Ellis's seminal model of information seeking as an example, this study demonstrates how the elaborations made to the original framework since the late 1980s have contributed to conceptual growth in information-seeking studies. To this end, nine key studies elaborating Ellis's model were scrutinized by conceptual analysis. The findings indicate that the elaborations are based on two main approaches: adding novel, context-specific components in the model and redefining and restructuring the components. The elaborations have contributed to conceptual growth in three major ways. First, integrating formerly separate parts of knowledge; second, generalizing and explaining lower abstraction-level knowledge through higher-level constructs; and third, expanding knowledge by identifying new characteristics of the object of study, that is, information-seeking behavior. Further elaboration of Ellis's model toward a theory would require more focused attempts to test hypotheses in work-related environments in particular.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 614, 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=614)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specify user-defined relevance criteria by which people select hyperlinks and pages in web searching. Design/methodology/approach - A quantitative and qualitative analysis was undertaken of talking aloud data from nine web searches conducted about self-generated topics. Findings - Altogether 18 different criteria for selecting hyperlinks and web pages were found. The selection is constituted, by two, intertwined processes: the relevance judgment of hyperlinks, and web pages by user-defined criteria, and decision-making concerning the acceptance or rejection of hyperlinks and web pages. The study focuses on the former process. Of the individual criteria, specificity, topicality, familiarity, and variety were used most frequently in relevance judgments. The study shows that despite the high number of individual criteria used in the judgments, a few criteria such as specificity and topicality tend to dominate. Searchers were less critical in the judgment of hyperlinks than deciding whether the activated web pages should be consulted in more detail. Research limitations/implications - The study is exploratory, drawing on a relatively low number of case searches. Originality/value - The paper gives a detailed picture of the criteria used in the relevance judgments of hyperlinks and web pages. The study also discusses the specific nature of criteria used in web searching, as compared to those used in traditional online searching environments.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=1660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1660, 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=1660)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The conceptual issues of information use are discussed by reviewing the major ideas of sense-making methodology developed by Brenda Dervin. Sense-making methodology approaches the phenomena of information use by drawing on the metaphor of gap-bridging. The nature of this metaphor is explored by utilizing the ideas of metaphor analysis suggested by Lakoff and Johnson. First, the source domain of the metaphor is characterized by utilizing the graphical illustrations of sense-making metaphors. Second, the target domain of the metaphor is analyzed by scrutinizing Dervin's key writings on information seeking and use. The metaphor of gap-bridging does not suggest a substantive conception of information use; the metaphor gives methodological and heuristic guidance to posit contextual questions as to how people interpret information to make sense of it. Specifically, these questions focus on the ways in which cognitive, affective, and other elements useful for the sense-making process are constructed and shaped to bridge the gap. Ultimately, the key question of information use studies is how people design information in context.

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking orienting information for nonwork purposes. The conceptual framework of the study combines ideas drawn from social phenomenology and information-seeking studies. The study utilizes Alfred Schutz's model describing the ways in which actors structure everyday knowledge into regions of decreasing relevance. It is assumed that this structuring based on the actor's interest at hand is also reflected in the ways in which an actor prefers information sources and channels. The concept of information source horizon is used to elicit articulations of source preferences. The empirical part of the study draws on interviews with 20 individuals active in environmental issues. Printed media (newspapers), the Internet, and broadcast media (radio, television) were preferred in seeking for orienting information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources, user characteristics such as media habits, and situational factors were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria.

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Information seeking may be analyzed in two major contexts: job-related and nonwork. The present entry concentrates on nonwork information seeking, more properly called everyday life information seeking (ELIS). Typically, ELIS studies discuss the ways in which people access and use various information sources to meet information needs in areas such as health, consumption, and leisure. The entry specifies the concept of ELIS and characterizes the major ELIS models. They include the Sense-Making approach (Dervin), the Small world theory (Chatman), the ecological model of ELIS (Williamson), ELIS in the context of way of life (Savolainen), the model of information practices (McKenzie), and the concept of information grounds (Fisher). ELIS practices tend to draw on the habitualized use of a limited number of sources which have been found useful in previous use contexts. Since the late 1990s, the Internet has increasingly affected the ELIS practices by providing easily accessible sources. Even though the popularity of the networked sources has grown rapidly they will complement, rather than replace, more traditional sources and channels.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5304, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5304)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The study elaborates the picture of the relationships between information and power by examining how informational and expert power appear in the characterizations of cognitive authority presented in the research literature. The study draws on the conceptual analysis of 25 key studies on the above issues. Mainly focusing on Patrick Wilson's classic notion of cognitive authority, it was examined how informational power and expert power are constitutive of authority of this kind, and how people subject to the influence of cognitive authorities trust or challenge such authorities. The findings indicate that researchers have characterized the features of expert power inherent in cognitive authority by diverse qualifiers such as competence and trustworthiness of information sources considered authoritative. Informational power has mainly been approached in terms of irrefutability of individual arguments and facts offered by cognitive authorities. Both forms of power are persuasive in nature and information seekers can trust or challenge them by drawing on their experiential knowledge in particular. The findings also highlight the need to elaborate the construct of cognitive authority by rethinking its relevance in the networked information environments where the traditional picture of authoritative information sources is eroding.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5914)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The aim of the study was to develop an empirical measure for everyday information mastering (EIM). EIM describes the ways that individuals, based on their beliefs, attitudes, and expectations, orient themselves to information as a resource of everyday action. The key features of EIM were identified by conceptual analysis focusing on three EIM frameworks. Four modes of EIM-Proactive, Social, Reactive, and Passive-and their 12 constituents were identified. A survey of 39 items was developed in two pilot studies to operationalize the identified modes as measurable EIM constituents. The respondents in the main study were upper secondary school students (n = 412). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to validate subscales for each EIM constituent. Seven subscales emerged: Inquiring and Scanning in the Proactive mode, Social media-centered, and Experiential in the Social mode, and Information poor, Overwhelmed, and Blunting in the Passive mode. Two constituents, Serendipitous and Intuitive, were not supported in the EFA. The findings highlight that the core constituents of an individual's everyday information mastering can be operationalized as psychometric scales. The instrument contributes to the systematic empirical study of EIM constituents and their relationships. The study further sheds light on key modes of EIM.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5981)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This study aims to elaborate the picture of the relationships between information and power by examining how expert power appears in the characterizations of gatekeeping presented in the research literature. Design/methodology/approach This study uses conceptual analysis for examining how expert power is constitutive of the construct of gatekeeper and how people subject to the influence of gatekeeping trust or challenge the expert power attributed to gatekeepers. The study draws on the analysis of 40 key studies on the above issues. Findings Researchers have mainly constructed the gatekeepers' expert power in terms of superior knowledge and skills applicable to a specific domain, coupled with an ability to control or facilitate access to information. The gatekeeper's expert power has been approached as a contextual factor that facilitates rather than controls access to information. The power relationships between the gatekeepers and those subject to gatekeeping vary contextually, depending on the extent to which the latter have access to alternative sources of information. The findings highlight the need to elaborate the construct of gatekeeping by rethinking its relevance in the networked information environments where the traditional picture of gatekeepers controlling access to information sources is eroding. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on how expert power figures in gatekeeping, no attention is devoted to the role of social power of other types, for example, reward power and referent power. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of expert power as a constituent of gatekeeping.

0.004231272 = product of:
  0.033850174 = sum of:
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 2319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=2319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 2319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2319)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)