Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019191254 = product of:
  0.038382508 = sum of:
    0.038382508 = product of:
      0.076765016 = sum of:
        0.076765016 = weight(_text_:literacy in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076765016 = score(doc=608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29616246 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.25919902 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an empirical investigation into conceptions of the "invisible web". Design/methodology/approach - This was an exploratory qualitative study based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with 15 members of academic staff from three biology-related departments at the University of Sheffield. Concepts emerged from an inductive analysis of the interview data to form a tentative model. Findings - A distinction is drawn between technical objective conceptions of the "invisible web" that commonly appear in the literature, and a cognitive subjective conception based on searchers' perceptions of search failure, and a tentative model of "cognitive invisibility" is presented. The relationship between objective and subjective conceptions, and implications for training, are discussed. Research limitations/implications - The research was qualitative and exploratory, designed to elicit sensitising concepts and to "map the territory". It thus aims to provide a tentative model that could form the basis for more systematic study. Such research could investigate the validity of the categories in different and/or larger samples, seek further to illuminate, challenge, extend or refute the model, and address issues of generalisability. Practical implications - The paper presents a conceptual model that is intended to be a useful reference point for researchers wishing to investigate user-based aspects of search failure and the invisible web. It may also be useful to trainers and those interested in developing information literacy, in that it differentiates technical objective and cognitive subjective conceptions of "invisibility, and discusses the implications for helping searchers develop more effective searching capabilities. Originality/value - The paper offers an alternative cognitive subjective view of "web invisibility" to that more commonly presented in the literature. It contributes to a still small body of empirical research into user-based aspects of the invisible web.

0.019191254 = product of:
  0.038382508 = sum of:
    0.038382508 = product of:
      0.076765016 = sum of:
        0.076765016 = weight(_text_:literacy in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076765016 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29616246 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.25919902 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8650045 = idf(docFreq=340, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to examine our current knowledge of how searchers perceive and react to the possibility of missing potentially important information whilst searching the web is limited. The study reported here seeks to investigate such perceptions and reactions, and to explore the extent to which Simon's "bounded rationality" theory is useful in illuminating these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Totally 37 academic staff, research staff and research students in three university departments were interviewed about their web searching. The open-ended, semi-structured interviews were inductively analysed. Emergence of the concept of "good enough" searching prompted a further analysis to explore the extent to which the data could be interpreted in terms of Simon's concepts of "bounded rationality" and "satisficing". Findings - The results indicate that the risk of missing potentially important information was a matter of concern to the interviewees. Their estimations of the likely extent and importance of missed information affected decisions by individuals as to when to stop searching - decisions based on very different criteria, which map well onto Simon's concepts. On the basis of the interview data, the authors propose tentative categorizations of perceptions of the risk of missing information including "inconsequential" "tolerable" "damaging" and "disastrous" and search strategies including "perfunctory" "minimalist" "nervous" and "extensive". It is concluded that there is at least a prima facie case for bounded rationality and satisficing being considered as potentially useful concepts in our quest better to understand aspects of human information behaviour. Research limitations/implications - Although the findings are based on a relatively small sample and an exploratory qualitative analysis, it is argued that the study raises a number of interesting questions, and has implications for both the development of theory and practice in the areas of web searching and information literacy. Originality/value - The paper focuses on an aspect of web searching which has not to date been well explored. Whilst research has done much to illuminate searchers' perceptions of what they find on the web, we know relatively little of their perceptions of, and reactions to information that they fail to find. The study reported here provides some tentative models, based on empirical evidence, of these phenomena.

0.01710396 = product of:
  0.03420792 = sum of:
    0.03420792 = product of:
      0.06841584 = sum of:
        0.06841584 = weight(_text_:22 in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06841584 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17683028 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 1.2000 13:16:22

0.01710396 = product of:
  0.03420792 = sum of:
    0.03420792 = product of:
      0.06841584 = sum of:
        0.06841584 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06841584 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17683028 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:45:48

0.010262376 = product of:
  0.020524751 = sum of:
    0.020524751 = product of:
      0.041049503 = sum of:
        0.041049503 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041049503 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17683028 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05049654 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92