Search (776 results, page 1 of 39)

0.08078585 = product of:
  0.1615717 = sum of:
    0.1615717 = product of:
      0.48471507 = sum of:
        0.48471507 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.48471507 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43122733 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07434991 = product of:
  0.14869982 = sum of:
    0.14869982 = sum of:
      0.11424282 = weight(_text_:policy in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11424282 = score(doc=668,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
      0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03445699 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 668, 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=668)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

20th century massification of higher education and research in academia is said to have produced structurally stratified higher education systems in many countries. Most manifestly, the research mission of universities appears to be divisive. Authors have claimed that the Swedish system, while formally unified, has developed into a binary state, and statistics seem to support this conclusion. This article makes use of a comprehensive statistical data source on Swedish higher education institutions to illustrate stratification, and uses literature on Swedish research policy history to contextualize the statistics. Highlighting the opportunities as well as constraints of the data, the article argues that there is great merit in combining statistics with a qualitative analysis when studying the structural characteristics of national higher education systems. Not least the article shows that it is an over-simplification to describe the Swedish system as binary; the stratification is more complex. On basis of the analysis, the article also argues that while global trends certainly influence national developments, higher education systems have country-specific features that may enrich the understanding of how systems evolve and therefore should be analyzed as part of a broader study of the increasingly globalized academic system.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:43:01

0.06914332 = product of:
  0.13828664 = sum of:
    0.13828664 = sum of:
      0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.096938245 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
      0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041348387 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.

Date

8. 7.2015 22:00:42

0.06732154 = product of:
  0.13464308 = sum of:
    0.13464308 = product of:
      0.40392923 = sum of:
        0.40392923 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40392923 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43122733 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.06411863 = product of:
  0.12823726 = sum of:
    0.12823726 = product of:
      0.25647452 = sum of:
        0.25647452 = weight(_text_:policy in 4969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25647452 = score(doc=4969,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.940413 = fieldWeight in 4969, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study proposes an approach for visualizing knowledge structures that creates a "research-focused parallelship network," "keyword co-occurrence network," and a knowledge map to visualize Sci-Tech policy research structure. A total of 1,125 Sci-Tech policy-related papers (873 journal papers [78%], 205 conference papers [18%], and 47 review papers [4%]) have been retrieved from the Web of Science database for quantitative analysis and mapping. Different network and contour maps based on these 1,125 papers can be constructed by choosing different information as the main actor, such as the paper title, the institute, the country, or the author keywords, to reflect Sci-Tech policy research structures in micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, respectively. The quantitative way of exploring Sci-Tech policy research papers is investigated to unveil important or emerging Sci-Tech policy implications as well as to demonstrate the dynamics and visualization of the evolution of Sci-Tech policy research.

0.060586404 = product of:
  0.12117281 = sum of:
    0.12117281 = product of:
      0.24234562 = sum of:
        0.24234562 = weight(_text_:policy in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24234562 = score(doc=5579,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.88860667 = fieldWeight in 5579, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since its emergence in the 1970s, information literacy has developed in theory, practice, and scope. In the United States, librarians, business leaders, and political stakeholders have emphasized that information literacy is essential to an informed twenty-first-century citizenry. But despite the pervading feeling that the subject is important, there is as yet no clearly identifiable public policy on information literacy. Public policy may be defined as governmental action or inaction, decided upon and taken by the public, the state, and other actors. Public policies are usually enacted as the result of sustained effort to place them on the public policy agenda, that is, bring them to the attention of the public, and gain support from critical interest groups, influential individuals, and politicians at different levels of government. The authors contend that information literacy is not yet part of the public agenda. Rather, information literacy is claimed by a relatively narrow group of stakeholders, lacks name recognition and broad-based public support, is not mandated in U.S. primary and secondary education ("K-12"), and therefore remains fundamentally ineffective in implementation. This article considers whether information literacy is a legitimate public interest, and therefore the degree to which it merits a public policy and where such a policy might best be located. However, locating information literacy within education policy, although this seems intuitive, appears to be problematical. The authors discuss how policy options emerge, identify barriers to doing so, and provide recommendations for advancing the critical development and dissemination of information literacy.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'Information Literacy Beyond the Academy, Part I: Towards Policy Formulation.

0.057619434 = product of:
  0.11523887 = sum of:
    0.11523887 = sum of:
      0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08078188 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
      0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03445699 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Researchers are producing an unprecedented deluge of data by using new methods and instrumentation. Others may wish to mine these data for new discoveries and innovations. However, research data are not readily available as sharing is common in only a few fields such as astronomy and genomics. Data sharing practices in other fields vary widely. Moreover, research data take many forms, are handled in many ways, using many approaches, and often are difficult to interpret once removed from their initial context. Data sharing is thus a conundrum. Four rationales for sharing data are examined, drawing examples from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities: (1) to reproduce or to verify research, (2) to make results of publicly funded research available to the public, (3) to enable others to ask new questions of extant data, and (4) to advance the state of research and innovation. These rationales differ by the arguments for sharing, by beneficiaries, and by the motivations and incentives of the many stakeholders involved. The challenges are to understand which data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects. Answers will inform data policy and practice.

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.057619434 = product of:
  0.11523887 = sum of:
    0.11523887 = sum of:
      0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08078188 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
      0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03445699 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the keynote paper for the 12th International ISKO Conference in Mysore I discussed the dynamicity of the domain of knowledge organization from the perspective of ongoing domain analyses. Metaanalysis of a series of studies shows that knowledge organization is a strong, scientific community, with a distinct extension that now embraces the search for interoperability, and with intension that shifts along two continuums, one of which is methodological (or epistemological) and ranges from empirical experimental methods to humanistic narrative methods, while the other is more contextual and ranges from concept theory to applied KOS. These elements seem to remain core in knowledge organization as a domain over time (Smiraglia 2012). Another interesting finding is the degree to which the intension along that theory-application continuum is stretched by papers presented at regional ISKO chapter conferences. Since 2006 it has been the policy of this journal to offer to publish the leading papers from any peer-reviewed regional ISKO conference. The papers are selected by conference organizers and forwarded to Knowledge Organization for publication. By analyzing the papers separately we are able to see both the presence of the domain's core internationally and the constant tug and pull on the intension as authors bring new ideas and new research to regional conferences. This editorial, then, summarizes papers from regional conferences that have appeared in Knowledge Organization in 2011 and 2012.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:09:49

0.057619434 = product of:
  0.11523887 = sum of:
    0.11523887 = sum of:
      0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08078188 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
      0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03445699 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.

Date

24. 8.2016 17:53:22

0.05712141 = product of:
  0.11424282 = sum of:
    0.11424282 = product of:
      0.22848564 = sum of:
        0.22848564 = weight(_text_:policy in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22848564 = score(doc=2098,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.83778644 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

All librarians and libraries have information policies, and so do most people. The big issues, like censorship or intellectual property ownership and use, crowd our minds but the process of decision making is the same at every level and in every context, whether we are concerned with government secrets, advertising standards, or our children's reading and viewing habits. This book examines the issues from varying standpoints, including the human rights approach, the commercial approach, and the states-interest approach. These are all placed within the context of arguments about the public sphere. The working librarian has to be in a position to justify every stock purchase and information access decision, and in the strategies they follow to legitimate the library. The form and construction of arguments and the discussion of issues in this book will give librarians the context and arguments they need to identify and apply appropriate information policies and strategies. Key areas addressed in the book include: the information policy problem; policy sectors; information regimes; and, policies and strategies: models and cases. This book is essential reading for library students, researchers and policy makers as well as for all LIS practitioners wishing to widen their awareness of the important issues surrounding information policy.

LCSH

Information policy
Information policy

Subject

Information policy
Information policy

0.05712141 = product of:
  0.11424282 = sum of:
    0.11424282 = product of:
      0.22848564 = sum of:
        0.22848564 = weight(_text_:policy in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22848564 = score(doc=5581,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.83778644 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information literacy was conceived originally as a policy goal in 1974, when Paul Zurkowski expressed the need for establishing a major national program to achieve universal information literacy. Despite such early recognition of its political imprinting, the policy dimension of information literacy has been given scant attention in the academic literature. In order to pave the way toward concrete and coordinated policy measures, this article proposes a stratification of the information literacy discourse into three different perspectives of analysis: (a) sociopolitical perspective: analysis of information literacy as a policy goal (Education to Information); (b) disciplinary perspective: analysis of information literacy as a form of study of information (Culture of Information); (c) cognitive perspective: analysis of information literacy as a form of personal competence (Information Skills). Focusing on the sociopolitical perspective, this article moves on to discuss the view that information literacy is a policy goal crossing the borders of both information and education domains, in that it is an information policy issue that also enters the sphere of influence of education policies. The next sections propose a framework for analyzing and comparing information literacy policies in European countries. The overall aim is to apply a grid of analysis based on a set of variables, suitably defined in order to give a measure of what we call the IL-readiness of a country. Finally, the application of the proposed analysis framework leads to the identification of different policy axes for information literacy.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'Information Literacy Beyond the Academy, Part I: Towards Policy Formulation.

0.048469122 = product of:
  0.096938245 = sum of:
    0.096938245 = product of:
      0.19387649 = sum of:
        0.19387649 = weight(_text_:policy in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19387649 = score(doc=692,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.71088535 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How Information Matters examines the ways a network of state and local governments and nonprofit organizations can enhance the capacity for successful policy change by public administrators. Hale examines drug courts, programs that typify the highly networked, collaborative environment of public administrators today. These "special dockets" implement justice but also drug treatment, case management, drug testing, and incentive programs for non-violent offenders in lieu of jail time. In a study that spans more than two decades, Hale shows ways organizations within the network act to champion, challenge, and support policy innovations over time. Her description of interactions between courts, administrative agencies, and national organizations highlight the evolution of collaborative governance in the state and local arena, with vignettes that share specific experiences across six states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and Tennessee) and ways that they acquired knowledge from the network to make decisions. How Information Matters offers valuable insight into successful ways for collaboration and capacity building. It will be of special interest to public administrators or policymakers who wish to identify ways to improve their own programs' performance.

Content

Inhalt: Intergovernmental relationships, information, and policy change -- From information to innovation: the drug court experience -- Network relationships, implementation, and policy success: a national influence -- Using strategic information to build programs: templates, mentors, and research -- Information and systemic change: new professionals and new institutions -- Information, synthesis, and synergy: a national nonprofit information network -- Bringing value to public decisions: information relationships, tools, and processes.

LCSH

Policy networks / United States
Policy sciences

Subject

Policy networks / United States
Policy sciences

0.047125082 = product of:
  0.094250165 = sum of:
    0.094250165 = product of:
      0.2827505 = sum of:
        0.2827505 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2827505 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43122733 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.046095543 = product of:
  0.092191085 = sum of:
    0.092191085 = sum of:
      0.064625494 = weight(_text_:policy in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064625494 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.23696178 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.027565593 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027565593 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = 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)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper is the final one in a series which has tried to give an overview of so-called transformational areas of digital library technology. The aim has been to assess how much real transformation these applications can bring about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a summary of some of the legal and ethical issues associated with web 2.0 applications in libraries, associated with a brief retrospective view of some relevant literature. Findings - Although web 2.0 innovations have had a massive impact on the larger World Wide Web, the practical impact on library service delivery has been limited to date. What probably can be termed transformational in the effect of web 2.0 developments on library and information work is their effect on some underlying principles of professional practice. Research limitations/implications - The legal and ethical challenges of incorporating web 2.0 platforms into mainstream institutional service delivery need to be subject to further research, so that the risks associated with these innovations are better understood at the strategic and policy-making level. Practical implications - This paper makes some recommendations about new principles of library and information practice which will help practitioners make better sense of these innovations in their overall information environment. Social implications - The paper puts in context some of the more problematic social impacts of web 2.0 innovations, without denying the undeniable positive contribution of social networking to the sphere of human interactivity. Originality/value - This paper raises some cautionary points about web 2.0 applications without adopting a precautionary approach of total prohibition. However, none of the suggestions or analysis in this piece should be considered to constitute legal advice. If such advice is required, the reader should consult appropriate legal professionals.

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04

0.046095543 = product of:
  0.092191085 = sum of:
    0.092191085 = sum of:
      0.064625494 = weight(_text_:policy in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064625494 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.23696178 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.027565593 = weight(_text_:22 in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027565593 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05086421 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg's () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher's exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have "scheme harmonization" (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective "abstraction" (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective "sufficiency" (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective "data publication" do not have the objective "element refinement." The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

0.041975494 = product of:
  0.08395099 = sum of:
    0.08395099 = product of:
      0.16790198 = sum of:
        0.16790198 = weight(_text_:policy in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16790198 = score(doc=3574,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite over 10 years of research there is no agreement on the most suitable roles for Webometric indicators in support of research policy and almost no field-based Webometrics. This article partly fills these gaps by analyzing the potential of policy-relevant Webometrics for individual scientific fields with the help of 4 case studies. Although Webometrics cannot provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact, it can provide some evidence of networking and mutual awareness. The scope of Webometrics is also relatively wide, including not only research organizations and firms but also intermediary groups like professional associations, Web portals, and government agencies. Webometrics can, therefore, provide evidence about the research process to compliment peer review, bibliometric, and patent indicators: tracking the early, mainly prepublication development of new fields and research funding initiatives, assessing the role and impact of intermediary organizations and the need for new ones, and monitoring the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas.

0.041975494 = product of:
  0.08395099 = sum of:
    0.08395099 = product of:
      0.16790198 = sum of:
        0.16790198 = weight(_text_:policy in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16790198 = score(doc=4781,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

The educational, recreational, and informational infrastructure -- From past to present : the history and mission of libraries -- Library and information science : an evolving profession -- The organization of information : techniques and issues -- The library as an institution : an organizational perspective -- Redefining the library : the impact and implications of technological change -- Information science : a service perspective -- Information policy : stakeholders and agendas -- Information policy as library policy : intellectual freedom -- The values and ethics of library and information science.

0.041975494 = product of:
  0.08395099 = sum of:
    0.08395099 = product of:
      0.16790198 = sum of:
        0.16790198 = weight(_text_:policy in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16790198 = score(doc=276,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 276, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Net neutrality is the focus of an important policy debate that is tied to technological innovation, economic development, and information access. We examine the role of human values in shaping the Net neutrality debate through a content analysis of testimonies from U.S. Senate and FCC hearings on Net neutrality. The analysis is based on a coding scheme that we developed based on a pilot study in which we used the Schwartz Value Inventory. We find that the policy debate surrounding Net neutrality revolves primarily around differences in the frequency of expression of the values of innovation and wealth, such that the proponents of Net neutrality more frequently invoke innovation, while the opponents of Net neutrality more frequently invoke wealth in their prepared testimonies. The paper provides a novel approach for examining the Net neutrality debate and sheds light on the connection between information policy and research on human values.

0.041975494 = product of:
  0.08395099 = sum of:
    0.08395099 = product of:
      0.16790198 = sum of:
        0.16790198 = weight(_text_:policy in 858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16790198 = score(doc=858,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 858, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Taking the discourse as our empirical object of study, we used the theoretical foundations of the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to justify the way an ontology is built to represent the area identified as a public policy, in this case, the Brazilian Electronic Government Program. Our objective is to contribute to the fields of Information Science and Computer Science, and present the possibilities for knowledge representation and organization of knowledge by Ontology construction. To support the construction of an ontology for Brazilian E-Government, as a public policy, we evaluate the proposed Controlled Vocabulary of E-Government - VCGE (2011).

0.041975494 = product of:
  0.08395099 = sum of:
    0.08395099 = product of:
      0.16790198 = sum of:
        0.16790198 = weight(_text_:policy in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16790198 = score(doc=4346,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die Anzahl der Forschungsdaten-Policies an deutschen Universitäten ist seit 2014 deutlich gestiegen und die Kurve geht kontinuierlich nach oben. Eine Besonderheit der deutschen Policies ist auf den ersten Blick ersichtlich: Es gibt keine einheitliche Bezeichnung - verwendet werden "Leitlinie", "Grundsätze", "Policy", "Richtlinie". Auch zeigen die Policies deutliche Unterschiede auf, was Umfang und Inhalte angeht. Um die Forschungsdaten-Policies an deutschen Universitäten weiter zu befördern, entwickelt die Technische Universität Berlin seit August 2017 im BMBF-Projekt "Modalitäten und Entwicklung institutioneller Forschungsdaten-Policies" entsprechende Handlungsanleitungen. Ziel der ersten Projektphase ist die Konzeptionierung und Erstellung eines "Baukastens" für institutionelle Forschungsdaten-Policies ("Policy-Kit"). Als methodischer Ansatz werden ForschungsdatenPolicies deutscher Hochschulen gesammelt und evaluiert und mit internationalen Empfehlungen zu Forschungsdaten-Policies abgeglichen. Die Ergebnisse werden in diesem Artikel vorgestellt.