Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015714115 = product of:
  0.03142823 = sum of:
    0.020258585 = weight(_text_:science in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020258585 = score(doc=439,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
    0.011169644 = product of:
      0.022339288 = sum of:
        0.022339288 = weight(_text_:history in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022339288 = score(doc=439,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.10279526 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

In the next four chapters, Crowley takes on the particulars involved in the divide by looking at library and information professionals engaged in and transitioning to various research and theory development roles. In "The Academic as Practitioner," he examines how the publishing world influences how academics communicate with practitioners and the difficulties in writing for practitioner-oriented publications. The history of religion in the development of higher education in general, and the research focus of doctoral-degree granting institutions, is offered to explain the dominance of the academic practitioner. The paradoxical edicts of the Ohio legislature, which sought to balance classroom time for professors by law, paint a vivid picture of the results-oriented public and the research-oriented academic institution. In "The Practitioner as Academic: Adjunct Faculty/Lecturers," the question of the perceived lack of "rigor" in practitioner-conducted research is illustrated and illuminated. While Crowley points out the value of "how we did it good" research, as providing material for qualitative analysis, I found myself desiring a bit more methodological instruction. Given where and when such articles are published, how such qualitative analysis could be conducted called the value of this research into question, given the prior treatise on conducting research in an academic environment. "Other Worlds of Practice: The Field Practitioner" and "Other Worlds of Practice: The Consultant" are extremely short expositions which, while addressing alternative professionals' roles, do not significantly further the premise of the work. Nonetheless, Crowley might have been considered remiss if he had excluded these professionals.
"Theory and Revelation" is devoted to encouraging LIS researchers, in any capacity, not to dismiss the role of faith, beliefs, and religion. The ending section presents "A Nine-Step Model for Pragmatic Research," which stops just short of being a "how-to" by not elucidating on the methodological considerations for each step. The model, while textual, bears a striking resemblance to the flow charts for approaching research found in many research instructional works, even though the entertaining of "solutions" to problems is an iterative element of the process. The text concludes with "The Foundations for Building Bridges," a fivepage summary section, almost woefully inadequate given the substantial issues developed and presented throughout the work. Crowley must be commended for his comprehensive approach to the subject, the detailed annotations, the glossary, the summary of works cited, and the index. The format of starting each chapter with a themed scenario prevented the writing from becoming dry and sleepinducing. Most of the chapters end with a specific section addressing how the issues relate to LIS. The overall structure of the text follows logically from the more theoretical to the more applicable. However, there is a definite bias towards occurrences where practitioners and academicians tend to co-exist and function in a research environment, i.e., library science and academic institutions. Information professionals working in public and community college libraries are discussed in a rather superficial manner. How cultural pragmatism can influence research and theory centered in the information science domain must still be considered in more depth than presented in this text. Further expansion on, and a critical analysis of, cultural pragmatism as a metatheoretical perspective is definitely in order. Hopefully, Spanning the Theory-Practice Divide in Library and Information Science will be an introduction to the use of cultural pragmatism in LIS research and in the development of useful theory. In response to an e-mail from me upon first reading the text, the author informed me of his contact with several other doctoral students interested in furthering their understanding of cultural pragmatism. Inspiring other professionals is certainly a testament to the value of the work and supports my recommendation for this text as essential reading for LIS professionals interested in producing research and theory that are truly useful."

LCSH

Information science
Library science

Subject

Information science
Library science

0.013158337 = product of:
  0.05263335 = sum of:
    0.05263335 = weight(_text_:science in 3756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263335 = score(doc=3756,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.42772767 = fieldWeight in 3756, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3756)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Often invisible to the broader society, the information disciplines determine much of what is available to these societies from their entire heritage of knowledge, culture, and entertainment. Containing the contributions of major researchers and practitioners, this third edition of the "Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences" reflects the growing convergence among the several disciplines that concern themselves with information and the cultural record. This work addresses these related disciplines in a way that demonstrates the unities across the fields and also recognizes their uniquely distinguishing characteristics. It covers a broad spectrum of related information disciplines, including: archival science; bibliography; document and genre theory; informatics; information systems; knowledge management; library and information science; museum studies; records management; and, social studies of information.

LCSH

Library science / Encyclopedias
Information science / Encyclopedias

Subject

Library science / Encyclopedias
Information science / Encyclopedias

0.01257536 = product of:
  0.05030144 = sum of:
    0.05030144 = sum of:
      0.027924111 = weight(_text_:history in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027924111 = score(doc=2392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.12849407 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
      0.02237733 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02237733 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

DDC

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

Footnote

The book also includes an index, a selected bibliography, and endnotes for each article. More information on the authors of the articles would have been useful, however. One of the best features of Information Ethics is the discussion cases at the end of each chapter. For instance, in the discussion cases, Moore asks questions like: Would you allow one person to die to save nine? Should a scientist be allowed to experiment on people without their knowledge if there is no harm? Should marriages between people carrying a certain gene be outlawed? These discussion cases really add to the value of the readings. The only suggestion would be to have put them at the beginning of each section so the reader could have the questions floating in their heads as they read the material. Information Ethics is a well thought out and organized collection of articles. Moore has done an excellent job of finding articles to provide a fair and balanced look at a variety of complicated and far-reaching topics. Further, the work has breadth and depth. Moore is careful to include enough historical articles, like the 1890 Warren article, to give balance and perspective to new and modern topics like E-mail surveillance, biopiracy, and genetics. This provides a reader with just enough philosophy and history theory to work with the material. The articles are written by a variety of authors from differing fields so they range in length, tone, and style, creating a rich tapestry of ideas and arguments. However, this is not a quick or easy read. The subject matter is complex and one should plan to spend time with the book. The book is well worth the effort though. Overall, this is a highly recommended work for all libraries especially academic ones."

0.00930435 = product of:
  0.0372174 = sum of:
    0.0372174 = weight(_text_:science in 41) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0372174 = score(doc=41,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 41, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=41)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.4, S.159-160 (G.J.A. Riesthuis): "This thesaurus is a revised edition of: ASIS thesaurus of information science and librarianship, edited by Jessica L. Milstead, 2nd ed. (1998). The change in the title is result of the change of the name of the ASIS (American Society of Information Science) into American Society for Information Science and Technology. Since 2002 the 2nd edition was used by Information Science Abstracts (now Information Science & Technology Abstracts). In the 2nd edition the goal of the thesaurus was formulated as "[include concepts from] information science and librarianship to a depth that will adequately support indexing in those fields with [...] related fields [...] computer science, linguistics and cognitive sciences [...]" (p. vii). The present editors started to update the thesaurus to reflect "the current state of the field and to implement it for indexing the Society's publications for the ASIS&T Digital Library" (p. v). The draft 3rd edition is used to index a great part of the Society's four publications. This means that the 3`1 edition is, more than its predecessors, based on literary warrant as far as this warrant is reflected in ASIS&T publications. The Netherlands have a descriptor, but Romania or Portugal not. The Bliss Bibliographic Classification is mentioned, but the far more often used Russian Library Bibliographical Classification (BBK) is missing. The thesaurus is presented in three parts: 1. An alphabetical listing of all terms. Here one finds the preferred and non-preferred terms with their relations denoted in the customary form (SN, BT, NT, RT, USE and UF). The ordering is word-byword. 2. An hierarchical display of the terms. This display contains the preferred terms only. 3. A permuted display of all terms. Unlike the 2nd edition, this list contains the non-preferred terms too. The thesaurus is like its predecessors a faceted one. There are seven main facets: 1. People and organizations, 2. Actions, events, and processes, 3. Physical objects, 4. Theoretical concepts and influences on information, 5. Information, information delivery formats and channels, 6. Methods of study, 7. Geographic information. The first five facets are subdivided in subfacets, the last have just one subfacet each. In total there arc 18 subfacets, referred to as "top terms" in the language of the thesaurus. This structure is not very different from the structure of the second edition, although the number of subfacets and the terminology has changed. There is one new facet "geographic information" with one subfacet: "countries and regions". In this facet one can see very clearly see that the thesaurus is based on literary warrant: only relatively few countries arc mentioned. The facet "methods of study" is expanded strongly. Under each of the top terms additional concepts are presented in a hierarchical structure. The maximum depth of the hierarchy is nine, although most subfacets have no more than four or five levels. The record for the "bibliometrics" entry shows clearly the changes. The domain and the main structure have not changed, but narrower terms not previously mentioned are added."

LCSH

Subject headings / Information science
Subject headings / Library science

Subject

Subject headings / Information science
Subject headings / Library science