Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.058245093 = product of:
  0.116490185 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=1067,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=1067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1067, 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=1067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social question-and-answer (Q&A) communities are becoming increasingly important for knowledge acquisition. However, some users withhold knowledge, which can hinder the effectiveness of these platforms. Based on social exchange theory, the study investigates how different types of questions influence knowledge withholding, with question difficulty and user anonymity as boundary conditions. Two experiments were conducted to test hypotheses. Results indicate that informational questions are more likely to lead to knowledge withholding than conversational ones, as they elicit more fear of negative evaluation and fear of exploitation. The study also examines the interplay of question difficulty and user anonymity with question type. Overall, this study significantly extends the existing literature on counterproductive knowledge behavior by exploring the antecedents of knowledge withholding in social Q&A communities.

Date

22. 9.2023 13:51:47

0.024918701 = product of:
  0.099674806 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 5812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=5812,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 5812, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5812)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

More and more social Q&A platforms are launching a new business model to monetize online knowledge. This monetizing process introduces a more complicated cost and benefit tradeoff to users, especially for askers' concerns. Much of the previous research was conducted in the context of free-based Q&A platform, which hardly explains the triggers that motivate askers' pay intention. Based on the theories of social exchange and social capital, this study aims to identify and examine the antecedents of askers' pay intention from the perspective of benefit and cost. We empirically test our predictions based on survey data collected from 322 actual askers in a well-known trilateral payment-based social Q&A platform in China. The results by partial least squares (PLS) analysis indicate that besides noneconomic benefits including self-enhancement, social support, and entertainment, financial factors such as cost and benefit have significant influences on the perceived value of using trilateral payment-based Q&A platforms. More important, we further identify that the effect of financial benefit is moderated by perceived reciprocity belief, and the effect of perceived value is moderated by perceived trust in answerers. Our findings contribute to the previous literature by proposing a theoretical model that explains askers' behavioral intention, and the practical implications for payment-based Q&A service providers and participants.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 5840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=5840,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 5840, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5840)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose This paper scrutinizes the scholarship on community archives' information work. Community archives and archiving projects represent unprecedentedly democratic venues for information work centering on essential documentary concepts such as custody, collection development and appraisal, processing, arrangement and description, organization, representation and naming, collaboration, resource generation and allocation, activism and social justice, preservation, reuse, and sustainability. Design/methodology/approach Unearthed through databases searches, citation chaining, and browsing, sources examined include peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and book chapters published in the English language between 1985 and 2018. Findings The literature on community archives' information work shows considerable geographical (six continents), topical, and (inter)disciplinary variety. This paper first explores scholars' efforts to define both community and community archives. Second, it unpacks the ways in which community archives include new stakeholders and new record types and formats even as they leverage alternative archival principles and practices. Third, it discusses community archives as political venues for empowerment, activism, and social justice work. Fourth, this paper delves into the benefits and challenges of partnerships and collaborations with mainstream institutions. Fifth, it documents the obstacles community archives face: not only tensions within and among communities, but also sustainability concerns. Finally, it sets forth six directions for future research. Originality/value This paper is the first systematic review of the community archives literature.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=526,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The present study contributes to the development of integrated models for information behavior and practices at the domain-specific level. To this end, the model for everyday information practices proposed by Savolainen in 2008 is enhanced by integrating the element of information creating, based on Thomson's recent 2018 study. The integration resulted in the expanded model for everyday information practices. Using conceptual analysis, the above model was examined in light of conventional (positivist and post-positivist) and interpretive (social constructivist) criteria for theory assessment. The findings suggest that the integrated model meets best the interpretive criteria such as meaningfulness and understandability, mutuality of concepts and descriptive logic, empirical verifiability, and usefulness. In contrast, theoretical potential of the model is fairly limited when weighed against the conventional criteria, such as generalization and prediction. Overall, the findings suggest that, in its current form, the expanded model cannot be regarded as a "genuine theory" of everyday information practices. However, the model does incorporate many of the qualities characteristic of social scientific theories, and thus exhibits considerable theoretical potential. This is even more so if the interpretive, naturalistic basis of the data in which the expanded model is based is considered.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=1074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This conceptual paper identifies future directions for information practices theoretical discourses addressing marginality, community, and embodiment. We extend arguments from critical research identifying how existing discourses fail to capture the nuanced, lived experiences of people and communities confronting marginalization, predominantly via their reinforcement of deficit narratives. We then connect a series of qualitative projects examining the information practices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual communities in the American South with relevant Library and Information Science (LIS) research to examine how marginality, community, and embodiment shape these practices. Specifically, we introduce a conceptual model that describes marginality by framing information practices as tactical and agentic responses to and refutations of social and structural barriers and risks. While some of the information practices of participants and communities appear to be uninformed or unsafe, they represent the products of community sharing and vetting. Embodied navigations further inform participant practices as they navigate information worlds produced and informed by their intersectional identities. These arguments coincide with key categories established within our model that describe information practices: defensive and protective, and community and self. Based on these insights, we offer directions for future research and theory to reorient existing discourses in ways that inspire middle-range theory building that fully captures people's lived experiences.

0.005228086 = product of:
  0.020912344 = sum of:
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This comprehensive text is the ideal resource for teaching human information behavior to undergraduate students. The text is organized in a thoughtful way to address all the most important aspects in an easy to digest manner, with the latter part of the book focusing on key areas of study within the information behavior field. The real world examples included in the text will appeal to undergraduate students and help them connect to what information behavior looks like in practice. The authors write in a winningly approachable style that will help students connect with the key concepts. I particularly like the inclusion of Discussion Questions which can be used by instructors as either homework or in class discussion points to foster a rich dialogue about each of the chapters. Applicable research studies are introduced in the text in an approachable way which will facilitate undergraduate engagement with the ongoing work in the discipline. The acronyms list and glossary at the back of the book are two additional, helpful resources for undergraduates to get caught up to speed on the most important topics under the umbrella of human information behavior.-- [Emily Vardell, PhD, assistant professor, School of Library and Information Management, Emporia State University]. Extremely accessible, comprehensive, and useful, Understanding Human Information Behavior: When, How, and Why People Interact with Information discusses the relevance and significance of its subject to our work and everyday life and is well-positioned to empower students to become helpful information and technology professionals.-- [Yan Zhang, associate professor, School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin].