Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Connaway, L.S."
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsdienstleistungen"
  1. Prabha, C.; Connaway, L.S.; Olszewski, L.; Jenkins, L.R.: What is enough? : satisficing information needs (2007) 0.00
    0.0031316737 = product of:
      0.009395021 = sum of:
        0.009395021 = product of:
          0.018790042 = sum of:
            0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018790042 = score(doc=740,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper seeks to understand how users know when to stop searching for more information when the information space is so saturated that there is no certainty that the relevant information has been identified. Design/methodology/approach - Faculty, undergraduate and graduate students participated in focus group interviews to investigate what leads them to satisfice their information needs. Findings - Academic library users describe both qualitative and quantitative criteria, which lead them to make rational choices determining when "enough" information satisfices their need. The situational context of both the participants' specific information need and their role in academic society affects every stage of their search - from the selection of the first resource, to ongoing search strategies, to decisions on how much information is enough. Originality/value - These findings broaden the scope of earlier user research, which tends to focus on the more static views of habitual information-seeking and -searching behavior, by applying theoretical frameworks for a richer understanding of the users' experiences.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 63(2007) no.1, S.74-89
  2. Radford, M.L.; Connaway, L.S.; Mikitish, S.; Alpert, M.; Shah, C.; Cooke, N.A.: Shared values, new vision : collaboration and communities of practice in virtual reference and SQA (2017) 0.00
    0.0027899165 = product of:
      0.008369749 = sum of:
        0.008369749 = product of:
          0.016739499 = sum of:
            0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016739499 = score(doc=3352,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3352, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3352)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This investigation of new approaches to improving collaboration, user/librarian experiences, and sustainability for virtual reference services (VRS) reports findings from a grant project titled "Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites" (Radford, Connaway, & Shah, 2011-2014). In-depth telephone interviews with 50 VRS librarians included questions on collaboration, referral practices, and attitudes toward Social Question and Answer (SQA) services using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). The Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998; Davies, 2005) framework was found to be a useful conceptualization for understanding VRS professionals' approaches to their work. Findings indicate that participants usually refer questions from outside of their area of expertise to other librarians, but occasionally refer them to nonlibrarian experts. These referrals are made possible because participants believe that other VRS librarians are qualified and willing collaborators. Barriers to collaboration include not knowing appropriate librarians/experts for referral, inability to verify credentials, and perceived unwillingness to collaborate. Facilitators to collaboration include knowledge of appropriate collaborators who are qualified and willingness to refer. Answers from SQA services were perceived as less objective and authoritative, but participants were open to collaborating with nonlibrarian experts with confirmation of professional expertise or extensive knowledge.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.438-449