Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01640893 = product of:
  0.05743125 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 2690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=2690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2690)
    0.03148793 = product of:
      0.06297586 = sum of:
        0.06297586 = weight(_text_:studies in 2690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06297586 = score(doc=2690,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.3818022 = fieldWeight in 2690, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Expertise seeking is the activity of selecting people as sources for consultation about an information need. This review of 72 expertise-seeking papers shows that across a range of tasks and contexts people, in particular work-group colleagues and other strong ties, are among the most frequently used sources. Studies repeatedly show the influence of the social network - of friendships and personal dislikes - on the expertise-seeking network of organisations. In addition, people are no less prominent than documentary sources, in work contexts as well as daily-life contexts. The relative influence of source quality and source accessibility on source selection varies across studies. Overall, expertise seekers appear to aim for sufficient quality, composed of reliability and relevance, while also attending to accessibility, composed of access to the source and access to the source information. Earlier claims that seekers disregard quality to minimise effort receive little support. Source selection is also affected by task-related, seeker-related, and contextual factors. For example, task complexity has been found to increase the use of information sources whereas task importance has been found to amplify the influence of quality on source selection. Finally, the reviewed studies identify a number of barriers to expertise seeking.

Source

Information processing and management. 50(2014) no.5, S.775-795

0.012483897 = product of:
  0.08738727 = sum of:
    0.08738727 = weight(_text_:case in 6999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08738727 = score(doc=6999,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 6999, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6999)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Evaluates 2 design ideas concerning information retrieval systems (IRS) for professionals with the aim of supporting a professional's document handling and to facilitate the evolution of the IRS, allowing it to be modified in a straightforward and flexible way as new requirements arise. Illustrates the viability of those design ideas through a case study concerning the development of a prototype legal IRS based on a leading body of Danish lwas. Important facilities in the prototype include a dynamic thesaurus, a dynamic classification structure and personal notes. The prototype is built using a relational database, not inverted files as in the majority of IRS

0.007566384 = product of:
  0.052964687 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=4454,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.00687123 = product of:
  0.04809861 = sum of:
    0.04809861 = product of:
      0.09619722 = sum of:
        0.09619722 = weight(_text_:studies in 5028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09619722 = score(doc=5028,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.5832125 = fieldWeight in 5028, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose Information seeking is often performed in collaborative contexts. The research into such collaborative information seeking (CIS) has been proceeding since the 1990s but lacks methodological discussions. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss methodological issues in existing CIS studies. Design/methodology/approach The authors systematically review 69 empirical CIS studies. Findings The review shows that the most common methods of data collection are lab experiments (43 percent), observation (19 percent) and surveys (16 percent), that the most common methods of data analysis are description (33 percent), statistical testing (29 percent) and content analysis (19 percent) and that CIS studies involve a fairly even mix of novice, intermediate and specialist participants. However, the authors also find that CIS research is dominated by exploratory studies, leaves it largely unexplored in what ways the findings of a study may be specific to the particular study setting, appears to assign primacy to precision at the expense of generalizability, struggles with investigating how CIS activities extend over time and provides data about behavior to a larger extent than about reasons, experiences and especially outcomes. Research limitations/implications The major implication of this review is its identification of the need for a shared model to which individual CIS studies can contribute in a cumulative manner. To support the development of such a model, the authors discuss a model of the core CIS process and a model of the factors that trigger CIS. Originality/value This study assesses the current state of CIS research, provides guidance for future CIS studies and aims to inspire further methodological discussion.

0.005188664 = product of:
  0.036320645 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.74-88

0.005188664 = product of:
  0.036320645 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=961)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.89-105

0.005188664 = product of:
  0.036320645 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 2073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=2073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 2073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2073)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.957-962

0.004447426 = product of:
  0.031131983 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 4243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=4243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 4243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4243)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.6, S.646-655

0.002597081 = product of:
  0.018179566 = sum of:
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 5470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=5470,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5470, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5470)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how four international students at a Danish university cope with their study-related and everyday information needs, behaviorally as well as affectively, and how their information seeking blends with their cross-cultural adaptation. Design/methodology/approach Each of the four participants contributed ten diaries and took part in three interviews during the first semester of their stay. Findings International students' information needs and seeking behavior are shaped by their host university but also by cross-cultural, personal and situational issues. While the cross-cultural issues set international students apart from domestic students, the personal and situational issues create individual differences that call for more individually tailored support. The studied international students lacked information about both study-related and everyday issues. These two types of issues were intertwined and experienced as equally stressful. However, study-related information needs were more important, whereas everyday information needs were more difficult to resolve. In addition, participants tended to feel on their own when it came to finding needed information, but studying abroad also had elements of personal growth in meeting life's challenges. Research limitations/implications More participants are needed to investigate how international students' information seeking evolves over time. Originality/value This study contributes detailed information about international students' study-related and everyday information seeking during their first semester abroad. The study has implications for everyday-life studies of international students' information behavior and the international classroom in general.

0.002597081 = product of:
  0.018179566 = sum of:
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Makerspaces are places for construction and creative expression using tools such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and sewing machines. In this study, we investigate how makers obtain information for their makerspace projects. The study focuses on four sources of information: people, documents, experimentation, and prior knowledge. On the basis of interviews with 13 makers, we analyze their use of these information sources in relation to different knowledge areas, creative-process stages, and relevance criteria. Our main findings are that (a) experimentation is a prime source of information, (b) ease and pleasure are the dominant relevance criteria, (c) process and situation receive little attention, and (d) information sources vary across process stages. Specifically, experimentation is the dominant information source during the construction stage. In addition, the relevance criteria show that the makers turn to people because it is pleasurable, to documents because it is easy, and to experimentation because it results in quality products. These results emphasize the importance of experimentation and suggest that it warrants closer attention in studies of the information behavior of makers and, more broadly, creative professionals.

0.0024002206 = product of:
  0.016801544 = sum of:
    0.016801544 = product of:
      0.033603087 = sum of:
        0.033603087 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033603087 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:29