Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02962038 = product of:
  0.11848152 = sum of:
    0.11848152 = product of:
      0.17772228 = sum of:
        0.13089041 = weight(_text_:theory in 2401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13089041 = score(doc=2401,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 2401, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2401)
        0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 2401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046831857 = score(doc=2401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2401)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews the sense-making theory which is based on constructivist assumptions on human information seeking and use. Focuses on the uses epistemic and practical interests of the theory, discussing them in relation to the interests of the traditional intermediary-centered approach. Sense-making theory is a programmatic research effort suggesting user-centered ideas for the conceptualization of the information seeking and use. Its contribution to LIS research is critique to the limitations of the traditional intermediary-centred approach

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.13-28

0.020327032 = product of:
  0.08130813 = sum of:
    0.08130813 = product of:
      0.12196218 = sum of:
        0.08098431 = weight(_text_:theory in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08098431 = score(doc=3670,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.45482418 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
        0.040977873 = weight(_text_:29 in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040977873 = score(doc=3670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents an overview of research on information use. The majority of use and user studies are surveys which focus on the consulting of different information sources and channels. In most studies, however, the substantial issues of information use are omitted. Discusses conceptual and terminological questions of information use and knowledge utilization. No consensus on the definition of these concepts exists among researchers because they can have no direct access to individual processes of information use. Examines the contributions made to information use theory by Brenda Dervin and Robert S. Taylor. Reviews the categories of uses specified in Dervin's sense making theory and discusses Taylor's concept of information use environments. Considers some methodological questions concerning the challenges of empirical research on information use

Date

29. 3.1996 21:35:26

0.0059038764 = product of:
  0.023615506 = sum of:
    0.023615506 = product of:
      0.07084651 = sum of:
        0.07084651 = weight(_text_:theory in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07084651 = score(doc=526,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.39788827 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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.

Series

JASIS&Tspecial issue on information behavior and information practices theory

0.004820495 = product of:
  0.01928198 = sum of:
    0.01928198 = product of:
      0.057845935 = sum of:
        0.057845935 = weight(_text_:theory in 3163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057845935 = score(doc=3163,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 3163, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3163)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose Arts-informed, visual research was conducted to document the pictorial metaphors that appear among original drawings of information. The purpose of this paper is to report the diversity of these pictorial metaphors, delineate their formal qualities as drawings, and provide a fresh perspective on the concept of information. Design/methodology/approach The project utilized pre-existing iSquare drawings of information that were produced by iSchool graduate students during a draw-and-write activity. From a data set of 417 images, 125 of the strongest pictorial metaphors were identified and subjected to cognitive metaphor theory. Findings Overwhelmingly, the favored source domain for envisioning information was nature. The most common pictorial metaphors were: Earth, web, tree, light bulb, box, cloud, and fishing/mining, and each brings different qualities of information into focus. The drawings were often canonical versions of objects in the world, leading to arrays of pictorial metaphors marked by their similarity. Research limitations/implications Less than 30 percent of the data set qualified as pictorial metaphors, making them a minority strategy for representing information as an image. The process to identify and interpret pictorial metaphors was highly subjective. The arts-informed methodology generated tensions between artistic and social scientific paradigms. Practical implications The pictorial metaphors for information can enhance information science education and fortify professional identity among information professionals. Originality/value This is the first arts-informed, visual study of information that utilizes cognitive metaphor theory to explore the nature of information. It strengthens a sense of history, humanity, nature, and beauty in our understanding of information today, and contributes to metaphor research at large.

0.0040903254 = product of:
  0.016361302 = sum of:
    0.016361302 = product of:
      0.049083903 = sum of:
        0.049083903 = weight(_text_:theory in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049083903 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The author reflects the conceptual and practical questions of network competence in the context of information seeking. Network competence is seen as one of the information-related competences and is defined as the mastery of four major areas: knowledge of information resources available on the Internet, skilled use of the ICT tools to access information, judgment of the relevance of information, and communication. Drawing on the ideas of the social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura, a model of network competence is introduced in order to discuss network competence "in action". In the model, network competence is put in practical context by relating five major factors: network competence, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, affective factors such as anxiety, and experiences received from information seeking on the Internet. Particular attention is devoted to the connections between network competence and self-efficacy which denote a person's judgment of his or her ability to organize and execute action, such as finding information on the Web.

0.0040903254 = product of:
  0.016361302 = sum of:
    0.016361302 = product of:
      0.049083903 = sum of:
        0.049083903 = weight(_text_:theory in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049083903 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information seeking may be analyzed in two major contexts: job-related and nonwork. The present entry concentrates on nonwork information seeking, more properly called everyday life information seeking (ELIS). Typically, ELIS studies discuss the ways in which people access and use various information sources to meet information needs in areas such as health, consumption, and leisure. The entry specifies the concept of ELIS and characterizes the major ELIS models. They include the Sense-Making approach (Dervin), the Small world theory (Chatman), the ecological model of ELIS (Williamson), ELIS in the context of way of life (Savolainen), the model of information practices (McKenzie), and the concept of information grounds (Fisher). ELIS practices tend to draw on the habitualized use of a limited number of sources which have been found useful in previous use contexts. Since the late 1990s, the Internet has increasingly affected the ELIS practices by providing easily accessible sources. Even though the popularity of the networked sources has grown rapidly they will complement, rather than replace, more traditional sources and channels.

0.0040903254 = product of:
  0.016361302 = sum of:
    0.016361302 = product of:
      0.049083903 = sum of:
        0.049083903 = weight(_text_:theory in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049083903 = score(doc=3428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using Ellis's seminal model of information seeking as an example, this study demonstrates how the elaborations made to the original framework since the late 1980s have contributed to conceptual growth in information-seeking studies. To this end, nine key studies elaborating Ellis's model were scrutinized by conceptual analysis. The findings indicate that the elaborations are based on two main approaches: adding novel, context-specific components in the model and redefining and restructuring the components. The elaborations have contributed to conceptual growth in three major ways. First, integrating formerly separate parts of knowledge; second, generalizing and explaining lower abstraction-level knowledge through higher-level constructs; and third, expanding knowledge by identifying new characteristics of the object of study, that is, information-seeking behavior. Further elaboration of Ellis's model toward a theory would require more focused attempts to test hypotheses in work-related environments in particular.

0.002926991 = product of:
  0.011707964 = sum of:
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 5.2009 18:35:29

0.002926991 = product of:
  0.011707964 = sum of:
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 4253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=4253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4253)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18. 5.2018 13:29:10

0.0024172175 = product of:
  0.00966887 = sum of:
    0.00966887 = product of:
      0.02900661 = sum of:
        0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02900661 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, 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=3713)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0024172175 = product of:
  0.00966887 = sum of:
    0.00966887 = product of:
      0.02900661 = sum of:
        0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02900661 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5498, 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=5498)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22