Search (666 results, page 1 of 34)

0.15747648 = product of:
  0.31495297 = sum of:
    0.31495297 = sum of:
      0.2751809 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2751809 = score(doc=2932,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048925128 = queryNorm
          0.7261541 = fieldWeight in 2932, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2932)
      0.039772075 = weight(_text_:22 in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039772075 = score(doc=2932,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17132746 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048925128 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2932, 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=2932)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The increasing popularity of the Internet and social media is creating new and unique challenges for parents and adolescents regarding the boundaries between parental control and adolescent autonomy in virtual spaces. Drawing on developmental psychology and Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory, we conduct a qualitative study to examine the challenge between parental concern for adolescent online safety and teens' desire to independently regulate their own online experiences. Analysis of 12 parent-teen pairs revealed five distinct challenges: (a) increased teen autonomy and decreased parental control resulting from teens' direct and unmediated access to virtual spaces, (b) the shift in power to teens who are often more knowledgeable about online spaces and technology, (c) the use of physical boundaries by parents as a means to control virtual spaces, (d) an increase in indirect boundary control strategies such as covert monitoring, and (e) the blurring of lines in virtual spaces between parents' teens and teens' friends.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:05:22

0.097291134 = product of:
  0.19458227 = sum of:
    0.19458227 = product of:
      0.38916454 = sum of:
        0.38916454 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 4177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38916454 = score(doc=4177,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            1.0269369 = fieldWeight in 4177, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite the benefits associated with virtual teams, many people on these teams are unsatisfied with their experience. The goal of this study was to determine how to better facilitate satisfaction through shared leadership, individual trust, and autonomy. Specifically, in this study we sought a better understanding of the effects of shared leadership, team members' trust, and autonomy on satisfaction. We conducted a study with 163 individuals in 44 virtual teams. The results indicate that shared leadership facilitates satisfaction in virtual teams both directly and indirectly through the promotion of trust. Shared leadership moderated the relationships of individual trust and individual autonomy with satisfaction. Team-level satisfaction was a strong predictor of virtual team performance. We discuss these findings and the implications for theory and design.

0.07770607 = product of:
  0.15541214 = sum of:
    0.15541214 = product of:
      0.4662364 = sum of:
        0.4662364 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4662364 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41478777 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.06486075 = product of:
  0.1297215 = sum of:
    0.1297215 = product of:
      0.259443 = sum of:
        0.259443 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.259443 = score(doc=3572,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.6846246 = fieldWeight in 3572, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

LCSH

Autonomy (Philosophy)
Autonomy (Psychology)

Subject

Autonomy (Philosophy)
Autonomy (Psychology)

0.06486075 = product of:
  0.1297215 = sum of:
    0.1297215 = product of:
      0.259443 = sum of:
        0.259443 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.259443 = score(doc=513,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.6846246 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An account of the emergence of the mind: how the brain acquired self-awareness, functional autonomy, the ability to think, and the power of speech. How did the human mind emerge from the collection of neurons that makes up the brain? How did the brain acquire self-awareness, functional autonomy, language, and the ability to think, to understand itself and the world? In this volume in the Essential Knowledge series, Zoltan Torey offers an accessible and concise description of the evolutionary breakthrough that created the human mind.
Drawing on insights from evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and linguistics, Torey reconstructs the sequence of events by which Homo erectus became Homo sapiens. He describes the augmented functioning that underpins the emergent mind-a new ("off-line") internal response system with which the brain accesses itself and then forms a selection mechanism for mentally generated behavior options. This functional breakthrough, Torey argues, explains how the animal brain's "awareness" became self-accessible and reflective-that is, how the human brain acquired a conscious mind. Consciousness, unlike animal awareness, is not a unitary phenomenon but a composite process. Torey's account shows how protolanguage evolved into language, how a brain subsystem for the emergent mind was built, and why these developments are opaque to introspection. We experience the brain's functional autonomy, he argues, as free will. Torey proposes that once life began, consciousness had to emerge-because consciousness is the informational source of the brain's behavioral response. Consciousness, he argues, is not a newly acquired "quality," "cosmic principle," "circuitry arrangement," or "epiphenomenon," as others have argued, but an indispensable working component of the living system's manner of functioning.

Content

Inhalt: Background to the brain: the identity of consciousnessNeoteny: the breaking of the hominid impasse -- Nuts and bolts to build a language -- Cognitive bootstrapping: the epigenesis of language -- A device to move mountains: dual output, single focus -- Language: the Trojan horse of negative entropy -- What is this thing called mind? -- The alchemy of self-deception: introspection at work -- Functional autonomy: the triumph of evolutionary bootstrapping -- About the self: fiction and fact -- Unfinished business: skeletons in the cupboard -- At the edge of comprehension.

0.06475507 = product of:
  0.12951013 = sum of:
    0.12951013 = product of:
      0.38853037 = sum of:
        0.38853037 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38853037 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41478777 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.057329353 = product of:
  0.114658706 = sum of:
    0.114658706 = product of:
      0.22931741 = sum of:
        0.22931741 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 3216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22931741 = score(doc=3216,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.6051284 = fieldWeight in 3216, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sustained use of an information source is sometimes important for achieving an individual's long-term goals, such as learning and self-development. It is even more important for users of online health communities because health benefits usually come with sustained use. However, little is known about what retains a user. We interviewed 21 participants who had been using online diabetes communities in a sustained manner. Guided by self-determination theory, which posits that behaviors are sustained when they can satisfy basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, we identified mechanisms that help satisfy these needs, and thus sustain users in online health communities. Autonomy-supportive mechanisms include being respected and supported as a unique individual, feeling free in making choices, and receiving meaningful rationales about others' decisions. Competence-cultivating mechanisms include seeking information, providing information, and exchanging information with others to construct knowledge. Mechanisms that cultivate relatedness include seeing similarities between oneself and peers, receiving responses from others, providing emotional support, and forming small underground groups for closer interactions. The results suggest that, like emotions, information and small group interactions also play a key role in retaining users. System design and community management strategies are discussed based on these mechanisms.

0.048645567 = product of:
  0.097291134 = sum of:
    0.097291134 = product of:
      0.19458227 = sum of:
        0.19458227 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19458227 = score(doc=3473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.51346844 = fieldWeight in 3473, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3473)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper investigates the controversy surrounding the systems approach in medicine, contributing to the body of literature on systems and information technology in civilian contexts. Specifically, the paper follows the design and implementation of a hospital information system at El Camino Hospital in Mountain View, California, in the 1960s and 1970s. The case study suggests that while many considered people problems like healthcare too complex for the systems approach, in fact it could have positive results if system engineers could translate social concerns about medicine into business and organizational strategies. This paper identifies the ways systems designers approached an organization characterized by autonomy rather than collaboration, craft rather than science, and charity rather than business, and helped to redefine that organization as one that emphasized rationality, efficiency, and the coexistence of man and machine.

0.048645567 = product of:
  0.097291134 = sum of:
    0.097291134 = product of:
      0.19458227 = sum of:
        0.19458227 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 3799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19458227 = score(doc=3799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.51346844 = fieldWeight in 3799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently a number of well-known public figures have expressed concern about the future development of artificial intelligence (AI), by noting that AI could get out of control and affect human beings and society in disastrous ways. Many of these cautionary notes are alarmist and unrealistic, and while there has been some pushback on these concerns, the deep flaws in the thinking that leads to them have not been called out. Much of the fear and trepidation is based on misunderstanding and confusion about what AI is and can ever be. In this work we identify 3 factors that contribute to this "AI anxiety": an exclusive focus on AI programs that leaves humans out of the picture, confusion about autonomy in computational entities and in humans, and an inaccurate conception of technological development. With this analysis we argue that there are good reasons for anxiety about AI but not for the reasons typically given by AI alarmists.

0.048645567 = product of:
  0.097291134 = sum of:
    0.097291134 = product of:
      0.19458227 = sum of:
        0.19458227 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19458227 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.51346844 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Drawing on identity theory and privacy research, this article argues that the need for self-identity is a key factor affecting people's privacy behavior in social networking sites. I first unpack the mainstream, autonomy-centric discourse of privacy, and then present a research model that illustrates a possible new theorization of the relationship between self-identity and information privacy. An empirical study with Facebook users confirms the main hypotheses. In particular, the data show that the need for self-identity is positively related to privacy management behaviors, which in turn result in increased self-disclosure in online social networks. I subsequently argue that the so-called "privacy paradox" is not a paradox per se in the context of online social networking; rather, privacy concerns reflect the ideology of an autonomous self, whereas social construction of self-identity explains voluntary self-disclosure.

0.048645567 = product of:
  0.097291134 = sum of:
    0.097291134 = product of:
      0.19458227 = sum of:
        0.19458227 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 5468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19458227 = score(doc=5468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.51346844 = fieldWeight in 5468, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to theorize and discuss potential factors for convergence between libraries, archives and museums (LAMs). Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper that criticizes existing research on the convergence between the LAMs for a lack of theoretical reflection and a sacralization of technology. Therefore, concepts such as convergent evolution, isomorphism, social fields and autonomy are used to analyze other potential factors for convergence. Findings The paper demonstrates that digitalization is not the only potential driver of convergence between the LAMs. Indeed, other changes in institutions' environments, such as societal changes, shifts in cultural policy and increasingly common practices among cultural institutions can represent important drivers. Research limitations/implications Given that this paper is primarily based on theoretical reflections, future research should empirically investigate the non-digital factors suggested for convergence. Originality/value The paper represents an attempt to detect a "blind spot" in existing research on convergences between the LAM institutions and to identify some potential paths for future research to follow.

0.045328543 = product of:
  0.090657085 = sum of:
    0.090657085 = product of:
      0.27197126 = sum of:
        0.27197126 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27197126 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41478777 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.040537972 = product of:
  0.081075944 = sum of:
    0.081075944 = product of:
      0.16215189 = sum of:
        0.16215189 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16215189 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.4278904 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an influential interdisciplinary movement that originated in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) about 1992. EBP is of considerable interest to library and information science (LIS) because it focuses on a thorough documentation of the basis for the decision making that is established in research as well as an optimization of every link in documentation and search processes. EBP is based on the philosophical doctrine of empiricism and, therefore, it is subject to the criticism that has been raised against empiricism. The main criticism of EBP is that practitioners lose their autonomy, that the understanding of theory and of underlying mechanisms is weakened, and that the concept of evidence is too narrow in the empiricist tradition. In this article, it is suggested that we should speak of "research-based practice" rather than EBP, because this term is open to more fruitful epistemologies and provides a broader understanding of evidence. The focus on scientific argumentation in EBP is an important contribution from EBP to LIS, which is long overdue, but parts of the underlying epistemological assumptions should be replaced: EBP is too narrow, too formalist, and too mechanical an approach on which to base scientific and scholarly documentation.

0.040537972 = product of:
  0.081075944 = sum of:
    0.081075944 = product of:
      0.16215189 = sum of:
        0.16215189 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16215189 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.4278904 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines how scientists working in government agencies in the U.S. are reacting to the "ethos of sharing" government-generated data. For scientists to leverage the value of existing government data sets, critical data sets must be identified and made as widely available as possible. However, government data sets can only be leveraged when policy makers first assess the value of data, in much the same way they decide the value of grants for research outside government. We argue that legislators should also remove structural barriers to interoperability by funding technical infrastructure according to issue clusters rather than administrative programs. As developers attempt to make government data more accessible through portals, they should consider a range of other nontechnical constraints attached to the data. We find that agencies react to the large number of constraints by mostly posting their data on their own websites only rather than in data portals that can facilitate sharing. Despite the nontechnical constraints, we find that scientists working in government agencies exercise some autonomy in data decisions, such as data documentation, which determine whether or not the data can be widely shared. Fortunately, scientists indicate a willingness to share the data they collect or maintain. However, we argue further that a complete measure of access should also consider the normative decisions to collect (or not) particular data.

0.040537972 = product of:
  0.081075944 = sum of:
    0.081075944 = product of:
      0.16215189 = sum of:
        0.16215189 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 1636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16215189 = score(doc=1636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.4278904 = fieldWeight in 1636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information use intrigues information behavior researchers, though many have struggled with how to conceptualize and study this phenomenon. Some work suggests that information may have social uses, hinting that information use is more complicated than previous frameworks suggest. Therefore, we use a micro-sociological, symbolic interactionist approach to examine the use of one type of information-biomedical information-in the everyday life interactions of chronic illness patients and their families. Based on a grounded theory analysis of 60 semi-structured interviews (30 individual patient interviews and 30 family group interviews) and observations within the family group interviews, we identify 4 categories of information use: (a) knowing my body; (b) mapping the social terrain; (c) asserting autonomy; and (d) puffing myself up. Extending previous research, the findings demonstrate use of biomedical information in interactions that construct a valued self for the patient: a person who holds authority, and who is unique and cared for. In so doing, we contribute novel insights regarding the use of information to manage social emotions such as shame, and to construct embodied knowledge that is mobilized in action to address disease-related challenges. We thus offer an expanded conceptualization of information use that provides new directions for research and practice.

0.040537972 = product of:
  0.081075944 = sum of:
    0.081075944 = product of:
      0.16215189 = sum of:
        0.16215189 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 2155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16215189 = score(doc=2155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.4278904 = fieldWeight in 2155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent interest in Big Data has generated a broad range of new academic, corporate, and policy practices along with an evolving debate among its proponents, detractors, and skeptics. While the practices draw on a common set of tools, techniques, and technologies, most contributions to the debate come either from a particular disciplinary perspective or with a focus on a domain-specific issue. A close examination of these contributions reveals a set of common problematics that arise in various guises and in different places. It also demonstrates the need for a critical synthesis of the conceptual and practical dilemmas surrounding Big Data. The purpose of this article is to provide such a synthesis by drawing on relevant writings in the sciences, humanities, policy, and trade literature. In bringing these diverse literatures together, we aim to shed light on the common underlying issues that concern and affect all of these areas. By contextualizing the phenomenon of Big Data within larger socioeconomic developments, we also seek to provide a broader understanding of its drivers, barriers, and challenges. This approach allows us to identify attributes of Big Data that require more attention-autonomy, opacity, generativity, disparity, and futurity-leading to questions and ideas for moving beyond dilemmas.

0.040537972 = product of:
  0.081075944 = sum of:
    0.081075944 = product of:
      0.16215189 = sum of:
        0.16215189 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 5886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16215189 = score(doc=5886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.4278904 = fieldWeight in 5886, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article undertakes a literature review to examine learning analytics through the lens of attention engineering. Informed by a critical literature synthesis from the fields of cognitive science, history, philosophy, education, technology, ethics, and library science, this analysis situates learning analytics in the context of communication and education technologies as tools in the manipulation of attention. The article begins by defining attention as both a cognitive activity and a metaphysical state intrinsic to intellectual freedom. The Progressive Era concept of attention engineering is then introduced and reinterpreted in the context of attention scarcity and academic capitalism in the Knowledge Era. The affordances of information and communications technology replicated in educational technology to facilitate data capture, analysis, and intervention in the form of "nudge" learning analytics are outlined as evidence of contemporary attention engineering in education. Attention engineering in education is critiqued as antithetical to students' intellectual freedom and development as self-sufficient learners and independent thinkers. The academic library's role in teaching and promoting attentional literacy and attentional autonomy is explored as a response to the intellectual freedom challenges posed by learning analytics as a form of attention engineering.

0.038853034 = product of:
  0.07770607 = sum of:
    0.07770607 = product of:
      0.2331182 = sum of:
        0.2331182 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2331182 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41478777 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.038853034 = product of:
  0.07770607 = sum of:
    0.07770607 = product of:
      0.2331182 = sum of:
        0.2331182 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2331182 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41478777 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.032430377 = product of:
  0.06486075 = sum of:
    0.06486075 = product of:
      0.1297215 = sum of:
        0.1297215 = weight(_text_:autonomy in 3805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1297215 = score(doc=3805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37895662 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048925128 = queryNorm
            0.3423123 = fieldWeight in 3805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.7456436 = idf(docFreq=51, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The research evaluation market is booming. "Ranking," "metrics," "h-index," and "impact factors" are reigning buzzwords. Government and research administrators want to evaluate everything -- teachers, professors, training programs, universities -- using quantitative indicators. Among the tools used to measure "research excellence," bibliometrics -- aggregate data on publications and citations -- has become dominant. Bibliometrics is hailed as an "objective" measure of research quality, a quantitative measure more useful than "subjective" and intuitive evaluation methods such as peer review that have been used since scientific papers were first published in the seventeenth century. In this book, Yves Gingras offers a spirited argument against an unquestioning reliance on bibliometrics as an indicator of research quality. Gingras shows that bibliometric rankings have no real scientific validity, rarely measuring what they pretend to. Although the study of publication and citation patterns, at the proper scales, can yield insights on the global dynamics of science over time, ill-defined quantitative indicators often generate perverse and unintended effects on the direction of research. Moreover, abuse of bibliometrics occurs when data is manipulated to boost rankings. Gingras looks at the politics of evaluation and argues that using numbers can be a way to control scientists and diminish their autonomy in the evaluation process. Proposing precise criteria for establishing the validity of indicators at a given scale of analysis, Gingras questions why universities are so eager to let invalid indicators influence their research strategy.