Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05126078 = product of:
  0.10252156 = sum of:
    0.10252156 = product of:
      0.20504312 = sum of:
        0.20504312 = weight(_text_:opinion in 4738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20504312 = score(doc=4738,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.62666684 = fieldWeight in 4738, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To investigate ways of demonstrating how portal implementations positively alter user information retrieval behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece reflecting on existing evidence about the nature of portal implementations, which extrapolates trends in user behaviour on the basis of these reflections. Findings - Although portal technologies probably do offer a way for libraries to create information tools that can compete with "one-stop shop" Internet search engines, there are likely difficulties in their pattern of usage which will have to be detected by effective quality measurement techniques. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the possible pitfalls of using portals to optimise users' information retrieval activity. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical guidelines for the evaluation of the success of library portal implementations. Originality/value - This editorial points out that, because the portal can be defined as a deliberate clone of a typical successful Internet search engine and may be presented to the naïve user in the same terms, the danger is that library portals might also clone the same information habits as Internet search engines, because of their ease of use. In trying to produce a tool that can meet Google on its own terms but with better content, we might reproduce some of the same educational disbenefits as Google: quality information retrieval is not purely a function of content, it is also a function of the user's perceptions and information habits.

0.05126078 = product of:
  0.10252156 = sum of:
    0.10252156 = product of:
      0.20504312 = sum of:
        0.20504312 = weight(_text_:opinion in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20504312 = score(doc=4742,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.62666684 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper takes forward strands from "Evaluating the quality of library portals" by the author and places them in the context of different approaches to teaching students about information use. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece which examines the impact on user behaviour of traditional mechanical library skills training (such as "library orientation", "bibliographic instruction", or "information skills training" rather than true information literacy-based teaching). The paper points out the similarity in the effects of such teaching to the effects of offering users a more powerful mechanical information retrieval tool (such as a library portal or internet search engine) without effective support on how the information retrieved should be used for significant educational outcomes. Findings - For librarians to be custodians of the highest standards of intelligent information use, they must demonstrate a meaningful, rather than a mechanical understanding and application of information literacy in their everyday practice. Without this, information users will rightly turn to new, non-mediated forms of information use such as internet search engines, which can deal with purely technical challenges of information retrieval superficially well. Both the users and the profession itself will be the poorer as a result. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the dangers of pedagogically underdeveloped user education on user behaviour. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical insights for the application of information literacy principles to library practice. Originality/value - This piece points out the ironic similarities in the effect of a mechanistic or tool-based approach to user education and unmediated user access to internet search engines or Library portals: above all, a "more is better" approach in the information user, marked by citing too much poorly digested, poorly evaluated data.

0.0502251 = product of:
  0.1004502 = sum of:
    0.1004502 = product of:
      0.2009004 = sum of:
        0.2009004 = weight(_text_:opinion in 4734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2009004 = score(doc=4734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.61400557 = fieldWeight in 4734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To investigate recent enhancements to the internet search engine Google. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece based on practitioner experience and recent commentary on search engine innovations. Findings - That recent innovations in Google's functionality have yet to deliver what they promise, but that it is still early to say what can genuinely be achieved in these areas. Research limitations/implications - This is an expression of opinion about a service that will be radically improved and developed in the immediate future. Practical implications - Gives some useful insights and tips on how to use existing digital library tools to achieve information retrieval results along the lines of those aspired to by Google. Originality/value - An attempt to give clear, practice-based examples of how to apply recent digital information retrieval developments to contemporary library work.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 4727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=4727,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 4727, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Argues that the internet has an important contribution to make to the improvement of the democratic process, but that this contribution can only be effective with advocacy and support from information professionals and educators; the cultivation of eLiteracy by such information professionals and educators is vital in delivering the democratic potential of the internet. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece based on current and recent trends in thinking about digital citizenship, the internet and democracy. Findings - Hopeful initial visions of the impact of internet technologies on democracy have been shown to be in some ways too optimistic. Many of the most notable social impacts of the internet on our collective well-being have been harmful. The cultivation of eLiteracy as a democratic attribute of citizenship should enable us to make the most of the social beneficent potential of the networks. Research limitations/implications - Purely an expression of belief about what may prove to be the likely social and political benefits of promoting eLiteracy as an aspect of enhanced citizenship. Offers potential for exploration via more in-depth research. Practical implications - Opens up an optimistic social and political purpose to the cultivation of eLiteracy in a broad mass of citizens. Originality/value - Affirms an optimistic view of the democratic potential of the internet, but makes it clear that this potential will not emerge of its own accord. Citizens must engage intelligently with the social and political issues raised by the internet, in particular with the issue of how the new media enable the electorate to conduct dialogue with government. Information professionals have a particular civic duty to be aware of the democratic significance of their promotion of information literacy and, more specifically, of eLiteracy.

0.029595422 = product of:
  0.059190843 = sum of:
    0.059190843 = product of:
      0.11838169 = sum of:
        0.11838169 = weight(_text_:opinion in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11838169 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3271964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.

0.0067686574 = product of:
  0.013537315 = sum of:
    0.013537315 = product of:
      0.02707463 = sum of:
        0.02707463 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02707463 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17494538 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04995828 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04