Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Connaway, L.S."
  1. Prabha, C.; Connaway, L.S.; Olszewski, L.; Jenkins, L.R.: What is enough? : satisficing information needs (2007) 0.01
    0.010569612 = product of:
      0.031708833 = sum of:
        0.031708833 = product of:
          0.063417666 = sum of:
            0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.063417666 = score(doc=740,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, 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.
  2. Radford, M.L.; Kitzie, V.; Mikitish, S.; Floegel, D.; Radford, G.P.; Connaway, L.S.: "People are reading your work," : scholarly identity and social networking sites (2020) 0.01
    0.00880801 = product of:
      0.02642403 = sum of:
        0.02642403 = product of:
          0.05284806 = sum of:
            0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05284806 = score(doc=5983,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support. Design/methodology/approach Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman's (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management. Findings Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices. Social implications Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright. Originality/value This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.
  3. O'Neill, E.T.; Connaway, L.S.; Dickey, T.J.: Estimating the audience level for library resources (2008) 0.01
    0.0085163815 = product of:
      0.025549144 = sum of:
        0.025549144 = product of:
          0.051098287 = sum of:
            0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.051098287 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6654, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6654)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    8.11.2008 19:22:53
  4. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.01
    0.0085163815 = product of:
      0.025549144 = sum of:
        0.025549144 = product of:
          0.051098287 = sum of:
            0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.051098287 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 4.1997 21:10:19
  5. Lavoie, B.F.; Connaway, L.S.; O'Neill, E.T.: Mapping WorldCat's digital landscape (2007) 0.01
    0.006387286 = product of:
      0.019161858 = sum of:
        0.019161858 = product of:
          0.038323715 = sum of:
            0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038323715 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2292, 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=2292)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  6. Lavoie, B.; Connaway, L.S.; Dempsey, L.: Anatomy of aggregate collections : the example of Google print for libraries (2005) 0.00
    0.003193643 = product of:
      0.009580929 = sum of:
        0.009580929 = product of:
          0.019161858 = sum of:
            0.019161858 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019161858 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.047143444 = queryNorm
                0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    26.12.2011 14:08:22