Search (269 results, page 1 of 14)

0.033913795 = product of:
  0.10174138 = sum of:
    0.10174138 = sum of:
      0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063417666 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038323715 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This study provides evidence on the actual information-seeking behaviour of students in a digital scholarly environment, not what they thought they did. It also compares student information-seeking behaviour with that of other academic communities, and, in some cases, for practitioners. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered as part of CIBER's ongoing Virtual Scholar programme. In particular log data from two digital journals libraries, Blackwell Synergy and OhioLINK, and one e-book collection (Oxford Scholarship Online) are utilized. Findings - The study showed a distinctive form of information-seeking behaviour associated with students and differences between them and other members of the academic community. For example, students constituted the biggest users in terms of sessions and pages viewed, and they were more likely to undertake longer online sessions. Undergraduates and postgraduates were the most likely users of library links to access scholarly databases, suggesting an important "hot link" role for libraries. Originality/value - Few studies have focused on the actual (rather than perceived) information-seeking behaviour of students. The study fills that gap.

Date

23. 2.2009 17:22:41

0.028261498 = product of:
  0.08478449 = sum of:
    0.08478449 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 291, 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=291)
      0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193643 = score(doc=291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 291, 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=291)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study of information needs has been a subject of attention for library and information science professionals for more than four decades, and has led to the publication of a great amount of literature. Among the reasons that lead to this interest, we can mention, on the one hand, the utility that the results of this type of research have in improving mechanisms of providing information in the professional environment and, on the other hand, no less important, the recognition of problems in methodology which are revealed when studies which have already been reported are analysed (Gorman, 1995; Forsyte, et al., 1992). One of the reasons for this kind of research is, without doubt, the need to harmonise the potential that the new technologies offer for accessing and managing large quantities of information with the information needs of the users. Its objective is to provide appropriate information systems for each environment, in this case, the medical field (Timpka, et al., 1989; Forsyte, et al., 1992; Gorman, 1995; Gorman & Helfand 1995; Abad-Garcia, 1997).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:43:33

0.028261498 = product of:
  0.08478449 = sum of:
    0.08478449 = sum of:
      0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05284806 = score(doc=1894,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 1894, 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=1894)
      0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03193643 = score(doc=1894,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1894, 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=1894)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature on the information behavior of practicing visual artists to determine if a consistent model emerges and what further research is necessary. Design/methodology/approach - Works dealing with the information needs and uses relevant to the creative activities of visual artists are discussed in the paper. These works are assessed for their contributions toward understanding of the specific information behaviors of practicing artists. Findings - The results show that a consistent model of artists' information behavior emerges. However, nearly all of the literature focuses on art students, academic art faculty, or librarians, and so any claim that practicing artists fit the model is largely unsupported by research. There have been no published studies of communities of practicing visual artists. The implications of defining artists as communities of practice are discussed. Research limitations/implications - Research is proposed that studies the information behavior of communities of practicing visual artists in order to confirm or amend the existing model. Practical implications - Practitioners will have their attention drawn to an underserved user population whose information needs and behaviors have not been directly targeted for research. They will recognize the need for study of their own artist communities and the development of services for them. Originality/value - This paper directs the discussion of artists' information behavior away from the art-library-specific literature, where it has largely resided, as a means of adjusting the focus of research onto the largely unstudied and underserved communities of practicing artists.

Date

7. 6.2008 12:22:23

0.022609197 = product of:
  0.06782759 = sum of:
    0.06782759 = sum of:
      0.042278446 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042278446 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 2963, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2963)
      0.025549144 = weight(_text_:22 in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025549144 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2963, 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=2963)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Uncovering faculty members' conceptions of Information Literacy (IL), as well as exploring their perceptions with regard to the importance given to a previously defined set of core IL competences grouped into four categories: searching, evaluation, processing and communication and dissemination. Ascertaining the possible differences among the five knowledge branches (arts and humanities, sciences, social and legal sciences, health sciences, and technical disciplines); and understanding the importance granted to a set of learning improvement initiatives by the faculty. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The survey was completed by a set of faculty members from the University of Granada (Spain). Data were collected using the IL-HUMASS survey. The research is based on subjective data, first approached from a descriptive point of view. Later, data correlation, analysis and non-parametric tests were used with the goal of finding significant differences of faculty perceptions among the relevant academic areas. Findings - Results suggest that more than half of the surveyed faculty have what the authors define as an Academic Concept of IL. The IL categories of communica\tion and dissemination and searching were graded in significance by the staff as being "very important," while those of evaluation and processing were assigned a slightly lesser rating of "important." Results suggest that IL awareness falls into two broad groups differentiated by subject discipline: those from health sciences, social and legal sciences and arts and humanities representing the first group, and sciences and technical disciplines the other. Research limitations/implications - This approach address the subjective status of faculty concepts in a single university, but also in all knowledge branches. Future research is needed. Originality/value - This is one of the few papers regarding faculty perceptions of IL.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.018307107 = product of:
  0.054921318 = sum of:
    0.054921318 = product of:
      0.109842636 = sum of:
        0.109842636 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109842636 = score(doc=2794,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5172295 = fieldWeight in 2794, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Academic librarians seeking to assess information literacy skills often focus on testing as a primary means of evaluation. Educators have long recognized the limitations of tests, and these limitations cause many educators to prefer rubric assessment to test-based approaches to evaluation. In contrast, many academic librarians are unfamiliar with the benefits of rubrics. Those librarians who have explored the use of information literacy rubrics have not taken a rigorous approach to methodology and interrater reliability. This article seeks to remedy these omissions by describing the benefits of a rubric-based approach to information literacy assessment, identifying a methodology for using rubrics to assess information literacy skills, and analyzing the interrater reliability of information literacy rubrics in the hands of university librarians, faculty, and students. Study results demonstrate that Cohen's can be effectively employed to check interrater reliability. The study also indicates that rubric training sessions improve interrater reliability among librarians, faculty, and students.

0.01761602 = product of:
  0.05284806 = sum of:
    0.05284806 = product of:
      0.10569612 = sum of:
        0.10569612 = weight(_text_:methodology in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10569612 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.49770427 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the value of role playing in learning and teaching and outlines its applicability to bibliographic instruction. Defines different types of role playing, including constructive role playing and explorative role playing. Explains the methodology used by the author, the different groups he practices it with, and how sessions are organized and scenarios constructed. Gives numerous examples of such scenarios

0.01743897 = product of:
  0.05231691 = sum of:
    0.05231691 = product of:
      0.10463382 = sum of:
        0.10463382 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10463382 = score(doc=1025,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.4927021 = fieldWeight in 1025, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Some form of information accounting must be brought on line and accepted by accountants and business managers if the holdings of information assets and the products of information work are to be given their proper importance. Discusses the questions of defining and measuring the value of information and presents an integrated value methodology which draws on the analytical resources of accounting theory and systems engineering. Implementation of the methodology has shown that it is feasible to deal rogorously with the intangible value related to information and information assets and to reflect it meaningfully back into a financial framework. A respected form of information accounting will yield distinct direct and political advantages

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=5755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen. 57(1940), S.16-22

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=5761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bücherei und Bildung. 22(1970), S.63-71

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bibliothekar. 19(1965), S.15-22

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

Reference librarian; no.22

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=5649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 4.2002 17:30:22

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 2504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=2504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2504, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27.12.2015 18:22:38

0.014947688 = product of:
  0.044843063 = sum of:
    0.044843063 = product of:
      0.089686126 = sum of:
        0.089686126 = weight(_text_:methodology in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089686126 = score(doc=644,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.42231607 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This research seeks to gain a detailed understanding of how researchers come across information serendipitously, grounded in real-world examples. This research was undertaken to enrich the theoretical understanding of this slippery phenomenon. Design/methodology/approach - Semi-structured critical incident interviews were conducted with 28 interdisciplinary researchers. Interviewees were asked to discuss memorable examples of coming across information serendipitously from their research or everyday life. The data collection and analysis process followed many of the core principles of grounded theory methodology. Findings - The examples provided were varied, but shared common elements (they involved a mix of unexpectedness and insight and led to a valuable, unanticipated outcome). These elements form part of an empirically grounded process model of serendipity. In this model, a new connection is made that involves a mix of unexpectedness and insight and has the potential to lead to a valuable outcome. Projections are made on the potential value of the outcome and actions are taken to exploit the connection, leading to an (unanticipated) valuable outcome. Originality/value - The model provides researchers across disciplines with a structured means of understanding and describing serendipitous experiences.

0.014903667 = product of:
  0.044711 = sum of:
    0.044711 = product of:
      0.089422 = sum of:
        0.089422 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089422 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.014903667 = product of:
  0.044711 = sum of:
    0.044711 = product of:
      0.089422 = sum of:
        0.089422 = weight(_text_:22 in 6300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089422 = score(doc=6300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of academic librarianship 22(1996) no.6, S.471 (N. Corral)

0.014903667 = product of:
  0.044711 = sum of:
    0.044711 = product of:
      0.089422 = sum of:
        0.089422 = weight(_text_:22 in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089422 = score(doc=1381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

25. 3.2003 13:22:23

0.014903667 = product of:
  0.044711 = sum of:
    0.044711 = product of:
      0.089422 = sum of:
        0.089422 = weight(_text_:22 in 4364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089422 = score(doc=4364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:29:08

0.014092816 = product of:
  0.042278446 = sum of:
    0.042278446 = product of:
      0.08455689 = sum of:
        0.08455689 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08455689 = score(doc=2617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 2617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Analyses the success of reference enquiry work based on the assumption that consideration of users' willingness to return to the same librarian avoids the limitations associated with using accuracy as the primary measure of success. The analysis is based on data from the Willingsness to Return Study carried out by the author using unobtrusive methodology since 1986, and supplemented by a further study of professional practice at job and career information centres in several states in the USA. Examines a variety of factors thrown up by these studies which are associated with successful reference interaction