Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020462697 = product of:
  0.06138809 = sum of:
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

0.0065539777 = product of:
  0.039323866 = sum of:
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We present a new paradigm to address the persistence of difficulties that people have in accessing and using information. Our idea consists of two main aspects: engaging wider society with usability and distributing the topic across disciplines. We claim that bad usability is a social justice issue. Primarily, we propose that usability should become the subject of widespread activism across society, enabling more people to realize that their usability problems are not due to inadequacies in themselves but in current designs. People should be encouraged and enabled to complain about their experiences with an expectation of improvements. We also propose that the current restriction of this topic to certain disciplinary units is overly narrow and that instead there should be radical embedding of usability concepts across many different fields and settings. We believe that the usability of information systems is core to information science and that information scientists should resume their historic role as heralds and pioneers of human-computer interaction.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 5974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=5974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 5974, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5974)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

To ascertain the diffusion and influence of Savolainen's ELIS model and its use as a theoretical and/or methodological basis for research. Design/methodology/approach A context citation analysis was made of the work where this researcher published his model. Analysis covered the year of publication, the type of work and the subject matter of the citing documents concerned. In-context citations were analysed for their frequency in each citing text, style, location and content cited. Findings The ELIS model received 18.5 cites/year. 20.2 per cent of them corresponded to papers published in journals in other areas, mainly computer science. The average of cites per paper was 1.8; 64.5 percent of the citing works cited them only once. 60 per cent of the cites were considered essential. Only 13.7 per cent of these cites appear in theory or methods. 37 per cent of the citing documents contained no concept relating to the model. Research limitations/implications The method used focuses on the most direct context of a cite (sentence or paragraph), but isolates it from the general context (full document, other documents by the author or their social capital). It has, however, allowed this research issue to be dealt with under laboratory conditions and revealed nuances hidden by the absolute number of cites. Originality/value It has become evident that the dissemination and influence of the ELIS model are less than what the total number of cites indicates and that it has scarcely been incorporated into research design. Despite its popularity, it is not being validated and/or refuted by way of empirical data.

0.005014823 = product of:
  0.030088935 = sum of:
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 5723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=5723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

17. 1.2020 22:15:11

0.005014823 = product of:
  0.030088935 = sum of:
    0.030088935 = product of:
      0.06017787 = sum of:
        0.06017787 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06017787 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

18. 8.2022 19:22:57

0.0043693185 = product of:
  0.02621591 = sum of:
    0.02621591 = weight(_text_:computer in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02621591 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified. Design/methodology/approach The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson. Findings Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered. Research limitations/implications The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective. Practical implications The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information. Social implications Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems. Originality/value The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 351, 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=351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

18. 9.2021 13:22:27

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

13. 2.2020 18:22:13

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

0.0020059291 = product of:
  0.012035574 = sum of:
    0.012035574 = product of:
      0.024071148 = sum of:
        0.024071148 = weight(_text_:22 in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024071148 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5655, 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=5655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

14. 1.2020 11:15:22