Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030256119 = product of:
  0.045384176 = sum of:
    0.03586427 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03586427 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.1262953 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
    0.009519907 = product of:
      0.019039813 = sum of:
        0.019039813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019039813 = score(doc=3312,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Classification

303.48/33 22

DDC

303.48/33 22

Footnote

Throughout the book, the authors portray social informatics research as being underutilized and misunderstood outside the field, and they should be commended for acknowledging and addressing these problems head-on. Yes, there is resistance from ICT professionals and faculty and students in technical disciplines, most of whom have not been trained to consider social and institutional issues as part of their work. However, this stance sometimes results in a defensive tone. Social informatics research is repeatedly described as "systematic," "rigorous," and "empirically anchored," as if in preemptive response to doubts about the seriousness of social informatics scholarship. Chapter titles such as "Perceptions of the Relevance of Social Informatics Research" and "Raising the Profile of Social Informatics Research" contribute to this impression. Nonscholarly observers are dismissed as "pundits," and students who lack a social informatics perspective have "typically naïve" conceptualizations (p. 100). The concluding chapter ends not with a powerful and memorable synthesis, but with a final plea: "Taking Social Informatics Seriously." The content of the book is strong enough to stand on its own, but the manner in which it is presented sometimes detracts from the message. The book's few weaknesses can be viewed simply as the price of attempting both to survey social informatics research findings and to articulate their importance for such a diverse set of audiences, in such a brief volume. The central tension of the book, and the field of social informatics as a whole, is that on the one hand the particular-use context of an ICT is of critical importance, but furthering a social informatics agenda requires that some context-independent findings and tools be made evident to those outside the field. Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics is an important and worthwhile contribution toward reconciling this tension, and translating social informatics research findings into better real-world systems."

0.013930028 = product of:
  0.041790083 = sum of:
    0.041790083 = sum of:
      0.022750268 = weight(_text_:indexing in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022750268 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.11962087 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.019039813 = weight(_text_:22 in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019039813 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Classification

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

DDC

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

Footnote

The editorial and peer review processes appear to be slightly spotty in application. All of the 55 papers are in English but a few of them are in such need of basic editing that they are almost incomprehensible in sections. Consider, for example, the following: "So, the meaning of region where we are studying on, should be discovered and then affect on the final plan" (p. 346). The collection shows a strong array of methodological approaches including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies; however, a few of the research efforts exhibit fundamental design flaws. Consider, for example, the study that "set[s] out to show that nurses as care-givers find it difficult to transfer any previously acquired technological skills into their work based on technology needs (p. 187). After studying 39 female and 6 male nurses, this study finds, not surprisingly, exactly what it "set out" to find. Rather than noting the limitations of sample size and data gathering techniques, the paper firmly concludes that nurses can be technologists "only in areas of technology that support their primary role as carers" (p. 188). Finally, some of the papers do not report on original research but are competent, if brief, summaries of theories or concepts that are covered in equal depth elsewhere. For example, a three-page summary of "the major personality and learning theories" (p. 3) is useful but lacks the intellectual depth or insight needed to contribute substantially to the field. These problems with composition, methodological rigor, and theoretical depth are not uncommon in papers designed for a broadly defined conference theme. The authors may have been writing for an in-person audience and anticipating thoughtful postpresentation discussions; they probably had no idea of the heavy price tag put on their work. The editors, however, might have kept that $256 in mind and exercised a heavier editorial hand. Perhaps the publisher could have paid for a careful subject indexing of the work as a substantive addition to the author index provided. The complexity of the subject domains included in the volume certainly merits careful indexing.