Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05115121 = product of:
  0.07672681 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=2098,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
    0.053627502 = product of:
      0.107255004 = sum of:
        0.107255004 = weight(_text_:demand in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107255004 = score(doc=2098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.3445655 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Traditionally humanities scholars have worked in physical environments and with physical artefacts. Libraries are familiar places, built on cultural traditions over thousands of years, and books are comfortable research companions. Digital tools are a more recent addition to the resources available to a researcher. This paper explores both the physical and the digital qualities of modern humanities research, drawing on existing literature and presenting a study of humanities scholars' perceptions of the research resources they use. We highlight aspects of the physical and digital that can facilitate or hinder the researcher, focusing on three themes that emerge from the data: the working environment; the experience of finding resources; and the experience of working with documents. Rather than aiming to replace physical texts and libraries by digital surrogates, providers need to recognise the complementary roles they play: digital information environments have the potential to provide improved access and analysis features and the facility to exploit the library from any place, while the physical library and resources provide greater authenticity, trustworthiness and the demand to be in a particular place with important material properties.

0.044642597 = product of:
  0.066963896 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
    0.053627502 = product of:
      0.107255004 = sum of:
        0.107255004 = weight(_text_:demand in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107255004 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.3445655 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Current institutional repository software provides few tools to help metadata librarians understand and analyse their collections. In this paper, we compare and contrast metadata analysis tools that were developed simultaneously, but independently, at two New Zealand institutions during a period of national investment in research repositories: the Metadata Analysis Tool (MAT) at The University of Waikato, and the Kiwi Research Information Service (KRIS) at the National Library of New Zealand. The tools have many similarities: they are convenient, online, on-demand services that harvest metadata using OAI-PMH, they were developed in response to feedback from repository administrators, and they both help pinpoint specific metadata errors as well as generating summary statistics. They also have significant differences: one is a dedicated tool while the other is part of a wider access tool; one gives a holistic view of the metadata while the other looks for specific problems; one seeks patterns in the data values while the other checks that those values conform to metadata standards. Both tools work in a complementary manner to existing web-based administration tools. We have observed that discovery and correction of metadata errors can be quickly achieved by switching web browser views from the analysis tool to the repository interface, and back. We summarise the findings from both tools' deployment into a checklist of requirements for metadata analysis tools.

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 6060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=6060,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 6060, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6060)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0076997704 = product of:
  0.02309931 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 3291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=3291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 3291, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3291)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on a longitudinal study of information seeking by undergraduate information management students. It describes how they found and used information, and explores their motivation and decision making. We employed a use-in-context approach where students were observed conducting, and were interviewed about, information-seeking tasks carried out during their academic work. We found that participants were reluctant to engage with a complex range of information sources, preferring to use the Internet. The main driver for progress in information seeking was the immediate demands of their work (e.g., assignments). Students used their growing expertise to justify a conservative information strategy, retaining established strategies as far as possible and completing tasks with minimum information-seeking effort. The time cost of using library material limited the uptake of such resources. New methods for discovering and selecting information were adopted only when immediately relevant to the task at hand, and tasks were generally chosen or interpreted in ways that minimized the need to develop new strategies. Students were driven by the demands of the task to use different types of information resources, but remained reluctant to move beyond keyword searches, even when they proved ineffective. They also lacked confidence in evaluating the relative usefulness of resources. Whereas existing literature on satisficing has focused on stopping conditions, this work has highlighted a richer repertoire of satisficing behaviors.

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=141,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A user's understanding of the libraries they work in, and hence of what they can do in those libraries, is encapsulated in their "mental models" of those libraries. In this article, we present a focused case study of users' mental models of traditional and digital libraries based on observations and interviews with eight participants. It was found that a poor understanding of access restrictions led to risk-averse behavior, whereas a poor understanding of search algorithms and relevance ranking resulted in trial-and-error behavior. This highlights the importance of rich feedback in helping users to construct useful mental models. Although the use of concrete analogies for digital libraries was not widespread, participants used their knowledge of Internet search engines to infer how searching might work in digital libraries. Indeed, most participants did not clearly distinguish between different kinds of digital resource, viewing the electronic library catalogue, abstracting services, digital libraries, and Internet search engines as variants on a theme.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 2052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=2052,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2052, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2052)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information-seeking is important for lawyers, who have access to many dedicated electronic resources. However there is considerable scope for improving the design of these resources to better support information-seeking. One way of informing design is to use information-seeking models as theoretical lenses to analyse users' behaviour with existing systems. However many models, including those informed by studying lawyers, analyse information-seeking at a high level of abstraction and are only likely to lead to broad-scoped design insights. We illustrate that one potentially useful (and lower-level) model is Ellis's - by using it as a lens to analyse and make design suggestions based on the information-seeking behaviour of 27 academic lawyers, who were asked to think aloud whilst using electronic legal resources to find information for their work. We identify similar information-seeking behaviours to those originally found by Ellis and his colleagues in scientific domains, along with several that were not identified in previous studies such as 'updating' (which we believe is particularly pertinent to legal information-seeking). We also present a refinement of Ellis's model based on the identification of several levels that the behaviours were found to operate at and the identification of sets of mutually exclusive subtypes of behaviours.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=4490,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This research aims to identify some requirements for supporting user interactions with electronic current-awareness alert systems based on data from a professional work environment. Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative data were gathered using contextual inquiry observations with 21 workers at the London office of an international law firm. The analysis uses CASSM ("Concept-based Analysis of Surface and Structural Misfits"), a usability evaluation method structured around identifying mismatches, or "misfits", between user-concepts and concepts represented within a system. Findings - Participants were frequently overwhelmed by e-mail alerts, and a key requirement is to support efficient interaction. Several misfits, which act as barriers to efficient reviewing and follow-on activities, are demonstrated. These relate to a lack of representation of key user-concepts at the interface and/or within the system, including alert items and their properties, source documents, "back-story", primary sources, content categorisations and user collections. Research limitations/implications - Given these misfits, a set of requirements is derived to improve the efficiency with which users can achieve key outcomes with current-awareness information as these occur within a professional work environment. Originality/value - The findings will be of interest to current-awareness providers. The approach is relevant to information interaction researchers interested in deriving design requirements from naturalistic studies.

0.0056345966 = product of:
  0.01690379 = sum of:
    0.01690379 = product of:
      0.03380758 = sum of:
        0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03380758 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The strongest tradition of IR systems evaluation has focused on system effectiveness; more recently, there has been a growing interest in evaluation of Interactive IR systems, balancing system and user-oriented evaluation criteria. In this paper we shift the focus to considering how IR systems, and particularly digital libraries, can be evaluated to assess (and improve) their fit with users' broader work activities. Taking this focus, we answer a different set of evaluation questions that reveal more about the design of interfaces, user-system interactions and how systems may be deployed in the information working context. The planning and conduct of such evaluation studies share some features with the established methods for conducting IR evaluation studies, but come with a shift in emphasis; for example, a greater range of ethical considerations may be pertinent. We present the PRET A Rapporter framework for structuring user-centred evaluation studies and illustrate its application to three evaluation studies of digital library systems.

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=644)
  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.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2687)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information behavior (IB) research involves examining how people look for and use information, often with the sole purpose of gaining insights into the behavior displayed. However, it is also possible to examine IB with the purpose of using the insights gained to design new tools or improve the design of existing tools to support information seeking and use. This approach is advocated by David Ellis who, over two decades ago, presented a model of information seeking behaviors and made suggestions for how electronic tools might be designed to support these behaviors. Ellis also recognized that IBs might be used as the basis for evaluating as well as designing electronic resources. In this article, we present the IB evaluation methods. These two novel methods, based on an extension of Ellis's model, use the empirically observed IBs of lawyers as a framework for structuring user-centered evaluations of the functionality and usability of electronic resources. In this article, we present the IB methods and illustrate their use through the discussion of two examples. We also discuss benefits and limitations, grounded in specific features of the methods.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 1525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=1525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1525)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Serendipity occurs when unexpected circumstances and an "aha" moment of insight result in a valuable, unanticipated outcome. Designing digital information environments to support serendipity can not only provide users with new knowledge, but also propel them in directions they might not otherwise have traveled in-surprising and delighting them along the way. As serendipity involves unexpected circumstances it cannot be directly controlled, but it can be potentially influenced. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous work has focused on providing a rich empirical understanding of how it might be influenced. We interviewed 14 creative professionals to identify their self-reported strategies aimed at increasing the likelihood of serendipity. These strategies form a framework for examining ways existing digital environments support serendipity and for considering how future environments can create opportunities for it. This is a new way of thinking about how to design for serendipity; by supporting the strategies found to increase its likelihood rather than attempting to support serendipity as a discrete phenomenon, digital environments not only have the potential to help users experience serendipity but also encourage them to adopt the strategies necessary to experience it more often.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2126)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The motivation for this study was to better understand academics' searching and sensemaking processes when solving exploratory tasks for which they lack pre-existing frames. We focus on "influence" tasks because, although they appear to be unfamiliar, they arise in much academic discourse, at least tacitly. We report the processes of academics at different levels of seniority when completing exploratory search tasks that involved identifying influential members of their academic community and "rising stars," and similarly for an unfamiliar academic community. 11 think-aloud sessions followed by semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the roles of specific and general domain expertise in shaping information seeking and knowledge construction. Academics defined and completed the tasks through an iterative and interactive process of seeking and sensemaking, during which they constructed an understanding of their communities and determined qualities of "being influential". The Data/Frame Theory of Sensemaking was used to provide sensitising theoretical constructs. The study shows that both external and internal knowledge resources are essential to define a starting point or frame, make and support decisions, and experience satisfaction. Ill-defined or non-existent initial frames may cause unsubstantial or arbitrary decisions, and feelings of uncertainty and lack of confidence.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reports findings from a study designed to gain broader understanding of sensemaking activities using the Data/Frame Theory as the analytical framework. Although this theory is one of the dominant models of sensemaking, it has not been extensively tested with a range of sensemaking tasks. The tasks discussed here focused on making sense of structures rather than processes or narratives. Eleven researchers were asked to construct understanding of how a scientific community in a particular domain is organized (e.g., people, relationships, contributions, factors) by exploring the concept of "influence" in academia. This topic was chosen because, although researchers frequently handle this type of task, it is unlikely that they have explicitly sought this type of information. We conducted a think-aloud study and semistructured interviews with junior and senior researchers from the human-computer interaction (HCI) domain, asking them to identify current leaders and rising stars in both HCI and chemistry. Data were coded and analyzed using the Data/Frame Model to both test and extend the model. Three themes emerged from the analysis: novices and experts' sensemaking activity chains, constructing frames through indicators, and characteristics of structure tasks. We propose extensions to the Data/Frame Model to accommodate structure sensemaking.