Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02111645 = product of:
  0.06334935 = sum of:
    0.022897845 = weight(_text_:of in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022897845 = score(doc=3612,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

In this paper results of a field study into the need for research information of different user groups are presented: scientists, policy makers and policy researchers, industry and media. Main questions of semi-structured interviews were: what kind of research information users need, what kind of research information resources are used and which information resources are missing at the moment. User groups are missing for a diversity of reasons the overview of research, experts and institutes in the different scientific fields. Especially for the accessibility and transparency of the scientific world these overviews are reported to be needed. Neither Google nor any of the research institutes or policy research organisations are able to present surveys for different science fields at the moment. Giving users the possibility to search, browse and navigate through accessible and more specialised layers of research information might give answers to different user groups simultaneously.

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

Source

Gaining insight from research information (CRIS2002): Proceedings of the 6th International Conference an Current Research Information Systems, University of Kassel, August 29 - 31, 2002. Eds: W. Adamczak u. A. Nase

0.020178083 = product of:
  0.060534246 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=3450,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3450)
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3450, 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=3450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Most information systems share a common assumption: information seeking is discrete. Such an assumption neither reflects real-life information seeking processes nor conforms to the perspective of phenomenology, "life is a journey constituted by continuous acquisition of knowledge." Thus, this study develops and validates a theoretical model that explains successive search experience for essentially the same information problem. The proposed model is called Multiple Information Seeking Episodes (MISE), which consists of four dimensions: problematic situation, information problem, information seeking process, episodes. Eight modes of multiple information seeking episodes are identified and specified with properties of the four dimensions of MISE. The results partially validate MISE by finding that the original MISE model is highly accurate, but less sufficient in characterizing successive searches; all factors in the MISE model are empirically confirmed, but new factors are identified as weIl. The revised MISE model is shifted from the user-centered to the interaction-centered perspective, taking into account factors of searcher, system, search activity, search context, information attainment, and information use activities.

Date

10. 4.2005 14:52:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.4, S.393-415

0.016751163 = product of:
  0.07538023 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 7956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=7956,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 7956, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7956)
    0.057231534 = weight(_text_:systems in 7956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057231534 = score(doc=7956,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 7956, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7956)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Past trends in reference instruction, query analysis and proloferation of reference tools classed by primary functions into a general typology anticipated the use of paradigm logic, templates, search strategies, and systematic searching in applied Artificial Intelligence research and design of expert system, especially referral and decision-support systems. The approach, methodologies, and technique employed in basic reference and subject-area reference instruction in four graduate library schools, developed first at the University of Maryland after 1976, are reviewed. The advantages and limitations of the latter are discussed to suggest the interplay of personal service, manual tools, and computerized systems for holistic reference programs. Librarians' transition to the automated tools using AI methods might be improved by introducing paradigms, typologies, strategies, and a systems approach in reference instruction for professionals and more generally in bibliographic instruction

0.013217937 = product of:
  0.059480716 = sum of:
    0.026776984 = weight(_text_:of in 3199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026776984 = score(doc=3199,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.43708345 = fieldWeight in 3199, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3199)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 3199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=3199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3199)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A conception of the nature and structure of user questions is presented. A classification of questions, in which questions are classified on the basis of their conceptual presupposition, also id presented. Examples of user questions are provided along with an analysis of their structure. Rules for making a structural analysis of questions and for classifying questions are provided. The use of these devices should facilitate the processing of user questions and the performance of information systems

0.010530886 = product of:
  0.047388986 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=3821,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
    0.034687545 = weight(_text_:systems in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034687545 = score(doc=3821,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Key terms related to information searching and search models are defined. A historic context is provided to illustrate the evolution of the four main digital environments that users interact with in their search process to offer readers background information regarding the transition from manual information systems to computer-based information retrieval (IR) systems, as well as the transition from intermediary searching to end-user searching. Emphasis is placed on the review of different levels of information searching from search tactics/moves, search strategies, and usage patterns, to search models and associated factors in relation to task, user knowledge structure, IR system design, and social-organization context. Search models are further classified into two types, with one type illustrating information search process (ISP) and the other type emphasizing the factors that influence the process. In addition, unsolved problems and future research are discussed and suggested.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.008273165 = product of:
  0.03722924 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 3330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=3330,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3330, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3330)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=3330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3330)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Successive information searches are fairly common. To enhance the understanding of the behavior, this study attempted to improve both the descriptive and explanatory power of the Multiple Information Seeking Episodes (MISE) model, a conceptual model characterizing factors affecting successive searches. It empirically observed how the key factors in the information seeking process in the MISE model evolve over multiple search sessions and explained how those factors are affected by other factors associated with searchers, search activity, search context, systems, information attainment, and information-use activities. The validated and enriched MISE model can be extended to serve the basis for future studies in other complex searches process such as multi-tasking and collaborative searches, and can also help identify problems that users face and thus derive requirements for system support.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.4, S.416-436

0.006667861 = product of:
  0.030005373 = sum of:
    0.016735615 = weight(_text_:of in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016735615 = score(doc=3340,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
    0.013269759 = product of:
      0.026539518 = sum of:
        0.026539518 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026539518 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Keeping up to date with research developments is a central activity of academic researchers, but researchers face difficulties in managing the rapid growth of available scientific information. This study examined how researchers stay up to date, using the information journey model as a framework for analysis and investigating which dimensions influence information behaviors. We designed a 2-round study involving semistructured interviews and prototype testing with 61 researchers with 3 levels of seniority (PhD student to professor). Data were analyzed following a semistructured qualitative approach. Five key dimensions that influence information behaviors were identified: level of seniority, information sources, state of the project, level of familiarity, and how well defined the relevant community is. These dimensions are interrelated and their values determine the flow of the information journey. Across all levels of professional expertise, researchers used similar hard (formal) sources to access content, while soft (interpersonal) sources were used to filter information. An important "pain point" that future information tools should address is helping researchers filter information at the point of need.

Source

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

0.002851792 = product of:
  0.025666127 = sum of:
    0.025666127 = weight(_text_:of in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025666127 = score(doc=3866,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of documentation. 14(1958), S.197-207

0.0023403284 = product of:
  0.021062955 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=580,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 580, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=580)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article presents the research findings of a study on task complexity and information-seeking activities in real-life work tasks. The focus was on perceived task complexity, which was determined according to the task performers' prior knowledge about the task ahead. This view on task complexity is closely related to research considering task uncertainty and analyzability. Information-seeking activities considered were a need to acquire different types of information and the subsequent use of different types of sources. The research data were mainly collected by (1) self-recorded journals that were filled out by municipal administrators in the course of performing their ordinary work duties (altogether 78 task diaries), and (2) subsequent interviews. The results indicated that there is a relatively strong relationship between types of information and types of sources. The effects of task complexity made experts more attractive as a source than other people and all types of documentary sources.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.7, S.581-591

0.0023403284 = product of:
  0.021062955 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 3819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=3819,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 3819, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3819)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The information search process (ISP) is a six-stage model of the users' holistic experience in the process of information seeking. The ISP model, based on two decades of empirical research, identifies three realms of experience: the affective (feelings), the cognitive (thoughts), and the physical (actions) common to each stage. These studies were among the first to investigate the affective aspects or the feelings of a person in the process of information seeking along with the cognitive and physical aspects. Central to the ISP is the notion that uncertainty, both affective and cognitive, increases and decreases in the process of information seeking. A principle of uncertainty for information seeking is proposed that states that information commonly increases uncertainty in the early stages of the search process. Increased uncertainty indicates a zone of intervention for intermediaries and system designers.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.002277429 = product of:
  0.02049686 = sum of:
    0.02049686 = weight(_text_:of in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02049686 = score(doc=283,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

As a result of the Internet, electronic networks occupy a more visible place in everyday life. Until the early nineties, the use of electronic networks was limited to a rather small number of people working in enterprises and universities. Since then, the networks have become more accessible for other citizens. Currently at least 60-70 million people all over the world are estimated to use the Internet (Gaines et al., 1997: 990). In 2000, the number of WWW users alone is expected to reach 160 million (Aldridge & Darwood 1997: 283). The rapid growth of network use has given rise to a lot of research needs. For example, what are the main purposes of network use and to what extent may the Internet replace other channels in information seeking? Thus far, the utilization of networks has been mainly surveyed in the USA but, in recent years issues of use have also attracted increasing attention in Western Europe. This study is a continuation of a research project focusing on the ways in which citizens seek information in the context of everyday life (see Savolainen 1995). An attempt is made to analyze how citizens utilize the electronic networks, primarily for non-work purposes. This paper communicates part of an empirical study; a detailed report is available in Finnish (Savolainen 1998b).

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.002277429 = product of:
  0.02049686 = sum of:
    0.02049686 = weight(_text_:of in 4060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02049686 = score(doc=4060,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 4060, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4060)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the information-seeking behavior of science and social science research scholars, including service effectiveness, satisfaction level on different type of sources and various methods adopted by the scholars for keeping up to date. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using a questionnaire survey of 200, randomly selected, PhD students of science and social science departments of four universities in Kerala, India. Findings - Although similarities exist between social science and science PhD students with regard to information-seeking behavior, there are significant differences as well. There is a significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of print journals and database collection which are very relevant to the research purposes. There is no significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of e-journals, the most used source for keeping up to date. The study proved that scholars of both the fields are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the library in keeping them up to date with latest developments. Originality/value - The study is based on actual situation and the result can be used for library service redesign for different types of users.

0.0021749148 = product of:
  0.019574232 = sum of:
    0.019574232 = weight(_text_:of in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019574232 = score(doc=1270,freq=76.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3195122 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          8.717798 = tf(freq=76.0), with freq of:
            76.0 = termFreq=76.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.0021201707 = product of:
  0.019081537 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 4574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=4574,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4574, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4574)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This study is based an earlier research by the author that employed social judgment analysis (SJA; J. SteflMabry, 2001, 2003) to identify the information judgment preferences held by professional groups. This study explores the extent to which individuals, professional groups, and subgroups are self-aware of their judgment profiles. Three specialized groups of professionals-law enforcement, medicine, and education-were chosen to determine if preference profiles cluster around professions or around demographic and other background variables. As the proliferation of data continues to increase, the need to understand users' media preference and selection decisions is of tremendous value to every industry, governmental agency, and institution of learning. In 1966, H. Menzel first raised concern about the reliability of users' to self-assess, and scientists continue to explore the issue of competency in human judgment. To understand the reliability of users' self-assessment regarding media preferences, this study examines the extent to which individuals and groups are self-aware of the empirical judgment profiles they employ in evaluating information source scenarios. This investigation explores the congruence of three groups of professionals' self-reported media preferences as compared to their empirical judgment values, as defined by social judgment analysis.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.13, S.1419-1426

0.0021169065 = product of:
  0.019052157 = sum of:
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=1320,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

User studies provide libraries with invaluable insight into their users' information needs and behaviors, allowing them to develop services that correspond to these needs. This insight has become even more important for libraries since the advent of the Internet. The Internet has brought about a development of information technologies and electronic information sources that have had a great impact on both the ways users search for information and the ways libraries manage information. Although humanists represent an important group of users for academic libraries, research studies into their information-seeking behavior since the advent of the Internet have been quite scarce (Ellis & Oldman, 2005) in the past decade. This study presents updated research on a group of humanists, Jewish studies scholars living in Israel, as information users in the digital age based on two categories: (a) the use of formal and informal information channels, and (b) the use of information technologies and their impact on humanistic research.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2269-2279

0.0018816947 = product of:
  0.016935252 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=3966,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3966, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3966)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.0017640886 = product of:
  0.015876798 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 4577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=4577,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4577, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4577)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

To better understand how individuals and groups derive satisfaction from information, it is important to identify the information source preferences they apply in information seeking and decision making. Four informal propositions drove the structure and underlying logic of this study, forming a preliminary outline of a theory of information source preference profiles and their influence an information satisfaction. This study employed Social Judgment Analysis (SJA) to identify the information judgment preferences held by professional groups for six selected information sources: word of mouth, expert oral advice, Internet, print news, nonfiction books, and radio/television news. The research was designed as an hypotheses-generating exploratory study employing a purposive sample (n = 90) and generated four empirically supported, testable hypotheses about user satisfaction with information sources. The SJA judgment functions revealed the influences of volume and polarity (i.e., positive versus negative information) an information satisfaction. By advancing the understanding of how information source preferences can be identified empirically and their influence an information satisfaction, this research reflects a first, small step toward understanding "satisficing." Satisficing behaviors result in early termination of information search processes when individuals, facing incomplete information, are sufficiently satisfied to assume risks and execute decisions.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.9, S.879-904

0.0017640886 = product of:
  0.015876798 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=2034,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking problem-specific information for non-work purposes. The conceptual framework draws on two major concepts, that is, information source horizon and information pathways. The former denotes the ways information sources are mapped in preference order in an imaginary field, while information pathways refers to the sequences in which sources placed on the information source horizon are actually used. The empirical part of the study draws on semi-structured interviews with 18 individuals active in environmental issues. Human sources and the Internet were preferred most strongly in seeking for problem-based information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources and user characteristics were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria. Typically, information pathways consisted of the use of 3-4 sources. On average, human and networked sources were favored in the early phases of information seeking. Printed media such as magazines and organizational sources were often used to complement information received from human sources and the Internet. However, the source preferences varied considerably, depending on the requirements of the problem at hand.

0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 6004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=6004,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6004, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6004)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article investigates whether information seeking patterns can be related to discipline differences, study approaches, and personality traits. A quantitative study of 305 master's thesis students' information behavior found that their information seeking tended to be either exploratory or precise. Statistical analyses showed that inner traits seemed more influential than discipline characteristics an information behavior. Exploration or specificity was manifested in terms of both the level and scope of information students wished to retrieve and the way they searched for it.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.11, S.1440-1450

0.0016295954 = product of:
  0.014666359 = sum of:
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 2791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=2791,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2791, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2791)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Offers 10 tips for finding information on the Internet. Define the area and level of expertise. Require end users to complete a request form defining the query. Categorize the Internat in lay terms for casual users. Establich a realistic time for retrieving results. Adopt a disciplined, systematic approach to the search. Understand the operating platform and the major tools available. Maintain a file of important services and addresses and users. Develop bookmarks and home pages. Learn shortcuts. Participate in the Internet Hunt (a monthly series of questions that allows searchers to practice and perfect search skills)