Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 5914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=5914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 5914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5914)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The aim of the study was to develop an empirical measure for everyday information mastering (EIM). EIM describes the ways that individuals, based on their beliefs, attitudes, and expectations, orient themselves to information as a resource of everyday action. The key features of EIM were identified by conceptual analysis focusing on three EIM frameworks. Four modes of EIM-Proactive, Social, Reactive, and Passive-and their 12 constituents were identified. A survey of 39 items was developed in two pilot studies to operationalize the identified modes as measurable EIM constituents. The respondents in the main study were upper secondary school students (n = 412). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to validate subscales for each EIM constituent. Seven subscales emerged: Inquiring and Scanning in the Proactive mode, Social media-centered, and Experiential in the Social mode, and Information poor, Overwhelmed, and Blunting in the Passive mode. Two constituents, Serendipitous and Intuitive, were not supported in the EFA. The findings highlight that the core constituents of an individual's everyday information mastering can be operationalized as psychometric scales. The instrument contributes to the systematic empirical study of EIM constituents and their relationships. The study further sheds light on key modes of EIM.

0.007137301 = product of:
  0.057098407 = sum of:
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=719,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Issues of becoming an Internet user primarily in non-work contexts are discussed. The author reviews individual, social and economic factors motivating network use. Main findings of an empirical study based on the interviews of 23 Finns in 1997 are analysed. In addition, comparisons are made with the findings of the Consumer Research Project (1996-98), conducted in Finland. The main motivating factors leading to network use were the requirements of work and study; also making everyday transactions easier, for example by home banking, was seen as important. The network connections were also acquired for keeping in contact with others and for hobbies, whereas entertainment purposes were not valued.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=1075,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The author reviews the major approaches and central findings of empirical research use studies. 6 major approaches were identified by cross-tabulating 2 criteria: the major context of network use (job-related vs. non-work) and the social level of variables (individual vs. group level). Examples of all types of studies are presented. Themajority of studies can be classified among the surveys focusing on frequencies of service use. From these studies, analyses of job-related are the most advanced both theoretically and methodologically while studies focused on non-work context of use are less established in this sense. The qualitative research settings seem to gain more popularity, thus making the use studies more balanced methodologically. The strengths and weaknesses of the research approaches are assessed and conclusions are drawn concerning the development of more context sensitive analyses of network uses

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=283,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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).

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=3428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Using Ellis's seminal model of information seeking as an example, this study demonstrates how the elaborations made to the original framework since the late 1980s have contributed to conceptual growth in information-seeking studies. To this end, nine key studies elaborating Ellis's model were scrutinized by conceptual analysis. The findings indicate that the elaborations are based on two main approaches: adding novel, context-specific components in the model and redefining and restructuring the components. The elaborations have contributed to conceptual growth in three major ways. First, integrating formerly separate parts of knowledge; second, generalizing and explaining lower abstraction-level knowledge through higher-level constructs; and third, expanding knowledge by identifying new characteristics of the object of study, that is, information-seeking behavior. Further elaboration of Ellis's model toward a theory would require more focused attempts to test hypotheses in work-related environments in particular.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0036048815 = product of:
  0.028839052 = sum of:
    0.028839052 = weight(_text_:work in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028839052 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.20276234 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This exploratory study contributes to research on relevance assessment by specifying criteria that are used in the judgment of information quality and credibility in Internet discussion forums. To this end, 4,739 messages posted to 160 Finnish discussion threads were analyzed. Of the messages, 20.5% contained explicit judgments of the quality of information and credibility in other messages. In the judgments, the forum participants employed both positive criteria such as validity of information and negative criteria such as dishonesty in argumentation. In the evaluation of the quality of the message's information content, the most frequently used criteria pertained to the usefulness, correctness, and specificity of information. In the judgment of information credibility, the main criteria included the reputation, expertise, and honesty of the author of the message. Since Internet discussion forums tend to emphasize the role of disputational discourse questioning rather than accepting the views presented by others, mainly negative criteria were used in the judgments. The generality of our claims is limited because we chose forums that focused on sensitive and value-laden topics; future work could explore credibility and quality judgment in other forums and forumlike venues such as question and answer sites as well as exploring how quality and credibility judgments interact with other aspects of forum use.

0.00164069 = product of:
  0.01312552 = sum of:
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, 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=3713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.00164069 = product of:
  0.01312552 = sum of:
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5498, 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=5498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22