Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0050754026 = product of:
  0.071055636 = sum of:
    0.071055636 = weight(_text_:media in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071055636 = score(doc=595,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.5378013 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking orienting information for nonwork purposes. The conceptual framework of the study combines ideas drawn from social phenomenology and information-seeking studies. The study utilizes Alfred Schutz's model describing the ways in which actors structure everyday knowledge into regions of decreasing relevance. It is assumed that this structuring based on the actor's interest at hand is also reflected in the ways in which an actor prefers information sources and channels. The concept of information source horizon is used to elicit articulations of source preferences. The empirical part of the study draws on interviews with 20 individuals active in environmental issues. Printed media (newspapers), the Internet, and broadcast media (radio, television) were preferred in seeking for orienting information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources, user characteristics such as media habits, and situational factors were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria.

0.0034533741 = product of:
  0.048347235 = sum of:
    0.048347235 = weight(_text_:media in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048347235 = score(doc=3620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.36592746 = fieldWeight in 3620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3620)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to elaborate how source preference criteria are defined in the context of everyday projects that require the seeking of problem-specific information. More specifically, to find out how information seekers explain their preference criteria by characterizing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach - The approach takes the form of qualitative content analysis of empirical data gathered by semi-structured interviews with 16 prospective home buyers in 2008. The source preference criteria were elicited by making use of the construct of information source horizon. Findings - Networked sources were favoured most strongly, followed by printed media, human sources and organizational sources. Content of information was the primary source preference criterion. Availability of information was a fairly important criterion, while user characteristics, usability of information and situational factors were fairly marginal in this regard. In the definition of the preference criteria, more emphasis was placed on the perceived strengths than weaknesses of sources. Positive qualities such as "provides updated information" were referred to particularly while judging the relevance of the networked sources. Negative qualities like "outdated information" were primarily associated with printed media and organizational sources. Research limitations/implications - The study is exploratory, drawing on a relatively small sample recruited through a web-based service. Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to prospective home buyers. Practical implications - Prospective home buyers tend to favour web-based information sources and services. They should provide the customers with detailed information about the property, including photos. Originality/value - The paper specifies the picture of user-defined relevance judgment in the context of everyday life information seeking.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0024419043 = product of:
  0.034186658 = sum of:
    0.034186658 = weight(_text_:media in 5914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034186658 = score(doc=5914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13212246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02820796 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 5914, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5914)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

6.8246236E-4 = product of:
  0.009554473 = sum of:
    0.009554473 = product of:
      0.019108946 = sum of:
        0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019108946 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

6.8246236E-4 = product of:
  0.009554473 = sum of:
    0.009554473 = product of:
      0.019108946 = sum of:
        0.019108946 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019108946 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09877947 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02820796 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22