Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02497166 = product of:
  0.1248583 = sum of:
    0.016574297 = product of:
      0.033148594 = sum of:
        0.033148594 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033148594 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.34475547 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033851784 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033851784 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.348393 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
    0.033148594 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033148594 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34475547 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
    0.033148594 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033148594 = score(doc=4412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09615103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34475547 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
    0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053462577 = score(doc=4412,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
    0.0027887707 = weight(_text_:s in 4412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027887707 = score(doc=4412,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 4412, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4412)
  0.2 = coord(6/30)

Abstract

Purpose - Describes the basic premises of three metatheories that represent important or emerging perspectives on information seeking, retrieval and knowledge formation in information science: constructivism, collectivism, and constructionism. Design/methodology/approach - Presents a literature-based conceptual analysis. Pinpoints the differences between the positions in their conceptions of language and the nature and origin of knowledge. Findings - Each of the three metatheories addresses and solves specific types of research questions and design problems. The metatheories thus complement one another. Each of the three metatheories encourages and constitutes a distinctive type of research and learning. Originality/value - Outlines each metatheory's specific fields of application.

Field

Informationswissenschaft
Bibliothekswesen

Source

Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.1, S.79-101

0.0013644554 = product of:
  0.013644554 = sum of:
    0.004929992 = weight(_text_:in in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004929992 = score(doc=3713,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3713, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3713)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3713)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the picture of the motivators for information behaviour by examining the nature of information need as a trigger and driver of information seeking. Design/methodology/approach Conceptual analysis focusing on the ways in which the researchers have conceptualized information need in models for human information behaviour (HIB). The study draws on conceptual analysis of 26 key studies focusing on the above topic. Findings Researchers have employed two main approaches to conceptualize information needs in the HIB models. First, information need is approached as a root factor which motivates people to identify and access information sources. Second, information need is approached as a secondary trigger or driver determined by more fundamental factors, for example, the information requirements of task performance. The former approach conceptualizes information need as a trigger providing an initial impetus to information seeking, while the latter approach also depicts information need as a driver that keeps the information-seeking process in motion. The latter approach is particularly characteristic of models depicting information seeking as a cyclic process. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on information need, no attention is devoted to related constructs such as anomalous state of knowledge and uncertainty. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of information need as a trigger and driver of information seeking. The findings refine the picture of motivators for information behaviour.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.1, S.2-21

0.0013083849 = product of:
  0.013083849 = sum of:
    0.0054005357 = weight(_text_:in in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054005357 = score(doc=526,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

Abstract

The present study contributes to the development of integrated models for information behavior and practices at the domain-specific level. To this end, the model for everyday information practices proposed by Savolainen in 2008 is enhanced by integrating the element of information creating, based on Thomson's recent 2018 study. The integration resulted in the expanded model for everyday information practices. Using conceptual analysis, the above model was examined in light of conventional (positivist and post-positivist) and interpretive (social constructivist) criteria for theory assessment. The findings suggest that the integrated model meets best the interpretive criteria such as meaningfulness and understandability, mutuality of concepts and descriptive logic, empirical verifiability, and usefulness. In contrast, theoretical potential of the model is fairly limited when weighed against the conventional criteria, such as generalization and prediction. Overall, the findings suggest that, in its current form, the expanded model cannot be regarded as a "genuine theory" of everyday information practices. However, the model does incorporate many of the qualities characteristic of social scientific theories, and thus exhibits considerable theoretical potential. This is even more so if the interpretive, naturalistic basis of the data in which the expanded model is based is considered.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.4, S.511-527

0.0012533319 = product of:
  0.012533318 = sum of:
    0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038187557 = score(doc=5498,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 5498, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5498)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5498, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5498)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the creation of a holistic picture of information behavior by examining the connections between information seeking and sharing. Design/methodology/approach Conceptual analysis is used to focus on the ways in which the researchers have modeled the interplay of information seeking and sharing. The study draws on conceptual analysis of 27 key studies examining the above issue, with a focus on the scrutiny of six major models for information behavior. Findings Researchers have employed three main approaches to model the relationships between information seeking and sharing. The indirect approach conceptualizes information seeking and sharing as discrete activities connected by an intermediating factor, for example, information need. The sequential approach assumes that information seeking precedes information sharing. From the viewpoint of the interactive approach, information seeking and sharing appear as mutually related activities shaping each other iteratively or in a cyclical manner. The interactive approach provides the most sophisticated research perspective on the relationships of information seeking and sharing and contributes to holistic understanding of human information behavior. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on information seeking and sharing, no attention is devoted to other activities constitutive of information behavior, for example, information use. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the connections of information seeking and information sharing.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.4, S.518-534

6.0307025E-4 = product of:
  0.0090460535 = sum of:
    0.0076375115 = weight(_text_:in in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076375115 = score(doc=283,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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).

Pages

S.356-370

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

6.0307025E-4 = product of:
  0.0090460535 = sum of:
    0.0076375115 = weight(_text_:in in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076375115 = score(doc=3361,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 3361, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3361)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3361)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the picture of strategies for information searching and seeking by reviewing the conceptualizations on this topic in the field of library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach The study draws on Henry Mintzberg's idea of strategy as plan and strategy as pattern in a stream of actions. Conceptual analysis of 57 LIS investigations was conducted to find out how researchers have approached the above aspects in the characterizations of information search and seeking strategies. Findings In the conceptualizations of information search and information seeking strategies, the aspect of strategy as plan is explicated most clearly in text-book approaches describing the steps of rational web searching. Most conceptualizations focus on the aspect of strategy as pattern in a stream of actions. This approach places the main emphasis on realized strategies, either deliberate or emergent. Deliberate strategies indicate how information search or information seeking processes were oriented by intentions that existed previously. Emergent strategies indicate how patterns in information seeking and seeking developed in the absence of intentions, or despite them. Research limitations/implications The conceptualizations of the shifts in information seeking and searching strategies were excluded from the study. Similarly, conceptualizations of information search or information retrieval tactics were not examined. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the ways in which the key aspects of strategy are conceptualized in the classifications and typologies of information seeking and searching strategies. The findings contribute to the elaboration of the conceptual space of information behaviour research.

Source

Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.6, S.1154-1180

5.9159653E-4 = product of:
  0.008873948 = sum of:
    0.006901989 = weight(_text_:in in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006901989 = score(doc=719,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Source

Aslib proceedings. 52(2000) no.5, S.185-193

5.79343E-4 = product of:
  0.008690145 = sum of:
    0.0069998945 = weight(_text_:in in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0069998945 = score(doc=595,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.12, S.1709-1719

5.58707E-4 = product of:
  0.008380604 = sum of:
    0.006972062 = weight(_text_:in in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006972062 = score(doc=4477,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1243-1256

5.575784E-4 = product of:
  0.008363675 = sum of:
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=304,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Pages

S.81-96

Source

Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16 August 1996, Tampere, Finland. Ed.: P. Vakkari u.a

5.423352E-4 = product of:
  0.008135028 = sum of:
    0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053462577 = score(doc=3670,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
    0.0027887707 = weight(_text_:s in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027887707 = score(doc=3670,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Presents an overview of research on information use. The majority of use and user studies are surveys which focus on the consulting of different information sources and channels. In most studies, however, the substantial issues of information use are omitted. Discusses conceptual and terminological questions of information use and knowledge utilization. No consensus on the definition of these concepts exists among researchers because they can have no direct access to individual processes of information use. Examines the contributions made to information use theory by Brenda Dervin and Robert S. Taylor. Reviews the categories of uses specified in Dervin's sense making theory and discusses Taylor's concept of information use environments. Considers some methodological questions concerning the challenges of empirical research on information use

Footnote

Research on information use in the field of information studies

Source

Kirjastotiede ja informatiika. 13(1994) no.4, S.101-109

5.3485465E-4 = product of:
  0.00802282 = sum of:
    0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006614278 = score(doc=614,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 614, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=614)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=614)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specify user-defined relevance criteria by which people select hyperlinks and pages in web searching. Design/methodology/approach - A quantitative and qualitative analysis was undertaken of talking aloud data from nine web searches conducted about self-generated topics. Findings - Altogether 18 different criteria for selecting hyperlinks and web pages were found. The selection is constituted, by two, intertwined processes: the relevance judgment of hyperlinks, and web pages by user-defined criteria, and decision-making concerning the acceptance or rejection of hyperlinks and web pages. The study focuses on the former process. Of the individual criteria, specificity, topicality, familiarity, and variety were used most frequently in relevance judgments. The study shows that despite the high number of individual criteria used in the judgments, a few criteria such as specificity and topicality tend to dominate. Searchers were less critical in the judgment of hyperlinks than deciding whether the activated web pages should be consulted in more detail. Research limitations/implications - The study is exploratory, drawing on a relatively low number of case searches. Originality/value - The paper gives a detailed picture of the criteria used in the relevance judgments of hyperlinks and web pages. The study also discusses the specific nature of criteria used in web searching, as compared to those used in traditional online searching environments.

Source

Journal of documentation. 62(2006) no.6, S.685-707

5.3485465E-4 = product of:
  0.00802282 = sum of:
    0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006614278 = score(doc=2034,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.274-293

5.3485465E-4 = product of:
  0.00802282 = sum of:
    0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 4046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006614278 = score(doc=4046,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4046, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4046)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4046,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4046, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4046)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the picture of strategies and tactics for information seeking and searching by focusing on the heuristic elements of such strategies and tactics. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual analysis of a sample of 31 pertinent investigations was conducted to find out how researchers have approached heuristics in the above context since the 1970s. To achieve this, the study draws on the ideas produced within the research programmes on Heuristics and Biases, and Fast and Frugal Heuristics. Findings Researchers have approached the heuristic elements in three major ways. First, these elements are defined as general level constituents of browsing strategies in particular. Second, heuristics are approached as search tips. Third, there are examples of conceptualizations of individual heuristics. Familiarity heuristic suggests that people tend to prefer sources that have worked well in similar situations in the past. Recognition heuristic draws on an all-or-none distinction of the information objects, based on cues such as information scent. Finally, representativeness heuristic is based on recalling similar instances of events or objects and judging their typicality in terms of genres, for example. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on three heuristics only, the findings cannot be generalized to describe the use of all heuristic elements of strategies and tactics for information seeking and searching. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the ways in which the heuristic elements are conceptualized in the context of information seeking and searching. The findings contribute to the elaboration of the conceptual issues of information behavior research.

Source

Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.6, S.1322-1342

5.0708273E-4 = product of:
  0.007606241 = sum of:
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=4467,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

The author reflects the conceptual and practical questions of network competence in the context of information seeking. Network competence is seen as one of the information-related competences and is defined as the mastery of four major areas: knowledge of information resources available on the Internet, skilled use of the ICT tools to access information, judgment of the relevance of information, and communication. Drawing on the ideas of the social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura, a model of network competence is introduced in order to discuss network competence "in action". In the model, network competence is put in practical context by relating five major factors: network competence, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, affective factors such as anxiety, and experiences received from information seeking on the Internet. Particular attention is devoted to the connections between network competence and self-efficacy which denote a person's judgment of his or her ability to organize and execute action, such as finding information on the Web.

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.2, S.211-226

5.0708273E-4 = product of:
  0.007606241 = sum of:
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=3428,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=3428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.594-608

4.928343E-4 = product of:
  0.0073925145 = sum of:
    0.0054005357 = weight(_text_:in in 5914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054005357 = score(doc=5914,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 5914, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5914)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 5914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=5914,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 5914, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5914)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.729-741

4.8278586E-4 = product of:
  0.0072417874 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=1789,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the conceptual picture of the relationships between the affective and cognitive factors in information seeking and use. Design/methodology/approach - Conceptual analysis focusing on the ways in which the affective and cognitive factors and their interplay are approached in the Information Search Process model developed by Carol Kuhlthau, and the Social-Biological Information Technology model elaborated by Diane Nahl. Findings - Kuhlthau's model approaches the cognitive factors (thoughts) and affective factors (feelings) and affective-cognitive factors (mood) as integral constituents of the six-stage information search process. Thoughts determine the valence of feelings (positive or negative), while mood opens or closes the range of possibilities in a search. Nahl's taxonomic model defines the affective and cognitive factors as components of a biologically determined process serving the ends of adaptation to information ecology. The interplay of the above factors is conceptualized by focusing on their mutual roles in the cognitive and affective appraisal of information. Research limitations/implications - The findings are based on the comparison of two models only. Originality/value - So far, information scientists have largely ignored the study of the interplay between affective and cognitive factors in information seeking and use. The findings indicate that the examination of these factors together rather than separately holds a good potential to elaborate the holistic picture of information seeking and use.

Source

Journal of documentation. 71(2015) no.1, S.175-197

4.8278586E-4 = product of:
  0.0072417874 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 5304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=5304,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 5304, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5304)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=5304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5304, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5304)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

The study elaborates the picture of the relationships between information and power by examining how informational and expert power appear in the characterizations of cognitive authority presented in the research literature. The study draws on the conceptual analysis of 25 key studies on the above issues. Mainly focusing on Patrick Wilson's classic notion of cognitive authority, it was examined how informational power and expert power are constitutive of authority of this kind, and how people subject to the influence of cognitive authorities trust or challenge such authorities. The findings indicate that researchers have characterized the features of expert power inherent in cognitive authority by diverse qualifiers such as competence and trustworthiness of information sources considered authoritative. Informational power has mainly been approached in terms of irrefutability of individual arguments and facts offered by cognitive authorities. Both forms of power are persuasive in nature and information seekers can trust or challenge them by drawing on their experiential knowledge in particular. The findings also highlight the need to elaborate the construct of cognitive authority by rethinking its relevance in the networked information environments where the traditional picture of authoritative information sources is eroding.

Source

Libri. 72(2022) no.1, S.1-12

4.8278586E-4 = product of:
  0.0072417874 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 5981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=5981,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 5981, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5981)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=5981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5981)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

This study aims to elaborate the picture of the relationships between information and power by examining how expert power appears in the characterizations of gatekeeping presented in the research literature. Design/methodology/approach This study uses conceptual analysis for examining how expert power is constitutive of the construct of gatekeeper and how people subject to the influence of gatekeeping trust or challenge the expert power attributed to gatekeepers. The study draws on the analysis of 40 key studies on the above issues. Findings Researchers have mainly constructed the gatekeepers' expert power in terms of superior knowledge and skills applicable to a specific domain, coupled with an ability to control or facilitate access to information. The gatekeeper's expert power has been approached as a contextual factor that facilitates rather than controls access to information. The power relationships between the gatekeepers and those subject to gatekeeping vary contextually, depending on the extent to which the latter have access to alternative sources of information. The findings highlight the need to elaborate the construct of gatekeeping by rethinking its relevance in the networked information environments where the traditional picture of gatekeepers controlling access to information sources is eroding. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on how expert power figures in gatekeeping, no attention is devoted to the role of social power of other types, for example, reward power and referent power. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of expert power as a constituent of gatekeeping.

Source

Journal of documentation. 76(2020) no.6, S.1215-1232