Search results

The purpose of this paper is to introduce eye tracking as a method for capturing direct and indirect measures of online human information search behaviour. The unique contribution of eye-tracking data in studying information behaviour is examined in the context of health information research.

The need for multiple methods of data collection when examining human online health information behaviour is described and summarised. The nature of human eye movements in information use and reading is outlined and the emergence and application of contemporary eye-tracking technology are explained.

The paper summarises key contributions and insights that eye tracking has provided across multiple studies, with examples of both direct data on fixations and gaze durations as well as theoretical assessments of relevance and knowledge gain.

The paper provides a basic introduction to the application of a unique method for information research in general and online health information search in particular and provides readers with an awareness of how such data are captured and interpreted.

The availability of powerful desktop microcomputers has meant that the ideas underlying hypertext can now be implemented in readily available software packages. However, despite the fact that many writers on the subject assume that hypertext removes the reader/author distinction, it appears that, for a variety of reasons, many people will access hypertext documents in ‘read‐only’ form. The present paper discusses the implications of this for authors of hypertext documents. The creation of a hypertext version of a journal article, and the way in which a hypertext database of such articles is being constructed, is described.

This chapter examines a subjective measure of child labor as an alternative to hours data for eliciting the distribution of children's time between work, school, and leisure. The subjective child labor questions that were developed have two primary advantages. First, the subjective measures avoid proxy respondent bias in child labor reports made by parents in a standard hours module. Second, the subjective child labor module scales responses to elicit the relative distribution of the shares of children's time without relying on hours data, which are prone to severe outlier problems. Adult, proxy respondents are found to produce uniformly lower reports of children's time allocated to work and school than the child's own subjective responses. Conditional labor supply functions are also estimated to examine differences in the marginal effects of child, parent, household, and school characteristics between the two types of data. The use of children's subjective responses increases the magnitude of the marginal effects for child's age, parental education, and school availability with limited differences between household composition and asset variables.

The convergence of librarianship and information science to form library and information science (LIS) is seen as a recent phenomenon, with the term “information science” originally focused on the application of computers to library operations and services. LIS as a science and multidisciplinary field applies the practice and perspective of information with the aim of answering important questions related to the activities of a target group. As a science, LIS is more than a collection of facts to be memorised or techniques to be mastered but is instead an inquiry carried out by people who raise questions for which answers are unknown and who have gained confidence in their ability to reach conclusions, albeit tentative ones, through research, experiment and careful thought sharpened by the open criticism of others. What is described here is a dynamic and changing field of study called LIS which differs from Cronin ' s (2004) conclusion that library science or LIS is neither a science nor a discipline. Like any other science, LIS continues to emerge, evolve, transform and dissipate in the ongoing conversation of disciplines.

To understand LIS, this paper thoroughly reviewed the literature by paying attention to the genesis of the terms “information”, “documentation”, “science” and “librarianship”, and then the interdisciplinary nature of library science and information science.

The differences between librarianship and information science are an indication that there are two different fields in a strong interdisciplinary relation, rather than one being a special case of the other. LIS has grown to be a scientific discipline, knowledge and a process that allows abandoning or modifying previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence. Therefore, like any other science, LIS is a science and discipline in its own right that continues to emerge, evolve, transform and dissipate in the ongoing conversation of disciplines.

What is described here is a dynamic and changing field of study and a science called LIS that differs from Cronin ' s (2004) assessment that library science or LIS is neither a science nor a discipline. The originality of the paper is rooted in a growing discussion to understand the relevance and appreciate the continued existence of LIS as a science and a field of study.

This project set out to explore information scholars’ perceptions of the influence of their keyword selections and the implications of their linguistic choices on possibilities for and perceptions of the field of Information Science. We trialed a narrative methodological approach to investigate the multiple stories told with specific keywords, how they relate to larger discourses within the field and the impact they have on the lives of information researchers.

This paper draws on Arthur Frank’s narrative analysis to consider keywords as stories, which shape one’s sense of professional identity and belonging. The analysis, which is informed by insights from multi-disciplinary scholars of keywords, employs data from a keywords-oriented workshop with Information School faculty and students, as well as an online questionnaire sent to heads of Information Schools.

We did not find a singular definitive story of information science scholars’ experiences with keywords. Rather we identify tensions surrounding common and contested understandings of discipline, canon and information, engaging the complexity of interdisciplinary, international, intellectual and moral claims of the field. This research offers insight into the experiential factors that shape scholars’ engagement with keywords and the tensions they can create.

A wealth of bibliometric analyses of keywords focuses on finding the “right” words to describe the scholarship you seek or the work you want others to discover. However, this study offers information researchers a novel approach, creating space to acknowledge the generative tensions of keywords, beyond the extractive logic of search and retrieval.