Search results

The purpose of this paper is to further explore the co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationship among the core authors in the field of Chinese information science (IS), to expose research activity and author impact, and to make induction analyses about Chinese IS research patterns and theme evolution.

The research data include 8,567 papers and 70,947 cited articles in the IS field indexed by Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index from 2000 to 2009. Author co-citation analysis, author bibliographic-coupling analysis, social network analysis, and factor analysis were combined to explore co-citation and bibliographic-coupling relationships and to identify research groups and subjects.

Scholars with greatest impact are different from the most active scholars of Chinese IS; there is no uniform impact pattern forming since authors’ impact subjects are scattered and not steady; while authors’ research activities present higher independence and concentration, there is still no steady research pattern due to no deep research existing. Furthermore, Chinese IS studies can be delineated by: foundation or extension. The research subjects of these two parts, as well as their corresponding/contributing authors, are different under different views. The general research status of core authors is concentrated, while their impact is broad.

The combined use of some related methods could enrich the development and methodology research of the discipline, and the results establish a reference point on the development of IS research.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

Methodologies for determining patron preferences for monographs are a neglected area in library literature. This article describes a method for determining faculty preferences for monographs using subject headings from a print bibliography. Faculty members from the colleges of business at three public universities in Iowa (Iowa State University, University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa) were asked to rank 100 subject areas in business administration based on their perceived importance to programs of study within their colleges or departments. A total of 58 percent of the surveys were returned and 46 percent were included in the analysis. Faculties were grouped by department, and subject areas were grouped into categories by discipline. The survey results show that, with some exceptions, faculty ranked subject groups corresponding to their departments higher than other areas. The implications of this study for collection development librarians are noted.

Bobbie Scull's bibliography of federal government bibliographies was begun in 1971 as an annual informational publication primarily intended for the faculty at Louisiana State University. Later she distributed it to libraries all over the state of Louisiana. In 1973 RSR began to publish these lists on an annual basis. This is the fourth such appearance. In the meantime these bibliographies were cumulated and published in two volumes: Bibliography of U.S. Government Bibliographies 1968–73 and 1974–76. (Pierian Press, 1975, 1979). RSR is proud to continue the annual supplements which are now computer produced at LSU. Although this supplement appears in Volume 8:1 (1980) in the future they will appear in the final issue of the year.

The prevalence of virtual learning environments (VLEs) in higher education is well documented and has been promoted in the UK by government funded projects, but there has been little empirical research on the level of involvement of subject librarians with VLEs. A survey was designed to investigate how VLEs are affecting the work of subject librarians and to examine factors influencing their use in providing electronic information resources and developing information skills. The aim of this paper is to document the results

A questionnaire was distributed electronically to a purposive sample of 132 subject librarians at seven UK universities. The instrument contained mainly closed specified response questions with a few open questions and a response rate of 43 per cent (n=57) was achieved.

Use of VLEs by subject librarians varies both between and within institutions. Factors affecting this include the subject area, co‐operation of academic staff and attitudes of librarians towards technology‐based teaching. JISC‐funded projects have enabled better use of VLEs through the creation of re‐usable learning objects and development of pedagogical understanding and skills. Recognition by academic staff of the teaching role of subject librarians has a critical impact on their involvement with VLEs.

The timeframe limited the scale of the study and size of the sample. The mainly quantitative approach limited the detail and depth of responses, but sufficient data were collected to establish broad trends, illuminate important factors and identify key issues.

The paper provides empirical evidence of how VLEs are affecting the day‐to‐day activities of subject librarians and suggests areas where further research would be valuable.

Purpose – To provide educators with an overview of both generalized and specific comprehension strategies applicable to the content areas.Design/methodology/approach – The chapter is organized by (a) providing a rationale for incorporating reading strategy instruction, especially at the adolescent grade range and above; (b) discussing reading strategies that are appropriate for all content areas; and (c) describing reading strategies that can be used in specific content area subjects.Findings – Research-based strategies for scaffolding comprehension in content area subjects are presented in varying levels of detail.Research limitations/implications – The strategies discussed in this chapter do not constitute an exhaustive list of strategies or approaches to content area literacy instruction.Practical implications – This is a valuable resource for educators to obtain practical guidance in providing content area reading instruction for a wide range of student ages and abilities.Originality/value of chapter – This chapter provides significant research-based information for designing and implementing content area strategy instruction.

The librarian's basic duty has always been to acquire, to organize and to exploit a collection of books and other sources of information. Concerning his ability to perform the first two tasks there has never been much doubt, but about the third responsibility he has either kept very quiet or done little—or both!—if we are to judge by the dictionary definitions attached to our profession. Emphasis on exploitation arrived with the twentieth century when closed access was swept away in the public library. It was not long before the merits of subject specialization became apparent to those who administered the public library, and subject departments were born in the days following the First World War. It took another World War before similar ideas had impact on the academic library world—witness the developments at University College, London, at the end of the 1940s, described by Scott—and only in the past twenty years have the results become apparent. And yet this is a strange situation, because the librarian of an academic library has traditionally been a subject specialist himself. As far back as the Renaissance, universities had learned librarians who were scholars in law, or literature or theology. This tradition has been carried on until the present century. Libraries in German universities in particular appear to have seen the need for the continuance of the scholar‐librarian, with their scheme of ‘Referenten’. In Britain, university libraries have remained faithful to the idea of the scholar‐librarian but it has not resulted in much ‘exploitation’ of the stock until recent years, with the emergence of the ‘subject specialist librarian’.

The purpose of this study is to learn what factors liaison librarians in academic research libraries consider in determining whether to refer chat reference patrons to subject specialists.

Subject specialists were asked what policies guided their decisions to refer to a specialist and then assessed unreferred chat session transcripts both within and outside their specializations to determine need for a referral.

Few respondents were guided by formal policies. Contrary to an initial hypothesis, subject area was not a key factor in referring chat. A broader set of criteria included reference interviewing, provision of relevant resources and information literacy instruction. Respondents valued both the depth that subject specialists can provide to reference interactions and the ability of a skilled generalist to support information literacy.

Findings are most applicable to large, public doctoral universities with liaison librarian programs. Assignment of respondents to subject specialist categories was complicated by their broad range of background and expertise.

The study contributes new understanding of referrals to subject specialists who have potential to guide development of formal referral policies in academic library virtual reference services.

The study is the first empirical examination of chat reference referral decisions.