INFORMATION USE STUDIES PART 2—COMPARISON OF SOME RECENT SURVEYS

Author:

BARNES R.C.M.

Abstract

Information‐use studies are vitally necessary in order to complement, challenge, and sharpen informed intuitive judgements, but even the broadest conclusions drawn from such studies need to be examined critically. The conclusions or their generality may sometimes be invalidated by special conditions in the survey sample, by the environment having been disturbed by the survey, by the interpretation given to questions or observations, or by the way the data has been analysed. These same factors make direct comparison of results from different surveys difficult, and make superficial comparisons misleading. Some comparisons and conclusions are certainly much less sound than the casual reader might suppose, particularly when results have been compressed and taken out of their context in the original survey. The difficulty of comparing information‐use surveys is well illustrated by the copious footnotes used by Menzel, Lieberman, and Dulchin in order to qualify the significance of the results which they compare.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3