October has been a a busy month for everyone so I want to send out a big thank you to all those Faculty of Information students who took time out during a busy week last week to attend my Introduction to Blogging and RSS workshops. I had a great time working with you and getting to know about your blogging plans and inspirations.
If you couldn't make it, you can get the handout from the Faculty of Information's new Workshop Repository by clicking here. It should be up and running soon. And, if you haven't already, please take a few moments to fill out the online evaluation survey by clicking here. Your feedback is super important to those of us running the workshops.
Showing posts with label Faculty of Information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faculty of Information. Show all posts
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Book Review: UPDATE
The review posted below has now also been posted on the Student Reviews page of the Faculty of Information's web site. Posting student reviews of new Faculty of Information library materials is an initiative by the Information Services team. Check it out!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Book Review: Vanishing Act
I am just back from an amazing few days of sea kayaking and sunshine on Georgian Bay. We paddled out from Chikanishing Creek in Killarney Provincial Park and spent a few days on the Fox Islands to get away from jobs, school, and the constant preoccupations of the city. I couldn't resist taking a little information-related reading with me, though. So, here is my short review of a brand new title at the Faculty of Information's library: Vanishing Act: The Erosion of Online Footnotes and Implications for Scholarship in the Digital Age.
 |
| The perfect reading spot on Centre Fox Island |
Bugeja, M. & Dimitrova, D. V. (2010). Vanishing Act: The Erosion of Online Footnotes and Implications for Scholarship in the Digital Age. Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press.
Vanishing Act: The Erosion of Online Footnotes and Implications for Scholarship in the Digital Age presents readers with a brief, 61-page discussion of the problem of disappearing online references in academic journal articles and books. The authors’ primary argument is that as online citations begin to disappear, the basis for peer review, theory testing, and experiment replication are compromised. As a result, they suggest, the problem of eroding online citations threatens the fundamental foundations of scholarship.
Vanishing Act is based on over seven years of research conducted by authors Bugeja and Dimitrova, both professors at the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University of Science and Technology. The book focuses specifically on data from a four-year period between 2000 and 2003 in which the authors surveyed and monitored the rate of decay of online citations in several prominent journalism and communications journals. Their study shows that within four years, an average of over 50% of online citations in the journals they surveyed had disappeared. This quantitative data is supplemented with the results of interviews conducted with the editors of those same journals surveyed. The survey data, interview data, and presentation of methods used are the main strength of the book. Indeed, Vanishing Act prompts questions about the technical reasons for online citation decay as well as deeper theoretical questions about scholarly practices and information management in the digital age.
However, while Vanishing Act does a good job of drawing our attention to the problem of eroding online citations, the book’s main weakness is that the authors do not provide a strong context for their results and arguments. If we are to accept that the problem is as important for the future of scholarship as the authors suggest it is, a more in-depth analysis and critique are vital. Additionally, the presentation of the results themselves could be expanded. For instance, Chapter 4, The Half-Life of Online Footnotes, would be more compelling if it included more results in the text itself rather than directing readers to Appendices C and D for results and Chapter 5, What, In Fact, Causes Footnotes to Vanish?, would benefit greatly from a more detailed explanation of some of the technical reasons that footnotes vanish and more detailed examples from the authors’ own observations over the course of their research.
Overall, Vanishing Act provides a brief but useful and accessible introduction to an information management problem that should be of interest to information professionals from researchers, professors, librarians, and systems designers alike. The authors conclude by asking who holds responsibility for the vanishing references and ephemeral sources of the Internet age. Certainly, it seems, all information professionals have important roles to play in examining, documenting, explaining, and resolving the issues raised here.
Vanishing Act: The Erosion of Online Footnotes and Implications for Scholarship in the Digital Age presents readers with a brief, 61-page discussion of the problem of disappearing online references in academic journal articles and books. The authors’ primary argument is that as online citations begin to disappear, the basis for peer review, theory testing, and experiment replication are compromised. As a result, they suggest, the problem of eroding online citations threatens the fundamental foundations of scholarship.
Vanishing Act is based on over seven years of research conducted by authors Bugeja and Dimitrova, both professors at the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University of Science and Technology. The book focuses specifically on data from a four-year period between 2000 and 2003 in which the authors surveyed and monitored the rate of decay of online citations in several prominent journalism and communications journals. Their study shows that within four years, an average of over 50% of online citations in the journals they surveyed had disappeared. This quantitative data is supplemented with the results of interviews conducted with the editors of those same journals surveyed. The survey data, interview data, and presentation of methods used are the main strength of the book. Indeed, Vanishing Act prompts questions about the technical reasons for online citation decay as well as deeper theoretical questions about scholarly practices and information management in the digital age.
However, while Vanishing Act does a good job of drawing our attention to the problem of eroding online citations, the book’s main weakness is that the authors do not provide a strong context for their results and arguments. If we are to accept that the problem is as important for the future of scholarship as the authors suggest it is, a more in-depth analysis and critique are vital. Additionally, the presentation of the results themselves could be expanded. For instance, Chapter 4, The Half-Life of Online Footnotes, would be more compelling if it included more results in the text itself rather than directing readers to Appendices C and D for results and Chapter 5, What, In Fact, Causes Footnotes to Vanish?, would benefit greatly from a more detailed explanation of some of the technical reasons that footnotes vanish and more detailed examples from the authors’ own observations over the course of their research.
Overall, Vanishing Act provides a brief but useful and accessible introduction to an information management problem that should be of interest to information professionals from researchers, professors, librarians, and systems designers alike. The authors conclude by asking who holds responsibility for the vanishing references and ephemeral sources of the Internet age. Certainly, it seems, all information professionals have important roles to play in examining, documenting, explaining, and resolving the issues raised here.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
User Surveys and QDA
Well, it's already July and between two courses and work at the Inforum, the summer is flying by. I have recently wrapped up my first big project in my role as summer intern with the Information Services team: analysis and reporting on the results of the 2010 Information Services student survey.
Each year, the Information Services (IS) team at the Faculty of Information conducts a student user survey to help evaluate Information Services and find ways to improve. This year, the IS team tried something different from what they've done in past surveys. Rather than a long list of multiple-choice questions, the 2010 survey consisted of three open-ended questions in which student respondents were asked what they liked (Q3), what they didn’t like (Q4), and what other information they wanted to share with the Information Services team (Q5).
As a result, the data were also pretty different from what the IS team had collected in the past! Responses to each of the three questions ranged from simple, one- or two-word answers to paragraphs of up to several hundred words. Of course, this type of data requires different analysis than does a tally of multiple choice answers. Since I had previous experience doing qualitative analysis (QDA) during my BA and MA, I took on the job of coding and analyzing the qualitative survey data. I sorted the data into themes, assigned codes, and completed analysis using NVivo 8 software. I have to admit that I was disappointed in NVivo. First, the software is only available for Windows machines, which always irks Mac users! More importantly, I was surprised by the limited options for importing data. Why isn't there a solution for importing Survey Monkey results, for instance? Given the wide range of new data sources emerging from Web 2.0 applications, I am certain someone has figured this out. I have begun looking into alternative QDA softwares and will post the results of what I find here.
The results of the open-ended survey (while perhaps more difficult to analyze than results from a multiple choice survey) provided us with a rich description of students' understandings of the work done by the Information Services team. Ultimately, I think it is this sort of qualitative examination of users' perceptions that is vital for shaping strategic planning in service-based organizations like libraries. As web applications like Survey Monkey make online surveys easier, and as more and more students are turning to Web 2.0 applications like Twitter and Facebook to express their thoughts and opinions, it is really only our imaginations that limits the kind of user surveys we do.
The Information Services 2010 User Survey, which was released to the iSchool community on June 27th, summarizes the data collected from the survey and includes the IS team's plans to address students’ issues and make improvements. You can find a PDF version of it here.
Each year, the Information Services (IS) team at the Faculty of Information conducts a student user survey to help evaluate Information Services and find ways to improve. This year, the IS team tried something different from what they've done in past surveys. Rather than a long list of multiple-choice questions, the 2010 survey consisted of three open-ended questions in which student respondents were asked what they liked (Q3), what they didn’t like (Q4), and what other information they wanted to share with the Information Services team (Q5).
As a result, the data were also pretty different from what the IS team had collected in the past! Responses to each of the three questions ranged from simple, one- or two-word answers to paragraphs of up to several hundred words. Of course, this type of data requires different analysis than does a tally of multiple choice answers. Since I had previous experience doing qualitative analysis (QDA) during my BA and MA, I took on the job of coding and analyzing the qualitative survey data. I sorted the data into themes, assigned codes, and completed analysis using NVivo 8 software. I have to admit that I was disappointed in NVivo. First, the software is only available for Windows machines, which always irks Mac users! More importantly, I was surprised by the limited options for importing data. Why isn't there a solution for importing Survey Monkey results, for instance? Given the wide range of new data sources emerging from Web 2.0 applications, I am certain someone has figured this out. I have begun looking into alternative QDA softwares and will post the results of what I find here.
The results of the open-ended survey (while perhaps more difficult to analyze than results from a multiple choice survey) provided us with a rich description of students' understandings of the work done by the Information Services team. Ultimately, I think it is this sort of qualitative examination of users' perceptions that is vital for shaping strategic planning in service-based organizations like libraries. As web applications like Survey Monkey make online surveys easier, and as more and more students are turning to Web 2.0 applications like Twitter and Facebook to express their thoughts and opinions, it is really only our imaginations that limits the kind of user surveys we do.
The Information Services 2010 User Survey, which was released to the iSchool community on June 27th, summarizes the data collected from the survey and includes the IS team's plans to address students’ issues and make improvements. You can find a PDF version of it here.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Information Services Intern
Today was my first day as one of two summer interns with the Faculty of Information's Information Services team. According to the job description, about half my time will be spent on special projects like data analysis of user survey results, developing promotional/outreach materials for the Inforum, and even a microfiche collection weeding project. The other half of our time will be spent at the desk. I'm looking forward to blogging about what it's like on the other side of the desk!
Monday, March 22, 2010
Inspiration Found: iSchool Student Conference
One of the great things about the Faculty of Information is that it houses an amazingly interdisciplinary group of students. We come from all kinds of different academic disciplines and bring a breadth of experiences, knowledge, and interests to our new field of information studies. Our professors like to remind us of this and tell us——especially when they are trying to sell us on the benefits of yet another group project——that we learn most from each other. It just might be true.
This past weekend, the point was driven home for me at the second annual iSchool student conference at Faculty of Information. The Saturday morning session "Seeking and Finding" was particularly great thanks to papers from U of T students Amanda LeClerc (Accessing Inspiration) and Marie-Eve Belanger (Annotation as Scholarly Primitive: Traces of Information Access). The papers crossed the boundaries of art, information studies, and ethnography, too. Not to mention inspiration.
The program is still up. Go see what you missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)