学术传播:概念分析

IF 1.7 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of Documentation Pub Date : 2023-03-28 DOI:10.1108/jd-09-2022-0197
Rachel Fleming-May
{"title":"学术传播:概念分析","authors":"Rachel Fleming-May","doi":"10.1108/jd-09-2022-0197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose“Scholarly Communication” is a frequent topic of both the professional and research literature of Library and Information Science (LIS). Despite efforts by individuals (e.g. Borgman, 1989) and organizations such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to define the term, multiple understandings of it remain. Discussions of scholarly communication infrequently offer a definition or explanation of its parameters, making it difficult for readers to form a comprehensive understanding of scholarly communication and associated phenomena.Design/methodology/approachThis project uses the evolutionary concept analysis (ECA) method developed by nursing scholar, Beth L. Rodgers, to explore “Scholarly Communication” as employed in the literature of LIS. As the purpose of ECA is not to arrive at “the” definition of a term but rather exploring its utilization within a specific context, it is an ideal approach to expand our understanding of SC as used in LIS research.Findings“Scholarly Communication” as employed in the LIS literature does not refer to a single phenomenon or idea, but rather is a concept with several dimensions and sub-dimensions with distinct, but overlapping, significance.Research limitations/implicationsThe concept analysis (CA) method calls for review of a named concept, i.e. verbatim. Therefore, the items included in the data set must include the phrase “scholarly communication”. Items using alternate terminology were excluded from analysis.Practical implicationsThe model of scholarly communication presented in this paper provides language to operationalize the concept.Originality/valueLIS lacks a nuanced understanding of “scholarly communication” as used in the LIS literature. This paper offers a model to further the field's collective understanding of the term and support operationalization for future research projects.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scholarly communication: a concept analysis\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Fleming-May\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jd-09-2022-0197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose“Scholarly Communication” is a frequent topic of both the professional and research literature of Library and Information Science (LIS). Despite efforts by individuals (e.g. Borgman, 1989) and organizations such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to define the term, multiple understandings of it remain. Discussions of scholarly communication infrequently offer a definition or explanation of its parameters, making it difficult for readers to form a comprehensive understanding of scholarly communication and associated phenomena.Design/methodology/approachThis project uses the evolutionary concept analysis (ECA) method developed by nursing scholar, Beth L. Rodgers, to explore “Scholarly Communication” as employed in the literature of LIS. As the purpose of ECA is not to arrive at “the” definition of a term but rather exploring its utilization within a specific context, it is an ideal approach to expand our understanding of SC as used in LIS research.Findings“Scholarly Communication” as employed in the LIS literature does not refer to a single phenomenon or idea, but rather is a concept with several dimensions and sub-dimensions with distinct, but overlapping, significance.Research limitations/implicationsThe concept analysis (CA) method calls for review of a named concept, i.e. verbatim. Therefore, the items included in the data set must include the phrase “scholarly communication”. Items using alternate terminology were excluded from analysis.Practical implicationsThe model of scholarly communication presented in this paper provides language to operationalize the concept.Originality/valueLIS lacks a nuanced understanding of “scholarly communication” as used in the LIS literature. This paper offers a model to further the field's collective understanding of the term and support operationalization for future research projects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Documentation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Documentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-09-2022-0197\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Documentation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-09-2022-0197","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要“学术传播”是图书馆情报学专业文献和研究文献中经常讨论的话题。尽管个人(如Borgman, 1989)和大学和研究图书馆协会(ACRL)等组织努力定义这个术语,但对它的多种理解仍然存在。关于学术传播的讨论很少对其参数进行定义或解释,这使得读者很难对学术传播及其相关现象形成全面的理解。设计/方法/途径本项目采用护理学者Beth L. Rodgers开发的进化概念分析(ECA)方法,探索LIS文献中使用的“学术交流”。由于ECA的目的不是得出一个术语的“定义”,而是探索其在特定背景下的应用,因此它是扩展我们对LIS研究中使用的SC的理解的理想方法。美国文献中使用的“学术传播”不是指单一的现象或思想,而是一个包含多个维度和子维度的概念,这些维度和子维度具有不同但又重叠的意义。研究限制/意义概念分析(CA)方法要求对已命名的概念进行逐字审查。因此,数据集中包含的项目必须包含短语“学术交流”。使用替代术语的项目被排除在分析之外。实践意义本文提出的学术交流模式提供了将这一概念付诸实践的语言。原创性/价值美国缺乏对美国文献中使用的“学术交流”的细致理解。本文提供了一个模型,以促进该领域对该术语的集体理解,并支持未来研究项目的可操作性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scholarly communication: a concept analysis
Purpose“Scholarly Communication” is a frequent topic of both the professional and research literature of Library and Information Science (LIS). Despite efforts by individuals (e.g. Borgman, 1989) and organizations such as the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to define the term, multiple understandings of it remain. Discussions of scholarly communication infrequently offer a definition or explanation of its parameters, making it difficult for readers to form a comprehensive understanding of scholarly communication and associated phenomena.Design/methodology/approachThis project uses the evolutionary concept analysis (ECA) method developed by nursing scholar, Beth L. Rodgers, to explore “Scholarly Communication” as employed in the literature of LIS. As the purpose of ECA is not to arrive at “the” definition of a term but rather exploring its utilization within a specific context, it is an ideal approach to expand our understanding of SC as used in LIS research.Findings“Scholarly Communication” as employed in the LIS literature does not refer to a single phenomenon or idea, but rather is a concept with several dimensions and sub-dimensions with distinct, but overlapping, significance.Research limitations/implicationsThe concept analysis (CA) method calls for review of a named concept, i.e. verbatim. Therefore, the items included in the data set must include the phrase “scholarly communication”. Items using alternate terminology were excluded from analysis.Practical implicationsThe model of scholarly communication presented in this paper provides language to operationalize the concept.Originality/valueLIS lacks a nuanced understanding of “scholarly communication” as used in the LIS literature. This paper offers a model to further the field's collective understanding of the term and support operationalization for future research projects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Documentation
Journal of Documentation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: The scope of the Journal of Documentation is broadly information sciences, encompassing all of the academic and professional disciplines which deal with recorded information. These include, but are certainly not limited to: ■Information science, librarianship and related disciplines ■Information and knowledge management ■Information and knowledge organisation ■Information seeking and retrieval, and human information behaviour ■Information and digital literacies
期刊最新文献
Information experiences of bonsai growers: a phenomenological study in serious leisure Information experiences of bonsai growers: a phenomenological study in serious leisure Constructing risk in trustworthy digital repositories Information seeking and communication model (ISCM): application and extension Evolving legitimacy of the public library in the 21st century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1