Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and databases: A domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines
Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and databases: A domain analytic study in four scholarly disciplines
复制标题
使用和不使用电子期刊和数据库的原因：四个学术学科的领域分析研究
DOI：
10.1108/00220410310506312
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hanni Maula
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sanna Talja;Hanni Maula
以前的研究表明，不同学科使用的搜索方法存在重大差异，电子期刊和数据库的使用也因领域而异。然而，以前的研究没有探讨这种变化是否或如何与域大小、域中的分散程度或域特定相关性标准等因素相关。本文的目的是促进领域分析方法的发展，以解释电子期刊和数据库的使用和不使用。我们确定并定义了电子期刊使用中学科差异的因素，概述了在未来研究中更严格测试的假设，并在有限的数据集上进行了初步测试。收集的实证数据作为一个更广泛的定性研究的一部分，探讨学者的使用网络资源在四个不同的学科：护理科学，文学/文化研究，历史和生态环境科学。研究结果表明，电子期刊和数据库可能在定向搜索是主要搜索方法，主题相关性是主要相关类型的领域中使用最多，而在浏览和链接是主要搜索方法，聚合相关性是主要相关类型的领域中使用较少。研究结果还支持贝茨假设，域大小有重要影响的搜索方法。
Previous research has shown that there are major differences in the search methods used in different disciplines, and that the use of electronic journals and databases likewise varies according to domain. Previous studies have not, however, explored whether, or how, this variation is possibly related to factors such as domain size, the degree of scatter in a domain or domain‐specific relevance criteria. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the development of a domain analytic approach for explaining the use and non‐use of e‐journals and databases. We identify and define factors to account for disciplinary differences in e‐journal use, outline hypotheses to be tested more rigorously in future research, and test them initially on a limited data set. The empirical data was gathered as a part of a wider qualitative study exploring scholars’ use of networked resources in four different disciplines: nursing science, literature/cultural studies, history and ecological environmental science. The findings suggest that e‐journals and databases are likely to be used most heavily in fields in which directed searching is the dominant search method and topical relevance the primary relevance type, and less in fields in which browsing and chaining are the dominant search methods and paradigmatic relevance the primary relevance type. The findings also support the Bates hypothesis that domain size has an important impact on the search methods used.