{"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":" ","pages":""},"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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。
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.
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