1
|
Lawrence EE. The trouble with diverse books, part I: on the limits of conceptual analysis for political negotiation in Library & Information Science. JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 2020. [DOI: 10.1108/jd-04-2020-0057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PurposeThe term diverse books is increasingly popular yet persistently nebulous. The purpose of this paper – Part I of II – is to illuminate both that the concept is in need of a unified account and that conceptual analysis, though at first seemingly quite promising, fails as a method for identifying one.Design/methodology/approachThis paper utilizes traditional (or intuitive) conceptual analysis to specify the respective clusters of necessary and sufficient conditions that constitute four broad candidate accounts of diverse books.FindingsThough diverse books is a concept in need of a definition, conceptual analysis is not an appropriate method for adjudicating between the definitions we have on offer. This is because the concept is fundamentally political, serving as a resource for re-shaping collective social arrangements and ways of life. The conceptual problem outlined here requires for its resolution a method that will move us from a descriptive project to an explicitly normative one, wherein we consider what we properly work to achieve with and through the concept in question.Originality/valueThis paper initiates a systematic analytical project aimed at defining diverse books. In illustrating a moment of methodological failure, it paves the way for a critical alternative – namely, Part II's proposal of an analytical intervention in which political concepts are defined partially in terms of their benefits vis-á-vis informational justice.
Collapse
|
2
|
Rutter S, Blinzler V, Ye C, Wilson ML, Twidale MD. Search tactics used in solving everyday how-to technical tasks: Repertoire, selection and tenacity. Inf Process Manag 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
3
|
Abstract
Purpose
Competitive intelligence failures have devastating effects in marketplaces. They are attributed to various factors but seldom explicitly to information behaviour. This paper addresses causes of competitive intelligence failures from an information behaviour lens focussing on problems with key intelligence and information needs. The exploratory study was conducted in 2016/2017. Managers (end-users) identify key intelligence needs on which information is needed, and often other staff members seek the information (proxy information seeking). The purpose of this paper is to analyse problems related to key intelligence and information needs, and make recommendations to address the problems.
Design/methodology/approach
The study is placed in a post-positivism research paradigm, using qualitative and limited quantitative research approaches. In total, 15 participants (competitive intelligence professionals and educators/trainers originating from South Africa and the USA) contributed rich data through in-depth individual interviews.
Findings
Problems associated with articulation of information needs (key intelligence needs is the competitive intelligence term – with a broader scope) include inadequate communication between the person in need of information and the proxy information searcher; awareness and recognition of information needs; difficulty in articulation, incomplete and partial sharing of details of needs.
Research limitations/implications
Participant recruitment was difficult, representing mostly from South Africa. The findings from this exploratory study can, however, direct further studies with a very understudied group.
Practical implications
However, revealed valuable findings that can guide research.
Originality/value
Little has been published on competitive intelligence from an information behaviour perspective. Frameworks guiding the study (a combination of Leckie et al.’s 1996 and Wilson’s, 1981 models and a competitive intelligence life cycle), however, revealed valuable findings that can guide research.
Collapse
|