Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Bauer, H., Schui, G. & Krampen, G. (2012, August).From analogue to digital psychology:Results from surveys on information behavior among German psychologists between 1997 and 2010.(PDF) International Conference on Science and the Internet 2012,Düsseldorf
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Bauer, H., Schui, G. & Krampen, G. (2012, August).From analogue to digital psychology:Results from surveys on information behavior among German psychologists between 1997 and 2010.(PDF) International Conference on Science and the Internet 2012,Düsseldorf

  • 515 views
Published

 

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
515
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. From analog to digital psychology: Results from surveys on information behavior among German psychologists between 1997 and 2010 Hans Bauer, Gabriel Schui & Günter Krampen Leibniz Instititute for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier#cosci12 Aug 1, 2012
  • 2. Outline • Background & purpose of present work • Methods & methodological issues • Results • Discussion & outlook#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 2
  • 3. Digitalization in scholarship • Electronic communication media by now virtually universal in modern societies • In scholarship, promise of increased quantity and quality of research output • However, scholarly disciplines differ in extent, timeframe, and forms of digitalization (Kling & McKim, 2000) • Social, epistemic, and material foundations (e.g., Becher & Trowler, 2001)  Discipline-specific developments must be considered!#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 3
  • 4. Psychology as a special case • Encompasses both mechanistic and subject oriented theorizing • As of today, strongly oriented towards natural sciences paradigm, but no unifying framework • Research-practice-gap#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 4
  • 5. Information behavior in psychologists • Information behavior (IB) impacts and is impacted by digitalization • IB in psychologists not investigated systematically • To adapt ZPID services, IB (including information needs) in psychology community needs to be considered • Plans to conduct regular, prospective surveys • What do we have so far?#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 5
  • 6. Purpose of present work • In the preceding years, several surveys carried out by ZPID among German-speaking psychology community, including IB-related items • Compiled results of four surveys conducted between 1997 and 2010 in order to… • Draw preliminary inferences about changes and continuities in IB during digital transition • Raise attention to methodological issues#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 6
  • 7. Outline • Background & purpose of present work • Methods & methodological issues • Results • Discussion & outlook#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 7
  • 8. Identical itemsSurvey sample features Survey #1.1 Survey #1.2 Survey #1 Survey #2 Survey #3Sampling date 1997 1999 – 2003-2004 2010Target population Senior members in Junior members in – Members of Members of German university German, Austrian German German psychology depts. and Swiss psychology psychology university practitioners researchers psychology depts. association (BDP) association (DGPs)Valid responses 265 (48 %) 221 (36 %) 486 (41 %) 324 (22 %) 298 (17 %)(response rate)Academic titles / 18 % PD, 82 % FP 45 % Postgrad, 48 21 % Postgrad, 22 Not inquired 12 % Postgrad, 26 apositions % Postdoc, 7 % PD % Postdoc, 13 % % Postdoc, 17 % PD, 44 % FP PD, 38 % FP, 7 % missing b% female 16 32 23 67 38Mean age missing 36 missing 44,0 42,9 aNotes. Abbreviations used: PD – Privatdozent (roughly comparable to assistant professor); FP – Full Professor;b Gender missing < 3 % in all samples.#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 8
  • 9. Publications referring to samples • #1.1: Montada, Krampen & Burkard (1999); Krampen & Montada (2000) • #1.2: Neppl, Wiesenhütter, Krampen & Montada (2001) • #2: Becker (2004); Krampen, Becker, Labouvie & Montada (2004) • #3: Krampen, Fell & Schui (2011, 2012a, 2012b)#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 9
  • 10. Comparable survey items • Surveys #1, #2, and #3: set of items on frequency of use of different information sources • Only partially overlapping! Mainly „analog“ sources in #1, mainly „digital“ sources in #3, #2 in between • Surveys #2 and #3: set of items on subjective importance of „information service“ (i.e., literature database) properties • Surveys #1.2 and #3: open-ended question about problems / desired improvements in information search#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 10
  • 11. Overview of comparison categories • Use of information sources • Libraries, Literature databases, Publication contents, WWW • Importance of database properties • Up-to-dateness, Quality assurance, Internationality, Cost, Ease of use, Search speed, Workflow integration, Full text access#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 11
  • 12. Outline • Background & purpose of present work • Methods & methodological issues • Results • Discussion & outlook#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 12
  • 13. Use of information sources – Libraries • #1: for unspecified „libraries“, mean of 71 % on percentile scale, 2nd rank among all 25 sources inquired • #3: 61 % for library OPAC use, ranking 3rd among 32 sources • Also, score of 84 % on item „importance of direct access to libraries“ #1: Composite researcher • #2: 40 % each for OPAC and local library survey, end-nineties #2: Practitioner survey, use (14th / 15th rank among 31 sources) 2003-2004 #3: Researcher survey, 2010#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 13
  • 14. Use of information sources – Lit. Databases • #1: 63 % (7th) for PSYNDEX, 67 % (4th) for PsycINFO, 38 % (15th) for unspecified „other“ DBs • Refers to CD-ROM format; means are only 33 % each for online versions of PSYNDEX and PsycINFO • #3: 57 % (6th) for PSYNDEX, 73 % (2nd) for PsycINFO, 45 % (12th) for „other“ DBs • #2: 25 % (17th) for PSYNDEX, 11 % (21st) #1: Composite researcher survey, end-nineties for PsycINFO #2: Practitioner survey, 2003-2004 #3: Researcher survey, 2010#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 14
  • 15. Use of information sources – Publications • #1: 75 % and 1st rank for „browsing of top journals in field“, 58 % (9th) for „browsing of many books“ • #3: 88 % (1st) for unspecified use of „online journals“ as information source, 49 % (10th) for „print journals“, 56 % (7th) for „open access online journals“ • #2: 79 % (6th) for unspecified journal use, 88 % (1st) for unspecified book use #1: Composite researcher survey, end-nineties #2: Practitioner survey, 2003-2004 #3: Researcher survey, 2010#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 15
  • 16. Use of information sources – WWW • #1: 48 % (10th) for unspecified „search on the WWW“ • #3: Host of items • „Conventional search engine“: 59 % (5th) • Google Scholar: 56 % (7th); Google Books: 41 % (15th) • Author homepages: 44 % (13th) • Discipline-specialized websites: 38 % (16th) • Document- / Preprint-Servers: 25 % (24th) • Researcher social networking sites: 8 % (30th) #1: Composite researcher • #2: 73 % (7th) for unspecified „search survey, end-nineties engines“, 82 % (4th) for Google, 56 % (8th) #2: Practitioner survey, 2003-2004 for profession-specific websites #3: Researcher survey, 2010#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 16
  • 17. Importance of database properties - Similarities • Up-to-dateness: 92 % in #2 (2nd rank among 12 inquired properties) vs. 97 % in #3 (2nd among 31) • Quality assurance: 95 % (1st) for „service professionalism“ and 87 % (4th) for „certified information“ in #2 vs. 94 % (6th) for „correctness“ and 85 % (10th) for „professional quality assurance“ in #3 • Interdisciplinarity: 70 % (9th) in #2 vs. 67 % (18th) in #3 • Search speed: 78 % (6th) in #2 vs. 80 % (12th) in #3 • Workflow integration: 67 % (10th) for possibility of „subsequent processing“ in #2 vs. 72 % (15th) #2: Practitioner survey, for „seamless connections of resources“ and 2003-2004 68 % (17th) for „dataset exporting“ in #3 #3: Researcher survey, 2010#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 17
  • 18. Importance of database properties - Differences • Cost: 79 % (5th) for „low user fees“ in #2 vs. 88 % (7th) for „open access (no charge)“ in #3 • Internationality: 71 % (8th) in #2 vs. 96 % (4th) in #3 • Ease of use: 91 % (3rd) for „straightforward, uncomplicated search technology“ in #2 vs. 52 % (20th) for „‘intelligent‘ search engines“, 38 % (26th) for „recommender systems“, 71 % (15th) for „powerful search syntax“, and 75 % (13th) for „many searchable database fields“ in #3 • Full text access: ranked 1st (98 %) in #3; in #2, mean of 68 % regarding „how important“ full text services #2: Practitioner survey, would be in the future, and 25 % regarding current 2003-2004 frequency of use of online full text services #3: Researcher survey, 2010#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 18
  • 19. Open questions on information search problems • #1.2: „Desired improvements in PSYNDEX“ • Online access (most often); integration into literature management workflow; linking to full texts; integration with other literature databases; improved up-to-dateness and search features • #3: „Typical difficulties encountered while searching for information“ • Access to full texts (most often, by far); search strategy (choosing keywords, identifying all pertinent literature); literature coverage in DBs #1.2: Junior research survey, (discipline, language, publication type re- 1999 strictions); usability flaws in DBs #3: Researcher survey, 2010#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 19
  • 20. Outline • Background & purpose of present work • Methods & methodological issues • Results • Discussion & outlook#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 20
  • 21. IB changes in psychology researchers? • No fundamental change in IB in psychology researchers in the course of digitalization • Main concern in information search: efficiently identifying and accessing all pertinent literature • Now and then, journals and literature databases most important sources • Google-style searching increasing, but databases still used more often • Library search somewhat declining, but still frequently used and considered important#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 21
  • 22. 40 +6,9 35 % english-language Possible trends +2,4 30 +1,4 +0,6 +2,8 25 +1,3 +1,3 +0,5 -0,2 -0,9 +0,8 +1,2 20 15 • Ongoing „internationalization“ 10 5 of German psychology research 0 • Increased use of PsycINFO Year of publication • Increasing quota of English-language publications (Krampen, Schui & Bauer, 2012) • Need for integration of national-level databases like PSYNDEX • PubPsych (www.pubpsych.eu)#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 22
  • 23. Possible trends • Open access publishing so far not commonplace in German psychology (lower use of open access journals, low use of preprint servers) • But: In 2010, 4,4 % of English-language articles published in open access journals, vs. only 2,4 % in 2009 (Krampen, Schui & Bauer, 2011, 2012) • More high quality open access journals need to be established • PsychOpen (www.psychopen.eu)#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 23
  • 24. Practitioners‘ perspective • More use of general-purpose search engines and books, less use of libraries and literature databases • More emphasis on ease of use, less emphasis on international contents in databases • Differences most likely due to differences in available resources and work context (more localized) • If psychological practice is to be grounded in empirical foundations, information providers should not only take researchers‘ perspective into account!#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 24
  • 25. Thanks for your attention!#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 25
  • 26. References Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Becker, R. (2004). Informationsbedarf und Informationsverhalten in der psychologischen Praxis. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 1306–1320. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID- ASI1047>3.0.CO;2-T Krampen, G., Becker, R., Labouvie, Y., & Montada, L. (2004). Internet-Ressourcen für die Psychologie sowie Informationsbedarf und Informationsverhalten von BDP-Mitgliedern. Report Psychologie, 29, 588–600. Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2011). Psychologists research activities and professional information-seeking behaviour. Journal of Information Science, 37, 439–450. doi:10.1177/0165551511412148 Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2012a). Professionelles Informationsverhalten von Psychologen im Arbeitsfeld "Forschung und Lehre". B.I.T.online, 15, 117–126.#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 26
  • 27. References Krampen, G., Fell, C. B., & Schui, G. (2012b). Professionelle Publikationspräferenzen von Mitgliedern der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs). Psychologische Rundschau, 63, 175–178. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000129 Krampen, G., & Montada, L. (2000). Nutzung alter und neuer Medien bei Literaturrecherchen von Experten. In G. Krampen & H. Zayer (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation II (pp. 89–99). Bonn: Dt. Psychologen-Verlag. Krampen, G., Schui, G., & Bauer, H. (2011). ZPID-Monitor 2009 zur Internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der ausführliche Bericht. ZPID Science Information Online, 11(2). Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications Krampen, G., Schui, G., & Bauer, H. (2012). ZPID-Monitor 2010 zur Internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der ausführliche Bericht. ZPID Science Information Online, 12(1). Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications Montada, L., Krampen, G., & Burkard, P. (1999). Persönliche und soziale Orientierungslagen von Hochschullehrern/innen der Psychologie zu Evaluationskriterien über eigene berufliche Leistungen. Psychologische Rundschau, 50, 69–89. doi:10.1026//0033-3042.50.2.69 Neppl, R., Wiesenhütter, J., Krampen, G., & Montada, L. (2001). Literaturrecherche-Strategien wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter/innen in psychologischen Instituten. In G. Krampen & H. Zayer (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation III (pp. 125–134). Bonn: Dt. Psychologen-Verlag.#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 27