The research described in this paper provides insights into tools and methods which are used by professional information workers to keep and to manage their personal information. A literature study was carried out on 23 scholar papers and articles, retrieved from the ACM Digital Library and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). The research questions were: - How do information workers keep and manage their information sources? - What aims do they have when building personal information collections? - What problems do they experience with the use and management of their personal collections? The main conclusion from the literature is that professional information workers use different tools and approaches for personal information management, depending on their personal style, the types of information in their collections and the devices which they use for retrieval. The main problem that they experience is that of information fragmentation over different collections and different devices. These findings can provide input for improvement of information literacy curricula in Higher Education. It has been remarked that scholar research and literature on Personal Information Management do not pay a lot of attention to the keeping and management of (bibliographic) data from external documentation. How people process the information from those sources and how this stimulates their personal learning, is completely overlooked. [The original publication is available at www.elpub.net]
From the article: Abstract The Information Axiom in axiomatic design states that minimising information is always desirable. Information in design may be considered to be a form of chaos and therefore is unwanted. Chaos leads to a lack of regularities in the design and unregulated issues tend to behave stochastically. Obviously, it is hard to satisfy the FRs of a design when it behaves stochastically. Following a recently presented and somewhat broader categorization of information, it appears to cause the most complication when information moves from the unrecognised to the recognised. The paper investigates how unrecognised information may be found and if it is found, how it can be addressed. Best practices for these investigations are derived from the Cynefin methodology. The Axiomatic Maturity Diagram is applied to address unrecognised information and to investigate how order can be restored. Two cases are applied as examples to explain the vexatious behaviour of unrecognised information.
MULTIFILE
To highlight relevant information in dialogues, both wh-question context and pitch accent in answers can be used, such that focused information gains more attention and is processed more elaborately. To evaluate the relative influence of context and pitch accent on the depth of semantic processing, we measured event-related potentials (ERPs) to auditorily presented wh-question-answer pairs. A semantically incongruent word in the answer occurred either in focus or in non-focus position as determined by the context, and this word was either accented or unaccented.Semantic incongruency elicited different N400 effects in different conditions. The largest N400 effect was found when the question-marked focus was accented, while the other three conditions elicited smaller N400 effects. The results suggest that context and accentuation interact. Thus accented focused words were processed more deeply compared to conditions where focus and accentuation mismatched, or when the new information had no marking. In addition, there seems to be sex differences in the depth of semantic processing. For males, a significant N400 effect was observed only when the question-marked focus was accented, reduced N400 effects were found in the other dialogues. In contrast, females produced similar N400 effects in all the conditions. These results suggest that regardless of external cues, females tend to engage in more elaborate semantic processing compared to males.
LINK
