Open access and civic scientific information literacy

Information Research

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2010, Pages

  Zuccala, Alesia ^a  

^a Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956285840     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13681613     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5o3KCESd2)
2. Bauer, M.W., Durant, J. & Evans, G. (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(2), 163-186.
3. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 99-113.
4. Berg, B.L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (3rd. ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
6. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5o3KL9e06)
7. Callon, M. (1999). The role of laypeople in the production dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology & Society, 4(1), 81-94.
8. Chatman, E. A. (1991). Life in a small world: applicability of gratification theory to information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(6), 438-449.
9. Cole, C. (1997). Information as process: the difference between corroborating evidence and 'information' in humanistic research domains. Information Processing and Management, 33(1), 55-67.
10. Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind's eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In J. Glazier and R. L. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-83). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
11. Dijkstra, M., Buijtels, H.E.J.J.M. & van Raaij, W.F. (2005). Separate and joint effects of medium type on consumer responses: a comparison of television, print, and the Internet. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 377-386.
12. Durrentberger, G., Kastenholz, H. & Behringer, J. (1999). Integrated assessment focus groups: bridging the gap between science and policy? Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 341-349.
13. Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval design. Journal of Documentation, 45(3), 171-212.
14. Ellis, D., Cox, D. & Hall, K. (1993). A comparison of the information seeking patterns of researchers in the physical and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 356-369.
15. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5o3LJAvhp)
16. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519-539.
17. Jacobs, N. (Ed.). (2006). Open access: key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing Ltd.
18. Jasanoff, S. (2000). The 'science wars' and American politics. In M. Dierkes and C.von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology (pp. 39-60). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
19. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5o3Lb1YJj)
20. Kim, H.-S. (2007). PEP/IS: a new model for communicative effectiveness of science. Science Communication, 28(3), 287-313.
21. Koolstra, C.M., Boss, M.J.W. & Vermeulen, I.E. (2006). Through which medium should science information professionals communicate with the public: television or the Internet? Journal of Science Communication, 5(3), 1-8.
22. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-367.
23. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1997). The influence of uncertainty on the information seeking behaviour of a securities analyst. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, and B. Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context: proceedings of an international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts, 14-16 Tampere, Finland (pp. 268-275). London: Taylor Graham.
24. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Leydesdorff, L. & van den Besselaar, P. (1987). What have we learned from the Amsterdam science shop? Sociology of the sciences yearbook, 11, 135-160.
26. Leydesdorff, L. & Ward, J. (2005). Science shops: a kaleidoscope of science-society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 353-372.
27. Liu, Z. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the Web. Information Processing and Management, 40(6), 1027-1038.
28. Miller, J. D. (2001). The acquisition and retention of scientific information by American adults. In J. H. Faulk (Ed.) Free-choice science education: how we learn outside of school (pp. 93-114). New York. NY: Teachers College Press.
29. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 273-294.
30. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5oG3zzb61)
31. The Netherlands. Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2006). Science, technology and innovation in the Netherlands. Policies, facts and figures. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs. Retrieved 3 February, 2009 from http://www.minocw.nl/documenten/Science-Technology-Innovation-brochure-2006.pdf
32. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgement of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161.
33. Self, C. S. (1996). Credibility. In M. Salwen & D. Stacks (Eds.) An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 421-444). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Spink, A. & Cole, C. (2001). Information and poverty: information-seeking channels used by African American low-income households. Library and Information Science Research, 23(1), 45-65.
35. Steyaert, J. (2000). Digital vaardigheden: geletterdheid in de informatiesamenleving [Digital skills: literacy in the information society] The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. (Rathenau Instituut Werkdocument 76).
36. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74.
37. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5oG4SfFwx)
38. Taylor, R.S. (1991). Information use environments. Progress in Communication Sciences, 10, 217-250.
39. Treise, D., Walsh-Childers, K., Weigold, M.F. & Friedman, M. (2003). Cultivating the science internet audience: impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information. Science Communication, 24(3), 309-332.
40. Tseng, S. & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.
41. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5oG3COA9m)
42. Wathen, C. N. & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134-144.
43. Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: the case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
44. Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: an inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
45. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5o3XvDUSu)
46. ® at http://www.webcitation.org/5o3Y3sUIY)
47. Wynne, B. (1992). Public understanding of science research: new horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 37.
48. Zuccala, A. (2009). The layperson and open access. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, 359-396.