Abstract
Abstract in Undetermined
Objective – To investigate whether Web 2.0 can enhance participation in institutional repositories (IRs) and whether its widespread use can lead to success in this context. Another purpose was to emphasize how an IR with a Web 2.0 approach can connect individuals in their creative and intellectual outputs, no matter what form of shared material is contributed.
Design – Comparative study.
Setting –Two IRs at Teachers College, Columbia University, which is a graduate and professional school of education in New York City.
Subjects – Students, faculty, and staff using the PocketKnowledge and CPC IRs.
Methods – Cocciolo compared two different IRs called PocketKnowledge and Community Program Collections (CPC). PocketKnowledge had the following Web 2.0 design patterns: users control their own data; users should be trusted; flexible tags are preferred over hierarchical taxonomies; the attitude should be playful;
Objective – To investigate whether Web 2.0 can enhance participation in institutional repositories (IRs) and whether its widespread use can lead to success in this context. Another purpose was to emphasize how an IR with a Web 2.0 approach can connect individuals in their creative and intellectual outputs, no matter what form of shared material is contributed.
Design – Comparative study.
Setting –Two IRs at Teachers College, Columbia University, which is a graduate and professional school of education in New York City.
Subjects – Students, faculty, and staff using the PocketKnowledge and CPC IRs.
Methods – Cocciolo compared two different IRs called PocketKnowledge and Community Program Collections (CPC). PocketKnowledge had the following Web 2.0 design patterns: users control their own data; users should be trusted; flexible tags are preferred over hierarchical taxonomies; the attitude should be playful;
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 74-76 |
Journal | Evidence Based Library and Information Practice |
Volume | 6 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2011 |
Bibliographical note
Evidence summarySubject classification (UKÄ)
- Information Studies