FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1489280890> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1489280890 endingPage "53" @default.
• W1489280890 startingPage "25" @default.
• W1489280890 abstract "Abstract Market segmentation is an established technique in commercial marketing. It can be used by archivists and records managers to help them gain a wider understanding of their users. Segmentation can be based on demographic criteria, or other models can be employed that are more specific to studies of the use and users of records. Segmentation can be used to good effect in design and evaluation of user-focused systems. Standards for segmentation would be beneficial but their development will not be a simple task. Notes Sexton et al., ‘Understanding Users’ Sexton et al., ‘User Feedback’. The LEADERS project, available from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leaders-project/ (accessed 6 January 2005), sought to develop innovative tools for delivering archives to users, linking Encoded Archival Description (EAD) finding aids to Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) transcripts and digital images of archival materials. The author is indebted to Elizabeth Hallam Smith, Susan Hockey, Anna Sexton and Elizabeth Shepherd for their contributions to early drafts of this article. Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records. Hedstrom, ‘How do Archivists Make Electronic Archives Usable and Accessible?,’ 12. Tibbo, ‘Primarily History,’ 1. Prom, ‘The EAD Cookbook,’ 266. The same theme recurs in Gilliland-Swetland, ‘An Exploration of K-12 User Needs for Digital Primary Source Materials,’ 143; Duff, ‘Understanding the Information-seeking Behaviour of Archival Researchers in a Digital Age,’ 332; Yakel, ‘Impact of Internet-based Discovery Tools on Use and Users of Archives,’ 199. All these authors reiterate calls to action made in the 1980s, for example by Freeman, ‘In the Eye of the Beholder’; Conway, ‘Facts and Frameworks’; Dowler, ‘The Role of Use in Defining Archival Practice and Principles’. Since the 1980s much work on user access has been done, but many aspects remain unexplored. Prom, User Interactions with Electronic Finding Aids in a Controlled Setting. Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records, 82 – 87, 113. Ibid., 155 – 62. The employment of systematic user studies as a benchmark for appraisal and archival acquisition was suggested by Dowler, ‘The Role of Use,’ 75; but the recent emphasis on functional and macro appraisal has militated against this approach, and proposals to focus on users and use have been attacked, notably by Cook, ‘Viewing the World Upside Down,’ 123 – 34. See, however, Eastwood, ‘Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal’, and the remarks of Horsman, ‘Appraisal on Wooden Shoes,’ 41, on the decision to revise the Dutch PIVOT macro-appraisal methodology following users' objections that the original methodology did not take their needs into account. The arguments against excluding considerations of use from appraisal decisions were cogently stated by Greene, ‘The Surest Proof’. Greene acknowledged the limitations of utilitarian criteria, particularly the impossibility of measuring future rather than past or present use, but also emphasised the futility of preserving records that are not in some way useful. The UK National Archives now seeks comments from user groups on all its ‘operational selection policies’ governing selection of records for long-term preservation. See Twigge, ‘Public Records, Public Consultation’. As noted by Cook, ‘Viewing the World Upside Down,’ endnote 7, ignoring indirect users leads to an underestimation of the impact of archives and records services. The perspectives of indirect users are particularly relevant to appraisal decisions; arguably they may be less important in design or evaluation of access systems. McDonald and Dunbar, Market Segmentation, 10. Most marketing textbooks provide descriptions of market segmentation from a commercial viewpoint. See, for example, Kotler et al., Principles of Marketing, chap. 9. Hallam Smith, ‘Customer Focus and Marketing in Archive Service Delivery,’ 36. Rowley, ‘From Users to Customers?,’ 160. Such opportunities are discussed further in Digicult, New Technologies for the Cultural and Scientific Heritage Sector, 21 – 38. LEADERS undertook some exploration of this dimension of EAD. See also Ashley, ‘Interworking Technologies’. Rowley, ‘From Users to Customers?,’ 160. Ibid., 160. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives/psqg/ (accessed 6 January 2005). Hawkins, Morris, and Sumsion, ‘Socio-economic Features of UK Public Library Users’; Cultural Content Forum, Evaluation of Digital Cultural Content. See, for example, Ailes and Watt, ‘Survey of Visitors to British Archives, June 1998,’ 186, figure 2; Ermisse, ‘L'étude sur les publics des archives de France’. Sexton et al., ‘Understanding Users,’ 39. Available from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives/psqg/survey.htm (accessed 6 January 2005). Hawkins et al., ‘Socio-economic Features of UK Public Library Users,’ 262. For an example of the latter approach see Keng, Jung, and Wirtz, ‘Segmentation of Library Visitors in Singapore,’ 24. A scale of 1 – 5 is sometimes called a ‘Likert’ scale, although strictly speaking this name applies only to scales used to measure agreement with assertions. More complex scales for measuring computer literacy have also been developed. See Bunz, The Computer-Email-Web Fluency Scale. The studies examined were Buttler, ‘The Results of a Survey of Visitors to Warwickshire County Record Office,’ 178; Cherry and Duff, Improving Access to Early Canadiana, 11; Zhang, ‘Scholarly Use of Internet-based Electronic Resources,’ 749; Marcella and Baxter, ‘Information Need, Information Seeking Behaviour and Participation, with Special Reference to Needs Related to Citizenship,’ 139; PSQG surveys 2001 and 2002, available from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives/psqg/survey.htm (accessed 6 January 2005); A2A user analysis, 2002, available from http://www.a2a.org.uk/stats/NewUserStats.htm (accessed 6 January 2005); Keng et al., ‘Segmentation of Library Visitors in Singapore,’ 23. More encouragingly, many of the questions asked in the recent Archives Awareness Month evaluation were framed to provide data directly comparable with the 2002 PSQG survey: National Council on Archives, Archives Awareness Month, 34. Available from http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/ (accessed 6 January 2005). Available from http://www.ulcc.ac.uk/unesco/; http://www.ukat.org.uk/ (both accessed 6 January 2005). A mapping of SOC 2000 to the European variant of ISCO 88 is available. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/methods_quality/ns_sec/soc2000.asp (accessed 6 January 2005). None of the classification schemes include students, retired people or the unemployed; in a user study, supplementary categories are likely to be required. Marcella and Baxter, ‘Information Need, Information Seeking Behaviour and Participation, with Special Reference to Needs Related to Citizenship’; Hawkins, Morris, and Sumsion, ‘Socio-economic Features of UK Public Library Users’; MORI, Visitors to Museums and Galleries in the UK. This has replaced the Social Class (SC) and Socio-economic Group (SEG) classifications formerly used by the Office of the Registrar General. For advice on selecting formats see Black, Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences, 306 – 29. As, for example, in Sexton et al., ‘User Feedback,’ Appendix. For an analysis of the extensive literature from these fields see Case, Looking for Information. Williams, ‘Data Collection and Management in the Archival Domain,’ 66. In many organisations data about internal use may be considered more sensitive or less suited to external dissemination. Moreover, in the UK much of the work has been driven by the Government's agenda for archives; there has not been the same pressure for publicly accessible measures of records management outcomes. See, for example, Roper, ‘The Academic Use of Archives’; Beattie, ‘An Archival User Study’; Orbach, ‘The View from the Researcher's Desk: Historians' Perceptions of Research and Repositories’; Duff and Johnson, ‘Accidentally Found on Purpose,’ 472 – 96; Tibbo, ‘Primarily History in America’. Similar studies from outside the archival domain are cited by Tibbo, ‘Primarily History’. Not all employ segmentation techniques, but many do. The author knows of very few user studies in records management. The most thoughtful of the three or four user-focused articles published in the Records Management Journal is Day, ‘Why Are We Here?’; see also Chown, ‘Establishing a Profile of the Users of a Records Management System’. Few studies of archive users recognise use by organisational staff and records creators. A notable exception is Yakel and Bost, ‘Understanding Administrative Use and Users in University Archives’. Variations on this dichotomy were proposed by Kotler and Andreasen, Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, 170 – 71 (non-users, former/lapsed users, first-time/occasional users, regular/established users) and Sabin and Samuels, Towards a Better Understanding of Non-users (indifferent, outsiders, latent supporters, personal questers, advocates). Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records, 155 – 56. AS 4390.1-1996, Records Management. Pt 1, General. Sec 8.1 See also National Archives of Australia, Why Records are Kept. This article is not the place to summarise, or add to, the debate on whether there are reasons for record-keeping unconnected with the records' actual or potential use. The arguments are summarised in Greene, ‘The Surest Proof,’ 142 – 45. It suffices to note that the model presented here shows a user focus, in contrast to the supplier focus sometimes apparent in the Australian discourse. One possible answer is that the community expects organisations to be accountable, but in the Australian model accountability apparently does not form part of ‘community expectations’. The meaning of ‘accountability’ is widely discussed in the professional literature, but there is little discussion of what is meant by ‘business purposes’ or ‘business use’. Many writers apparently believe that the meaning of ‘business purposes’ is self-evident; in practice this means that its boundaries are undefined. The term has often been interpreted to mean only the business of individual record creators or the organisation that employs them; but when records are more widely accessible they can be also used to support the business of other organisations or individuals, even to the detriment of the organisation or individual with whom they originated. The definition of ‘business purposes’ presented here does not differentiate between users, but focuses on use. Users are categorised separately. For the growing literature on accountability see, for example, McKemmish, The Smoking Gun; Meijer, ‘Anticipating Accountability Processes’; Solomon and Solomon, Corporate Governance and Accountability. Cultural use should not be equated with research, since research can be undertaken for business as well as cultural purposes. Academic research is a type of cultural use; however, cultural use is not limited to academics or any other category of users. Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records, 156 – 57. Evidence can be defined as ‘ground for belief’ in the truth or validity of something needing proof: Phelan and Reynolds, Argument and Evidence, 99. Records provide evidence not only in courts of law but in any situation requiring confirmation that something was done or that it was done correctly. This definition is doubtless over-simplified. Information science literature provides many discussions of the complex meanings of ‘information’, together with many typologies of information use. Attempts have been made to relate some of these to the use of records (see e.g. Yakel, ‘Thinking Inside and Outside the Boxes,’ 146), but these are not always wholly convincing. The word ‘associations’ is used by museum curators to refer to the value of objects arising from their previous use or their connection with a particular occasion. Some records are valued for sentimental or symbolic reasons because of their association with an individual, organisation, place or event; see O'Toole, ‘The Symbolic Significance of Archives’. Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 139 – 60. Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records, 148 – 51, 156 – 57. The nuances of the word ‘evidence’ are only beginning to be explored in archival literature. To some archivists, ‘evidence’ is what records are; ‘information’ is something that they contain, or can be derived from studying them. For a contrasting view, see Brothman, ‘Afterglow’. Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records, 156. Ibid., 156 – 61. Ibid., 157 – 60. A similar approach could be used to collate other variables, such as materials used and intensity of use by different groups. The charting methods discussed earlier in this article could also be employed. The figures do not depict research findings, but reflect the experience of the author and his colleagues in organisations which create records or have custody of records created by others. In an organisational context, records created by one member of a team or workgroup may also be used by other members of the team. However, it may be surmised that patterns of use will differ little between team members and creators. In Table 3 they are treated as a single group. See, for example, Rowley's suggested categories: general public; professionals; academic users; business users; ‘information intermediaries’ such as agents and consultants (Rowley, ‘From Users to Customers?,’ 158). The first PSQG surveys asked users to choose from: personal interest; professional researcher; media research; business or public body; academic staff; research degree; taught degree/further education; adult education; school staff; school student (Ailes and Watt, ‘Survey of Visitors,’ 188). In 2002 the list was changed to: personal leisure; non-leisure personal or family business; education as student/researcher; education as teacher; connection with employment. A PSQG report acknowledged that this list still has overlaps (PSQG Performance Indicators Working Party, Towards Generic and Universal PIs for Archives, 6). Some studies, including the PSQG surveys in 1999 and 2001, have resorted to including a category of ‘other’ users. Freeman, ‘In the Eye of the Beholder,’ 117, noted this as a convenient but meaningless solution. See also Blais and Enns, ‘From Paper Archives to People Archives,’ 112, endnote 31. Buttler, ‘The Results of a Survey,’ 176. Arguably what underlies the confusion is an assumption that cultural use and external use of archives are co-extensive, and do not require separate measures. The same assumption underlies Schellenberg's appraisal model (Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records, 151). However, as already noted, external use is not exclusively cultural, and vice versa. Methven et al., Measuring Performance, 30. An alternative taxonomy, proposed in Conway, Partners in Research, 50 – 51, separates academic from other occupational users, on the grounds that research undertaken by academics has a broader scope. Although it may often be broader, it is not necessarily so. Available from http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/ (accessed 6 January 2005). Borgman, ‘All Users of Information Retrieval Systems are Not Created Equal,’ 238. History is discussed here merely as an example. Similar considerations apply to other disciplines. Although all users of records are using historical sources (in the sense that the records were created in the past), not all use records to study history: see Gilliland-Swetland, ‘An Exploration of K-12 User Needs,’ 144. Case, ‘The Collection and Use of Information by Some American Historians,’ 67. Thesaurus construction is more usually encountered in the context of providing subject access points for descriptions of holdings, but the issues are the same when segmenting users' areas of study. A brief summary, emphasising the different relational structures of whole/part, genus/species and type/instance, is in Shepherd and Yeo, Managing Records, 234 – 36. For more detailed advice see Aitchison, Gilchrist, and Bawden, Thesaurus Construction and Use. As the Churchill example shows, the more topics that are combined, the more specific the area of study. A specificity measure should also take account of the broadness or narrowness of each topic concerned. Political leaders (broad topic) and the Second World War (broad topic) is much less specific than Churchill (narrow topic) and D-Day (narrow topic). How one measures the relative specificity of Political leaders and D-Day and Churchill and the Second World War remains unclear. Kiestra, Stokmans, and Kamphuis, ‘End-users Searching the Online Catalogue’. Kelly and Cool, ‘The Effects of Topic Familiarity on Information Search Behavior’. LEADERS assessed this as ‘familiarity with research interest’: Sexton et al., ‘Understanding Users,’ 44 – 45. For example, knowledge of library systems, which may generate false expectations about the nature of records or finding-aids: Sexton et al., ‘Understanding Users,’ 45. PSQG Surveys of Visitors to British Archives 1999 – 2002, available from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives/psqg/survey.htm (accessed 6 January 2005); Zhang, ‘Scholarly Use of Internet-based Electronic Resources,’ 751 – 52. Dowler, ‘The Role of Use,’ 79. Blais and Enns, ‘From Paper Archives to People Archives,’ 109. Bearman, ‘User Presentation Language in Archives’; Gagnon-Arguin, ‘Les questions de recherche comme matériau d'études des usagers’; Martin, ‘An Analysis of Remote Reference Correspondence at a Large Academic Manuscripts Collection’; Duff and Johnson, ‘A Virtual Expression of Need’. A possible taxonomy of research stages, adapted from Chu, ‘Literary Critics at Work and Their Information Needs’, is ‘idea generation, preparation, elaboration, analysis, writing, dissemination’; but this model presupposes academic research and is probably less applicable to other types of investigative work. White, ‘The Communications Behavior of Academic Economists in Research Phases’, offered a three-stage model (problem definition, data collection, interpretation) which may be applicable more generally, and broadly similar models were suggested by Bearman and Trant, Unifying Our Cultural Memory and Sarantakos, Social Research, 276. Many writers have noted that research is not necessarily a linear process. See for example Miller and Tegler, ‘Online Searching and the Research Process’. Preliminary findings on user behaviour at certain phases of research in archives were reported by Dowler, ‘The Role of Use,’ 79, and more extensively by Duff and Johnson, ‘Accidentally Found on Purpose,’ 480 – 95. Ellis, ‘A Behavioural Approach to Information Retrieval Design’. Ross, ‘Position Paper on Integrity and Authenticity of Digital Cultural Heritage Objects’. In 2003 a PSQG report left unresolved the question of ‘whether it is possible to identify broad generic categories of material consulted by users’ (PSQG Performance Indicators Working Party, Towards Generic and Universal PIs, 11). Various models are available: Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, 192 – 93 categorised ‘English archives’ as public, semi-public, private, ecclesiastical or artificial; Procter and Cook, Manual of Archival Description, 13 – 14 proposed the concept of ‘management groups’ for categorising archival holdings. There is scope for assessing how far such classifications are appropriate for user studies. The main obstacle to random sampling is often the difficulty of obtaining the ‘sampling frame’, the list of all members of the group from which the sample is taken. The principles and some practical problems of all three methods were described by Maxwell-Stewart, Sheppard, and Yeo, Hospital Patient Case Records, 16 – 21 in the context of selecting records for preservation; broadly similar issues arise when employing these techniques in user studies. For a fuller explanation see Sarantakos, Social Research, 139 – 64. Covey, Usage and Usability Assessment, sec. 4.2.1. Sexton et al., ‘Understanding Users,’ 38 – 42; Sexton et al., ‘User Feedback,’ 191. In 2003 the Cultural Content Forum analysed 94 user profiles, mostly from museums but including some from archival institutions. None used a model recommended in a published source or based on previous research (Cultural Content Forum, Evaluation of Digital Cultural Content, 9). PSQG Performance Indicators Working Party, Towards Generic and Universal Pis, 1. Cultural Content Forum, Evaluation of Digital Cultural Content, 19." @default.
• W1489280890 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1489280890 creator A5001855939 @default.
• W1489280890 date "2005-04-01" @default.
• W1489280890 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1489280890 title "Understanding Users and Use: A Market Segmentation Approach" @default.
• W1489280890 cites W133414394 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W1559411088 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W164675604 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W1965424930 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W1974968253 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W1979840855 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W1982089184 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W1982285936 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W1988834506 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2001264675 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2014364145 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2019184212 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2020106731 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2020713996 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2032224186 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2047812999 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2080763364 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2086144819 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2130252848 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2144785291 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2152875837 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2175459650 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2179072958 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2179588313 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2185731089 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2187135164 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2218578051 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2282354259 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2509510360 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2512631888 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W2912022793 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W29338678 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W4239467311 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W4240758167 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W4241915297 @default.
• W1489280890 cites W4244300555 @default.
• W1489280890 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/00039810500047425" @default.
• W1489280890 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1489280890 type Work @default.
• W1489280890 sameAs 1489280890 @default.
• W1489280890 citedByCount "27" @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902012 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902013 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902014 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902015 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902016 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902017 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902018 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902019 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902021 @default.
• W1489280890 countsByYear W14892808902023 @default.
• W1489280890 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1489280890 hasAuthorship W1489280890A5001855939 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConcept C125308379 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConcept C89600930 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConceptScore W1489280890C125308379 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConceptScore W1489280890C144133560 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConceptScore W1489280890C154945302 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConceptScore W1489280890C162853370 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConceptScore W1489280890C2522767166 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConceptScore W1489280890C41008148 @default.
• W1489280890 hasConceptScore W1489280890C89600930 @default.
• W1489280890 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1489280890 hasLocation W14892808901 @default.
• W1489280890 hasOpenAccess W1489280890 @default.
• W1489280890 hasPrimaryLocation W14892808901 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W1501331687 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2003088337 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2021561055 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2026578480 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2045342254 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2123209456 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2142182663 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2535231171 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W2592395359 @default.
• W1489280890 hasRelatedWork W4255512592 @default.
• W1489280890 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W1489280890 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1489280890 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1489280890 magId "1489280890" @default.
• W1489280890 workType "article" @default.