Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or room to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Location:Hanyang Hall Location: Third Floor
Is the iConference the same prestige conference as the ASIS&T Annual Meeting?
Fei Shu1, Wei Quan2
1McGill University, Canada; 2Wuhan University, China
The purpose of this study is to compare the iConference with the ASIS&T AM in the past ten years in terms of the attendance, the number of publications, and the number of citations received. Based on the analysis of nine indicators, this study reveals that the iConference is the same prestige conference in information science as the ASIS&T Annual Meeting because the majority of the attendance, the publications as well as the citations are contributed by the same group of scholars from the same group of institutions.
“They Should Be Convenient and Strong”: Password Perceptions and Practices of Visually Impaired Users
Jordan Hayes, Bryan Dosono, Yang Wang
Syracuse University, United States of America
Passwords are a widely used authentication mechanism. However, little empirical research examines how people with visual impairments perceive and use passwords. To help address this gap, we conducted a qualitative user study with 12 visual impaired adults. Our findings suggest that perceptions and practices of users with and without visual impairments in password creation and management are similar at the surface, yet the root causes of their challenges tend to differ. This implies that solutions designed to address the challenges without considering the underlying causes may fail miserably in practice. Authentication designs intended to help users with visual impairments must consider both the challenges and their underlying causes to address the nuanced differences users with and without visual impairments must confront when creating and managing passwords.
A visual ethnographic exploration of knowledge creation in the context of Indigenous Elders: A dialogic inquiry
Jelina Haines, Jia Tina Du, Gus Geursen, Jing Gao, Ellen Trevorrow
University of South Australia, Australia
This paper is part of an ongoing South Australian research project examining the knowledge creation and sharing practices of Indigenous people. This paper details the theoretical aspects underpinning a pilot study conducted with four senior Indigenous Elders and one young participant between the months of January and June 2016. A visual ethnographic approach following community-based participatory research principles was used to record the collaborative sharing of their knowledge ethically. Data collection consisted of video and audio dialogue interviews. There is little known about Indigenous knowledge creation and sharing practices in a traditional context and retrieving this knowledge is under-researched. The results show the effects, and the issues faced when knowledge is lost when Elders passes. Findings will contribute to greater understanding of Elders' knowledge creation develops and offer a new lens for understanding the importance of their stories and experiences in a way that is relevant to the information community.
Apples vs oranges or two fruits? Level of detail in literature reviews
Elke Greifeneder, Kirsten Schlebbe
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Literature reviews are vital parts of research studies. They describe previous studies in their designs and methods, their samples and results, and link these to one’s own new study. This preliminary study analyzes how much information researchers provide in their literature reviews about the parameters of other authors’ study designs. A sample of 15 articles that are linked to each other by references is used as a case study. In a first step, we determine the differences and similarities between the studies in terms of method, sample size and various sample characteristics. In a second step, we analyze how these characteristics are reflected in the literature reviews. Our analysis shows that the level of detail in the literature reviews examined was rather low: if study parameters were mentioned at all, authors described at most one or two. In other cases information about the research design or sample characteristics of the cited studies were missing completely. Even if studies directly compared their findings with previous studies essential information was lacking.