The Anatomy of an Electronic Discussion List for Librarians, KUTUP-L: Bibliometric and Content Analyses of Postings.

Tonta, Yaşar and Karabulut, Doğan The Anatomy of an Electronic Discussion List for Librarians, KUTUP-L: Bibliometric and Content Analyses of Postings., 2010 . In 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Helsinki (Finland), 16-18 June 2010. [Conference paper]

[thumbnail of tonta-karabulut_elpub2010-helsinki-kutup-l.pdf]
Preview
 PDF
tonta-karabulut_elpub2010-helsinki-kutup-l.pdf
Download (269kB) | Preview

English abstract

Electronic discussion lists are widely used as a professional and scientific communication tool since late 1980s. Analysis of messages sent to discussion lists provides useful information on professional as well as scientific communication patterns. In this paper, we present the findings of a bibliometric analysis of some 20,000 messages sent to KUTUP‐L, an electronic discussion list for Turkish librarians, between 1994 and 2008. We test if the distributions of messages and their authors conform to Pareto, Price and Lotka laws. We then analyze the contents of 977 messages based on a stratified sample. Findings indicate that the number of messages sent to KUTUP‐L has increased over the years along with the number of authors. Two thirds (1,232) of about 1,900 list members posted at least one message to the list while the rest preferred to be so called “lurkers”. Some 35 authors posted almost half (49%) the messages while 20% of the authors posted 83% of all messages. The distribution of messages to authors conform to Price (“the square root of all authors would post half the messages”) and Pareto laws (so called “80/20 rule”), respectively. Of the 1,232 authors, one third (as opposed to 60% predicted by Lotka’s Law) sent only one message to the list. Results of content analysis show that 40% of messages sent to the list were off‐topic. Issues about or related with information management services (32%), library and information science (23%) and professional and scientific communication (19%) were discussed more often in the list. The intent analysis of the postings shows that three quarters of the messages were initiatory while the rest were reflexive. That’s to say that the majority of messages posted on KUTUP‐L to initiate a discussion did not seem to generate enough interest for others to reflect upon them by sending follow up messages, suggesting that professional and scientific communication taking place on KUTUP‐L on certain subjects can be characterized as more of a one‐way communication than a participatory one.

Item type: Conference paper
Keywords: KUTUP‐L; electronic discussion lists; electronic publishing; professional communication; scientific communication; bibliometric analysis; content analysis
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BH. Information needs and information requirements analysis.
Depositing user: prof. yasar tonta
Date deposited: 31 Oct 2010
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:17
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/14697

References

[1] WILDEMUTH, B. et al. Whatʹs everybody talking about: message functions and topics on electronic lists and newsgroups in information and library science. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 38 (2), 1997, p. 137‐156.

[2] BAR‐ILAN, J; ASSOULINE, B. A content analysis of PUBYAC‐ A preliminary study. Information Technology and Libraries, 16, 1997, p. 165‐174.

[3] EDWARDS, MM. “A content analysis of the PUBYAC discussion list”. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 1999.

[4] SCHOCH, NA; SHOOSHAN, SE. Communication on a listserv for health information professionals: uses and users of MEDLIB‐L. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 85 (1), 1997, p. 23‐32. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC226219/ (April 2010).

[5] BELLACK, AA. et al. The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1966.

[6] BELLACK, AA. Methods for observing classroom behavior of teachers and students.Presented at a conference sponsored by Paedagogisches Zentrum, Berlin, November 12‐15, 1968.

[7] CHRISTIE, CA; AZZAM, T. Whatʹs all the talk about? Examining EVALTALK,an evaluation listserv. American Journal of Evaluation, 25 (2), 2004, p. 219‐234. Available at: doi: 10.1177/109821400402500206 (April 2010).

[8] NICKLAS, EW. “The Trombone‐L e‐mail discussion list : an analysis of its usersand Content.” (Unpublished PhD Thesis). The University Of Missouri, 2002.

[9] PIBURN, MD; MIDDLETON, JA. Listserv as journal: computer‐based reflectionin a program for pre‐service mathematics and science teachers. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education (Hanoi, Vietnam, January 6‐9, 1997).

[10] MAY, A. Automatic classification of e‐mail messages by message type. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 1997, p. 32‐39.

[11] BERMAN, Y. Discussion groups in the Internet as sources of information: the case of social work. Aslib Proceedings, 48 (2), 1996, p. 31‐36. Available at: http://www.aslib.co.uk/proceedings/1996/feb/1.html (April 2010).

[12] TRUESWELL, RL. Some behavioral patterns of library users: the 80/20 rule. Wilson Library Bulletin, 43, 1969, p. 458‐461.

[13] DE SOLLA PRİCE, D. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 1976, p. 292‐306.

[14] EGGHE, L. Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005.

[15] EGGHE, L; ROUSSEAU, R. Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods inlibrary, documentation and information science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990. Available at: http://uhdspace.

uhasselt.be/dspace/handle/1942/587 (April 2010).

[16] KUPERMAN, V. Productivity in the Internet mailing lists: A bibliometric analysis, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 2006, p. 51‐59.

[17] JARVELIN, K; Vakkari, P. Content analysis of research articles in library and information science., Library and Information Science Research, 12, 1990, p. 395‐421.

[18] JARVELIN, K; VAKKARI, P. Evolution of library and information science 1965‐1985: Content analysis of journal articles. Information Processing Management, 29, 1993, p. 129‐144.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS