Search results

The most obvious symptom of the most obvious trend in the building of new libraries is the fact that, as yet, no spade has entered the ground of the site on Euston Road, London, upon which the new building for the British Library Reference Division has to be erected. Some twenty years of continued negotiation and discussion finally resulted in the choice of this site. The UK and much more of the world awaits with anticipation what could and should be the major building library of the twentieth century. The planning and design of a library building, however large or small, is, relatively speaking, a major operation, and deserves time, care and patience if the best results are to be produced.

Bureaucracy in libraries is typically presented in terms of six banal characteristics originally identified by the historian Max Weber at the turn of the twentieth century. In some cases, bureaucracy in libraries is seen as a system that might be undone. These characterizations underestimate the power of bureaucracy as a force external and intrinsic to libraries. The purpose of this paper is to reintroduce the topic of libraries as bureaucracies such that library practitioners can identify, question and reform aspects of bureaucracy in libraries.

A review of literature from the library field and from the social sciences is presented in the framework of a SWOT analysis, such that readers can see bureaucracy in libraries for its strengths and weaknesses, as well as in regards to its external opportunities and threats.

Bureaucracy is a largely misunderstood and overlooked topic, in all disciplines, including library science. Generally, bureaucracy is presented as a negative and ineffective system operating in the public sector only, though bureaucracies serve many positive purposes and functions in all aspects of society. Bureaucracy cannot be dismantled, though opportunities exist to eliminate its less desirable aspects and effects. In some ways, libraries exemplify bureaucratic thinking, yet in webs, libraries are poised to offset or challenge the harmful effects of bureaucracy in all other aspects of society.

Bureaucracy is seldom considered in library research or in other fields. As such, it is a grossly misunderstood subject. This extensively research paper synthesizes the literature that does exist on the topic, and expands upon it using theory from the social sciences. As such, this paper stands to begin a discussion about how libraries can restructure and respond to change.

This study seeks to investigate whether a firm's financial disclosure size can help investors predict performance.

Controlling for size and industry, the relationship between financial disclosure size and subsequent stock performance for all Standard and Poor's (S and P) 500 firms over a seven‐year period is examined.

It is found that firms with smaller 10‐Ks tend to have better subsequent performance relative to their industries. However, the findings suggest that the performance explanation may not lie in the size of the 10‐K itself. Firms with smaller 10‐Ks tend to perform better because they are smaller in terms of total assets and more focused, with fewer business segments.

While the study is limited to examination of S and P 500 firms, no consistent evidence is found of a relation between changes in a firm's disclosure size and future performance changes.

The results suggest that more disclosure relative to a firm's size is not necessarily bad. Investors attempting to predict future firm performance cannot use the firm's disclosure size alone.

This paper extends two recent Merrill Lynch studies that appear to contradict the extant financial literature's view that increased disclosure reduces the informational asymmetry problem. While the results confirm the findings of these studies, they suggest that the performance explanation may not lie in the size of the 10‐K itself.

This study tracked rural network activity among regional stakeholders, including government supported agencies, educational institutes, indigenous business representatives, economic support organizations and rural community groups. It explored the relationships that exist between regional stakeholders in a collaborative rural network environment, offering insights into the relationship dynamic between stakeholder organizations.

A longitudinal case study method was utilized to identify the component elements of regional stakeholder network engagement.

Communication, resource sharing and prolonged social interaction were found to be key elements in promoting stakeholder trust. Furthermore, proactive stakeholders improve commitment to network relationships over time. A cyclical flow of these criteria is necessary for congruent understanding to develop between the stakeholders resulting in collaborative network engagement.

Limitations include stakeholder willingness to participate in the research study, potential participant and researcher bias and the possibility that certain features may be particular to the observed network.

The current research demonstrated that stakeholder engagement cannot be assumed in a rural network environment, thus the implementation of the network paradigm into national strategic plans for rural regional development is recommended.

This research contributes to the under-developed area of regional stakeholder network engagement and provides a basis from which to consider the relationships that exist between regional stakeholders in a rural network. A key outcome is the development of a Framework of Regional Stakeholder Network Engagement, which offers insight into how committed network relationships evolve and highlight the factors that promote and hinder sustainable regional stakeholder engagement.

Justice rules are standards that serve as criteria for formulating fairness judgments. Though justice rules play a role in the organizational justice literature, they have seldom been the subject of analysis in their own right. To address this limitation, we first consider three meta-theoretical dualities that are highlighted by justice rules – the distinction between justice versus fairness, indirect versus direct measurement, and normative versus descriptive paradigms. Second, we review existing justice rules and organize them into four types of justice: distributive (e.g., equity, equality), procedural (e.g., voice, consistent treatment), interpersonal (e.g., politeness, respectfulness), and informational (e.g., candor, timeliness). We also emphasize emergent rules that have not received sufficient research attention. Third, we consider various computation models purporting to explain how justice rules are assessed and aggregated to form fairness judgments. Fourth and last, we conclude by reviewing research that enriches our understanding of justice rules by showing how they are cognitively processed. We observe that there are a number of influences on fairness judgments, and situations exist in which individuals do not systematically consider justice rules.

This article characterises the questioning behaviour in reference interviews preceding delegated online searches of bibliographic databases and relates it to questioning behaviour in other types of interviews/settings. With one exception, the unit of analysis is the question (N=610), not the interview. The author uses A.C. Graesser‘s typology of questions to analyse type of question and M.D. White’s typology of information categories to determine the question‘s content objective; this is the first application of Graesser’s typology to interview questions in any setting. Graesser‘s categories allow for a more subtle understanding of the kind of information need underlying a question. Comparisons are made between questions asked by the information specialist and those asked by the client. Findings show that the information specialist dominates the interview, about half the questions were verification questions and about 22% were judgemental questions or requests; all but four types of questions from Graesser’s categories appeared in the interviews, but no new question types were discovered. Clients often phrase questions as requests. In content, both clients and information specialists focus on the subject and service requested, but the clients ask also about search strategy and output features. Both parties ask predominantly short‐answer questions. Results are related to interface design for retrieval systems.