| Record 3123 View: Standard | Glossary HistCite Guide |
|
Author(s): Elliott M; Kling R
Title: Organizational usability of digital libraries: Case study of legal research in civil and criminal courts
Source: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 48 (11): 1023-1035
Date: 1997 NOV
Document Type: Journal : Article
Language: English
Comment:
Address: UNIV CALIF IRVINE,CTR RES INFORMAT TECHNOL & ORG,IRVINE,CA 92697.
INDIANA UNIV,SCH LIB & INFORMAT SCI,CTR SOCIAL INFORMAT,BLOOMINGTON,IN 47405. Reprint: Elliott, M, UNIV CALIF IRVINE,DEPT INFORMAT & COMP SCI,IRVINE,CA 92697.
Abstract: Digital Libraries (DLs) is a recent term used to refer to information systems (IS) and services that provide electronic documents-text files, digital sound, digital video-available in dynamic or archival repositories. Some insist that DLs refer to documentary collections that are accessed via the Internet, while others refer to DLs as any collection of electronic text, sound, or video files used in a shared space, There is much at stake in these debates. If DLs are narrowly defined, then we lose the ability to learn about key DL issues from previous research, theory, and professional practice in IS and librarianship. We present a case study of the use of legal research DLs (LRDLs) in the California Civil and Criminal Courts, We extend the concept of organization validity (Markus & Robey, 1983) in IS to that of organizational usability in LRDLs. The results suggest that points of access to LRDLs influence usage, that there is a strong interplay between home computer use and LRDL use at work, and that legal professionals prefer one-on-one assistance rather than group training. Conditions fostering organizationally unusable systems are presented based on empirical data.
Cited References: 1994, INFORMATION TODAY, V11, P14 AARON A, 1995, CALIFORNIA LAW BUSIN ADLER PS, 1992, TECHNOLOGY FUTURE WO, P3 ADLER PS, 1992, USABILITY TURNING TE BALDWINLECLAIR J, 1995, LEGAL ASSISTANT TODA, V12, P32 BANTLIFF BA, 1992, LAW LIB J, V84, P725 BECKER HS, 1995, COMMUN ACM, V4, P66 BULLEN CV, 1996, COMPUTERIZATION CONT CALDWELL R, 1977, ISSUES AUTOMATED LEG COVI L, 1995, P ASS INF SYST AM C, P487 CULNAN MJ, 1983, MIS Q, V7, P55 DIMAGGIO PJ, 1991, NEW I ORG ANAL, P63 EASON KD, 1988, INFORMATION TECHNOLO ELLIOTT M, 1996, CASE STUDY LEGAL RES ELLIOTT M, 1996, OJ OK LESSONS USE EM ELLIOTT M, 1996, P 29 ANN HAW INT C S, V5, P62 ELLIOTT M, 1996, P 30 ANN HAW INT C S, V6, P97 EVANS J, 1995, CALIFORNIA LAWYER, V15, P59 FOX EA, 1995, COMMUN ACM, V38, P23 FRENCH JC, 1995, COMMUN ACM, V38, P45 GINZBERG MJ, 1980, JOINT M OP RES SOC A GOGAN JL, 1991, J MANAGEMENT INFORMA, V7, P91 GOULD JD, 1985, COMMUN ACM, V28, P300 GOULD JD, 1991, COMMUN ACM, V34, P74 GREENBAUM J, 1991, DESIGN WORK COOPERAT GRUDIN J, 1989, OFFICE TECHNOLOGY PE, V4, P245 KLING R, 1987, CRITICAL ISSUES INFO KLING R, 1989, OFFICE TECHNOLOGY PE, V5, P7 KLING R, 1992, CHALLENGES STRATEGIE KLING R, 1994, ADV COMPUT, V39, P239 KLING R, 1994, P DIG LIB 94 C, P146 KORNOWSKI J, 1995, LOW ANGELES LAWYER, V17, P62 LEITER RA, 1992, LEGAL ASSISTANT TODA, V10, P150 LEVY DM, 1995, COMMUN ACM, V38, P77 LINCOLN YS, 1985, NATURALISTIC INQUIRY MACLEOD D, 1996, DATABASE, V19, P50 MARKUS ML, 1983, HUM RELAT, V36, P203 MARKUS ML, 1993, IF WE BUILD IT THEY MOURITSEN J, 1991, COMPUTERIZATION CONT, P308 MUMFORD E, 1983, NEW OFFICE TECHNOLOG, P68 NIELSEN J, 1993, USABILITY ENG ORLIKOWSKI WJ, 1996, COMPUTERIZATION CONT QUINN N, 1987, CULTURAL MODELS LANG, P3 SAGER AM, 1977, EVALUATION COMPUTER SCHULTZ RL, 1973, IMPLEMENTATION ORG V SCHULTZ RL, 1975, IMPLEMENTING OPERATI SHIMPOCKVIEWEG K, 1995, LEGAL ASSISTANT TODA, V13, P65 SMITH TR, 1995, COMMUN ACM, V38, P61 SUTTON SA, 1994, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V45, P186 TRICE HH, 1993, CULTURES WORK ORG WILENSKY R, 1995, COMMUN ACM, V38, P60 YIN RK, 1984, CASE STUDY RES DESIG |