Thesis (M.Ed.) -- Memorial University of Newfoundland. 1973. / Typescript. Bibliography : leaves 121-125. Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D., Education)--University of Idaho, April 2007. / Major professor: Mark L. McCaslin. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online (PDF file) by subscription or by purchasing the individual file.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005. / Bozeman, Barry, Committee Chair ; Rogers, Juan, Committee Member ; Gaughan, Monica, Committee Member ; Stephan, Paula, Committee Member. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

M.Inf. / The information society is placing new demands on the LIS profession which could soon be facing an identity crisis. Certain issues need to be addressed to make the traditional LIS more viable and active today. One of these issues is the suitable education of potential employees of the LIS. The purpose of this study was to establish, by means of empirical research, to what extent the IT education offered by Departments of Information Science (DIS) at South African universities are preparing graduates for an electronic information service (EIS). A literature survey was undertaken to establish the nature of an EIS. Three major categories of information technologies which make up an EIS were identified, viz network technologies, communications technologies and retrieval technologies. A second literatyre survey was then undertaken to ascertain the state of IT education in DIS both in developed and developing countries. The motivation for distinguishing between these two nation types was based on the fact that South Africa comprises both developed and developing nations. Based on the information gleaned from the two literature surveys, a questionnaire was compiled and posted to all heads of DIS at South African universities. The purpose of the questionnaire was to establish the extent to which those technologies that comprise an EIS have been incorporated into the curriculum of South African DIS, as well as the attitudes of DIS heads towards the role and significance of IT education in their curricula. The main finding was that although the importance of an IT component in the curriculum is recognised by all DIS, the majority are not placing sufficient emphasis on IT in their curricula. There is a general willingness and a positive attitude towards the incorporation of more IT into the curricula but various constraining factors inhibit this willingness. Problems faced by all DIS is finding the space in their curricula to allocate to IT training and maintaining a healthy balance between theory and practice. Some DIS have the added burden of a lack of facilities as well as catering for students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds.

It is surprising that the prevailing performance taxonomy for scientists (Star versus Non-Star) focuses only on individual output and ignores social behavior since scholars often characterize innovation as a communal process. To address this deficiency, I expand the traditional taxonomy that focuses solely on productivity and add a second, social dimension to the taxonomy of scientists: helpfulness to others. Using a combination of academic paper citations and Impact Factor-weighted publications to measure scientist productivity as well as the receipt of academic paper acknowledgements to measure helpfulness, I classify scientists into four distinct categories of human capital quality: All-Stars, who have both high productivity and helpfulness; Lone Wolves, who have high productivity but average helpfulness; Mavens, who have average productivity but high helpfulness; and Non-Stars, who have both average productivity and helpfulness. The first study examines the impact of 415 immunologists on the performance of their coauthors. Looking at the change in quality-adjusted publishing output of an immunologist's coauthors after the immunologist's death, I find that the productivity of an All-Star's coauthors decreases on average by 35%, a Maven's coauthors by 30% on average, and a Lone Wolf's coauthors by 19%, all relative to the decrease in productivity of a Non-Star's coauthors. These findings suggest that our current conceptualization of star scientists, which solely focuses on individual productivity, is both incomplete and potentially misleading as Lone Wolves may be systematically overvalued and Mavens undervalued. The second study builds upon the first study's finding that Mavens have a large impact on the performance of their coauthors. Using salary disclosures from 2008 at the University of California, I examine the extent to which each star type is compensated differently. While Mavens have a larger impact on the performance of their coauthors than Lone Wolves, Mavens are compensated less, providing preliminary evidence that these performance effects are spillovers. The third study examines the likelihood of an immunologist's mobility as a function of his observable and unobservable human capital. The greater a scientist's productivity (observable to the market), the greater his inter-institution mobility, while the greater a scientist's helpfulness (unobservable to the market), the lower his inter-institution mobility.

It is surprising that the prevailing performance taxonomy for scientists (Star versus Non-Star) focuses only on individual output and ignores social behavior since scholars often characterize innovation as a communal process. To address this deficiency, I expand the traditional taxonomy that focuses solely on productivity and add a second, social dimension to the taxonomy of scientists: helpfulness to others. Using a combination of academic paper citations and Impact Factor-weighted publications to measure scientist productivity as well as the receipt of academic paper acknowledgements to measure helpfulness, I classify scientists into four distinct categories of human capital quality: All-Stars, who have both high productivity and helpfulness; Lone Wolves, who have high productivity but average helpfulness; Mavens, who have average productivity but high helpfulness; and Non-Stars, who have both average productivity and helpfulness. The first study examines the impact of 415 immunologists on the performance of their coauthors. Looking at the change in quality-adjusted publishing output of an immunologist's coauthors after the immunologist's death, I find that the productivity of an All-Star's coauthors decreases on average by 35%, a Maven's coauthors by 30% on average, and a Lone Wolf's coauthors by 19%, all relative to the decrease in productivity of a Non-Star's coauthors. These findings suggest that our current conceptualization of star scientists, which solely focuses on individual productivity, is both incomplete and potentially misleading as Lone Wolves may be systematically overvalued and Mavens undervalued. The second study builds upon the first study's finding that Mavens have a large impact on the performance of their coauthors. Using salary disclosures from 2008 at the University of California, I examine the extent to which each star type is compensated differently. While Mavens have a larger impact on the performance of their coauthors than Lone Wolves, Mavens are compensated less, providing preliminary evidence that these performance effects are spillovers. The third study examines the likelihood of an immunologist's mobility as a function of his observable and unobservable human capital. The greater a scientist's productivity (observable to the market), the greater his inter-institution mobility, while the greater a scientist's helpfulness (unobservable to the market), the lower his inter-institution mobility.

Title from title page of PDF (University of Missouri--St. Louis, viewed March 9, 2010). Includes bibliographical references (p. 239-251).