Referencehåndtering med Mendeley: mellem organisering, skrivning og samarbejde

Mikkel Hvidtfeldt Andersen

Resumé


DK Abstract

Referencehåndteringsværktøjer har eksisteret længe, men har med web 2.0-bølgen fået fornyet aktualitet. Fra at være digitale redskaber der automatiserer det møjsomme arbejde med at citere kilder, er de i dag avancerede applikationer med både læse, produktions- og delingsfunktioner. Til trods for, at der findes et omfangsrigt materiale, der introducerer og sammenligner på teknisk niveau, er der et opsigtsvækkende fravær af undersøgelser, der interesserer sig for læringsaspekterne. I denne artikel diskuteres det, med udgangspunkt i programmet Mendeley, hvordan man kan benytte referencehåndteringsværktøjer som lærings- og forskningsredskab og ikke udelukkende til effektivisering af arbejdsprocesser. Det diskuteres hvordan Mendeley kan bidrage til: 1. organisering og reartikulering af forskningsspørgsmål; 2. hvordan samskabelse faciliteres gennem fælles kildesamlinger; samt 3. hvorledes det tekstnære tænkearbejde kan styrkes ved, at afstanden mellem egen og andres tekster mindskes. Det konkluderes at Mendeley har anvendelsespotentiale til at understøtte almene videnskabelige aktiviteter som videnkonstruktion, videnproduktion og videndeling med kildemateriale som omdrejningspunkt.

EN Abstract

Reference management software have existed for some time, but have regained relevance in the wake for web 2.0. From being digital tools for automating the tiresome work of citing sources, they are today multifaceted applications with reading, production and sharing functionalities. In spite a vast amount of material introducing and comparing reference management software on a technical basis, there is a surprising lack of studies interested in learning aspects. With the software Mendeley as case, this article discuss’ how reference management software can be applied as learning and research tools, not solely to increase workflows efficiency. It’s debated Mendeley can support; 1. Organizing and rearticulating of research questions and frameworks; 2. How co-creation is facilitated via joint collections; and 3. How thinking about textual relations can be strengthened by diminishing the distance between own and others’ texts. It is concluded that Mendeley has potential to support regular scientific activities such as knowledge construction, production and sharing, with literature as its fulcrum.


Nøgleord


Universitetspædagogik; personlig læringsmiljø; referencehåndtering; læringsteknologi; IKT

Fuld tekst:

PDF

Referencer


Andersen, M. H. (2015). Draft. ITU Learning technology survey 2015. Copenhagen.

Benjamin, W. (1982). 1999. The Arcades Project. Cambridge, Mass. The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press

Brendel, M.Z. (2007). The Everlasting Now: Walter Benjamin’s Archive. ArtUS, 17(March-April), 54–57.

Bodemer, B. B. (2011). The importance of search as intertextual practice for undergraduate research. College & Research Libraries, crl-245.

Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2014). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis (No. arXiv: 1402.4578).

Dalsgaard, C. (2011). Personlige læringsmiljøer: Universitetsuddannelse på internettet. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 6(11), 8-13.

Engerer, V. (2014). Læringscyklusser. Tekstforståelse og informationshåndtering, forbundet i én læreproces. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 9(16), 72-83.

Fisker, A. B., Korsgaard, M., & Hansen, U. M. (2014). Rapport: Forskeres informationsadfærd (pp. 34). København: Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultetsbibliotek. Det Kongelige Bibliotek.

Heilesen, S., & Davidsen, S. (2016). Projektarbejde og akademisk IT-skoling. Tidsskriftet Læring og Medier (LOM), 9(15).

Henning, V., & Reichelt, J. (2008, December). Mendeley-A Last. fm for research?. In eScience, 2008. eScience'08. IEEE Fourth International Conference on (327-328). IEEE.

Hensley, M. K. (2011). Citation management software: features and futures. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(3), 204-208.

Hicks, A., & Sinkinson, C. (2015). Examining Mendeley: Designing learning opportunities for digital scholarship. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(3), 531-549.

Jeng, W., He, D., Jiang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Groups in Mendeley: Owners' descriptions and group outcomes. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1-4.

Jones, W. (2004). Finders, keepers? The present and future perfect in support of personal information management. First monday, 9(3).

Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(11).

Juel-Jacobsen, L. G. (2013). Jeg pakker mit bibliotek ned. Social Kritik. 25(134):44–58.

Lai, K. W., & Hong, K. S. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725-738.

MacMillan, D. (2012). Mendeley: teaching scholarly communication and collaboration through social networking. Library Management, 33(8/9), 561-569.

Marino, W. (2012). Fore-cite: tactics for evaluating citation management tools. Reference services review, 40(2), 295-310.

Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on Digital libraries (131-140). ACM.

Martin, J., & Zaghloul, R. (2011). Planning for the acquisition of information resources management core competencies. New Library World, 112(7/8), 313-320.

Mead, T. L., & Berryman, D. R. (2010). Reference and PDF-manager software: complexities, support and workflow. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 29(4), 388-393.

Mills, C.W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York. Oxford University Press.

Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638.

Ovadia, S. (2011). Managing citations with cost-free tools. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 30(2), 107-111.

Pak, R., Pautz, S., & Iden, R. (2007). Information organization and retrieval: A comparison of taxonomical and tagging systems. Cognitive Technology, 12(1), 31-44.

Peironcely, J. (2014, November). How Mendeley Helps PhD Students Become Successful Scientists. Accessed 15 April, 2017, https://thesiswhisperer.com/2014/11/30/how-mendeley-helps-phd-students-become-successful-scientists/

Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics A changing scholarly landscape. College & Research Libraries News, 73(10), 596-600.

Salem, J., & Fehrmann, P. (2013). Bibliographic management software: a focus group study of the preferences and practices of undergraduate students. Public services quarterly, 9(2), 110-120.

Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends,55(1), 32-36.

Zastrow, J. (2014). PIM 101: Personal Information Management. Computers in Libraries (March 2014). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/mar14/Zastrow--PIM-101--Personal-Information-Management.shtml




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/lom.v10i17.24196



Denne webside bruger cookies til at lave statistik over trafikken på siden. Ved at klikke videre accepterer du brugen af cookies.
OK


ISSN-nummer: 1903-248X

Hosted by the Royal Danish Library