Matching Items (6)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

141317-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Examinations of trust have advanced steadily over the past several decades, yielding important insights within criminal justice, economics, environmental studies, management and industrial organization, psychology, political science, and sociology. Cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of trust, however, have been limited by differences in defining and measuring trust and in methodological

Examinations of trust have advanced steadily over the past several decades, yielding important insights within criminal justice, economics, environmental studies, management and industrial organization, psychology, political science, and sociology. Cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of trust, however, have been limited by differences in defining and measuring trust and in methodological approaches. In this chapter, we take the position that: 1) cross-disciplinary studies can be improved by recognizing trust as a multilevel phenomenon, and 2) context impacts the nature of trusting relations. We present an organizing framework for conceptualizing trust between trustees and trustors at person, group, and institution levels. The differences between these levels have theoretical implications for the study of trust and that might be used to justify distinctions in definitions and methodological approaches across settings. We highlight where the levels overlap and describe how this overlap has created confusion in the trust literature to date. Part of the overlap – and confusion – is the role of interpersonal trust at each level. We delineate when and how interpersonal trust is theoretically relevant to conceptualizing and measuring trust at each level and suggest that other trust-related constructs, such as perceived legitimacy, competence, and integrity, may be more important than interpersonal trust at some levels and in some contexts. Translating findings from trust research in one discipline to another and collaborating across disciplines may be facilitated if researchers ensure that their levels of conceptualization and measurement are aligned, and that models developed for a particular context are relevant in other, distinct contexts.

ContributorsHerian, Mitchell N. (Author) / Neal, Tess M.S. (Author)
Created2016
360-Thumbnail Image.png
DescriptionAddendum to document recording all the responses from the survey in table form. This document records all the additional comments made on the survey responses
Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2016-01-21
363-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

In spring 2013, the presenters developed a survey on academic library streaming video and distributed it broadly through various discussion and mailing lists.

This is the first large-scale and most comprehensive effort to date to collect data on streaming video funding, licensing, acquisition, and hosting in academic libraries. Its results will

In spring 2013, the presenters developed a survey on academic library streaming video and distributed it broadly through various discussion and mailing lists.

This is the first large-scale and most comprehensive effort to date to collect data on streaming video funding, licensing, acquisition, and hosting in academic libraries. Its results will provide benchmark data for future explorations of this rapidly expanding approach to video in academic libraries.

Streaming video is becoming a common occurrence on many campuses today. Its fast growth is due in part to the steady growth of online classes and programs. Technology has also played a role in this growth as alternatives for ingesting and accessing content have expanded. Multiple options are now available including in-house approaches, cloud storage, and third party vendors.

This survey collected data on how academic institutions address the day-to-day operations related to streaming video as well as perceived directions for future action.

Survey questions addressed selection and acquisition of video in both hard copy and streaming formats, funding for acquisitions, current and planned hosting interfaces, cataloging and access, and current practice and policy on digitization of hard copy titles for streaming. This session reviews the instrument used, and provides a preliminary look at some of the key data collected.

Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2013-11-03
359-Thumbnail Image.png
DescriptionDocument recording all the responses from the survey in table form
Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2016-01-21
358-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Survey instrument used in Survey of Academic Library Streaming Video Revisited, 2015

Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2015-04-30
364-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Streaming video has been an option for academic libraries for nearly a decade. What is the state of streaming video in academic libraries today? How are these libraries acquiring streaming videos? Who makes acquisition decisions? How much staff time does supporting streaming video require?

Contributorsfarrelly, deg (Author) / Hutchison Surdi, Jane (Author) / Arizona State University. Libraries (Contributor)
Created2014-09-30