"The purpose of this consultation is to update the DCMS Creative Industries classification and we are inviting input from interested parties. We have been engaging with industry and partner organisations over potential changes via a Technical Working Group of the Creative Industries Council and are now at a point where we would like to go out to consultation and seek wider views.
We have been working with partners (NESTA, Creative Skillset and Creative and Cultural Skills), to review and update the classification used in the DCMS Creative Industries Economic Estimates (CIEE). We intend to use this review 'Classifying and Measuring the Creative Industries', referenced below, as an objective starting point to suggest which occupations and industries should be included in the updated DCMS classification.
The review uses the idea of 'creative intensity' (the proportion of people doing creative jobs within each industry) to suggest which industries should be included. If the proportion of people doing creative jobs in a particular industry is substantial, above a 30% threshold, the industries are candidates for inclusion within the Creative Industries classification.
Similar to the outlook in our current Creative Industries Economic Estimates, the 'creative intensity' approach focuses on industries where the creative activity happens. The intention is to produce a classification which provides direct estimates of employment and the contribution to the economy, with no double counting - rather than attempting to capture all activity further down the value chain, for example, retail activities. The classification generated in this way can be used as a starting point for indirect estimates which include wider economic effects along the supply chain.
Any approach has data and methods constraints, which may affect some industries more than others. These limitations are reflected in the consultation and consultees are invited to suggest alternatives, supported by evidence-based argument. Weaknesses in the underlying classifications and data used to construct these estimates, which are identified by users, will be fed-back to the organisations which set these standards and provide these data so that we can influence longer-term improvements."
(Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 19 April 2013)
"This paper presents a rational model developed to make sense of various elearning platforms currently in use in Australian universities. The conceptualisation and organisation of the elearning platforms is underpinned by an educational psychology framework of social construction of meaning, data visualisation and story telling for meaning making. The model explains how various elearning platforms can be integrated to represent a threedimensional, hierarchical construct that has the potential to aid understandings about the utility of information systems (IS) for learning and teaching. The model shows that LAMS, which has gained increasing popularity in Europe (Laurillard & Masterman, 2010), is usefully depicted as a ‘middle ground’ system, successfully bridging conventional LMSs and more advanced IS, referred here as (MU)VLEs (Multi-User Virtual Learning Environments). The model has important implications on how university lecturers, classroom teachers and students come to engage with an increasingly complex elearning environment."
(Eva Dobozy & Patricia Reynolds, LAMS Conference Sydney 2010)
Dobozy, E. & Reynolds, P. (2010). From LMS to VLE or from supermarkets to airports: Classifying elearning platforms using metaphors. Proceedings of the 5th International LAMS Conference 2010. http://lamsfoundation.org/lams2010sydney/papers.htm
"Although a folksonomy is not a controlled vocabulary, and certainly does have limitations, there are important strengths that are important to understanding the appeal and utility of such systems.
Browsing vs. Finding
The first is serendipity. While the controlled vocabulary issues discussed above may hamper findability, browsing the system and its interlinked related tag sets is wonderful for finding things unexpectedly in a general area. In researching this paper, exploring the bookmarks tagged with 'folksonomy' on Delicious, there were many recent resources from a wide variety of authors and sites that I likely would never have been exposed to.
There is a fundamental difference in the activities of browsing to find interesting content, as opposed to direct searching to find relevant documents in a query. It is similar to the difference between exploring a problem space to formulate questions, as opposed to actually looking for answers to specifically formulated questions. Information seeking behavior varies based on context. While one could evaluate a folksonomy in a system like Delicious or Flickr by using specific queries from users, and then evaluating which documents tagged with keywords they choose are relevant to the query, that would ignore the broader set of browsing activities that the system seems to be stronger in. Measuring the utility of that aspect would likely require qualitative research in the form of interviews or ethnographic study of users, and is an area of further study. It would also require comparisons not to search based information retrieval systems, but to browsing activities using other categorization and classification schemes."
(Adam Mathes, December 2004)