Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bates, M.J."
  • × theme_ss:"Information"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Bates, M.J.: Concepts for the study of information embodiment (2018) 0.00
    0.0021393995 = product of:
      0.004278799 = sum of:
        0.004278799 = product of:
          0.008557598 = sum of:
            0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 5525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008557598 = score(doc=5525,freq=20.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 5525, product of:
                  4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                    20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5525)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The growing study in information science of the role of the body in human information practice may benefit from the concepts developed around a set of fundamental forms of information previously published by the author. In applying these concepts to the study of human information practice, we see a framework that nicely names and locates the major components of an understanding of information seeking of all types, including that related to the body. We see information in nature, what happens to information when it encounters a nervous system, and how that information is used within nervous systems to both encode and embody the experiences of life. We see information not only in direct encounters with the body but also as it is experienced through extensions of the body, used for both input and output purposes. We also see information in the body in relation to a larger framework of forms of information encompassing both internal and external (exosomatic) information. Finally, a selective review is provided of related research and theory from biology, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy, which supports and deepens our understanding of the approach taken here to information embodiment.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0002. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.
    Type
    a
  2. Bates, M.J.: Birger Hjørland's Manichean misconstruction of Marcia Bates' work (2011) 0.00
    0.001913537 = product of:
      0.003827074 = sum of:
        0.003827074 = product of:
          0.007654148 = sum of:
            0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007654148 = score(doc=2056,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2056, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2056)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    It is argued and demonstrated that Birger Hjoerland's critiques of Marcia Bates' articles on the nature of information and the nature of browsing misrepresent the content of these articles, and further, frame the argument as a Manichean conflict between Hjørland's enlightened "discursive" and social approach versus Bates' benighted behavioral approach. It is argued that Bates' work not only contains much of value that has been ignored by Hjørland but also contains ideas that mostly complement, rather than conflict with, those of Hjørland.
    Type
    a