Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022636123 = product of:
  0.045272246 = sum of:
    0.045272246 = sum of:
      0.0060186423 = weight(_text_:a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0060186423 = score(doc=692,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.039253604 = weight(_text_:22 in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039253604 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Addresses the identity politics of modern communication and information technologies. These technologies are not mere hardware, causally related to society through their effects on individual subjects. They embody social relations of domination and dependence, especially in their construction of specific forms of human subjectivity. Database constructed identites are postmodern in character: unstable, shifting and subject to the control of information processing software. The political implications of these identity construction systems are explored. The post-marxist political debate about the postmodern character of the subjects who participate in the social relations configured by the new communication and information technologies presents the most urgent issues for the possibilities of intellectual activism in the service of a democratic politics of information. Makes 6 recommendations for political work in information science

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.2, S.1-22

Type

a

0.0030093212 = product of:
  0.0060186423 = sum of:
    0.0060186423 = product of:
      0.012037285 = sum of:
        0.012037285 = weight(_text_:a in 3908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012037285 = score(doc=3908,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3908, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A rule-governed derivation of an indexing phrase from the text of a document is, in Wittgenstein's sense, a practice, rather than a mental operation explained by reference to internally represented and tacitly known rules. Some mentalistic proposals for theory in information retrieval are criticised in light of Wittgenstein's remarks on following a rule. The conception of rules as practices shifts the theoretical significance of the social role of retrieval practices from the margins to the centre of enquiry into foundations of information retrieval. The abstracted notion of a cognitive act of 'information processing' deflects attention from fruitful directiond of research

Type

a

0.00252053 = product of:
  0.00504106 = sum of:
    0.00504106 = product of:
      0.01008212 = sum of:
        0.01008212 = weight(_text_:a in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01008212 = score(doc=2837,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a reconsideration of Michael Buckland's important question, "What is a document?", analysing the point and purpose of definitions of "document" and "documentation". Design/methodology/approach - Two philosophical notions of the point of definitions are contrasted: John Stuart Mill's concept of a "real" definition, purporting to specify the nature of the definiendum; and a concept of definition based upon a foundationalist philosophy of language. Both conceptions assume that a general, philosophical justification for using words as we do is always in order. This assumption is criticized by deploying Hilary Putnam's arguments against the orthodox Wittgensteinian interpretation of criteria governing the use of language. The example of the cabinets of curiosities of the sixteenth-century English and European virtuosi is developed to show how one might productively think about what documents might be, but without a definition of a document. Findings - Other than for specific, instrumentalist purposes (often appropriate for specific case studies), there is no general philosophical reason for asking, what is a document? There are good reasons for pursuing studies of documentation without the impediments of definitions of "document" or "documentation". Originality/value - The paper makes an original contribution to the new interest in documentation studies by providing conceptual resources for multiplying, rather than restricting, the areas of application of the concepts of documents and documentation.

Type

a

0.0024128247 = product of:
  0.0048256493 = sum of:
    0.0048256493 = product of:
      0.009651299 = sum of:
        0.009651299 = weight(_text_:a in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009651299 = score(doc=826,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A philosophy of information is grounded in a philosophy of documentation. Nunberg's conception of the phenomenon of information heralds a shift of attention away from the question "What is information?" toward a critical investigation of the sources and legitimation of the question itself. Analogies between Wittgenstein's deconstruction of philosophical accounts of meaning and a corresponding deconstruction of philosophical accounts of information suggest that because the informativeness of a document depends on certain kinds of practices with it, and because information emerges as an effect of such practices, documentary practices are ontologically primary to information. The informativeness of documents therefore refers us to the properties of documentary practices. These fall into four broad categories: their materiality; their institutional sites; the ways in which they are socially disciplined; and their historical contingency. Two examples from early modern science, which contrast the scholastic documentary practices of continental natural philosophers to those of their peers in Restoration England, illustrate the richness of the factors that must be taken into account to understand how documents become informing.

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 5253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=5253,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5253, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint in library and information science identifies seven discourse strategies which constitute information as a commodity, and persons as surveyable information consumers, within market economy conditions. These strategies are: (a) universality of theory, (b) referentiality and reification of 'images', (c) internalisation of representations (d) radical individualism and erasure of the social dimension of theory, (e) insistence upon knowledge, (f) constitution of the information scientist as an expert in image negotiation, and (g) instrumental reason, ruled by efficiency, standardisation, predictibility, and determination of effects. The discourse is guided throughout by a yearning for natural-scientific theory. The effect of the cognitive viewpoint's discursive strategy is to enable knowledge acquisition of information processes only when users' and generators 'images' are constituted as objectively given natural-scientific entities, and ti disable knowledge of the same processes when considered as products of social practices. By its constitution of users as free creators of images, of the information scientist as an expert in image interpretation and delivery, and of databases as repositories of unmediated models of the world, the cognitive viewpoint performs ideological labour for modern capitalist image markets

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 8902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=8902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 8902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020106873 = product of:
  0.0040213745 = sum of:
    0.0040213745 = product of:
      0.008042749 = sum of:
        0.008042749 = weight(_text_:a in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008042749 = score(doc=2711,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint in library and information science (LIS) identifies seven discursive strategies which constitute information as a commodity, and persons as surveyable information consumers, within market economy conditions. These strategies are (a) universality of theory, (b) referentiality and reification of 'images', (c) internationalization of representation, (d) insistence upon knowledge, (e) constitution of the information scientists as an expert in image negotiation, (f) radical individualism and erasure of the social dimension of theory, and (g) instrumental reasons, rules by efficiency, standardization, predictibility,a nd determination of effects. The discourse is guided troughout by a yearning for natural-scientific theory. The effect of the cognitiv viewpoint's discoursive strategy is to anable knowledge acquisition of information processes only when users' and generators 'images' are constituted as objectively given natural scientif entites, and to disable knowledge of the same processes when considered as products of social practices. By its constitution of users as free creators of images, of the information scientist as an expert in image interpretation and delivery, and of databases as repositories of unmediated models of the world, the cognitive viewpoint performs ideological labour for modern capitalist image markets

Type

a

0.001719612 = product of:
  0.003439224 = sum of:
    0.003439224 = product of:
      0.006878448 = sum of:
        0.006878448 = weight(_text_:a in 7726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006878448 = score(doc=7726,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 7726, 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=7726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A social constructivist approach to systems of knowledge organization applies Collins's 'empirical programme of relativism' to the analysis of the DDC. The social constructivist programme shows that stability of the DDC's final form depends not upon solutions to epistemological problems, but upon the successful negotiation of specific social processes: (1) closing debates about alternative knowledge organizations; (2) building specific supportive institutions; (3) establishing links with dominant forms of social organization

Type

a

0.0015795645 = product of:
  0.003159129 = sum of:
    0.003159129 = product of:
      0.006318258 = sum of:
        0.006318258 = weight(_text_:a in 2382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006318258 = score(doc=2382,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2382, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent library and information science (LIS) literature has found, in cognitive models of knowledge organization, the promise of a new and fruitful paradigm for the discipline. Cognitive models of knowledge organization have been employed to articulate fundamental theory for LIS (Belkin; Dervin and Nilan), and to explicate models of the discipline itself (Greene), as well as explore the ramifications of new conceptualizations of such specific LIS concerns as reference work (Ingwersen; Dervin), indexing (Farrow), children's services (Moore and St. George), classification (Beghtol; Hori), search behaviour (Dalrymple; Kuhlthau; Logan), and information retrieval. One of the chief benefits claimed for cognitive paradigms is the shift brought about in our understanding of information processes, from system needs to user needs. The shift is theorized by means of methodologies for the description and explanation of the cognitive organization of knowledge within individual minds, and the means by which these cognitive knowledge organizations can be harmonized with the knowledge organized in databases of various kinds. The aim of this paper is to investigate the claim that cognitive paradigms effect a shift from system needs to user needs

Type

a

0.0012159493 = product of:
  0.0024318986 = sum of:
    0.0024318986 = product of:
      0.004863797 = sum of:
        0.004863797 = weight(_text_:a in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004863797 = score(doc=1360,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In A Brief History of Information Ethics, Thomas Froehlich (2004) quickly surveyed under several broad categories some of the many issues that constitute information ethics: under the category of librarianship - censorship, privacy, access, balance in collections, copyright, fair use, and codes of ethics; under information science, which Froehlich sees as closely related to librarianship - confidentiality, bias, and quality of information; under computer ethics - intellectual property, privacy, fair representation, nonmaleficence, computer crime, software reliability, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce; under cyberethics (issues related to the Internet, or cyberspace) - expert systems, artificial intelligence (again), and robotics; under media ethics - news, impartiality, journalistic ethics, deceit, lies, sexuality, censorship (again), and violence in the press; and under intercultural information ethics - digital divide, and the ethical role of the Internet for social, political, cultural, and economic development. Many of the debates in information ethics, on these and other issues, have to do with specific kinds of relationships between subjects. The most important subject and a familiar figure in information ethics is the ethical subject engaged in moral deliberation, whether appearing as the bearer of moral rights and obligations to other subjects, or as an agent whose actions are judged, whether by others or by oneself, according to the standards of various moral codes and ethical principles. Many debates in information ethics revolve around conflicts between those acting according to principles of unfettered access to information and those finding some information offensive or harmful. Subjectivity is at the heart of information ethics. But how is subjectivity understood? Can it be understood in ways that broaden ethical reflection to include problems that remain invisible when subjectivity is taken for granted and when how it is created remains unquestioned? This article proposes some answers by investigating the meaning and role of subjectivity in information ethics.[In an article on cyberethics (2000), I asserted that there was no information ethics in any special sense beyond the application of general ethical principles to information services. Here, I take a more expansive view.]

Type

a