Search (61 results, page 2 of 4)

0.004200951 = product of:
  0.012602853 = sum of:
    0.012602853 = product of:
      0.037808556 = sum of:
        0.037808556 = weight(_text_:science in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037808556 = score(doc=3326,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 1975 Tefko Saracevic declared the subject knowledge view to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance. This paper examines the assumptions in different views of relevance, including the system's view and the user's view and offers a reinterpretation of these views. The paper finds that what was regarded as the most fundamental view by Saracevic in 1975 has not since been considered (with very few exceptions). Other views, which are based on less fruitful assumptions, have dominated the discourse on relevance in information retrieval and information science. Many authors have reexamined the concept of relevance in information science, but have neglected the subject knowledge view, hence basic theoretical assumptions seem not to have been properly addressed. It is as urgent now as it was in 1975 seriously to consider the subject knowledge view of relevance (which may also be termed the epistemological view). The concept of relevance, like other basic concepts, is influenced by overall approaches to information science, such as the cognitive view and the domain-analytic view. There is today a trend toward a social paradigm for information science. This paper offers an understanding of relevance from such a social point of view.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.217-237

0.004200951 = product of:
  0.012602853 = sum of:
    0.012602853 = product of:
      0.037808556 = sum of:
        0.037808556 = weight(_text_:science in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037808556 = score(doc=3461,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.

Footnote

Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536

0.0039048512 = product of:
  0.011714553 = sum of:
    0.011714553 = product of:
      0.03514366 = sum of:
        0.03514366 = weight(_text_:science in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03514366 = score(doc=304,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.257-270

0.0039048512 = product of:
  0.011714553 = sum of:
    0.011714553 = product of:
      0.03514366 = sum of:
        0.03514366 = weight(_text_:science in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03514366 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

Object

Science Citation Index
Web of Science

0.0037574442 = product of:
  0.011272333 = sum of:
    0.011272333 = product of:
      0.033816997 = sum of:
        0.033816997 = weight(_text_:science in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033816997 = score(doc=2273,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.6, S.400-425

0.0037574442 = product of:
  0.011272333 = sum of:
    0.011272333 = product of:
      0.033816997 = sum of:
        0.033816997 = weight(_text_:science in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033816997 = score(doc=832,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The basic realist claim is that a mind-independent reality exists. It should be common sense knowledge to accept this claim, just as any theories that try to deny it soon become inconsistent because reality strikes back. In spite of this, antirealist philosophies flourish, not only in philosophy but also in the behavioral and cognitive sciences and in information science. This is highly problematic because it removes the attention from reality to subjective phenomena with no real explanatory power. Realism should not be confused with the view that all scientific claims are true or with any other kind of naiveté concerning knowledge claims. The opposite of realism may be termed antirealism, idealism, or nominalism. Although many people confuse empiricism and positivism with realism, these traditions are by nature strongly antirealist, which is why a sharp distinction should be made between empiricism and realism. Empirical research should not be founded on assumptions about "the given" of observations, but should recognize the theory-laden nature of observations. Domain analysis represents an attempt to reintroduce a realist perspective in library and information science. A realist conception of relevance, information seeking, information retrieval, and knowledge organization is outlined. Information systems of all kinds, including research libraries and public libraries, should be informed by a realist philosophy and a realist information science.

0.0037574442 = product of:
  0.011272333 = sum of:
    0.011272333 = product of:
      0.033816997 = sum of:
        0.033816997 = weight(_text_:science in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033816997 = score(doc=4774,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study on information science (IS) by Bates (2007) is an important contribution to the literature on browsing in IS. It is explicitly based on "behavioural science." I use this article as the point of departure for demonstrating how more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in information seeking, browsing, and related phenomena. It is part of my ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be accompanied by analyses of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is mainly formulated as a discussion based on a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as support for the emerging social paradigm in this field. The article argues that human browsing should not be conceptualized primarily in biological terms and should not be understood as random exploratory processes, but rather it should be seen as a kind of orienting strategy governed by people's metatheories or "paradigms." Information professionals should know how different metatheories are distributed in the information ecology and, thus, be able to help people developing fruitful browsing strategies.

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Bates, M.J.: Birger Hjørland's Manichean misconstruction of Marcia Bates' work. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.2038-2044.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.594-603

0.0037574442 = product of:
  0.011272333 = sum of:
    0.011272333 = product of:
      0.033816997 = sum of:
        0.033816997 = weight(_text_:science in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033816997 = score(doc=2124,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.8, S.1559-1575

0.0037574442 = product of:
  0.011272333 = sum of:
    0.011272333 = product of:
      0.033816997 = sum of:
        0.033816997 = weight(_text_:science in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033816997 = score(doc=1193,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study examines the concept of "description" and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.13, S.1532-1549

0.00371968 = product of:
  0.01115904 = sum of:
    0.01115904 = product of:
      0.03347712 = sum of:
        0.03347712 = weight(_text_:science in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03347712 = score(doc=1853,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1299-1302

0.0033816998 = product of:
  0.010145099 = sum of:
    0.010145099 = product of:
      0.030435296 = sum of:
        0.030435296 = weight(_text_:science in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030435296 = score(doc=5079,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.26192862 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411

0.0033203335 = product of:
  0.009961001 = sum of:
    0.009961001 = product of:
      0.029883001 = sum of:
        0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029883001 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.0032540425 = product of:
  0.009762127 = sum of:
    0.009762127 = product of:
      0.029286379 = sum of:
        0.029286379 = weight(_text_:science in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029286379 = score(doc=4476,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an influential interdisciplinary movement that originated in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) about 1992. EBP is of considerable interest to library and information science (LIS) because it focuses on a thorough documentation of the basis for the decision making that is established in research as well as an optimization of every link in documentation and search processes. EBP is based on the philosophical doctrine of empiricism and, therefore, it is subject to the criticism that has been raised against empiricism. The main criticism of EBP is that practitioners lose their autonomy, that the understanding of theory and of underlying mechanisms is weakened, and that the concept of evidence is too narrow in the empiricist tradition. In this article, it is suggested that we should speak of "research-based practice" rather than EBP, because this term is open to more fruitful epistemologies and provides a broader understanding of evidence. The focus on scientific argumentation in EBP is an important contribution from EBP to LIS, which is long overdue, but parts of the underlying epistemological assumptions should be replaced: EBP is too narrow, too formalist, and too mechanical an approach on which to base scientific and scholarly documentation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1301-1310

0.0031882972 = product of:
  0.009564891 = sum of:
    0.009564891 = product of:
      0.028694674 = sum of:
        0.028694674 = weight(_text_:science in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028694674 = score(doc=2247,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of 'subject' or 'subject matter' in library and information science. Most conceptions of 'subject' in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theorie of 'subject matter' explicit as the first step. ... The different conceptions of 'subject' can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. 'subjective idealism' (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), 'objective idealism' (the rationalistic viewpoint), 'pragmatism' and 'materialism/realism'. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document

0.0031882972 = product of:
  0.009564891 = sum of:
    0.009564891 = product of:
      0.028694674 = sum of:
        0.028694674 = weight(_text_:science in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028694674 = score(doc=4464,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain-specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways, producing special classifications and thesauri; research an indexing and retrieving specialities, empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed

0.0030059554 = product of:
  0.009017866 = sum of:
    0.009017866 = product of:
      0.027053596 = sum of:
        0.027053596 = weight(_text_:science in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027053596 = score(doc=2760,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.0027611465 = product of:
  0.008283439 = sum of:
    0.008283439 = product of:
      0.024850316 = sum of:
        0.024850316 = weight(_text_:science in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024850316 = score(doc=1265,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.21386383 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).
It is my hope that domain analysis may contribute to the strengthening of the professional and scientific identity of our discipline and provide more coherence and depth in information studies. The paper is an argument about what should be core teachings in our field, It should be both broad enough to cover the important parts of IS and Specific enough to maintain a special focus and identity compared to, for example, computer science and the cognitive sciences. It is not a narrow view of information science and an the other hand it does not Set forth an unrealistic utopia."

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.14, S.1275-76

0.0026569143 = product of:
  0.007970743 = sum of:
    0.007970743 = product of:
      0.023912227 = sum of:
        0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023912227 = score(doc=4415,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance and influence of the epistemologies: "empiricism", "rationalism" and "positivism" in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach - First, outlines the historical development of these epistemologies, by discussing and identifying basic characteristics in them and by introducing the criticism that has been raised against these views. Second, their importance for and influence in LIS have been examined. Findings - The findings of this paper are that it is not a trivial matter to define those epistemologies and to characterise their influence. Many different interpretations exist and there is no consensus regarding current influence of positivism in LIS. Arguments are put forward that empiricism and positivism are still dominant within LIS and specific examples of the influence on positivism in LIS are provided. A specific analysis is made of the empiricist view of information seeking and it is shown that empiricism may be regarded as a normative theory of information seeking and knowledge organisation. Originality/value - The paper discusses basic theoretical issues that are important for the further development of LIS as a scholarly field.

0.0026569143 = product of:
  0.007970743 = sum of:
    0.007970743 = product of:
      0.023912227 = sum of:
        0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023912227 = score(doc=1980,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.367-405

0.0026569143 = product of:
  0.007970743 = sum of:
    0.007970743 = product of:
      0.023912227 = sum of:
        0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023912227 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373