Search (26 results, page 2 of 2)

5.5095006E-4 = product of:
  0.008815201 = sum of:
    0.008815201 = weight(_text_:information in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008815201 = score(doc=4452,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

In 1971 UNISIST proposed a model for scientific and technical communication. This model has been widely cited and additional models have been added to the literature. There is a need to bring this model to the focus of information science (IS) research as well as to update and revise it. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons for this need. On the empirical side much has happened in the developments of electronic communication that needs to be considered. From a theoretical point of view the domain-analytic view has proposed that differences between different disciplines and domains should be emphasised. The original model only considered scientific and technical communication as a whole. There is a need both to compare with the humanities and social sciences and to regard internal differences in the sciences. There are also other reasons to reconsider and modify this model today. Offers not only a descriptive model, but also a theoretical perspective from which information systems may be understood and evaluated. In addition to this provides empirical exemplification and proposals for research initiatives.

5.5095006E-4 = product of:
  0.008815201 = sum of:
    0.008815201 = weight(_text_:information in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008815201 = score(doc=1892,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.

5.3981855E-4 = product of:
  0.008637097 = sum of:
    0.008637097 = weight(_text_:information in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008637097 = score(doc=4404,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to introduce the special issue of Journal of Documentation about library and information science (LIS) and the philosophy of science. Design/methodology/approach - The most important earlier collected works about metatheories and philosophies of science within LIS are listed. Findings - It is claimed that Sweden probably is the country in which philosophy of science has the highest priority in LIS education. The plan of the guest editor was that each epistemological position should be both introduced and interpreted in a LIS context together with a review of its influence within the field and an evaluation of the pros and cons of that position. This was only an ideal plan. It is argued that it is important that such knowledge and debate are available within the LIS-literature itself and that the answers to such questions as "What is positivism?" are not trivial ones. Originality/value - The introduction is written to assist readers overviewing the issue and share the thoughts of the editor in planning the issue.

4.498488E-4 = product of:
  0.0071975808 = sum of:
    0.0071975808 = weight(_text_:information in 2510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071975808 = score(doc=2510,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2510, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2510)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Content

"Bias" is normally understood as a negatively loaded word, as something to be avoided or minimized, for example, in statistics or in knowledge organization. Recently Melanie Feinberg suggested, however, that "if we cannot eliminate bias, then we should instead attempt to be more responsible about it and explicitly decide on and defend the perspectives represented in information systems". This view is linked to related views: That knowledge organization is too much concerned with information retrieval and too much described in the mode of scientific discovery, as opposed to the mode of artifact design: "From the literary warrant of Hulme to the terminological warrant of the Classification Research Group (CRG), to Hjorland's domain analysis, the classificationist seems like one who documents and compiles, and not one who actively shapes design." This paper examines these claims, which may be understood as questions about subjectivity and objectivity in classification and about positivism versus pragmatism in research. Is KO an objective and neutral activity? Can it be? Should it be? A dominant view has been that knowledge and KO should be understood as a passive reflection øf an external order. This has been termed the mirror metaphor of knowledge and is related to empiricism and positivism. The opposite view which is in accordance with both Feinberg and Hjorland - states that knowledge organization should be functional and thus reflecting given goals, purposes and values. It is related to pragmatism in philosophy.

4.4076002E-4 = product of:
  0.0070521603 = sum of:
    0.0070521603 = weight(_text_:information in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070521603 = score(doc=2290,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

3.8170937E-4 = product of:
  0.00610735 = sum of:
    0.00610735 = weight(_text_:information in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00610735 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052480884 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029895496 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.