Search (537 results, page 2 of 27)

0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=909,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 909, 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=909)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=909,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The emergence of Knowledge Management (KM) over the last decade has triggered the question how or even whether this new management discipline can be distinguished from the established field of Information Management (IM). In this paper we critically examine this demarcation issue from two angles. First we will investigate to what extent the difference between IM and KM can be anchored an a conceptual distinction between their respective objects: information and knowledge. After having shown that this widely adopted strategy promises little success, we will shift our attention to an examination of the fundamental objectives or guiding principles behind both disciplines. Seen from this angle we argue that KM in order to foster organizational learning, innovation and strategy flexibility, should adopt a postmodern epistemological perspective that is geared to the management of incommensurability and difference within and between organizations.

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

Type

a

0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=2340,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2340,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The idea of obtaining subject access to information by being able to visualize an information space, and to navigate through that space toward useful or interesting information, is attractive and plausible. However, this approach to subject access requires additional cognitive processing associated with the interaction of cognitive facilities that deal with concepts and those that deal with space. This additional cognitive processing may cause problems for users, particularly in dealing with the dimensions, the details, and the symbols of information space. Further, it seems likely that different cognitive abilities are associated with conceptual and spatial cognition. As a result, users who deal well with subject access using traditional conceptual approaches may experience difficulty in using visualization and navigation. An experiment designed to investigate the effects of different cognitive abilities on the use of both conceptual and spatial representations of information is outlined

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Type

a

0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=351,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While there are calls for new paradigms within the profession, there are also existing subgenres that fit this bill if they would be fully acknowledged. This essay argues that underrepresented and otherwise marginalized scholars have already produced significant work within social, cultural, and community-oriented paradigms; social justice and advocacy; and, diversity, equity, and inclusion. This work has not been sufficiently valued or promoted. Furthermore, the surrounding structural conditions have resulted in the dismissal, violently reviewed and rejected, and erased work of underrepresented scholars, and the stigmatization and delegitimization of their work. These scholars are "outsiders-within-LIS." By identifying the outsiders-within-LIS through the frame of standpoint theories, the authors are suggesting that a new paradigm does not need to be created; rather, an existing paradigm needs to be recognized and reprioritized. This reprioritized paradigm of critical sociocultural work has and will continue to creatively enrich and expand the field and decolonize LIS curricula.

Date

18. 9.2021 13:22:27

Type

a

0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=479,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

Type

a

0.021476595 = product of:
  0.04295319 = sum of:
    0.04295319 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=3012,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.03529904 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529904 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When we were all facing the turn of the century and the somewhat larger turn of the millennium, we left behind epochs of colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, nazism and racialism. Not that the ideologies mentioned does no longer exist, but their impact as grand narratives has gone and they now exist as fragmented discursive parts of their former, illusive hegemony. Parts that have been thrown into the pits of post modern complexity. The 21st century holds no answers, no new meaning, at most it provides human communication a certain self reflectivity due to the increasing egocentrism and individuality of people (i.e. still mostly western people). Another symptom of the loss of grand narratives is a feeling of loss of meaning in everyday life, as well as the state of democracies around the world. Democracy shivers in its void between anarchy and repressive dictatorship. The description 'information age' provides the times we are in with a useful sticker. It tents both back in time e.g. the late 20, century digitalisation and forward in time by givingr origin to the contemporary discourse of social semantics i.e. Dream society, Knowledge society, Post modern society, Risk society, Hypercomplex society etc. The phrase 'information age' implied the introduction of a paradigm shift, and now it is still here showing that paradigms do not shift, they slide. This paper outlines a manifest for librarians and librarianship of the information age. The information age puts the spotlight on the librarian, both regarding classical tasks such as classification and cataloguing as well as new tasks such as systems analysis and design or database searching.
Complexity establishes a paradox between the tasks of preserving old knowledge (memory function) and facilitate cognitive dissonance in order to challenge established knowledge claims and create new knowledge (catalyser function). Through complexity all social systems organisations, discourse communities, ideologies) face an environment (or surrounding) that is characterised through its instability and contingency. What is real, or presumable real from one point of view can appear completely different from another point of view. Different discourses of meaning and significance float, blend and separates themselves form each other the arena of communication. The library has to both keep record of what has happened, as well as take part in the ongoing battles for new discursive hegemonies. The unity of the paradox of memory and catalysing is described as managing complexity and requires a conscious and constant oscillation between order and chaos, stability and change. The role of the librarian is defined through an analysis of contemporary social semantics as well as the technical, ethical, cultural and epistemological challenges facing us as librarians and information specialists.

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

Type

a

0.020948619 = product of:
  0.041897237 = sum of:
    0.041897237 = sum of:
      0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010696997 = score(doc=4463,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Type

a

0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2020 16:56:22

Type

a

0.020383961 = product of:
  0.040767923 = sum of:
    0.040767923 = sum of:
      0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009567685 = score(doc=950,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

Type

a

0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=1344,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, 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=1344)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

Type

a

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=5268,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5268,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5268, 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=5268)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is an empirical, experimental investigation of the value of information, as perceived through the willingness to purchase information (WTP) and the willingness to sell it (accept payment, WTA). We examined the effects of source nature: expertise versus content, and source status: copy versus exclusive original of information on the WTA-WTP ratio. In an animated computer simulation of a business game, players could maximize their profits by making choices regarding inventory and prices. Participants were offered the chance to bid for buying or selling information regarding the weather that may affect demand. We find, as hypothesized, that the subjective value of information does indeed follow the predictions of endowment effect theory. The ratio of willingness to accept to willingness to purchase (WTA-WTP) recorded for the 294 subjects resembles the ratio common for private goods, rather than the intuitively expected unity. The WTA-WTP ratios diverged from unity more often and in a more pronounced manner for information traded in the original form rather than as a copy of the original, although even for copies the WTA-WTP ratio is still double. The results yield a value of about three for the WTA-WTP ratio for original information whether the source is content or expertise. Copy information received a subjective value that was significantly different (lower) than original information. The implications for both online trading and online sharing of information are discussed.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:09:35

Type

a

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=5077,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5077, 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=5077)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How does information lead to changes in human behavior? Why have current information theories been inadequate to shed light on this and related questions? Library and Information Science (LIS) has arrived at a crucial juncture in its relatively brief theoretical history. In addition to the cognitive and physical perspectives in our study of information, a new paradigm has been suggested; the affective paradigm. This new perspective offers keys to unlocking questions about the nature of the interaction of human and information. In recent years we have developed deeper knowledge and deeper specializations, drawing together and combining knowledge from multiple fields in order to advance our own knowledge. The relationship between information needs and information seeking has been well studied. The ways in which people use information is not as well understood because of the complex nature of human behavior. Drawing from other fields that study human behavior, however, muddies the traditional boundaries of LIS, creating some possible discomfort as we trespass into lesser known intellectual territory. Pushing our boundaries also forces questions of our self-identity as a discipline. What constitutes Library and Information Science, either in whole or in part, becomes more difficult to define and can lead to greater fragmentation. Alternatively, the incorporation of multiple perspectives may be the defining core of what constitutes LIS. The focus of this talk is to look at LIS from the outside in, from a multidisciplinary perspective, in order to shed light on questions of how information can lead to changes in human behavior. Drawing from other fields of study, the impact of information on human behavior will be explored in light of what other fields may have to offer.

Date

16. 3.2019 17:32:22

Type

a

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=5839,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose In The Invisible Substrate of Information Science, a landmark article about the discipline of information science, Marcia J. Bates wrote that ".we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives" (1999a, p. 1048). To sharpen our understanding of information science and to elaborate Bates' idea, the work at hand answers the question: Just what does the red thread of information entail? Design/methodology/approach Through a close reading of Bates' oeuvre and by applying concepts from the reference literature of information science, nine composite entities that qualify as the red thread of information are identified, elaborated, and related to existing concepts in the information science literature. In the spirit of a scientist-poet (White, 1999), several playful metaphors related to the color red are employed. Findings Bates' red thread of information entails: terms, genres, literatures, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, information institutions, and information policy. This same constellation of phenomena can be found in resonant visions of information science, namely, domain analysis (Hjørland, 2002), ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999), and social epistemology (Shera, 1968). Research limitations/implications With the vital vermilion filament in clear view, newcomers can more easily engage the material, conceptual, and social machinery of information science, and specialists are reminded of what constitutes information science as a whole. Future researchers and scientist-poets may wish to supplement the nine composite entities with additional, emergent information phenomena. Originality/value Though the explication of information science that follows is relatively orthodox and time-bound, the paper offers an imaginative, accessible, yet technically precise way of understanding the field.

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

Type

a

0.018529613 = product of:
  0.037059225 = sum of:
    0.037059225 = sum of:
      0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005858987 = score(doc=5835,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify key countries and their focal research fields on the information divide. Design/methodology/approach Literature was retrieved to identify key countries and their primary focus. The literature research method was adopted to identify aspects of the primary focus in each key country. Findings The key countries with literature on the information divide are the USA, China, the UK and India. The problem of health is prominent in the USA, and solutions include providing information, distinguishing users' profiles and improving eHealth literacy. Economic and political factors led to the urban-rural information divide in China, and policy is the most powerful solution. Under the influence of humanism, research on the information divide in the UK focuses on all age groups, and solutions differ according to age. Deep-rooted patriarchal concepts and traditional marriage customs make the gender information divide prominent in India, and increasing women's information consciousness is a feasible way to reduce this divide. Originality/value This paper is an extensive review study on the information divide, which clarifies the key countries and their focal fields in research on this topic. More important, the paper innovatively analyzes and summarizes existing literature from a country perspective.

Date

13. 2.2020 18:22:13

Type

a

0.017358676 = product of:
  0.03471735 = sum of:
    0.03471735 = sum of:
      0.009757163 = weight(_text_:a in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009757163 = score(doc=5655,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to lay a theoretical foundation for identifying operational information units for library and information professional activities in the context of scholarly communication. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a deduction-verification approach to formulate a typology of units for scholarly information. It first deduces possible units from an existing conceptualization of information, which defines information as the combined product of data and meaning, and then tests the usefulness of these units via two empirical investigations, one with a group of scholarly papers and the other with a sample of scholarly information users. Findings The results show that, on defining an information unit as a piece of information that is complete in both data and meaning, to such an extent that it remains meaningful to its target audience when retrieved and displayed independently in a database, it is then possible to formulate a hierarchical typology of units for scholarly information. The typology proposed in this study consists of three levels, which in turn, consists of 1, 5 and 44 units, respectively. Research limitations/implications The result of this study has theoretical implications on both the philosophical and conceptual levels: on the philosophical level, it hinges on, and reinforces the objective view of information; on the conceptual level, it challenges the conceptualization of work by IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and Library Reference Model but endorses that by Library of Congress's BIBFRAME 2.0 model. Practical implications It calls for reconsideration of existing operational units in a variety of library and information activities. Originality/value The study strengthens the conceptual foundation of operational information units and brings to light the primacy of "one work" as an information unit and the possibility for it to be supplemented by smaller units.

Date

14. 1.2020 11:15:22

Type

a

0.016758895 = product of:
  0.03351779 = sum of:
    0.03351779 = sum of:
      0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008557598 = score(doc=3077,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3077, 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=3077)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.

Date

2. 1.2005 18:22:25

Type

a

0.016758895 = product of:
  0.03351779 = sum of:
    0.03351779 = sum of:
      0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008557598 = score(doc=3008,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3008, 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=3008)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The project Information Pricing was carried out during the summer semester 2004 by four students and two lecturers. Aim of the project was to develop a new product- and pricing concept for the research centre of the Public Library Cologne. The intention was to increase its competitiveness, especially in the business customer segment. The initiating factor for the project was the significant decrease in requests from 1997 to 2001. This paper describes the development of different attributes of information, analysing various pricing concepts of private and public information providers as well as the development of a pricing concept which is aligned to the requirements and performance of the research centre. The final result was an improved pricing system for an enhanced range of products. The first step was getting more familiar with the characteristics of information and the methods that can be used to measure the value of information. One of the key issues to consider is the value of information for a customer and the question how this value can be charged. In order to be capable of evaluating all issues of information pricing and to develop a solid pricing system, it was essential to analyse and assess pricing modules based on their intension of use. For example, the differentiation of the pricing concept with regard to certain user segments like business or private users as well as members and non-members. Another option is to define prices dependant on the requested response times for research tasks and thereby reflect the urgency of those tasks directly in the pricing concept. Furthermore, the qualitative and quantitative differentiation of information has to be taken into account. All described approaches - and also combinations of these - should be considered when developing a new pricing system. It is also important to recognize the special role of the research centre as a part of the public library. Libraries fulfil a public contract for their users. In this case it has to be ensured that people of all social backgrounds have the chance to gain access to all kind of information. While presenting results to the Public library Cologne some problems arose, mainly the gap between theoretical and practical feasibility. The final result was a practical pricing system, which is easy to implement for the research centre and which is described in the paper.

Date

22. 7.2009 9:24:59

Type

a

0.015505663 = product of:
  0.031011326 = sum of:
    0.031011326 = sum of:
      0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0060511357 = score(doc=2596,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=2596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2596, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2596)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose In contrast to the interest of describing and managing the social processes of knowing, information science and information and knowledge management research have put less emphasis on discussing how particular information becomes usable and how it is used in different contexts and situations. The purpose of this paper is to address this major gap, and introduce and discuss the applicability of the notion of situational appropriation of information for shedding light on this particular process in the context of daily information work practices of professionals. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the analysis of 25 qualitative interviews of archives, library and museum professionals conducted in two Nordic countries. Findings The study presents examples of how individuals appropriate different tangible and intangible assets as information on the basis of the situation in hand. Research limitations/implications The study proposes a new conceptual tool for articulating and conducting research on the process how information becomes useful in the situation in hand. Practical implications The situational appropriation of information perspective redefines the role of information management to incorporate a comprehensive awareness of the situations when information is useful and is being used. A better understanding how information becomes useful in diverse situations helps to discern the active role of contextual and situational effects and to exploit and take them into account as a part of the management of information and knowledge processes. Originality/value In contrast to orthodoxies of information science and information and knowledge management research, the notion of situational appropriation of information represents an alternative approach to the conceptualisation of information utilisation. It helps to frame particular types of instances of information use that are not necessarily addressed within the objectivistic, information seeker or learning oriented paradigms of information and knowledge management.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.012112157 = product of:
  0.024224315 = sum of:
    0.024224315 = sum of:
      0.008624195 = weight(_text_:a in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008624195 = score(doc=2748,freq=52.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.16239727 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
              52.0 = termFreq=52.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.01560012 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01560012 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

Type

a

0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=2732,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metaphor and thought. Ed. A. Ortony

Type

a

0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 1340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=1340,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 1340, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information: new questions to a multidisciplinary concept. Ed.: K. Kornwachs u. K. Jacoby

Type

a