Search (253 results, page 1 of 13)

0.09117597 = product of:
  0.18235195 = sum of:
    0.18235195 = sum of:
      0.084353715 = weight(_text_:p in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084353715 = score(doc=136,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.44943908 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.09799823 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09799823 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

Source

Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari

0.061017312 = sum of:
  0.0423776 = product of:
    0.1695104 = sum of:
      0.1695104 = weight(_text_:authors in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1695104 = score(doc=296,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The concept of information is central to several fields of research and professional practice. So many definitions have been put forward that complete inventory is unachievable while authors have failed to reach a consensus. In the face of the present impasse, innovative proposals could rouse information theorists to action, but literature surveys tend to emphasize the common traits of definitions. Reviewers are inclined to iron out originality in information models; thus the purpose of this paper is to discover the creativity of authors attempting to define the concept of information and to stimulate the progress of studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach Because the present inquiry could be influenced and distorted by personal criteria and opinions, the authors have adopted precise criteria and guidelines. It could be said the present approach approximates a statistical methodology. Findings The findings of this paper include (1) The authors found 32 original definitions of information which sometimes current surveys have overlooked. (2) The authors found a relation between information theories and advances in information technology. (3) Overall, the authors found that researchers take account of a wide variety of perspectives yet overlook the notion of information as used by computing practitioners such as electronic engineers and software developers. Research limitations/implications The authors comment on some limitations of the procedure that was followed. Results 1 and 3 open up new possibilities for theoretical research in the information domain. Originality/value This is an attempt to conduct a bibliographical inquiry driven by objective and scientific criteria; its value lies in the fact that final report has not been influenced by personal choice or arbitrary viewpoints.

0.058113195 = product of:
  0.11622639 = sum of:
    0.11622639 = sum of:
      0.059647083 = weight(_text_:p in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059647083 = score(doc=60,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 60, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=60)
      0.056579303 = weight(_text_:22 in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056579303 = score(doc=60,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 60, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=60)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 18:41:04

Footnote

Rez. in: Frankfurter Rundschau Nr.23 vom 27.1.1996, S.ZB4 (P. Kruntorad); Spektrum der Wissenschaft 1996, H.3, S.116 (G. Wolf)

0.045729287 = sum of:
  0.020975841 = product of:
    0.083903365 = sum of:
      0.083903365 = weight(_text_:authors in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083903365 = score(doc=6964,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 6964, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6964)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024753446 = product of:
    0.04950689 = sum of:
      0.04950689 = weight(_text_:22 in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04950689 = score(doc=6964,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6964, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6964)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Within dynamic organizations, information systems often fail to adapt to changing requirements and structures. The book presents a different view of IS provision, based on end-user information systems construction, as a means of avoiding many of the recognized problems. Adopting a philosophy of constructivism, emphasizing psychological and social factors in information construction, the authors examine different types of systems across natural and social sciences

Date

25.12.2001 13:22:30

0.042176858 = product of:
  0.084353715 = sum of:
    0.084353715 = product of:
      0.16870743 = sum of:
        0.16870743 = weight(_text_:p in 7062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16870743 = score(doc=7062,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.89887816 = fieldWeight in 7062, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7062)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Konstruktivismus und Naturerkenntnis. Hrsg.: P. Janich

0.040660143 = sum of:
  0.019820306 = product of:
    0.079281226 = sum of:
      0.079281226 = weight(_text_:authors in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.079281226 = score(doc=3686,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.33315468 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020839835 = product of:
    0.04167967 = sum of:
      0.04167967 = weight(_text_:p in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04167967 = score(doc=3686,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.2220705 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.9, S.1008-1009 (D.E. Agosto): "This second edition of Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age remains true to the first edition (published in 1998). The main changes involved the updating of educational standards discussed in the text, as well as the updating of the term history. Overall, this book serves as a detailed definition of the concept of information literacy and focuses heavily an presenting and discussing related state and national educational standards and policies. It is divided into 10 chapters, many of which contain examples of U.S. and international information literacy programs in a variety of educational settings. Chapter one offers a detailed definition of information literacy, as well as tracing the deviation of the term. The term was first introduced in 1974 by Paul Zurkowski in a proposal to the national Commission an Libraries and Information Science. Fifteen years later a special ALA committee derived the now generally accepted definition: "To be information literate requires a new set of skills. These include how to locate and use information needed for problem-solving and decision-making efficiently and effectively" (American Library Association, 1989, p. 11). Definitions for a number of related concepts are also offered, including definitions for visual literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, digital literacy, and network literacy. Although the authors do define these different subtypes of information literacy, they sidestep the argument over the definition of the more general term literacy, consequently avoiding the controversy over national and world illiteracy rates. Regardless of the actual rate of U.S. literacy (which varies radically with each different definition of "literacy"), basic literacy, i.e., basic reading and writing skills, still presents a formidable educational goal in the U.S. In fact, More than 5 million high-schoolers do not read well enough to understand their textbooks or other material written for their grade level. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 26% of these students cannot read material many of us world deem essential for daily living, such as road signs, newspapers, and bus schedules. (Hock & Deshler, 2003, p. 27)
Chapter two delves more deeply into the historical evolution of the concept of information literacy, and chapter three summarizes selected information literacy research. Researchers generally agree that information literacy is a process, rather than a set of skills to be learned (despite the unfortunate use of the word "skills" in the ALA definition). Researchers also generally agree that information literacy should be taught across the curriculum, as opposed to limiting it to the library or any other single educational context or discipline. Chapter four discusses economic ties to information literacy, suggesting that countries with information literate populations will better succeed economically in the current and future information-based world economy. A recent report issued by the Basic Education Coalition, an umbrella group of 19 private and nongovernmental development and relief organizations, supports this claim based an meta-analysis of large bodies of data collected by the World Bank, the United Nations, and other international organizations. Teach a Child, Transform a Nation (Basic Education Coalition, 2004) concluded that no modern nation has achieved sustained economic growth without providing near universal basic education for its citizens. It also concluded that countries that improve their literacy rates by 20 to 30% sec subsequent GDP increases of 8 to 16%. In light of the Coalition's finding that one fourth of adults in the world's developing countries are unable to read or write, the goal of worldwide information literacy seems sadly unattainable for the present, a present in which even universal basic literacy is still a pipedream. Chapter live discusses information literacy across the curriculum as an interpretation of national standards. The many examples of school and university information literacy programs, standards, and policies detailed throughout the volume world be very useful to educators and administrators engaging in program planning and review. For example, the authors explain that economics standards included in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act are comprised of 20 benchmark content standards. They quote a two-pronged grade 12 benchmark that first entails students being able to discuss how a high school senior's working 20 hours a week while attending school might result in a reduced overall lifetime income, and second requires students to be able to describe how increasing the federal minimum wage might result in reduced income for some workers. The authors tie this benchmark to information literacy as follows: "Economic decision making requires complex thinking skills because the variables involved are interdependent.
Students need to use the whole range of information literacy skills to identify needed information, evaluate and analyze information, and use information for critical thinking and problem solving" (p. 81). Chapters six and seven address K-12 education and information literacy. The authors outline the restructuring necessary to make information literacy a basic part of the curriculum and emphasize resourcebased learning as crucial in teaching information literacy. The authors also discuss the implications of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act to the teaching of information literacy in primary and secondary schools. Again they avoid controversy, this time by omitting analysis of the success or failure of the Act in promoting the teaching and learning of information literacy. Instead, these chapters provide a number of examples of information literacy programs in K-12 educational settings within the US. Examples range from information literacy guidelines developed by the California Technology Assistance Project to a discussion of home schoolers and information literacy. Throughout the 1990s, the information literacy movement began to filter up to higher education. Chapter eight discusses related standards and presents a number of examples of college-level information literacy programs, including programs at the University of Massachusetts, Kent State University, and Washington State University. Chapter nine deals with technology and information literacy. It tocuses an the teaching of technology use as process teaching and an the importance of context in technology education.
Lastly, chapter 10 considers possible future directions of the information literacy movement. The authors conclude "Our ability to be information literate depends an our willingness to be lifelong learners as we are challenged to master new, and as yet unknown, technologies that will surely alter the landscape of information in the future" (p. 177). Following the book's 10 chapters are a number of appendices that present information literacy standards and definitions, a timeline of the evolution of the information literacy movement, and a number of related bibliographies. Lead author Eisenberg is perhaps best known as the co-creator, with Bob Berkowitz, of the Big 6, an information literacy model. The model includes six components: Task Definition, Information Seeking Strategies, Location and Access, Use of Information, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Eisenberg, 2003). Throughout the book, Eisenberg and his co-authors show how the Big 6 model can be used to teach information literacy. For example, in chapter nine, "Technology and Information Literacy," they lay out each of the six model components, providing specific technological skills benchmarks for each, such as "Know the roles and computer expertise of the people working in the school library media center and elsewhere who might provide information or assistance" under step 3, "Location and Access" (p. 160). The many detailed descriptions of information literacy policies and programs that appear throughout the book make it most useful for educators, administrators, and policy makers involved in the teaching, planning, and development of information literacy programs, standards, and policies. Overall, this newly revised volume stands as one of the most comprehensive single available sources from which to begin a detailed investigation of the concept of information literacy."

0.04034695 = sum of:
  0.017979292 = product of:
    0.07191717 = sum of:
      0.07191717 = weight(_text_:authors in 2140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07191717 = score(doc=2140,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2140, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2140)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022367656 = product of:
    0.044735312 = sum of:
      0.044735312 = weight(_text_:p in 2140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044735312 = score(doc=2140,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2140, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2140)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Using Michel Foucault's notion of heterotopia as a guide, the purpose of this paper is to explore the implications of considering the library as place, and specifically as a place that has the "curious property of being in relation with all the other sites, but in such a way as to suspect, neutralize, or invent the set of relations that they happen to designate, mirror, or reflect" (Foucault, 1986a, p. 24). Design/methodology/approach The paper draws upon a range of literary examples and from biographical accounts of authors such as Alan Bennett, Michel Foucault, and Umberto Eco to show how the library space operates as a heterotopia. Findings The paper finds that drawing together the constructs of heterotopia and serendipity can enrich the understanding of how libraries are experienced as sites of play, creativity, and adventure. Originality/value Foucault's concept of heterotopia is offered as an original and useful frame that can account for the range of experiences and associations uniquely attached to the library.

0.04000761 = product of:
  0.08001522 = sum of:
    0.08001522 = product of:
      0.16003044 = sum of:
        0.16003044 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16003044 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:01:22

0.03919653 = sum of:
  0.017979292 = product of:
    0.07191717 = sum of:
      0.07191717 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07191717 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021217238 = product of:
    0.042434476 = sum of:
      0.042434476 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042434476 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.03886983 = sum of:
  0.0211888 = product of:
    0.0847552 = sum of:
      0.0847552 = weight(_text_:authors in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0847552 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017681032 = product of:
    0.035362065 = sum of:
      0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035362065 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.037279427 = product of:
  0.074558854 = sum of:
    0.074558854 = product of:
      0.14911771 = sum of:
        0.14911771 = weight(_text_:p in 2469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14911771 = score(doc=2469,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.79450357 = fieldWeight in 2469, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2469)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.036904752 = product of:
  0.073809505 = sum of:
    0.073809505 = product of:
      0.14761901 = sum of:
        0.14761901 = weight(_text_:p in 8932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14761901 = score(doc=8932,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.7865184 = fieldWeight in 8932, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8932)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Janich, P.: Die Grenzen der Naturwissenschaft: Erkennen als Handeln

0.036904752 = product of:
  0.073809505 = sum of:
    0.073809505 = product of:
      0.14761901 = sum of:
        0.14761901 = weight(_text_:p in 1277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14761901 = score(doc=1277,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.7865184 = fieldWeight in 1277, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Erwiderung auf 'Janich, P.: Informationsbegriff und methodisch-kulturalistische Philosophie' in demselben Heft (S.169-182)

0.036320746 = product of:
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.07264149 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 2125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=2125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2125)
      0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 2125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035362065 = score(doc=2125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2125, 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=2125)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.036320746 = product of:
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.07264149 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
      0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035362065 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

0.036320746 = product of:
  0.07264149 = sum of:
    0.07264149 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
      0.035362065 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035362065 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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

0.036272176 = product of:
  0.07254435 = sum of:
    0.07254435 = product of:
      0.2901774 = sum of:
        0.2901774 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2901774 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44255427 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.035201054 = product of:
  0.07040211 = sum of:
    0.07040211 = sum of:
      0.052721076 = weight(_text_:p in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052721076 = score(doc=2748,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.017681032 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017681032 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = 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."

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.030005708 = product of:
  0.060011417 = sum of:
    0.060011417 = product of:
      0.12002283 = sum of:
        0.12002283 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12002283 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22
22. 7.2000 19:05:41

0.029823542 = product of:
  0.059647083 = sum of:
    0.059647083 = product of:
      0.11929417 = sum of:
        0.11929417 = weight(_text_:p in 2491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11929417 = score(doc=2491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.63560283 = fieldWeight in 2491, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)