Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029071996 = product of:
  0.116287984 = sum of:
    0.116287984 = weight(_text_:communication in 2043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116287984 = score(doc=2043,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.58428013 = fieldWeight in 2043, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2043)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article the relationship between communication technologies and the LIS concept of knowledge organization will be examined from a medium-theory perspective. The purpose of the medium-theory perspective is to trace the historicity of the LIS concept of knowledge organization, that is, an examination of which tradition has produced the concept. The perspective will help to reveal the condition of possibilities of knowledge organization and its strong connection with communication technologies, and their constitution of the social organization of society. The means and modes of communication fundamentally alter existing ways of thinking and of producing, communicatiog and organizing knowledge. The LIS concept of knowledge organization will be analyzed in relation to the storing and communication of knowledge in oral cultures, written cultures, print culture, and electronic cultures. Through this, it will be argued that the narrow LIS concept of knowledge organization is subordinated and in interaction with a broader social organization of knowledge in society. Further, it will be argued that the rise of the Internet as a source of knowledge and information must be understood in relation to and in continuation of this interaction. Among other things, it will be concluded that a relevant socio-historical background and framework for the LIS concept of knowledge organization is how humans have organized their intellectual activities throughout history in terms of particular means and modes of communication. Medium theory can provide part of this background and framework.

0.028484624 = product of:
  0.113938496 = sum of:
    0.113938496 = weight(_text_:communication in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113938496 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.5724753 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.023737187 = product of:
  0.094948746 = sum of:
    0.094948746 = weight(_text_:communication in 2682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094948746 = score(doc=2682,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.47706276 = fieldWeight in 2682, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2682)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The new electronic environments pose a threat and challenge to the theory and practice of knowledge organization. Documents can be approached in electronic retrieval activities in ways not dependent an 'classical' knowledge organization activities such as indexing or classification. Accordingly, an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization in the new electronic environments must show that knowledge organization is worth pursuing and that it is a valuable support to users of information retrieval (IR) systems. In this paper the qualitative difference of knowledge organization and its role in scholarly communication is framed as a question of ascribing cognitive authority to documents. The concem is to examine and discuss how and to what extent knowledge organization as an epistemic instrument in scholarly communication can contribute to ascribe cognitive authority to scholarly documents. The paper is structured in the following way. Initially, a brief examination of the appearance of cognitive authority in knowledge organization, and how that affects an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization shall be presented. Secondly, the theoretical approach will be outlined and discussed. Then the empirical analysis applying the theory will be presented. The last part will point to the benefits, limitations, and possibilities of the proposed theoretical approach in relation to the conception of knowledge organization as an epistemic activity in scholarly communication.

0.023737187 = product of:
  0.094948746 = sum of:
    0.094948746 = weight(_text_:communication in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094948746 = score(doc=4452,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.47706276 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.014242312 = product of:
  0.056969248 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, the role of bibliography in the global learning society is examined. Through an analysis of issues characterizing modernity and globalization, an understanding of bibliography located in light of these issues. I argue that by considering bibliography as a document performing a particular communicative activity with a particular purpose and as a genre that both creates particular expectations as to how to use a bibliography and how to recognize a given bibliographical activity, bibliography as a form of knowledge organization may be able to deal with the effects of modernity on social and cultural communication. I conclude that these ways of understanding bibliographical activity may provide means as to how understand and situate the role of bibliography in the global learning society.

0.014242312 = product of:
  0.056969248 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=2265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

By drawing on Lev Manovich's argument about the database as a cultural form, I argue in this paper that knowledge organization consequently may be considered a cultural form. I use Manovich's argument to locate an understanding of knowledge organization activity in light of new media. Knowledge organization is not an appendage but rather a prime communication and production form of new media, turning knowledge organization into knowledge design. This implies moreover that knowledge organization is not only an activity ensuring storage and retrieval but is also media design as well. The theoretical consequence of this is to engage in 'info-aesthetics'.

0.011749309 = product of:
  0.046997234 = sum of:
    0.046997234 = weight(_text_:communication in 2998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046997234 = score(doc=2998,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.23613402 = fieldWeight in 2998, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Literary critics are reviewing and critiquing works of fiction. But where, one may ask, are the critics of the functionality and legitimacy of knowledge organization systems? That is, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias or search engines - all systems that mediate culture. In this paper I will argue for a conception of the librarian as an information critic. Starting with a critique of the lack of an information critic, I shall next pinpoint what such an information critic ought to look like, why it is needed and how the modern librarian may fulfill this task. Librarians, and librarianship in general, have always had a paradoxical self-understanding. On the one hand, they have seen themselves as promoters of, for instance, democracy, free access to information, civil courage and literacy. On the other hand, librarians have usually portrayed themselves as neutral agents in social and cultural communication. That is, librarians claim they make a difference but are neutral with regard to how this difference is to be understood. The lack of active and critical librarians implies that they cannot be seen as advocates of democracy because democracy as a historical category demands constant analysis and critique in order to be evolving and stable.
That part of society that matters to librarians is the one where knowledge and information, materialized in a variety of genres, are circulating and what role knowledge organization systems have in relation to these. Constructing a public consciousness about this issue requires librarians to participate in the public sphere and discuss and justify why knowledge organization systems such as, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias or search engines, and the functionality of these, matter to the public, that is, to argue how such systems make a difference. Librarians can and should actively do this by acting as critics of society's textually mediated communication structures. This is much more than merely `evaluating', for instance, databases or search engines and their technical capacities. It is putting the discussion of these into a critique of late modern culture and society. In this way we may consider the modern librarian as an information critic. The modern librarian envisioned as an information critic is needed because systems of knowledge organization, in particular with the rise of the Internet, are part of our everyday life and human activities. This means that we are more than ever dependent on such systems, but at the same time we need critical insight into how such systems work and why. Otherwise, our dependence becomes one of slavery and not active participation. Therefore, critical analyses and criticisms of the tendency of theses systems to act as naturalized and transcend tools are constantly needed because they shape society and culture and are shaped by society and culture. The modern librarian should be providing such a critique of bibliographies, catalogs, and encyclopedias etc. because these are the librarians' working genres used when mediating society and culture.

0.009969283 = product of:
  0.03987713 = sum of:
    0.03987713 = product of:
      0.07975426 = sum of:
        0.07975426 = weight(_text_:networks in 85) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07975426 = score(doc=85,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21802035 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 85, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=85)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article we argue for how a genre-theoretical approach to information history can contribute to our understanding of what has historically been conceived of as information, what sort of networks and activities triggered the production and use of information, and what forms information was presented and communicated in. Through 2 case studies we show how information and the genres used for communicating that information was perceived and used by the relevant agents involved with the genres. Based on the case studies, we conclude by discussing how the fields of information history and rhetorical genre theory can inform each other.