Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.06 
    0.06303686 = product of:
  0.09455529 = sum of:
    0.01812039 = weight(_text_:in in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01812039 = score(doc=4359,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.0764349 = sum of:
      0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03397567 = score(doc=4359,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.72-77
  2. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.06 
    0.06034007 = product of:
  0.0905101 = sum of:
    0.012945832 = weight(_text_:in in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012945832 = score(doc=5237,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.07756427 = sum of:
      0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028028497 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.049535774 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049535774 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.960-965
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.06 
    0.05669237 = product of:
  0.08503855 = sum of:
    0.0074742786 = weight(_text_:in in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074742786 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.07756427 = sum of:
      0.028028497 = weight(_text_:science in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028028497 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.049535774 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049535774 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.13
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
  4. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.05 
    0.052530717 = product of:
  0.078796074 = sum of:
    0.015100324 = weight(_text_:in in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015100324 = score(doc=629,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.06369575 = sum of:
      0.028313057 = weight(_text_:science in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028313057 = score(doc=629,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035382695 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.05 
    0.051880546 = product of:
  0.077820815 = sum of:
    0.014125061 = weight(_text_:in in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125061 = score(doc=1398,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.06369575 = sum of:
      0.028313057 = weight(_text_:science in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028313057 = score(doc=1398,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035382695 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    Footnote
    Abstract only: The paper will be published in JASIST
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Science, Part I : basic conceptions of science and the scientific method (2021) 0.04 
    0.039844707 = product of:
  0.05976706 = sum of:
    0.018494045 = weight(_text_:in in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018494045 = score(doc=594,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
    0.041273016 = product of:
      0.08254603 = sum of:
        0.08254603 = weight(_text_:science in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08254603 = score(doc=594,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.59997743 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special issue on 'Science and knowledge organization' mit längeren Überblicken zu wichtigen Begriffen der Wissensorgansiation.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organziation
  7. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.04 
    0.035478223 = product of:
  0.053217333 = sum of:
    0.011006158 = weight(_text_:in in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011006158 = score(doc=2748,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15491365 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.042211175 = sum of:
      0.024519825 = weight(_text_:science in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024519825 = score(doc=2748,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.17821985 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.017691348 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017691348 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643
  8. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The nature of information science and its core concepts (2014) 0.03 
    0.03119248 = product of:
  0.04678872 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
    0.03397567 = product of:
      0.06795134 = sum of:
        0.06795134 = weight(_text_:science in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06795134 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Series
    Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and subject representation : an activity-theoretical approach to information science (1997) 0.03 
    0.030737838 = product of:
  0.046106756 = sum of:
    0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014325427 = score(doc=6963,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
    0.03178133 = product of:
      0.06356266 = sum of:
        0.06356266 = weight(_text_:science in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06356266 = score(doc=6963,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.4619987 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Information science has for a long time been drawing on the knowledge produced in psychology and related fields. This is reasonable, for the central issue in information science concerns individual users navigating information spaces such as libraries, databases, and the Internet, Thus, informations seeking is the fundamental problem in information science, while other problems, such as document representation, are subordinate. This book proposes a general theory of information seeking as a theoretical basis for information science
    Content
    Introduction - information seeking and subject representation - subject searching and subject representation data - subject analysis and knowledge organization - the concept of subject or subject matter and basic epistemological positions - methodological consequences for information science - science, discipline, and subject field as a framework for information seeking - information needs and cognitive and scientific development
    Footnote
    Rez. in: nfd 49(1998) H.1, S.59-60 (G. Wersig), Erwiderung des Autors darauf in nfd: 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126; JASIS 49(1998) no.11, S.1043 (C. Chen); College and research libraries 59(1998) no.3, S.287-288 (P. Wilson)
  10. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and knowledge organization : the presentation of a new book (1997) 0.03 
    0.02865137 = product of:
  0.042977054 = sum of:
    0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014948557 = score(doc=310,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
    0.028028497 = product of:
      0.056056995 = sum of:
        0.056056995 = weight(_text_:science in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056056995 = score(doc=310,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation
  11. Hjoerland, B.; Kyllesbech Nielsen, L.: Subject access points in electronic retrieval (2001) 0.03 
    0.02865137 = product of:
  0.042977054 = sum of:
    0.014948557 = weight(_text_:in in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014948557 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
    0.028028497 = product of:
      0.056056995 = sum of:
        0.056056995 = weight(_text_:science in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056056995 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 35(2001), S.249-298
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Library and information science and the philosophy of science (2005) 0.03 
    0.028157895 = product of:
  0.042236842 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=4404,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
    0.029423792 = product of:
      0.058847584 = sum of:
        0.058847584 = weight(_text_:science in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058847584 = score(doc=4404,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.42772767 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this article is to introduce the special issue of Journal of Documentation about library and information science (LIS) and the philosophy of science. Design/methodology/approach - The most important earlier collected works about metatheories and philosophies of science within LIS are listed. Findings - It is claimed that Sweden probably is the country in which philosophy of science has the highest priority in LIS education. The plan of the guest editor was that each epistemological position should be both introduced and interpreted in a LIS context together with a review of its influence within the field and an evaluation of the pros and cons of that position. This was only an ideal plan. It is argued that it is important that such knowledge and debate are available within the LIS-literature itself and that the answers to such questions as "What is positivism?" are not trivial ones. Originality/value - The introduction is written to assist readers overviewing the issue and share the thoughts of the editor in planning the issue.
  13. Hjoerland, B.: Information: objective or subjective/situational? (2007) 0.03 
    0.028157895 = product of:
  0.042236842 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=5074,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
    0.029423792 = product of:
      0.058847584 = sum of:
        0.058847584 = weight(_text_:science in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058847584 = score(doc=5074,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.42772767 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article contrasts Bates' understanding of information as an observer-independent phenomenon with an understanding of information as situational, put forward by, among others, Bateson, Yovits, Spang-Hanssen, Brier, Buckland, Goguen, and Hjorland. The conflict between objective and subjective ways of understanding information corresponds to the conflict between an understanding of information as a thing or a substance versus an understanding of it as a sign. It is a fundamental distinction that involves a whole theory of knowledge, and it has roots back to different metaphors applied in Shannon's information theory. It is argued that a subject-dependent/ situation specific understanding of information is best suited to fulfill the needs in information science and that it is urgent for us to base Information Science (IS; or Library and Information Science, LIS) on this alternative theoretical frame.
    Content
    Bezugnahme auf: Bates, M.J.: Fundamental forms of information. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2006), no.8, S.1033-1045 und Bates, M.J.: Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for information science. In: Information research, 10(2005) no.4.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1448-1456
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Epistemology and the socio-cognitive persepctive in information science (2002) 0.03 
    0.02595077 = product of:
  0.038926154 = sum of:
    0.01812039 = weight(_text_:in in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01812039 = score(doc=304,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.020805765 = product of:
      0.04161153 = sum of:
        0.04161153 = weight(_text_:science in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04161153 = score(doc=304,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.257-270
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Theory and metatheory of information science : a new interpretation (1998) 0.03 
    0.025732484 = product of:
  0.038598724 = sum of:
    0.010570227 = weight(_text_:in in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010570227 = score(doc=4723,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.028028497 = product of:
      0.056056995 = sum of:
        0.056056995 = weight(_text_:science in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056056995 = score(doc=4723,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They also have a fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of 'information', on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. Asserts that information science must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. Shows limitations in the dominant approaches to information science and proposes alternative viewpoints
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998) 0.02 
    0.024558317 = product of:
  0.036837474 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
    0.024024425 = product of:
      0.04804885 = sum of:
        0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04804885 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Erwiderung auf die Rezension des gleichbetitelten Buches des Autors durch G. Wersig in nfd 49(1998) H.1
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Arguments for 'the bibliographical paradigm' : some thoughts inspired by the new English edition of the UDC (2007) 0.02 
    0.024558317 = product of:
  0.036837474 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=552,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
    0.024024425 = product of:
      0.04804885 = sum of:
        0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04804885 = score(doc=552,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The term 'the bibliographic paradigm' is used in the literature of library and information science, but is a very seldom term and is almost always negatively described. This paper reconsiders this concept. Method. The method is mainly 'analytical'. Empirical data concerning the current state of the UDC-classification system are also presented in order to illuminate the connection between theory and practice. Analysis. The bibliographic paradigm is understood as a perspective in library and information science focusing on documents and information resources, their description, organization, mediation and use. This perspective is examined as one among other metatheories of library and information science and its philosophical assumptions and implications are outlined. Results. The neglect and misunderstanding of 'the bibliographic paradigm' as well as the quality of the new UDC-classification indicate that both the metatheoretical discourses on library and information science and its concrete practice seem to be in a state of crisis.
  18. Capurro, R.; Hjoerland, B.: ¬The concept of information (2002) 0.02 
    0.024279773 = product of:
  0.03641966 = sum of:
    0.018401343 = weight(_text_:in in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018401343 = score(doc=5079,freq=66.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.2590022 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          8.124039 = tf(freq=66.0), with freq of:
            66.0 = termFreq=66.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.018018318 = product of:
      0.036036637 = sum of:
        0.036036637 = weight(_text_:science in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036036637 = score(doc=5079,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.26192862 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
    Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411
  19. Hjoerland, B.: Answer to Professor Szostak (concept theory) (2010) 0.02 
    0.024188703 = product of:
  0.036283053 = sum of:
    0.008542033 = weight(_text_:in in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008542033 = score(doc=3323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
    0.027741019 = product of:
      0.055482037 = sum of:
        0.055482037 = weight(_text_:science in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055482037 = score(doc=3323,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    Bezug zu: Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536.
    Footnote
    Erwiderung zu: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1076-1077.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1078-1080
  20. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Toward a new horizon in information science : domain analysis (1995) 0.02 
    0.024024446 = product of:
  0.036036666 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=2273,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
    0.020020355 = product of:
      0.04004071 = sum of:
        0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04004071 = score(doc=2273,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.6, S.400-425

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 82
  • dk 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 80
  • el 4
  • d 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications