Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012999968 = product of:
  0.09099977 = sum of:
    0.08304418 = weight(_text_:mental in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08304418 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50519145 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.007955586 = product of:
      0.023866756 = sum of:
        0.023866756 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023866756 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.008267534 = product of:
  0.11574547 = sum of:
    0.11574547 = weight(_text_:phenomenology in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11574547 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20961581 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.329592 = idf(docFreq=28, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.5521791 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.329592 = idf(docFreq=28, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

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

0.0018204609 = product of:
  0.02548645 = sum of:
    0.02548645 = weight(_text_:representation in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02548645 = score(doc=3013,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.22011891 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.
It uncovers the main theoretical influences that have affected the representation of art in systems of knowledge organization such as LCC, DDC, UDC and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, and it provides a deep basis for evaluating such systems. Knut Tore Abrahamsen's "Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective" is a modified version of a thesis written at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen. As a thesis it is a major achievement which successfully combines knowledge of music, epistemology, and knowledge organization. This paper may also be seen as an example of how domains can be analyzed and how knowledge organization may be improved in practice. We would like to thank Sanna Talja of the University of Tampere, among other people, for Input an this piece. And now to the rest of the issue: Olof Sundin's "Towards an Understanding of Symbolic Aspects of Professional Information: an Analysis of the Nursing Knowledge Domain" contributes to DA by introducing a deeper understanding of the notion of professions and by uncovering how in some domains, "symbolic" functions of information may be more important than instrumental functions. Rich Gazan's: "Metadata as a Realm of Translation: Merging Knowledge Domains in the Design of an Environmental Information System" demonstrates the problems of merging data collections in interdisciplinary fields, rohen the perceived informational value of different access points varies with disciplinary membership. This is important for the design of systems of metadata. Joe Tennis': "Two Axes of Domains for Domain Analysis" suggests that the notion of domain is underdeveloped in DA. Tennis states, "Hjoerland has provided a hammer, but rohere are the nails?" In addition he raises a question concerning the degree of specialization within a domain. He resolves these issues by proposing two new "axes" to DA. Chaim Zins & David Guttmann's: "Domain Analysis of Social Work: An Example of an Integrated Methodological Approach" represents an empirical approach to the construction of knowledge maps based an representative samples of the literature an social work. In a way, this paper is the most traditional or straightforward approach to knowledge organization in the issue: It suggests a concrete classification based an scientific norms of representation and objectivity.

0.0016816697 = product of:
  0.023543375 = sum of:
    0.023543375 = weight(_text_:representation in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023543375 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0012612522 = product of:
  0.01765753 = sum of:
    0.01765753 = weight(_text_:representation in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01765753 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.15250285 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).

5.734144E-4 = product of:
  0.008027801 = sum of:
    0.008027801 = product of:
      0.024083402 = sum of:
        0.024083402 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024083402 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

2.0294863E-4 = product of:
  0.0028412808 = sum of:
    0.0028412808 = product of:
      0.008523842 = sum of:
        0.008523842 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008523842 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27