Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=230,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 2043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=2043,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 2043, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=1590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 5594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=5594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 5594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5594)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide some theoretical considerations concerning information literacy so as to contribute to a theoretically informed point of departure for understanding information literacy and to argue that to be an information literate person is to have knowledge about information sources and that searching and using them is determined by an insight into how knowledge is socially organized in society. Design/methodology/approach - Using concepts from composition studies that deal with the question of what a writer needs to know in order to produce a text, the paper outlines some ideas and key concepts in order to show how these ideas and concepts are useful to our understanding of information literacy. To demonstrate how information-literacy is to have knowledge about information sources and that searching and using them is determined by an insight into how knowledge is socially organized in society, the paper takes a point of departure in Habermas' theory of the public sphere. Findings - Concludes that information seeking competence is a sociopolitical skill, like reading and writing skills, connected to human activity. Searching for documents in information systems is a complex and sociopolitical activity. As an expression of human activity we might say that searching for documents and reading and writing constitutes each other. The genre knowledge necessary in reading and writing does also apply when seeking information in systems of organized knowledge as the forms of information determine what can be expected and found in these systems. Information literacy covers, then, the ability to read society and its textually and genre-mediated structures. Information literacy represents an understanding of society and its textual mediation. Research limitations/implications - Locating an understanding of information literacy in a broader discursive framework requires us to rethink our hitherto concepts and understandings of information literacy as socio-political skills and not mere technical search skills Originality/value - Rarely is information literacy discussed and understood from social-theoretical perspectives. This article illuminates how an analysis of information literacy from the perspective of the theory of the public sphere can open up for an understanding of information literacy socio-political skills. Thus, the article has contributed with a new interpretation of information literacy.

0.0071211113 = product of:
  0.028484445 = sum of:
    0.028484445 = weight(_text_:social in 2998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028484445 = score(doc=2998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.15419927 = fieldWeight in 2998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.