Search (584 results, page 1 of 30)

0.1147012 = product of:
  0.17205179 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.054788217 = sum of:
      0.02510925 = weight(_text_:of in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02510925 = score(doc=4463,freq=36.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
              36.0 = termFreq=36.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192

0.101297006 = product of:
  0.1519455 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=1558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=1558,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports on a survey of teenagers at a school in Edinburgh, Scotland, conducted as part of the Household Information System (HIS) project at Queen Margaret College. HIS has attempted to apply organizational models of information management to non organizational contexts such as households. Information management concepts have also been complemented by reference to research from sociology and media and cultural studies into the domestic consumption of technologies. Previous HIS research has suggested that notions of technological convergence proposed by producers and suppliers of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are not shared by consumers who prefer to keep their television and computing devioces separate. Television is most often associated with relaxation and entertainment, computing with work and education. However, there is some evidence that expertise with regard to new ICTs is the province of children rather than adults in many homes, a trend which may indicate as inversion of traditional patterns of knowledge dispersal in adult child relationships

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd British-Nordic Conference on Library and Information Studies, Edinburgh, 1997. Organized by the British Association for Information and Library Education (BAILER). Ed.: Micheline Beaulieu et al

0.08677482 = product of:
  0.13016222 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=1896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
    0.012898651 = product of:
      0.025797302 = sum of:
        0.025797302 = weight(_text_:of in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025797302 = score(doc=1896,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand the information phenomenon through the means of informational practice - the way of acting that gives identity to a group - in a social field and knowledge domain. Design/methodology/approach - By relating Pierre Bourdieu's sociology of culture to the domain analysis approach of Birger Hjørland, the intention was to achieve a comprehensive interpretation of the structure which generates the discourse communities and, also, of the social structure from which they are derived. All of these form the conditions for understanding the efforts, objectives and interests of the actors in the social field that causes them to develop determined informational practices. The field of architecture was elected for analysis. Findings - The conclusions show that both the products and subjects of a domain of knowledge, inserted in social fields, are expressions of their informational practice. Research limitations/implications - The authors believe the theoretical model based on Bourdieu and Hjørland's concepts, here built to analyze the architecture domain, may be used to analyze other domains. Originality/value - Domain analysis is employed as an approach to the study of the information aspects but here supported by the sociological concepts of Bourdieu. Thus, it is possible to understand what, how and why the informational practices are constituted inside a domain of knowledge, and, fundamentally, interpret the historical, cultural, and social dimensions that influence the construction of information.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.397-412

0.08471866 = product of:
  0.12707798 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=269)
    0.009814401 = product of:
      0.019628802 = sum of:
        0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019628802 = score(doc=269,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 269, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper shows a technique for examining information within its context, drawing together threads from anthropology, sociology, psychology, and organisational theory. As stated in the call for papers, the formalisation of `things' `into formation' is a partial, precarious and political activity. On the other hand, when applied appropriately, this process can also be a powerful means of achieving an understanding about a setting, albeit with a particular perspective. One such approach is presented here of looking at this idea of `information' as both the product of an analysis, and its use in an organising capacity. There is an applied need for providing rich descriptions of action in real world settings both in the development of work-appropriate technology, and to support organisational change. This requirement has lead to, and been informed by, the development of theoretical frameworks to organise this information. Amongst others, these include ethnomethodology, situation theory, actor network theory and activity theory. A relatively new framework that allows researchers to organise task related information about activity and context is distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995a,b), developed specifically to analyse and provide resources for redesigning systems (Rogers & Ellis, 1994) by examining their information processing characteristics.

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.07103953 = product of:
  0.106559284 = sum of:
    0.093810864 = weight(_text_:sociology in 5379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093810864 = score(doc=5379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.30762187 = fieldWeight in 5379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5379)
    0.012748423 = product of:
      0.025496846 = sum of:
        0.025496846 = weight(_text_:of in 5379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025496846 = score(doc=5379,freq=58.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37216315 = fieldWeight in 5379, product of:
              7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
                58.0 = termFreq=58.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article is a contribution to the development of a comprehensive interdisciplinary theory of LIS in the hope of giving a more precise evaluation of its current problems. The article describes an interdisciplinary framework for LIS, especially information retrieval (IR), in a way that goes beyond the cognitivist 'information processing paradigm'. The main problem of this paradigm is that its concept of information and laguage does not deal in a systematic way with how social and cultural dynamics set the contexts that determine the meaning of those signs and words that are the basic tools for the organisation and retrieving of documents in LIS. The paradigm does not distinguish clearly enough between how the computer manipulates signs and how librarians work with meaning in practice when they design and run document mediating systems. The 'cognitive viewpoint' of Ingwersen and Belkin makes clear that information is not objective, but rather only potential, until it is interpreted by an individual mind with its own internal mental world view and purposes. It facilitates futher study of the social pragmatic conditions for the interpretation of concepts. This approach is not yet fully developed. The domain analytic paradigm of Hjoerland and Albrechtsen is a conceptual realisiation of an important aspect of this area. In the present paper we make a further development of a non-reductionistic and interdisciplinary view of information and human social communication by texts in the light of second-order cybernetics, where information is seen as 'a difference which makes a difference' for a living autopoietic (self-organised, self-creating) system. Other key ideas are from the semiotics of Peirce and also Warner. This is the understanding of signs as a triadic relation between an object, a representation and an interpretant. Information is the interpretation of signs by living, feeling, self-organising biological, psychological and social systems. Signification is created and controlled in an cybernetic way within social systems and is communicated through what Luhman calls generalised media, such as science and art. The modern socio-linguistic concept 'discourse communities' and Wittgenstein's 'language gane' concept give a further pragmatic description of the self-organising system's dynamic that determines the meaning of words in a social context. As Blair and Liebenau and Backhouse point out in their work it is these semantic fields of significance that are the true pragmatic tools of knowledge organisation and document retrieval. Methodologically they are the first systems to be analysed when designing document mediating systems as they set the context for the meaning of concepts. Several practical and analytical methods from linguistics and the sociology of knowledge can be used in combination with standard methodology to reveal the significant language games behind document mediation

Footnote

Extended and revised version of a PhD dissertation, Roskilde University, 1994

Source

Journal of documentation. 52(1996) no.3, S.296-344

0.06777492 = product of:
  0.10166238 = sum of:
    0.093810864 = weight(_text_:sociology in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093810864 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.30762187 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
    0.0078515215 = product of:
      0.015703043 = sum of:
        0.015703043 = weight(_text_:of in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015703043 = score(doc=607,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified. Design/methodology/approach The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson. Findings Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered. Research limitations/implications The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective. Practical implications The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information. Social implications Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems. Originality/value The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.

Source

Journal of documentation. 78(2022) no.2, S.485-509

0.060681235 = product of:
  0.09102185 = sum of:
    0.08291788 = weight(_text_:sociology in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08291788 = score(doc=5523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.2719019 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
    0.008103975 = product of:
      0.01620795 = sum of:
        0.01620795 = weight(_text_:of in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01620795 = score(doc=5523,freq=60.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23657836 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
              7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
                60.0 = termFreq=60.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

What follows is an editorial that makes a case against the development of an empirical research frontier in library and information science (LIS) devoted to information and the body. My goal is to offer a sober and constructive counterbalance to this Library Trends special issue that is otherwise uncritical of its proposition. In asserting that original research into embodied information may be unproductive for our field, I draw from my personal experience and reflections as well as foundational conceptions of LIS from past and contemporary luminaries. My conclusion reminds all stakeholders in this Library Trends special issue of the many fascinating and urgent research questions that remain unanswered within the conventional boundaries of LIS.
In 2003 I was a doctoral student at the Department of Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and happily learning information behavior under Marcia Bates. I enrolled in a methodology seminar offered through the Sociology Department entitled Ethnography, Ethnomethodology, and Symbolic Interactionism, taught by the late Melvin Pollner. Our class read a book-length ethnography of one sociologist's experience as the paid caretaker of a teenage girl living with severe mental and motor impairments; the study reported the sexual way the child pressed her body against her older, male assistant during their daily routine and the inexorable sexual response of his body-two haptic forms of embodied information. The aspiring sociologists and anthropologists in the course found these microsocial physical dynamics to be riveting and discussed their meaning for two hours. The next week our enlightened professor assigned an article by Lucy Suchman about the coordinated flow of information via documents in a workplace-a brilliant paper. To my surprise, my classmates were dismissive of Suchman's study. One budding sociologist remarked, "Well, the research design is solid, but it's all about these [End Page 585] documents. I mean . who really cares?" This flippant criticism left me speechless, while everyone else in the class laughed in agreement (excepting the magnanimous Dr. Pollner).
To me the anecdote above is loaded with meaning for this special issue. For starters, other social sciences have long histories of studying what we are now in LIS discovering as embodied information. The German sociologist Norbert Elias's (1939) ground-breaking analysis of table manners (including blowing one's nose and spitting) established a research tradition within sociology that is centered on the body. Similarly, anthropology is home to subdisciplines devoted to research into body language and gesture (kinesics), the body in space (proxemics), touch (haptics), the experience of time (chronemics), and the use of vision (oculesics), and it goes without saying that these corporeal phenomena are seen as informative and communicatory. The aforementioned disciplines have well-developed theoretical and methodological tools to describe these bodily functions and to explain them through lenses of history, sociality, and culture. Hence, any LIS scholar interested in information and the body is a latecomer to a mature research domain; has much catching-up to do; and risks reinventing the wheel.
Another notable aspect of the story above is that certain phenomena-namely, the relationship between human beings and recorded knowledge-are deemed not compelling or research-worthy by other social sciences and are eschewed. The precocious protosociologist in my story sounded almost allergic to paper. Indeed, LIS stands as the resident expert and overseer of the universe of recorded knowledge, and there are no significant contenders, a chance blessing that should be leveraged and celebrated by LIS. On the library side, this authority dates to 2000 BC and the clay tablets in the palace at Nineveh. The information science side has roots in the European documentation movement of a century ago. Later luminaries have continued to position LIS as the singular mediator between people and the documentary realm. Jesse Shera proclaimed that the library brought humankind and the graphic record into harmonious relations. Howard White positioned LIS at the intersection of people and literatures. Marcia Bates cast LIS as a metadiscipline charged with the transmission of and access to recorded knowledge. Why turn our attention away from a nexus that is historically and rightly ours...

Footnote

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1353/lib.2018.0018. Vgl. auch den Kommentar in: Lueg, C.: To be or not to be (embodied): that is not the question. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.114-117. (Opinion paper) Two articles in a recent special issue on Information and the Body published in the journal Library Trends stand out because of the way they are identifying, albeit indirectly, a formidable challenge to library information science (LIS). In her contribution, Bates warns that understanding information behavior demands recognizing and studying "any one important element of the ecology [in which humans are embedded]." Hartel, on the other hand, suggests that LIS would not lose much but would have lots to gain by focusing on core LIS themes instead of embodied information, since the latter may be unproductive, as LIS scholars are "latecomer[s] to a mature research domain." I would argue that LIS as a discipline cannot avoid dealing with those pesky mammals aka patrons or users; like the cognate discipline and "community of communities" human computer interaction (HCI), LIS needs the interdisciplinarity to succeed. LIS researchers are uniquely positioned to help bring together LIS's deep understanding of "information" and embodiment perspectives that may or may not have been developed in other disciplines. LIS researchers need to be more explicit about what their original contribution is, though, and what may have been appropriated from other disciplines.

0.052940946 = product of:
  0.07941142 = sum of:
    0.07035815 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07035815 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.2307164 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
    0.0090532685 = product of:
      0.018106537 = sum of:
        0.018106537 = weight(_text_:of in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018106537 = score(doc=1265,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.26429096 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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).
It is my hope that domain analysis may contribute to the strengthening of the professional and scientific identity of our discipline and provide more coherence and depth in information studies. The paper is an argument about what should be core teachings in our field, It should be both broad enough to cover the important parts of IS and Specific enough to maintain a special focus and identity compared to, for example, computer science and the cognitive sciences. It is not a narrow view of information science and an the other hand it does not Set forth an unrealistic utopia."

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.14, S.1275-76

0.037970424 = product of:
  0.11391127 = sum of:
    0.11391127 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.09497269 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09497269 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

0.03551214 = product of:
  0.10653641 = sum of:
    0.10653641 = sum of:
      0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0234353 = score(doc=5772,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.08310111 = weight(_text_:22 in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08310111 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.5, S.373-383

0.034911465 = product of:
  0.052367195 = sum of:
    0.043489736 = product of:
      0.17395894 = sum of:
        0.17395894 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17395894 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37143064 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.008877459 = product of:
      0.017754918 = sum of:
        0.017754918 = weight(_text_:of in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017754918 = score(doc=76,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A summary of brain theory is given so far as it is contained within the framework of Localization Theory. Difficulties of this "conventional theory" are traced back to a specific deficiency: there is no way to express relations between active cells (as for instance their representing parts of the same object). A new theory is proposed to cure this deficiency. It introduces a new kind of dynamical control, termed synaptic modulation, according to which synapses switch between a conducting and a non- conducting state. The dynamics of this variable is controlled on a fast time scale by correlations in the temporal fine structure of cellular signals. Furthermore, conventional synaptic plasticity is replaced by a refined version. Synaptic modulation and plasticity form the basis for short-term and long-term memory, respectively. Signal correlations, shaped by the variable network, express structure and relationships within objects. In particular, the figure-ground problem may be solved in this way. Synaptic modulation introduces exibility into cerebral networks which is necessary to solve the invariance problem. Since momentarily useless connections are deactivated, interference between di erent memory traces can be reduced, and memory capacity increased, in comparison with conventional associative memory

Content

Originally published July 1981 as Internal Report 81-2, Dept. of Neurobiology, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, 3400 Gottingen, W.-Germany.

Source

http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_

0.033729117 = product of:
  0.10118735 = sum of:
    0.10118735 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=136,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.08224877 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08224877 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper suggests a framework and systematic definitions for 6 words commonly used in dthe field of information science: data, information, knowledge, wisdom, inspiration, and intelligence. We intend these definitions to lead to a quantification of information science, a quantification that will enable their measurement, manipulastion, and prediction.

Date

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

Source

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

0.02915454 = product of:
  0.08746362 = sum of:
    0.08746362 = sum of:
      0.028702263 = weight(_text_:of in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028702263 = score(doc=2746,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.05876136 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05876136 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Fundamental forms of information, as well as the term information itself, are defined and developed for the purposes of information science/studies. Concepts of natural and represented information (taking an unconventional sense of representation), encoded and embodied information, as well as experienced, enacted, expressed, embedded, recorded, and trace information are elaborated. The utility of these terms for the discipline is illustrated with examples from the study of information-seeking behavior and of information genres. Distinctions between the information and curatorial sciences with respect to their social (and informational) objects of study are briefly outlined.

Content

Vgl. Erwiderung: Hjoerland, B.: The controversy over the concept of information: a rejoinder to Professor Bates. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1033-1045

0.02536581 = product of:
  0.07609743 = sum of:
    0.07609743 = sum of:
      0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016739499 = score(doc=2277,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059357934 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

Footnote

Thematisierung der Verschiebung des Verständnisses von Wissensmanagement; vgl. auch: Day, R.E.: Totality and representation: a history of knowledge management ... in: JASIS 52(2001) no.9, S.725-735

Source

Journal of education for library and information science. 41(2000) no.?, S.294-306

0.024179911 = product of:
  0.07253973 = sum of:
    0.07253973 = sum of:
      0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02505339 = score(doc=3901,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 3901, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3901)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3901, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3901)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Adopted and formatted in 1994 and reprinted with the permission of the American Association of School Librarians. Information literacy is the term being applied to the skills of information problem solving. Identifies the key elements of information literacy and presents a rationale for integrating information literacy into all aspects of the K-12 and post secondary curriculum

Date

11. 4.1996 14:22:40

Editor

American Association of School Librarians

0.023731515 = product of:
  0.071194544 = sum of:
    0.071194544 = sum of:
      0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 5735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0118366135 = score(doc=5735,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 5735, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5735)
      0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 5735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059357934 = score(doc=5735,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5735, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5735)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses information in the context of information resources management arguing that it is an essential resource for every organization but one that needs to be managed better. Examines information as a resource, as an asset, as a commodity, as a rubbish

Source

Managing information. 3(1996) no.6, S.22-23

0.023560425 = product of:
  0.070681274 = sum of:
    0.070681274 = sum of:
      0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023194931 = score(doc=300,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to organize the extensive field and to compile the complete list of information limits. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough analysis of literature from the field beginning with the 1960s up to the present has been performed. Findings - A universal typology of information limits has been proposed. A list of barriers mentioned in the literature of the subject has been compiled. Research limitations/implications - The term "information limits" is not commonly used. Originality/value - The complete list of information limits with bibliographical hints (helpful for future research) is presented.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

0.02238528 = product of:
  0.06715584 = sum of:
    0.06715584 = product of:
      0.13431168 = sum of:
        0.13431168 = weight(_text_:22 in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13431168 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:01:22

0.022135815 = product of:
  0.06640744 = sum of:
    0.06640744 = sum of:
      0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024856888 = score(doc=1296,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1279-1287

0.021661952 = product of:
  0.06498586 = sum of:
    0.06498586 = sum of:
      0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0234353 = score(doc=2790,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2790, 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=2790)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Survivors of intimate partner violence face more than information gaps; many face powerful barriers in the form of information myths. Triangulating data from in-depth interviews and community bulletin board postings, this study incorporates insights from survivors, police, and shelter staff to begin mapping the information landscape through which survivors move. An unanticipated feature of that landscape is a set of 28 compelling information myths that prevent some survivors from making effective use of the social, legal, economic, and support resources available to them. This analysis of the sources, contexts, and consequences of these information myths is the first step in devising strategies to counter their ill effects.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:16:44

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.826-836