Search (4693 results, page 1 of 235)

0.16517393 = product of:
  0.24776089 = sum of:
    0.23452716 = weight(_text_:sociology in 397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23452716 = score(doc=397,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.76905465 = fieldWeight in 397, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=397)
    0.013233736 = product of:
      0.026467472 = sum of:
        0.026467472 = weight(_text_:of in 397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026467472 = score(doc=397,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 397, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=397)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to summarise a literature review undertaken to determine whether or not information taxonomy work, as a specific activity within the broader field of knowledge organisation system construction, can usefully be compared to a process of scientific enquiry. The theories of objectivity and subjectivity proposed by Helen Longino are considered, to determine their relevance to taxonomists and classification theorists. Design/methodology/approach - The review assesses and synthesises relevant best practice and theoretical literature from information science, sociology of science, and related disciplines, including linguistics, epistemology, and psychology. Findings - Although requirements of objectivity in science and in taxonomy work differ significantly, the achievement of consensus within communities is similar. This warrants development of Longino's theories for application to taxonomy work. Research limitations/implications - The potentially relevant literature represents too vast and diverse a body of scholarship for comprehensive review of every area, so a synthetic interdisciplinary approach has been taken, highlighting aspects worthy of further investigation. Practical implications - Subjectivity and objectivity are deemed significant for information taxonomists, especially regarding usability and accessibility of systems, while the sociology of science provides frameworks that could be adapted to offer methods of assessing the subjectivity and objectivity of taxonomies. This suggests much potential for developing Longino's theories into a framework or set of heuristics for taxonomy practitioners. Originality/value - Current literature on taxonomy work, as distinct from classification, categorisation, and similar topics within the broader knowledge organisation field, is scant, and academic and interdisciplinary approaches scarce. Relating the sociology of science to information taxonomy work is a novel approach. By exposing this relationship, a starting point is provided for researchers who wish to develop understanding of these fields and theoretical understanding of taxonomies and professional best practice is enhanced.

Source

Journal of documentation. 68(2012) no.5, S.725-743

0.16495055 = product of:
  0.24742581 = sum of:
    0.23452716 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23452716 = score(doc=4493,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.76905465 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
    0.012898651 = product of:
      0.025797302 = sum of:
        0.025797302 = weight(_text_:of in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025797302 = score(doc=4493,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 4493, 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=4493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Classification is an important process in making sense of the world, and has a pronounced social dimension. This paper aims to compare folksonomy, a new social classification system currently being developed on the web, with conventional taxonomy in the light of theoretical sociological and anthropological approaches. The co-existence of these two types of classification system raises the questions: Will and should taxonomies be hybridized with folksonomies? What can each of these systems contribute to information-searching processes, and how can the sociology of knowledge provide an answer to these questions? This paper aims also to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - This paper is situated at the meeting point of the sociology of knowledge, epistemology and information science and aims at examining systems of classification in the light of both classical theory and current late-modern sociological and anthropological approaches. Findings - Using theoretical approaches current in the sociology of science and knowledge, the paper envisages two divergent possible outcomes. Originality/value - While concentrating on classifications systems, this paper addresses the more general social issue of what we know and how it is known. The concept of hybrid knowledge is suggested in order to illuminate the epistemological basis of late-modern knowledge being constructed by hybridizing contradictory modern knowledge categories, such as the subjective with the objective and the social with the natural. Integrating tree-like taxonomies with folksonomies or, in other words, generating a naturalized structural order of objective relations with social, subjective classification systems, can create a vast range of hybrid knowledge.

Source

Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.1, S.144-158

0.16399194 = product of:
  0.2459879 = sum of:
    0.23452716 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23452716 = score(doc=1854,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.76905465 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=1854,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In scientometrics, citer behavior is traditionally investigated using one of two main approaches. According to the normative point of view, the behavior of scientists is regulated by norms that make the detection of citation patterns useful for the interpretation of bibliometric measures. According to the constructivist perspective, citer behavior is influenced by other factors linked to the social and/or psychological sphere that do not allow any statistical inferences that are useful for the purposes of interpretation. An intermediate position supports normative theories in describing citer behavior with respect to high citation frequencies and constructivist theories with respect to low citation counts. In this paper, this idea was tested in a case study of the Italian sociology community. Italian sociology is characterized by an unusual organization into three "political" or "ideological" camps, and belonging to one camp can be considered a potentially strong constructivist reason to cite. An all-author co-citation analysis was performed to map the structure of the Italian sociology community and look for evidence of three camps. We did not expect to find evidence of this configuration in the co-citation map. The map, in fact, included authors who obtained high citation counts that are supposedly produced by a normative-oriented behavior. The results confirmed this hypothesis and showed that the clusters seemed to be divided according to topic and not by camp. Relevant scientific works were cited by the members of the entire community regardless of their membership in any particular camp.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1178-1188

0.16318531 = product of:
  0.24477796 = sum of:
    0.23452716 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23452716 = score(doc=4454,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.76905465 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=4454,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Because of a greater coverage of documentary sources in many languages that is greater than that of traditional bibliographic databases, Google Scholar is an ideal tool for examining the social sciences in non-Anglophone countries. We have therefore used it to study the scholarly output and impact of three scientific disciplines, management, economics, and sociology, in Spain and France, comparing some of the results with those retrieved with Scopus. Our findings show that scientific articles are the predominant form of scholarly communication in Google Scholar for our selected fields and countries. In addition, our results indicate that in Google Scholar the vernacular languages of each country are more used than English in all cases, but economics in France. The opposite occurs in Scopus, except for the case of sociology articles in France We also show that books receive on average more citations than other published documents in Google Scholar. Finally, we demonstrate that publishing in English is associated with greater scholarly impact, except for the case of France in Google Scholar for articles in sociology and books in the three fields.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.1054-1066

0.13846734 = product of:
  0.207701 = sum of:
    0.19900289 = weight(_text_:sociology in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19900289 = score(doc=234,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.6525645 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=234,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The authors review five paradigms from the discipline of community sociology (functionalism, evolution, conflict, interactionism, and exchange) to assess their potential utility for understanding everyday life information behavior and technology use. Their analysis considers the ways in which each paradigm defines the concepts of community, information, and technology. It also explores the insights offered by each paradigm regarding relationships between community and both information and technology. Accordingly, the authors highlight the ways in which existing information behavior and informatics scholarship draws from similar conceptual roots. Key insights drawn from this research, as well as remaining gaps and research questions, are examined. Additionally, they consider the limitations of each approach. The authors conclude by arguing for the value of a vigorous research program regarding information behavior and technology use in communities, particularly that which takes the community as the central unit of analysis. They consider key questions that could drive such a research program, as well as potentially fruitful conceptual and methodological approaches for this endeavor.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.847-864

0.13054825 = product of:
  0.19582237 = sum of:
    0.18762173 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18762173 = score(doc=4750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.61524373 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
    0.008200646 = product of:
      0.016401293 = sum of:
        0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016401293 = score(doc=4750,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.119810276 = product of:
  0.17971541 = sum of:
    0.16583575 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16583575 = score(doc=1531,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.5438038 = fieldWeight in 1531, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1531)
    0.013879661 = product of:
      0.027759323 = sum of:
        0.027759323 = weight(_text_:of in 1531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027759323 = score(doc=1531,freq=44.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40518725 = fieldWeight in 1531, product of:
              6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
                44.0 = termFreq=44.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As a complement to Nelson and Winter's (1977) article titled "In Search of a Useful Theory of Innovation," a sociological perspective on innovation networks can be elaborated using Luhmann's social systems theory, on the one hand, and Latour's "sociology of translations," on the other. Because of a common focus on communication, these perspectives can be combined as a set of methodologies. Latour's sociology of translations specifies a mechanism for generating variation in relations ("associations"), whereas Luhmann's systems perspective enables the specification of (functionally different) selection environments such as markets, professional organizations, and political control. Selection environments can be considered as mechanisms of social coordination that can self-organize-beyond the control of human agency-into regimes in terms of interacting codes of communication. Unlike relatively globalized regimes, technological trajectories are organized locally in "landscapes." A resulting "duality of structure" (Giddens, 1979) between the historical organization of trajectories and evolutionary self-organization at the regime level can be expected to drive innovation cycles. Reflexive translations add a third layer of perspectives to (a) the relational analysis of observable links that shape trajectories and (b) the positional analysis of networks in terms of latent dimensions. These three operations can be studied in a single framework, but using different methodologies. Latour's first-order associations can then be analytically distinguished from second-order translations in terms of requiring other communicative competencies. The resulting operations remain infrareflexively nested, and can therefore be used for innovative reconstructions of previously constructed boundaries.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.11, S.2359-2374

0.11675325 = product of:
  0.17512988 = sum of:
    0.16416901 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16416901 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.53833824 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=3329,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article studies citation practices in the arts and humanities from a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, drawing on studies from fields like linguistics, history, library & information science, and the sociology of science. The use of references in the humanities is discussed in connection with the growing interest in the possibilities of applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines. The study shows how the use of references within the humanities is connected to concepts of originality, to intellectual organization, and to searching and writing. Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of references is connected to stylistic, epistemological, and organizational differences, and these differences must be taken into account when applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.310-318

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

0.10201152 = product of:
  0.15301727 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 4361, 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=4361)
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=4361,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.807-818

0.10201152 = product of:
  0.15301727 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 970, 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=970)
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=970,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 970, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The increasing employment of bibliometric measures for assessing, describing, and mapping science inevitably leads to the increasing need for a citation theory constituting a theoretical frame for both citation analysis and the description of citers' behavior. In this article a theoretical model, encompassing both normative and constructivist approaches, is suggested. The conceptualization of scientific communities as autopoietic systems, the components of which are communicative events, allows us to observe the reproductive function of citations conceived as codes and media of scientific communication. Citations, thanks to their constraining and enabling properties, constitute the engine of the structuration process ensuring the reproduction of scientific communities. By referring to Giddens' structuration theory, Luhmann's theory about social systems as communicative networks, Merton's "sociology of science" and his conceptualizations about the functions of citations, as well as Small's proposal about citations as concept-symbols, a sociologically integrated approach to scientometrics is proposed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1442-1453

0.10201152 = product of:
  0.15301727 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=1040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 1040, 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=1040)
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=1040,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Censuses are one of the most relevant types of statistical data, allowing analyses of the population in terms of demography, economy, sociology, and culture. For fine-grained analysis, census agencies publish census microdata that consist of a sample of individual records of the census containing detailed anonymous individual information. Working with microdata from different censuses and doing comparative studies are currently difficult tasks due to the diversity of formats and granularities. In this article, we show that novel data processing techniques can be applied to make census microdata interoperable and easy to access and combine. In fact, we demonstrate how Linked Open Data principles, a set of techniques to publish and make connections of (semi-)structured data on the web, can be fruitfully applied to census microdata. We present a step-by-step process to achieve this goal and we study, in theory and practice, two real case studies: the 2001 Spanish census and a general framework for Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS-I).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.9, S.1802-1814

0.10050666 = product of:
  0.15076 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=4923,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 4923, 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=4923)
    0.010043699 = product of:
      0.020087399 = sum of:
        0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 4923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020087399 = score(doc=4923,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4923, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4923)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This methods-oriented paper introduces visual methods and specifically photography to study immediate information space (Lee, 2003); that is, information-rich settings such as offices or homes. It draws upon the authors' firsthand ethnographic field experiences, a review of relevant theoretical and methodological literature, and an analysis of cases within information studies that have made use of visual and photographic techniques. To begin, the traditions of visual research within anthropology and sociology are traced and major epistemological, methodological, and disciplinary debates associated with visual scholarship are presented. Then, investigations of immediate information space that utilize photography are analyzed, including examples from the areas of personal information management, health informatics, information behavior, and computer-supported cooperative work. Moreover, a section entitled "Applying Photographic Techniques." supplies guidelines for employing photography in a research design, as well as a question-based research framework and tips for photographing information phenomena.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2214-2224

0.0996096 = product of:
  0.14941439 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 475, 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=475)
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=475,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 475, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The starting point of the following inquiry addresses John Searle's and Ian Hacking's most prominent critique of contemporary "constructionism" in the 1990s. It is stimulated by the astonishing fact that neither Hacking nor Searle take into account Peter Berger's and Thomas Luckmann's classical essay and sociological masterpiece The Social Construction of Reality in their contributions. Critically revisiting Searle's and Hacking's critique on the so-called constructivist approach, the article demonstrates that both authors have failed to put forth a sociologically valid understanding of the approach in question. The following analysis aims to deconstruct the conceptualizations offered by Searle and Hacking, and to reconstruct and defend the original sense of the term "social construction" as most prominently introduced by Berger and Luckmann to sociology, and social sciences in general.

0.094350874 = product of:
  0.14152631 = sum of:
    0.1326686 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1326686 = score(doc=3270,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.43504304 = fieldWeight in 3270, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3270)
    0.00885771 = product of:
      0.01771542 = sum of:
        0.01771542 = weight(_text_:of in 3270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01771542 = score(doc=3270,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25858206 = fieldWeight in 3270, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We live in a society that is awash with information, but few of us really understand what information is. In this Very Short Introduction, one of the world's leading authorities on the philosophy of information and on information ethics, Luciano Floridi, offers an illuminating exploration of information as it relates to both philosophy and science. He discusses the roots of the concept of information in mathematics and science, and considers the role of information in several fields, including biology. Floridi also discusses concepts such as "Infoglut" (too much information to process) and the emergence of an information society, and he addresses the nature of information as a communication process and its place as a physical phenomenon. Perhaps more important, he explores information's meaning and value, and ends by considering the broader social and ethical issues relating to information, including problems surrounding accessibility, privacy, ownership, copyright, and open source. This book helps us understand the true meaning of the concept and how it can be used to understand our world. About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.

LCSH

Knowledge, Sociology of

Subject

Knowledge, Sociology of

0.08721608 = product of:
  0.13082412 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=2787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 2787, 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=2787)
    0.013560544 = product of:
      0.027121088 = sum of:
        0.027121088 = weight(_text_:of in 2787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121088 = score(doc=2787,freq=42.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 2787, product of:
              6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
                42.0 = termFreq=42.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a close, detailed analysis of the frequency, nature, and depth of visible use of two of Foucault's classic early works, The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Order of Things, by library, and information science/studies (LIS) scholars. Design/methodology/approach - The study involved conducting extensive full-text searches in a large number of electronically available LIS journal databases to find citations of Foucault's works, then examining each citing article and each individual citation to evaluate the nature and depth of each use. Findings - Contrary to initial expectations, the works in question are relatively little used by LIS scholars in journal articles, and where they are used, such use is often only vague, brief, or in passing. In short, works traditionally seen as central and foundational to discourse analysis appear relatively little in discussions of discourse. Research limitations/implications - The study was limited to a certain batch of LIS journal articles that are electronically available in full text at UCLA, where the study was conducted. The results potentially could change by focussing on a fuller or different collection of journals or on non-journal literature. More sophisticated bibliometric techniques could reveal different relative performance among journals. Other research approaches, such as discourse analysis, social network analysis, or scholar interviews, might reveal patterns of use and influence that are not visible in the journal literature. Originality/value - This study's intensive, in-depth study of quality as well as quantity of citations challenges some existing assumptions regarding citation analysis and the sociology of citation practices, plus illuminating Foucault scholarship.

Source

Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.3, S.454-489

0.08471866 = product of:
  0.12707798 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 5638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=5638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 5638, 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=5638)
    0.009814401 = product of:
      0.019628802 = sum of:
        0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 5638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019628802 = score(doc=5638,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 5638, 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=5638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) is considered a distinctive disciplinary focus of information science, with strong connections to other intellectual domains such as philosophy, computer science, psychology, sociology, and more. Given its inherent interdisciplinarity, we ask what might a map of the physical, cultural, and intellectual geography of the KO community look like? Who is participating in this discipline's scholarly discussion, and from what locations, both geographically and intellectually? Uing the unit of authorship in the journal Knowledge Organization, where is the nexus of KO activity and what patterns of authorship can be identified? Cultural characteristics were applied as a lens to explore who is and is not participating in the international conversation about KO. World Bank GNI per capita estimates were used to compare relative wealth of countries and Hofstede's Individualism dimension was identified as a way of understanding attributes of countries whose scholars are participating in this dialog. Descriptive statistics were generated through Excel, and data visualizations were rendered through Tableau Public and TagCrowd. The current project offers one method for examining an international and interdisciplinary field of study but also suggests potential for analyzing other interdisciplinary areas within the larger discipline of information science.

0.084431455 = product of:
  0.12664717 = sum of:
    0.11608502 = weight(_text_:sociology in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11608502 = score(doc=334,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38066265 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
    0.010562146 = product of:
      0.021124292 = sum of:
        0.021124292 = weight(_text_:of in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021124292 = score(doc=334,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30833945 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this title, a leading philosopher of the internet explains how knowledge and expertise can still work - and even grow stronger - in an age when the internet has made topics simply Too Big to Know. Knowing used to be so straightforward. If we wanted to know something we looked it up, asked an expert, gathered the facts, weighted the possibilities, and honed in on the best answer ourselves. But, ironically, with the advent of the internet and the limitless information it contains, we're less sure about what we know, who knows what, or even what it means to know at all. Knowledge, it would appear, is in crisis. And yet, while its very foundations seem to be collapsing, human knowledge has grown in previously unimaginable ways, and in inconceivable directions, in the Internet age. We fact-check the news media more closely and publicly than ever before. Science is advancing at an unheard of pace thanks to new collaborative techniques and new ways to find patterns in vast amounts of data. Businesses are finding expertise in every corner of their organization, and across the broad swath of their stakeholders. We are in a crisis of knowledge at the same time that we are in an epochal exaltation of knowledge. In "Too Big to Know", Internet philosopher David Weinberger explains that, rather than a systemic collapse, the Internet era represents a fundamental change in the methods we have for understanding the world around us. Weinberger argues that our notions of expertise - what it is, how it works, and how it is cultivated - are out of date, rooted in our pre-networked culture and assumptions. For thousands of years, we've relied upon a reductionist process of filtering, winnowing, and otherwise reducing the complex world to something more manageable in order to understand it. Back then, an expert was someone who had mastered a particular, well-defined domain. Now, we live in an age when topics are blown apart and stitched together by momentary interests, diverse points of view, and connections ranging from the insightful to the perverse. Weinberger shows that, while the limits of our own paper-based tools have historically prevented us from achieving our full capacity of knowledge, we can now be as smart as our new medium allows - but we will be smart differently. For the new medium is a network, and that network changes our oldest, most basic strategy of knowing. Rather than knowing-by-reducing, we are now knowing-by-including. Indeed, knowledge now is best thought of not as the content of books or even of minds, but as the way the network works. Knowledge will never be the same - not for science, not for business, not for education, not for government, not for any of us. As Weinberger makes clear, to make sense of this new system of knowledge, we need - and smart companies are developing - networks that are themselves experts. Full of rich and sometimes surprising examples from history, politics, business, philosophy, and science, "Too Big to Know" describes how the very foundations of knowledge have been overturned, and what this revolution means for our future.

LCSH

Knowledge / Sociology of

Subject

Knowledge / Sociology of

0.08441417 = product of:
  0.12662125 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=3858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 3858, 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=3858)
    0.009357665 = product of:
      0.01871533 = sum of:
        0.01871533 = weight(_text_:of in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01871533 = score(doc=3858,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3858, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Metatheory is meta-analytic work that comes from sociology and its purpose is the analysis of theory. Metatheory is a common form of scholarship in knowledge organization (KO). This paper presents an analysis of five papers that are metatheoretical investigations in KO. The papers were published between 2008 and 2015 in the journal Knowledge Organization. The preliminary findings from this paper are that though the authors do metatheoretical work it is not made explicit by the majority of the authors. Of the four types of metatheoretical work, metatheorizing in order to better understand theory (Mu) is most popular. Further, the external/intellectual approach, which imports analytical lenses from other fields, was applied in four of the five papers. And, the use of metatheory as a method of analysis is closely related to these authors' concern about epistemological, theoretical and methodological issues in the KO domain. Metatheory, while not always explicitly acknowledged as a method, is a valuable tool to better understand the foundations, the development of research, and the influence from other domains on KO.

0.083395176 = product of:
  0.12509276 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 4920, 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=4920)
    0.007829184 = product of:
      0.015658367 = sum of:
        0.015658367 = weight(_text_:of in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015658367 = score(doc=4920,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164