Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01067062 = product of:
  0.04268248 = sum of:
    0.04268248 = product of:
      0.12804744 = sum of:
        0.12804744 = weight(_text_:theory in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12804744 = score(doc=2104,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.7191402 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper develops a simple yet powerful typology of scholarly theory, based an the 5W questions: "Who?", "What?", "Where?", "When?", and "Why?". It also develops a list of the twelve distinct methods used by scholars. These are then evaluated in terms of the 5W questions. Classifying theory types and methods allows scholars and students to better appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of different theory types and methods. Classifications of theory and method can and should be important components of a system for classifying scholarly documents. Researchers and students are presently limited in their ability to search by theory type or method. As a result, scholars often "re-invent" previous research of which they were unaware.

0.009446202 = product of:
  0.037784807 = sum of:
    0.037784807 = product of:
      0.11335442 = sum of:
        0.11335442 = weight(_text_:theory in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11335442 = score(doc=5107,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.63662124 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Bezug zu: Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536.

Footnote

Erwiderung darauf: Hjørland, B.: Answer to Professor Szostak (concept theory) in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1078-1080.

0.007084652 = product of:
  0.028338607 = sum of:
    0.028338607 = product of:
      0.08501582 = sum of:
        0.08501582 = weight(_text_:theory in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08501582 = score(doc=325,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.47746593 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classification is the essential first step in science. The study of science, as well as the practice of science, will thus benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. In this book, science - defined broadly to include the social sciences and humanities - is first unpacked into its constituent elements: the phenomena studied, the data used, the theories employed, the methods applied, and the practices of scientists. These five elements are then classified in turn. Notably, the classifications of both theory types and methods allow the key strengths and weaknesses of different theories and methods to be readily discerned and compared. Connections across classifications are explored: should certain theories or phenomena be investigated only with certain methods? What is the proper function and form of scientific paradigms? Are certain common errors and biases in scientific practice associated with particular phenomena, data, theories, or methods? The classifications point to several ways of improving both specialized and interdisciplinary research and teaching, and especially of enhancing communication across communities of scholars. The classifications also support a superior system of document classification that would allow searches by theory and method used as well as causal links investigated.

Content

Inhalt: - Chapter 1: Classifying Science: 1.1. A Simple Classificatory Guideline - 1.2. The First "Cut" (and Plan of Work) - 1.3. Some Preliminaries - Chapter 2: Classifying Phenomena and Data: 2.1. Classifying Phenomena - 2.2. Classifying Data - Chapter 3: Classifying Theory: 3.1. Typology of Theory - 3.2. What Is a Theory? - 3.3. Evaluating Theories - 3.4. Types of Theory and the Five Types of Causation - 3.5. Classifying Individual Theories - 3.6. Advantages of a Typology of Theory - Chapter 4: Classifying Method: 4.1. Classifying Methods - 4.2. Typology of Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods - 4.3. Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis Revisited - 4.4. Evaluating Methods - 4.5. Classifying Particular Methods Within The Typology - 4.6. Advantages of a Typology of Methods - Chapter 5: Classifying Practice: 5.1. Errors and Biases in ScienceChapter - 5.2. Typology of (Critiques of) Scientific Practice - 5.3. Utilizing This Classification - 5.4. The Five Types of Ethical Analysis - Chapter 6: Drawing Connections Across These Classifications: 6.1. Theory and Method - 6.2. Theory (Method) and Phenomena (Data) - 6.3. Better Paradigms - 6.4. Critiques of Scientific Practice: Are They Correlated with Other Classifications? - Chapter 7: Classifying Scientific Documents: 7.1. Faceted or Enumerative? - 7.2. Classifying By Phenomena Studied - 7.3. Classifying By Theory Used - 7.4. Classifying By Method Used - 7.5 Links Among Subjects - 7.6. Type of Work, Language, and More - 7.7. Critiques of Scientific Practice - 7.8. Classifying Philosophy - 7.9. Evaluating the System - Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks: 8.1. The Classifications - 8.2. Advantages of These Various Classifications - 8.3. Drawing Connections Across Classifications - 8.4. Golden Mean Arguments - 8.5. Why Should Science Be Believed? - 8.6. How Can Science Be Improved? - 8.7. How Should Science Be Taught?

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.93-95 (H. Albrechtsen): "The book deals with mapping of the structures and contents of sciences, defined broadly to include the social sciences and the humanities. According to the author, the study of science, as well as the practice of science, could benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. The book defines five universal constituents of the sciences: phenomena, data, theories, methods and practice. For each of these constituents, the author poses five questions, in the well-known 5W format: Who, What, Where, When, Why? - with the addition of the question How? (Szostak 2003). Two objectives of the author's endeavor stand out: 1) decision support for university curriculum development across disciplines and decision support for university students at advanced levels of education in selection of appropriate courses for their projects and to support cross-disciplinary inquiry for researchers and students; 2) decision support for researchers and students in scientific inquiry across disciplines, methods and theories. The main prospective audience of this book is university curriculum developers, university students and researchers, in that order of priority. The heart of the book is the chapters unfolding the author's ideas about how to classify phenomena and data, theory, method and practice, by use of the 5W inquiry model. . . .

0.0067486926 = product of:
  0.02699477 = sum of:
    0.02699477 = product of:
      0.08098431 = sum of:
        0.08098431 = weight(_text_:theory in 2250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08098431 = score(doc=2250,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.45482418 = fieldWeight in 2250, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2250)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This paper shows how a variety of theories employed across a range of social sciences could be classified in terms of theory type. In each case, notation within the Integrated Level Classification is provided. The paper thus illustrates how one key element of the Leon Manifesto that scholarly documents should be classified in terms of the theory(ies) applied can be achieved in practice.

0.0058013215 = product of:
  0.023205286 = sum of:
    0.023205286 = product of:
      0.069615856 = sum of:
        0.069615856 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069615856 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.004820495 = product of:
  0.01928198 = sum of:
    0.01928198 = product of:
      0.057845935 = sum of:
        0.057845935 = weight(_text_:theory in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057845935 = score(doc=1893,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B., K.N. Pedersen: A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. In: Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.5, S.582-597. - Vgl. auch: Hjoerland, R.: Core classification theory: : a reply to Szostak. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.333 - 342.

0.0039026549 = product of:
  0.015610619 = sum of:
    0.015610619 = product of:
      0.046831857 = sum of:
        0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 4930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046831857 = score(doc=4930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4930, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4930)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

0.0034086048 = product of:
  0.013634419 = sum of:
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).

0.0033841045 = product of:
  0.013536418 = sum of:
    0.013536418 = product of:
      0.04060925 = sum of:
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1404, 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=1404)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik