Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The methodology of constructing classification schemes : a discussion of the state-of-the-art (2003) 0.01
    0.0090230545 = product of:
      0.036092218 = sum of:
        0.036092218 = product of:
          0.072184436 = sum of:
            0.072184436 = weight(_text_:methods in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.072184436 = score(doc=2760,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.397302 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Fundamentals of knowledge organization (2003) 0.01
    0.008070464 = product of:
      0.032281857 = sum of:
        0.032281857 = product of:
          0.064563714 = sum of:
            0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.064563714 = score(doc=2290,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020) 0.01
    0.0071333502 = product of:
      0.028533401 = sum of:
        0.028533401 = product of:
          0.057066802 = sum of:
            0.057066802 = weight(_text_:methods in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.057066802 = score(doc=24,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Knowledge organization = Information organization? (2012) 0.01
    0.0060528484 = product of:
      0.024211394 = sum of:
        0.024211394 = product of:
          0.048422787 = sum of:
            0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048422787 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.
  5. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01
    0.005357414 = product of:
      0.021429656 = sum of:
        0.021429656 = product of:
          0.042859312 = sum of:
            0.042859312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042859312 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01
    0.005357414 = product of:
      0.021429656 = sum of:
        0.021429656 = product of:
          0.042859312 = sum of:
            0.042859312 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042859312 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Pages
    S.22-36
  7. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The special competency of information specialists (2002) 0.01
    0.0052419207 = product of:
      0.020967683 = sum of:
        0.020967683 = product of:
          0.041935366 = sum of:
            0.041935366 = weight(_text_:methods in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041935366 = score(doc=1265,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.2308116 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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).
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Is classification necessary after Google? (2012) 0.01
    0.0050440403 = product of:
      0.020176161 = sum of:
        0.020176161 = product of:
          0.040352322 = sum of:
            0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040352322 = score(doc=388,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 388, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=388)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine challenges facing bibliographic classification at both the practical and theoretical levels. At the practical level, libraries are increasingly dispensing with classifying books. At the theoretical level, many researchers, managers, and users believe that the activity of "classification" is not worth the effort, as search engines can be improved without the heavy cost of providing metadata. Design/methodology/approach - The basic issue in classification is seen as providing criteria for deciding whether A should be classified as X. Such decisions are considered to be dependent on the purpose and values inherent in the specific classification process. These decisions are not independent of theories and values in the document being classified, but are dependent on an interpretation of the discourses within those documents. Findings - At the practical level, there is a need to provide high-quality control mechanisms. At the theoretical level, there is a need to establish the basis of each decision, and to change the philosophy of classification from being based on "standardisation" to being based on classifications tailored to different domains and purposes. Evidence-based practice provides an example of the importance of classifying documents according to research methods. Originality/value - Solving both the practical (organisational) and the theoretical problems facing classification is necessary if the field is to survive both as a practice and as an academic subject within library and information science. This article presents strategies designed to tackle these challenges.
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Citation analysis : a social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.01
    0.0050440403 = product of:
      0.020176161 = sum of:
        0.020176161 = product of:
          0.040352322 = sum of:
            0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040352322 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Education in knowledge organization (KO) (2023) 0.01
    0.0050440403 = product of:
      0.020176161 = sum of:
        0.020176161 = product of:
          0.040352322 = sum of:
            0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040352322 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.
  11. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.00
    0.004592069 = product of:
      0.018368276 = sum of:
        0.018368276 = product of:
          0.03673655 = sum of:
            0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03673655 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
  12. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The classification of psychology : a case study in the classification of a knowledge field (1998) 0.00
    0.004035232 = product of:
      0.016140928 = sum of:
        0.016140928 = product of:
          0.032281857 = sum of:
            0.032281857 = weight(_text_:methods in 3783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032281857 = score(doc=3783,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 3783, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3783)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Different approaches to the classification of a knowledge field include empiristic, rationalistic, historistic, and pragmatic methods. This paper demonstrates how these different methids have been applied to the classification of psychology. An etymological apporach is insufficient to define the subject matter of psychology, because other terms can be used to describe the same domain. To define the subject matter of psychology from the point of view of its formal establishment as a science and academic discipline (in Leipzig, 1879) it is also insufficient because this was done in specific historical circumstances, which narrowed the subject matter to physiologically-related issues. When defining the subject area of a scientific field it is necessary to consider how different ontological and epistemological views have made their influences. A subject area and the approaches by which this subject area has been studied cannot be separated from each other without tracing their mutual historical interactions. The classification of a subject field is theory-laden and thus cannot be neutral or ahistorical. If classification research can claim to have a method that is more general than the study of concrete developments in the single knowledge fields the key is to be found in the general epistemological theories. It is shown how basic epistemological assumptions have formed the different approaches to psychology during the 20th century. The progress in the understanding of basic philosophical questions is decisive both for the development of a knowledge field and as the point of departure of classification. The theoretical principles developed in this paper are applied in a brief analysis of some concrete classification systems, including the one used by PsycINFO / Psychologcal Abstracts. The role of classification in modern information retrieval is also briefly discussed
  13. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.00
    0.0038267244 = product of:
      0.015306897 = sum of:
        0.015306897 = product of:
          0.030613795 = sum of:
            0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030613795 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.00
    0.0038267244 = product of:
      0.015306897 = sum of:
        0.015306897 = product of:
          0.030613795 = sum of:
            0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030613795 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      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
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.00
    0.0038267244 = product of:
      0.015306897 = sum of:
        0.015306897 = product of:
          0.030613795 = sum of:
            0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030613795 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
  16. Hjoerland, B.; Hartel, J.: Introduction to a Special Issue of Knowledge Organization (2003) 0.00
    0.0035666751 = product of:
      0.0142667005 = sum of:
        0.0142667005 = product of:
          0.028533401 = sum of:
            0.028533401 = weight(_text_:methods in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028533401 = score(doc=3013,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.15704739 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.
  17. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.00
    0.0019133622 = product of:
      0.0076534487 = sum of:
        0.0076534487 = product of:
          0.015306897 = sum of:
            0.015306897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015306897 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:13:27