Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hider, P."
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Hider, P.; Coe, M.: Academic disciplines in the context of library classification : mapping university faculty structures to the DDC and LCC schemes (2022) 0.01 
    0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=709,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We investigated the extent to which the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification reflect the organizational structures of Australian universities. The mapping of the faculty structures of ten universities to the two schemes showed strong alignment, with very few fields represented in the names of the organizational units not covered at all by either bibliographic scheme. This suggests a degree of universality and "scientific and educational consensus" with respect to both the schemes and academic disciplines. The article goes on to discuss the concept of discipline and its application in bibliographic classification.
  2. Hider, P.: Towards a sociology of KOS and more basic KO research (2020) 0.01 
    0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=18,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    It is suggested that the knowledge organization (KO) field places greater emphasis on basic research that examines the sociology of KO systems (KOS) and the broader, environmental reasons for the development of both formal and informal KOS. This approach is contrasted with applied KO, which focuses on the practical construction or improvement of specific KOS. The preponderance of applied research in the field of KO is confirmed, at least within the document-centric strand more closely aligned with library and information science, through a survey of articles in the Knowledge Organization journal published between 2009 and 2018. The survey utilized the Frascati Manual definitions for basic and applied research, and referenced Tennis's classification of KO research (2008). There is considerable potential for building on the critical tradition of KO, with various areas ripe for further sociological investigation. A sociology of KOS could also be accommodated in the popular KO approach of domain analysis.