Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.03 
    0.02543695 = product of:
  0.063592374 = sum of:
    0.020972708 = weight(_text_:1 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020972708 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.042619668 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042619668 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.72-77
  2. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.02 
    0.021197459 = product of:
  0.052993648 = sum of:
    0.017477257 = weight(_text_:1 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017477257 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.03551639 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03551639 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.1, S.11-27
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.02 
    0.021197459 = product of:
  0.052993648 = sum of:
    0.017477257 = weight(_text_:1 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017477257 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.03551639 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03551639 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    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
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.02 
    0.021197459 = product of:
  0.052993648 = sum of:
    0.017477257 = weight(_text_:1 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017477257 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.03551639 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03551639 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-2/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-2?page=1.
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
  5. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.01 
    0.010598729 = product of:
  0.026496824 = sum of:
    0.008738629 = weight(_text_:1 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008738629 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.06785194 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.017758194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017758194 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Content
    "This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:13:27
  6. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01 
    0.009944589 = product of:
  0.049722943 = sum of:
    0.049722943 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049722943 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01 
    0.009944589 = product of:
  0.049722943 = sum of:
    0.049722943 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049722943 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18359412 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Pages
    S.22-36
  8. Nicolaisen, J.; Hjoerland, B.: ¬A rejoinder to Beghtol (2004) (2004) 0.01 
    0.00988663 = product of:
  0.04943315 = sum of:
    0.04943315 = weight(_text_:1 in 3006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04943315 = score(doc=3006,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.38382855 = fieldWeight in 3006, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3006)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen. In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63 sowie: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Information (2023) 0.01 
    0.008476021 = product of:
  0.042380102 = sum of:
    0.042380102 = weight(_text_:1 in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380102 = score(doc=1118,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.32906446 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-1/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-1.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.1, S.47 - 79
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998) 0.01 
    0.008389084 = product of:
  0.041945416 = sum of:
    0.041945416 = weight(_text_:1 in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041945416 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.32568932 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Erwiderung auf die Rezension des gleichbetitelten Buches des Autors durch G. Wersig in nfd 49(1998) H.1
  11. Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021) 0.01 
    0.0059319776 = product of:
  0.029659888 = sum of:
    0.029659888 = weight(_text_:1 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029659888 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.23029712 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2021-1-72.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 48(2021) no.1, S.72-101
  12. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004) 0.00 
    0.004943315 = product of:
  0.024716575 = sum of:
    0.024716575 = weight(_text_:1 in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024716575 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61
  13. Hjoerland, B.: Science, Part I : basic conceptions of science and the scientific method (2021) 0.00 
    0.004943315 = product of:
  0.024716575 = sum of:
    0.024716575 = weight(_text_:1 in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024716575 = score(doc=594,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Documents, memory institutions and information science (2000) 0.00 
    0.004893632 = product of:
  0.02446816 = sum of:
    0.02446816 = weight(_text_:1 in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446816 = score(doc=4530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.1, S.27-41
  15. Hjoerland, B.; Hartel, J.: Afterword: ontological, epistemological and sociological dimensions of domains (2003) 0.00 
    0.004893632 = product of:
  0.02446816 = sum of:
    0.02446816 = weight(_text_:1 in 3014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446816 = score(doc=3014,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 3014, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3014)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Domains are basically constituted of three kinds of theories and concepts: (1) ontological theories and concepts about the objects of human activity; (2) epistemological theories and concepts about knowledge and the ways to obtain knowledge, implying methodological principles about the ways objects are investigated; and (3) sociological concepts about the groups of people concerned with the objects. There are complicated relations between these elements. Basic theories about those relationships are, for example, forms of philosophical realism and social constructivism. In this paper these concepts and theories are introduced, and their implications for knowledge organization outlined, with illustrations drawn from this special issue of Knowledge Organization.
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Knowledge organization (KO) (2017) 0.00 
    0.004893632 = product of:
  0.02446816 = sum of:
    0.02446816 = weight(_text_:1 in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446816 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.1, S.55-64
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics (1998) 0.00 
    0.004194542 = product of:
  0.020972708 = sum of:
    0.020972708 = weight(_text_:1 in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020972708 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 25(1998) nos.1/2, S.16-31
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and subject representation : an activity-theoretical approach to information science (1997) 0.00 
    0.004194542 = product of:
  0.020972708 = sum of:
    0.020972708 = weight(_text_:1 in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020972708 = score(doc=6963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: nfd 49(1998) H.1, S.59-60 (G. Wersig), Erwiderung des Autors darauf in nfd: 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126; JASIS 49(1998) no.11, S.1043 (C. Chen); College and research libraries 59(1998) no.3, S.287-288 (P. Wilson)
  19. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The special competency of information specialists (2002) 0.00 
    0.004194542 = product of:
  0.020972708 = sum of:
    0.020972708 = weight(_text_:1 in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020972708 = score(doc=1265,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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).
  20. Hjoerland, B.: Library and information science and the philosophy of science (2005) 0.00 
    0.004194542 = product of:
  0.020972708 = sum of:
    0.020972708 = weight(_text_:1 in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020972708 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12878966 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052428056 = queryNorm
        0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.1, S.5-10

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 32
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications