Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.071355976 = product of:
  0.17838994 = sum of:
    0.13043496 = weight(_text_:views in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13043496 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047954973 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.050968554 = product of:
  0.12742138 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034253553 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = 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)

Abstract

In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.042162947 = product of:
  0.21081473 = sum of:
    0.21081473 = weight(_text_:views in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21081473 = score(doc=3610,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.7219136 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses definitions of the term "classification" and the related concepts "Concept/conceptualization," "categorization," "ordering," "taxonomy" and "typology." It further presents and discusses theories of classification including the influences of Aristotle and Wittgenstein. It presents different views on forming classes, including logical division, numerical taxonomy, historical classification, hermeneutical and pragmatic/critical views. Finally, issues related to artificial versus natural classification and taxonomic monism versus taxonomic pluralism are briefly presented and discussed.

0.041665923 = product of:
  0.2083296 = sum of:
    0.2083296 = weight(_text_:views in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2083296 = score(doc=3182,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.7134035 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.

Content

Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.

0.03726713 = product of:
  0.18633564 = sum of:
    0.18633564 = weight(_text_:views in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18633564 = score(doc=789,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.63808745 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.036892578 = product of:
  0.18446289 = sum of:
    0.18446289 = weight(_text_:views in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18446289 = score(doc=3418,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.6316744 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between documentoriented views versus request-oriented views. The documentoriented view conceives subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policybased view) understands subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the document's informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the document's potentials of informing users and advancing the development of knowledge.

0.032274283 = product of:
  0.16137141 = sum of:
    0.16137141 = weight(_text_:views in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16137141 = score(doc=3326,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.55259997 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 1975 Tefko Saracevic declared the subject knowledge view to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance. This paper examines the assumptions in different views of relevance, including the system's view and the user's view and offers a reinterpretation of these views. The paper finds that what was regarded as the most fundamental view by Saracevic in 1975 has not since been considered (with very few exceptions). Other views, which are based on less fruitful assumptions, have dominated the discourse on relevance in information retrieval and information science. Many authors have reexamined the concept of relevance in information science, but have neglected the subject knowledge view, hence basic theoretical assumptions seem not to have been properly addressed. It is as urgent now as it was in 1975 seriously to consider the subject knowledge view of relevance (which may also be termed the epistemological view). The concept of relevance, like other basic concepts, is influenced by overall approaches to information science, such as the cognitive view and the domain-analytic view. There is today a trend toward a social paradigm for information science. This paper offers an understanding of relevance from such a social point of view.

0.02635184 = product of:
  0.1317592 = sum of:
    0.1317592 = weight(_text_:views in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1317592 = score(doc=157,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.

0.02635184 = product of:
  0.1317592 = sum of:
    0.1317592 = weight(_text_:views in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1317592 = score(doc=4626,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.45119599 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward. Findings It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the "sociological view" are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality. Originality/value The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

0.026086992 = product of:
  0.13043496 = sum of:
    0.13043496 = weight(_text_:views in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13043496 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradford's law in relation to core-journal identification. Design/methodology/approach - Literature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses). Findings - Literature studies reveal that the concept of "subject" has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradford's law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of "subject" produce quite different lists of core-journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views. Practical implications - Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradford's law needs to be revised. Originality/value - The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.

0.022360278 = product of:
  0.11180139 = sum of:
    0.11180139 = weight(_text_:views in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11180139 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: "What is knowledge organization?" differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance and influence of the epistemologies: "empiricism", "rationalism" and "positivism" in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach - First, outlines the historical development of these epistemologies, by discussing and identifying basic characteristics in them and by introducing the criticism that has been raised against these views. Second, their importance for and influence in LIS have been examined. Findings - The findings of this paper are that it is not a trivial matter to define those epistemologies and to characterise their influence. Many different interpretations exist and there is no consensus regarding current influence of positivism in LIS. Arguments are put forward that empiricism and positivism are still dominant within LIS and specific examples of the influence on positivism in LIS are provided. A specific analysis is made of the empiricist view of information seeking and it is shown that empiricism may be regarded as a normative theory of information seeking and knowledge organisation. Originality/value - The paper discusses basic theoretical issues that are important for the further development of LIS as a scholarly field.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=1980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 2510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=2510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 2510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2510)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Bias" is normally understood as a negatively loaded word, as something to be avoided or minimized, for example, in statistics or in knowledge organization. Recently Melanie Feinberg suggested, however, that "if we cannot eliminate bias, then we should instead attempt to be more responsible about it and explicitly decide on and defend the perspectives represented in information systems". This view is linked to related views: That knowledge organization is too much concerned with information retrieval and too much described in the mode of scientific discovery, as opposed to the mode of artifact design: "From the literary warrant of Hulme to the terminological warrant of the Classification Research Group (CRG), to Hjorland's domain analysis, the classificationist seems like one who documents and compiles, and not one who actively shapes design." This paper examines these claims, which may be understood as questions about subjectivity and objectivity in classification and about positivism versus pragmatism in research. Is KO an objective and neutral activity? Can it be? Should it be? A dominant view has been that knowledge and KO should be understood as a passive reflection øf an external order. This has been termed the mirror metaphor of knowledge and is related to empiricism and positivism. The opposite view which is in accordance with both Feinberg and Hjorland - states that knowledge organization should be functional and thus reflecting given goals, purposes and values. It is related to pragmatism in philosophy.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.018633565 = product of:
  0.09316782 = sum of:
    0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09316782 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050563898 = queryNorm
        0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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).