Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01161172 = product of:
  0.081282035 = sum of:
    0.081282035 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 5253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081282035 = score(doc=5253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.37972826 = fieldWeight in 5253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5253)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint in library and information science identifies seven discourse strategies which constitute information as a commodity, and persons as surveyable information consumers, within market economy conditions. These strategies are: (a) universality of theory, (b) referentiality and reification of 'images', (c) internalisation of representations (d) radical individualism and erasure of the social dimension of theory, (e) insistence upon knowledge, (f) constitution of the information scientist as an expert in image negotiation, and (g) instrumental reason, ruled by efficiency, standardisation, predictibility, and determination of effects. The discourse is guided throughout by a yearning for natural-scientific theory. The effect of the cognitive viewpoint's discursive strategy is to enable knowledge acquisition of information processes only when users' and generators 'images' are constituted as objectively given natural-scientific entities, and ti disable knowledge of the same processes when considered as products of social practices. By its constitution of users as free creators of images, of the information scientist as an expert in image interpretation and delivery, and of databases as repositories of unmediated models of the world, the cognitive viewpoint performs ideological labour for modern capitalist image markets

0.009676432 = product of:
  0.067735024 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint in library and information science (LIS) identifies seven discursive strategies which constitute information as a commodity, and persons as surveyable information consumers, within market economy conditions. These strategies are (a) universality of theory, (b) referentiality and reification of 'images', (c) internationalization of representation, (d) insistence upon knowledge, (e) constitution of the information scientists as an expert in image negotiation, (f) radical individualism and erasure of the social dimension of theory, and (g) instrumental reasons, rules by efficiency, standardization, predictibility,a nd determination of effects. The discourse is guided troughout by a yearning for natural-scientific theory. The effect of the cognitiv viewpoint's discoursive strategy is to anable knowledge acquisition of information processes only when users' and generators 'images' are constituted as objectively given natural scientif entites, and to disable knowledge of the same processes when considered as products of social practices. By its constitution of users as free creators of images, of the information scientist as an expert in image interpretation and delivery, and of databases as repositories of unmediated models of the world, the cognitive viewpoint performs ideological labour for modern capitalist image markets

0.009676432 = product of:
  0.067735024 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a reconsideration of Michael Buckland's important question, "What is a document?", analysing the point and purpose of definitions of "document" and "documentation". Design/methodology/approach - Two philosophical notions of the point of definitions are contrasted: John Stuart Mill's concept of a "real" definition, purporting to specify the nature of the definiendum; and a concept of definition based upon a foundationalist philosophy of language. Both conceptions assume that a general, philosophical justification for using words as we do is always in order. This assumption is criticized by deploying Hilary Putnam's arguments against the orthodox Wittgensteinian interpretation of criteria governing the use of language. The example of the cabinets of curiosities of the sixteenth-century English and European virtuosi is developed to show how one might productively think about what documents might be, but without a definition of a document. Findings - Other than for specific, instrumentalist purposes (often appropriate for specific case studies), there is no general philosophical reason for asking, what is a document? There are good reasons for pursuing studies of documentation without the impediments of definitions of "document" or "documentation". Originality/value - The paper makes an original contribution to the new interest in documentation studies by providing conceptual resources for multiplying, rather than restricting, the areas of application of the concepts of documents and documentation.

0.002531454 = product of:
  0.017720178 = sum of:
    0.017720178 = product of:
      0.035440356 = sum of:
        0.035440356 = weight(_text_:22 in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035440356 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 692, 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=692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.2, S.1-22