Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.04 
    0.041982394 = product of:
  0.08396479 = sum of:
    0.08396479 = sum of:
      0.034410518 = weight(_text_:5 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034410518 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052250203 = queryNorm
          0.22568524 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.04955427 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04955427 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052250203 = 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)
    Date
    5. 6.2017 11:03:15
    Pages
    S.22-36
  2. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.01 
    0.014993712 = product of:
  0.029987425 = sum of:
    0.029987425 = sum of:
      0.012289471 = weight(_text_:5 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012289471 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052250203 = queryNorm
          0.08060187 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.017697955 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017697955 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052250203 = 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)
    Content
    References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:13:27
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Answer to Professor Szostak (concept theory) (2010) 0.01 
    0.013903949 = product of:
  0.027807899 = sum of:
    0.027807899 = product of:
      0.055615798 = sum of:
        0.055615798 = weight(_text_:5 in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055615798 = score(doc=3323,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.36476243 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Erwiderung zu: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1076-1077.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1078-1080
  4. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01 
    0.012388567 = product of:
  0.024777135 = sum of:
    0.024777135 = product of:
      0.04955427 = sum of:
        0.04955427 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04955427 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
  5. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01 
    0.010618771 = product of:
  0.021237543 = sum of:
    0.021237543 = product of:
      0.042475086 = sum of:
        0.042475086 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042475086 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
  6. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.01 
    0.008848977 = product of:
  0.017697955 = sum of:
    0.017697955 = product of:
      0.03539591 = sum of:
        0.03539591 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03539591 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.01 
    0.008848977 = product of:
  0.017697955 = sum of:
    0.017697955 = product of:
      0.03539591 = sum of:
        0.03539591 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03539591 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.01 
    0.008848977 = product of:
  0.017697955 = sum of:
    0.017697955 = product of:
      0.03539591 = sum of:
        0.03539591 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03539591 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Theory and metatheory of information science : a new interpretation (1998) 0.01 
    0.008602629 = product of:
  0.017205259 = sum of:
    0.017205259 = product of:
      0.034410518 = sum of:
        0.034410518 = weight(_text_:5 in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034410518 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.22568524 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 54(1998) no.5, S.606-621
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Library and information science and the philosophy of science (2005) 0.01 
    0.0073736827 = product of:
  0.014747365 = sum of:
    0.014747365 = product of:
      0.02949473 = sum of:
        0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02949473 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.1, S.5-10
  11. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The paradox of atheoretical classification (2016) 0.01 
    0.0073736827 = product of:
  0.014747365 = sum of:
    0.014747365 = product of:
      0.02949473 = sum of:
        0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 3169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02949473 = score(doc=3169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 3169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.5, S.313-323
  12. Hjoerland, B.; Pedersen, K.N.: ¬A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval (2005) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.5, S.582-597
  13. Hjoerland, B.: Deliberate bias in knowledge organization? (2008) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 2510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=2510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2510, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Citation analysis : a social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    5. 9.2014 10:18:18
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    5. 9.2014 10:18:18
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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).
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Education in knowledge organization (KO) (2023) 0.01 
    0.0061447355 = product of:
  0.012289471 = sum of:
    0.012289471 = product of:
      0.024578942 = sum of:
        0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024578942 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  19. Hjoerland, B.: Fundamentals of knowledge organization (2003) 0.00 
    0.0049157883 = product of:
  0.009831577 = sum of:
    0.009831577 = product of:
      0.019663153 = sum of:
        0.019663153 = weight(_text_:5 in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019663153 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.128963 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  20. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The special competency of information specialists (2002) 0.00 
    0.0036868413 = product of:
  0.0073736827 = sum of:
    0.0073736827 = product of:
      0.014747365 = sum of:
        0.014747365 = weight(_text_:5 in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014747365 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052250203 = queryNorm
            0.096722245 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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).

Authors

Years

Themes