ArticlePDF Available

Knowledge organization = information organization?

  • January 2012
Authors:
Birger Hjørland at Royal School of Library and Information Science
Birger Hjørland
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Are the terms "information organization" (10), "organization of information" (01) and "information architecture" (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms 10, 01, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and 10 and 01 in more unspecified ways.
Content uploaded by Birger Hjørland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Birger Hjørland on Dec 16, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Birger Hjørland - Royal School of Library & Information Science, Denmark
Knowledge Organization = Information Organization?
Abstract:
Are the terms ―information organization‖ (IO), ―organization of information‖ (OI) and ―information architecture‖
(IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to
determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms
should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high
ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus
indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different
terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more
unspecified ways.
Introduction
The present study is concerned with the relations between four terms from the literature
of library and information science (LIS):
Information organization (IO),
Organization of information (OI),
Information architecture (IA) and
Knowledge organization (KO)
More precisely, it is about whether or not these terms should be considered synonyms?
Synonymy being defined as the semantic relation that holds between two terms that can—
in a given context—be said to express the same meaning. The term KO is well established
and the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) and its publications,
including the journal Knowledge Organization, are among the core actors in this field. IA,
on the other hand, is a rather new term, which in some contexts seems to be more ―hot,‖
technologically advanced or prestigious term. The two other terms: IO and OI are included
in this examination in order to clarify the meaning of closely related terms. Are there
differences in meaning or are the different expressions attributable, in part, to what Konrad
(2007) termed ―poor terminological hygiene‖? The methodology applied in this study is
also suggested for examining concepts and relations in other fields and it is therefore an
approach to KO applied on the field itself.
Method
Each of these four terms were searched in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) both in the
whole database (Table 1) and limited to LIS (Table 2) in January 2011. For each term and
each database was ranked 1) the most cited authors 2) the most cited journals or works and
3) the most cited references. The content in these tables is analyzed. Core texts in KO and
IA are also examined in order to compare the theoretical issues involved.
Results
The rankings of the bibliometric investigation are displayed below.
9
Table 1: Top 5 Rankings of authors, works and papers in Knowledge Organization and
Information Organization in SocialSciSearch, all subject fields (January 2011)
Knowledge
Organization, KO
Information
Organization, IO
Organization of
Information, OI
Information
Architecture, IA
Most cited
authors
Rank #1
Hjorland B
Dahlberg I
Beghtol C
Chi Mth
Kogut B
Rank #4
Miller Ga
Svenonius E
Baddeley A
Porter Me
Zand De
Rank #7
Duncan J
Williamson Oe
Alchian Aa
Posner Mi
Kahneman D
Rank #10
Rosenfeld L
Nielsen J
Brancheau Jc
Wurman Rs
Marchionini G
Most cited
journals/
works
Rank #2
J Doc
Knowl Organ
J Am Soc Inform
Sci
Cognitive Psychol
Acad Manage Rev
Rank #5
Psychol Rev
J Am Soc Inform
Sci
Psychol Bull
Cognitive Psychol
J Exp Psychol
Learn
Rank #8
Psychol Rev
Cognitive Psychol
J Exp Psychol Gen
Percept Psychophys
J Exp Psychol H
Rank #11
Information
Architec
Commun Acm
J Am Soc Inform
Sci
Inform
Architecture
Mis Quart
Most cited
references
Rank #3
Hjorland B, 1995,
V46, P400, J Am
Soc Inform S
Chi Mth, 1981, V5,
P121, Cognitive
Sci
Hjorland B, 2002,
V58, P422, J Doc
Kogut B, 1992,
V3, P383, Organ
Sci
Lakoff G, 1987,
Women Fire
Dangerous
Rank #6
Svenonius E, 2000,
Intellectual Fdn Inf
Zand De, 1981,
Information Org
Powe
Miller Ga, 1956,
V63, P81,
Psychol Rev
Williamson Oe,
1985, Ec I
Capitalism
Hansen Mt, 1999,
V44, P82, Admin
Sci Quart
Rank#9
Duncan J, 1984,
V113, P501, J Exp
Psychol Gen
Alchian Aa, 1972,
V62, P777, Am
Econ Rev
Egly R, 1994,
V123, P161, J Exp
Psychol Gen
Kramer Af, 1991,
V50, P267, Percept
Psychophys
Williamson Oe,
1985, Ec I
Capitalism
Rank #12
Rosenfeld L, 1998,
Information
Architec
Nielsen J, 1993,
Usability Eng
Rosenfeld L, 2002,
Inform
Architecture
Brancheau Jc,
1996, V20, P225,
Mis Quart
Rosenfeld L, 2002,
Information
Architec
Table 2: Top 5 Rankings of authors, works and papers in Knowledge Organization and
Information Organization in SocialSciSearch, Information and Library Science (January 2011)
Knowledge
Organization
Information
Organization
Information
Architecture
Most cited
authors
Rank #13
Hjorland B
Dahlberg I
Beghtol C
Ranganathan Sr
Soergel D
Rank #16
Svenonius E
Belkin Nj
Choo Cw
Ingwersen P
Taylor Ag
Rank #22
Rosenfeld L
Nielsen J
Brancheau Jc
Dillon A
Marchionini G
10
Knowledge
Organization
Information
Organization
Information
Architecture
Most cited
journals/
works
Rank #14
J Doc
Knowl Organ
J Am Soc Inform
Sci
J Am Soc Inf Sci
Tec
Cataloging
Classific
Rank #17
J Am Soc Inform
Sci
Inform Process
Manag
Commun Acm
J Am Soc Inf Sci
Tec
J Doc
Rank #23
Information
Architec
J Am Soc Inform
Sci
Inform
Architecture
Inform Process
Manag
Mis Quart
Most cited
references
Rank #15
Hjorland B, 1995,
V46, P400, J Am
Soc Inform S
Hjorland B, 2002,
V58, P422, J Doc
Lakoff G, 1987,
Women Fire
Dangerous
Bliss He, 1929, Org
Knowledge System
Svenonius E, 2000,
Intellectual Fdn Inf
Hjorland B, 1992,
V48, P172, J Doc
Rank #18
Svenonius E,
2000, Intellectual
Fdn Inf
Rowley J, 2000,
Org Knowledge
Intro
Star Sl, 1996, V7,
P111, Inform Syst
Res
Bates Mj, 1989,
V13, P407, Online
Rev
Belkin Nj, 1982,
V38, P61, J Doc
Rank #24
Rosenfeld L, 1998,
Information
Architec
Brancheau Jc,
1996, V20, P225,
Mis Quart
Rosenfeld L, 2002,
Inform
Architecture
Gullikson S, 1999,
V17, P293,
Electron Libr
Nielsen J, 1993,
Usability Eng
Data Analysis
If we compare the five most cited authors in the whole of SSCI the first observation is that
there is no overlap: Each of the four concepts has a unique set of most cited authors (which
of course change if more than just the top five is considered; data not shown), seemingly
indicating that we are dealing with four separate fields.
a) The term KO is dominated by authors from LIS: The three most cited researchers in rank
#1 often attend the same conferences and publish in the same journals. Dahlberg is the
founder of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) and the journal
Knowledge Organization. In rank #1 only Chi et al. (1981) and Kogut & Zander (1992) are
from outside LIS (respectively from cognitive science and knowledge management)
indicating that the term is also used in those fields. The first three are well known
researchers in LIS as are all researchers in rank #13. The three most cited journals are from
LIS: J.Doc, Knowledge Organization and JASIST. The fourth and fifth most cited journals
are from psychology (Cognitive Psychology) and Management (The Academy of
Management Review).
b) Concerning the term IO: Cognitive psychologist G.A. Miller was most cited in rank #4
(however in a new search made on 2012-01-02 Svenonius and Miller switched places).
Elaine Svenonius is a well know scholar in KO. Her book The Intellectual Foundation of
Information Organization (2000) is clearly a work from the tradition of LIS and KO, which
has chosen the label IO rather than KO (and therefore indicating synonymity between these
terms). Her book appears under both KO (rank 15) and IO (rank 6+18). Returning to rank
#4: A. Baddeley is a cognitive psychologist, while M.E. Porter and D.E.Z and are
management scholars. In the social sciences, the term IO is thus not dominated by LIS
11
researchers, and within LIS (rank #16) Nicolas Belkin and Peter Ingwersen are not foremost
known for their contributions to KO. C.W. Choo is researcher in knowledge management.
Arlene G. Taylor is a well-known author of a textbook in KO (Taylor & Joudrey, 2009). It
appears that IO is sometimes used as synonym for KO, but in general what is found under
that term is very mixed.
c) The term OI is mostly used by psychologists and cognitive scientists (whether or not
cognitive science is a fruitful theoretical basis for KO cannot be discussed in the present
paper). In Rank #7 none of the researchers are from LIS. In rank #19 Raya Fidel and
Barbara Kwasnik are from KO, the others from other subfields of LIS. This term is therefore
the term with the weakest link to KO and what is found under it is also very mixed.
d) Finally, the term IA designates what appears to be a ―new‖ field. A core text is
Morville & Rosenfeld (2006) (1st edition: Rosenfeld & Morville, 1998) and this text is the
highest ranking in both rank #11 and #23 just as one of the authors is the highest ranking
author in both rank #10 and #22. Although this book is focusing on web-design, it contains
a lot of traditional topics from KO, such as hierarchy, folksonomies, metadata, thesauri, and
faceted classification. I am not saying that nothing is new in this field (and it is certainly
attracting some talented people), but I would say that it is an exaggeration to speak of a
new field because the overlap with KO is high, and the intellectual basis is too closely
related (in other words: each field is too small in substantive content to be separated from
the other). In my opinion IA is to some extent ―old wine in new bottle‖ and the tendency to
create new labels may have some negative effects in fragmenting the field.
Discussion
Does KO = IO? What differences does it make whether we prefer the term knowledge or
the term information in LIS and in KO? There are different views on this issue in the
literature. D. A. Kemp (1988, p.3) argued that "knowledge retrieval" should substitute
"information retrieval"; Van Rijsbergen and Lamas, on the other side, wrote:
―In the early days of Information Retrieval (van Rijsbergen, 1979), people used to qualify their statements
about information retrieval (IR) by saying that really they were working on document retrieval. It was
denied strenuously that information was being retrieved. As Lancaster (1968) wrote, ―An information
retrieval system does not inform (i.e., change the knowledge of) the user on the subject of his inquiry. It
merely informs on the existence (or non-existence) and whereabouts of documents relating to his request.‖
The situation has changed. We believe that the purpose of an information retrieval system
is to provide information about a request and that a request is a representation of an
information need that an IR system attempts to satisfy.‖ (van Rijsbergen & Lalmas, 1996,
p. 386).
There are strong indications that the term ‗information‘ became popular with library
science and documentation more because of its appeal than for its scientific merits (cf.
Capurro & Hjørland, 2003; Hjørland, 2000; Furner, 2004). These authors, among others,
argue against van Rijsbergen & Lamas‘ point of view. A document can be said to
materialize the knowledge produced and thus to represent knowledge. Documents may also
be said to have the potential to inform people. The criteria of when documents represent
knowledge (what is knowledge?) or when documents inform people (what is information?)
have been the focus of much discussion. Buckland (2012), for example, finds that
information science is concerned with what people know (i.e., with knowledge), and his
arguments are related to a deeper concern about the fruitful development of LIS: it is rather
important issues that are at stake. It may be argued that knowledge and information can be
used as synonyms in LIS, and a textbook by Rowley & Hartley (2008) used the title
Organizing knowledge but adds the subtitle: An Introduction to Managing Access to
Information. In this way some authors may try to attract people whichever of these terms
12
they might prefer and again indicating the connection between the terms IO, OI, IA and KO.
I‘ll argue, however, that knowledge should be the preferred term in LIS—and thus that KO
should be preferred among the four terms considered in this article.
The present study has used bibliometric methods and has considered different disciplines,
which is a concept in the sociology of science. The methods and theories used here are thus
much more related to fields like ―the theory of knowledge‖ and ―the sociology of
knowledge‖ than to ―information theory‖, indicating an important relation to other
disciplines concerned with knowledge. My suggestion is, in other words, that the term
―knowledge‖ moves us relatively away from fields like information theory and computer
science towards fields such as social semiotics, science studies and the study of documents
and their role in human activities (―activity theory‖). I believe that such a ―social turn‖ is
very important for developing LIS as a scholarly discipline.
Subject terminology should not be used as buzzwords. There is a tendency to change
terminology in this way. Sheila Webber shows how many courses in England shift titles
from ‗information science‘ to ‗information management‘ simply because the word science
is not popular among the students that one wishes to attract. She wrote:
" In course names, Information Management is the phrase in the ascendant. This is most obvious when
looking at UK undergraduate course titles. . 'Engineering: Electrical and Information Sciences', which is
the only course [out of 74] to mention IS. None of the other courses use this phrase. 'Information
management' is the title of 38 courses. There are 18 course titles using the word 'studies', e.g. 'Information
Studies', 'Information and Library Studies'. Of the 56 courses mentioning information management or
studies, 45 are dual degrees with a subject obviously outside the discipline, e.g. 'Information Management
and Business Studies (the most popular combination)." (Webber, 2003, 325-326).
Webber finds that this tendency is an expression of a fad and an indication that the term
"management" is popular among students trying to choose an education programme while
the term "science" does not have the same appeal. She further puts the question (p. 328):
""Library and Information Management": is it merely an umbrella term and administrative
convenience? Is it a new name for IS [information science]? Is it a different discipline?" In
a similar way may many phrases containing the word ‗information‘ (i.e. ‗information
retrieval, information organization, etc.) are being used more because of their appeal than
their scientific merits. At the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee, for example, the name of the subject has recently changed from KO to IO. This
is just a change in name, not a change in what is being taught. I do not believe that it is
healthy for scholarship to use terminology as buzz-words in order to attract students, to try
to raise the image of a dusty profession, to follow fad or whatever. I do not believe that
science and scholarship should be constructed on the basis of what can be sold. It is the
other way round: Things should be sold because they have inherent qualities, which the
broader society learns to respect and in this way making the names of the fields popular.
An analysis of the theoretical problems involved demonstrates that all of the fields: KO,
IO, OI and AI are primarily concerned with subjects, concepts, and semantic relations
between concepts. The basic theoretical knowledge is therefore the same in the fields
covered by the four terms, although IA is more about organizing subjects and concepts on
the web, whereas KO has traditionally been more (but not exclusively) related to libraries
and bibliographic databases. However, from the perspective of academic research, such
differences are superficial, not essential.
In a thesaurus for the domain of LIS, Knowledge organization (KO) should therefore be the
preferred term (descriptor), while the other examined terms: IO, OI and IA should be lead-in
terms (also termed non-preferred terms, synonyms, non-descriptors or entry terms).
13
Conclusion
This study has argued that it might be a good idea to continue to use the term knowledge
organization and to connect KO better with other disciplines devoted to the study of
knowledge.
The study has also explored the contextual issues related to the use of the four terms KO,
IO, OI and AI. Philosopher Wittgenstein is famous for his ―use theory‖ of meaning: You
have to study the use of language in order to understand its meanings. Miller & Leacock
(2000) raised the following question: ―Why isn‘t a dictionary a good theory of the lexical
component of language?‖ The answer they provide is that dictionaries lack contextual
information that would enable a user to make the correct association between senses and
actual contexts. They provide the example, Our families erode a lot, which sounds bizarre
until you read the definition of erode: ‗eat out, eat away‘. Thesauri—and most kinds of
knowledge organization systems (KOS)—also lack such contextual knowledge (this is not,
however, the case with, for example, historical dictionaries which may provide detailed
information about how words have been used).
The shortcoming of traditional KOS may be countered by bibliometric studies such as the
one made in the present article: this is a way to examine the terms in different contexts in
which their meanings are negotiated and may be more or less stabilized (KO and IA seem
rather stabilized compared to IO & OI). The study has thus demonstrated how bibliometrics
─ accompanied with a study of the contents of the most cited works ─ may be used in order
to study how concepts are used in different fields and thereby as a tool for organizing
knowledge.
References
Buckland, M. 2012. What Kind of Science Can Information Science Be? Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1): 1–7.
Capurro, R., and Hjørland, B. 2003. The concept of information. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology. 37: 343-411.
Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., and Glaser, R. 1981. Categorization and representation of
physic problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2): 121-152.
Furner, J. 2004. Information studies without information. Library Trends. 52(3): 427-446.
Hjørland, B. 2000. Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of
Documentation, 56: 27-41.
Kemp, D. A. 1988. Computer-based Knowledge Retrieval. Oxford: Aslib.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397.
Konrad, A. 2007. On inquiry: Human concept formation and construction of meaning
through library and information science intermediation (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://escholarship.
org/uc/item/1s76b6hp
Miller, G. A., and Leacock, C. 2000. Lexical representations for sentence processing. In:
Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Edited by Y. Ravin and C.
Leacock (chapter 8, pp. 152-160). New York: Oxford University Press.
Morville, P., and Rosenfeld, L. 2006. Information architecture for the world wide web (3rd
ed.). Sebastobol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Rosenfeld, L., and Morville, P. 1998. Information architecture for the World Wide Web.
1st ed. Cambridge Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
14
Rowley, J., and Hartley, R. 2008. Organizing knowledge. An introduction to managing
access to information. 4th edition. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
Svenonius, E. 2000. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, A. G., and Joudrey, D. N. 2009. The organization of information. 3rd edition.
Westporet, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
van Rijsbergen, C.J., and Lalmas, M. 1996. Information Calculus for Information
Retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 7(5): 385-398.
Webber, S. 2003. Information science in 2003: a critique. Journal of Information Science.
29(4): 311-330.
... To implement or revise a classification is thus to make a social intervention, and the value of a classification, e.g. for communication and discovery, depends on the social processes supporting it. Henry Bliss's (1929) work stands out in this regard as an early argument for the value of a general consensus classification of knowledge for the functional organization of society (Hjørland 2016). Highlighting the close connection he saw between constructing shared classifications and progress, Bliss quoted the American Engineering Standards Committee's 1928 yearbook motto: "Standardization is dynamic, not static. ...
... It means, not to stand still, but to move forward together." Bliss's core aim, though, was to replace the Dewey Decimal system with what he saw as a more theoretically principled way of organizing library materials, and in this regard he largely failed to win converts to his proposed classification (Hjørland 2016). His experience helps motivate the importance of understanding the what, when, how, and why of consensus as an adequate basis for a shared classification. ...
Consensus and Scientific Classification
Article
Full-text available
Consensus about a classification is defined as agreement on a set of classes (concepts or categories) and their relations (such as generic relations and whole-part relations) for us in forming beliefs. While most research on scientific consensus has focused on consensus about a belief as a mark of truth, we highlight the importance of consensus in justifying shared classificatory language. What sort of consensus, if any, is the best basis for communicating and reasoning with scientific classifications? We describe an often-overlooked coordinative role for consensus that leverage agreement on how to disagree such that actors involved can still achieve one or more shared aims even when they do not agree on shared beliefs or categories. Looking forward, we suggest that investigating structures and methods for coordinative consensus provides an important new direction for research on the epistemic foundations of knowledge organization.
View
... KOS are needed because no complex information retrieval (IR) system can be effectively and confidently searched without order and therefore predictability (Fugmann, 1993). So, it can be clearly reasoned that Internet, as an IR space, and web sites in particular, must have their own KOSs, giving birth to new kinds of them (Hjørland, 2016). One of the most important of such new KOS are taxonomies, which have become pervasive thanks to website menus and maps. ...
Interoperability and Standardization of Web Navigation Taxonomies: Clarifying some Operational Concepts and Developing a Tentative Basic Vocabulary
Chapter
  • Jan 2022
This book explores the latest advances in how knowledge organisation can both draw upon and inform diverse disciplines and technological developments. It explores how best to combine theory and practice, with its contents considering practical solutions as well as the theory behind the design, development and implementation of knowledge organising systems, ranging from controlled vocabularies, classification systems and metadata schemas to ontologies and taxonomies. With contributions by Carmen Agustín-Lacruz, Mayukh Bagchi, Mario Barité, Maria Teresa Biagetti, Briony Birdi, Lynne Bowker, Thiago Henrique Bragato Barros, Ana Inés Brozia, Gema Bueno-de-la-Fuente, Julia Bullard, Rafael Cacciolari Dalessandro, José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Christian Cole, Stephanie Colombo, Luciana Corts Mendes, Luis Corujo, Niamh Nic Daeid, Patrícia de Almeida, Hadassa De Zen Itepan, Anthony Dunbar, Jonathan Furner, Francisco-Javier García-Marco, Fausto Giunchiglia, Claudio Gnoli, Míriam Gontijo de Moraes, Hazlem Granados-Amaya, Hugo Alberto Guadarrama-Sánchez, Hugo Alberto Guadarrama-Sánchez, Carlos Guardado da Silva, David Haynes, Ania Hernández Quintana, Philip Hider, Chris Holstrom, Eva Hourihan Jansen, Fidelia Ibekwe, Mat Kelly, Michael Kleineberg, Nair Yumiko Kobashi, Deborah Lee, Maël Le Gall, Joaquín López del Ramo, Luís Miguel Oliveira Machado, Hugo Moquet, Catalina Naumis-Peña, Mirtha Rauch, Mariana Ramos Crivelente, Raissa Resende de Moraes, Jorge Revez, Riccardo Ridi, Somayeh Roshan, Clarissa Schmidt, Negin Shokrzadeh Hashtroudi, Richard P. Smiraglia, Mariângela Spotti Lopes, Adriana Suárez-Sánchez, Erik Stubkjær, Rick Szostak, Seyed Mahdi Taheri, Marc Tanti, Ana Lúcia Terra, Amanda Terrero Trinquete, Natalia Tognoli, Jéssica Beatriz Tolare, Raquel Torrão Valentim, Hyung Wook Choi and Mohsen Haji Zeinolabedini.
View
... Considering that some of the studies on archival information representation have been problematized with greater incidence, although incipient, in knowledge organization (KO) and information science (Aguiar and Kobashi 2013;Barros and Sousa 2020;Corujo and Freitas 2021;Hjørland 2002;Tognoli 2013;Tognoli and Guimarães 2011;Troitiño Rodriguez 2018;Vital, Medeiros and Brascher 2017), these studies have largely confined themselves to material and technical processes, physical (e. g., arrangement) and intellectual (e. g., classification and description), of concepts that conform to the bureaucratic dimension of the producers and/or custodial entities. In what concerns the displaced archives, the phenomenon itself challenges the core concepts of archival science, especially how these disputed documentary sets are represented from the point of view of provenance, integrity, naturalness and how these representations are (re)constructed or destroyed in the process of archival mediation. ...
Information Representation in Displaced Archives: A Meta-Synthesis
Article
Full-text available
This paper aims to perform a qualitative synthesis of literature concerning the representation of information in displaced archives. Methodologically, this communication is configured in a metasynthesis oriented to theory building, constituting a non-reactive, documentary-based and exploratory type of study, focused on articles and books chapters published in English between 1954 and 2019. The collection of texts is supported by the SPICE strategy, applied to the search in databases (WoS and EBSCO). We adopted content analysis according to the assumptions of Charmaz and Finfgeld-Connett. Of the 443 records, 155 texts that responded to the research purposes were included. Three themes emerged from the content analysis around the aforementioned theme with a view to theory building: “anarchivism as (non-) representation”, “archive of the archive”, and “archival canon”. Finally, displaced archives constitute an emerging theme in several domains, so it is important to explore the complex nature of this phenomenon from the point of view of representation and knowledge organization.
View
... In second instance, it can be the source of the schemes that are used to organize our knowledge of the world, to find and reuse such information as part of our scholarly activities (applied ontology). Such schemes are known as knowledge organizations systems (KOS) and are the core object in the expanding field of knowledge organization (Dalhberg, 1993;Hjørland, 2016;Gnoli, 2020). ...
An Informational Approach to Emergence
Article
Full-text available
Emergence can be described as a relationship between entities at different levels of organization, that looks especially puzzling at the transitions between the major levels of matter, life, cognition and culture. Indeed, each major level is dependent on the lower one not just for its constituents, but in some more formal way. A passage by François Jacob suggests that all such evolutionary transitions are associated with the appearance of some form of memory–genetic, neural or linguistic respectively. This implies that they have an informational nature. Based on this idea, we propose a general model of informational systems understood as combinations of modules taken from a limited inventory. Some informational systems are “semantic” models, that is reproduce features of their environment. Among these, some are also “informed”, that is have a pattern derived from a memory subsystem. The levels and components of informed systems can be listed to provide a general framework for knowledge organization, of relevance in both philosophical ontology and applied information services.
View
... Sin embargo, el papel de estas instituciones en la gestión de la información y el conocimiento es una cuestión que no está plenamente establecida, a pesar de los esfuerzos de los bibliotecólogos y archivistas por concienciar sobre la importancia de su rol en la sociedad(Bem & Coelho, 2013). Para mejorar la posición de la gestión de la información y el conocimiento en estas instituciones, no solo hay que trabajar los fundamentos, sino también sus diversos campos de aplicación y la apertura a nuevos objetos y métodos(Hjørland, 2016;Lankes, 2018). Por ejemplo, la integración de la diversidad cultural y la semántica debe considerarse un punto importante para la creación y la apropiación de conocimiento(Aytac et al., 2011;Ohly, 2015).En entrevista con S. Villegas, este afirma que es necesario[…] sostener filosóficamente la idea de biblioteca como un espacio que además reúne, ya no solamente los medios físicos, sino los medios digitales, pero cuyo propósito no es ya el acceso al conocimiento, sino la creación o la transformación que se pueda dar a partir de ese acceso. ...
Posibilidad, riesgo e incertidumbre: análisis de tendencias en las ciencias de la información
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2022
En este artículo se presentan los resultados de investigación sobre las tendencias de las ciencias de la información en el marco del proyecto de “Innovación curricular de los programas de pregrado en Archivística y Bibliotecología de la Universidad de Antioquia” de la Escuela Interamericana de Bibliotecología. Se analizan las tendencias sociales que permiten pensar en qué forma factores políticos, educativos, económicos y medioambientales influyen en los contextos en los cuales actúan los profesionales y las instituciones; se identifican las tendencias en la producción científica y académica del campo de las ciencias de la información, para indagar hacia dónde va la investigación; se describen las tendencias en las tecnologías de la información y los datos, caracterizadas por cambios y desarrollos vertiginosos que indican los horizontes de esta área de trabajo, pero que no se constituyen en el único factor determinante de las tendencias; y, por último, se reflexiona sobre las tendencias en las instituciones, cómo ellas responden a esas transformaciones y demandas sociales y tecnológicas. El método implementado en la investigación tuvo un enfoque principalmente cualitativo, se usaron tres técnicas de investigación: 1) el análisis de redes sociales de la producción científica, 2) la consulta de comunicados de organismos multilaterales e instituciones del área, el análisis de fuentes de mercado y 3) el desarrollo de entrevistas en profundidad con especialistas en el tema. Se concluye que el desarrollo tecnológico y el rol de los profesionales e instituciones de la información y la memoria demandan cambios constantes y abruptos para la adopción de nuevas tecnologías. Sin embargo, se debe tener cuidado con ello; hay que asumir una posición crítica y consciente, que no desconozca las bases de los campos de conocimiento ni las prácticas sociales y culturales a las que se enfrentan los profesionales.
View
... The studies analyzed present a close relationship between the Organization of Information and KO. If they are conceptually distinct (Brascher and Café 2008), are intertwined by their common goal of managing and making information and knowledge accessible (Hjørland 2020). At this point, the field of ontologies stands out. ...
Knowledge Organization and the UN 2030 Agenda Through the Lens of Interoperability
Conference Paper
  • Jan 2022
This paper seeks to understand the relationship between the technological and semantic interoperability (metadata) of information systems with sustainability, a global proposal of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for the development of our societies. Through a systematic literature review and an analysis of the results, it intends to understand the contribution of knowledge organization and interoperability to the enhancement of sustainable development. Two research questions were addressed: What is the role of interoperable systems in environmental, social, and economic development? How can knowledge organization and interoperability contribute to sustainable development? The results show that interoperability is seen as fundamental to sustainable development, especially when building integrated and standardized information systems. The role of interoperable systems in environmental, social, and economic development is relevant, as knowledge organization and interoperability contribute, indirectly but decisively, to sustainable development. They enable the exchange of information, encourage the construction of global communities of practice and overcome local limitations and deficits. It is concluded that knowledge organization plays a cross-cutting role in projects, which aim to implement the Sustainable Development Goals
View
O processo de reconstituição do acesso à documentação do Arquivo do Serviço de Beneficência da Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2023
O Serviço de Beneficência da Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, um dos quatro serviços fundadores, ficou responsável pela gestão dos subsídios concedidos a instituições nomeadas por Calouste Gulbenkian no seu testamento, pela coordenação dos novos pedidos de subsídios, assim como dar respostas a situações inesperadas que provocaram fragilidades numa determinada comunidade em território nacional e internacional. O arquivo desta unidade orgânica, à guarda do Arquivo da Fundação permite não só acompanhar a miríade de processos de subsídios individuais e coletivos, que ao longo das várias décadas de atividades beneficiaram várias iniciativas, como também as mudanças de direção e designação ao longo do tempo[1]. Partindo do estudo do arquivo do Serviço de Beneficência, pretendeu-se questionar o seu contexto de produção e referenciação. Este trabalho para além de se empenhar na descrição do processo de reconstituição do acesso à documentação, procura perscrutar e decifrar as lógicas, à primeira vista paradoxais, dos códigos utilizados por aquela unidade orgânica. Dedica-se ainda a uma reflexão aprofundada sobre a decalagem entre a cultura administrativa e a arquivística, que pode levar a perdas de conhecimento significativas, sendo assim perspetivadas estratégias de mitigação. [1] Em 1971 o Serviço de Beneficência passa a denominar-se Serviço de Saúde e Proteção Social (SSPS), sendo que de 2001 a 2013 foi denominado por Serviço de Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano (SSDH).
View
View
Registro de lições aprendidas em projetos: uma proposta de modelagem
Thesis
Full-text available
  • Sep 2022
Embora diferentes organizações dedicadas à pesquisa e divulgação da gestão de projetos a reconheçam como fator relevante para o aprimoramento dessa atividade, o registro das lições aprendidas é comumente negligenciado durante ou após o ciclo de vida dos projetos. Apesar destas lições representarem conhecimentos obtidos na vivência de experiências significativas, diversos estudos mostram que o excesso de informações, as dificuldades em estabelecer um formato de registro adequado e procedimentos para avaliá-los e implementá-los e, em última análise, as limitações de tempo - por falta de ou baixa prioridade - dificultam seu registro. Neste cenário e considerando as possibilidades trazidas pelas tecnologias de informação e comunicação com viés semântico, acredita-se que a modelagem desse registro por meio de metadados pode contribuir para sua eficiência e eficácia, valorizando-o como meio de aprendizagem organizacional. Desta forma, o primeiro passo desta pesquisa com abordagem qualitativa, natureza aplicada, objetivos exploratórios, procedimentos bibliográficos e documentais e método indutivo foi obter uma amostra de 54 registros de lições aprendidas em projetos de organizações públicas ou privadas, nacionais ou internacionais. . e com origem em 11 países, totalizando 169 atributos. Depois de analisados, esses atributos fundaram-se em um conjunto de 28 representados por metadados e avaliados pelo Método de Cochran (para determinar sua representatividade) e pelo Teste de Kuden-Richardson 21 (para determinar sua confiabilidade). Os resultados obtidos com essas avaliações revelaram que o conjunto é estatisticamente representativo (permitindo fazer uma inferência estatística a partir dele) e confiável. Por conta disso, a segunda etapa consistiu em realizar a modelagem conceitual, que, a partir desse conjunto, identificou 11 entidades e 12 relacionamentos entre elas, representando-as por meio de um Modelo Entidade-Relacionamento que pode servir para estruturar um banco de dados de lições aprendidas com o projetos.
View
Análise cientométrica da abordagem facetada pelos pesquisadores bolsistas em produtividade
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2022
A análise de domínio na ciência da informação objetiva analisar uma área que compartilha conceitos em uma comunidade específica. A análise de domínio se divide em 11 abordagens, que se correlaciona por pelo menos duas na presente pesquisa: a) boa avaliação, produção e avaliação de classificações especializadas e tesauro; b) a produção e a interpretação de estudos bibliométricos. A problemática da pesquisa se baseia em conhecer: primeiro, os pesquisadores que possuem bolsa de produtividade do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico que pesquisam a respeito da abordagem facetada; segundo, o olhar que esses pesquisadores têm a respeito da abordagem facetada; e terceiro, suas contribuições para a compreensão teórica aplicada da abordagem facetada. O objetivo da pesquisa é verificar, dessa maneira, quem são esses pesquisadores e suas relações de produção. Para isso, primeiramente, realizou-se um levantamento pela plataforma Lattes para identificar todos os bolsistas de produtividade; segundo, verificou-se quem desses pesquisadores trabalham com a abordagem facetada; terceiro, verificaram-se suas publicações na mesma abordagem; e quarto, identificaram-se as relações por meio da cientometria e da estatística. Como resultado, identificaram-se os autores mais produtivos que trabalham na temática das facetas e verificou-se que suas produções são significativas, porém, essa produção pode não ser representativa, pois, os pesquisadores produtivos que atuam nessa temática possuem grandes diferenças de produção na própria temática. Pois, por exemplo, enquanto um pesquisador possui 29 publicações, outros possuem uma ou duas, o que se tornou necessário analisar todas as variáveis e implicações imanentes dos dados coletados. Concluiu-se que ainda a área das facetas requer muita exploração, principalmente, com a ampliação do corpo de análise.
View
Documents, memory institutions and information science
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates the problem of the labelling of the library, documentation and information field with particular emphasis on the terms ‘information’ and ‘document’. What influences introduced the concept of ‘information’ into the library field in the middle of the twentieth century? What kind of theoretical orientations have dominated the field, and how are these orientations linked to epistemological assumptions? What is the implication of the recent influence of socially oriented epistemologies for such basic concepts in IS as ‘information’ and ‘document’? The article explores these problems and advocates an approach with emphasis on documents and on the concept ‘memory institutions’ as generic terms for the central object of study.
View
Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 1992
How should we understand why firms exist? A prevailing view has been that they serve to keep in check the transaction costs arising from the self-interested motivations of individuals. We develop in this article the argument that what firms do better than markets is the sharing and transfer of the knowledge of individuals and groups within an organization. This knowledge consists of information (e.g., who knows what) and of know-how (e.g., how to organize a research team). What is central to our argument is that knowledge is held by individuals, but is also expressed in regularities by which members cooperate in a social community (i.e., group, organization, or network). If knowledge is only held at the individual level, then firms could change simply by employee turnover. Because we know that hiring new workers is not equivalent to changing the skills of a firm, an analysis of what firms can do must understand knowledge as embedded in the organizing principles by which people cooperate within organizations. Based on this discussion, a paradox is identified: efforts by a firm to grow by the replication of its technology enhances the potential for imitation. By considering how firms can deter imitation by innovation, we develop a more dynamic view of how firms create new knowledge. We build up this dynamic perspective by suggesting that firms learn new skills by recombining their current capabilities. Because new ways of cooperating cannot be easily acquired, growth occurs by building on the social relationships that currently exist in a firm. What a firm has done before tends to predict what it can do in the future. In this sense, the cumulative knowledge of the firm provides options to expand in new but uncertain markets in the future. We discuss at length the example of the make/buy decision and propose several testable hypotheses regarding the boundaries of the firm, without appealing to the notion of “opportunism.”
View
Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices
Article
Full-text available
The representation of physics problems in relation to the organization of physics knowledge is investigated in experts and novices. Four experiments examine (a) the existence of problem categories as a basis for representation; (b) differences in the categories used by experts and novices; (c) differences in the knowledge associated with the categories; and (d) features in the problems that contribute to problem categorization and representation. Results from sorting tasks and protocols reveal that experts and novices begin their problem representations with specifiably different problem categories, and completion of the representations depends on the knowledge associated with the categories. For, the experts initially abstract physics principles to approach and solve a problem representation, whereas novices base their representation and approaches on the problem's literal features.
View
Lexical Representations for Sentence Processing
Chapter
  • Jun 2000
A rhetorical question will take us quickly to the topic of this paper. The question is simple: Why isn’t a dictionary a good theory of the lexical component of language? We can offer two answers, a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is that a dictionary is not a good theory of the lexical component of language because it does not deal with lexical aspects of sentence processing. The long answer explains why lexical aspects of sentence processing must be part of any adequate theory of the lexical component of language. Before embarking on the long answer, however, the question needs to be clarified. To those who would complain that a dictionary is a book, not a theory, we must agree. But the book could not be written unless its authors held some kind of theory-implicitly, if not explicitly-about the lexical component of language. Without a theory, how could the authors decide what to include and what to omit? It is that theory we want to examine. But, since the theory is expressed only via the book that results, the theory can only be criticized by criticizing the book itself.
View
Organizing Knowledge: An introduction to managing access to information
Book
  • May 2017
The fourth edition of this standard student text, Organizing Knowledge, incorporates extensive revisions reflecting the increasing shift towards a networked and digital information environment, and its impact on documents, information, knowledge, users and managers. Offering a broad-based overview of the approaches and tools used in the structuring and dissemination of knowledge, it is written in an accessible style and well illustrated with figures and examples. The book has been structured into three parts and twelve chapters and has been thoroughly updated throughout. Part I discusses the nature, structuring and description of knowledge. Part II, with its five chapters, lies at the core of the book focusing as it does on access to information. Part III explores different types of knowledge organization systems and considers some of the management issues associated with such systems. Each chapter includes learning objectives, a chapter summary and a list of references for further reading. This is a key introductory text for undergraduate and postgraduate students of information management. © 2008 Jennifer Rowley and Richard Hartley. All rights reserved.
View
View
Organization of Information
Book
  • Dec 2008
I do not have permission to share this book as a PDF. Please contact the publisher, Libraries Unlimited, if you wish to purchase an electronic copy of the latest edition of this text. https://products.abc-clio.com/abc-cliocorporate/product.aspx?pc=A3482C
View
View
Information Science in 2003: A Critique
Article
The author aims to review the status of information science (IS) as a discipline, with particular focus on the UK. A consideration of the discipline begins by comparing definitions of IS. Two visions of the impact of IS are presented to illustrate a key problem area addressed by the discipline. Indicators of a discipline are summarized and Biglan's categorization of disciplines is explained. The author provides a critique of opinions on the nature of IS as a discipline, using Biglan's categories as a framework. The author contrasts the views of those who see the discipline as problematically fragmented and those who envision a discipline of fruitfully interlinked specialisms. This section of the paper concludes by considering disciplinary boundaries and the international scope of the discipline. The last section of the paper reviews the state of IS in the UK, drawing on evidence and on personal experience. Factors considered are: evidence of networks and communities of practice; the name and standing of academic departments and courses; artefacts and personal identification. The author concludes by identifying particular challenges for IS in the UK and indicates areas for research.
View
What Kind of Science Can Information Science Be?
Article
During the 20th century there was a strong desire to develop an information science from librarianship, bibliography, and documentation and in 1968 the American Documentation Institute changed its name to the American Society for Information Science. By the beginning of the 21st century, however, departments of (library and) information science had turned instead towards the social sciences. These programs address a variety of important topics, but they have been less successful in providing a coherent explanation of the nature and scope of the field. Progress can be made towards a coherent, unified view of the roles of archives, libraries, museums, online information services, and related organizations if they are treated as information-providing services. However, such an approach seems significantly incomplete on ordinary understandings of the providing of information. Instead of asking what information science is or what we might wish it to become, we ask instead what kind of field it can be given our assumptions about it. We approach the question by examining some keywords: science, information, knowledge, and interdisciplinary. We conclude that if information science is concerned with what people know, then it is a form of cultural engagement, and at most, a science of the artificial.
View