An overview of information retrieval rooted in the humanities and social sciences but informed by an understanding of information technology and information theory. Information retrieval in the age of Internet search engines has become part of ordinary discourse and everyday practice: “Google” is a verb in common usage. Thus far, more attention has been given to practical understanding of information retrieval than to a full theoretical account. In Human Information Retrieval, Julian Warner offers a comprehensive overview of information retrieval, synthesizing theories from different disciplines (information and computer science, librarianship and indexing, and information society discourse) and incorporating such disparate systems as WorldCat and Google into a single, robust theoretical framework. There is a need for such a theoretical treatment, he argues, one that reveals the structure and underlying patterns of this complex field while remaining congruent with everyday practice. Warner presents a labor theoretic approach to information retrieval, building on his previously formulated distinction between semantic and syntactic mental labor, arguing that the description and search labor of information retrieval can be understood as both semantic and syntactic in character. Warner's information science approach is rooted in the humanities and the social sciences but informed by an understanding of information technology and information theory. The chapters offer a progressive exposition of the topic, with illustrative examples to explain the concepts presented. Neither narrowly practical nor largely speculative, Human Information Retrieval meets the contemporary need for a broader treatment of information and information systems.
The principal aim of this study is to examine the transmission of ideas across time in disciplines selected from the humanities and social sciences. Citation analysis is used to trace the diffusion of ideas as they are embodied in monographic publications. The study is part of a developing research programme and is intended to establish a framework to inform future developments. Four specific hypotheses are developed and tested. They are concerned with: the relative impact of monographs and journal articles produced within a discipline; the distinction between core and non-core group monographs; the correlation between the reception and intellectual survival of a monograph; and the comparative level of impact of monographic and journal article publication by a single author. It is concluded that the presence of core or elite groups can be perceived in all aspects of the study. The validity of the methodologies employed is strengthened by the sharp distinctions between groups of monographs and of authors revealed by the analysis of data. Further analysis is needed to explore intra-and inter-disciplinary diffusion of ideas over time in greater depth.
This paper reviews the public reception of the Research Assessment Exercise 1996 (RAE) from its announcement in December 1996 to the decline of discussion at end May 1997. A model for diffusion of the RAE is established which distinguishes extra‐communal (or exoteric) from intra‐communal (or esoteric) media. The different characteristics of each medium and the changing nature of the discussion over time are considered. Different themes are distinguished in the public reception of the RAE: the spatial distribution of research; the organisation of universities; disciplinary differences in understanding; a perceived conflict between research and teaching; the development of a culture of accountability; and analogies with the organisation of professional football. In conclusion, it is suggested that the RAE and its effects can be more fully considered from the perspective of scholarly communication and understandings of the development of knowledge than it has been by previous contributions in information science, which have concentrated on the possibility of more efficient implementation of existing processes. A fundamental responsibility for funding councils is also identified: to promote the overall health of university education and research, while establishing meaningful differentiations between units.
Information science has often been recognized as an interdisciplinary field. The marriage between librarianship/documentation and computer science was a natural development in the United States in the post‐War period (Farkas‐Conn, 1991; Hahn & Barlow, 2012), while the development of information science in Europe has largely stayed close to the humanities and the social sciences, in particular, in relation to communication and media (Ibekwe‐SanJuan, et al., 2010). For many years, the interdisciplinary nature of information science has been applauded; until recently, we are warned that interdisciplinarinity may be harmful to the identity of the field. Buckland (2012) states that the claim of being “interdisciplinary” is to choose a position of weakness because “in times of economic crisis political power tends to reside in well‐established disciplines.” Cronin (2012) comments that “the field's sense of identity, arguably fragile at the best of times, is likely to be further weakened” for its “epistemic promiscuity.” This international panel aims to discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science in relation to disciplinarity and to the identity of information science with a special reference to the premises, promises and implications of diverging historical and contemporary traditions in different European countries and in the US. Is information science gaining strength by being more interdisciplinary or is “the basic problem for LIS seems at the moment to be a lack of sufficiently strong centripetal forces keeping the field together” as Hjørland (forthcoming) fears. Does IS risk disintegration or dilution if it is being pulled more by centrifugal forces towards neighbouring disciplines rather than by centripetal forces? Is the main problem of IS “epistemological promiscuity”? This panel will discuss how IS in their different geographical or cultural zones has grappled with these issues which are in essence issues of boundaries. In particular, we will discuss the following questions: How information science is affiliated with other disciplines (e.g. natural sciences, social sciences, or interdisciplinary fields) in different regions, countries and institutions represented by the panelists? How is interdisciplinarity perceived in the panelists' institution/country? What are the main theories, if any, that inform research in information science and the formation of research areas in different regions, countries and institutions? Why and how the identity and disciplinarity of information science matter in the context of the work of information science researchers and practitioners?
The Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) conducted in the UK have attractedvarious types of published response. These include citation analyses and a review of the public reception of the RAE 1996, which included a brief critique of the citation studies. This paper develops the critique. Largely unexplored issues in the theory or assumptions of bibliometrics, e.g. the level of citation which corresponds to a quantum of research quality, are found to emerge in the studies. A weak, and unsatisfactorily treated, correlation between citation aggregates and research quality for individual entities is revealed. The proposal to replace informed peer review by citation analysis is regarded as highly unrealistic. Productive uses for citation analysis in research evaluation are suggested. A historically rare instance of correlation between rankings derived from citation aggregates and from real world peer review has been revealed by the studies. The future value of citation analysis could be to inform, but not to determine, judgements of research quality. A combination of methods is advocated for future studies of the RAEs. Information science must attend to considerations of value, as well as using established techniques, if it is to avoid marginalisation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.