PoststructuralismThe meaning of the term "poststructuralism" is not without controversy. Culler (1982) has pointed to some of these problems, notably how different theorists have attempted to distinguish "structuralism" from "poststructuralism" using different criteria. Chalmers (1999, p. 1111) states that "structuralism focused on a notion of a shared, commonly understood language that individuals would use as a basis for each utterance or action. This aspect of the theory was later criticized as unrealistic ... To take account of such issues, there was a move to 'poststructuralist' theories of knowledge and interpretation." Framing the discussion in terms of literary analysis, Culler (1982, p. 22) writes, "In simplest terms, structuralists take linguistics as a model and attempt to develop 'grammars'-systematic inventories of elements and their possibilities of combinations-that would account for the form and meaning of literary works; post-structuralists investigate the way in which this project is subverted by the workings of the texts themselves." Another problem in making such a division between structuralism and poststructuralism is that late structuralists such as Roland Barthes (for example in S /Z [Barthes, 19741) adopted poststructuralist modes of analysis that subverted stronger structuralist claims.In information studies, the term "poststructuralism" is commonly associated with Michel Foucault's work under the term, "discourse analysis." In critical legal studies, poststructuralism was discussed in terms of Derridean deconstruction (see, for example, Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, 1990; and On the Necessity of Violence for Any Possibility of Justice, 1991). Farmer (1993), following critical legal studies, has broadly addressed poststructuralism in the legal research process and in information studies. Farmer (1993, p. 392) states that poststructuralism may be characterized by its rejection of "master narratives" and "foundational claims that purport to be based on science, objectivity, neutrality, and scholarly disinterestedness." It Poststructuralism and Information Studies 577Deleuze's work, the concepts of repetition and event form the link between the "signifying semiotics" of linguistics and the "a-signifying semiotics" [Guattari, 19721 of biological information systems, and consequentl' make the getlkicnukiun uf 'YhfirmaL~un "noLszhp2ya mekaphm of linguistics events.)The "empirical" for these writers carries an emphasis upon temporality, historicity (i.e., historical agency), and a differential complexity that is intrinsic to any identity. Such an emphasis upon differential complexity and the potential powers of emergence within any identity, that is, upon the general economy that defines any restrictive economy or selfsame identity, leads not only to a contrast between structuralist and poststructuralist writings, but also (contra Chalmers, 1999) classical hermeneutics. This is not to deny structure, but it is to insist that structure both is created and has the potential ...

This article examines information theory from the aspect of its “conduit metaphor.” A historical approach and a close reading of certain texts by Warren Weaver and Norbert Wiener shows how this metaphor was used to construct notions of language, information, information theory, and information science, and was used to extend the range of these notions across social and political space during the period of the Cold War. This article suggests that this legacy remains with us today in certain notions of information and information theory, and that this has affected not only social space in general, but in particular, the range and possibilities of information studies.

"Implicit knowledge" and "tacit knowledge" in Knowledge Management (KM) are important, often synonymous, terms. In KM they often refer to private or personal knowledge that needs to be made public. The original reference of "tacit knowledge" is to the work of the late scientist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi (Polanyi, 1969), but there is substantial evidence that the KM discourse has poorly understood Polanyi's term. Two theoretical problems in Knowledge Management's notion of "implicit knowledge," which undermine empirical work in this area, are examined. The first problem involves understanding the term "knowledge" according to a folk-psychology of mental representation to model expression. The second is epistemological and social: understanding Polanyi's term, tacit knowing as a psychological concept instead of as an epistemological problem, in general, and one of social epistemology and of the epistemology of the sciences, in particular. Further, exploring Polanyi's notion of tacit knowing in more detail yields important insights into the role of knowledge in science, including empirical work in information science. This article has two parts: first, there is a discussion of the folk-psychology model of representation and the need to replace this with a more expressionist model. In the second part, Polanyi's concept of tacit knowledge in relation to the role of analogical thought in expertise is examined. The works of philosophers, particularly Harré and Wittgenstein, are brought to bear on these problems. Conceptual methods play several roles in information science that cannot satisfactorily be performed empirically at all or alone. Among these roles, such methods may examine historical issues, they may critically engage foundational assumptions, and they may deploy new concepts. In this article the last two roles are examined.

The article explains why the concept of the user in Library and Information Science (LIS) user studies and information seeking behavior is theoretically inadequate and it proposes a reconceptualization of subjects, objects, and their relations according to a model of 'double mediation.' Formal causation (affordances) is suggested as a substitute for mechanistic causation. The notion of 'affective causation' is introduced. The works of several psychoanalysts and continental and Anglo-American philosophers are used as tools to develop the model.

This article examines the political processes surrounding public sector accounting standard setting, in particular, the Australian decision to adopt sector-neutral International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It contends that the history of private and public sector involvement in the accounting standard setting process to date, and recourse to regulatory theory, assist in understanding these contemporary developments. The article reveals that private sector interests have dominated accounting standard setters at all important stages of standard setting in Australia. It concludes by arguing that, given this continued neglect by standard setters, if public sector financial reporting standards are to remain relevant to the public sector, then it may be necessary for public sector regulators to set their own standards.