Operationalizing the notion of information as a subjective construct

Abstract

We discuss information by attempting to operationalize it using: (1) Dervin and Nilan's idea that information is a subjective construct rather than an objective thing; (2) Brookes's idea that information is that which modifies knowledge structure; and (3) Neisser's idea that perception is top-down or schemata driven to the point of paradox. De Mey, Minsky's theory of frames, and top-down and bottom-up models from reading theory are discussed. We conclude that information must be rare because only rare information can modify knowledge structure at its upper levels, and that to modify knowledge structure at its upper levels (its essence) information may have to enter the perception cycle in two stages.

Mind the Gap: Transitions Between Concepts of Information in Varied Domains

“…And, conversely, many in the library/information sciences are concerned about the application of the term 'information' to objective, meaningless patterns. Le Coadic (1987), Cole (1994), Hjørland (2007Hjørland ( , 2008, and Ma (2012), for example, argue in various ways against any equating of the idea of information as an objective and measurable 'thing' to the kind of information of interest in library and information science; this kind of information, such commentators argue, is subjective in nature, having meaning for a person in a particular context, and cannot be reduced to a single objective, still less quantifiable, definition. However, this perhaps overlooks some recent trends in the physical and biological sciences themselves: not merely the increased focus on information noted above, but a tendency towards conceptualisations involving non-linearity, systems thinking, complexity, and reflexivity.…”

Information and equity

“…Instead of trying to adapt information seekers to existing systems, the new “user studies” seek a better understanding of the seekers themselves, how they subjectively understand the world and construct meaning, as well as the intricate variability of human social contexts and information‐seeking behavior (Bates, 2001; Fidel, 2001). The new paradigm redefined “information [as] a subjective phenomenon, constructed at least to some extent by the user, and not an objective phenomenon” (Cole, 1994, p. 465).…”

New Directions in Cognitive Information Retrieval

“…In a certain sense, the goal state is the first part of an information process the end of which is the user becoming informed by the information he or she has been channeled to by the IR system (i.e., from the system output in the results list) (cf. also, Brookes, 1980;Cole, 1994;Todd, 1999). Because we believe the responsibility for an information process must be assumed by an interactive IR system, our modeling of the goal state of the user due to systemuser interaction must also contain the potentiality of the information process to come (we repeat, which the interaction is responsible to provide even though the user may leave the system, or get waylaid and cease the information search/seeking before the satisfaction of his or her information need).…”