The domain of information science: problems in conceptualization and in consensus-building

Schrader, Alvin M.

doi:10.3233/isu-1986-65-601

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The affective aspects focused on motivation or intentionality as well as additional social context such as culture, work, or problem‐at‐hand (Saracevic, 1999). Schrader (1986, p. 179) counted 134 nuances of information in the field of information science, a field that has generated a lot of work to provide frameworks or taxonomies to the term “information.” Attempting to provide the structure to the concept of “information,” Buckland (1991) proposed three meanings of information: “Information‐as‐process,” “information‐as‐knowledge,” and “information‐as‐thing,” plus an attribute use of information to denote things that are informative.…”

Section: Integration Of Theoretical Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of research in information retrieval has focused on improving the performance of the technology, with little reference to the inherent biases of technology design decisions, although there is an acknowledgment of misrepresentation (Schrader, 1986) and adversarial information retrieval (Couvering, 2004; Fetterly, 2007).…”

Section: Integration Of Theoretical Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The seventeen theoretical constructs of information searching and information retrieval

Jansen

Rieh

2010

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we identify, compare, and contrast theoretical constructs for the fields of information searching and information retrieval to emphasize the uniqueness of and synergy between the fields. Theoretical constructs are the foundational elements that underpin a field's core theories, models, assumptions, methodologies, and evaluation metrics. We provide a framework to compare and contrast the theoretical constructs in the fields of information searching and information retrieval using intellectual perspective and theoretical orientation. The intellectual perspectives are information searching, information retrieval, and cross-cutting; and the theoretical orientations are information, people, and technology. Using this framework, we identify 17 significant constructs in these fields contrasting the differences and comparing the similarities. We discuss the impact of the interplay among these constructs for moving research forward within both fields. Although there is tension between the fields due to contradictory constructs, an examination shows a trend toward convergence. We discuss the implications for future research within the information searching and information retrieval fields.

show abstract

Section: Integration Of Theoretical Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Integration Of Theoretical Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The seventeen theoretical constructs of information searching and information retrieval

Jansen

Rieh

2010

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, different disciplines have yet to reach a consensus on the concept of information [8–10]. In 1986, Schrader compiled roughly 134 notions of information [11]; many more have been developed since then. This figure provides an impression about how inconsistently people conceptualize information.…”

Section: Concerning Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information as causality: An approach to a general theory of information

Luo

Younghwan

2016

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although various approaches have been proposed throughout history, information, as one of the most fundamental elements in the world, does not have a general definition or theory that is acceptable to all disciplines. The biggest challenge is the unification of objective and subjective views, because they represent very different characteristics of information which are difficult to integrate into a single framework. We argue that the key to bridging the gap between objective and subjective views of information is a proper understanding of intelligence, because it gives rise to subjective experiences and assigns meaning to things. The purpose of this research is to explore possibilities and implications of applying neuroscience theory in the discussion of information. By incorporating the memory–prediction framework of intelligence developed by Jeff Hawkins, we propose causality to be the general definition of information, and the combination of ‘Physical Representations of Mental Patterns’ and ‘Physical Representations of Physical Patterns’ to be the restricted definition in social contexts. With both general and restricted definitions clarified, we then discuss a few cases of information use and the implications of our approach.

show abstract

“…They further remarked: LIS theories, as we know, are usually vague and conceptually unclear, and basic concepts have not been defined (cf. Poole, 1985;Schrader, 1986). Therefore the scarcity of conceptual analysis must be regarded as a grave deficiency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although researchers have responded to the inherent issues surrounding theory in IS research in different ways [Pettigrew (1997), Vakkari (1998), and Vakkari & Kuokkanen (1997), e.g., advocated the use of structuralist tools from sociology for measuring theoretical growth and activity and for adapting theories from other disciplines in IS research, while Grover and Glazier (1986) proposed a model for theory building in IS, and various others, most notably Frohmann (1992), Hjøland and Albrechtsen (1995), and Schrader (1984and Schrader ( , 1986, have debated the implications of different conceptualizations of the intellectual domain of information science], basic work is required on the role of theory in IS research and on how it is specifically being used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of theory in information science research

Pettigrew

McKechnie

2000

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on our findings regarding authors' use of theory in 1,160 articles that appeared in six information science (IS) journals from 1993-1998. Our findings indicate that theory was discussed in 34.1% of the articles (0.93 theory incidents per article; 2.73 incidents per article when considering only those articles employing theory). The majority of these theories were from the social sciences (45.4%), followed by IS (29.9%), the sciences (19.3%), and humanities (5.4%). New IS theories were proposed by 71 authors. When compared with previous studies, our results suggest an increase in the use of theory within IS. However, clear discrepancies were evident in terms of how researchers working in different subfields define theory. Results from citation analysis indicate that IS theory is not heavily cited outside the field, except by IS authors publishing in other literatures. Suggestions for further research are discussed.

show abstract

The domain of information science: problems in conceptualization and in consensus-building

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

The seventeen theoretical constructs of information searching and information retrieval

The seventeen theoretical constructs of information searching and information retrieval

Information as causality: An approach to a general theory of information

The use of theory in information science research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About