Sunday, 2 Sep
Bade, David. “I Know Where I Am Going, Do You?” Remarks at the ALCTS Serials Section, Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee, Update Forum “Continuing Resources Cataloging: Where in the World Are We Going?” ALA Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, June 25, 2007. [pdf available at E-LIS]
You folks do have the E-LIS feed in your readers don’t you? Lots of good stuff, much of it in languages other than English, comes across this feed.
Of course, you probably ought to be subscribed to the dLIST feed, too. Or you can choose to sub by subject. See this page. Maybe you can sub to E-LIS by subject, too, but I have no idea. I prefer to see it all and thus not miss things in a subject I might not normally focus on.
Bates, Marcia J. “Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for information science.” Information Research 10 (4), July 2005.
This is one of the Bates’ articles that Hjørland was responding to in “Information: Objective or Subjective/Situational?” [see below and previous post]
Wow!!
This is a doozy, in many ways. Bates is attempting to use the ideas of evolutionary psychology to gain a better foothold on the concept of information.
Sunday - Monday, 2 - 3 Sep
Bates, Marcia J. “Fundamental Forms of Information.” JASIST 57 (8): 1033-1045, 2006. doi: 10.1002/asi.20369
This is one of the Bates’ articles that Hjørland was responding to in “Information: Objective or Subjective/Situational?” [see below and previous post]
I think I am going to have to write a separate post on the ideas in these two articles by Bates.
Monday, 3 Sep
Hjørland, Birger. “Information: Objective or Subjective/Situational?” JASIST 58 (10): 1448-1456, 2007. doi: 10.1002/asi.20620
Originally read 11 August 2007. If you care why I re-read it, look at the comments on the post it was included in.
Furner, Jonathan. “Information Studies Without Information.” Library Trends 52 (3), Winter 2004: 427-446. [Available in the usual places or in UIUC's institutional repository IDEALS]
Cite by Hjørland (above) as arguing “that all the problems we need to consider in information studies can be dealt with without any need for a concept of information. He suggests that to understand information as relevance is currently the most productive for theoretical information studies” (fn7, p. 1454).
Fairly thought-provoking, but I felt that explication of ideas became a little terse near the end of the paper. There were a few places where I wrote, “Huh? How/when did we realize this?”
To the extent that he accepts the concept of information, he seems fairly conflicted whether or not potential informativeness counts or not. The discussion seems to waver back and forth, and then we get a decently explicatory paragraph on 441 that outlines why we need to include potentially informative/relevant messages into our conceptual definition. But then the paragraph ends with this thought (to which I fully subscribe): “In any case, it would appear that determining the extent to which a message is relevant to hearer a at time t is what is more important.” So. Which is it?
In the discussion of The utterance as information we get the following:
In effect, this view commits one not only to the proposition that information is anything that is interpretable—i.e., anything that is capable of being interpreted—but also that the interpretability of an entity does not depend on its historically having been interpreted. Entities can thus be classified as information on the basis of their potential to inform (439, emphasis mine).
OK. I agree that the view espoused in this section commits one to everything in the first sentence. But where did that thus in the second sentence come from? It does not seem to me to follow logically. It is simply a stipulation; perhaps a stipulation based on something along these lines:
If we undertake an inventory of all entities in the world that are potentially capable of being interpreted and decide which are, in fact, interpretable—and moreover, we state that all entities are capable of interpretation—then by the very act of our inventory—and our stipulative definition—we have thus interpreted (and defined) every entity as being interpretable and thus all entities can be classed as information. In fact, there is no need for the inventory or the subsequent classification based on potential interpretability. All entities just are information.
So, perhaps it does follow logically, but in a fully circular way.
In fact, this is highly similar to what Bates has said in the above articles. “Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy.” The only thing not information for Bates is pure entropy, as it has no organization.
A highly philosophical and thought-provoking article, as I said.
I am grateful for a short discussion on pp. 440-441 which touches on information as uncertainty reducing, amongst other things. This may be helpful in formulating my response to Hjørland.
Monday - Tuesday, 3 - 4 Sep
Cornelius, Ian. “Theorizing Information for Information Science.” ARIST 36 (2002). Medford, NJ: Information Today. 393-425.
This is a pretty good lit review that ends with the following wonderful comment:
However, as we make further attempts to tether the ass of information to the tree of knowledge, we should reflect that, until we know what it is that we cannot do without a theory of information, we will be unlikely to get one (421).
Tuesday - Wednesday, 4 - 5 Sep
Harris, Roy, and Christopher Hutton. Definition in theory and practice: Language, lexicography and the law. London: Continuum, 2007.
Began Part III. Definition and the Law. Read ch. 8 “The Definition of Law and Legal Definition” and ch. 9 “Strategies of Construction.”
Thursday, 6 Sep
Harris and Hutton. See above.
Ch. 10 “Linguistics, Science and Meaning.”
Friday, 7 Sep
Harris and Hutton. See above.
Ch. 11 (Conclusion) “Definition, Indeterminancy and Reference.”
This was a good book; one which bears re-reading. I only wish it wasn’t so God-awful expensive!
Rowley, Jennifer. “The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy.” Journal of Information Science 33 (2), 2007: 163-180. doi: 10.1177/0165551506070706
Suggested by my advisor Wed. when discussing my newest venture into the concept of information.
This article looks at “the data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy by examining the articulation of the hierarchy in a number of widely read textbooks [in information systems and in knowledge management], and analysing their statements about the nature of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom” (abstract).
Overall, this is a reasonable article. It just isn’t very good for my purposes. While it has a fair few sources, a third of them are textbooks in either information systems or knowledge management. Notice that does not say “information science.” They are also, of course, by definition heavily business-oriented.
I know that I get myself into pickles with what I say sometimes and as much as “knowledge management” bugs me silly I realize that I have yet to settle on definitions of these concepts that work for me in the work I want to do in this field, but “wisdom management”? The article doesn’t quite go that far, but it sure seems to be pointing to it.
It does ask some useful questions about the relationships between these concepts, and suggests that inverting the DIKW hierarchy (pyramid) might be “more evocative” (176). More of a “wisdom funnel” (176). I’m still undecided on the DIKW hierarchy since I have yet to fully suss out these concepts for myself, but if I accept it at all my guess is that I would prefer the inverted form.
One other small concern is that the few textbooks that even address wisdom situate “in the context of leadership. Wisdom is seen as a desirable and even essential characteristic of executive business leaders” (177). While on one hand this is probably somewhat true, I think these few textbook writers are out of touch with the reality of much business leadership. Also, the dearth of authors of these texts even addressing the topic is in my favor.
Wisdom has been spun as having a highly ethical component, as it probably should be. So from the corporate viewpoint, leaders should be wise in regards to how they conduct their personal lives as representatives of their companies, but I have a hard time believing that many large corporations want their executives to lead with a focus on wisdom in its ethical mode. I, on the other, wish they would. [See Jackall, Robert. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. for more information on "how corporate managers think the world works, and how big organizations shape moral consciousness" (blurb from back of paperback).]
Perhaps that is why the focus on “wisdom management.” Wisdom and its ethics re-interpreted from a corporate standpoint is what they want, but certainly not wisdom in a Socratic vein.
Saturday, 8 Sep
Weiss, Paul J. and Steve Shadle. “FRBR in the Real World.” The Serials Librarian 52 1/2, 2007: 93-104.
Found via The FRBR Blog 6 Sep 2007.
Hjørland, Birger. “Theory and Metatheory of Information Science: A New Interpretation.” Journal of Documentation 54 (5), December 1998: 606-621.
Cited by Bates (2005) “Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for information science.” See above.
This is an excellent article that discusses the role of epistemological theories in IS. I know that many folks avoid philosophical discussions like the plague, but this article is quite understandable by all. Another reason many folks avoid these sorts of discussions is that they want answers. But as Hjørland writes:
Epistemology has no final answer, the is no consensus about the scientific method. Insight in epistemology can, however, provide you with knowledge about the merits and weaknesses of the different solutions, and progress in the scientific method as well as classification must be based on the historical evidence gained in epistemology and science studies (613).
For anyone interested in Dr. Hjørland’s forthcoming visit to UIUC I highly suggest this article.
For everyone else, I also recommend it highly as a good, balanced and easily understood overview of how and why epistemology is central to our discipline.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Bryan Campbell // Sep 9, 2007 at 10:04 am
9 September 2007
I knew a professor who complained about the overuse of “thus.” He jokingly called it the “juggernaut of cogency.”
Bryan Campbell
Charlottesville, VA
classz696@yahoo.com
2 Mark // Sep 9, 2007 at 10:22 am
Hi Bryan,
Well, it seems that I used it myself 3 times in this post.
But I don’t have anything specific against the use of “thus;” it is a fine word, especially in more philosophical contexts. “So” is usually too informal for such contexts but either, and in particular “thus”, implies that the following clause follows in a logical or causal manner from the preceding.
I think many people use it for something along the lines of, “It is possible that …” Well, lots of things are possible, but “thus” says a lot more than that.
I think Furner used it in the causal sense but, except in a circular way as I sketched, I do not think that what he said after the “thus” follows at all in a logical or causal manner from the preceding. So, perhaps his use truly is justified from a linguistic sense and it is more his circular argument that I should be protesting.
3 Georgia Harper // Sep 9, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Hello Mark. I have some questions that relate to the source of these readings and to the practice of collecting your thoughts about them here, if you have time to respond.
Do these readings all come from a particular class, and if so, what class is it? Or are you just finding things that you think are interesting and reading them? I’m reading many, just about most of the same authors, but different articles for an introductory class at UT Austin (Intro do Doctoral Research and Theory).
So, I know you write your thoughts about your readings here, but I’m wondering how your web bibliography project is going and the relationship of that project to what you post on your blog? You (and some of your commenters) have convinced me that I need to get moving on finding an application to collect this kind of data in. I’ve got to figure out what the deal is with Zotero — I just haven’t wanted to spend the time to figure it out. But once I get started with it, I know I’ll want to make whatever I’m able to do with it public, leading to the question about your project and the relationship between Zotero and blogging (for record display/search etc.).
Thanks for sharing your readings.
4 Mark // Sep 9, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Hi Georgia,
Sure. And I was, for awhile, aware that I still needed to respond to the commenters on my previous bibliography post. I got real busy for a while and then forgot. Sorry about that; it wasn’t supposed to work out that way.
As for what I read. Pretty much just stuff I want to read as I stumble across it in various ways, with the primary one being tracing citations.
Yes, there are sometimes things related to specific classes, but not so much lately. Plus, in many of my classes for a while now I have been able to follow my own muse primarily. I get interested in a topic, or find an interesting article/book, and start tracing citations that seem productive, interesting, if I question how it might support an author’s use of it, and/or if I have seen it cited by multiple sources.
By principle, I consider the concept of information and the topic of just what constitutes library and information science as two of the most fundamental issues in what it is I, and many others, are up to. So I began reading a bit on the concept of information again–primarily Raber’s The Problem of Information–and following citations from there.
As I was tracking down things not available online I looked at the current print copy of JASIST (which is online) and found the Hjørland article, “Information: Objective or Subjective/Situational?” and critiqued a small point that I saw in it and several others places.
Dr. Hjørland found my comments and responded, suggesting that I write up my critique as a letter to the editor of JASIST. That led to further reading …. And since his article was a critique of 2 “recent” articles by Marcia Bates I needed to read those and some of her sources.
And so it goes. So, it is mostly stuff I want to read for my own educational purposes and edification. There is so much to learn and innumerable working librarians swear to me that I will not do this when I become one of those myself that I feel that I need to read what I can now. All the while, of course, hoping that they are wrong about me.
I have read some other articles by some of the authors previously, and I need to be careful about ensuring I find them and only re-read them if I really feel the need as I trace more citations. But this is kind of difficult since I lost most of the (electronic) record of my previous reading when my computer crashed. This means I need to get my hands on the physical copies–where I can–and get them entered back into Zotero.
As for the web bibliography and bibliography class I’m not sure. I was thinking that I would do the concept of information in LIS and even suggested that to the prof. I also could do the “Just what is LIS?” question. But they are both kind of big and extremely complex.
I’m now thinking I might do the very boring topic of Published Subject Identifiers (PSIs) in Topic Maps as I am thinking of writing an article on the topic.
I wish I could find something of the right scope and fun and interesting, but I do not have the time to do anything “frivolous” as much as I might like to. I do enjoy much of what I read and do consider it fun. With the little time I do have I need to pick a topic that I am or need to be reading in anyway right now. And as useful as the PSI topic would be to writing an article, it is kind of boring and I think far less interesting to others. Of course, that assumes that anything I do might be interesting to others.
But the scope is right I’m pretty sure and it would make sense to do it on the web. As for that, though, I have yet to discuss it with the prof. So, we’ll see.
I don’t want to sound like Zotero is the only tool available or even the best. It certainly isn’t the former and only you can answer for you if it is the latter.
I originally used EndNote when I only had a desktop PC. It’s effective but limited in various ways, but then there are newer versions out so I can’t honestly say.
When I got my laptop as a 2nd computer that quickly became my primary machine I started using Refworks since UIUC subscribes to it. I never did really take to it. But it did allow access to my citations from anywhere with a web connection. This has also been upgraded since I tried using it so I cannot really comment on its current version.
Zotero is far from perfect, but I don’t expect perfection, especially for free. But I like its promise and it does pretty well by me for now. It is a product of a group of academic types and is supported by educational institutions. I like that and consider it a much healthier model than the give some money to a corporation model. I’d love to see a bunch of universities throw some serious support behind the project.
I think the biggest issue in that regard, other than current contracts with tools like RefWorks, is that is limited to certain browsers. I think it supports more than just Firefox 2 now, but it may never be able to support IE. And that, unfortunately, is a major issue. Just not for me.
Also with Zotero, I have access to my data whenever I have my computer with me, which is pretty frequent. There are ways to sync across multiple computers and there may even be built in ways now, but I don’t need that. I do not need an internet connection like I would with RefWorks. Sure, to do any automatic importing from the Web requires a connection by definition, but there are lots of ways to import stuff while not connected to the net.
Right now there is no great way to make your stuff public in a direct way, but that is supposedly coming this fall, including shared bibliographies. You can always export your data in various ways including into automatically generated web pages. I heard rumor that you could do a direct export to WordPress but have not seen it yet. Maybe it was one of those “soon” things.
As for how I use it in my blog right now, it is kind of convoluted. I primarily use it for books to get automatically generated COinS. I quit using it for articles in that regard since it was so hit-and-miss in that regard.
How I do use it is to have it export a (or group of) citation to a web page in whatever citation style. Then I open the web page, view the source, and copy and paste the citation I need into the WordPress code version. This places the COinS data and the citation, of course, into my blog posts.
That way, if you have Zotero or some other product that recognizes OpenURLs you can do whatever actions they allow. That, though, is a whole ‘nuther can of worms. I’d love to have ubiquitous link resolvers that “knew” my affiliations, and the same for others. I’d work harder at getting the COinS data in for the articles if that was the case.
If you have Zotero installed and look at my posts you will see an icon up in the address bar to the left of the RSS icon. If it is a “standard” blog post of mine with no citations included it looks kind of like a page from a document. Clicking on that icon would import the COinS metadata for that post into your Zotero. I have a plugin that automatically generates a COinS for all my pages/posts. You would get a record for the post with my name as the author, the post title, the blog title, the URL and one or to other pieces of citation data.
If you look at one of the “Some things read this week…” posts or any other that has more than one citation with COinS data you’ll see an icon that looks like a folder. Clicking on that should open a dialogue box where you can put a check in the check boxes for any item that has a COinS attached to it, be it the post proper or a specific item. You also have a choice to select all at once via a button. Clicking OK imports whatever you selected into your Zotero.
So, things are still a bit clunky to say the least. But they are only going to get better as there as some brilliant, dedicated folks working on this project; people who daily work with citations in their own work versus some corporate programmer who does who knows what in their daily job or leisure time.
The main thing is find something that works for you based on the way you use the computer (and where) and whether you can install Firefox and Zotero. From what I hear most of these tools are improving and all seem to have some angle over (or at least different from) the others.
Me. I’m a Firefox user and Zotero works for me. That said, I sure wish I had someone to tutor me in using it more productively.
I hope this answered your questions, at least partly. But please feel free to ask any others or for clarification.
5 Birger Hjorland // Sep 10, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I would like to bring to your attention my 3 “lifeboats”: “Lifeboat for Knowledge Organization” “Epistemological lifeboat” and “Core concepts in Library and information science”. (All constantly revised and expanded). All thre available from the main page of the other, for example from here:
http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/
6 Mark // Sep 11, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Thank you, sir. I will definitely have a look at these.