KNOWLEDGE MAP OF INFORMATION SCIENCE

Rafael Capurro's Responses to Chaim Zins


Rafael Capurro - Chaim Zins

  
 
 
 
In December 2003, Dr. Chaim Zins (Bar-Ilan University, Israel) started a Delphi study "Knowledge Map of Information Science". The study was sponsored by the Israel Science Foundation,  which is affiliated to the Israel Academy of Science. It aimed at exploring the theoretical foundations of information science (IS) as well a developing a comprehensive, systematic, and scientifically valid knowledge map of the information science knowledge domain, and grounding it on a solid theoretical basis. The study was composed of three successive rounds of structured, comprehensive, and lengthy questionnaires that were be sent to the panel, that included 54 leading scholars in the field of IS, via email. The study's objective was to reach consensus among the participants or to sharpen disagreements. The results of this study were published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) 2007, Vol. 58, Issue 4, pages 526-535. We present in this website Rafael Capurro's responses  to Chaim Zins.


 
 

Contents


First Round



First Round



1: Rationale,  Objectives, and Importance of the Study

This section is designed for the entire panel.



Question 1.1  If you have any comment on the theoretical rationale, please share it with the panel.

Answer 1.1

I would say that knowledge-mapping presupposes the object of study, knowledge being always ‘knowledge about…’ Mapping the existing knowledge might not clarify the question of the object itself but just presuppose it (including a given terminology and the perspective under which it has been studied so far).


2: Research Methodology: Critical Delphi

This section is designed for the entire panel.


Question 2.1 If you have any comment regarding the methodology, please share it with the panel.

Answer 2.1

Clarifying concepts is indeed an important task in case the methodology does not just intend to give account of the ‘main stream’ within a science but to notably question a given pre-understanding of its object. In Thomas Kuhn’s terms, the goal should be to clarify what ‘normal (information) science’ is, in order to question given concepts and to provoke a crisis that might lead to a new paradigm.

Question 2.2  If you have comments, or suggestions regarding the criteria for the panel selection, please share them with the panel.

Answer 2.2

Being a panel that addresses questions concerning the constitution of a field of research (and not just questions within a given field) I would suggest to include participants from other fields, namely philosophy, sociology, media studies, psychology, history, the arts, political science, economy as well as the natural sciences.

 

3: Data, Information, Knowledge

This section is focused on the foundations of information science.

Question 3.1

What are "data"? (Please, define the concept; Refer to theoretical background. Thanks)

Answer 3.1

Data are (or datum is)... an abstraction. I mean, the concept of ‘data’ or ‘datum’ suggests that there is something there that is purely given and that can be known as such. The last one hundred years of philosophic discussion and, of course, many hundred years before, have shown, that there is nothing like ‘the given’ or ‘naked facts’ but that every (human) experience/knowledge is biased. This is the ‘theory-laden’ theorem that is shared today by such different philosophic schools as Popper’s critical rationalism (and its followers and critics such as Kuhn or Feyerabend), analytic philosophy (Quine, for instance), hermeneutics (Gadamer) etc. Modern philosophy (Kant) is very acquainted with this question: experience (“Erfahrung”) is a product of ‘sensory data’ within the framework of perception (“Anschauung”) and the categories of reason (“Verstand”) (“perception without concepts is blind, concepts without perception are void”). Pure sensory data are as unknowable as “things in themselves.”

Putting the three concepts (data, information, knowledge) as done here, gives the impression of a logical hierarchy: information is set together out of data and knowledge comes out from putting together information. This is a fairytale.

 

Information.

Question 3.2

What is "information"? (Please define the concept; refer to theoretical background)

Answer 3.2

Information is...a multi-layered concept with Latin roots (‘informatio’ = to give a form) that go back to Greek ontology and epistemology (Plato’s concept of  ‘idea’ and Aristotle’s concepts of ‘morphé’ but also to such concepts as ‘typos’ and ‘prolepsis’). See my: “Information” (Munich: Saur 1978) as well as Capurro/Hjørland (ARIST 2003). The use of this concept in information science is at the first sight highly controversial but it basically refers to the everyday meaning (since Modernity): “the act of communicating knowledge” (OED). I would suggest to use this definition as far as it points to the phenomenon of message that I consider the basic one in information science.

Following systems theory and second-order cybernetics I suggest to distinguish between ‘message’, ‘information’ and ‘understanding.’ All three concepts constitute the concept of communication (See for instance: Niklas Luhmann: Soziale Systeme, with references to biology (Maturana/Varela), cybernetics etc.). A ‘message’ is a ‘meaning offer’ while ‘information’ refers to the selection within a system and ‘understanding’ to the possibility that the receiver integrates the selection within his/her pre-knowledge - constantly open to revision i.e. to new communication - in accordance with the intention(s) of the sender. The receiver mutates each time into a sender.
 


Knowledge.

Question 3.3

What is "knowledge"? (Please define the concept; refer to theoretical background.)

Answer 3.3

Knowledge is...‘no-thing’ (contrary to “information-as-thing” as suggested by Michael Buckland) i.e. it is the event of meaning selection of a (psychic/social) system from its ‘world’ on the basis of communication. The “act of communicating knowledge” (OED’s definition of information) is then to be understood as the act of making a meaning offer (=message) leading to understanding (and misunderstanding) on the basis of a selection of meaning (=information). To know is then to understand  on the basis of making a difference between ‘message’ (or meaning offer) and ‘information’ (or meaning selection). Human knowledge is, as Popper states, basically conjectural. Or, to put it in hermeneutic terms: understanding is always biased i.e. based on (implicit) pre-understanding. In more classical terms we distinguish following Aristotle between ‘empirical knowledge’ (or ‘know-how’ = ‘empeiría’) and explicit knowledge (or ‘know-that’, for instance, scientific knowledge or ‘episteme’) 

In my view information science should take the phenomenon of message as its core perspective. I use the word ‘angeletics’ (originating from the Greek word for message = ‘angelia’, not a science of ‘angels’ or angelology!)  for pointing to a field of study that should include the process of selection (traditional information retrieval) as well as  understanding (or information science hermeneutics).

On ‘angeletics’ see for instance my:  Angeletics – A Message Theory.
more in my digital library.

See also comments to this view in: The International Information & Library Review, volume 32, Numbers 3-4 Sept/Dec 2000

In this sense angeletics is near to what Régis Debray calls “mediology” (not “media theory”) as the study of (material) mediators as well as to Vilem Flusser’s “Communicology.”

 

Interrelations. "Data", "information", and "knowledge" are interrelated. Discussions among scholars focus on the nature of the relations among these key concepts, as well as on their meanings.

Sequential order. Many scholars claim that data, information, and knowledge are part of a sequential order. Data are the raw material for information, and information is the raw material for knowledge. However, if this is the case, then "information science" should explore data (information's building blocks) and information, but not knowledge, which is an entity of a higher order.

Nevertheless, it seems that information science does explore knowledge since it includes two sub-fields, "knowledge organization", and "knowledge management". I am confused. Should we refute the sequential order? Should we change the name of the field from "Information Science" to "Knowledge Science"? Or should we perhaps exclude the fields of knowledge organization and knowledge management from information science?

Question 3.4  Are data, information, and knowledge part of a sequential order?

(Please explain.) If yes, please explain how it is that "knowledge organization" and "knowledge management" are sub-fields of information science?

As I already stated, I do not share the view, that data, information, and knowledge are part of a sequential order. My plea is for information science in the sense of a ‘message theory’ (or ‘angeletics’) including meaning offer, selection and understanding (explicit and implicit knowledge). Knowledge management can be considered as the management of explicit knowledge or as the management of ‘enablers’ for knowledge creation (See: Georg von Krogh, Kazuo Ichijo, Ikujiro Nonaka: Enabling Knowledge Creation (Oxford Univ. Press 2000). In case we speak of knowledge management and organization it should be clear that we speak of ‘biased’ knowledge that needs interpretation (=understanding) in order to become a (potential) part of a (social) system. In other words, knowledge has to be offered as a message (meaning offer) in order to ‘become’ information through a selection process. Otherwise it remains abstract or just potential. This is the opposite view of the relation between information becoming knowledge for instance through a process of (linear) accumulation.. It is knowledge that becomes active within or for a given (theoretical and/or practical) situation. In this sense information science has a basic social orientation. It should studied ‘knowledge in situation’ or to localize knowledge and see what kind of message are relevant for a given social setting. This is also the contrary of conceiving mainly or even exclusively “information-as-thing” (M. Buckland) that can be counted, matched etc. Information is no-thing, it is the event of knowing in a given situation. What counts is the study of the social relevance of knowledge, i.e. information. This dynamic view can be considered using the concept of ‘message’ which is what the study of publicity and advertisement does with regard to economic purposes.

See my: What is information science for? In: P. Vakkari, B. Cronin Eds.: Conceptions of Library and Information Science. Taylor Graham 1991. Online in:

 

Knowledge vs. information. Another common view is that knowledge is not conveyed by information. Knowledge is the product of a synthesis in our mind. If this is the case, we should exclude the fields of knowledge organization and knowledge management from information science. Besides, is Albert Einstein's famous equation "E=MC2" (which is printed on my computer screen) information or knowledge? Is "2+2=4" information or knowledge?

Question 3.5 Is knowledge not conveyed by information? (Please explain and elaborate).

Answer 3.5

See my reflections on question 3.4

 

Synonyms. The alternative view that "information" and "knowledge" are synonyms is problematic too. If "information" and "knowledge" are synonyms, should not we use the term "knowledge science" rather than "information science"?

Question 3.6  Are "information" and "knowledge" synonyms? If yes, how do you explain the name "information science"? (Please explain and elaborate.)

Answer 3.6

See my reflection on question 3.1 through 3.4

 

The researcher's views. At this point, I present my conceptions to the panel. If you want to receive a detailed paper, please contact me.

Propositional knowledge. In traditional epistemology there are three kinds of knowledge: practical knowledge (i.e., skills), knowledge by acquaintance (i.e., knowing a person or a thing), and propositional knowledge (i.e., in the form of propositions). Propositional knowledge is divided into inferential and non-inferential. Inferential knowledge is a product of inferences, such as induction and deduction. We are zooming in on inferential propositional knowledge. Information science, like all academic fields, is composed of inferential propositional knowledge.

Two approaches. There are two basic approaches to define “knowledge”: in the subjective domain (i.e., as a thought in the subject's mind) and in the objective domain (i.e., as an object). Note that the terms "subjective" and "objective" are not used here as we use them in our daily life. "Subjective" means 'existing in the mind' (not 'arbitrary'). "Objective" means 'existing as an independent object (or a thing)' (not 'unbiased').

The subjective domain. The first approach conditions the knowledge in the individual’s (or subject's) mind. Knowledge is a thought. It is characterized as "a justified true belief". Generally, we can identify subjective propositional knowledge by the certainty of the individual that his/her own thoughts are true, and by his/her ability to base this certainty on a sound justification (e.g., experiments, observations, and logical inferences).

(Note that in the subjective realm "knowledge" is the content of a justified true thought, while "knowing" is the state of mind that is characterized by three conditions: justification, belief, and truth.)
 

The objective domain. The second approach ascribes an independent objective existence to knowledge. Knowledge is a collection of concepts, arguments, and rules of inference. They are true and exist independently of the subjective knowledge of the knowing individual. This is the case, for example, of arguments published in books.

The field of information science, like any academic field, is composed of objective propositional knowledge, as it is recorded, documented, and represented in the professional and the academic literature. This is what we explore and map in this collective research enterprise.

Mutual dependency. Paradoxically, the subjective and the objective domains are complementary. On the one hand, objective knowledge is the product of outputting (externalizing, recording, or documenting) subjective knowledge. (One might say, "this questionnaire is an output of my brain".) On the other hand, the realization of objective knowledge necessitates the consciousness of at least one individual knower. This is crucial. The term "objective domain" is equivalent here to "collective domain". Objective knowledge is collective, in the phenomenological sense, not in the metaphysical sense.

Six concepts. Having established the distinction between the subjective and the objective domains, we have six concepts to define, divided into two distinctive sets of three. One set relates to the subjective domain, the other to the objective (i.e., collective) domain.

The subjective domain. In the subjective domain, "data" and "information" acquire two alternative meanings. The first option:
"Data" are the sensory stimuli that we perceive through our senses.
"Information" is the meaning of these sensory stimuli (i.e., the empirical perception). Example: The noises that I hear are data. The meaning of these noises, for example, a running car engine, is information.

The second option (which I personally prefer):
"Data" are the sense stimuli, or their meaning (i.e., the empirical perception). Accordingly, in the example above the perception of a running car engine, as well as the noises of a running car engine, are data.

"Information" is empirical knowledge. Accordingly, in the example above the knowledge that the engine is now on is information, since it is empirically based. As one can see, information is a type of knowledge (i.e., empirical knowledge), rather than an intermediate stage between data and knowledge.

"Knowledge", as mentioned above, is a thought in the individual's mind, which is characterized by the individual's justifiable belief that it is true. It can be empirical (e.g., "It is a rainy day") and non-empirical, as in the case of logical and mathematical knowledge (e.g., "Every triangle has three sides"), religious knowledge (e.g., "God exists"), philosophical knowledge (e.g., "Cogito ergo sum"), and the like. 

The objective domain. Objective data, objective information, and objective knowledge mirror their cognitive counterparts. They are represented by empirical symbols, and can have diversified forms such as engraved signs, painted forms, printed words, digital signals, light beams, sound waves, and the like.

"Data" are sets of symbols that represent empirical perceptions.

"Information" is a set of symbols that represent empirical knowledge.

"Knowledge" is a set of symbols that represent thoughts that the individual justifiably believes are true.

Question 3.7

Do you accept these conceptions? If you have comments, observations, or critical reflections, please share them with the panel. Thanks.

Answer 3.7

Partly yes, for instance concerning the difference between know-now (practical knowledge) and know-that (propositional knowledge). But I would not restrict information science to the study of propositional knowledge although information science as a science aims at propositional knowledge. But the object of study of most sciences is in no way propositional knowledge (not even in the case of linguistics with the question of what is ‘in between’ the lines). I think there is a confusion between the phenomena that are to be studied by information science and the results of such a study (propositional knowledge or “justified true belief.”)

Question 3.8

If you have different and elaborate conceptions, please share them with the panel. Thanks.

Answer 3.8 

See my answer to 3.7
 

 

4: Information Science

This section is focused on the foundations of information science.

Information science: definition.

Question 4.1  What is "information science"? (Please formulate your definition. Please refer to relevant theoretical background. Thanks.)

Answer 4.1

Information science is...a science dealing with the phenomenon of messages as part of the phenomenon of communication i.e. including the ‘meaning offer’, the process of selection (‘information’) and the process of interpretation (‘understanding).

The researcher's conceptions. At this point, I present my conceptions to the panel. If you would like to have a detailed paper, please contact me.

Definition. Following the distinction between the subjective and the objective domains, information science concentrates on the latter. It is focused on the meta-knowledge aspects of objective knowledge. Information science is the study of the mediating and technological aspects of human knowledge (in the objective domain).

"Technology" is used here in its broadest sense, namely any physical tool created by humans. In the context of information science, it refers to papyrus and paper, as well as print and computers.

Cognitive sciences vs. information science. Unlike cognitive sciences and neurosciences, which focus on the subjective domain by exploring thinking and learning, information science explores cognitive aspects only in relation to facilitating the usability and accessibility of objective human knowledge. For example: while the information scientist explores how we access or search for new knowledge (what we, information scientists, call "user studies"), the cognitive scientist explores how we understand, remember, and utilize this knowledge.

Meta-knowledge of human knowledge. Information science is one of knowledge fields that establish the meta-knowledge foundations of human knowledge: epistemology, philosophy of science, sociology of knowledge (...). Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that explores the possibility of knowledge, and seeks to formulate a theory of knowledge. Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy that explores the theoretical, methodological, and historical perspectives of science. Sociology of knowledge is the branch of sociology that explores the sociological aspects of knowledge, including the social origins of ideas, and their effects on societies.

Question 4.2

Do you accept my conceptions of IS? If you have comments, observations, or critical reflections, please share them with the panel. Thanks.

Answer 4.2

Partly yes, as you consider the process of mediation (Régis Debray’s “mediology”) as a central part of information science (or ‘angeletics’ in my terminology). I do not see why this should be restricted to “technological aspects” as far as all kinds of “mediators” should be analyzed in different cultures and epochs, particularly under the view point of power (think for instance about censorship in 18th Century etc.) Information science is indeed, in this sense, a multidisciplinary and intercultural science.

We do not explore just how we access or search for (given) knowledge, but primarily the ways knowledge is being communicated and our search for such possibilities of knowledge to be communicated, taking into account that ‘knowledge communication’ is a metaphor for a complex process of meaning offer, selection and understanding. Otherwise we will still remain within the old paradigm of ‘something’ (information, data, knowledge or whatever) that is being ‘communicated’ or ‘transmitted’ from A to B following Shannon’s famous model, where in fact, what is being ‘communicated’ is not ‘information’ (there is no plural of ‘information’ in English) but – “messages”! This is Shannon’s blind spot, as the question ‘what is a message?’ is not stated, no less than in McLuhan’s dictum: “the medium is the message”.

We got a media theory, but we forgot that if this dictum is (partially) true, we still have to ask the question about what messages are. If we change the perspective (and the ‘paradigm’ underlying this perspective) then the terminology of ‘access, search, user studies etc.’ comes into a crisis. ‘Users’ are for instance ‘senders’ as well as ‘receivers’ of messages not just users of information or knowledge, stored ‘out there’ and ready for ‘retrieval’ etc.

 

Graphic representation. The following schematic map presents the place of information science in a general map of human knowledge, according to my conception.

 

A Map of Human Knowledge

Foundation
(meta-knowledge)

(e.g., Epistemology

Philosophy of Science,

Sociology of Knowledge,

Information Science)

Natural & Life Sciences

 

(e.g., Biology)

 

Social Sciences

 

(e.g., Sociology)

 

Humanities

 

(e.g., Philosophy)

 

Technologies

 

(e.g., Computer Science)

 


Question 4.3

Place Information Science in a schematic map of human knowledge. (Use the following map or create your own map by changing the number and names of the major categories. Please explain the rationale.

Answer 4.3

Rationale: I understand the field of information science as dealing basically with the message phenomenon, including its transmission, meaning selection and understanding i.e. within the framework of (human) communication and analyzing its social (political, cultural, economic, etc.) impact. In a narrow sense information science is a social science, in a broad sense it might be considered as the study of the message phenomenon also in non-human living beings. A philosophical foundation of information science within media philosophy or even within a philosophic message theory is still an open task. I consider it also as a science dealing in a comparative way with different ways of message transmission, meaning selection and understanding in different epochs and cultures, including questions of power and truth such as: who restricts and controls messages, on what means etc. under what (hermeneutic) conditions are messages understood, what are the material conditions for their transmission etc. Who or what is considered to give the condition(s) for the credibility of a message or to ‘justify’ for what can become a ‘true belief’ within a given situation, what are the conditions for messages to be relevant etc.
 

A Map of Human Knowledge

Foundation
(meta-knowledge)

Media philosophy

Message theory,

‘mediology’

(=information science)

Natural and Life Sciences

Second-order cybernetics

 

Social Sciences

Communication theory

 

Humanities

Hermeneutics

 

Technologies

(natural and artificial) media technologies

 

 

Knowledge Science. I suggest changing the name of the field from "Information Science" to "Knowledge Science".

 

Question 4.4

Do you agree to change the name of the field from "Information Science" to  "Knowledge Science"? (Please explain and elaborate.)

Answer 4.4

No, I do not agree. As I explained before, I would prefer to use the term “message theory” (or “mediology” or “angeletics” or “communicology”)

Question 4.5

If you have a better name, here is the place to convince the panel. Thanks.

Answer 4.6

See question 4.4

 

5: Major Categories

This section is focused on the foundations of information science.

 
Having established the conception of Information Science, I am now going to deduce the major categories of a structured knowledge map of IS. Note that this is a preliminary presentation, a starting point for the collective construction of the map by the panel.
 

Overview. Generally, the map has eight basic categories: (1) Foundations, (2) Resources, (3) Environments/Cultures, (4) Organizations, (5) Contents, (6) Technologies,
(7) Operations & Processes, (8) Users. The eight categories are formed into two groups. The first group is composed of the meta-knowledge of the field of information science. This is knowledge on the knowledge domain. It includes one category, (1). The second group is composed of the fundamental body of knowledge on the phenomena explored by IS, namely the mediating and technological aspects of human knowledge. It consists of seven categories, (2) through (8), based on phenomenological analysis of the various phenomena of objective knowledge.
See the following table:

Knowledge Map of Information Science

Domain

Focus

1st level category

Meta-knowledge

Knowledge on the field of Information Science

Foundations

Fundamental knowledge

Knowledge on the explored phenomena (i.e., the mediating and technological aspects of human knowledge).

Resources

Environments/Cultures

Organizations

Contents

Technologies

Operations & Processes

Users

The Foundation category is composed of four sub-categories: Theory, Research & Evaluation, Education, and History. Theory is composed of Definition and Disciplines (these are the disciplines that establish the theoretical foundations of IS (e.g., anthropology, communication, computer science, economics, linguistics, mathematics, philosophy (i.e., epistemology, ethics, logic, and philosophy of science), psychology, and sociology)). Research & Evaluation deals with research and evaluation topics, including research methodologies. Education deals with IS education. History deals with the history of the field. See the following table:

Meta-Knowledge of Information Science

Category

Sub-categories

1. Foundations

Theory

Definition

 

Disciplines

Mediology, Media theory, anthropology, communication theory, computer science, economics, linguistics, mathematics, philosophy (i.e., epistemology, ethics, logic, and philosophy of science), psychology, and sociology, history of media, intercultural studies, media studies, hermeneutics, second-order cybernetics, systems theory, politics.

Research & Evaluation

 

Critical analysis of power structures related to the distribution, selection and understanding of messages

Education

 

Should include intercultural and interdisciplinary studies

History

 

Should include history of media and history of messages/messengers as well as history of interpretation schemes and rules

 

Categories (2) – (8) are deduced from the conception of information science as the study of the mediating and the technological aspects of human knowledge (in the objective domain). Based on a phenomenological analysis of the phenomena of objective knowledge one can identify at least seven basics. Resources includes human and non-human (e.g., Artificial intelligence, Robotics) resources. Environments/Cultures deals with environmental and societal issues (e.g., ethics, policies). Organizations deals with the various organizations involved in dissemination of knowledge (e.g., libraries, archives, information services, etc.). Contents relates to the various issues, Technologies, Operations & Processes (e.g., documentation, representation, organization, processing, manipulation, storing, dissemination, and retrieval of knowledge), and Users.

Fundamental Knowledge of Information Science


Major categories

Exemplary sub-categories

 

2. Resources

Human and non-human mechanisms of meaning transmission, selection and understanding



3. Environments/Cultures

Societal, economic, cultural, legal, and ethical issues related to messages and their communication



4. Organizations

all kinds of institutions/technologies related to message distribution, selection and understanding, including political, religious, scientific, and social ones.



5. Contents

classification schemes (such as in the sciences) but also all kinds of schemes dealing with the possibilities for systems to select a meaning from a given message.



6. Technologies

All kinds of technologies, not just the digital ones.



7. Operations & Processes

Operation and processes dealing with the transmission, selection and understanding of messages

 



8. Users

Not just ‘users’ or ‘receivers’ but also ‘senders’ of messages.




The map.

Please see the map before!

Knowledge Map of Information Science


Major categories

Sub-categories

Panel's Comments*

1. Foundations

Theory

 

Research & Evaluation

 

Education

 

History

 

2. Resources

 

 

3. Environments/ Cultures

 

 

4. Organizations

 

 

5. Contents

 

 

6. Technologies

 

 

7. Operations & Processes

 

 

8. Users

 

 

* If you have any comment regarding a specific category, please write it in the right column.


Question 5.1

If you have comments, observations, or critical reflections regarding the rationale, the number, title, and order of the eight major categories, please share them with the panel. Thanks.

Answer 5.1

Only with regard to users as I  pointed before. The term ‘user’ implies what we could call ‘sender/receiver studies,’ i.e., the phenomenon of interaction sending/receiving/sending… messages.


 

6: Information Science: Sub-categories

This section is designed for the entire panel.

Sub-categories. The field of information science has diversified sub-fields (or sub-categories). Furthermore, many sub-fields have more than one title, and many titles stand for more than one sub-field. The time has come to "use the same language". 

Question 6.1

Arrange all the sub-categories (or sub-fields) of information science in systematic order. You can use the 8-category map presented in section 5, the map you developed in question 5.2 (above), or any other order. Thanks.

Answer 6.1

A systematic list of information science sub-categories:

- Human and non-human mechanisms of meaning transmission, selection and understanding

- Societal, cultural, legal, and ethical issues related to messages and their communication

- all kinds of institutions/technologies related to message distribution, selection and understanding, including political, religious, scientific, and social ones

- classification schemes (such as in the sciences) but also all kinds of schemes dealing with the possibilities for systems to select a meaning from a given message

- all kinds of technologies dealing with the process of message distribution, selection and understanding

- senders/receivers of messages


7: Your field/s of expertise

This section is designed for the entire panel.

This section enables each one of us to zoom in on his/her IS (sub-) fields of expertise.
Note that in the second and the third rounds the panel will zoom in on your fields. 

Definition.

Question 7.1

Define your field/s of expertise? (If you have more than on field of expertise, please refer separately to each field. Please refer to theoretical background. Thanks.)

Answer 7.1

Field 1: message theory
See: http://www.capurro.de/angeletics_zkm.html

Field 2: information ethics
See: http://icie.zkm.de

Field 3: information concepts
See: Capurro/Hjoerland: The Concept of Information (ARIST 2003, op.cit.)


 
   


Second Round


1.  The Panel 

2.  Information Science Major Subfields & Key Concepts

3.  The Panel's Conceptions of Information Science 

4.  Systematic Conceptions of Information Science 

5.  A Map of Conceptions of Information Science 

6.  Knowledge Map of Information Science


1: The Panel

Research methodology. Generally, the panel approves the methodology, while reflecting on various aspects. I have already implemented most of the panel's suggestions. Thanks.

Question 1.1 If you have additional suggestions, please share it with me. Thanks.

Answer 1.1

Try to clarify if a specific conception of information science is biased by a culture and/or a specific view of scientific standards. Try to clarify what becomes ‘central’ and what is considered as ‘peripheral’ within such a dominating view. Try to specify which views are considered as ‘heretic’ and what problems (and authors) are excluded. This is a challenge for this kind of study as these questions should be applied to this study itself!

Criteria for the panel selection. Being aware of the importance of the panel, I strictly followed the three criteria for the panel selection (see round 1). Generally, the panel approves the three criteria. Following the panel's major suggestions, I did my best to include experts in most IS sub-fields, to represent as many cultures as possible, to include scholars from related fields, and to include practitioners. 

Forming the panel. I posted CFP's in three major lists (ASIS-L, DIGILIB, and ISKO), sent approx. 400 personal invitations, and thousands of reminders. Finally, 127 got the first round, 56 responded. However, it turned out that two of them do not meet the three criteria. They participate in the study as observers, not as panel members. Therefore, the panel comprises 54 members (100%) + 2 observers, a total of 56 participants.

Groups. The 54 panel members are characterized as: 

(1) IS scholars (s): 47 strictly meet the three criteria for the panel selection.

(2) IS senior practitioners (p): Six are senior practitioners. They do not hold a doctorate, but they are engaged in research, and each has some refereed publications.

(3) Philosopher (ph). One participant is a philosopher (not an information scientist).

I weigh the panelist's status while analyzing their responses. During the study, I identify the status of cited participants by a code (s, p, ph, and ob) where it is relevant.

Question 1.2 If you have comments on the panel selection, please share it with us.

Answer 1.2

Philosophy of information is becoming more and more a key issue within academic philosophy. See for instance: The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information,  Edited by Luciano Floridi, Blackwell 2004. Within our own field I would like to underline the work of Birger Hjoerland (Denmark).

This panel, having to do with a meta-question, is basically of a philosophical nature, that is to say, that a science that reflects on its object is taking a distance from itself and not just doing ‘business as usual.’ It is a pity that the panel has only ‘one philosopher’ as a member, but maybe some panelists have also a degree in philosophy .


2: Information Science Major Sub-fields and Key Concepts

 

Subfields. The panel members practice (almost) all IS sub-fields of expertise. The following list summarizes the panel's responses (with minor editing): 

Abstracting, Access systems, Archival Science, Artificial intelligence, Aviation informatics, Bibliometrics, Categorization and classification, Chemical Documentation, Classification schemes, Classification systems, Classification theory, Cognition, Communication, Community Informatics, Competitive Intelligence, Computer-mediated communication, Copyright, Databases, Diffusion studies, Digital libraries, Digital preservation, Digital security, Distributed networked environments, Document Delivery Systems, Domain Analysis, Economics of information, Education and training, Educational information, Electronic Information Industry, E-journals, E-learning, Evaluation, Evaluation of information systems, Foundations of information science, Health/Biomedical Informatics, High-Density Book Storage Systems, History of information science, Human information behavior,  Indexing, Information Architecture, Information dissemination, Information ethics, Information industry, Information management, Information manipulation, Information need, Information processing, Information Quality Evaluation, Information retrieval, Information Science Education, Information Science Epistemology, Information storing, Information structures, Information technology, Information theory, Information use and user, Informetrics, Internet, Knowledge management, Knowledge organization, Knowledge representation, Knowledge structures Librarianship, Library Science, Labor in information systems, Management, Memetics, Message theory, Metadata, Metalibrarianship, Music-information-retrieval, Online searching, Ontology, Operations Research, Organization of Information, Philosophy of Computation, Philosophy of information, Philosophy of Information science, Philosophy of Librarianship, Public Information Policies, Publishing, Readership studies, Research evaluation, Scientific Communication, Semiotics, Social information/Social Informatics, Information in traditional and transitional societies (division by culture (e.g. Africa)), Social, legal, and ethical aspects of information, Subject analysis, Systems analysis, Taxonomies, Technological information, Thesauri, User, Vocabulary control, Web, Webometrics...

Apparently, the list is not systematic and includes duplications.

Major subfields and key concepts. In order to ground the conceptual mapping of the field of Information Science on empirical data we will use the list above as a starting point to form two lists, a list of the 100 most fundamental IS concepts, and a comprehensive list of IS major subfields. The two lists will be used to test and evaluate the knowledge map/s that will be developed in the study. Every key concept and every major subfield should be represented in the map, as a category or as an entry.

Taxonomy of Information Science. Organizing the IS major subfields in a systematic order sets a taxonomy of the field. This taxonomy is an alternative framework to the conceptual framework (i.e. typology) that we hope to develop in the study.

 

Question 2.1 In this three-part assignment you will (a) list the most basic concepts, (b) list the major subfields, and (c) set a systematic classification of the field.

A. List the (100) most basic IS concepts: Please check the following list, erase duplications, add missing concepts, and if necessary rephrase the terminology. The list must be coherent with your conception of IS. Thanks. Your list:

Foundations of Information Science, Philosophy of Information, The Concept of Information, Information Theory, Media Theory, Message Theory, System Theory, Semiotics, Communication Theory, Second-Order Cybernetics, Social Epistemology, Interpretation Theory (Hermeneutics), History of Information Science, History of Media , Information Societies, Information Cultures, Information Behavior, Information Needs, Social Informatics, Scientific Communication Information Systems, Information Architecture, Information Design, Multimedia Systems, Image Retrieval, Sound Retrieval, Mobile Computing, Ubiquitous Computing, Distributed Networks, Information Retrieval, System Analysis, System Evaluation, Library Systems, Digital Libraries, Public Media Repositories, Streaming Media, Mass Media, Archival Systems, Document Delivery Systems, Evaluation of Information Systems, Search Engines, Subject Analysis, Domain Analysis, Taxonomy Theory, Ontologies, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Organization, Community Informatics, Competitive Intelligence, Computer mediated communication, E-Learning, Information Measurement, Informetrics, Bibliometrics, Webometrics, Economics of Information, Information Industry, Information and media products, E-Economy, Labor and Information, Information Ethics, Media Ethics, Theories of Information Ethics, Ethical Dilemmas in Information Society, Codes of Practice, Legal Aspects, Copyright, Censorship, Access, Information Policies, E-Government, E-Democracy, Education and Training, E-Learning, Information Science Education

B. List the major subfields of IS: Copy your answer to A, erase duplications, add missing subfields, and if necessary rephrase the terminology. The list must be coherent with your conception of IS. [Note that if you prefer, you can skip B and move directly from A to C.] Your list:

C. Organize the major subfields of IS in a systematic order. Please copy your answer to B, erase duplications, add missing subfields, and rephrase the terminology (if necessary). Note that the result must be coherent with your conception of IS. Thanks. Your systematic list:

Foundations of Information Science

- Philosophy of Information

- The Concept of Information (Information Theory)

- The Concept of Media (Media Theory)

- The Concept of Message (Message Theory)

- The Concept of Sign (Semiotics)

- The Concept of Communication (Communication Theory)

- Second-Order Cybernetics

- System Theory

- Cognition Theory (Social Epistemology)

- Interpretation Theory (Hermeneutics)

 

History of Information Science

 

History of Media

 

Information Societies

- Information Cultures

- Information Behavior

- Information Needs

- Social Informatics

- Scientific Communication

 

Information Systems

- Information Architecture

- Information Design

- Multimedia Systems

- Image Retrieval

- Sound Retrieval

- Mobile Computing

- Ubiquitous Computing

- Distributed Networks

- Information Retrieval

- System Analysis

- System Evaluation

- Library Systems (Digital Libraries)

- Public Media Repositories

- Streaming Media

- Mass Media

- Archival Systems

- Document Delivery Systems

- Evaluation of Information Systems

- Search Engines

 

Subject Analysis

- Domain Analysis

- Taxonomy Theory

- Ontologies

 

Knowledge Management

- Knowledge Organization

- Community Informatics

- Competitive Intelligence

- Computer mediated communication

- E-Learning

 

Information Measurement

- Informetrics

- Bibliometrics

- Webometrics

 

Economics of Information

- Information Industry

- Information and media products

- E-Economy

- Labor and Information

 

Information Ethics, Media Ethics

- Theories of Information Ethics

- Ethical Dilemmas in Information Society

- Codes of Practice
 

Legal Aspects

- Copyright

- Censorship

- Access
 

Information Policies

- E-Government

- E-Democracy
 

Education and Training

- E-Learning

- Information Science Education

 



3: Conceptions* of Information Science

 

Difficulties. While analyzing more than fifty definitions I have identified several conceptions of Information Science. The first definition demonstrates the difficulties I faced while analyzing the panel's definitions. At first glance, it seems to stress the notion of access systems. The following paragraphs broaden the meaning:

 

"Information science is that field of inquiry that deals with information systems, so that it can provide access to information in an effective and/or efficient manner.

 

This information is relevant to the diverse cognitive needs of information seekers, particularly those needs considered to be of a 'high-order'.

 

It provides access to knowledge stores. It studies information as a resource that can be enriched through a variety of value-added processes; easy and timely access, whether through physical, electronic or intellectual means; the use of intellectual technologies such as knowledge organization, abstracting, and indexing; insurance of data accuracy and system reliability; ability to browse holdings and uncover related materials in information systems or networks; Ability to provide precise or comprehensive, current and valid information in forms that are useful for end-users; ability to do comprehensive inventories of information needs and to integrate the diverse forms of information media; and the ability to save time and money for information seekers in their search for relevant materials. This characterization draws heavily on the work of Robert Taylor, Value-Added Processes in Information Systems. It studies information environments and/or information users and develops systems, products, services and policies to meet their information requirements in whatever kind of organization." [1s]



 
The panel's definitions. Let us review selected definitions. Please be aware, the wording can be misleading. The grouping is designed to call your attention to some common characteristics. Note that the groups are not exclusive. In order to facilitate a quick review I have marked key words.
 

* If you have a suggestion for a better term, please let me know. Thanks.

-> My contribution (Rafael Capurro) can be found in Group 5 (Second answer)

Group 1: Inclusive definitions – the study of all the aspects of...
(data, information, and/or knowledge)

 

"Information science is the study of information in all its manifestations.

 

Although attention is directed traditionally to information storage and retrieval – including library systems, classification schemes, indexing and abstracting, catalogs, as well as search engines, concept mapping, studies of relevance and retrieval – this expands to include user search and retrieval behaviors, information needs, user communities, human-computer interface design, and information visualization. IS also includes the production of information, from authors to printers, and the industries and consumers that keep them in business; government information collection and dissemination; business uses and maintenance of information. IS questions the premises on which information is collected, organized and disseminated – monitoring censorship and copyright, as well as the constraints and invisible information that may be lost by western, patriarchal or other ideological organizing schemes (whether conscious or unconsciously at work). IS includes understanding about reading, literacy, learning and the production and use of knowledge (e.g., philosophical approaches to knowledge as well as business approaches to knowledge management). IS applies across all fields, whether indexing the text produced by a field, or in formulating organizing schemes for data and knowledge in those areas. IS more recently includes understanding of the impact of information technologies and the Internet, particularly as these change the way we work and how this modifies the information environments in which we work" [2s]

Researcher's comment: The definition is too broad. It includes other sciences that explore manifestations of information; for example: library science, cognitive sciences, neurosciences, education, cultural studies, sociology of knowledge, epistemology (philosophy of knowledge), philosophy of science, etc.

 

"Information science is the study and practical management of recorded information (including data recorded as information) through all points of the information life cycle. (What distinguishes this definition from preceding remarks is the emphasis on the word “all” – many people relate in theory or practice to parts of the life cycle)." [3p]

Researcher's comment: Zooming into recorded information limits the scope of IS. However, the emphasis of "all" makes it too broad.

 

"Information science is the study of the interaction between humans and information and all the mechanisms and elements of context that play a role in this interaction" [4s]

Researcher's comments: The definition is too broad. It is applicable to IS as well as to cognitive sciences, Sociology of knowledge, etc.

 

"Information science is an interdisciplinary field encompassing all aspects of data from data generation via measurement and observation, through data capture, analysis, representation, organization, evaluation, storage, transformation, presentation, protection, and retention." [5s]

Researcher's comments: The definition shifts the attention from information to data.


Group 2: Specified definitions – the study of specified aspects of...
(data, information, and/or knowledge)

"Information science is the field formerly known as Documentation is now commonly referred to as “Information Science.”

 

My definition would be that it is, broadly, concerned with the creation, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge.” Within that broad scope there tend to be two subareas: a wide-ranging concern with human and social aspects: information related behavior, organizational and social concerns; and a technical / engineering concern with the design and evaluation of information systems." [6s]

Researcher's comments: (1) According to your definition, "knowledge" and "information" are synonyms. If not, please clarify, or rephrase your definition.
(2) Please clarify the distinction between IS and other sciences (e.g., cognitive sciences, neurosciences, sociology of knowledge, etc.) that explore the creation of knowledge. (3) Please clarify the distinction between IS and other sciences (e.g., cognitive sciences, education, medicine, etc.) that explore the utilization of knowledge. Thanks.

 

"Information science is an interdisciplinary field concerned with the theoretical and practical concepts, as well as the technologies, laws, and industry dealing with knowledge transfer and the sources, generation, organization, representation, processing, distribution, communication, and uses of information, as well as communications among users and their behavior as they seek to satisfy their information needs." [7s]

Researcher's comments: (1) According to your definition, "knowledge" and "information" are synonyms. If not, please clarify, or rephrase your definition.
(2) Please clarify the distinction between IS and other sciences (e.g., cognitive sciences, neurosciences, sociology of knowledge, etc.) that explore the creation of knowledge. (3) Please clarify the distinction between IS and other sciences (e.g., cognitive sciences, education, medicine, etc.) that explore the utilization of knowledge. Thanks

 

"Information science is the study of the phenomena surrounding information, including creation, acquisition, indexing, storing, retrieving, and disseminating information" [8s]

Researcher's comments: (1) Please clarify the distinction between IS and other sciences (e.g., cognitive sciences, neurosciences, sociology of knowledge, etc.) that explore the creation of knowledge. Thanks.

 

"Information science is the study of production, organization, control, and use of information in any support and going thought channel." [9s]

Researcher's comments: (1) Please clarify the distinction between IS and other sciences (e.g., cognitive sciences, neurosciences, sociology of knowledge, etc.) that explore the production of knowledge. (2) Please clarify the distinction between IS and other sciences (e.g., cognitive sciences, education, medicine, etc.) that explore the use of knowledge. Thanks

"Information science is the study of handling and mediating information, with relevance to both the subjective and objective domains of knowledge. It bridges the two worlds!" [10s]

Researcher's comments: According to your definition, "knowledge" and "information" are synonyms. If not, please clarify, or rephrase your definition. Thanks.

 

"Information science is the study of the mediating and technological aspects of information accumulation, publication, communication and interpretation." [11s]

 

Group 3: The study of mediating/documentation of knowledge

“The study of the mediating of human knowledge” would be sufficient though I'd prefer “knowledge in human societies” to possibly highlight the social character of the field." [12s]

 

"Information science is a field studying the documentation of knowledge claims and their representation in primary, secondary and tertiary literatures and information services." [13s]

 

Group 4: The study of systems (data, information, and/or knowledge)

"Information science attempts to study and establish the theories, laws and principles that govern the analysis, design and evaluation of technologically augmented Data, Information and Knowledge (ADIK) systems." [14s]

 

"Information science is the science of information society (or of information systems). It studies the information and its four basic processes - information generation, communication, information storage and information use - in order to optimize them (all these processes being time and resources dependent)." [15s]

Researcher's comment: In this definition, the two concepts "information society" and "information systems" are equivalent.

 

"Information Science is concerned with design and use of information systems for mediation of knowledge." [16s]

 

"Information science is the study of systems phenomena with a focus on information subsystem processes and behaviors, and the chaotic aspects of all this." [17s]

 

Group 5: The study of communication

"Information science is the totality of the process of communication and understanding, both intra- and inter-personally. As such, it is a broad discipline, ranging from Shannonesque info theory to semiotics and memetics." [18s]

 

"Information science is a science dealing with the phenomenon of messages as part of the phenomenon of communication i.e. including the `meaning offer', the process of selection (`information') and the process of interpretation (understanding)."  [19s]


Group 6: Information Science as part of Library Science

 

"Information science is a self-serving attempt to ennoble what used to be called ‘library science’." [20s]

Researcher's comment: Please define LS. Thanks. Library Science is...

 

"Information science is a subdiscipline of Metalibrarianship... IS is concerned with the scientific processing of information bearing artifacts, which includes manipulation of the objects themselves, and manipulation of the objects in relation to the user..." [21s]

 

Group 7: Contradicting views – information vs. technology

The following definitions reflect Contradicting views regarding the technology:

 

"Information science is composed of theoretical and applied efforts to define information, how it may be processed with computers and affiliated technologies (=information systems), and how such information and systems may interact with specific human practices and studies, such as business, culture, philosophy, etc." [22ph]

 

"Information science is the study of how information is used, acquired, organized, and evaluated by humans.  Defined this way, it is essentially synonymous with “informatics” as it used in the context of health/biomedical informatics in the United States. A key point is that it focuses on information as opposed to technology." [23s]

 

"Information science is a mathematical discipline that studies technological ways of conveying information." [24s]

 

Group 8: Formal definition

"Information science is what information scientists do (Roberts, 1976)" [25s]

Rearcher's Comment: This formal definition is logically circular. In order to avoid the logical circularity you need to formulate substantive characteristics of "information scientists" without using the term "information science". It seems simpler to formulate a substantive definition, rather than a formal one.

 

Question 3.2

If you wish to revise your definition, please do so.

Answer 3.2

Information Science in a narrower sense is the study of messages within the context of human communication which implies the process of meaning offer (= message), meaning selection (= information) and understanding. In a broader sense it is the study of messages in non-human phenomena.


4: Systematic Conceptions of Information Science

 

Preliminary remarks. Many of you devoted time and intellectual effort to discuss these issues. I have found that this philosophical deliberation is fascinating, and contributes to the theoretical foundations of Information Science. I will present it in future publications. However, while analyzing the argumentations it became evident that for the purpose of the questionnaire we need to neutralize disagreements rooted in different theoretical traditions and originating in ascribing different meanings to key concepts. Therefore, I will use ad-hoc stipulated definitions to define the key concepts.
 

Key issues. Generally, the panel disagrees on the essence and the foci of the explored phenomena. In order to formulate a comprehensive conception of Information Science we need to address five key issues. The first issue is the most fundamental. It defines the explored phenomena. The other four issues refine the essential characteristics: 

 (1) The explored phenomena: data vs. information vs. knowledge vs. message.

(2) The domain: collective (or objective) vs. subjective vs. both domains.

(3) The approach: inclusive (all aspects) vs. mediating aspects.

(4) Context: culture/society vs. technology vs. hi-tech.

(5) User studies. Are user studies parts of Information Science?

The explored phenomena. What are the explored phenomena of Information Science? The panel provides five generic answers: data (e.g., cit. 5s), information (e.g., cit. 2s), knowledge (e.g., cit. 12s, 13s), message (e.g., cit. 19s), and systems (s e.g., cit. 14s, 16s). Since Systems are always systems of data, information, or knowledge, we first have to discuss these phenomena. We are left with data, information, knowledge, and message.

Ad-hoc definitions. As noted above, in order to neutralize disagreements originating in ascribing different meanings to "data", "information", "knowledge", and "message" let us use ad-hoc stipulated definitions. For the purposes of this questionnaire:

* "Data (the plural of datum)" are sets of symbols that represent empirical perceptions (e.g., an image of a chair, a voice of a child while pronouncing the word "chair").

* "Information" is a set of symbols that represent empirical knowledge (e.g., "the panel is composed of 54 members.").

* "Knowledge" is a set of symbols that represent thoughts, which the individual justifiably believes that they are true (e.g., "2+2=4", "Cogito ergo sum", "E=MC2").

* "Message" is a set of symbols that represent any meaningful content (e.g., "I have 10 fingers", "I have 15 fingers", an image of a chair, the phrase "The White House", the image of the White House, a recording of Beethoven's Piano Concerto n. 5.)

According to these ad-hoc definitions, datum is the smallest unit of meaningful content, and message is the broadest one. Note that the four concepts are in the collective domain.

 

Question 4.1

Based on the ad-hoc definitions, please redefine the explored phenomena of IS? (Please explain the rationale. Thanks)

Answer 4.1

Information Science is the study of human messages.
On the difference between message and information:

"Message and information are related but not identical concepts:
- a message is sender-dependent, i.e., it is based on a heteronomic or asymmetric structure. This is not the case of information: we receive a message, but we ask for information.
- a message is supposed to bring something new and/or relevant to the receiver. This is also the case of information.
- a message can be coded and transmitted through different media or messengers. This is also the case of information
- a message is an utterance that gives rise to the receiver's selection through a release mechanism or interpretation."
Citation from
here .


The domain.
Following the distinction we made between the collective (or objective) domain and the subjective domain, the question is whether Information Science is the study of data, information, knowledge, or message, as they exist in the collective domain (e.g., cit. 24s), in the subjective domain, or in both domains (e.g., cit. 10s)?

Question 4.2

Are data, information, knowledge, or message studied as they exist in the collective domain, in the subjective domain, or in both domains? (Please select and explain)

Answer 4.2

The distinction between the collective domain and the subjective domain is an analytical one. In reality there are no subjects isolated from the collective, but the collective is not something ‘like’ a subject. Subjects are always ‘subjects-with-other-subjects.’ This ‘being with’ is a characteristic of being a (human) subject. The phenomenon of message expresses this characteristic in the sense that it is not possible to think about a message for a subject alone. This would be a logic (and existential) contradiction. To be a human subject means to be able to send and/or receive a message from another (human) subject.

 

The approach. The responses reflect two approaches regarding the explored aspects of the studied phenomena. At least four panel members hold the inclusive approach, namely they claim that Information Science is the study of all the aspect of the explored phenomena (e.g., cit. 2s, 3p, 4s' 5s). Others claim that Information Science is focused on the mediating aspects (e.g., cit. 10s, 11s, 12s, 16s)?

Question 4.3

Does Information Science explore all the aspects of the phenomena, or does it explore only the mediating aspects? (Please select and explain)

Answer 4.3

It explores the mediating aspects of meaning offer (= message), meaning selection (= information),  and understanding at the human level.

 

The context. The context of the exploration is significant for determining the scope of the field. If, for example, one defines Information Science as the study of technologically augmented Data, Information and Knowledge (ADIK) systems (cit. 14s), s/he needs to specify the context. Within the framework of culture/society, ADIK can be a library, while in the context of technology, it can be a printed book, and in the context of hi-tech, it can be a digital library. Note that "culture" relates to society's ways of facing reality. "Technology" relates to the various tools created by humans. Thus, technology is a sub-category of culture, and hi-tech, is a sub-category of technology.

User studies. Are user studies parts of Information Science? Following cit. 1s, 2s, 7s, 21s user studies are parts of IS, while based on cit. 24s they are not.

 

Question 4.5

Are user studies parts of Information Science?

Answer 4.5

Yes, but the concept of user is too passive, as users are not only seekers of information but (potential) senders of messages

 

A systematic conception. Evidently, a systematic conception of Information Science should adequately specify the explored phenomena of the field. This means that in the process of defining the concept we are required to relate to each one of these five key issues. 

 

5: A Map of Conceptions of Information Science


At this point, we are in a position to develop a model, which maps the different conceptions of Information Science, and assists us in establishing the mainstream of the field. Please note that this is a preliminary presentation of the model. The model is incomplete. We still need to refine and evaluate it.

Question 5.1

Please place your revised conception of IS in the model. Thanks.

Answer 5.1

I would make a difference between information science as science of messages in a narrower sense (1-6) and in a broader sense (including also non-human phenomena)

 

6: Knowledge Map of Information Science

 

Generic knowledge map. In the first round, I presented a knowledge map of Information Science. I believe that this eight-category map (or model) is a generic map. It can adequately map any one of the systematic conceptions of information science, with necessary adaptations, and it can adequately map the 'mainstream' of the field.

 Knowledge Map of Information Science

Major categories

Sub-categories

Panel's comments and IS relevant subfields*

1. Foundations

Theory

Conceptions

Message, information, understanding, communication, sign

Disciplines

“angeletics” (=message theory), information theory, hermeneutics, communication theory, semiotics, cybernetics

Research & Evaluation

 

Education

 

History

Not just the history of the discipline(s) but the history of the phenomena (for instance of power and control of message distribution)

2. Resources

 

Used to produce, control and use messages in a society (in different societies at different epochs for different purposes)

3. Environments/ Cultures

 

Message cultures

4. Organizations

 

Message organizations

5. Contents

 

Message contents

6. Technologies

 

Message technologies

7. Operations & Processes

 

Message operations & processes

8. Users

 

Message users and producers

* Please fill in the right-hand column (see question 5.1).

 
     
  

1: Rationale, Importance, and Methodology

 

Question 1.1 If you have critical reflections on the rationale of the study, its importance, and the research methodology, please let me know. Thanks.

Answer 1.1

 

2: Data, Information, Knowledge, Message

 

Data, Information, Knowledge, Message. In the first and the second rounds I received 20+ pages of definitions. While analyzing the responses I found inconsistencies among the definitions, the conceptions of IS and the IS classification schemes (see section 4).

However, if one analyzes the 20+ pages, one can identify and formulate several distinct models for defining each of these four key concepts. 

 

Question 2.1 If you want to revise your definitions, please do so. Thanks.

Answer 2.1

A. Data is...

B. Information is...

C. Knowledge is...

A. Message is...

 

3: Conceptions of Information Science

 

Clarifying the disagreements. At this point, we can conclude that the panel disagrees on the conception of IS. It is therefore more fruitful to identify and sharpen the various positions regarding the key issues rather than to seek a deceptive consensus.                   

Three axes. The conceptions of IS differ mainly on 3 axes: Phenomena, Domain, Scope:   

(1) The explored Phenomena: data vs. information vs. knowledge vs. message

(2) The Domain: hi-tech vs. technology vs. culture

(3) The Scope: mediating aspects vs. all the aspects of the explored phenomena.

Ad-hoc working definitions. Some of the disagreements within the panel are caused by the terminology. In order to facilitate meaningful discussions let us use ad-hoc working definitions. Please follow these ad-hoc working definitions for answering the questions. However, if you cannot use the ad-hoc working definitions for answering the questions, please redefine the relevant concepts, or refer me to your definitions in rounds 1 & 2 so that I will be able to understand your position adequately. Thanks.

The explored phenomena. There are four options: data, information, knowledge, and message. For the purpose of the study let us use the following ad-hoc definitions:

"Data are sets of symbols that represent empirical perceptions (e.g., an image of a chair, the voice of a child pronouncing the word "chair")."Information" is a set of symbols that represent empirical knowledge (e.g., "The panel is composed of 55 members."). "Knowledge" is a set of symbols that represent thoughts, which the individual justifiably believes to be true (e.g., "2+2=4", "Cogito ergo sum", "E=MC2"). "Message" is a set of symbols that represent any meaningful content (e.g., "I have 10 fingers", "I have 15 fingers", an image of a chair, the phrase "The White House", the image of the White House, a recording of Beethoven's Piano Concerto n. 5, the musical notes of Beethoven's Piano Concerto n. 5). Note that "message" is defined here in its broadest sense (i.e., as meaningful content) rather than in the narrow sense of a sender-recipient phenomenon.

Fig 1 presents the logical relations among D-I-K-M.

Understanding and Wisdom. Several participants suggested adding "understanding" and "wisdom" to the equation but they did not elaborate. I hardly see how these concepts contribute to the conception of IS. Note that "meaningful content" embodies understanding, and "wisdom" (or rather "reason") is explored by Philosophy.

Researcher's reflections: meaningful contents. I would like to share with the panel my reflections on the explored phenomena. Ten years ago when I first thought about this study it was clear to me that the explored phenomena are information. When I submitted the first round I was convinced that IS explores knowledge, and we should redefine "Information Science" as "Knowledge Science". Following the panel discussions in the first and the second rounds, I went one step forward towards the message phenomena. A few days ago I received the last issue of the Journal of the America Society for Information Science 55(12), which is dedicated to music information retrieval. The various papers make it clear: current information scientists explore the retrieval of information and knowledge on music (music information/knowledge retrieval), and the retrieval of music per se (music retrieval). So, Information scientists do explore messages (i.e., meaningful contents). It seems that Information Science has actually turned into Message Science, or rather Content Science.

zins1

(Fig. 1)

Question 3.1 What are the explored phenomena (data vs. information vs. knowledge vs. message)? Please use the ad-hoc definitions or define the terminology. Thanks.

Answer 3.1

In my opinion, the definition of message as “meaningful content” is not precise enough. I prefer the narrow sense, i.e., within the sender-recipient phenomenon. Otherwise the semantic itself of this concepts does not emerge.

 

The domain. There are three options regarding the domain: hi-tech vs. technology vs. culture. For the purpose of this study let us use the following ad-hoc definitions: "Culture" is the society's various ways to face reality. "Technology" is the various tools created by humans. "Hi-tech" is computer/electronics based technology. Therefore, hi-tech is a sub-category of technology, and technology is a sub-category of culture.
Fig 2 presents the logical relations among the HT-T-C domains

zins2

(Fig. 2)
 

Question 3.3 What is the domain (hi-tech vs. technology vs. culture)? Please use the ad-hoc definitions or define the terminology. Thanks.

Answer 3.3

I would say that culture is the process by which an individual and/or a society (or a group) perceives realty in such a way that such perceptions become part of his/her memory. I other words, culture cannot be separated from memory. The appropriate concept would therefore be “cultural memory” which is a concept coined by the German Egyptologist Jan Assmann. This concept includes technology as it is related to the process of creating and understanding artifacts, particularly of the kind that make possible memory outside the biological sphere. This concept is related to the process of transmitting such “layers” of (accumulated) knowledge and of remodeling them within new frameworks of living. The process of cultural transmission can thus be envisaged not just as a one of conservation but primarily as one of addressing the present in order to shape the future. This builds the basis for introducing the concept of message as the very act of such addressing, i.e. as the perception of the past not just as something objectively given, but as something to which one can give a creative answer.

 

The scope. The third axis is the scope. There are two options: The mediating aspects vs. all the aspects of the explored phenomena (inclusive). The mediating aspects are all the aspects relevant to facilitating D, I, K, or M (including user studies). The inclusive scope includes mediating and non-mediating aspects of D, I, K, or M, such as astronomical aspects, biological aspects, and chemical aspects. Scheme 12, on p. 16 below exemplifies the inclusive scope. Please note, despite the fact that the panel is divided on this issue, almost all the 29 IS schemes in section 4 reflect the mediating approach.
Fig 3 presents the logical relations among the M-I scopes

zins3

(Fig. 3)

Question 3.4 What is the scope (mediating vs. all aspects (inclusive))? Please use the ad-hoc definitions or define the terminology. Thanks.

Answer 3.4

I believe that mediating aspects (including the different layers of such mediations and of their respective media and message structures across different cultures and epochs) should be at the core of IS

 

4: Classification Schemes  of Information Science

 

Historical perspective. The panel members have developed 29 schemes of Information Science. This unique and invaluable collection portrays the profile of Information Science at the beginning of the 21st century.

Constitutive study. I anticipate that this unique collection will be of special importance for future historians of the field of Information Science, as well as for current theoreticians who shape the future of the field.

Requirements. Still, in order to achieve this potential accomplishment each scheme is required to meet the following necessary requirements:

(1) Adequacy. Each scheme should adequately and coherently represent the conception of the field, as it is understood by the contributor.

It is assumed that every one of the 29 schemes demonstrates a distinct conception of IS. For example, if you claim that IS explores all the aspects of D, I, K, or M, I would expect your scheme to include all the aspects of D, I, K, or M.

(2) Comprehensiveness. Each scheme should be up-to-date and comprehensive, that is, represent all the key characteristics of the field (at least in the eye of the contributor).

(3) Systematic. Each scheme should be systematic; that is, all the categories at each level are mutually exclusive (i.e., without overlaps) and collectively exhaustive (i.e., cover all the various aspects of the field).

Please feel free to consult with me if necessary.

 

Question 4.1

1. Please revise your preferred scheme or formulate a new scheme. Please make sure that your scheme (a) adequately represents your conception of the field,
(b) is comprehensive, and (c) is systematic. Thanks.

2. Please explain the rationale of your scheme. Thanks.

Answer 4.1

1. Copy your revised/new classification scheme here:

2. Formulate the rationale here:



3: Conceptions of Information Science

 

Clarifying the disagreements. At this point, we can conclude that the panel disagrees on the conception of IS. It is therefore more fruitful to identify and sharpen the various positions regarding the key issues rather than to seek a deceptive consensus.                   

Three axes. The conceptions of IS differ mainly on 3 axes: Phenomena, Domain, Scope:   

(1) The explored Phenomena: data vs. information vs. knowledge vs. message

(2) The Domain: hi-tech vs. technology vs. culture

(3) The Scope: mediating aspects vs. all the aspects of the explored phenomena.

Ad-hoc working definitions. Some of the disagreements within the panel are caused by the terminology. In order to facilitate meaningful discussions let us use ad-hoc working definitions. Please follow these ad-hoc working definitions for answering the questions. However, if you cannot use the ad-hoc working definitions for answering the questions, please redefine the relevant concepts, or refer me to your definitions in rounds 1 & 2 so that I will be able to understand your position adequately. Thanks.

Scheme 1
(Rafael Capurro) 

1.      Foundations of Information Science

1.1    Philosophy of Information

1.2    The Concept of Information 

   (Information Theory)

1.3    The Concept of Media  (Media Theory)

1.4    The Concept of Message (Message Theory)

1.5    The Concept of Sign (Semiotics)

1.6    The Concept of Communication 

   (Communication Theory)

1.7    Second-Order Cybernetics

1.8    System Theory

1.9    Cognition Theory (Social Epistemology)

1.10   Interpretation Theory (Hermeneutics)

 

2.       History of Information Science

 

3.       History of Media

 

4.       Information Societies

4.1     Information Cultures

4.2     Information Behavior

4.3     Information Needs

4.4     Social Informatics

4.5     Scientific Communication

 

5.      Information Systems

5.1    Information Architecture

5.2    Information Design

5.3    Multimedia Systems

5.4    Image Retrieval

5.5    Sound Retrieval

5.6    Mobile Computing

5.7    Ubiquitous Computing

5.8    Distributed Networks

5.9    Information Retrieval

5.10  System Analysis

5.11  System Evaluation

5.12  Library Systems (Digital Libraries)

5.13  Public Media Repositories

5.14  Streaming Media

5.15  Mass Media

5.16  Archival Systems

5.17  Document Delivery Systems

5.18  Evaluation of Information  Systems

5.19  Search Engines

6.     Subject Analysis

6.1   Domain Analysis

6.2   Taxonomy Theory

6.3   Ontologies

 

7.     Knowledge Management

7.1   Knowledge Organization

7.2   Community Informatics

7.3   Competitive Intelligence

7.4   Computer mediated communication

7.5   E-Learning

 

8.     Information Measurement

8.1    Informetrics

8.2    Bibliometrics

8.3    Webometrics

 

9.     Economics of Information

9.1    Information Industry

9.2    Information and media products

9.3    E-Economy

9.4    Labor and Information

 

10.     Information Ethics, Media Ethics

10.1   Theories of Information Ethics

10.2   Ethical Dilemmas in Information Society

10.3   Codes of Practice

 

11.     Legal Aspects

11.1   Copyright

11.2   Censorship

11.3   Access

 

12.     Information Policies

12.1   E-Government

12.2   E-Democracy

 

13.     Education and Training

13.1   E-Learning

13.2   Information Science Education



5: Key Concepts

 

Exemplary terms. The following terms were selected by the panel. The statistics shows the number of panelists who have selected each term. The terms marked in bold are new. I will use these exemplary terms for evaluating the knowledge map of IS (see section 6).

 

A - D

Abstracting - 23

Access systems - 16

Archival Science - 19

Artificial intelligence - 16

Arts and humanities information - 1

Aviation informatics - 5

Bibliography - 1

Bibliometrics - 22

Bioinformatics - 1

Cataloging - 1

Categorization & classification -22

Censorship - 1

Chemical Documentation - 8

Classification - 1

Classification schemes - 13

Classification systems - 15

Classification theory - 17

Codes of Practice - 1

Cognition - 15

Communication - 22

Communication Theory - 1

Community Informatics - 10

Competitive Intelligence - 19

Computer Literacy - 1

Computer-mediated communication - 20

Concepts - 1

Content Management - 1

Contents representation - 1

Copyright - 14

Corporate information policies - 1

Cultural technology - 1

Culture - 1

Data -   1

Databases  - 17

Data protection - 1

Diffusion studies- 13

Digital Divide - 1

Digital libraries - 22

Digital preservation – 15

Digital security15

Digitization - 1

Disciplines - 1

Distributed networked environments -17

Documentation/Informatics - 1

Document Delivery Systems – 18

Documents - 1

Documents management systems - 1

Domain Analysis -  20

E - I

E-books - 1

Economics of information - 22

Education and training - 16

Educational information - 9

E-economy -  1

E-journals - 17

E-learning - 16

Electronic Information Industry-13

Electronic Information Sources-1

Ethical Dilemmas in Information Society - 1

Evaluation  - 1

Evaluation of information systems- 21

Formal information - 1

Formal knowledge-1

Foundations of IS - 21

Free Access to Information- 1

Freedom of information - 1

Full-text databases - 1

Genres – 1

Geographical information - 1

Health/Biomedical Informatics-9

High-Density Book Storage

Systems - 10

History of information science- 22

Human Computer Interaction-1

Human information behavior- 19

Image - 1

Image Databases - 1

Image information retrieval -1

Image Retrieval - 1

Indexing - 23

Indigenous knowledge - 1

Industry applications of IS - 1

Information - 1

Information Access Rights - 1

Information and media products-1

Information Analysis - 1

Information Architecture -21

Information Consolidation – 1

Information Design - 1

Information Dissemination - 21

Information ethics - 22

Information industry -17

Information in traditional and transitional societies – 11

Information Law – 1

Information/Learning Society-1

Information Literacy - 1

Information Management-22

I – L

Information Management-22

Information Manipulation - 14

Information need – 22

Information policy - 1

Information processing - 21

Information production – 1

Information Qualification/

Explanation-1

Information Quality Evaluation-20

Information Representation-1

Information retrieval – 23

Information Science Education-19

Information Science Epistemology-19

Information seeking - 1

Information sources – 1

Information storage and retrieval systems - 1

Information System – 1

Information technology - 20

Information theory - 23

Information Transfer - 1

Information use and user - 19

Information utilization –1

Information visualization-1

Informetrics - 23

Intellectual Property - 1

Intelligence - 1

Internet - 18

Internet technologies - 1

Knowledge - 1

Knowledge management -23 Knowledge organization - 20

Knowledge Organizing Systems - 1

Knowledge production, dissemination & consumption-1

Knowledge representation - 21

Knowledge structures - 17

Labor in information systems-12

Learning - 1

Legal Informatics - 1

Legal Information - 1

Librarianship - 18

Librarianship Standards - 1

Library Science – 21

Lifelong Learning – 1

Lifelong Learning - 1

Literatures (primary, secondary, tertiary etc) - 1

Literature searching and use-1

 


M – O

Management – 13

Marketing Information - 1

Mass Media - 1

Measurements of information-1

Media industries - 1

Medical information - 1

Memetics - 13

Message theory - 13

Metadata - 22

Metalibrarianship - 11

Metrics - 1

Mobile Computing - 1

Mobile Information technologies-1

Multimedia Systems - 1

Museology - 1

Music-information-retrieval – 12

Netmotrics - 1

Online Searching - 20

Ontology / Ontologies - 24

Operations Research - 16

Organization of Information-16

 

P – S

Paradigms - 1

Philosophy of Computation-14

Philosophy of information-19

Philosophy of IS-14

Philosophy of Librarianship-14

Policies - 1

Privacy - 1

Public Information Policies-20

Publishing – 17

Readership studies -17

Reference work - 1

Reference works - 1

Representation tools - 1

Research evaluation - 21

Retireval Languages - 1

Scientific Communication-17

Scientific Information - 1

Scientometrics - 1

Search Engines - 1

Searching - 1

Semantics and semantic relations-1

Semantic tools - 1

Semiotics – 18

Social Communication - 1

S – W

Social Information/Social Informatics - 18

Social, legal, and ethical aspects of information - 18

Social science Information-1

Sociology of knowledge/science-1

Sound Retrieval - 1

Streaming Media - 1

Subjects - 1

Subject access points - 1

Subject analysis - 21

Systems analysis - 19

Tacit Knowledge Taxonomies - 22

Technological information-16

Theories of information Ethics- 1

Thesauri - 21

Ubiquitous Computing - 1

User - 17

User Studies - 1

Vocabulary control - 17

Web- 16

Web based products- 1

Webometrics - 21

Words - 1

 

Question 5.1 I appreciate any assistance to reduce redundancies, or any comment. Thanks.

Answer 5.1

Probably the concept of intercultural studies in information science (or something similar) could be useful. In Scheme 1, 4.1 there is the concept of information cultures. In the field of information ethics I suggest to develop a comparative (or intercultural) information ethics. Something like comparative information science would open any (!) Scheme to other possible schemes in other cultures. Intercultural information science is thus not only a historical (as part of 2. in Scheme 1) but also a systematic endeavor. One way of integrating this could be as 1.11 (in Scheme 1) 


6: Knowledge Map of Information Science

 

Generic knowledge map. I have received invaluable contributions on the eight-category generic knowledge map of Information Science. Thanks.

 

Question 6.1 If you have additional reflections concerning the map, please let me know. Thanks.

Answer 6.1


7: Selected Responses

 

In this section I present selected responses on various topics.

I received hundreds of detailed answers. I will relate to all of them in future publications.
Evidently, I can present here only few of your invaluable contributions.

Ad hoc definitions.

7.1"A comment on “ad hoc definitions”: not all data in my view are empirical perceptions. For example within computer science “input data” can be anything like: names, numbers (totally unrelated to any empirical perceptions, like series of prime numbers and similar).

 

Raw data (sometimes called source data or atomic data) is data that have not been processed for use. They might be the result of empirical perceptions as well as chosen sets of symbols which are to be processed to obtain some kind of information. An example is the computer program input data. They can be any set of symbols chosen for “information processing”. Here we explain the concept “data” with another concept “information processing” that is not defined. Circularity in definitions seems to be unavoidable. Within computer science circularity (or recursivity) is acceptable as long as it ends somewhere in some trivial base case. To find the analogous situation for those definitions one might need more time...

 

If "Information" is a set of symbols that represent empirical knowledge, so that information is knowledge representation, we use the concept of knowledge that is higher order to explain information that is a more basic concept. Again there must be a way to include non-empirical knowledge. Information derived from some empirical knowledge might still be only an information, and nevertheless non-empirical. Again within computer science there is an abundance of examples of usage of the term “information” not meaning any directly empirical knowledge.

 

It seems to me that the way of usage defines what is to be seen as data /information/ knowledge. I can imagine that the same set of symbols can play any of those roles depending on the usage.

Researcher's comment: Thank you for your clarifications. I will elaborate the ad-hoc definitions in the final analysis of the panel responses.

 

Information & truth. 

7.2"I wonder if in the definition of “information” you have any constraints on the truth value of information. Sometimes claims of the necessity of the strong definition of information are made (Luciano Floridi), i.e. the information must necessarily be TRUE in order to qualify as information. How do you view that question?"

Researcher's comment: Since "information" is defined here as empirical knowledge, and "knowledge" is defined as "a justified true belief", information must be perceived by the informed person, at the relevant time, to be true. Evidently, s/he might be wrong.

Conception of Information Sciences.

7.3"Often, a distinction between information science and information technology might be useful.  Scientific schemes relate to the study of phenomena, systems, processes, in the quest for basic laws and principles, while information technology would be concerned with facilitation of communication processes, especially for durable messages.

The notion that information science evolved strictly out of documentation is a common misconception; information science’s roots can be traced to a broad set of behavioral/communication sciences (cybernetics, systems theory, etc.) that evolved following World War II ( Harmon, G. (1971) “On the Evolution of Information Science,” JASIS (Vol. 22 (July August), 235-241)".

Archival Sciences. One of the panelists claims that AS is not part of IS:

7.4 "I am a scholar of Archival Science and Diplomatics, and I firmly believe that neither of the two disciplines falls under the umbrella of Information Science or of any other broad discipline. Scholars of one or another discipline who have used some of the concepts or methods of AS and D for their own purposes have tried to fit them under the broad umbrella of their discipline. So, overtime, AS and D have been part of the Philological Sciences, together with Semiotics, Exegesis, etc., of the Juridical Sciences, together with Jurisprudence, History of the Law, etc, of the Sciences Auxiliary of History, together with Paleography, Sigillography, etc. At Simon Fraser University, they are part of the Sciences of Communication....They can fit anywhere, but they really fit nowhere because they are sciences on their own right, with a theory, a methodology and a practice that are unique to them. They are self-referential complete systems depending on no other science or discipline."

Researcher's comment: I call those panel members who do think that AS is part of IS to respond. Thanks.

IS Scientific Methodology.

7.5"I suggest that “typical methodology” could be added as a dimension. So far there has seemed to be no unique methodology for IS, perhaps with citation analysis as the only exception. Lack of suitable methodology tools is an important defect of current IS, which hinders its development and mars its attraction to the promising young talents. What is more, without operable methods, mere discussion of category division will not be able to give IS study a big thrust."

Clarifications. Finally, I would like to clarify several issues raised by the panel

(1) Popper's World 3. I am not "Popperian". In fact, I am a phenomenologist. Generally, I follow Edmund Husserl's phenomenology.

(2) Subjectivity vs. Objectivity.  We always know the objective through our subjective mind. Meaning is formed subjectively by individuals.

(3) Symbols vs. meaning. There is a fundamental distinction between documented (i.e., written, spoken or physically expressed) propositions and meaning. "E=MC2", "E=MC2", and "E=MC2" are not three different 'knowledges' (pl. of knowledge). These are three different sets of symbols (or characters) that represent the same meaning. In other words, these are three different utterances of the same knowledge. Knowledge, in the collective domain, is the meaning, which is represented by written and spoken statements (i.e., sets of symbols). However, since we cannot perceive with our senses the meaning itself, we can relate only to the sets of symbols, which represent the meaning. Note, however, that although the knower ascribes a universal status to the meaning, s/he cannot be certain if it really exists outside his/her own mind [As I noted above, I am not "Popperian". Actually, I hold an agnostic position: 'I don't know']. Apparently, it is more fruitful to define "D", "I", "K", and "M" as sets of symbols rather than as meanings.

 

Question 7.1 If you have critical reflections on the responses, please let me know. Thanks.

Answer 7.1


Conclusion

This is the concluding section of the third questionnaire.

Question 8.1

If you have any comments, suggestions, or critical reflections regarding the study, please let me know. Thanks.

Answer 8.1
 

 


 
     


THE PANEL

Dr. Hanne Albrechtsen, Institute of Knowledge Sharing, Denmark
Prof. Elsa Barber
, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Prof. Aldo de Albuquerque Barreto, Brazilian Inst. for Inf. in Science a. Techn.
Prof. Shifra Baruchson–Arbib
, Bar Ilan University, Israel
Prof. Clare Beghtol
, University of Toronto, Canada
Prof. Maria Teresa Biagetti, University of Rome 1, Italy
Prof. Michael Buckland
, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Mr. Manfred Bundschuh, University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany
Dr. Quentin L. Burrell,
Isle of Man International Business School, Isle of Man
Dr. Paola Capitani, Working Group Semantic Web, Italy
Prof. Rafael Capurro, University of Applied Sciences, Stuttgart, Germany
Prof. Thomas A. Childers
, Drexel University, USA
Prof. Charles H. Davis, Indiana University; the University of Illinois, USA
Prof. Anthony Debons
, University of Pittsburgh, USA
Prof. Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, Mälardalen University, Sweden
Prof. Henri Dou, University of Aix-Marseille III, France
Prof. Nicolae Dragulanescu, Polytechnics University of Bucharest, Romania
Prof. Carl Drott, Drexel University, USA
Prof. Luciana Duranti, University of British Columbia,
Canada
Prof. Hamid Ekbia, University of Redlands, USA
Prof. Charles Ess, Drury University, USA
Prof. Raya Fidel, University of Washington, USA
Prof. Thomas J. Froehlich, Kent State University, USA
Mr. Alan Gilchrist, Cura Consortium and TFPL, UK
Dr. H.M. Gladney, HMG Consulting, USA
Prof. Glynn Harmon, University of Texas at Austin, USA
Dr. Donald Hawkins, Information Today, USA

Prof. Caroline Haythornthwaite,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, USA
Mr. Ken Herold, Hamilton College, USA
Prof. William Hersh,
Oregon Health & Science University, USA
Prof. Birger Hj
ørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science, Denmark
Ms. Sarah Holmes*, the Publishing Project, USA
Prof. Ian Johnson*,
the Robert Gordon University, UK
Prof. Wallace Koehler, Valdosta State University, USA
Prof. Donald Kraft, Louisiana State University, USA
Prof. Yves
François Le Coadic, National Technical University, France
Dr. Jo Link-Pezet, Urfist, and University of Social Sciences, France
Mr. Michal Lorenz, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic
Prof. Ia McIlwaine, University College London, UK
Prof. Michel J. Menou, Knowledge and ICT management consultant, France
Prof. Haidar Moukdad, Dalhousie University, Canada
Mr. Dennis Nicholson, Strathclyde University, UK
Prof. Charles Oppenheim,
Loughborough University, UK
Prof. Lena Vania Pinheiro,
Brazilian Inst, for Inf. in Science a. Technology, Brazil
Prof. Maria Pinto
, University of Granada, Spain
Prof. Roberto Poli, University of Trento, Italy
Prof. Ronald Rousseau, KHBO, and University of Antwerp, Belgium
Dr. Silvia Schenkolewski–Kroll, Bar Ilan University, Israel
Mr. Scott Seaman*,
University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
Prof. Richard Smiraglia, Long Island University, USA
Prof. Paul Sturges, Loughborough University, UK
Prof. Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee, USA
Dr. Joanne Twining, Intertwining.org, a virtual information consultancy, USA
Prof. Anna da Soledade Vieira, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Dr. Julian Warner, Queen's University of Belfast, UK
Prof. Irene Wormell, Swedish School of Library a. Inf. Science in Borås, Sweden
Prof. Yishan Wu, Inst. of Scientific and Techn. Information of China (ISTIC), China

* An observer (i.e., those panel members who did not strictly meet the criteria for the panel selection and terms of participation.)


Last update: August  18, 2015


 
     

Copyright © 2006 by Rafael Capurro and Chaim Zins, all rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. and international copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that the author is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author.

 
Back to Digital Library
 
Homepage Research Activities
Publications Teaching Video/Audio