DOCSLIB.ORG

Analyzing the Role of Knowledge Organization in Scholarly Communication: an Inquiry Into the Intellectual Foundation of Knowledge Organization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analyzing the Role of Knowledge Organization in Scholarly Communication: an Inquiry Into the Intellectual Foundation of Knowledge Organization Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: An inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization Jack Andersen PhD thesis from Department of Information Studies Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: An inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization Jack Andersen PhD thesis from Department of Information Studies Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark CIP – cataloguing in publication Andersen, Jack Analyzing the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication: An inquiry into the intellectual foundation of knowledge organization / Jack Andersen. Copenhagen: Department of Information Studies, Royal School of Library and Information Science, 2004. x, 257 p. + appendixes. Available: http://www.db.dk/dbi/samling/phd_dk.htm ISBN: 87-7415-278-5 ISBN 87-7415-278-5 © Copyright Jack Andersen 2004 All rights reserved Vidensorganisationens rolle i videnskabelig kommunikation: En undersøgelse af vidensorganisationens teoretiske grundlag Jack Andersen Ph.d.-afhandling fra Institut for Informationsstudier Danmarks Biblioteksskole, København For Simon Peter and Iben In dreams begin responsibilities Delmore Schwartz Abstract In this dissertation I analyze the relationship between social organization and knowledge organization. This analysis is carried out on two levels. The first level consists of three chapters each examining particular perspectives of the relationship. First, in terms of an examination of how communication technologies have shaped forms of social organization, I argue how knowledge organization is constituted by social organization. Second, I further situate knowledge organization in light of Jürgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere and argue that this theory can be viewed as a fundamental model of knowledge organization. Third, by drawing on various theories of genre and activity systems, I underpin the connection between social organization and knowledge organization further by seeking to integrate these with knowledge organization. The second level examines the role of knowledge organization in scholarly communication by means of how indexing reflects and responds to the rhetorical activities of scholarly articles. I consider this as how knowledge organization can ascribe cognitive authority to documents. The texts are considered to constitute the mediating link between social organization and knowledge organization. I conclude that this relationship between social organization and knowledge organization must be understood and examined in order to fully account for the role knowledge organization in human activities based on document production and use such as scholarly communication. I II Resumé I denne afhandling analyserer jeg forholdet mellem social organisering og vidensorganisation. Denne analyse foretages på to niveauer. Det første niveau belyser igennem tre kapitler dette forhold. Igennem en belysning af, hvordan kommunikationsteknologier har indvirket på former for sociale organiseringer, argumenterer jeg for, at vidensorganisation er historisk betinget af disse former for sociale organiseringer. I næste skridt indplacerer og analyserer jeg vidensorganisation i lyset af Jürgen Habermas’ offentlighedsteori. Jeg argumenterer for, at denne kan ses som en fundamental vidensorganisationsmodel. Ved at trække på teorier om genre og virksomhedssystemer, underbygger jeg yderligere forbindelsen mellem social organisering og vidensorganisation ved at forsøge på at integrere disse med vidensorganisation. På det næste niveau analyserer jeg specifikt vidensorganisationens rolle i videnskabelig kommunikation. Dette gør jeg ved at foretage retoriske analyser af udvalgte videnskabelige artikler samt at se på, hvordan indekseringen af disse artikler responderer på og medierer artiklernes retoriske virksomhed. Dette behandles som et spørgsmål om, hvordan vidensorganisation kan bidrage til at tilskrive dokumenter erkendelsesmæssig autoritet. Artiklerne bliver betragtet som det medierende led mellem social organisation og vidensorganisaiton. Jeg konkluderer, at forholdet mellem social organisering og vidensorganisation skal forstås mere dybdegående, hvis vidensorganisationens rolle i menneskelig virksomhed baseret på produktion og brug af dokumenter skal kunne retfærdiggøres og underbygges. III IV Acknowledgements Acknowledgements is usually the place where one expresses a gratitude to those who in some way or another have contributed to or affected the materialization of one’s work. I am not going to make an exception. In my case, however, this amounts up to a whole lot of people. I want to thank the people at the library at the Royal School of Library and Information Science. Every time I ordered a book or article, and that I did a lot, they served me in an extremely friendly way. I am also thankful to the technical staff at the Royal for the binding of the dissertation. The director of the Royal School, Leif Lørring, has always expressed his support. Mona Madsen, the chair of the Department of Information Studies, always gave me support in terms of money for travels and for exempting me from teaching the last year. This gave me the necessary time to concentrate on writing. Thanks to doctoral students, Jeppe Nicolaisen and Laura Skouvig for constantly stimulating discussions that included both revelations and provocations. Thanks to Nanna Kann-Christensen, lecturer at the Royal School, for discussions about ‘daily’ things such as children. Thanks very much to Nan Dahlkild, also lecturer at the Royal School, for our numerous entertaining and serious discussions in the hallways. Frank Sejer Christensen, former doctoral student at the Royal School whose thoughts unfortunately had awful conditions there, has continually been a good discussion partner and a good friend. I thank you very much for that. Also thank you to Rune Dalgaard and Mats Dahlström, doctoral students from Århus and Borås respectively. I have found our e-mail conversations very intriguing. To the people in Santa Barbara, I cannot express my gratitude enough: Thank you Kris and Richard for letting Iben, Simon Peter and me stay with you. Thank you Rene for continually invoking my theoretical curiosity, and last, the reason why I went to Santa Barbara: Professor Charles Bazerman. Thank you, very very much for always taking the time to listen to my ideas, readings and interpretations of these and stimulating me to look for new theoretical pathways. My thinking about knowledge organization in connection with rhetoric, genre theory, writing, activity theory and social V theory is indebted to you. THANK YOU!!!. Thanks to my supervisor, professor Birger Hjørland, for believing in and supporting my project when I needed it most. Your ability to trigger one’s critical thinking is and has been indispensable. In Seattle, thank you Jens-Erik Mai for helping me getting around in the knowledge organization community and for always playing the devil’s advocate in our e-mail and live discussions. You know how I appreciate these. To my good friend at Kluwer Publishers, ‘Robbert’ van Berckelaer, thank you for our amusing conferences together. Shawn Cook proofread the manuscript and I cannot thank you enough for that. Also thank to Niels, Jakob, Jacob, Thomas and Morten for ‘hanging out’ with me when I needed a break. Last, but not least, thank you to my most two precious things in the world: My wife, Iben, and my son, Simon Peter. It is a truism, but as I have told you many many times before, I could not have made this without you two and your relentlessly loyal support. I LOVE YOU VERY VERY MUCH!!! Jack Andersen Copenhagen 2004 VI Contents Abstract I Resumé III Acknowledgements V 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Statement of problem 3 1.2 Situating the problem 4 1.2.1 The concept of cognitive authority 10 1.3 Argument and structure 21 1.4 Methodology 24 1.5 Theoretical and empirical approach 39 2. Knowledge organization in the context of library and information science 41 3. Social organization and knowledge organization: A sociohistorical view 49 3.2 Orality and knowledge organization 52 3.3 Writing and knowledge organization 53 3.4 Printing and knowledge organization 56 3.5 The Computer and knowledge organization 58 3.6 Summary 61 4. The social organization of documents and knowledge in society 65 4.1 A social theory of the media 66 4.2 Documents and social organization: A historical perspective 68 4.3 Habermas and the theory of public sphere 72 4.4 Toward a theory of the social organization of documents and knowledge 76 4.4.1 The public sphere and scholarly communication 81 4.5 Summary 83 5. Social organization and knowledge organization: A genre and activity approach 85 5.1 Genre and activity systems 86 5.2 Bakhtin’s notion speech genres 87 VII 5.3 Genre as social action 88 5.4 Systems of genres and social organization 89 5.5 Social organization through discourse 90 5.6 Writing, genres and activity systems 90 5.7 Summary: Genre and activity systems 90 5.8 Knowledge organization and genre and activity systems 91 5.9 Summary 94 6. The literary organization of the scholarly communication system 97 6.1 The notion of subject literature 97 6.2 Subject literature and its epistemological context 99 6.3 Subject literature in a communication context 105 6.3.1 Primary literature 107 6.3.2 Secondary literature 109 6.3.3 Tertiary literature 111 6.4 Summary: The epistemological and communicative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implications of Big Data for Knowledge Organization. Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan, Bowker Geoffrey
    Implications of big data for knowledge organization. Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan, Bowker Geoffrey To cite this version: Fidelia Ibekwe-Sanjuan, Bowker Geoffrey. Implications of big data for knowledge organization.. Knowledge Organization, Ergon Verlag, 2017, Special issue on New trends for Knowledge Organi- zation, Renato Rocha Souza (guest editor), 44 (3), pp.187-198. hal-01489030 HAL Id: hal-01489030 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01489030 Submitted on 23 Apr 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0 International License F. Ibekwe-SanJuan and G. C. Bowker (2017). Implications of Big Data for Knowledge Organization, Knowledge Organization 44(3), pp. 187-198 Implications of big data for knowledge organization Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan Geoffrey C. Bowker Aix Marseille Univ, IRSIC, Marseille, France University of California, Irvine, USA. [email protected] [email protected] Fidelia Ibekwe-SanJuan is Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, University of Aix-Marseille in France. Her research interests span both empirical and theoretical issues. She has developed methodologies and tools for text mining and information retrieval. She is interested in the epistemology of science, in inter-disciplinarity issues and in the history of information and library science.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Knowledge Organization: Analysis and Structures in the Networked Environment
    Principles of knowledge organization: analysis and structures in the networked environment 0. Abstract 1. Context of discussion 2. Definition of principles Knowledge organization in the networked environment is guided by standards. Standards Principles are laws, assumptions standards, rules, in knowledge organization are built on principles. For example, NISO Z39.19-1993 Guide judgments, policy, modes of action, as essential or • Knowledge Organization in the networked environment is guided by standards to the Construction of Monolingual Thesauri (now undergoing revision) and NISO Z39.85- basic qualities. They can also be considered goals • Standards in knowledge organization are built on principles 2001 Dublin Core Metadata Element Set are tw o standards used in ma ny implementations. or values in some knowledge organization theories. Both of these standards were crafted with knowledge organization principles in mind. (Adapting the definition from the American Heritage Therefore it is standards work guided by knowledge organization principles which can Existing standards built on principles: Dictionary). affect design of information services and technologies. This poster outlines five threads of • NISO Z39.19-1993 Guide to the Construction of Monolingual Thesauri thought that inform knowledge organization principles in the networked environment. An • NISO Z39.85-2001 Dublin Core Metadata Element Set understanding of each of these five threads informs system evaluation. The evaluation of knowledge organization systems should be tightly
    [Show full text]
  • Biases in Knowledge Representation: an Analysis of the Feminine Domain in Brazilian Indexing Languages
    Suellen Oliveira Milani and José Augusto Chaves Guimarães. 2011. Biases in knowledge representation: an analysis of the feminine domain in Brazilian indexing languages. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3. Toronto, Canada, pp. 94-104. Suellen Oliveira Milani ([email protected]) and José Augusto Chaves Guimarães ([email protected]) Sao Paulo State University, Marília, SP, Brazil Biases in Knowledge Representation: an Analysis of the Feminine Domain in Brazilian Indexing Languages† Abstract: The process of knowledge representation, as well as its tools and resulting products are not neutral but permeated by moral values. This scenario gives rise to problems of biases in representation, such as gender issues, dichotomy categorizations and lack of cultural warrant and hospitality. References on women’s issues are still scarce in the literature, which makes it necessary to analyze to what extent the terms related to these particular issues are inserted in the tools in a biased way. This study aimed to verify the presence of the terms female, femininity, feminism, feminist, maternal, motherly, woman/women within the following Brazilian indexing languages: Subject Terminology of the National Library (STNL), University of Sao Paulo Subject Headings (USPSH), Brazilian Senate Subject Headings (BSSH) and Law Decimal Classification (LDC). Each term identified in the first three alphabetical languages generated a registration card containing both its descriptors and non-descriptors, as well as scope notes, USE/UF, RT, and BT/NT relationships. As for the analysis of LDC, the registration card was filled out by following the categories proposed by Olson (1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Organization: an Epistemological Perspective
    Knowl. Org. 31(2004)No.1 49 Ch. Zins: Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Chaim Zins Department of Information ScienceHuman Services, Bar-Ilan University of Haifa Email: [email protected]. Dr. Chaim Zins is an information scientist, at the Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan Uni- versity. He is a former member at the Department of Human Services, University of Haifa. Dr. Zins' current research is focused on knowledge organization, foundations of information science, knowl- edge management, information and referral services, and information retrieval. Zins, Chaim. (2004). Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective. Knowledge Or- ganization, 31(1). 49-54. 11 refs. ABSTRACT: This philosophical essay explores the epistemological foundations of knowledge organization and discusses im- plications for classification research. The study defines the concept of “knowledge,” distinguishes between subjective knowl- edge (i.e., knowledge as a thought in the individual’s mind) and objective knowledge (i.e., knowledge as an independent ob- ject), establishes the necessity of knowledge organization in the construction of knowledge and its key role in the creation, learning, and dissemination of knowledge, and concludes with implications for the development of classification schemes and knowledge maps. Overview second stage, I will discuss the relationship between subjective knowledge and objective knowledge. (No- Scholars and practitioners in the field of knowledge te that “subjective knowledge” is equivalent here to organization rarely stop to reflect and ponder upon the knowledge of the subject or the individual kno- the philosophical foundations of their field of exper- wer, and “objective knowledge” is equivalent here to tise.
    [Show full text]
  • Criticism of Cataloging Code Reform, As Seen in the Pages of Library Resources and Technical Services (1957–66) by Steven A
    53(1) LRTS 15 Criticism of Cataloging Code Reform, as Seen in the Pages of Library Resources and Technical Services (1957–66) By Steven A. Knowlton The history of cataloging rules is often written as a story of continuous improve- ment toward a more rational and efficient code. Not all catalogers, however, have been in agreement that reform of the cataloging code has been improvement. The debate of the 1950s and 1960s over cataloging code reform, hosted in part by LRTS, is an example of conflicting values in the cataloging community. Seymour Lubetzky’s proposal for a cataloging code based on logical principles eventually became the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, but many catalogers of the period felt that other values, such as tradition and the convenience of the user, also Steven A. Knowlton (steven.knowlton@ deserved consideration in the cataloging code. il.proquest.com) is Library Holdings Consultant, UMI Division of ProQuest CSA, Ann Arbor, Michigan. he library historian Wiegand has said, “We are all prisoners of our own dis- Submitted May 1, 2007; tentatively courses,” meaning that the stories we tell about ourselves influence our views accepted, pending revision, and T 1 returned to author July 1, 2007; revised of our place in culture and society. For librarians in the United States, that means and resubmitted February 8, 2008, and that they often consider their institutions “cornerstones of the communities they accepted for publication. serve” because “free access to the books, ideas, resources, and information in This paper was originally conceived for America’s libraries is imperative for education, employment, enjoyment, and self- a special edition celebrating the fiftieth 2 anniversary of LRTS.
    [Show full text]
  • KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Contents
    Knowl. Org. 35(2008)No.2/No.3 KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Official Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Knowledge Organization ISSN 0943 – 7444 International Journal devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing and Knowledge Representation Contents Preface to Special Issue María J. López-Huertas. Some Current Research Questions “What is Knowledge Organization” in the Field of Knowledge Organization ........................113 Guest Editors: Ia C. McIlwaine and Joan S. Mitchell............................... 79 Claudio Gnoli. Ten Long-Term Research Questions Feature in Knowledge Organization ............................................137 Interview with Ingetraut Dahlberg Rebecca Green. December 2007.................................................................. 82 Relationships in Knowledge Organization.....................150 Articles Marcia Lei Zeng. Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS)......................160 Birger Hjørland. What is Knowledge Organization (KO)?........................ 86 Joseph T. Tennis. Epistemology, Theory, and Methodology in Knowledge Organization: Toward a Classification, Metatheory, and Research Framework................................................ 102 Knowl. Org. 35(2008)No.2/No.3 KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION KO Official Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Knowledge Organization ISSN 0943 – 7444 International Journal devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing and Knowledge Representation KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Dr. Jens-Erik MAI, Faculty of Information Studies, University
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION CRITICISM: WHERE IS IT? by JACK ANDERSEN
    INFORMATION CRITICISM: WHERE IS IT? by JACK ANDERSEN oughly speaking, one may say that the practitioners of literary theory are the literary critics; that is, those reviewing and critiquing works of fiction. But where, one may ask, are the critics of the functionality and legitimacy of knowledge Rorganization systems? That is, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias and search engines – all systems that in some way or another mediate the recorded part of society and culture. Such knowledge organization systems are also the professional tools of librarians. Due to this fact, we should expect that librarians have a lot to say about the roles and doings of these systems in the mediation of society and culture, but it is hard within the public arena to trace and hear the critical voices of librarians grappling with knowledge organization systems. We are used to reading and hearing the voices of cultural critics, social critics and literary critics debating social and cultural issues – the kinds of criticism with well-established histories and adherents that exist in society. Jürgen Habermas (1996) argued, in his book on the structural transformation of the bourgeois public sphere, that art criticism, social criticism and literary criticism developed in public spaces like the coffee houses, saloons and tischgesellschaften and became established schools of thought in written genres such as journals and newspapers. They became organized in the sense that criticism developed particular forms of communication in order to talk and write about social, political and cultural issues in society. These particular modes of communication were maintained because of their appeal to and belief in rational discussion within the public sphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Retrieval and Knowledge Organization: a Perspective from the Philosophy of Science
    information Article Information Retrieval and Knowledge Organization: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science Birger Hjørland Department of Communication, University of Copenhagen, 8 Karen Blixens Plads, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark; [email protected] Abstract: Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, “match” techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as “paradigms”. No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO. Keywords: information retrieval; knowledge organization; philosophy of science; classification; knowledge organization systems; ontologies; Kuhnian paradigm theory; pragmatism Citation: Hjørland, B. Information Retrieval and Knowledge Organization: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science. Information 1. Introduction 2021, 12, 135.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Knowledge Organization (KO)?
    What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? By Birger Hjørland Royal School of Library and Information Science, 6 Birketinget, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Email: [email protected] (Digital photo) Birger Hjørland, MA in psychology and PhD in Library and Information Science. Professor in Knowledge Organization (KO) at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen since 2001. Professor in KO at the University College in Borås, Sweden 2000-2001. Research librarian and coordinator of computer based information services at the Royal Library in Copenhagen 1978-1990. Taught information science at the Department of Mathematical and Applied Linguistics at the University of Copenhagen 1983-1986. 1974-1978 associate professor at RSLIS, and 1990-2000 head of department. He has published several papers on KO, including about 11 papers in the journal Knowledge Organization . 1 What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? By Birger Hjørland Abstract: Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms . KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: “What is knowledge organization?” differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Nine Principles of Knowledge Organization
    '" Nine Principles of Knowledge Organization Birger Hjiirland,The Royal School ofLibrarians hip, DK-2300 Copenhagen Introduction The core problem in Information Science (IS) is seen as existing in information seeking and "information retrieval", (IR), aiming at helping users become informed and to identiJY documents,which are the "best textual means to some end" (Wilson, 1968). Other problems,such as the design of information systems and knowledge organi­ zation (e.g. by classification and indexing) should be seen as means to that end. However, IS has ignored somc fundamental problems, which questions the possi­ bility of having a profession and a discipline trying to solve the above mentioned problems. Much research in IS has been based on ccrtain problematic views of knowledge, and searched for principles of knowledge organization, which are in­ dependent of claims of subject-knowledge. In this paper, we shall look at the prob­ lems of knowledge organization based on a view of knowledge as a historically developed product in which principles of organization are tied to domain-specific criteria. The article is organized as an argumentation of nine principles on the organization of knowledge. Principle # 1 Naive-realistic perception of knowledge structures ;S 110t possible in more ad­ vanced sciences. The deepest principle on the organization on knowledge rests upon principles developed in and by scientific disciplines. This principle is based on insights from philosophy of science. Shapere (I 984) writes: "Although in more primitive stages of science (or, perhaps better, of what will become a science), obvious sensory similarities or general presupposi­ tions usually determine whether certain items of experience will be consid­ ered as forming a body or domain, this less and less true as science progresses (or, as one might say, as it becomes more unambiguously scientific).
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Two Techniques for Bibliometric Mapping: Multidimensional Scaling and VOS
    A Comparison of Two Techniques for Bibliometric Mapping: Multidimensional Scaling and VOS Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands and Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: {ecknjpvan, waltmanlr}@cwts.leidenuniv.nl. Rommert Dekker Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. Jan van den Berg Section of ICT, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. VOS is a new mapping technique that can serve as an alternative to the well- known technique of multidimensional scaling. We present an extensive comparison between the use of multidimensional scaling and the use of VOS for constructing bibliometric maps. In our theoretical analysis, we show the mathematical relation between the two techniques. In our experimental analysis, we use the techniques for constructing maps of authors, journals, and keywords. Two commonly used approaches to bibliometric mapping, both based on multidimensional scaling, turn out to produce maps that suffer from artifacts. Maps constructed using VOS turn out not to have this problem. We conclude that in general maps constructed using VOS provide a more satisfactory representation of a data set than maps constructed using well-known multidimensional scaling approaches. Introduction In the field of bibliometrics and scientometrics, the idea of constructing science maps based on bibliographic data has intrigued researchers already for several decades. Many different types of maps have been studied. The various types of maps show relations among, for example, authors, documents, journals, or keywords, and they have usually been constructed based on citation, co-citation, or bibliographic coupling data or based on data on co-occurrences of keywords in documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Organization Syllabus
    School of Information & Library Science 144 West 14th Street, 6th floor New York, NY 10011–7301 LIS 653: KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION Section: LIS–653–01 Chris Alen Sula, Ph.D. Semester: Fall 2011 Office: PMC, Room 604B Meeting Information: Thursday, 6:30–8:50 pm Office Hours: Wednesdays, 4:00–6:00 pm Location: PMC, Room 608 p 212.647.7377 Credits: 3 e [email protected] Prerequisites: None w http://chrisalensula.org COURSE DESCRIPTION This course covers basic concepts of knowledge/information organization and subject analysis. The material includes basic principles and application of descriptive cataloging and classification, authority control, and types and forms of catalogs. Also covered is the use of MARC records and metadata, strategies for user-centered cataloging and classification, principles of abstracting and indexing, and the rapidly changing knowledge organization systems. This course provides the foundation for further studies in library, archives, and museum cataloging, reference, information retrieval, database management, and information architecture. COURSE GOALS + LEARNING OBJECTIVES The goal of this course is to introduce students to principles, standards, and techniques used to organize both printed and digital information resources in libraries and other information environments including: • bibliographic control and cataloging standards (e.g., AACR2, RDA, ISBD) • metadata standards and applications (e.g., Dublin Core) • indexing and classification systems (e.g., LCSH, Dewey) • vocabulary control tools • emerging Knowledge
    [Show full text]