1 / 68

Information Science, Epistemology and the Knowledge Society Invited speech, INFO 2008, Cuba. April 2008 Birger Hjørland

Information Science, Epistemology and the Knowledge Society Invited speech, INFO 2008, Cuba. April 2008 Birger Hjørland. Information Science & The Knowledge Society.

march
Download Presentation

Information Science, Epistemology and the Knowledge Society Invited speech, INFO 2008, Cuba. April 2008 Birger Hjørland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Information Science, Epistemology and the Knowledge SocietyInvited speech, INFO 2008, Cuba. April 2008Birger Hjørland

  2. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • We speak about the Information Society and about the Knowledge Society. No doubt information and knowledge have become extremely important for economic growth. • We should therefore expect a brilliant future of the fields dedicated to the study of information and knowledge and the to information services. But can we? • At the same time we are challenged by what has been termed “library shortcut”: That producers and users of knowledge communicate directly without the need of intermediaries.

  3. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Library shortcut is but one among many threats to intermediaries. Many people believe that free user based encyclopedias such as Wikipedia remove the need for (carefully) edited encyclopedias (and thus for another category of intermediaries). Very massive changes are taking place. • Doomsday scenarios about the disappearance of the Library, Documentation and Information professions exists. Are they realistic? What should be our strategies to contribute important functions in the Information Society⁄ the Knowledge Society?

  4. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • In an editorial in Journal of Documentation, Bawden (2007) discuss "doomsday scenarios" for the profession (documentation, information science and LIS). He mentions the following threads:  • the increasing significance of Google and Google-like search entities, to the point where their use is viewed as synonymous with finding information; • the potential arrival (at last) of a truly usable e-book technology, which could begin to make rapid inroads into the use of printed books, with all the implications that would have for libraries;

  5. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • the major digitisation projects of [for example] Google and Microsoft, which seem to bring a print-less world withinreach; • the increasing belief that metadata is something that you use if you don’t have a good enough search engine; • the rise and rise of folksonomy as a viable alternative to taxonomy; • the belief in the “wisdom of crowds”, rather than the wisdom of experts, in guiding the use of information and knowledge;

  6. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • the end of the belief in “library space” as an area of isolated quality information, as library catalogues open themselves to search engines, and simultaneously bring in web material; • the enthusiasm for “social computing” and the social construction of information environments, whether through blogs and wikis, or through MySpace and Utube; • the introduction of mass-participation virtual reality information environments, with increasingly blurring of the boundaries between the real and the virtual (Reuters has an “office” in Second Life);

  7. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • the possible collapse in the current understanding of intellectual property, as the internet makes possible the free sharing of virtually all products of creative thought; • the increasing prevalence of mobile and ubiquitous information provision; • the supplanting of academic libraries by information provision through e-learning environments and from the web; and • the new role of the public library as a community centre, with books and information provision an increasingly marginalized aspect.

  8. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • We may take Bawden’s list point by point and answer the question: What is the consequence of this challenge, and how can Library and Information Science meet this challenge? • As Andrew Dillon (2007) said: ” Only by asking and attempting to answer the most pressing questions about information can the research programme of LIS thrive”. • I shall return to Dillon’s view later, but start with Google. Can Google solve all information retrieval problems? (Or can future engines based on similar principles)?

  9. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Some people in our field term the Internet “fools gold” (Herring, 2007). I do not believe this is a wise attitude for our field. We should not base our strategies by underestimating the power of what we are up against. Google and the Internet are strong technologies, which we are using all the time (including the preparation of this speech). • We should not let our future dictate by professional wish-full thinking, which denies reality.

  10. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • A better answer was suggested by Stephen Abram (2007). • “Libraries core skill is not delivering information. Libraries improve the quality of the question and the user experience“ (slide 13) and on slide 17: Google is most efficient in answering what, when and where questions. Libraries are better at answering why and how questions (compare also slide 103-104 and 143). (Abram, 2007).

  11. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Abram’s presentation did not, however, elaborate much on this issue. His speech was splendid. Among its important properties was the focus on “social” issues. Much of it, was, however, about modern information technology per se. I believe that the important questions in our field is often downgraded because of the fascination of technology that is not developed by us. • I would like to present tree other examples of the same kind of what could, perhaps, be termed “category errors”, which in my opinion has been and still is damaging for our field.

  12. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • The Danish information scientists Annelise Mark Pejtersen developed “The Bookhouse” in the 1970s. She is probably the most important researcher in the field of fiction indexing until now! But the reception of her system in particular noticed her use of front technology. • Fiction indexing is an important topic in LIS, but the use of advanced technology is something almost everybody do today. Perhaps she herself was misled because of this reception focusing on color screens, use of symbols, interactive displays etc.?

  13. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • 2) Library and Information Science is interested in the credibility and reliability of information sources. Often such issues are mixed up with questions about technicalities. But different kinds of knowledge is at play, why real contributions must focus on theoretically coherent issues. If not we tend to be amateurs. • 3) The definition of information science. Consider the following definition formulated when American Documentation Institute changed its name to American Society for Information Science in 1968:

  14. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • "Information Science is concerned with the generation, collection, organization, interpretation, storage, retrieval, dissemination, transformation and use of information, with particular emphasis on the applications of modern technologies in these areas.     As a discipline, it seeks to create and structure a body of scientific, technological, and systems knowledge related to the transfer of information. It has both pure science (theoretical) components, which inquire into the subject without regard to application, and applied science (practical) components, which develop services and products". (Griffith, 1980, p. 5; Compare Borko, 1968).

  15. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Remark the sentence “ with particular emphasis on the applications of modern technologies in these areas. “ • It reflects, in my opinion, the same kind of “category error”. Of course should any science use modern technology, but this should not be a part of their definition. • An information scientist is not a person with a new, smart computer, but a person contributing to the improvement of the ways in which knowledge is organized and retrieved. The later issue should define the kind of methods and tools that are relevant.

  16. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Returning to Google and what kinds of tasks are left to information science. I believe we have important roles both in relation to further development of such engines and in developing human based services. • Abram’s view was that “Libraries improve the quality of the question and the user experience“ and that: “Google is most efficient in answering what, when and where questions. Libraries are better at answering why and how questions “ • I agree in particular with the first part of Abram’s view. I shall provide my own view of our roles.

  17. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Suppose a user ask a question: “What is anxiety, and what are its causes?” • There are many views on this. For example, views related to: • Brain physiology and chemistry • Existentialism • Psychoanalysis • Behavior and learning • Culture • Marxism

  18. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • There are simply many different theoretical perspectives on how to consider a given question such as the one about anxiety. If the user, who puts the question is not aware of these different perspectives, he or she is not in a position to formulate a query or to evaluate the research because any given query may provide only one (or some) answers from different perspectives. • It is exactly as Abram said: It is important to qualify the question. In order to do so is it necessary to know something about the existing knowledge related to that question.

  19. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • The first thing is therefore to provide an overview of important theoretical perspectives enabling the user to search consciously for one or more of these perspectives. • If this is not done then there is a strong probability that the user will only be presented with the dominating perspective (dominating in the information sources). • The dominating perspective is, perhaps, the “best” perspective, but it just as well be just a view reflecting a dominating interest in society.

  20. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • In the case with anxiety: Today (in the Western World) may the interests of the pharmacological industry influence the view that anxiety is best understood in chemical terms. Such a view tend to reduce psychological and social issues. It may not always be in the best interest of people with emotional problems. • Consider another example. In the dominant Western databases (such as Social Sciences Citation Index) are only journals from rich countries represented. Are they simply the best? Or are voices from developing countries being suppressed?

  21. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Narvaez-Berthelemot & Russell (2001), for example, demonstrates that social science journals from poor countries are not represented in our main databases. We thus seem to take an American-Eurocentric view as a norm when representing knowledge in social science databases (perhaps we use bibliometrical methods to select the journals and believe that this is an objective method, still however, people from developing countries may disagree). • It is complicated and difficult to find out whether what is selected is “the best” or what is of interest in the rich world. But our belief in such issues have important consequences!

  22. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Of course may not all kinds of questions be like these. In some cases there is high degree of consensus among researchers. Nonetheless, I suggest, that the most fruitful strategy for Information Science is to assume • that there is always different perspectives at play in relation to a given question • that such different perspectives may be connected to different social interests and • That such different perspectives are also often connected to different epistemologies (theories of knowledge).

  23. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Why do I believe this perspective is fruitful for Information Science? Why not do the opposite: Try to identify the most valid point of view and make this as visible as possible in information systems? • (In a way this is what is done in “intelligent systems”: Try to built the most valid knowledge into the system in order to make the system function like a human expert). • The first answer is: It is the task of libraries to help the critical user examine the basis of different knowledge claims. This is in my opinion the highest and most noble purpose of libraries.

  24. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Although critical users are seldom it is extremely important that they are able to examine things thoroughly. • The difference between mass media and libraries / documentation / Information Science may thus be that we should see our users as researchers rather than as consumers. Our systems and collections should primarily be designed to serve critical inquiry. • When I say “researcher” I do not mean just formally employed researchers. I mean everybody, including children, who cares to examine knowledge claims.

  25. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • The second answer is that this view provides us in Information Science with a specific strategy on how to “improve the quality of the question and the user experience“ Abram (2007) was not specific on how to do so. • The core part of this strategy is to look for different views, interests and epistemologies, explore their representation in the media and make them visible to the users. • I do not think that many other options exist: Perhaps this is the only way we can compete with systems like Googleand provide a future for our field!

  26. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • We should be very careful not to dismiss the few strategies, which may be possible for our field. • Perhaps my proposal is the only way forward? • (I would like to discuss this with anybody everywhere, and I think that it is important to strengthen the dialog in information science about our basic assumptions. Do not wait for others to solve the problems for you/us: Start yourself).

  27. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • The third answer is that this view provides a view on how knowledge is organized both intellectually and socially: • Knowledge is organized in theories (or “paradigms”) connected to different epistemologies and to different social interests. • Thus can this view open for specific empirical research concerning the organization of knowledge.

  28. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • In “The Epistemological Lifeboat” http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/ we try to document that in every field of knowledge exist a competition between different views related to different epistemologies. • It is interesting for me to trace how, for example, empiricism/positivism is one view which can be traced in almost any field, including biology, medicine, psychology and Information Science competing with other views such as historicism.

  29. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • This view of different epistemological theories influencing all fields of knowledge is connected to Volosinov (1929/1986)’s view about language: . • Any language as it is lived, socially, over a variety of social, professional, class and so forth positions, is really an interacting and at times contesting amalgam of different language uses. Hence every language instance is marked by centrifugal (heteroglossic, socially distinguishing) as well as centripetal (monoglossic, societally unifying) forces. • Each of these 'languages' embodies a distinct view of the world, its own sense of meanings, relations, intentions.

  30. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • I understand Volosinov as follows: • Each “theory”, each “voice” tend to develop its own language in order to facilitate its underlying intentions as effective as possible. Any sample of texts will always represent a merging of different voices, in which the stronger voices has made the highest impact. A pure voice may only exist as an abstraction. • In order to “retrieve information” should we try to identify the different voices because the merged information is an unclear mixture that cannot provide optimal retrieval. The user should know about the different voices and select the one that suit his or her interest.

  31. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Thus: Knowledge is organized in theories connected to deeper philosophical assumptions as well as to social interests. These theories may be regarded as “voices”, which are represented in languages, symbolic systems, genres, literatures and cultural products. • We may here have a highly fruitful theory of meaning and ”knowledge representation” very different from main stream theories in both Information Science and Cognitive Sciences and in many other fields.

  32. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • Different voices may be identified by combining philosophical, historical and bibliometric methods. • Different approaches tend to be linked bibliometrically because researcher tend to cite and cooperate with those who agree with them. (See Hjørland, 2002, for empirical evidence).

  33. Information Science & The Knowledge Society • I have now provided three answers why we should uncover different “paradigms” and not just “the dominant view” or “our own view of the truth”. • The fourth answer is that the traditional approaches in computer science, cognitive science and information science has been “positivist”: representing “objective”, “neutral” knowledge. This seems for me to have reached its limits. Further progress may depend on alternatives to positivism!

  34. Epistemologies • There exist many theories of knowledge (epistemologies). Introductions to many are provided in The Epistemological Lifeboat under the heading “Positions” • However, many of them may be regarded as related, as belonging to the same “family”. Thus, for example Marxist epistemology and Feminist epistemology, among other views may share the view that knowledge is not neutral, but connected to social interests. • In my understanding, there are four basic epistemological views: Empiricism, Rationalism, Historicism and Pragmatism.

  35. Epistemologies • Each of these views compete – more or less – in every domain of knowledge. • They represent theories of what kinds of knowledge should be preferred. Interestingly, nobody seems to have noticed this connection between theories of knowledge and theories of information.

  36. Simplified relevance criteria in four epistemological schools Empiricism Rationalism Historicism Pragmatism Relevant: Observations, sense-data. Induction from collections of observational data. Intersubjectively controlled data. Non-relevant: Speculations, knowledge transmitted from authorities. "Book knowledge" ("reading nature, not books"). Data about the observers' assumptions and pre-understanding. Relevant: Pure thinking, logic, mathematical models, computer modeling, systems of axioms, definitions and theorems. Low priority is given to empirical data because such data must be organized in accordance with principles which cannot come from experience. Relevant: Background knowledge about pre-understanding, theories, conceptions, contexts , historical developments and evolutionary perspectives. Low priority is given to decontextualized data of which the meanings cannot be interpreted. Intersubjectively controlled data are often seen as trivia. Relevant: Information about goals and values and consequences both involving the researcher and the object of research (subject and object). Low priority (or outright suspicion) is given to claimed value free or neutral information. For example, feminist epistemology is suspicious about the neutrality of information produced in a male dominated society.

  37. Epistemologies • Empiricism and rationalism were the “classical” theories of knowledge, and even today one often encounter people, who only consider these two views. • Empiricism and rationalism are problematic theories. They have very serious arguments against each other. Most people today agree that science is based on empirical study, but this is not the meaning of the term “empiricism”, which has been expressed as the myth of the “given” in human perception. • Different epistemologies must thus be understood as different ideals on how to do (empirical) studies. I believe that versions of “pragmatism” is the best theory with capability to subsume sense experiences and logical thinking under a broader view.

  38. Epistemologies • In spite of the view that empiricism and rationalism are problematic theories it is important to realize that they are active in almost all fields of knowledge. They are both seeing knowledge as neutral and objective – and thus disconnected to human interests and activities. • In information science, for example, the belief that a “similarity measure” in an objective and neutral way can provide means for retrieving information is in my opinion based on empiricism”. • From a pragmatic point of view it would be argued that there are many different similarity measures and that the choice between them have to consider the consequences of choosing one measure for another.

  39. Epistemologies • The pragmatic view is related to an evolutionary view. Knowledge is produced in iterative processes involving observations, rational analysis, theories, former experiences and pragmatic factors. All these elements interacts: Observations may be rejected by theory or theory by observations. There is no absolute basis for knowledge. Living organisms have adapted to their environments, and their sense organs and brains are parts of this adaptation, why sense impressions or intuitions cannot be seen in isolation from the overall pattern of activity. The same with science, just that the development of concepts, symbolic systems, tools etc. are also important.

  40. Epistemologies • Empiricism is a strong tendency in many fields in spite of its obvious weakness. Why? Because many researchers prefer not to be too much involved with theoretical issues. When theoretical issues become complicated there is a strong motivation to avoid theoretical issues and to focus on “data” or “facts”. • The main cost is, however, that the provided “knowledge” is not neutral or theory-independent but just seems to be so. Because the data tend to reflect the most powerful influence, empiricism tends to reproduce this influence.

  41. Epistemologies • This view is also expressed in relation to systems like UDC, DDC and Bliss, which may all be criticized for their “universalist” assumptions: • “While unitary documentary languages ensure a maximum of mutual understanding [. . .], they do so by legitimizing a particular ideological and sociopolitical worldview, and by silencing other meanings, voices, and ways of knowing [. . .]. Unitary documentary languages embody a belief in the existence of a unified body of knowledge. They express a belief in the possibility to capture reality isomorphically in “information,” and presuppose a neutral ground from which to judge the truth-value of different theories.” • (Tuominen; Talja & Savolainen, 2003).

  42. Epistemologies • Epistemology is not well understood or well considered in Information Science. Instead is often spoken about “users” and their psychology. I believe that psychology and epistemology is often confused. • Peoples behaviour is influenced by their views, why epistemology might help explaining psychology, why psychology need to be epistemologized. • Often however, is epistemology psychologized: Peoples behaviour is studied in order to under stand “subjectivity”. This is, I believe, a major weakness in both Information Science and in Cognitive Science.

  43. How to describe informative objects • Olson (2002)’s book has the title ”The Power to Name”. • It reflects the understanding that the way we name things may influence how we perceive them and also their irretrievability for specific queries. • Naming and description of books and other kinds of “informative objects” are important in theory and practice of information science. The field has a long tradition of constructing and using “controlled vocabularies”. What are the epistemological problems involved?

  44. How to describe informative objects • Any controlled vocabulary represents a ‘prescriptive’ or ‘normative’ KOS. • [Positivist view] • Normative vocabularies represent “neutral”, “objective” solutions, that simply provide more efficient information systems. • [Pragmatic view] • Any controlled vocabulary tends to favour some kinds of queries, while relatively making other kinds of queries more difficult to answer.

  45. How to describe informative objects • This understanding also applies to systems such as Google and systems based on “relevance feedback”! • A search engine will always favor some kinds of questions and answers and relatively disfavor some kinds of interests and values. A core concern in, for example, Danish public libraries, should thus be: From our perspective, which kinds of questions and answers should have priority? A search engine – or any kind of KOS – should support the goals, values and interests of the system for which they are designed. This is not just a question of technical efficiency.

  46. How to describe informative objects • Let us consider a simple example of what a controlled vocabulary typically does: • Mills & Ball (2007) mention that the concept of “arts” is ambiguous, it is used both about visual arts (or just paintings), or it used broadly about visual art, music, literature. • A book titled “French art” could be just about paintings, or it could include music and literature as well. In order to make it possible to search separately for both kinds of books, the BC2 have different classes for each of these meanings of the term “arts”.

  47. How to describe informative objects • Apparently this is simple a neutral logical improvement and this example tends to justify what we termed “the positivist view”: That a controlled vocabulary simply improves retrievability in a neutral way. • The pragmatic view has to demonstrate that such kinds of logical improvements are not always desirable, that some queries benefit from them, but other kinds of queries may suffer, and that it is necessary in the design of controlled vocabularies to consider what kind of queries the systems should give priority to.

  48. How to describe informative objects • One may argue that the meaning of the word “art” is connected to theoretical views of art, which also implies cues on how to retrieve the literature that is relevant from a certain theoretical perspective: Semantic relations are theory-dependent. In the words of Fast; Leise & Steckel (2002): • “A controlled vocabulary is a way to insert an interpretive layer of semantics between the term entered by the user and the underlying database to better represent the original intention of the terms of the user”

  49. How to describe informative objects • The question then is: From what perspective, with what kinds of justification, do LIS-professionals provide such an interpretative layer? • One part of the answer might be that different groups use the word “art” in different ways. When literatures produced by those groups are merged, the words become homonymous. • The information specialist, with an overview of these mixed meanings is in a position to make them univocal.

  50. How to describe informative objects • Another part of the answer might be that the pragmatic understanding seeks the meaning of words not in the past, but in the future, what can be accomplished by the speaker by preferring one meaning for another. • Any library or database is a part of an organization with a given purpose (whether explicated or not) and this purpose is the key to the justification of such an interpretative layer as done by controlled vocabularies.

More Related