Information Science (IS)
"Information Science" (IS) is a label for a discipline that is often used synonymous with "Information Studies", "Library and Information Science" (LIS), "Documentation", and "Informatics" and more or less mixed up with other labels such as "Bibliography",  "Computer science", "Information technology" (IT) and "Library Science". Attempts to differentiate these terms have mostly been based on idiosyncratic views without broad consensus.  

 

"Called bibliography, documentation, and scientific information during the first five decades of the twentieth century, the field became known as information science in the early 1960s." (Kline, 2004).

 

One of the most influential organizations of IS is the American Society for Information Science & Technology which prior to 2000 did not incorporate "technology" in its name and prior to 1968 was termed American Documentation Institute. This development in the name of a leading organization reflects some connections between some of the different disciplinary labels mentioned above. 

 

Sometimes the plural "information sciences" is used, which make the meaning of the term IS even more complex. Often the same sources uses the singular and the plural form without clarifying the difference. This is, for example, the case with the journal "information sciences". Machlup and Mansfield (1983) suggested that one should speak about "the information sciences", similar to the way one speaks of the social sciences. How many information sciences do we have? (If any).

 

One way of approaching the problem of defining IS is by considering the concept information and by considering theories of information such as "information theory". Much effort has been used to approach the definition of IS from these two perspectives, and the literature written on this assumption is overwhelming. Overall, this approach to determine the meaning of "information science" may be considered a failure. The reason is that a specific theoretical and conceptual understanding such as Shannon's information theory may be useful in some contexts (e.g. in computer science) but may turn out to be a problematic theoretical framework for the kinds of work done in library science, documentation, bibliometrics and related fields. In these fields are quite different theoretical frameworks needed, frameworks, that are more related to the communication of meaning, to semiotics, to the sociology of knowledge and so on. In other words: terms and theories are constructed to help to do a task. You have to select and define concepts and construe theories in order to solve a problem, not vice versa. IS thus cannot be defined from considering the meaning of the term "information" or by considering "theories of information".

 

The following definition comes close to be an "official" definition of the American Society for Information Science, formulated when it changed its name from "documentation" to "information science":

 

"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).

 

This definition was criticized by Capurro & Hjørland (2003):

 

"In our view, this definition does not contain a good identification of the special focus of information science. No science should be defined by its tools (e.g. modern technologies). All fields are supposed to utilize the most appropriate tools available. A science should be defined by its object of study. As such, the study of information is a better one. We need, however, to identify the specific role of information science in relation to “the generation, collection, organization, interpretation, storage, retrieval, dissemination, transformation and use of information” as distinct from the activities in which other professionals are more qualified. In our view, information professionals usually have a broad overview of information sources, sociological patterns in knowledge production, documents types, and so on. They should also have a broader knowledge of the philosophy of science (e.g., paradigms and epistemology), and of the principles of languages use for special purposes. We believe that the focus of information professionals (as distinct from the professional groups they are serving) implies a sociological and epistemological approach to “the generation, collection, organization, interpretation, storage, retrieval, dissemination, transformation and use of information" (See footnote 9).  Information scientists – by the nature of the field – must work in a top-down mode from the general field of knowledge and information sources to the specific, while domain experts must work in a bottom-up mode, from the specific to the general." (Capurro & Hjørland, 2003, p. 389).

 

Many books and papers have been discussing the identity problem of information science, for example, Debons (1974). Michael Buckland writes about introductions to IS:

 

 "One might have thought that, for so important a field, a general introduction would be easily written and redundant. This is not the case. Each different type of information system (online databases, libraries, etc.) has a massive and largely separate literature. Attention is almost always limited to one type of information system, is restricted by technology, usually to computer-based information systems, or is focused on one function, such as retrieval, disregarding the broader context. What is published is overwhelmingly specialized, technical, "how-to" writing with localized terminology and definitions. Writings on theory are usually very narrowly focused on logic, probability, and physical signals. This diversity has been compounded by confusion arising from inadequate recognition that the word information is used by different people to denote different things". (Buckland, 1991, p. xiii).

 

One way to consider the contents of information science is to consider the special interest groups (SIGs) in American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T). In 1995, for example, existed 20 such SIGs:

 

 

"The institutionalization of information science as a discrete discipline thus has not occurred, and the number of its scientist-practitioners is low. Computer science and engineering tend to absorb the theory- and technology-oriented subjects of the field, and management science tends to absorb the information systems subjects. Hundreds of professional associations do exist that are concerned with information-related disciplines, providing a forum where people can exchange ideas about information processing. " (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007)
 

 


Literature:

 

Blair, D. C. (1990). Language and Representation in Information Retrieval. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
 

Borko, H. (1968). Information science: What is it? American Documentation, 19(1), 3-5.
 

Boyce, B. R. & Kraft, D. D. (1985). Principles and theories in Information Science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 20, 153-178.
 

Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information and Information Systems. New York: Greenwood.

 

Buckland, M. K. (1999). The Landscape of Information Science: The American Society for Information Science at 62. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 970-974.

 

Capurro, R. & Hjørland, B. (2003). The Concept of Information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol.37, Chapter 8, pp. 343-411. Available at:
http://www.capurro.de/infoconcept.html
 

Debons, A. (Ed.). (1974). Information Science - Search for Identity. New York: Marcel Dekker.
 

Debons, A.; Horne, E. & Cronenweth, S. (1988). Information Science: An integrated View. Boston: G. K. Hall.
 

Döhl, B. (Ed.). (1991). EDB-LEX. Det store informatik-leksikon. København: Teknisk Forlag.

 

Elias, A. W. (Ed.). (1971). Key Papers in Information Science. Philadelphia, The American Society for Information Science.

 
Encyclopædia Britannica  (2007). Information science. (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica. (Article not signed).


Engelbert, H. (1973). Bevor wir eine "Informationswissenschaft" entwicklen können, müssen wir die Informationswissenschaften aufbauen! Informatik, 20(1), 51-55.
 

Giesecke, H. (1981). Indføring i pædagogik. Kbh.: Nyt Nordisk Forlag.

 

Griffith, B. C. (1980). Key Papers in Information Science. New York: Knowledge Industry Publications.
 

Heilprin, L. B. (1989). Foundations for Information Science Reexamined. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24, 343-372.
 

Hjørland, B. & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Towards a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain Analysis. Journal of The American Society for Information Science, 400-425.

 

Kline, R. L. (2004). What Is Information Theory a Theory Of?  Boundary Work among Information Theorists and Information Scientists in the United States and Britain during the Cold War. IN: The History and Heritage of Scientific and Technical Information Systems: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference, Chemical Heritage Foundation, eds., W. Boyd Rayward and Mary Ellen Bowden. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 15-28. http://www.chemheritage.org/events/asist2002/01-kline.pdf

 

Leupolt, M. (1972). Zum Gegenstand und Wesen der Informationswissenschaft. Informatik, 19(5), 7-9.

 

Lipetz, B.-A. (2005). Defining what Information Science is or should be: A survey and review of a half-century of published pronouncements. Chapter 14 (=pp 187-197) IN: Covert and Overt: Recollecting and Connecting Intelligence Service and Information Science, ed. by Robert V. Williams & Ben-Ami Lipetz. Medford, NJ : Information Today. Table of contents: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0518/2005023901.html

 

Machlup, F. & Mansfield, U. (1983). Prologue: cultural diversity in studies of information. In F. Machlup & U. Mansfield (Eds.) The study of information: interdisciplinary messages. New York: John Wiley.

 

Newell, A. (1983). Reflections on the structure of an interdiscipline. In Machlup, F. & U. Mansfield (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 99-110). NY: John Wiley & Sons. 

Qvortrup, L. (1990). Information - substans eller tegn? - om informationsvidenskabens paradigmer. IN: Computer-Kultur, Computer-Medier, Computer-Semiotik. Red. af Jens F. Jensen. Nordisk Sommeruniversitet, 52-63.

 

Raber, D. (2003). The Problem of Information: An Introduction to Information Science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

 

Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1051-1063.
 

Vickery, B. & Vickery, A. (1987). Information Science in Theory and Practice. London: Bowker-Saur. (3rd edition 2004).

 

Ørom, A. (2000). “Information Science, historical changes and social aspects: a Nordic outlook”.  Journal of Documentation, 56(1), 12-26.

 

Journals:

 

Information Sciences. Informatics and Computer Science Intelligent Systems Applications
An International Journal. Elsevier, 1969- .


 

See also:Computer science; Documentation; Informatics; Information technology (IT); Library Science; Library and Information Science;

 

 

 

 

 

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 16-06-2007

Home

 

 

 

 

 

to be edited:

Kernen i informationsvidenskaben, de problemer, der har en tilstrækkelig specificitet og generalitet til at udgøre et forskningsområde, er knyttet til forsøg på at videnskabeliggøre problemer omkring informationssøgning, informationsgenfinding, vidensrepræsentation i databaser etc. Alle disse problemer kan siges at være underordnet eet problem: informationssøgningens almene teori. Man kan også sige, at informationsvidenskaben repræsenterer et forsøg på at etablere et forskningsmæssigt grundlag for BDI-aktiviteter, specielt når disse i de elektroniske medier når en tilstrækkelig grad af abstraktion fra konkrete praktiske bindinger.

Begrebet informationsvidenskab anvendes med en noget forskellig betydning i forskellige fagmiljøer. Der er således tendens til at opfatte begrebet som knyttet til informationsteknologiske problemer i de tekniske fag og som en samfundsvidenskab eller et tværfagligt humanistisk/samfundsvidenskabeligt område i disse fagområder. Der kan også være en tendens til at opfatte informationsvidenskab (nogle gange kaldet *informatik) som en metavidenskab. Således beskæftiger den danske jurist Peter Blume sig meget med juridisk informatik/infor­mationsvidenskab.

EDB-LEX (1991, 253-254) siger: "Informationsvidenskab. Uddannelse i informations­videnskab er en 4-årig videregående humanistisk uddannelse. Formålet med uddannelsen er at kvalificere den studerende til at deltage konstruktivt og kritisk i den edb-teknologiske udvikling ud fra et tværfagligt grundlag.

Uddannelsen, der gennemføres som fuldtidsstudium, består af en 2-årig grunduddannelse og en 2-årig overbygningsuddannelse. Grunduddannelsen består af fagene: sprog og æstetik, datalogi, teknologi­historie og systemudvikling/design, mens overbygningen består af et kursus i videnskabsteo­ri, fem valgfri emner samt et speciale.

Uddannelsen, der tidligere hed humanistisk datalogi, udbydes af Århus Universitet. Se endvidere artikel om EDB-UDDANNELSER".

Indenfor *BDI-området udgør informationsvidenskaben en teoretisk disciplin, der beskæftiger sig med *information retrieval, *dokumen­trepræsentation, *emne­­data­pro­ble­mer m.v. Man kan sige, at BDI-sektorens teoretiske grundlag/overbygning især udgøres af to komplek­ser af fag: Informations­videnskaben og kulturformidlings­fagene. Een måde at gribe infor­mations­videnskaben an på er at lede efter teoretiske principper og -grundlag for de praktiske BDI-processer: *informationssøgning, *dokumentrepræsentation, *referencearbejde, *selektion, *formidling etc.


Hvorvidt informationsvidenskaben udgør en selvstændig videnskab eller som Giesecke (1981) siger om pædagogikken: en "aporetisk videnskab", d.v.s. en videnskab hvis genstandsområde er tværfagligt, er ikke så afgørende som selve det forhold, at der eksisterer nogle vigtige problemer omkring informations­søgning, vidensrepræsentation etc.




Et eksempel på en lærebog i faget er Vickery og Vickery (1987), der en overgang blev anvendt som grundbog på Overbygningsuddannelsen i informationsvidenskab på Danmarks Biblioteksskole. Selvom den naturligvis medtager helt centrale emner, er dens overordnede forståelsesform problematisk og faget har en tendens til at forsvinde i luften. Den skriver om løst og fast, men kan f.eks. ikke afgrænse sig selv overfor kommunikationsforskning. Bogen forekommer mere at være en samling udklip til en "skrap-bog" end en systematisk fremstilling. En mere tilfredsstillende forsøg på at opstille informationsvidenskabens problemstilling teoretisk udgør f.eks. Blair (1990), hvormed ikke været sagt, at denne bog ikke indeholder alvorlige flovser.

Nærværende informationsvidenskabelige grundbegreber udgør naturligvis denne forfatteres bud på, hvad der er informationsvidenskabens grundbegreber, deres nuværende stade og uløste problemer. Klyngeregistret udgør et forsøg forsøg på at give en strukturmodel over faget. Men naturligvis må der samtidig arbejdes på en systematisk fremstilling af informationsvidenskaben: de to ting er gensidigt nødvendige.

Nærværende forfatter arbejder på en "domæneteoretisk", sociologisk-videnskabsteoretisk opfattelse af informationsvidenskaben (Jfr. Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995). Fagets nuværende problemer bl.a. hænger sammen med en manglende videnskabs­teoretisk tilgang til faget. Allerede fokusering på informationsbegrebet i en teknologisk betydning og en negligering af vidensbegrebet peger på dette. Så snart man graver sig ned i et informationsvidenskabeligt problem (forældelse, videns­repræsentation, dokumen­ter, informationssøgning etc.) så støder man på videnskabs­teoretiske problemer. Man kan også omvendt sige, at den hidtidige forskning har været baserert på en meget ureflekteret og positivistisk præget opfattelse af hvad viden og information er, og af meget simplificerede, mekaniske opfattelser af, hvordan man f.eks. kan opbygge informations­­systemer. Disse opfattelser er nærmest i diamentral modstrid med et humanistisk-samfundsvidenskabeligt verdensbillede. Man skal ikke herved tro, at det blot er et spørgsmål, om informationsvidenskabens domæne er naturvidenskabelig eller humanistisk informatik: at en positivistisk videnskabs­op­fattelse er rigtig for naturvidenskaben. Hvis denne diagnose er rigtig - det er denne forfatters arbejds­hypotese - da er den mest påtrængende opgave at få set på alle informations­videnskabens begreber, teorier, anvendte problemer og målsætninger udfra mere generelle humanistiske og samfundsvidenskabelige synsvinkler. Målsætningen er dog stadigvæk den samme: at optimere vidensfor­midling og -udnyttelse, herunder ved anvendelse af moderne informationsteknologi (hvilket mere og mere er et selvfølgeligt udgangspunkt).

 

Williams, R. V.(2001). History of Information Science and Technology

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/istindex.htm