Information

"It is said that we live in an "Age of Information," but it is an open scandal that there is no
theory, nor even definition, of information that is both broad and precise enough to make such
an assertion meaningful" (Goguen, 1997)

Qvortrup (1993) provides an overview of the controversy over the concept of information and writes:

"Thus, actually two conflicting metaphors are being used: The well-known metaphor of information as a quantity, like water in the water-pipe, is at work [see also conduit metaphor], but so is a second metaphor, that of information as a choice, a choice made by an information provider, and a forced choice made by an information receiver. Actually, the second metaphor implies that the information sent isn't necessarily equal to the information received, because any choice implies a comparison with a list of possibilities, i.e. a list of possible meanings. Here, meaning is involved, thus spoiling the idea of information as a pure "Ding an sich". Thus, much of the confusion regarding the concept of information seems to be related to the basic confusion of metaphors in Shannon's theory [see also information theory]: is information an autonomous quantity, or is information always per se information to an observer? Actually, I don't think that Shannon himself chose one of the two definitions. Logically speaking, his theory implied information as a subjective phenomenon. But this had so wide-ranging epistemological impacts that Shannon didn't seem to fully realize this logical fact. Consequently, he continued to use metaphors about information as if it were an objective substance. This is the basic, inherent contradiction in Shannon's information theory. "  (Qvortrup, 1993, p. 5).

Buckland  (1991) analyses the concept of information. The word information can be used about things, about processes and about knowledge:  

According to Buckland can things be informative. A stump of a tree contains information about its age on its rings - as well as information about the climate during the lifetime of the tree. In similar ways, everything can be informative: "We conclude that we are unable to say confidently of anything that it could not be information" (Buckland, 1991, p. 50. Underlining in original).

But if everything is information, then the concept of information is all-embracive. If the concept of information has no limits, it becomes too vague and useless. What kind of advise can that concept provide with regard to what to represent in information systems?

For a thing to be informative means that the thing may answer a question for somebody. The informativeness is thus a relation between the question and the thing. No thing is inherently informative. To consider something as information is thus always to consider it as informative in relation to some possible questions.  We do not always realize this, because it is mostly implied. It is implied, for example, that a paper about a disease may help answering questions about that disease. It is less obvious, however, that a  meteorite from outer space may answer questions about the origin of life. A good deal of scientific knowledge is needed to understand why this is the case (and a claim about the informativeness of something is theory-dependent and may turn out to be wrong). In the wider sense is background knowledge always important to establish the informativeness of any object (including documents and texts).

Buckland (1991, p. 50) finds, that "It follows from this that the capability of being informative, the essential characteristic of information-as-thing, must also be situational".

Hjørland used this view as point of departure:

"The domain analytic view develop this view further: users should be seen as individuals in concrete situations in social organizations and domains of knowledge. A stone on a field could contain different information for different people (or from one situation to another). It is not possible for information systems to map all the stone's possible information for every individual. But people have different educational backgrounds and play different roles in the division of labor in society. A stone in a field represents typical one kind of information for the geologist, an other for the archeologist. The information from the stone can be mapped into different collective knowledge structures produced by e.g. geology and archaeology. Information can be identified, described, represented in information systems for different domains of knowledge. Of course, there are much uncertainty and many and difficult problems in determining whether a thing is informative or not for a domain. Some domains have high degree of consensus and rather explicit criteria of relevance. Other domains have different, conflicting paradigms, each containing it own more or less implicate view of the informativeness of different kinds of information sources.

    Conclusion: The analysis of the concept of information made above implies that informational objects should not only be analyzed and described according to an objectivistic epistemology. It is not sufficient to describe information according to universalistic principles, as permanent, inherent characteristics of knowledge. Instead, information must be analyzed, described and represented in information systems according to situational, pragmatic and domain-specific criteria." (Hjørland, 1997, p. 111).

A similar theoretical position was independently developed by Goguen: 

"An item of information is an interpretation of a configuration of signs for which members of some social group are accountable." (Goguen, 1997). He continues:
 

"That information is tied to a particular, concrete situation and a particular social group has some important consequences, summarized in the following list of qualities of information:

1. Situated. Information can only be fully understood in relation to the particular, concrete situation in which it actually occurs.

2. Local. Interpretations are constructed in some particular context, including a particular time, place and group.

3. Emergent. Information cannot be understood at the level of the individual, that is, at the cognitive level of individual psychology, because it arises through ongoing interactions among members of a group.

4. Contingent. The interpretation of information depends on the current situation, which may include the current interpretation of prior events [note: Of course, an "event" is what some group counts as an event]. In particular, interpretations are subject to negotiation, and relevant rules are interpreted locally, and can even be modified locally.

5. Embodied. Information is tied to bodies in particular physical situations, so that the particular way that bodies are embedded in a situation may be essential to some interpretations.

6. Vague. In practice, information is only elaborated to the degree that it is useful to do so; the rest is left grounded in tacit knowledge.

7. Open. Information (for both participants and analysts) cannot in general be given a final and complete form, but must remain open to revision in the light of further analyses and further events. (At the analyst level, one may say "all theories leak.")" (Goguen, 1997).

Why has the theoretical point of view outlined above had serious difficulties gaining ground both in Library and Information Science (LIS) and in interdisciplinary contexts? It may be because it is a frustrating way understanding for many people, and that other ways of using the term "information", for example, as BITs (cf., "information theory") has had a much stronger appeal. However, while the concept of "bits" may allow us to measure the capacity of a floppy disc or a hard-disk, it is useless in relation to tasks such as indexing, collection management, bibliometrics and so on. For such purposes must the meaning of the signs be involved, why a kind of semiotic theory is a much better theoretical frame of reference compared to "information theory". An objectivist and universalistic theory of "information" has a much stronger appeal than theoretical views that makes information, meaning and decisions context-dependent. However, the costs of searching in the wrong places have been high because the superficial considering of the nature of information have left us without a proper theoretical foundation, which is a very serious situation for academic fields. 

UNISIST (1971) finds that the concept of information is synonymous with the concept of document:

"Information (scientific and technical): the symbolic elements used for communication scientific and technical "knowledge", irrespective of their nature (numerical, textual, iconic, etc.), material carriers, form of presentation, etc. The word "information", in this report, is not differentiated from "documentation"; it refers both to the substance, or content of scientific documents, and to their physical existence. A distinction is however made between "information" expressed in natural or indexing languages, and the raw "data" of science, recorded in numerical or otherwise quantified form (q.v.)

In the beginning of the 20th century became the concept of information atomized, i.e. it came to mean pieces of knowledge or independent messages. For example writes the sociologist Merton:

"Knowledge implies a body of facts or ideas, whereas information carries no such implication of systematically connected facts or ideas" (Merton, 1968, p. 495).

In a semiotic encyclopedia has information been defined the following way:

"In modern semiotics the word information has two meanings. The first is the common language acceptance: a message containing novelty. In the second, technical sense, it is the measurement of the quantity of novelty conveyed by a message..." (Moles, 1994, p. 349)

Within information technology (IT) in particular as well as in fields inspired by IT has the concept of information been influenced by Shannon & Weaver's information theory from 1949, which made the measure BIT possible. A derivate definition is:

"In automatic data processing the meaning that a human assigns to data by means of the known conventions used in its representation.
Note: The term has a sense wider than that of ordinary information theory and nearer to that of common usage". IFIP-ICC Vocabulary (1968).

Spang-Hanssen (1974, p. 49) demands three criteria fulfilled in order to term the content of a document "information": When a specific user is in mind, the content must be:

1. Understandable for that person;

2. Be relevant for that person [i.e. non-relevant information is a contradiction in terms]

3. Provide something new for that person.

A review and an interpretation of modern theories of information is Nørretranders (1991, 1993, 1999). Shannon's theory is explained by the reading process: there are 29 letters in the Danish alphabet. When we read a text in Danish are there thus 29 possible signs for each position. The receiver of a certain letter has thus a theoretical surprise value of about 5 BITs, but due to the reduncancy of the Danish language is it in reality 2 BITs (in German 1,3 BITs per letter). The amount of information is thus not about what is said, but rather about what could theoretically be transferred. Nørretranders also writes (1991, p. 599) that Shannon's amount of information can only be determined when it is known what common conditions the source and the receiver implicit use. [in which code the communication takes place].

Nørretranders (1993, p. 147) writes: "It is easy to see how much information is in a newspaper. It is just to count the number of letters" (sic!). Nørretranders also introduces the concept of exformation. If journalists have read much information in order to write a short notice, they have thrown much information away in order to save the time of the users.

Bitrate is the capacity of a channel to transmit information measured as "bit per second" ("bit/s"). A phone may transmit 4 KB/s [KB = 1.000 bit], a radio 16KB/s and a television 4.000KB/s. Nørretranders finds that human beings (and in particular consciousness) has a very limited bitrate. The eye has a bitrate of about 40 bit/s, the ear 30, the skin 5, tast and smell each 1. The conscious experience is perhaps about 10-30 bit/s.

Literature:

Andersen, A. (1996). Referencearbejde og dokumentation. P. 57 IN: Wahlstrøm Larsen, C. (Ed.): Rushåndbogen 1996. København: Danmarks Biblioteksskole.
 

Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Paladin.
 

Belkin, N. J. (1975). Some Soviet Concepts of Information for Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(1), 56-64.
 

Belkin, N. J. (1978). Information Concepts for Information Science. Journal of Documentation, 34(1), 55-85.
 

Brier, S. (1992). Masser af information uden betydning. En diskussion af informationsteorien i Tor Nørretranders "Mærk Verden" og en skitse til et alternativ baseret på anden ordens kybernetik og semiotik. Tekster fra IMFUFA Roskilde Universitetscenter; nr. 229.

Buckland, M. (1991). Information and information systems. New York: Greenwood Press.
 

Capurro, R. (1992). What is information science for? A philosophical reflection. IN: Conceptions of Library and information science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. London: Taylor Graham, pp. 82-96.

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
 

Day, Ronald E. (2001). The Modern Invention of Information: Discourse, History, and Power." Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 

Ekecrants, J. (1975). Makten och Informationen. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Finnemann, N. O. (1994). Tanke, sprog & maskine. En teoretisk analyse af computerens symbolske egenskaber. København: Akademisk Forlag.
 

Fox, C. J. (1983). Information and misinformation. An Investigation of the Notions of Information, Misinformation, Informing, and misinforming. London: Greenwood Press.

Furner, J. (2004). Information studies without information. Library Trends, 52(3), 427-446.
 

Goguen, J. A. (1997). Towards a Social, Ethical Theory of Information. IN: Social Science Research, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide, edited by Geoffrey Bowker, Les Gasser, Leigh Star and William Turner, Erlbaum, 1997, 27-56. Available at: http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/~goguen/ps/sti.pdf

Hjørland, B. (1997): Information Seeking and Subject Representation. An Activity-theoretical approach to Information Science. Westport & London: Greenwood Press. 

Hjørland, B. (2000). Documents, Memory Institutions, and Information Science. Journal of Documentation, vol. 56(1), 27-41.

Hjørland, B. (2002). Principia Informatica. Foundational Theory of Information and Principles of Information Services. IN: Emerging Frameworks and Methods. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4). Ed. By Harry Bruce, Raya Fidel, Peter Ingwersen, and Pertti Vakkari. Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA: Libraries Unlimited. (Pp. 109-121). Manus available at: http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/articles%20a-z/principia_informatica.htm

Hjørland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective/situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456.

Hoffmeyer, J. (1993). En snegl på vejen. Betydningens naturhistorie. København: Omverden/Rosinante/Munksgaard.  (Informationsbegrebet side 91-98).
 

Hull Kristensen, P. (1985). Samfundets information og informationssamfundet. IN: Informationssamfundet. Bidrag til forståelsen af information, individ og samfund. Redigeret af Thomas Söderqvist. Århus: Forlaget Philosophia).

IFIP-ICC Vocabulary (1968) of Information Processing.­ 1. ed. 3.printing. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co.
 

Informationsordbogen. Ordbog for informationshåndtering, bog og bibliotek. 2. udg. Udarbejdet af J.B.Friis-Hansen, Torben Høst, Poul Steen Larsen & Henning Spang-Hanssen. [Hellerup]: Dansk Stardiseringsråd, 1991. 
 

Ingwersen, P. (1991). Intermediary Functions in Information Retrieval Interaction. Ph.d. thesis. København: Handelshøjskolen, Det økonomiske Fakultet, Institut for Informatik og Økonomistyring. 
 

Losee, R. M. (1997). A discipline independent definition of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(3), 254-269. http://www.ils.unc.edu/~losee/book5.pdf

Machlup, F. (1983). Semantic quirks in studies of information. IN: The Study of Information. Interdisciplinary Messages. Ed. by Fritz Machlup & Una Mansfield. New York: John Wiley, pp. 641-671).
 

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
 

Moles, A. (1994). Information Theory. Pp. 349-351, Tome 1 IN: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. 2. ed. Ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tome 1-3.
 

Nørretranders, T. (1991/1993): Mærk verden. En beretning om bevidsthed. København: Gyldendal. (Billigbogsudgave 1993). [Debat: Thrysøe & Fogh Kirkeby, 1992]

Nørretranders, T. (1999): The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. New York: Penguin.
 

Peters, J. D. (1988). Information: Notes toward a critical history. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 12(2), 9-23.

Qvortrup, L. (1993). The controversy over the concept of information. An overview and a selected and annotated bibliography. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 1(4), 3-24.

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

Raber, D. & Budd, J. M. (2003). Information as sign: semiotics and information science. Journal of Documentation, 59(5), 507-522. 

Rapoport, A. (1953). What Is Information? ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 10(4), 247-260.
 

Rapoport, A. (1956). The Promise and Pitfalls of Information Theory. Behavioral Science, vol. 1, 303-309.
 

Spang-Hanssen, H. (2001). How to teach about information as related to documentation. Human IT, (1), 125-143. http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/1-01/hsh.htm
 

Spang-Hanssen, H. (1974). Kunnskapsorganisasjon, informasjonsgjenfinning, automatisering og språk. IN: Kunnskapsorganisasjon og informationsgjenfinning. Seminar arrangeret 3.-7. december 1973 i samarbejd mellom Norsk hovedkomité for klassifikasjon, Statens Biblioteksskole og Norsk Dokumentasjonsgruppe. Side 11-61. Oslo. (Skrifter fra Riksbibliotektjenesten, Nr. 2);
 

Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College and Research Libraries, 29, 178-194.

Thrysøe, Willy & Fogh Kirkeby, O. (ed.). (1992). Krop, intuition og bevidsthed. [En debatbog om Nørretranders' Mærk verden]. Tiderne skifter.
 

Wersig, G. (1971). Information, Kommunikation, Dokumentation. München-Berlin. 
 

Wersig, G. (1973). Informationssoziologie. Hinweise zu einem informationswissenschaftlichen Teilbereich. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, c1973. 

Yuexiao, Z. (1988). Definitions and Sciences of information. Information Processing and Management, 24(3), 479-491.
 

UNISIST (1971). Study Report on the feasibility of a World Science Information System. By the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions. Paris, UNESCO.

Ørom, A. (2007). The concept of information versus the concept of document. IN: Document (re)turn. Contributions from a research field in transition. Ed. By Roswitha Skare, Niels Windfeld Lund & Andreas Vårheim. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.  (Pp. 53-72).

See also: Data;  Document; Information (Epistemological Lifeboat), Information theory; Information structures;  Knowledge.

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 14-02-2008

Home

material to be edited:

Information anvendes oftere og oftere i betydningen informationskilder eller dokumenter, d.v.s. som en ting. Når man f.eks. taler om "informationspolitik" menes ofte en politik vedrørende *publikationer eller *dokumenter. Analyse af information-som-ting, information-som-viden og information-som-proces er foretaget af Buckland (1991), sådan som den fremgår af nedenstående figur

Almindeligvis skelner man imellem informationer i ting (f.eks. sten eller planter) og information i menneskelige meddelser, herunder dokumenter. Nogle forfattere er tilbøjelige til at afgrænse informationsvidenskabens informations­begreb til det sidst­nævnte, hvilket imidlertid rejser et problem. Taylor (1968) diskuterer således, hvorvidt forskere anvender den ene fremfor den anden informationskilde. Fore­trækker forskerne f.eks. at gå på biblioteket eller lave et nyt eksperiment selv? En sådan problem­stilling forudsætter, at man ikke på forhånd har afgrænset informationsbegrebet til kun at omfatte menneskelige meddelser.

 Ekecrantz (1975, side 33-34) forlanger således, at informationen skal virke bevidstgørende og øge modtagerens magt over hans omgivelser. I et emne­område som f.eks. trafiksikkerhed vil han ikke acceptere budskaber på individniveau, der f.eks. giver op­lys­ning om sikkerhedsseler o.lign. som information. Kun såfremt brugeren bringes til at indse at trafik­for­holdene har sammenhæng med overproduktion af privatbiler og til at indse de økonomiske love for denne overproduktion, vil Ekecrantz mene at modtageren er informeret. D.v.s. at Ekecrantz er enig med Spang-Hanssen i at et budskab skal være relevant for en modtager, for at det kan kaldes infor­mation, og at han samtidig mener at der skal opstilles samfundsmæssige kriterier for, hvad der er rele­vant. For Ekecrantz betyder relevans ikke blot en subjektiv oplevelse af at noget er ved­kommende, men en faktisk, objektiv forbedring af individets handlemuligheder. Propaganda og mis­information kan således aldrig være information, uanset hvordan brugeren subjek­tivt op­fatter det. Det vil sige, at i eksempler med samfundsin­formation skal informations­begrebet "fyldes op" med en sociolo­gisk teori, i tilfælde af videnskabelig information, er det enkeltvidenskabernes, erkendelse­s­teoriens og viden­skabs­teoriens kriterier, der skal lægges til grund.

UNISIST (1971) finds that the concept of information is synonymous with the concept of document:

"Information (scientific and technical): the symbolic elements used for communication scientific and technical "knowledge", irrespective of their nature (numerical, textual, iconic, etc.), material carriers, form of presentation, etc. The word "information", in this report, is not differentiated from "documentation"; it refers both to the substance, or content of scientific documents, and to their physical existence. A distinction is however made between "information" expressed in natural or indexing languages, and the raw "data" of science, recorded in numerical or otherwise quantified form (q.v.)

Denne sprogbrug er ved at blive udbredt. Eksempelvis definerer Informationsordbogen (DS/INF 27; 1991): "Information. Nedfældet eller formidlet viden". Også megen tale om informationspolitik m.v. handler i realiteten ikke om information, men om dokumenter, der har informative potentialer.

Vi finder ikke, at det er frugtbart at sammenblande dokumenter med information. Dokumenter er bærere af (potentiel) information, de repræsenterer information (for nogen).

For en bibliotekar kan det ofte være en fristelse at opfatte f.eks. en omfattende bibliografi som indeholdende mere informa­tion om et givent emne end f.eks. en almindelig bog uden littera­turhen­visninger. Dette er efter vor opfattelse i de fleste til­fælde en fejlagtig opfattelse, ikke blot teoretisk af informa­tions­begrebet, men også praktisk bibliotekarisk. Såfremt en per­son står overfor et praktisk problem, f.eks. ved bygning af et hus, og modtager en bog, der hjælper ham til en løsning af dette praktiske problem, da har han modtaget den ønskede information. Såfremt han modtager yderligere data, eller stilles over­for den opgave at skulle udskyde sit problem for at foretage litteraturstudier, så har han måske nok modtaget den ønskede information, men for større ulejlighed/omkostninger. Han har ikke modtaget mere information (med mindre man definerer hans behov bredere og tager fremtidige situationer i betragtning). I almindelighed må man sige, at den information, der skal anvendes mest i samfundet skal være lettest tilgængelig. Kun såfremt de direkte, målrettede informationskanaler fejler (bogen ikke indeholder det ønskede svar), må man forskyde sin problemstilling til at handle om informationskilder og søge i f.eks. bibliografier. En kvalificeret lånerbetjening bør rumme en rimelig præcis vurdering af, hvad brugeren situation er, og hvad der i situationen faktisk er den mest brugbare information.

Det falder uden for denne fremstillings rammer at give et selvstændigt videnskabeligt bud på en definition af informationsbegrebet (især fordi der langt fra er konsensus på området, og fordi vi netop nu synes at være i en meget turbulent situation). Der kan henvises til den ret omfattende faglitteratur. Dog skal nogle få bestemte betydninger, hvoraf et par er almindelig på Danmarks Biblioteksskole, præsenteres og kommenteres:

Således definerer Kolding Nielsen (1985): "Information. Biblioteksmæssigt overbegreb for *data. Betjener alle typer af data, der fremtræder i direkte form (d.v.s. som sådanne) i modsætning til data, der fremtræder i indirekte form (som litteraturreferencer eller *kilder).
Samme sprogbrug ligger til grund for lærebøger, kompendier m.v. i biblioteksskolens afdelinger for bibliografi og referencearbejde, hvor bibliografiafdelingen typisk kalder sine "kilder til litteratursøgning", mens referenceafdelingen typisk kalder sine "kilder til information". Axel Andersen (1996, p. 57) skriver direkte: "Mens fagområdet Bibliografi beskæftiger sig med dokumentsøgning, handler Referencearbejde og dokumentation om søgning af information"

Denne sprogbrug er vi betænkelige ved af flere grunde: 1) det er almindelig sprogbrug at kalde edb-baseret litteratursøgning for *"information retrieval". Såfremt ovenstående sprogbrug skulle anvendes konsekvent, måtte man skelne mellem data-retrieval/informa­tion retrieval på den ene side og document-retrieval/literature retrieval på den anden, hvilket strider mod international praksis. 2) Der er ingen teoretisk afgørende grænse mellem "fact retrieval" og "document retrieval", der kan danne baggrund for en frugtbar opdeling. Som Spang-Hanssen (1970) siger: "Et empirisk faktum har altid en historie og en måske ikke altfor sikker fremtid. Historien og fremtiden kan kun kendes via informationen i konkrete dokumenter, d.v.s. ved dokument-søgning. De såkaldte "Fact retrieval centers" synes for mig blot at være infor­mationscentre, der beholder deres informations­kilder - f.eks. deres dokumenter - eksklusivt for sig selv".

Ingwersen (1991) & Belkin (1978) betoner i deres informationsbegreb, at information er noget ønsket ("desired"), fordi informationsvidenskaben beskæftiger sig med "recipient-controlled communication systems". Ingen af forfatterne fremsætter imidlertid nogen overbevisende argumentation for, at det forhold, at nogle medier har en mere interaktiv eller bruger-kontrolleret karakter bør medføre en ændret opfattelse af selve informationsbegrebet.

Under indflydelse af påvirkninger fra "kunstig intelligens" og "ekspertsystemer" anvendes i voksende omfang begrebet "*viden" i sammenhænge, hvor begrebet "information" tidligere var enerådende, jfr. *information retrieval, hvor der nu også tales om "knowledge retrieval". Der kan være god grund til at anvende information i en betydning beslægtet med *viden (se dette opslag), men denne terminologi er ikke indført i informationsvidenskaben udfra teoretiske begrundelser, men som sagt via ekspertsystemer.