Fall+2005+q2+answer

Fall 2005 Q 2

Debbie: (from 510 notes) 1. Physical: a. Books as objects to be protected (clay tablet records; monastic libraries) b. Organization for physical access c. Gives rise to today’s archives d. “You can have whatever we have” 2. Cognitive: a. Interaction of systems b. Bibliometrics – influence of one author/paper on others c. Accuracy, value, impact of information d. Human/system interface e. Information storage & retrieval f. Information theory None of us had 580 (I don't think) so I "borrowed" this from the web:

Intelligent-subject centered: always the user/(human-agent) of an identified/designed system must be modeled. Duality of modelling: a mind may be abstracted from human brain (its physical carrier) and it can be computationally modeled (represented by a symbolic thinking). Structural intelligence: intelligence does not depend on specific domain knowledge, preferences (also ethics) and available information. Emotive component: every reasoning process in biological organisms is in the feedback with its lower level control and is influenced by the properties of its carrier physical system. From: http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/articles%20a-z/cognitive_paradigm.htm Cognitive paradigms in LIS are approaches inspired by cognitive psychology and the interdisciplinary field known as [|cognitive sciences]. Adherents of this view believe that the psychological study of "human [|information processing]" can form the basis for information studies, why, for example, books such as Lindsay & Norman (1977) have been used as textbooks in information science (e.g. in Copenhagen 1990 and forward) and have been used in the literature (see Vickery & Vickery, 1987).
 * Cognitive paradigms** (unified cognition theory):
 * Cognitive views in Library and Information Science (LIS)**

There is more than one cognitive view, however. Ingwersen (1992, p. 18) made a distinction between "cognitivism" on the one hand and his own "cognitive view" on the other hand and claimed that the critics of the cognitive view in information science mixed up those two views. "It is exactly on this point [whether computers have thoughts and feelings] that cognitivism (and strong AI), and the cognitive viewpoint are on 180° diverse course" (Ingwersen, 1992, p. 20). Ingwersen (1992, p. 16) defines the basic idea in the cognitive view by the following quote:

"That any processing of information, whether perceptual or symbolic, is mediated by a system of categories or concepts which, for the information processing device, are a model of his [its] world" (de Mey, 1977, p. xvi-xvii & 1980, p. 48).

De Mey's definition of the cognitive view is, however, very unspecific. It could be interpreted in accordance with many epistemological positions and also with the [|domain analytic] point of view in which [|users] are more or less influenced by certain [|epistemologies]: that the users' processing of information is made in accordance with some collective understanding or "[|paradigm]".

This understanding is __not__, however, the way the cognitive view has interpreted de May's quote. The cognitive view works with [|user modeling] of individual users or abstract models valid for all users. de May himself (2001) has expressed the view that cognitive scientists are obliged to view cognitive processes as determined by internal factors in the organism rather than by external factors. (This last position was seen as betrayal of the cognitive sciences).

Criticism of the cognitive view has been put forward by, among others, Frohmann (1990, 1992), Hjørland (1991, 1993, 1994, 1997, with Albrechtsen 1995), Palermiti & Polity (1995) and Talja, (1997).

"It is widely recognized that both individual information needs and institutional information access are socially conditioned. However, conducting information seeking research on a macro-sociological level has turned out to be difficult within the cognitive viewpoint, since it is basically a theory of how individuals process information. The cognitive viewpoint offers no concrete and obvious solutions to the question of how to conceptualize and study the socio-cultural context of information processes. " (Talja, 1997). Hjørland (e.g., 1993, p. 133) found that sociological oriented approaches (including bibliometrics) was more fruitful compared to the cognitive view. He also suggested research corresponding to what was later taken up by Peter Ingwersen and associates as part of their research in [|polyrepresentation].

Peter Ingwersen has for many years been a spokesman of the cognitive view and are still defending this view, although it is now termed "the holistic cognitive view" (cf., Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005, p. 29).

Most of the empirical research done by Ingwersen and associates today is, however, bibliometric and thus not psychological or cognitive. Peritz & Bar-Ilan (2002) investigated the extent to which the field of bibliometrics makes use of sources outside the field. The results show that in 2000, 56.9% (and 47.3% in 1990) of the references originated from three fields: scientometrics and bibliometrics; library and information science; and the sociology, history and philosophy of science. This is an indication that cognitive science in this field is less influential compared to science studies and thus an argument for the domain-analytic point of view. The cognitive approach in LIS is perhaps better represented today by, for example, Jörgensen (2003).

Another recent example on cognitive research related to LIS is that professor Lars Kaj Hansen (Department of Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark) and assistant professor Søren Kyllingsbæk (Center for Visual Cognition, Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen) received a large grant from the //Danish Research Council// in order to develop computer programs with built in behavioral knowledge. Among the applications developed was mentioned a search engine to search musical libraries and distinguish music by genres (Cf., Politiken, February 5., 2006, 3 section, frontpage).

Cognitive processes are important for LIS. The way users conceptualizes their information needs and interact with terminology and meanings is a core issue in the field. A central question is, however, what kind of cognitive theory, and in this connection the role of social and cultural factors (cf., [|sociological-epistemological paradigm]).

Literature:

Allen, B. L. (1991). Cognitive Research in Information Science: Implications for Design. //Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 26//, 3-37.

Belew, R. K. (2000) //Finding Out About: A Cognitive Perspective on Search Engine Technology and the WWW//. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Chapter 1; and optional Chapter 7. Available on G. Muresan web site: [|http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~muresan/IR/Docs/Books/Belew_FOA/]

Dall, H. & Havnø, P. (1992). Kritikken af det kognitive paradigme i informationsvidenskaben. //Biblioteksarbejde. Tidsskrift for informations- og kulturformidling,// #36, 13.årg., 17-30.

Davies, C. (2005). //Finding and Knowing: The Psychology of Digital Information Use//. London: Routledge. de Mey, M. (1977). The cognitive viewpoint: its development and its scope (Pp. xvi-xxxii in: //CC 77: International Workshop on the Cognitive Viewpoint//. Ghent: Ghent University.

de Mey, M. (1980). The relevance of the cognitive paradigm for information science. Pp. 48-61 IN: Ole Harbo (ed.): //Theory and Application of Information Research//. London: Mansell.

de May, M. (2001). Informal communication at a workshop in Budapest, Hungary (workshop about a citation index for the humanities).

Ellis, D. (1992) The physical and cognitive paradigms in information retrieval research. //Journal of Documentation, 48//, 45-64. Fischler, M. A. & Firschein, O. (1987). //Intelligence: The Eye, the Brain, and the Computer//. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley. Frohmann, B. (1990). Rules of Indexing: A Critique of Mentalism in Information Retrieval Theory. //Journal of Documentation, 46//(2), 81-101.

Frohmann, B. (1992). The Power of Images: A Discourse Analysis of the Cognitive Viewpoint. //Journal of Documentation, 48//(4), 365-386.

Jörgensen, C. (2003). //Image Retrieval. Theory and Research.// Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.

Hjørland, B. (1991). Det kognitive paradigme i Biblioteks- og informationsvidenskaben. //Biblioteksarbejde, #//33, 5-37. (In Danish). [|(Click for pdf]). Hjørland, B. (1993). Emnerepræsentation og informationssøgning. Bidrag til en teori på kundskabsteoretisk grundlag. Göteborg: Valfrid.

Hjørland, B. (1994). Domæneperspektivet: Alternativet til det kognitive paradigme. Svar til Dall & Havnø (1992). //Biblioteksarbejde, 15//.årg., Nr. 41, 65-70. (English summary p. 76).

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

Hjørland, B. & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward A New Horizon in Information Science: Domain Analysis. //Journal of the American Society for Information Science//, 1995, //46//(6), 400-425. Ingwersen, P. (1992). //Information Retrieval Interaction//. London: Taylor Graham. Available online: http://www.db.dk/pi/iri/#chapters

Ingwersen, P. & Järvelin, K. (2005). //The Turn. Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context//. Berlin: Springer.

Lindsay, P. H. & Norman, D. A. (1977). //Human information processing: an introduction to psychology//. 2nd. ed. New York Academic Press.

Neelameghan, A., et al., (Eds.). (1992). //Cognitive paradigms in knowledge organisation: Second International ISKO Conference// (Madras, India, August 26-28, 1992). Ranganathan birth centenary series, no. 5. Bangalore: Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science.

Palermiti, R. & and Polity, Y. (1995). Desperately seeking user models in information retrieval systems: benefits and limits of cognitivist and marketing approaches. //The new review of information and library research, vol 1, 57-65.// Available at: http://www.iut2.upmf-grenoble.fr/RI3/Usermodels.htm

Peritz, B. C. & Bar-Ilan, J. (2002). The sources used by bibliometrics-scientometrics as reflected in references. //Scientometrics, 54//(2), 269-284.

Talja, S (1997): Constituting "information" and "user" as research objects. A theory of knowledge formations as an alternative to the information man -theory. In: Vakkari, P., Savolainen, R. & Dervin, B. (eds.) //Information Seeking in Context//. London : Taylor Graham. 67-80. Available at: [|http://www.uta.fi/~lisaka/ConstitutingFTP.htm]

Tan, F. B. & Hunter, M. G. (2005). Cognitive research in information systems. IN: Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.). //Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology. Vol. 1-5//. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. (Vol. 1, pp. 439-444). Vickery, B. & Vickery, A. (1987). //Information Science in Theory and Practice//. London: Butterworths. (Third edition München: K. G. Saur, 2004).

See also: [|ASK]; [|Cognitive view in knowledge organization;] [|Cognitive science(s)]; [|Cognitive work analysis]; [|Cognitivism and psychologism] (Epistemological lifebooat); [|Individuality in information use]; [|Information processing]; [|Information psychology]; [|Labeling effect]; [|MONSTRAT Model]; [|Overload]; [|Polyrepresentation] (Lifeboat for KO); [|User modeling].

Birger Hjørland Last edited: 01-03-2007