Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis / Hjorland & Albrechtsen (1995)

Citation - Hjorland, B., & albrechtsen_h (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425.

Keywords - domain_analysis, library_and_information_science

本文綱領性的規劃出「領域分析」此一資訊科學的研究取向。此取向(領域分析)認為資訊科學中最豐富的研究範圍,是研究以思想或論述社群作為知識領域(knowledge-domain)–即社會分工之一部份。

本文亦為評論文獻研究,以提供了多元學科的描述,闡明理論性觀點。

本文主張資訊科學應是一門社會學科,而非純粹心智(mantal)學科。 首先,第一部份介紹以往抱持此觀點的重要研究,並討論其研究取向的可能性與限制。第二部分描述最近在知識研究上的跨學科趨勢。從教育、心理學、語言學、科學哲學,到資訊科學。這個新觀點著重於知識在社會上的、生態學的、與內容導向的本質。這與80年代主導的形式化、計算機式的取向正好相反。第三部份比較領域分析與其他資訊科學研究,如認知取向研究與資訊檢索研究的異同。最後,概述需要探究的重要問題,如不同的知識領域如何影響資料庫中不同主題檢索點的資訊價值。

Outline

  • 引言,介紹何謂領域分析。王知津(1997)文中的「1. 情报科学研究的新方法」基本上以此文為基礎,可以對照參考。(但王文於文末並未引徵原文。)
  • 資訊科學中進行領域分析研究的促進者與先驅。呂斌與李國秋(1997)的「2. 领域分析的先驱者及其研究现状」大致上翻譯摘要了此段落。
  • 知識研究的跨學科研究趨勢。呂斌與李國秋(1997)的「3. 领域分析的跨学科理论基础」大致上摘譯了此段。
  • 領域分析與其他資訊科學理論之比較。呂斌與李國秋(1997)的「4. 领域分析与情报科学其它理论的比较」大致上摘譯了此段的前面一半,但後一半不見了,也沒有結論….。
  • 領域分析性問題的綜合研究計劃範例與內容

領域分析典範

  • 資訊科學中的領域分析典範認為,了解(資訊科學的)資訊的最佳方法,是由思想或論述社群作為知識領域(knowledge-domain)–即社會分工之一部份–的研究來進行。知識組織,結構,合作形樣(cooperation pattern),語言與傳播形式,資訊系統,與相關性水準反映了其社群與其社會角色中工作的目的。因此個人的心理特質,知識,資訊需求,與主觀相關性水準應該從這種觀點來了解。
  • (p. 400)領域分析典範(domain-analytic paradigm)是:
    1. 是社會性的。認為資訊科學是一門社會科學,強調資訊科學中的社會心理學,社會語言學,知識社會學,與科學社會學觀點。
    2. 是功能主義取向的。研究資訊傳播的外顯功能與內隱功能,並透過此洞見,勾勒其資訊行為機制。
    3. 在哲學上是實在論取向(philosophical-realistic approach)的,試圖為資訊科學找出使用者個人觀觀點以外的因素。這個觀點是與行為主義或認知典範相對立的。
  • 以往研究中,可以被視為符合領域分析典範的研究
    • Saracevic's (1975) 由學科視角(subject view)與學科文獻視角(subject literature view) 來考慮相關性(relevance)概念
      • “Relevance is considered as a measure of effectiveness of the contact between a source and a destination in a communications process”
      • “Systems view, Destinations view, Subject Literature view, Subject Knowledge view, Pertinence, Pragmatic view, ”
    • Taylor's (1991) 的資訊使用環境(information_use_environments)
    • Mann's (1993, pp. 9-14) 的專門學科模式(the specific subject or discipline model)
  • 領域分析既非試圖透過以上研究形成一個理論性的研究取向,也非比較與檢驗文獻中觀點的不同。將這些隱隱若現的主張更加明確的具體表現,說明其理論性的推論,以形成一個廣泛的研究議題,是本文試圖完成的目的。

促進者與先驅

Explicit and Latent Contriblltors to Domain-Analysis

  • the unit of study in IS is the speciality/discipline/domain/environment, not the individual
    • patrick_wilson: “We have put the communication problem as one ofcommunication among specialities rather than among individuals.”
  • Amba and Iyer (1992:101), importance of some earlier contributors:
    • Mote (1962): information needs of scientists, “the type of subject area would determine the type of need”.
  • robert_s._taylor: information_use_environments is in line with a collectivistic, domain-oriented kind of research.
  • Relevance:
    • tefko_saracevic: the subject literature view of relevance / subject knowledge view of relevance: “I wish to suggest that the subject knowledge view of relevance is fundamental to all other views of relevance. because subject knowledge is fundamental to communication of knowledge. In that lies the importance and urgency of the work on that view (Saracevic, 1975, p. 333).”
    • Thomas J. Froehlich (1989, 1994): foundations of IS must be in social epistemology. “In sum, the ordinary language use of “relevance” is quite appropriate for making judgements about the output or success of information systems, because it can function in the many ways in which various users make relevance judgements. What does have to be clarified are the interpretive schemes or kinds of criteria that prototypical users are likely to bring to an information system with a given set of tasks or a given subject domain. . (Froehlich, 1994, p. 132).”
  • IR/expert systems
    • Winograd and Aores (1986/1987): Understanding Computers and Cognition: “… is an attack on what is called rationalism”, “In order to understand how meaning is shared, we must look at the social rather than the mental dimension (Winograd & Aores, 1986/1987, p. 60)”, “From this standpoint, the designer of a computer tool must work in the domain generated by the space of potential breakdowns (Winograd & Aares, 1986/1987, p.72).”
  • a report of some presentations at the 1993 ASIS meeting
    • a domain-analysis session arranged by Albrechtsen
    • presenters: Hjorland(1993), Bates(1993), Rosenbaum (1993), Cool (1993),
    • implicit contributions: bibliometrics from special interest groups (SIGs)
      • domain-analysis simmered very near the surface in many papers
      • had difficulties in generalizing common principles about the domain. There were no theories….
      • IS therefore not only needs to occupy itself with general theories of knowledge such as hermeneutics, various forms of constructivism, and scientific realism, but also to incorporate more specific theories about the nature of different domains such as the humanities, applied sciences,

and interdisciplinary studies.

Predecessors to Domain-Analysis in IS

  • Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955): identify and map a rather permanent basic structure of a subject area.
  • S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972): a theory of facet classification based on fundamental categories.
    • but the principles were further developed by the English Classification Research Group as a method for classificatory analysis of subject disciplines, i.e., one kind of domain-analysis
    • the concept of fundamental categories is a philosophical concept, which must be analyzed in the view of basic philosophical doctrines
    • Ranganathan's theory appears to be too much based on a rationalistic philosophy, rather than organic developments in knowledge.
  • Bibliometric analysis, scientometrics, and informetrics:
    • Bibliometric techniques can offer some valuable information about a discipline and about the relations between disciplines.
    • Buckland (1991, pp. 22-23) addresses some ofthe problems: “Citation analysis and document usage studies ofgreat complexity are conducted, but little is understood about the causes or consequences of citing or using documents (Brooks, T. A., 1986, 1987).”
  • Empirical User Surveys.

研究知識的跨學科研究趨勢: 從人工智能到論述社群

Transdisciplinary Tendencies in the Understanding of Knowledge: From Artificial Intelligence to Discourse Communities

  • 教育學科:
    • Alexander (1992)
      • domain-knowledge research in (1)expert-novice distinction, (2)the interaction of domain and strategy knowledge, (3)learner misconceptions.
        在教育學中, 涉及領域知識的研究有三主題: (1)區分熟手與新手; (2)領域與策略知識的互動; (3)學習者的誤解;
      • define domain-knowledge: (1)declarative knowledge (knowing that), (2)procedural knowledge (knowing how), and (3)conditional knowledge (knowing when and where)
        定義: 領域知識, 包含三種知識: (1)陳述性知識(知道那是什麼); (2)程序性知識(知道如何做); (3)條件性知識(知道在甚麼樣的狀況下);
      • difference between Discipline and domain:
        學科與領域的不同:
        • A discipline has in her view three elements: (1)a domain, (2)a set of rules or generalizations, (3) a history.
          成為一個學科有三個要素: (1)領域; (2)一組概化或規則; (3)歷史;
        • domain-specific view is called the strategy view.
          「特定領域」觀點是一個「策略」觀點
    • Other researchers: Alexander and Kulikowich (1991); Hall, Dansereau, and Skaggs (1992); Kuhn, Schauble, and Garciamila (1992); Lawson, 1991; Matthews, 1992; and Sundre (1992).
  • 心理學:
    • less cognitivism 認知主義消退
      • cognitive revolution initiated by the J. S. Bruner and noam_chomsky around 1956-1957, regarding the human mind as a computer and linguistics as part of psychology, which studied the innate programs of the brain.
        由 Bruner 與 Chomsky 在 1956-1957 引發的認知革命, 認為人類心智就像計算機一樣, 並且當作心理學的一部分的語言學, 要研究的是腦的內在程式。
      • “This cognitivism has developed into becoming less and less hard: It has more and more tended to look at the individual mental states as social constructs, and today, the machinery and programs of the brain are not viewed to be as isolated from the sociocultural context as originally believed.(p.405)”
        但這種認知主義研究的發展已經越來越少:而更多是將個人心智視為一種社會建構,今日,大腦的程序與機制被視為與社會文化脈絡相關的。
      • 例:Ulric Neisser 原本由原本的心智計算機模型,轉向一種更社會化與生態系統的理論(p.405)。
    • lev_s._vygotsky: “His works (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) represent in our view an important development from a very mechanistic and positivistic science toward a more social and realistic science.” (p.405)
    • John Dewey (p.405)
    • Modern activity theory
    • Jean Piaget
    • Gigerenzer and Hug (1992) characterize the shift from perceiving the mind as a universal calculator to a domain-specific mechanism in this way (p.?):
  • biology:
    • Social contracts theory: (p.406) “This theory postulates (I) that we should think of reasoning as rational as it is well designed for solving important adaptive problems, and (2) that there exist domain-specific cognitive processes for reasoning about social contracts. . . (Gigerenzer& Hug, 1992, p. 129).
      • which look at knowledge as an adaptive phenomenon (Figure I).
      • content dependent reasoning vs. content independent reasoning:
    • Moneta (1993)
  • management
  • linguistics: (p.407) “From a very structuralistic position, culminating in the generative grammar of noam_chomsky, to a more functionalistic and sociolinguistic approach emphasizing the use of language in discourse communities”
    語言學… 從一個非常結構化的立場,於 Chomsky 的生成語法達到頂點,轉向到更為功能主義的、社會語言學的取向,強調在論述社群中的語言使用。
    • more domain-specific linguistic approaches has had a remarkable influence on research activity in the recent years, documented among others by the following references: Ackerman (1990); Barabas (1990); Bazerman (1986, 1988, 1992); Bazerman and Paradis (1991); Bergenkotter and Huckin (1992); Bracewell and Breuleux (1992); Brodkey (1987); Fish (1976, 1980); Jolliffe (1989); Myers (1985, 1990); Nystrand and Wiemelt (1991); Porter (1986); Russel (1991); Swales (1990); and Wuthnow (1992). For a useful review of this development in composition studies, see Nystrand, Greene, and Wiemelt (1993).
      • (p.408) “novices more often require category definition (e.g., explaining what a disk drive is), whereas experts typically require further specification (e.g., explaining which disk drive was meant). Nystrand and Wiemelt (1991) conclude that explicit texts are not texts that seek to say everything…. explicitness should not be judged in terms of fit or match between writer intention and text representation but rather in terms of reciprocity between writer and reader as mediated by the text.”
        在閱讀書寫不清的電腦技術文件時,電腦生手要求更多的類別定義(如, disk drive 是什麼), 而電腦專家要求的是更多的細節(如, 那一個disk driver)。 Nystrand & Wiemelt 在結論中認為,清晰的文字並沒有辦法傳達所有事情。….. 文字清晰度並不取決於 作者與文字表徵間的匹配與適合, 而是取決於作者與讀者藉由文字中介的相互作用。
    • Putnam: 字義的語義問題, 部份地取決於在社會中的語言工作分工: “According to Putnam, the semantic question about the meaning of words is partly determined by the division of linguistic labor in society and again by the general division of labor:”
      • Everyone to whom gold is important for any reason has to acquire the word “gold”; but he does not have to acquire the method of recognizing if something is or is not gold. He can rely upon a special subclass of speakers. The features that are generally thought to be present in connection with a general name-necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the extension, ways of recognizing if something is in the extension (“criteria”), etc.–are all present in the linguistic community considered as a collective body; but that collective body divides the labour of knowing and employing these various parts of the “meaning” of “gold.” This division of linguistic labour rests upon the division of non-linguistic labour (Putnam, 1975,245).
        一個人對於黃金的意義取決與社會上能辨識出「黃金」這個詞所給予的意義。
  • philosophy and the theory of science
    • Shapere:

小結: 不同於個體方法論的領域分析 (p.409)

  • 長久以來, 方法學上的個體論 (methodological individualism; MI) 主導行為、認知與社會科學研究,也包含了資訊科學。
    • MI 將知識看作是個人心智狀態, 而非社會文化過程的產物。
    • 對 IS 的影響是,對知識的研究會脫離原本發展與建立的社會脈絡與歷史。
  • 與其對立的觀點是 方法學上的合作論 (methodological collectivism; MC), 或稱為方法學上的整體論 (methodological holism) (karl_popper 使用 MC 這個名詞)
    • (p.409) “The domain-analytic approach recognizes that discourse domains comprise actors, who have worldviews, individual knowledge structures, biases, subjective relevance criteria, particular cognitive styles, etc. In other words, there is an interplay between domain structures and individual knowledge, an interaction between the individual and the social level.”
      領域分析取向 認為 論述領域 是由許多行動者(有整體觀、個人知識結構、偏差、主觀的相關性標準、個別認知風格、等等)所組成的。換言之,同時具有領域結構與個體知識的相互作用,與個體與社會層次的互動。

Fig.1

A manifest for a pragmatic and functionalistic perception of knowledge.

“The epistemological point of departure in this study can be summarized in a few points.

  1. Man is primarily an actor, living and acting in a bio-physical, a socio-cultural and a subjective world.
    人主要是一個行動者,在「生物實體世界」、「社會文化世界」與「主觀世界」,同時在這三個世界中生活與行動。
  2. Living and acting in the three worlds constitutes the a priori of human knowledge.
    在這三個世界中的生活與行動,構成人類的先驗知識。
  3. Since living and acting constitutes the a priori of knowledge, knowledge is constructed in such a way that an application of well constructed knowledge will directly or indirectly serve living and acting.
    由於先驗知識是從生活與行動所構成,因此所建構的知識將會直接或間接地應用在生活與行動上。
  4. When knowledge becomes part of an acting system, it functions as an internal action determinant.
    當知識變成行動系統的一部分,知識便成為一個內在行動決策的功能。
  5. There is a continuous interaction between knowledge and action so that knowledge is created in and through action and so that experiences that the actor acquires through action influence subsequent action.
    知識與行動持續的互動,因此知識在行動中被創造與體驗,行動者所獲得的知識又影響後續的行動。
  6. Value-knowledge, factual knowledge, and procedural knowledge are three types of knowledge connected to the three types of internal action determinants. Having value-knowledge means knowing what fulfil the criteria of good values. Having factual knowledge means having true beliefs about the three worlds in which one is living. Having procedural knowledge means knowing how to carry out a specific act or act sequence.
    價值性知識、事實性知識、程序性知識是三種知識類型, 分別與三種內在行動決策相連。 「價值性知識」指知道什麼可以滿足價值標準。「事實性知識」指具有在所生活的三個世界中的真實性信念。「程序性知識」指知道如何完成特定行動。
  7. Knowledge can be unarticulated or articulated. Unarticulated knowledge is, for instance, tacit knowledge, familiarity, knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge can be articulated in everyday language, science and art.” (Sarvimiiki, 1988, page 58-59 unis')
    知識可以是明顯的或不明顯的。不明顯的知識,如默會知識、熟練、熟識。知識也可以是明顯的,以日常語言、科學、藝術的形式。

與其他資訊科學理論之比較

  • IS 遇到的兩個反理論挑戰:電腦科學(系統典範)與主題專家
  • Debating Different Approaches to Studying the Organization of Information,” 資訊組織,傳統有四種個體論的研究取向 (p.410):
    1. The object paradigm: The path to understanding how information should be organized is to analyze the nature of common information objects themselves.
      物件典範:透過分析資訊物件的普遍本質來組織資訊
    2. The communication paradigm: The best way to understand information is to study information-seeking and use communicatively, examining how people construct questions and create answers to these questions.
      溝通典範: 透過研究人們的資訊尋求與使用,如何建構問題與回答問題
    3. The behavioral paradigm: The best method for studying how information should be organized is to observe how people interact with potential sources.
      行為典範: 觀察人們與資源互動的方式,了解資訊應該如何組織
    4. The cognitive paradigm: The best way to approach the organization of information is to study how people think and to mimic those regularities of thought.
      認知典範: 研究人們如何思考與歸納其規律。

領域分析 vs 認知典範

認知 領域分析
主要關注以內在心理分析解個人需求, 在資訊生產者與使用者間強調心理學上的理解 從社會觀點與在學科資訊系統內的功能,來了解使用者的需求
聚焦於單一使用者。視學科脈絡為個人認知結構的一部分 知識領域。將個人置於學科脈絡下。
受學科啟發人工智能研究、認知科學 知識社會學、科學研究社會學
心理學上強調認知策略的角色 態度、策略、知識對認知活動的影響
中心概念個人知識結構、個人資訊處理程序、短期與長期記憶、類別與情境分類 科學與專業傳播、文件、學科、主題、資訊結構、典範
方法論個體論取向(individualistic approach) 合作論取向(collectivistic approach)
應用典範使用者介面(資訊系統的外在面) 主題表徵/分類(資訊系統的內在面)
知識理論主要是「理性論的/實證論的」, 趨向詮釋學 科學實在論/趨向詮釋學的社會建構論
本體論立場主觀理性論 (Subjective idealism)實在論 (Realism)

IR (Ellis, 1990)

Eills and information_retrieval: New Horizons in Information Retrieval (Ellis, 1990).

  • Statistical and Probalistie Retrieval \ 統計與機率檢索
    • natural language processing: (p.413) “In all this research however, concepts like domain and discipline seem almost completely lacking. A term is seen as something concrete, as independent of the knowledge-domain in which it appears.”
      這類研究完全缺乏領域與學科的概念。一個詞彙會代表某事物,是獨立於其背後的領域知識。
    • 消失中 (p.414)“According to Ellis (1990) dissatisfaction with the limitations of the statistical approach has recently become more widespread. Although much good work has been done employing this approach, little further improvement in retrieval effectiveness can be expected from it.”
      根據 Eillis(1990) 對近來統計取向所表現的不滿。儘管以往這種取向有很好的進展,但在未來在資訊檢索上能進步的期望有限。
  • Cognitive User Modelling \ 使用者認知塑模
    • 某些個案能成功的描繪使用者的前提知識。“In some cases, it is possible to describe some specific presuppositions in knowledge and to rank knowledge with respect to such presumed presuppositions.” (Danish system, “The Book House” (Pejtersen, 1991, 1993)
    • 但大部份IR研究的專業與問題解決過程是有問題的。(p.414) “Users are not stereotypes, they have changing knowledge and hypotheses, which are an integrated part ofthe highly synchronized writer-reader cognition in the domain. The main problem for information systems therefore is to reflect the domain, not the individual users.” ([其實這個問題 Book house 也存在, domain-specific 也可能是另一種 stereotype])
  • Expert Intermediary Systems \ 專家中介系統
    • AI and Expert system:
  • Associations, Relations and Hypertext (Citation Based Retrieval Techniques) \ 相關、關係與超文本(基於引文的檢索技術)
    • Theoretical issue: modularity of knowledge
    • Paul Otlet: positivist view of knowledge 知識的實證論觀點
    • One kind ofrelations: citation-based retrieval techniques
      • (p.416) “Citation-based retrieval utilizes a kind of network relations between texts: where authors or references that are similar in different texts function as nodes, which are interlinked dynamically to text networks during retrieval.”
        基於引文的資訊檢索利用一種文本間的網路關係: 。

小結

研究計劃範例

Other References

  • Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(6), 321-343.
  • 王知津. (1997). 領域分析及其對情報檢索的啟示. 情報理論與實踐 (南開大學), 20, pp.151-154,157.
  • 呂斌, & 李國秋. (1997). 情報學研究的前沿——領域分析. 情報理論與實踐 (南京大學), 1997(2), 69-73.

Meta