Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— | study:ma_l._2010_._information_as_discursive_construct [2017/12/09 13:49] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | == Information as discursive construct / Ma(2010) | ||
+ | **Citation** - [[: | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Keyword** - [[: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 重探 Buckland (1991)「資訊的事物觀」與 Ekbia & Evans (2009)「資訊體制」。 | ||
+ | * 本文主張:「資訊」的意義是由社群輿論所建構的,並且受到社會系統的經濟政治結構所影響。「資訊」應該被視為是一種論述性建構物。 | ||
+ | * 此一理解,不僅能矯正我們對傳播與認知內涵的誤解,也能開啟我們如何關照批判社會分析中的「資訊」問題,帶領我們重回認識論與方法論上的討論。 | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | > <fs x-small> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Content | ||
+ | |||
+ | information: | ||
+ | |||
+ | 資訊的用途: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 能改變人類知識力量的事物(something as having causal powers for altering human minds)。 Brookes (1980): 知識方程式 K[S] + ΔI = K[S + ΔS] | ||
+ | ** 以有意義方式呈現的資料或事實(data or facts that are processed and represented in a meaningful way) | ||
+ | ** Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy | ||
+ | * 只把資訊視為物體(object),會讓我們忽略資訊是社會與文化的表現,而忽略了: | ||
+ | ** (1) 在資訊的生產與使用中的功能、意識形態、文化與社會意涵(the functions, ideologies, cultural and social implications of the production and use of information); | ||
+ | ** (2)在認識論與方法論上的探討。 | ||
+ | |||
+ | === REVISITING “INFORMATION-AS-THING” | ||
+ | |||
+ | Buckland’s “Information as Thing” (1991) | ||
+ | |||
+ | * It's Main argument: | ||
+ | ** "the information systems can only deal with information-as-thing" | ||
+ | ** information systems can only deal with “information-as-thing”—not “information-as-process, | ||
+ | ** “informativeness” is the requirement of being “information” | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | > <fs small> | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 作者提問: | ||
+ | ** but how do we decide whether something is informative or potentially informative? | ||
+ | ** Under this definition, what would not be considered as information? | ||
+ | ** If a book, a musical score, a DVD, and a sculpture can all be “information-as-thing, | ||
+ | * Evidence: Buckland 對於如何判斷一事物有資訊的根據 | ||
+ | ** either a book or a rock can be considered as “information-as-thing” depends on whether the book or the rock can be viewed as evidence. | ||
+ | ** “Evidence, | ||
+ | * 作者抓緊 Buckland 這一點,巧妙的論證 Buckland information-as-thing 中具有非實證論的意涵: | ||
+ | ** 強調了資訊的被動性(passiveness),其意涵 | ||
+ | *** 應當由人類決定什麼是資訊 (human beings are responsible for determining what could be “information, | ||
+ | *** 挑戰資訊的效率模型。顛覆資訊的實徵主義概念,因為資訊無法自證為資訊,而是根據其使用的社群共識與情境。\\ <fs x-small> it challenges the effective model for information. The notion of “information-as-thing” thus breaks away from the empiricist concepts of information because it does not posit information as being self-evident. The evidential quality, or informativeness, | ||
+ | |||
+ | (information is what an-information-system-deal-with) | ||
+ | (information is a thing/ | ||
+ | (informativeness is determined by evidence) | ||
+ | (evidence is from what human doing to it) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===SITUATED INFORMATION | ||
+ | * 為自己建立資訊系統時,選擇與判斷何為「有資訊的事物」是主觀的 | ||
+ | * 為群體建立可用的資訊系統,其選擇是互為主觀的(intersubjective) | ||
+ | * 資訊系統中「資訊」的判斷與選擇,是基於對系統使用者對資訊有用性與情報性的期望與共識。 \\ <fs x-small> the judgment and selection of “information” for information systems depends on an anticipated agreement on the usefulness or informativeness of “information” between the systems and the users.</ | ||
+ | * 因此,資訊不能當作是客觀的、主觀的、或有效力的,而是通過對於溝通結構、社會系統、以及兩者之間關係的理解,而描繪的東西。\\ <fs x-small> | ||
+ | |||
+ | === INFORMATION IN SOCIAL SITUATIONS | ||
+ | * " | ||
+ | * 但資訊科學不只有資訊檢索與資訊系統設計,如:資訊尋求、資訊行為、社會資訊學。其「資訊」定義往往並不清楚< | ||
+ | ** Frohmann (2004) 建議,將「資訊」作為一個研究領域中的總稱(umbrella term),而不要太在意到底是什麼。< | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 作者認為可參考 Ekbia and Evans (2009) 的地主決策歷程研究。如何處理在社會情境中的資訊: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | * regimes of information: | ||
+ | ** 研究認為,資訊是在日常生活的社會實踐中被「上演(enacted)」,並且,在社會情境中有不同的資訊類型。\\ <fs xx-small> | ||
+ | ** 在不同的價值體制(regimes of worth)中,有不同種類的資訊。 | ||
+ | ** 價值體制: | ||
+ | ** 六種價值體制 | ||
+ | *** (1) information as measurement data, 可量測的資料 | ||
+ | *** (2) information as commodity, | ||
+ | *** (3) information as documentation, | ||
+ | *** (4) information as message, 訊息 | ||
+ | *** (5) information as anecdote, | ||
+ | *** (6) information as intuition. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Boltanski & Thévenot (1991) 區分西方六種不同正當性的價值體系,並以Polity(政體,政府體制)稱之。 | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === INFORMATION AS DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCT | ||
+ | * Information is by consensus. 彼此講好的才是資訊。 | ||
+ | * Information as discursive construct. 作為論述性建構的資訊。強調資訊必須處於特定的社會文化脈絡中。 | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | > In other words, it is discursively constructed. The reasons for the consensus on what is and is not considered “information, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Note | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Metadata/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{backlinks> | ||
+ | {{tag> | ||
+ | |||
+ | **file link** - [[google.s> |