图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2014 , Vol. 58 >Issue 05: 131 - 140

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2014.05.021

综述述评

北美情报学理论近20年研究进展

  • 韩正彪 ,
  • 谢丽娜 ,
  • 周鹏
展开
  • 1. 南京农业大学信息科学技术学院;
    2. 北京大学信息管理系;
    3. 嘉兴学院商学院
韩正彪，南京农业大学信息科学技术学院讲师，E-mail:zbh1985@njau.edu.cn；谢丽娜，北京大学信息管理系博士研究生；周鹏，嘉兴学院商学院讲师。

收稿日期: 2014-01-24

  修回日期: 2014-02-10

  网络出版日期: 2014-03-05

收起

Research Progress on North American Information Science Theory in Recent 20 Years

  • Han Zhengbiao ,
  • Xie Lina ,
  • Zhou Peng
Expand
  • 1. Department of Information Resource Management, Nanjing Agriculture University, Nanjing 210095;
    2. Department of Information Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871;
    3. Business School, Jiaxing University, Jiaxing 314001

Received date: 2014-01-24

  Revised date: 2014-02-10

  Online published: 2014-03-05

Fold

摘要

采用系统综述方法对获取的69篇北美情报学理论文献进行开放式编码和进一步的逻辑分析，系统地概括北美情报学理论近20年的研究现状和最新进展。研究表明：①北美情报学理论的研究由相互关联的7个维度构成，这些维度是情报学的基本概念、跨学科理论的引入、情报学哲学理论、情报学研究领域、情报学理论框架、情报学发展、情报学学科特征。②北美情报学理论的优点是理论体系完善、多元性哲学理论共存和研究方法存在思辨与实证相结合。③北美情报学理论的局限性在于多元哲学理论间缺乏整体性分析、持续性研究欠缺和理论框架主题成果不多。

关键词： 北美; 情报学理论; 哲学; 信息

本文引用格式

韩正彪 , 谢丽娜 , 周鹏 . 北美情报学理论近20年研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014 , 58(05) : 131 -140 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2014.05.021

Abstract

To systematically summarize North American information science theory research status for nearly 20 years and latest progress, we use a systematic literature review method to analyze 69 related theories journal papers. We mainly use open coding and logical analysis. Study results are as follows: Firstly, North American information science theory research are formed by seven dimensions, which are the basic concepts of information science, the introduction of interdisciplinary theory, information science philosophy theory, the field and theory framework of information science, the development and disciplines feature of information science. Secondly, American information science theory has three advantages, which are complete theoretical system, pluralism theory coexistence and combining the theoretical and empirical research methods. Thirdly, North American information science theory has three disadvantages, including lack of integrity analysis of pluralism philosophical theories, sustained research and theoretical framework theme achievement.

Key words： North American; information science theory; philosophy; information

参考文献

[1] Meadows J. Fifty Years of UK research in information science [J]. Journal of Information Science, 2008, 34(4): 403-414.
[2] Zhao Dangzhi, Strotmann A. Information science during the first decade of the Web: An enriched author cocitation analysis [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(6):916-937.
[3] Ørom A.Information science, historical changes and social aspects: A nordic outlook [J].Journal of Documentation, 2000, 56(1):12-26.
[4] Talja S, Tuominen K, Savolainen R. “Isms” in information science: Constructivism, collectivism and constructionism [J]. Journal of Documentation, 2005, 61(1):79-101.
[5] Hall H. Borrowed theory: Applying exchange theories in information science research [J]. Library & Information Science Research, 2003, 25:287-306.
[6] Johannessen J A. Problems and difficulties related to information science [J]. Kybernetes, 1997, 26(5): 537-554.
[7] Bawden D. Organized complexity, meaning and understanding: An approach to a unified view of information for information science [J]. Aslib Proceedings, 2007, 59(4/5):307- 327.
[8] Holland G A. Information science: An interdisciplinary effort? [J]. Journal of Documentation, 2008, 64 (1):7-23.
[9] Bush V. As we may think [J].The Atlantic Monthly, 1945 (7):1-8.
[10] Buckland M K. Information as thing [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1991, 42(5):351-360.
[11] Cole C. Operationalizing the notion of information as a subjective construct [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1994, 45(7):465-476.
[12] Losee R M. A Discipline independent definition of information [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1997, 48(3):254-269.
[13] Meadow C T, Yuan Weijing. Measuring the impact of information: Defining the concepts [J]. Information Processing & Management, 1997, 33(6):697-714.
[14] Huang Shengcheng.A semiotic view of information: Semiotics as a foundation of LIS research in information behavior [J].Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 43(1):1-17.
[15] Bates M J. Fundamental forms of information [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 57(8):1033-1045.
[16] Gackowski Z J. Subjectivity dispelled: Physical views of information and informing [J]. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline.2010 (13): 35-51.
[17] Buckland M K. What is a “Document”? [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1997, 48(9):804-809.
[18] McInerney C. Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, 53(12):1009-1018.
[19] Bates M J. Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science [J/OL].Information Research.2005, 10(4).[2012-11-02].http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html.
[20] Warner M. Wanted: A definition of “intelligence”[J/OL].Studies in Intelligence.2007, 46(3).[2012-11-05]. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol46no3/pdf/v46i3a02p.pdf.
[21] Morris J. Individual differences in the interpretation of text: Implications for information science [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1):141-149.
[22] Harter S P. Psychological relevance and information science [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, 43(9):602-615.
[23] Greisdorf H, Spink A. Recent relevance research: Implications for information processionals [J].Online Information Review.2000, 24(5):389-395.
[24] White M D, Schamber L, Barry C, et al. Current relevance research [J] Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, 39(1):497-498.
[25] Wang Peiling, Bystrm K, Cool C. et al.Advancing relevance research: Theory integration, methodological progress, and critical questions [J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 40(1):427-428.
[26] Huang Xiaoli, Soergel D.Relevance judges' understanding of topical relevance types: An explication of an enriched concept of topical relevance [J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 41(1): 156-166.
[27] White H D. Combining bibliometrics, information retrieval, and relevance Theory. Part 2: Some implications for information science [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(4):583-605.
[28] White H D. Combining bibliometrics, information retrieval, and relevance Theory. Part 1: First examples of a synthesis [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(4):536-539.
[29] Saracevic T. Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: Nature and nanifestations of relevance [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(13):1915-1933.
[30] Saracevic T. Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(13):2126-2144.
[31] White H D. Some new tests of relevance theory in information science [J]. Scientometrics, 2010,83(3):653-667.
[32] Warner A J.Quantitative and qualitative assessments of the impact of linguistic theory on information science [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1991, 42(1):64-71.
[33] Buschman J.Democratic theory in library information science: Toward an emendation [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(10):1483-1496.
[34] Raber D, Budd J M. Information as sign: Semiotics and information science [J]. Journal of Documentation, 2003, 59(5): 507-522.
[35] Downey G. Human geography and information studies [J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2007(41): 683-727.
[36] Johnson C A, Raber D, Jaeger P T, et al.Social capital and information science research [J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2007, 44(1):1-6.
[37] Brooks T A. Postmodern information science and its “Journal”[J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1999,50(11):1030-1031.
[38] Han Chung Souk, Lee S K, England M. Transition to postmodern science—related scientometric data [J].Scientometrics,2010 (84):391-401.
[39] Radford G P, Radford M L. Structuralism, Post-structuralism, and the library: de saussure and foucault [J].Journal of Documentation,2005, 61(1):60-78.
[40] Ronald E D. Poststructuralism and information studies [J].Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,2006 (1):575-609.
[41] Coleman A, Miksa S D, Warner J A. Science of public knowledge? Theoretical foundations of LIS [J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 40(1):439-440.
[42] Fallis D, Furner J, Mathiesen K, et al.Philosophy and information science: The basics [J].Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 43(1):1-4.
[43] Fallis D.Social epistemology and information science[J].Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2006(1):475-519.
[44] Fonseca F. The double role of ontologies in information science research [J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(6):786-793.
[45] Ess C.Floridi's philosophy of information and information ethics: Current perspectives, future direction [J]. The Information Society, 2009(25): 159-168.
[46] Sundin O. Johannisson J. Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and sociocultural theory communicative participation as a perspective in LIS [J]. Journal of Documentation, 2005, 61(1):23-43.
[47] Budd J.M. Phenomenology and information studies [J]. Journal of Documentation, 2005, 61(1):44-59.
[48] Zhao Daozhi, Strotmann A. Information science during the first decade of the Web: An enriched author cocitation analysis [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(6):916-937.
[49] Zhao Daozhi, Strotmann A. Evolution of research activities and intellectual influence in information science 1996-2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(13):2070-2086.
[50] Hawkins D T. Information science abstracts: Tracking the literature of information science. Part 1: Definition and map [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2001, 52(1):44-53.
[51] Hawkins D T.Information science abstracts: Tracking the literature of information science. Part 2: A new taxonomy for information science [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 54(8):771-781.
[52] Bates M.J. A tour of information science through the pages of JASIS [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1999, 50(11):975-993.
[53] Zhang Ping, Benjamin R I. Understanding information related fields: A conceptual framework [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(13):1934-1947.
[54] Spink A. Information science: A third feedback framework [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1997, 48(8):728-740.
[55] Spink A. Toward a theoretical framework for information science [J].Informing Science,2000, 3(2):73-75.
[56] Pettigrew K E, McKechnie L. The use of theory in information science research [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2001, 52(1):62-73.
[57] Buckland M. The landscape of information science: The american society for information science at 62[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1999, 50(11):970-974.
[58] Veith R H. Memex at 60: Internet or iPod? [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 57(9):1233-1242.
[59] Houston R D, Harmon G. Vannevar Bush and Memex [J].Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,2007, 41(1):55-92.
[60] Burke C. History of information science [J].Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,2007, 41(1):3-53.
[61] Rayward W B,Buckland M K, Warner J, et al. Historiography of information science[J].Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,2006,43(1):1-4.
[62] Harmon G. Remembering william goffman: Mathematical information science pioneer [J].Information Processing and Management,2008,44(4):1634-1647.
[63] Bonnici L J, Furner J, Justice A,et al. Pioneering women in information science [J].Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 40(1):425-426.
[64] Bonnici L J, Blaustein M, Figa E,et al. Ain't Ms. Behavin' : More pioneering women in information science[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 41(1):539-540.
[65] Spink A. Information science in sustainable development and de-industrialization [J/OL]. Information Research,1999, 5(1).[2012-12-07]. http://informationr.net/ir/5-1/paper65.html.
[66] Cronin B. The sociological turn in information science [J]. Journal of Information Science,2008, 34(4):465-475.
[67] Tang Rong. Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science [J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 41(1):54-63.
[68] Koehler W. Information science as “Little Science”: The implications of a bibliometric analysis of the journal of the american society for information science [J]. Scientometrics, 2001, 51(1):117-132.
[69] Arms W Y. Information science as a liberal art [J]. Interlending & Document Supply,2005, 33(2):81-84.
[70] Buckland M.Documentation, information science, and library science in the USA [J].Information Processing & Management,1996, 32(1):63-76.
[71] Marco G A.Two false dogmas of information science [J].New Library World,1996, 97(7):11-14.
[72] Saracevic T.Information science [J].Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1999, 50(12):1051-1063.
[73] 王知津,韩正彪,周鹏. 多视角下的当代情报学哲学理论观点分析[J].图书情报工作,2013,57(22):49-59.
[74] 王琳.领域分析:北欧情报学研究的代表学说[J].图书情报工作,2010,54(18):24-27.

Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉