Information science and its core concepts: Levels of disagreement Birger Hjørland

3.7 Informatics

It is likely that the Russian, German, and French nouns were coined independently of each other. The three foreign-language nouns were originally semantically distinct: German Informatik originally denoted the automated processing of information, French informatique the branch of study dealing with information processing in general (although especially by automated means), and Russian informatika the theory of scientific information. However, in later use they also came to be used to denote the academic subject which is called computer science in English and this is now their chief sense. The same semantic development is also seen in their parallels in most other European languages, except in English (Wordwizard 2012).

The term “informatics” is sometimes used synonymously with “information science”. This is, for example, the case in the definitions found in WordNet:

"Information science, informatics, information processing, IP (the sciences concerned with gathering, manipulating, storing, retrieving, and classifying recorded information)” (WordNet 3.1, April 2012).

"Informatics is the discipline of science which investigates the structure and properties (not specific content) of scientific information, as well as the regularities of scientific information activity, its theory, history, methodology, and organization" (Mikhailov, Cherenyi and Gilyarevskii 1967).

The International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science contains both an article about informatics (Fourman 2003) and an article about information science (Bottle 2003), but it remains unclear whether the authors regard these words as synonyms or not. Sometimes "informatics" is used as a broader term encompassing both computer science and LIS.¹⁸

Although Wellisch (1972) suggested that the term “informatics” should be preferred for “information science”, the term “informatics” is generally used in senses that are closer to information technology and computer science than to library and information science (LIS) and there is not much need for this extra term except in compound terms such as social informatics and medical informatics.

3.8 Library and Information Science (LIS)

The term “LIS” (also “library and information sciences” and “library and information studies”) is a combination of library science and information science. It is associated with schools of LIS, which generally developed from professional schools to research-based university institutions during the second half of the twentieth century. In the latter half of the 1960s, schools of librarianship began to add the term "information science" to their names. The first school to do this was the one at the University of Pittsburgh in 1964. More schools followed during the 1970s and 1980s and by the end of the 1990s, almost all the library schools in the USA had added the element "information science" to their name. A similar development has taken place in many other parts of the world. For example, in 1997 the Royal School of Librarianship in Copenhagen changed the English version of its name to RSLIS. The name shift has generally been motivated by a growing emphasis on the application of new electronic and computer technologies.
The current Prorector at the RSLIS, Jack Andersen, articulates the following understanding of LIS:
Library and information science (LIS) is the study of knowledge production as it is materialized in documents, and of through which channels this knowledge is communicated and how one can make access to this knowledge in terms of organization and representation of documents. In this way, the study of knowledge organization plays a crucial role in LIS.

The study of knowledge organization has a long tradition in LIS. However, this tradition has been characterized by searching for techniques for knowledge organization rather than having arrived at a profound understanding of the nature and function of knowledge organization in society. Therefore, it is important to connect the study of knowledge organization and its problems with analyses of society’s production of knowledge.

In order to arrive at an understanding [of] the production of knowledge in society, philosophical, historical, sociology of science and knowledge, cultural, literary, and social aspects of knowledge production need to be recognized. Knowledge should not be conceived of as scientific knowledge only, but also as artistic, technical, and ‘everyday life’ knowledge; that is a basic pragmatic view on knowledge. A practical consequence of this conception must be to contribute to an understanding of why it is important to”keep the valuable from oblivion” (Patrick Wilson, 1968, p. 1) (Andersen 2011).
Today the terms “information science” and “library and information science” are sometimes considered synonyms, sometimes not (as, for example, in the aforementioned University of Tsukuba, Japan, in which Information Science is understood to be equivalent to computer science). In both cases, the term “information” should imply something broader than libraries, i.e., it should include the study of archives, museums, bibliographical databases, and the Internet.

3.9 Information Management (IM), Knowledge Management (KM), Information Systems and Informing science

3.9.1 Information Management (IM)

The term ”information management” has come into increasing use over the last twenty years. An indication of the trend towards IM is that the important School of Library and Information Studies at University of California, Berkeley, changed its name in 1995 to The School of Information Management and Systems (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/about/history/)¹⁹.
At the end of a study examining the field of IM, Maceviciute and Wilson came to the following conclusion:
In the 1980s information management was emergent and perceived by some to be simply a re-write of traditional librarianship. However, it has continued to thrive and much of what is now included is far removed even from modern information science, although information management draws upon ideas from both librarianship and information science. In one form or another it is likely to persist in the future, since information problems are likely to persist in organizations. The means for resolving the problems may change, but the need to understand those problems and develop solutions will remain (Maceviciute & Wilson 2002, 26).
Wilson added, in the course of another study on the theme, that
Whether information management is a passing fancy or a new way of considering the role of information in organizational performance must await the test of time; however, there can be little doubt that the concept has had a significant impact on the thinking of professionals working in a variety of fields. Managers of computer services have become information managers (and even directors of information management services); records managers, archivists, information scientists and special librarians have changed their titles and shifted their professional orientations; . . . (Wilson 2003, 275).
IM is an ambiguous term. A part of the problem is that it has different meanings that are often not separated in practice. It can carry the following significations:

1. 
   A process such as indexing (the direct management of information). The journal Information Storage & Retrieval, which changed its title in 1975 to Information Processing & Management, is a core journal in Information Science using IM in this first meaning, according to which the term is purely a synonym for information organization and retrieval.
   
2. 
   The process of managing information services (e.g., library management, managing a team of indexers), that is to say, the indirect management of information in what have traditionally been considered LIS-related contexts such as libraries and bibliographic databases.
   
3. 
   Management of information in organizations, Business Information Science (much of which is non-public domain and not book-like) expands the traditional field of LIS into new applications and is perhaps more related to business and management studies.
   

Sheila Webber, a faculty member in the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield, has expressed concern with the tendency to change the titles in courses offered by British universities on the Masters level from ’information science’ to 'information management':

In course names, Information Management is the phrase in the ascendant. This is most obvious when looking at UK undergraduate course titles. ‘Engineering: Electrical and Information Sciences’, which is the only course [out of 74] to mention IS. None of the other courses use this phrase. ‘Information management’ is the title of 38 courses. There are 18 course titles using the word ‘studies’, e.g. ‘Information Studies’, ‘Information and Library Studies’. Of the 56 courses mentioning information management or studies, 45 are dual degrees with a subject obviously outside the discipline, e.g. ‘Information Management and Business Studies (the most popular combination) (Webber, 2003, 325-326).
Webber argues that this tendency is connected to fads and social trends, for the term "management" is popular whereas the term "science" is less so when it comes to attracting students. She further asks (p. 328) ”’Library and Information Management’: is it merely an umbrella term and administrative convenience? Is it a new name for IS? Is it a different discipline?”
Alastair Black, an eminent information historian of English origin, finds that library education in England has been under pressure from, among other fields, IM, which he claims is a field without a history: ²⁰
Yet education for librarianship, certainly in Britain, has been under pressure from the appearance of new disciplines—such as information management, information systems, and knowledge management—which claim, by comparison, to be technologically adroit. . . Whereas disciplines as varied as management and medicine and, in the information sphere, documentation, bibliography, information science, and librarianship each have a body of historical knowledge attached to them, the discipline of information management does not (Black 2004, 29).
3.9.2 Knowledge management

According to Wilson, the term knowledge management

did not occur until 1986 and from 1986 to 1996, there were only a few occurrences in each year. From 1997 to date, however, the growth has been exponential, but the data for 2002 suggest that the rate of growth has slowed considerably […]
"The inescapable conclusion of this analysis of the 'knowledge management' idea is that it is, in large part, a management fad, promulgated mainly by certain consultancy companies, and the probability is that it will fade away like previous fads. It rests on two foundations: the management of information - where a large part of the fad exists (and where the 'search and replace marketing' phenomenon is found), and the effective management of work practices. However, these latter practices are predicated upon a Utopian idea of organizational culture in which the benefits of information exchange are shared by all, where individuals are given autonomy in the development of their expertise, and where 'communities' within the organization can determine how that expertise will be used (Wilson 2002).
Maceviciute & Wilson found the use of the label "knowledge management" to be based on unserious motives:
There are strong pressures at the moment . . . to subsume information management within 'knowledge management'. We believe, however, that information management has a stronger theoretical base than knowledge management and that the latter is simply a label, designed, like other labels, for presentational purposes, to impress the consumers of consultancy companies by giving the impression of something new and serious. Perhaps we shall re-visit this topic in a few years' time to discover whether we are right (Maceviciute & Wilson 2002, p.26).

3.9.3 Information systems

“Information systems” is defined in Wikipedia as “the study of complementary networks of hardware and software that people and organizations use to collect, filter, process, create, and distribute data”.²¹ Ellis, Allen, and Wilson (1999) and Monarch (2000) have studied the relations between “information science” and “information systems” (or information systems research) as a case of conjunct subjects but disjunct disciplines. Again “information systems” is often treated as a separate field. However, bibliographical databases and libraries, for example, are kinds of information systems. We also note that Buckland (1991) titled his well-known monograph on information science as Information and information systems. Therefore it seems to be unfortunate that “information systems” is used as a label for a different field.
The general conclusion of this section is that “IM”, “KM”, and “information systems” are sometimes used as trendy new synonyms for ”information science”; however, they are also sometimes used to designate emergent new fields outside of information science as such. There are almost never clearly articulated conceptual and theoretical points of view that could justify the use of these labels as either synonymous with LIS or as names for new separate fields.

4. 
   Informing Science
   

A new interdisciplinary field, informing science, came into being around 1998 to promote the study of informing processes across a diverse set of academic disciplines, including management information systems, education, business, instructional technology, computer science, communications, psychology, philosophy, library science, information science and many others Informing science is represented by the Informing Science Institute, the journal Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, and several other publications.²² Given that LIS is also an interdisciplinary field with extremely open borders, it seems unmotivated to develop yet another one. It seems as if new disciplines are often suggested just in order to claim novelty without relating to already established fields.

Directory: portal -> files
files -> Is it possible to construct a canon of tv programmes? Immanent reading versus textual-historicism
files -> Lawrence Peter Ampofo
files -> Impact case study (ref3b)
files -> Ethics and Factual Television: a short history
files -> P. O. Box 27, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland tel. 358-9-191 58080 / 22216; fax 358-9-191 58096 / 23008
files -> The impact of a pledge campaign and the promise of publicity: a randomized controlled trial of charitable donations
files -> Diversity and Voice: the Political Participation of Young People in the European Union

Download 184.46 Kb.

Share with your friends: