The Limits of Information Science: Limits of Aims, Processes and Results

Abstract

The problem of information science can be analyzed following several steps. First, there is the issue of the angle of analysis, which can be oriented in two directions: a) to consider information science from the viewpoint of its boundaries as scientific endeavor (i.e., as a scientific rather than a non-scientific activity); and b) to focus information science from the perspective of its possible confines in the present context and in the future.Second, the limits of information science also depend on its own scientific status. Thus, this paper characterizes information science as an applied science of design, i.e., as a kind of science of the artificial oriented toward the solution of concrete issues in the sphere of archives, libraries, and centers of documentation. This characterization as applied science of design involves the analysis of limits of the structural and dynamic elements of this science of the artificial, such as aims, processes, and results.Third, besides the endogenous aspects of this problem-solving task in an artificial domain (which are commonly the case of aims, processes, and results), the limits of information science also depend on exogenous features, which are those elements (social, cultural, economic, political, etc.) that surround this scientific endeavor.
  • Referencias
  • Cómo citar
  • Del mismo autor
  • Métricas
Bawden, David (2007). Information as Self-organized Complexity: A Unifying Viewpoint. Information Research, 12(4). http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis31.html

Bereijo, Antonio (2003a). Predicción y prescripción en las Ciencias de lo Artificial: Incidencia en las Ciencias de la Documentación. En Wenceslao J. González (ed.), Racionalidad, historicidad y predicción en H. A. Simon (pp. 279-309). Netbiblo: A Coruña.

Bereijo, Antonio (2003b). Racionalidad en las Ciencias de lo Artificial: El enfoque de la racionalidad limitada. En Wenceslao J. González (ed.), Racionalidad, historicidad y predicción en H. A. Simon (pp. 131-146). Netbiblo: A Coruña.

Bereijo, Antonio (2007a). Caracteres de la predicción en las Ciencias de la Documentación: De la Information Science al Análisis Documental. En Wenceslao J. González (ed.), Las Ciencias de Diseño: Racionalidad limitada, predicción y prescripción (pp. 217-235). Netbiblo: A Coruña.

Bereijo, Antonio (2007b). La articulación de la prescripción en las Ciencias de la Documentación. En Wenceslao J. González (ed.), Las Ciencias de Diseño: Racionalidad limitada, predicción y prescripción (pp. 267-285). Netbiblo: A Coruña.

Bereijo, Antonio (2011). The 'Category of Applied Science:' An Analysis of its Justification from 'Information Science' as Design Science. En Wenceslao J. Gonzalez (ed.), Scientific Realism and Democratic Society: The Philosophy of Philip Kitcher (pp. 327-350). Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and the Humanities. Amsterdam: Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401207355_011

Bereijo, Antonio (2012). La sobriedad de factores en las Ciencias de la Documentación (Information Science) en cuanto Ciencias de la Complejidad: Proyección en el Análisis Documental. En Wenceslao J. González (ed.), Las Ciencias de la Complejidad: Vertiente dinámica de las Ciencias de Diseño y sobriedad de factores (pp. 267-287). Netbiblo: A Coruña.

Borko, Harold (1968). Information Science: What is it? American Documentation, 19(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090190103

Broughton, Vanda, Hansson, Joacim, Hjørland, Birger and López-Huertas, María J. (2005). Knowledge Organization. En Leif Kajberg and Leif Lørring (eds.), European Curriculum Reflections on Library and Information Science Education (pp. 133-149). Copenhage: Royal School of Library and information Science.

Cronin, Blaise (2012). The Waxing and Waning of a Field: Reflections on Information Studies Education. En Information Research, 17(3), 1-9. http://information r.net/ir/17-3/paper529.html

Gell-Mann, Murray (1995). What's Complexity? Complexity, 1(1), 16-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.6130010105

Gershenson, Carlos y Heyliguen, Francis (2004). How Can We Think the Complex? En Kurt A. Richardson (ed.), Managing the Complex: Philosophy, Theory, and Practice (pp. 1-13). Naples FL: Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence/Information Age Publishing.

González, Wenceslao J. (1986). La Teoría de la Referencia. Strawson y la Filosofía Analítica. Salamanca-Murcia: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca y Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia.

Gonzalez, Wenceslao J. (1998). Prediction and Prescription in Economics: A Philosophical and Methodological Approach. Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 13(32), 321-345.

Gonzalez, Wenceslao J. (2005). The Philosophical Approach to Science, Technology and Society. En Wenceslao J. Gonzalez (ed.), Science, Technology and Society: A Philosophical Perspective (pp. 3-49). A Coruña: Netbiblo. https://doi.org/10.4272/0-9729892-2-6

González, Wenceslao J. (2007). Configuración de las Ciencias de Diseño como Ciencias de lo Artificial: Papel de la Inteligencia Artificial y de la racionalidad limitada. En Wenceslao J. González (ed.), Las Ciencias de Diseño: Racionalidad limitada, predicción y prescripción (pp. 41-69). A Coruña: Netbiblo. https://doi.org/10.4272/978-84-9745-212-0

Gonzalez, Wenceslao J. (2008). Rationality and Prediction in the Sciences of the Artificial: Economics as a Design Science. En Maria Carla Galavotti, Roberto Scazzieri y Patrick Suppes (eds.), Reasoning, Rationality, and Probability (pp. 165-186). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Gonzalez, Wenceslao J. (2011). Conceptual Changes and Scientific Diversity: The Role of Historicity. En Wenceslao J. Gonzalez (ed.), Conceptual Revolutions: From Cognitive Science to Medicine (pp. 39-62). A Coruña: Netbiblo.

Gonzalez, Wenceslao J. (2012). Methodological Universalism in Science and its Limits: Imperialism versus Complexity. En Krzystof Brzechczyn y Katarzyna Paprzycka (eds.), Thinking about Provincialism in Thinking, Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 100 (pp. 155-175). Amsterdam/N. York: Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209007_011

Gonzalez, W. J. (2013a). The Sciences of Design as Sciences of Complexity: The Dynamic Trait. En Hanne Andersen, Dennis Dieks, Wenceslao J. Gonzalez, Thomas Uebel y Gregory Wheeler (eds.), New Challenges to Philosophy of Science (pp. 293-305). Dordrecht: Springer.

González, Wenceslao J. (2013b). Límites del universalismo metodológico: El problema de la complejidad. Naturaleza y libertad. Revista de estudios interdisciplinares, 2, 61-89. http://www.uma.es/naturalezaylibertad/resources/Vol_2_2013/2-2013-3.pdf

Gonzalez, Wenceslao J. (2013c). The Roles of Scientific Creativity and Technological Innovation in the Context of Complexity of Science. En W. J. Gonzalez (ed.), Creativity, Innovation, and Complexity in Science (pp. 11-40). A Coruña: Netbiblo.

Griffith, Belver C. (ed). (1980). Key Papers in Information Science. N. York: Knowledge Industry Publications.

Heylighen, Francis (1991). Coping with Complexity: Concepts and Principles for a Support System. Systemica, 8, Part 1, 39-55.

Heylighen, Francis (1999). The Science of Self-Organization and Adaptativity. En L. Douglas Kiel (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Eolss Publishers.

Holland, George A. (2008). Information Science: An Interdisciplinary Effort? Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844132

Huberman, Bernardo A. y Adamic, Lada A. (1999). Growth Dynamics of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401(9), 131. https://doi.org/10.1038/43604

Israel, Giorgio (2005). The Science of Complexity: Epistemological Problems and Perspectives. Science in Context, 18(3), 479-509. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889705000621

Lyman, Peter y Varian, Hall R. (2003). How much Information? http://groups.ischool.berkeley.edu/archive/how-much-info-2003/printable_report.pdf

Lyons, Michael (2005). Knowledge and the Modelling of Complex Systems. Futures, 37(7), 711-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.11.009

Moran, Joe (2006). Interdisciplinarity. London: Routledge.

Mukherjee, Indranil (2008). Understanding Information System Failures from the Complexity Perspective. Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2008.308.319

Nicholas, David (2012). Disintermediated, decoupled and down. En CILIP Update, 29-31. http://ciber-research.eu/download/20120501-CILIP_Update_March_2012_pp29-31.pdf

Niiniluoto, Ilkka (1993). The Aim and the Structure of Applied Research. Erkenntnis, 38(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01129020

Pritchard, Alan (1969). Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 349-349. http://independent.academia.edu/AlanPritchard/Papers/602982/Statistical_bibliography_or_bibliometric

Repko, Allen (2005). Interdisciplinary Practice: A Student Guide to Research and Writing. Boston: Pearson Custom.

Rescher, Nicholas (1987). Ethical Idealism: An Inquiry into the Nature and Function of Ideals. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rescher, Nicholas (1999). Razón y valores en la Era científico-tecnológica. Barcelona: Paidós.

Rogers, Yvonne, Scaife, Mike y Rizzo, Antonio (2003). Interdisciplinarity: An Emergent or Engineered Proccess? En CSRP Technical Report, vol. 556. Brighton: University of Sussex.

Saracevic, Tefco (1997). Users Lost: Reflections on the Past, Future, and Limits of Information Science. Newsletter ACM SIGIR Forum, 31(2), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/270886.270889 https://doi.org/10.1145/270886.270889

Simon, Herbert A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Simon, Herbert A. (2000). Bounded Rationality in Social Science: Today and Tomorrow. Mind and Society, 1(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02512227

Spink, Amanda (2000). Toward a Theorethical Framework for Information Science. Special Issue on Information Science Research, 3(2), 56-84. https://doi.org/10.28945/575

Thagard, Paul R. (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. En Peter D. Asquit y Ian Hacking (eds.), Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1, PSA, East Lansing (pp. 223-234). http//www.cavehill.uwi.esu/bnccde/PH29A/thagard.html https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639

Tredinnick, Luke (2009). Complexity Theory and the Web. Journal of Documentation, 65(5), 797-816. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410910983119

Vakkari, Pertti (1999). Task Complexity, Problem Structure and Information Actions: integrating Studies on Information Seeking and Retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 35(6), 819-837. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00028-X

Wang, Bing (2009). Information Science: The Territory and Relations to Computing Disciplines. Journal of Library and Information Science, 35(1), 4-22.

Youngblood, Dawn (2007). Interdisciplinary studies and the Bridging Disciplines: a Matter of Process. Journal of Research Practice, 3(2), 1-9. http://jrp.icaap.org/ondex.php/jrp/article/view/104/101
Bereijo, A. (2020). The Limits of Information Science: Limits of Aims, Processes and Results. ArtefaCToS. Revista De Estudios Sobre La Ciencia Y La tecnología, 9(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.14201/art202091159174

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
+